good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, october 15th, 2015. i would like toremind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disrug or outburst of any kind and to please silence my mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you care to please state your name for the record. commissioners i would like to quake roll call, commission president fong. >> here commission wu. >> her. >> commissioner absentioni. >> here. >> commission johnson. >> here. >> we expect commissioners moore and hillis to be absent. firsts first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed for continuation

estimation item 112011.0671x at 1395 11 uped street and pennsylvania avenue, a local project authorization for continuance to november 12, 2015 and item 2 for case no. 20 11-006712pca requirement for cu requirement for residential mergers. proposed for continuace to december 10th, 2015. >> any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? not seeing any public comment is closed. and commissioner antonini. >> i think my mic is off. i could talk loudly. >> thank you. >> there we go. good. i make a motion to continue items 1 and 2 to the dates specified. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. thank you on that motion to continue items as proposed. commission antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner richards? aye.

>> commission wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong. >> aye. >> so moved commissions, that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and places you under your consent calendar, all matters listed constitute a consent calendar. are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of commission, public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a separate hearing. you have one item under consent, no. 3, case no. 2015-008251cua, 2120 greenwich street, a conditional use authorization. >> any public comment on the one item on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve item 3 under consent,

commission anioni. >> aye. >> commission johnson. >> aye. >> commission richards? >> ? >> >> commissioner wu. >> commission president fong. >> aye approved 5-0. item c commission matters draft minutes for september 3rd and october 1st. >> any public comment? seeing none, commission richards. >> i move to approve september 3-d and have a minor correction on october 1. >> so noted. >> second. >> i seconded. >> yes. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion than to dopt the minutes for september 3rd, 2015 and october 1st, 2015, as corrected by commission richards, commission antonini. >> aye. >> commission johnson. >> aye. >> commission wu. >> aye. >> commission president fong. >> aye.

>> that passes 5-0. commission antonini? >> thank you. i thought that presentation by the member of the rent board was extremely informative last week. i have some comments, but first i have a question. they mentioned that their owners are allowed to raise residential rates an amounts not to exceed 60% of the cip of the san francisco bay area per year. is that cumulative or is it use it or lose it? >> you could bank it. >> you can you bank it. okay. that important that it be done. we have stayed that with kind formula and kept of the rates exactly not that formula, but more closer to the cpi.

the other thing that was really interesting when you look at the chart of the evictions and we're hearing a lot about it now, i don't remember quite as much comment during the period 1999-2000, but there were a lot more in that period, in the range of 2700 to 2800, still a lot this year. if you look at the chart for the long period of time, almost every year there are 1400 on average or more than that, probably. so what also was very interesting to me is find out that 75% of the evictions were for fault such as non-payment of rent. which is probably something is going to happen no matter what conditions we have, because if you don't pay the rent, you are going to get evicted. there might be a tendency for owners to try to evict people a little quicker if there are a

lot more renters around to take the spot. it's good to put things in perspective and see the historical perspective to talk into the context of 20 years to realize what is the situation is. i thought it was extremely good and very navative. nothing further, commissions we can move on to department matters, item 6, directors announcements. >> thank you, jonas. i just wanted to let you know that i spent this last weekend in cambridge, a meeting i attend every year with my counterparts in the 30 largest cities in the country. there were several -- well, several points of discussion, but i will say that the most common theme that all cites are addressing are issues of equity and affordable housing in ways that were surprising to me and in places that were supposing to me. even in my hometown detroit,

which has experienced severe economic distress and just came out of bankruptcy and concerns as areas are improved, the equity issues that residents are facing and the type of rent reindevelopment reinvestment is happening and it's interesting to hear about that happening across the economic spectrum and it was a theme that came up repeatedly in the three days' of meetings that we had. that concludes my comments. thank you. item 7 review of past events at board of supervisors and board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> the zoning administrator told me that the board of appeals met yesterday, but there were no items that pertained to the commission. >> there is no board report -- excuse me, the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday which will place under general public comment

not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time the members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. >> any general speaker cards? >> hell yes commissioners tony kelly vice president of the potrero boosters. we looked at the advance calendar and when are we going start having a conversation and actual commission hearing about design in the eastern neighborhoods for these large projects? there were two large projects. one was continued today. one was continued a couple of weeks ago coming up on november 12th. there is no room it look like for discussion of design issues before that happens. so the

problem that was raised months ago, and most recently here over the past few weeks is still there. which is we know we desperately need help on design standards and design review for these large projects. and yet the projects are coming to you before we have a chance to do anything about it. what i just gave to you are the design reviews of the latest ones for both projects. it's a total of ten sentences for both projects combined. these are large projects. they take a couple of acres a piece, folks. 550 housing units and yet there is hardly any discussion of the architecture. we met with individual commissioners and heard many negative comments about their design and haven't heard a single positive comment about their designs. so when commissioners are we actually going to do this? are we going to try to redesign these buildings on the fly at the commission on the 12th? i think you know, because you had to go through that before.

i think you know and we know that is really not the way to go. we urge you to have some sort of conversation at least about design and preferably some design standards, guidelines, principles, something that we need to follow to improve these projects? because we're not going to get improved architecture or improved designs for all of these blocky, monotonous, mind-numbing buildings in this format does not do it. we are negotiating and working with the two developers on their projects, but we're not able t to pudesign on the table. that is your job. that is on your desk. that is exactly what you guys can do as commissioners. and we're desperate for your help on that. we're preparing -- ron mcgill, i think you have heard of him and i from the boosters are preparing a presentation we want to give you as part of the hearing about design issues, but we don't have a time to do that the we can't do it during public comment. we need to have conversation

before get to the large projects. otherwise it's going to be a real scrum when the projects coming up along with everything else and potential approval of the project and that doesn't lead to better buildings. that is how we have gotten into the architectural mess we have in potrero and hope we can have discussion. thank you. >> any additional public comment? general public comment is closed. commissioners that places under your regular calendar item 8, a market street hub informational presentation. >> commissioners i'd like to welcome mia small to the commission. while mia has been with the staff for a couple of years this is her first presentation to the planning commission. mia has been with us two years as a staff architect. for the previous ten years she ran an architectural practice based in rhode island focused

on urban design and earned her professional working for architects in san francisco and new york and graduate of >> the department has forwarded a memo to you and we're following up with additional details. this project arrives at intersection of two of the department's priorities. increasing affordable housing, and supporting the quality of san francisco's public realm. and two exist efforts.

-- the hub is one of the key areas identified in the heart of city place-based initiative to further establish market street as san francisco's premiere civic street and enhance the livability of its neighborhoods. this component represents the westernmost portion and represents gateways and connections to other citywide initiatives in civic center and market street. historically this neighbor was known as the hub, that hosted street lines that reached across the city. the heart of the city's goals are not only to make great public space, but to help neighborhoods in -- into market street and make sure that they are welcome and accessible to all. >> along with the heart of the city this project also seeks to build upon and refine the

market octavia plan that defines this area as soma west. not to be confused with western soma. it's a completely separate area. and encourage the formation as relatively high-density mixed-use residential neighborhood as it is immediately adjacent to significant transit. this is the boundary of the area we're talking about not only the eastern notch of market octavia indicated in orange and the line defines the edge of the area plan in general. there is a small dashed or dotted red line that indicates the van nes van ness and market, including the muni station. this is the defined area we're talking about. it takes one small corner out,

and part of that is adjacency to the public realm plan. we have met with the community advisory committee three times since may for input on the shape of this effort and hear their feedback, along with an interesting in affordability potential. we heard their highlighted concern was desire to capture the best public realm improvements in a time frame that also takes advantage of the current development attention. this has helped form the scope and goals that i will describe next. so what are the scope and goals for the hub project in? really two components make up this effort. the first is rezoning and second is public realm plan and i will talk about the former first. so the most important goal of the rezoning effort would be to increase the amount of affordable housing.

current applications and pipeline projects anticipate 3700 new housing units with just over 700 affordable ones. through some initial data analysis with consultant strategic economics, we found that by making modest adjustments to height and bulk, rezoning could increase affordability requirements and add 700 below market-rate units. essentially if inclusionary requirement was increased to 23% on-site and 38% off-site, half of the units would be affordable, getting us to the 33%. note that in this change 600 units being added and then 700 being affordable, obviously the

700 is larger than 6 alcohol. so the additional amount is off-site increased and also the fees that are going in-lieu. second is to increase transit -- current projections estimate new net parking or sort of off-street parking to be about 1900 parking spaces or about .5 per unit. that is what we look at under existing conditions under the market octavia -- an effort that would not only benefit residents of the hub, but the city as a whole. the rezoning study would also look at parking reductions to decrease the impacts on transit at this large multi-modal intersection, and provide a more pedestrian and bike-friendly you environment.

with .25 reductions per unit, even with the significant increase of units there is actually an overall parking reduction. so it actually drops 500 spaces to 1400 spaces within the hub area. the third goal would be in supporting the arts. this area currently hosts several important arts organizations including the san francisco [ music [ music ] [ music [ music ] conservatory and ballet school and honda site. providing space supports cultural ecosystem of the center. the hub rezoning would also study the mix of the uses making heuer that what -- while it's intended to be a residential neighborhood there is such a balance at a transit location of all uses. additional goals include making

sure height adjustments are thoughtfully scoped. skyline will be a prominent high-rise district from vantage points across the city, specifically the west. i would like to talk about the public realm plan as the second portion of the project. the goal of this effort is to build more specificity into the conceptual groundwork approved in the market octavia plan so they will be knitted together. so market octavia has an approved plan and this is simply look at it more detail as development actually approaches. as the hub contains one of the largest intersections in the city, market street and van ness avenue, and a way to support the larger heart of the city initiative would be to establish public plazas that befit the scale and importance of the crossroads, add a jewel

to the public space necklace of market space and inviting gateways into the neighborhoods and beyond. a second focus area is to build upon the market octavia public realms to foster safe neighborhoods and make sure that the several requires mid-block alleys, c-3 parcels that meet the requirements for mid-block alleys here, these work together as a neighborhood pattern. we'll continue to work with the market octavia cac for additional public engagement and outreach as the effort moves forward. what is actually shower shown here is the public realm plan for the area. and to support the neighborhood in defining its identity. many large contemporary

projects arrive in a burgeoning residential neighborhood. due to the windy conditions of this part of the city, this project is expected to have similar features. for example, towers will likely be round in shape have canopies and will consider the overall effects of how shapes and evolving character. and finally this effort offers a revisited eir process that can more precisely describe the potential impacts of high rices rises. it will be county of to understand the larger cumulative wind patterns so we have the best and accurate outcomes for the neighborhood.

we hope this effort can produce the best possible public benefit. i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you. we may have questions. opening up to public comment, if there is any? seeing no public comment, close public comment. commissioner antioni. >> and thank you for the report. there was a time when a portion of south have van ness did no exist and howard street turns to van ness from mission on howard street. that is why you the streets moving in strange angles. coming up howard i have to make

maneuvers to get back on van ness north or south. that is one thing that makes it more difficult. the other thing you mentioned diminishing the number of residential parking places. but that is only a small percentage of the traffic. most people park their cars and then they go about their business. what most of the traffic is from these are major streets, and people have to get from north to south or east to west. and that is going to continue to happen. the best solution would have been a subway under van ness which some day we may do. there is going to be the same number of carspt people have to get particularly on u.s. 101, where they are moving northern and they really don't want to be in san francisco, but they are forced to go through san francisco. i think we have to be far-sighted enough to make

decisions base on long-term planning to minimize tract impacts and not think traffic isn't going to be there just because we have fewer parking places. the other thing about the public plaza, i think it's a great idea. you mentioned the wind. it's a factor. it's always going to be there. i am sure we can design wind screens or something and the other is to have the plaza subgrade, which has not been successful with the lady plaza. if it's properly set up and policed properly, then it might work and that would cut some of the wind off. but probably the best idea is to not only scope the buildings to try to minimize wind, but realizing wind is going to be there, then put up some sort of screen to the plaza, to make it more inviting. thank you for an interesting plan. >> >> director. >> i wanted to reinforce a couple of things thatmia said.

while this is say piece of market octavia plan approved in 2008 -- i believe it's 2008 it's also consistent with the work plan that we have looked at for the stretch of market street that we call the heart of the city. it's important to recognize we're doing elements of work such as the civic center and tenderloin and south of market neighborhoods. so this is a piece of that overall length of market in those neighborhoods. so it's consistent with the five-year plan we presented to you a few months ago, that gill presented to you as our long-range plan. also does a number of things within the market octavia plan, and the most important of which is the issue of affordable housing. and we're happy to talk in more detail with the numbers that we have initially come up and how

we got there? but those combination of factors is what drove us to actually think about doing this. to be honest, opening a plan that is now 7-years-old is not something i would normally do, but in this case we think there is a number of distinct advantages to doing this that we think is worth doing. so it would be helpful to hear your thoughts on that as us having us move forward at this point? because we would like to start in ernest. we're already doing the initial scoping of the eir and getting prepared to hire consultants to start that eir work, which of course will be the longest timeframe that we have on this project. so i just wanted to reinforce that and get your sense of what is going ahead on this in the next few weeks? thanks. >> thank you. commission johnson >> thank you very much. very interesting. i'm just going to ask a couple of quick questions. the first one is i totally understand the public realm sort of changes and certainly

with the parking streetscape and i think i get all of that. it sounds to make this work we need some sort of neighborhood-level design changes in terms of thinking about buildings that were you talking about awnings and talking about buildings being curved. some of that will comes a result with eirs for specific projects that you have to curve it so you don't have impacts for winds and shadow and things like that. are there any other sort of global sort of design guidelines or planning code changes that are result from this to get the streetscape we're looking for? >> i don't think there would be specific guidelines for this area. there are certainly existing market octavia ones that will fit fairly well. project sponsors are already coming forward and i think what is interesting about this plan, there is already a lot in place. now project sponsors are actually moving forwards this process will happen. so we have kind of a unique opportunity to really help

shape specific parcels with their site design. or help them through that process. and having them being aware of the other projects nearby, so they can kind of work together of the we're also working with the cac, and we'll be doing some outreach in specific areas. for example, the brady block, working with residents there on the more specific targeted areas. so i don't know that there would be guidelines per se, but i also co-lead design review with the department . so i see it from the that side as well. >> thank you for that. obviously i think staff has done a fantastic job with site design review before things get to us. i think it would be helpful to think about what are sort of the overarching guidelines or changes that can be made? so that it's not just about the design review, but as things get to us and they are inconsistent with what we want to see, that you are not leaving the planning commission to have to be the keepers of

consistency. >> for sure. >> we're good at it most of the times, but it there are overriding elements for specific projects, sometimes we have to make other decisions. i would like to not see that degrade the quality that you want to see -- that we all want to see for the hub. >> i think there been some aspects like canopies for example, that will be consistently seen simply because of the wind conditions. that is a kind of new thing and scale we're looking at in the area and an element that might be appropriate in terms of what you are talking about. >> one other question, maybe two. quick question. so obviously we're the planning commission we see designs that are dpw or mta, are you getting similar feedback from them in terms of changes and whether or not some of these things will work or what not? >> yes, we have been talking to mta in particular, quite extensively over the last few months.

but this is an aarea of big concern for them, in terms of capacity on market street and also the van ness station. what happens at what we call the four corners where market and van ness come together. mission street, there is is a lot of improvement with btr and better market street. so we have been in close collaboration with them and i believe they have some staff assigned to be working on this quite directly. >> okay. last thing, crazy idea coming from a planning commissioner, feel free to just tell me i'm crazy. this area is right off the 80 and 81. an normally i wouldn't advocate for this, because i'm 100% about our transit-first policy. i think in service of making sure that we get cars off the road in that area and we can support not having parking, has there been any thought to undergrounding parking underneath some of the realm or talking about that in other areas to eliminate cars driving around the area all

together? i normally wouldn't say that, but because of its proximity to sort of two major highway interchanges that come together and come off a couple of blocks from there. i think talking about satellite parking and things like that for the area will be really helpful in supporting the streetscape changes and really being able to make the super walkable -- you don't see any cars really anywhere except for the residents who live right around there, just a crazy idea. >> all right, thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. so i want to ask more about the affordable housing projections. so first, you wrote in your presentation "modest high and bulking increases." can yougy give a scope or range of what that might be? >> it's a little difficulty because the towers. modest for

a small building is different than for a large buildings. for example, we're not entering any of that territory. we have studied a number of different increases -- the increases more in the 10-15%, i think it's been a few sites. it's trying to sort of take what is there and like i say, modestly adjust it rather than really transform it by type. not taking a podium building and transferring into a tower, for example. there are only a handful of sites. >> typologies of the lower buildings can be >> in some case it's just adding height to something with significant height? >> if i could add, there are sites at 400 and sites at 320. >> and 250. >> so those are sites we would

think we would add -- to be fair, i think it's more than 10-15% with some of the scenarios we're looking at. the idea is to only add it where there is already zoning for very tall buildings, just to be simple about it. >> okay. on the affordable housing numbers, so you gave the existing is 3700 units total and 700 bmr, assume built in the hub on-site. >> that is the projection, yes and that includes some off-site as well. >> is the off-site inside the hub? i can't remember the rule, is it a mile? >> i believe it's market octavia -- >> that is within the mile? >> the only question is whether there is something different from market octavia.

whether it is or not, it's the one-mile radius. >> you have 600 new units -- i'm not understanding the 600 versus 700. >> right. a lot of it because a lot of it is ending more specific numbers, which talk about exactly how many of those units -- so you get up to around the 4300, it's a little less than that. with the level 1 or 23%, 38% inclusionary and fees. and then about just a little under 500 of those are considered on-site. and then 900 are considered the off-site. so these were sort of the back of the envelope numbers that strategic is looking at a preliminary step. it hasn't gone through the rigorous analysis, but the

ballpark range. >> maybe i will step back because there are different scenarios you are looking at. i don't think we can talk about off-site as part of what you are gaining as part of the project ; right? off-site is only controlled by the 1-mile radius. there is no guaranties in the hub. so if you get to more specificity about that, i think we can say it's in the hub. but right now there is nothing to guarantee that. the presentation looks like you are adding 600 units, but all 600 of those would have to be affordable to reach 33%. so there is say little bit of -- >> yes. i have more specific information here. i would about happy forward the breakdown. it's more the effects of the hub than literally in the hub. >> okay. i think the question for be is about value you -- that is what everybody is looking at.

so i want to make sure whatever value is being conveyed by height or bulk increases equals the value that we're getting out of more units. and public realm and arts. so i want to make sure that the calculations are done at the earliest time so we know what the trade-offs are. in the timeline, i assume you go through eir first. when you would be able to even think about doing a central soma type of analysis? >> good question. it would certainly be well-before the eir process. >> so concurrent? >> i think with my want to develop more specifically the height and bulk scenarios to have an idea to run the calculation and make some urban design assumptions and physical scenarios before we do that. my guess is 6-8 months down the

road before we might get there. >> right now we have currently two scenarios and the one i presented was the more modest one. there is one that looks at slightingly larger. >> to be clear on on-site versus off-site. on-site is consistent citywide, off-site is within a mile, except for transbay which has peculiar requirements. i mean the way we have been thinking about the prop k goal is that it's 33% citywide. so we're trying to see if we can reach 33% of the units produced in this area to be affordable? whether they are in the area or not -- >> i see your thinking. i have been thinking about this more as a project; right? i have been thinking about it more as an sud. usually within the sud you keep the benefits within the sud; right?

>> commissioner, staff, if i could add some commentary. this sort of analysis that mia has gone over with terms of percentage is the except same methodology we have talked about central soma and looking at how we achieve 33% objectives in combination of on-site, off-site and units built through all of the fees and it's important to also remember that this area in the hub has a special use district that generates additional affordable housing fees in lieu of tdr and other fees that goes into a pot to build affordable housing. so those additional fees are being counted as well in terms of how many units. >> those have considered in the baseline scenario; right? >> they are considered in the baseline, as well as the increment that would be added through whatever increment is considered through the rezoning. >> okay. you know, i am open. i just want to call it what it

is; right? i think for me central soma is much bigger. so it is more than one square mile in diameter, or whatever in diameter. so this really feels much more like a project to me, than an area plan. but i could comment differently if we sort to look at the square footage a little more carefully. >> commissioner richards. >> interestingly enough we have talked several times about eastern neighborhoods and area plans and how they need to be iterative and to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time we're going to rezone rezoning. so i think this is a good thing and we should be looking at this in other area plans as well. happy to support increased height for increased affordability. it's a great trade-off. i'm concerned to see what the numbers look like. i was a child of market octavia and we never had a tower built

there yet. so i can't remember whether -- what the design principles do look like? but generally what my recollection is that they for more modest buildings, middle, base and top, that you certainly won't apply to a tower, but i'm concerned what the design looks like? one of things on the market octavia cac, people who are moving in the buildings, what is rate of ownership? that would be an interesting number to look at completely supporting reduced parking and such a major transit hub. i would love to see what that looks like. >> in terms of the design guidelines one thing specific to market octavia is having the tower being a little setback or articulated from the tower. that is a little bit recessed

and that the podium becomes a stronger influence to the experience off the street. >> good. thanks >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm not sure on your affordability, but i would venture to guess you do a dial type of thing, like we have discussed? you have raised the level of affordability, but some of the increased affordability is levels up tot to the 140th percentile and the subsidy that the developer has to put in is less because they don't have to do so much subsidy to make it pencil out. that might allow you to not have to make towers as high and dense if you do some of the dial -- if you do the dial then you are going to get more affordable housing by that definition. with the higher and denser towers. that is just a thought. the other thing that commissioner johnson brought up and i thought really important

is to find a place for people to dump their cars close to the freeway. coming off the central freeway, right by the planning department, or mission street meets the central freeway, dubose and 13th street is a constant stream of cars. if those people could be made to put many of their cars into garage coming right off the freeway and handy transportation to take them a few blocks to the north, to go to the symphony, the opera, the jazz, the ballet, all of the things that people will continue to come to and will not take public transportation from a lots of suburban locations. especially elderly people or people with challenges will want to drive as close as they can and to find a way for them to dump their cars will keep them from driving forth to get

into either civic center garage or the one by the performing arts, both of which are almost impossible to get into when there is an event at night. so that is an important thing to look at. >> understood. >> commissioner richards >> one other question i had, a while back i recall seeing schematics to scale it back and create a plaza. there is there any discussion or is that a dead idea? >> there was no discussion and it's not part of market octavia that we're using as a base. >> bringing the freeway down is part of a larger discussion. >> transportation is obviously -- the hub will not solve some of the larger transportation issues and connections here. so that is another project. but we want to also make sure whatever we do facilitates some of those larger ideas and we are not doing some that will

interrupt that potential. >> thanks >> director. i wanted to summarize what i heard going ahead. this is a would-year work effort for us and i wanted to make sure we're on the same page. the issues and concerns that i heard is that we're making sure we mail nail down the value capture and maximize housing with scenarios of middle-income housing depending on how the numbers work out. parking making sure we looking at the parking numbers and intercept parking facility of some kind of lots of issues raised about design and making sure that particularly in this area of high-rises, looking at the market octavia design guidelines and how those could be enhanced in the area? and also concerns and issues about the public realm and how that could be further grown and

enhanced and made much more pedestrian-friendly, since this is where our offices are, one of the most pedestrian-unfriendly areas in the city. if that is a good summary, we'll take that and make sure we incorporate your questions and comment into the next phase of work. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next item, please. >> commissioners all right 9 for case no. 2014-001503gpa, the affordable housing bonus general plan amendment. >> >> >> hello commissioners. you will hear from staff who have done an outstanding job in

rusting down a housing policy to present to you. i wanted to talk about a broader scope look at our housing policy and where this particular piece of housing policy fits. so by 2020 the mayor is committed to committing 10,000 units for low and moderate-income housing. and spending plan that is roughly about $1.3 billion in order to facilitate those changes. this includes recently changes to that we were able to facilitate up at the state-level with the help of governor brown. to create and rapidly construct areas in the former redevelopment areas. i will say it's particularly helpful because the governor recently vetoed a tax credit bill. so the ability to get this bill through, i think, is really monumental in the face

of, i think, of the absence of state support, and federal support as well. what we are spending our $1.3 billion over the next six years on is overwhelmingly to serve low and moderate income households. that is done for a number of reasons, including the greatest yield in leverage that we can get with state and local funds. but it's also because this -- we have made a policy choice where our precious subsidies are going to those who are most in need. this is also demonstrated in the housing bonds that is on the ballot in november as well. so what we are asking for you to support and for you to initiate for a meeting on november 5th is really the centerpiece of our middle-income program. this is a program that we're asking to you support, which does not provide any type of public subsidy towards it. and i think that done by design. we did it because we understand

typically these subsidies should flow for the greatest in need, but also because of where the sites are situated. where we expect these sites to be developed from. these are areas of the city that have embraced middle-income and have seen it as a value statement. and so we wanted to make sure that the housing that is created kind of matches the neighborhood need as it has been defined by us and by some of the neighbors who have commented over time. so this is a real opportunity for us to support and put forward a middle-income program. and this is unapologetically that and to make you aware of the overwhelming bulk of what we're putting forward for the city is for low and moderate-income housing efforts. the tea tear down and rebuilding of the large projects of the housing authority which will be phased

in without the displacement of the existing residents. where we layer on tax credit units, as well as market-rate units. we have created also the small sites program looking at targeting sites with residentings at-risk of displacement and you preserving as affordable housing for households between 80-120% of area median income. we rustled for a long time and came from the mayor's housing working group two years ago, one the ways to facilitate more middle-income units and not doing it at the expense of our low-income households. what we have before you is really the center component of that. kirsten did washing you through walk you through the details and ask for your support in initiativing support for

initiating the public meetings so thank you. >> thanks jeff planning department staff i'm here with the team and she's handing you guys materials that include vishldz of the presentation today and comments we've received from the public on this item today as jeff said we're here to ask for you to initiate the general plans you mean we made it before an adoption hearing ask for you're hearing this is what we're doing today, the substance of the affordable housing including the consideration of the legislation is scheduled for november 5th we want to time the conversation before we talk about what is in the general plan i could give

you a full presentation on the housing program. >> i'll try to go quickly over the points jeff already covered one of the piece out of the mayor working group and one of the needs springboard for moving forward is the state and city big bonus law since the late 90 when the developers provide an affordable housing they have been having an incentive the state superior court suggested the configuration housing program which ours dodo trigger the affordable housing or the density bonus and that was the beginning of our work and planning process and we started working with the architecture and libby a

financial consultant additional also the mayor's working group that brought together affordable housing with the developers and affordable housing developers and financiers to help us craft a solution but we're also informed by the recent adopted 2014 housing element that called for the density bonus program and prop k that cowled for 33 percent of all new housing to be affordable and this is 60 or 63 of the voters support and supervisor tang did in the sunset around the blueprint that helps o helped us to understand the middle-income housing and the opportunities for the weermz so as jeff said eloquently this is one of the many tools in the whole package.

>> so we started the program with 4 policy goal to incentivize higher goal as you may know 12 percent is required in the inclusionary hours but we wanted to see it higher and this is a tool for that additionally a number of sites in the city not feasible and the density benefits that can be granted along with higher levels of visibility make those feasible the middle-income program and finally to facilitate one hundred percent of affordable housing entitlements the map before you is our program area or our study and were b that includes the city allows the residential uses and regulates the unit by rash to

lot area to 6 hundred and one to 8 hundred as opposed to the base code that regulated by descended and bulk generally those areas require or allow commercial on the ground floor so that there are major show corridors or mixed use commercial areas they are always within a quarter of a mile in the muni thirty thousand parcels in the program area that's a large portion of the city 20 percent both parcels have healthy buildings are not going back going to be affected and not change we think actually that is 200 and 40 sites that will benefit over a 20-year period their evenly distributed

throughout the program area and we made that determination based on the uses and the future potential so anything that has you know a parking lot or a one-story building might be considered in the analysis this chart show us the overhead kind of what i was describing a scenario about the program could generate over a 20-year period if all the 200 and 40 soft sites development in the zoning controls 4 hundred plus units that would be nine hundred affordable inclusionary units in the same 200 and two to three sites choose to participate in the state practical we'll see 10 thousand total units about 15

hundred would be affordable at the inclusionary level. >> under the local program that number of inclusionary units goes up to 2 thousand so that is more than double what we're allowing now in terms of of the level of affordability and adds 3 thousand middle-income units and we built 16 thousand total units again, this is over a 20-year period we expect the development to happen over time we don't think all the units will - we're in between the 16 thousand this helps you to compare the program. >> there's been a lot of conversation how each the programs serve and as jeff articulated this is one of the many tolls we have

and this program does generate housing for people at the 50 percent ami through the inclusionary program also the 80 and 90 percent ami and it tops out with the middle-income program one hundred that with 20 percent for renter of a hundred and 40 percent ami for homeowners this is sort the newest program new to our city affordable housing portfolio so again two programs within the affordable housing bonus program one of the state program and one of the local program the state has two of the goals the local programs hits those two a little bit harder we've incentivise more sites feasible and hit the middle-income goal with the local programs and help hundred

percent be affordable programs and the team we were able to understand how a project in san francisco given the inclusionary unite i unit requirements maxes out the state program they'll have thirteen percent of to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote on site and an ownership 20 percent of those units onsite and then for that we be graduated up to 35 percent increase in their allowable density they'll be 40 or 50 units i like to talk about hundred that that is easier for the market if you're a hundred unit the maximum bonus under the states program allows you one hundred 35 units under 9 state

program we're only offering the height benefits if you need them it is in the draft planning code that was introduce do by the mayor's office in there's enough room in the volume you you think wouldn't get additional heights we know in those cases might mean half of the sites need no height some need one story and some two-story but no more than that that is the maximum allowed and then addition to the density and height the state law requires we offer some concessions and things we grant flou flue in the various or modification process w is available through those projects so the local program it's

different we assume we've would have he get thirty percent not a series of options it is required to have thirty percent affordable and the next 18 percent is middle-income so this rather than the density we offer the code in market octavia additional to it is regulated by height and bulk and also 40 percent two prepare requirement making sure we're having family housing with the local programs. >> and these projects will be given the two stories additional if you're height limit was 40 you'll be able to go up to 60 and if 60 up to. >> so hundred percent affordable that is part of the

local program for all projects basically, the same program as the local program density by height and bulk but we're allowing 3 stories rather than two and lobbying u allowing pertaining to extend their entitlement to many years this helps them to get their financing together we worked with the mayor's office of housing to make sure we are including all the things to expedite their process right away right now project that these hundred percent affordable have to come back and do entitlements rather than causing an additional process remove those. >> i want to provide you all a sense of what is in the

legislation we'll have a hearing on november 5th those are the kinds of incentives so both how much affordable housing they mitigate offer the rear yard exposure and parking and open space and loading. >> and so in terms of of the next steps the legislation was introduced by the mayor and supervisor tang on september 29th we had a small informational hearing with you in the next two weeks 3 public events a web napper and open house on the 26 another city hall and myself and other staff will be joining supervisor tang on the sunset on the 29 and on november 5th returning to your commission for a hearing on the legislation we are hoping to also include

amendments to the general plan and to summarize in our case report there are two kinds of amendments one is to a number of the maps in the general plan that have height or density limits we've opposed to have a clause with greater affordability on site to permit heights several height and larger than the mapping so larger than the general plan maps with density those changes are reflected in whichever cheaper and the land use we've also proposed adding language to 3 general plan to further articulate how those programs will service the microfilm and meets the affordable housing goal to jeff and i are here for questions we're looking for an

action for a intion. >> (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm a resident 43 years in the richmond district and it will appear from everything i'm hearing and serging this affordable bonus plan applies to the entire city the map indicates the richmond i was surprised to hear weeks ago on the website of our neighborhood and it just it seems to me this thing is being hurried through without public comment no public

comment hearings additional with brt with the city's almost six months worth of hearing with the mta and sfmta we've heard nothing about any of this we have problems with the increased height on either the geary, clemente or california aerials because for instance, essentially a 6 story building totally out of scale not too bad on the south side of geary the shadow would be on the streets but on the north side there will be a lot of homes no shadow some of them in endless shadow it's unusual to be in a house and look up 60 feet with windows looking at your yards one of the

problems we do have existing structures both rh2 and some that have 6 units that have rent-controlled unit agreements and that ellis act will be used to remove the tenants and many of the tenants i know one in particularly particular on clemente street who is a war veteran with a disabled wife they'll have to move in trying to do good you're doing a great deal of harm and beyond that on my plain clothes between geary and clemente we have two believes that are rent-controlled from the owner choose at the, put a 6 story building in the middle of a

block i'm sorry. >> you have 25 seconds left. >> oh, anyway we're concerned about the loss of buzzing businesses on the geary and clemente and california no program to avoid the loss of small businesses on third street okay. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners testing welling born from d 5 action you say that this proposed plan could possible include 200 and 40 sites let's get more specific let's ask other questions too do the developers need new incentives to bid not right now

looking at the pipeline. >> what other plans do add housing maybe being hatched somewhere it is getting difficult for the public to keep up with all the changes to the public realm and zone i concur with the previous comment about slowing down the process this is too important to rezone so much of san francisco without a low more community at least 6 more months of discussion. >> supposing that this were to be going forward remember that the nexus study shows everything else you build be market-rate every time you build non-that

affordable units we created a need not phil the need for affordable housing i'd like to have it kind of issue addressed in further proposals for up zoning or any other increases in housing which we dearly need, of course, how and what and where? if any plan like this i think should require the bmr's on site and a higher number the fees are way below what it costs to build a unit anywhere for people in the richmond they're not going to want to be dislocated they'll not want to live at hunters point or treasure island 23 people are relocated so many questions this needs to be slowed down we need to specific

more about unit size 40 percent 23 bedroom and 60 micro units did not work for our neighborhoods or serving the needs of locals or families so let's also hear a report on the successes and problems of bmr's before we go a whole lot more to consider ways to increase housing this one needs to be slowed down and a lot more dissolution e discussion in the neighborhoods thank you >> so this is to at all good afternoon. i'm jean a resident of the richmond district and a member of the public member of planning associations so for the record and one of the city's large organization let me start i completely agree with the need

for more affordable housing and if possible this affordable housing bugs program whether help meet that need but haste makes waste i know i've heard from other people, in fact, i've been here to plead with you to please slow down the process there may have been meeting are quote stakeholders during the one and a half years of the time when the project was development no planning depth or anyone from planning addressing this in the richmond district i'm not sure how much has been going on in other location i've heard from people from coalitions they were considering this two or three weeks ago there isn't enough outreach to the stakeholders the residents property owners, businesses in order to justifies having this whole affordable housing bonus

program through the planning commission this fast i personally communicated with members of the planning department and told don't worry there won't be anything presented whatever the 24th little did i realize not presented it has been presented on the 15 of october and voted open in three weeks in between and three weeks one public meeting no city hall to discuss maybe a second one in the sunset a webinar is not a proceeding they'll not be any public comment interaction put the brakes on it and allow enough time for comprehensive input and vote no to the in violation of that program for this afternoon

thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm barbara graham representing the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods c s n let me be whatever the 36 members are acoustically understanding the crisis in san francisco and about the lack of affordable housing but we are also very alarmed about the lack of public outreach as the other speakers said with the current prelims of this essentially up zones the whole city and changes the neighborhood character with the open pickup review how this gives us more housing i don't understand we urge to defer action on the plan until the vitality ah p p guidelines

referenced in the policy amendment are available for public review and open public mergers are held in the effected areas a ford why h bp staff made two presentations in more than two weeks this was not because of public outreach but because we initiated a request for a staff presentation at the small land use commission on august 24th and we were so concerned about what we heard that we invited staff back on september 15th to a larger delegate meeting on both occasions staff reiterated the proposal was in draft stage and that the complete proposal will not be out until later in

the fall that was in two weeks on september 29th we were surprised when mayor and supervisor tang introduced the h b t legislation that was even before the neighborhoods represented by c s f n to inform the residents and before planning first open house on october 26th has been appointed by others it make sense why planning hadn't gotten the comments on public comment the vitality design guidelines are still being developed and not available for public comment the public needs and wants to understand the underlying far-reaching effects of implementing ah b c the u.n. zoning of the whole city and the

damaging cumulative impacts open others character of our neighborhood for that reason we ask you to defer and turn down the amending of the plan today. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> christie waning after thank you. >> hello commissioners. i'm chris at the wong the policy director for stark thank you for the opportunity to comment on issues from the general plan amendment for the bonus program we're pleased the planning department is bringing this into guidance with the law and going above and beyond this helps to meet our extremely high need of housing and engages what the

local zoning and existing contact in addition to providing much needed affordable this program will tackle a number of sites with outside of single-family home neighborhood that are not feasible in the past we think this program is trying to be smart in bringing this into alignment wards to the timing it take a a long time the time to start the day before yesterday, i hope you'll stay on schedule and happy about the programs and have a few extensive o specific commissioner sims we will bring when the legislation is presented but to initiate the adoption and the program color to reality thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul

wormer as you may know i have some interest in what goes on in planning and plan use i've signed for the legislation relating to land use and planning some reason that never sent out notices about those piece of legislation i guess from the mar and thereafter don't need to be noticed that's a southern i'm not whether to address any other comments i do think those proposals make sense but there is a lot of open questions so for instance, they make a big deal this didn't effect rh1 and rh2 district if you look at the map that is presented and look at it much certainly of the northern section of the city you see rh1 and rh2 on the same

block in many cases into woefr with the rh3 and rh m those rh3 complying today pretty much with the existing 40 x zoning in much of the area what this legislation is written right now says okay. on the same block you happen to be zoned rh2 or rh1 your lot is at the 40 but your neighbor up to 60 that will have an impact on the neighborhood characterization i'm not sure that is the right solution density bonuss maybe appropriate but love to see anything coming forward a grand last year analysis of domiciling guidelines how they play out r m immediately adjacent to an rh1

those in the sunset absolutely it is pretty much homogenous much as part of city are not the other thing not clear how they're listed the affordable housing bonus b will be in terms of enduring activity construction activity for affordable in the nesting north of the city just not going to return what a code compliant with the 20 percent into a fee because the 20 percent fee is 20 percent of plannings costs 20 percent of unit not 20 percent of budget or 20 percent of the potential nicole schneider income from the sale of unit i'm not sure how much of a problem in the northern vicinity but not

means you don't have to pay attention to the impacts thanks. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay public comment is closed. let me offer a couple of thoughts here. >> i think many say the right direction and potentially well, maybe not the tall it building in san francisco this has potentially the most impact in san francisco in a lot of ways and impacts in areas and neighborhoods in san francisco i'm really curious this is not the time to talk about but in the long run ties to transit i'm not terrible fond the project being put into process and putting anymore people out there without transit is some of the mistakes the city made in the

past with not laying down the infrastructure i've curious i don't know if you want to address that okay. >> i am would like to hear about the 200 and 40 soft sites how they are different from the properties maybe 40 feet allowed to go to 60 i'm concerned about throwing out miscellaneous questions to in the mid block as you may know every, department of human resources at the 3 feet above the next door neighbor this may be code compliant but opens up frustrations to san franciscans their next door neighbors are double height not a fence or a glass partition we deal with with the drs i think bringing up in david

baker and getting practical responses was very smarts i'm not sure the sites we're talking about unless those were affordable are david baker sites david baker noouj takes on projects that are large than normal in the footprint i know if this translate into promotions in the sunset or richmond smaller neighborhood sites so i guess my questions are the people that own the property if they make those decision they're not david baker style projects. >> correct me if i am wrong kristen but the way the economics work they won't be typically not 10 or 12 unit but large buildings and buildings that are thirty or 40 units

because of the economics that's why we have the economic analysis and david with the architecture correct me if i am wrong. >> you're correct most of the projects we anticipate ben in about this range we can cock it would be helpful to come back to the commission with a full discussion how david bakers working will help the project what we've duplicate with the team developed residential guidelines what would you give our staff in this their designing this building those will add to the residential design and what kinds of considerations around the texture and kind of i think one of the things that resonated

with our residential design and david is thinking will the streetscape what the commerce experience i'm clearly not a designer the pedestrian experience kind of informed how you feel those buildings i'm probably not the right staff but like to come back with david bakers team and explain that. >> what would be the smallest building applicable. >> we've worked with open scope on the they've looking at the 25 wide lot and 50 foot wide lot with the 25 wide lot it is the life safety materials going up higher didn't make sense you'll stay at the lower heights we've found projects in the

lower 20 ranges we have exact numbers of what size we anticipate the projects be. >> okay. is there any preference to former lots versus mid lots and certainly in our area plans we have higher heights permitted on the corner parcels that is one of the ideas out of the invested neighborhood we looked at some of the corridor and also the blueprint and honestly working in a city that's pretty developed that really about where the opportunity sites are and making the affordable housing successful in the places where their opportunity site. >> we have maps of the 200 and 40. >> yeah. we can provide that on a district level on each district and. >> so again, i think this is the right direction and bold and

fast as well i understand the need and goal the reason it needs to be considered fast whether or not this get built out in 2, 3, 4 economic kindly i want the staff to know think about viable in the next economy because it is certainly hundred dollars will not be built in a short time this is in between. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you certainly i concur with your last question commissioner president fong it had not in one kindly how many units in some of the soft believes in 20 years that's a whole generations i personally definitely love the direction of this and staff in terms of the decision making the mayor's working group closed out

the finding at the end of the last year and beginning beginning of this yearish if i remember we'll have two hearings of the paged legislation that will be coming to us this is the first thing other than the fact the notices didn't go out yovp i don't feel a lack of participation or a lack of ability to operate looking for a better part of a year i'm way past that i' i'm supportive i he the same question how do i say that i'm wondering how do we reduce the degree of freedom so people see the program the way i'm looking at it clear benefits for san

francisco if developers from many of the soft sites were to select the local program because i think the state program it really is geared much more towards first of all, the lower be frookt but geared towards local outlet requirements so i think this works from the state program works fantastic in an area where there are no height restrictions so you know the whole issue of having the height and density requirement it is almost mute so in san francisco we do in the local program we've laid out works better inform the height and bulk restricts my question is i don't think that developers see that that way

their looking at the performa a lot of the opportunity sites didn't pencil out this definitely maybe other plaza better choice my question is how do we greatly incentivizes without the city attorney yelling at me saying we can't ask anyone someone to courthouses one option. >> she proposed that comment to me a couple of the that is actually something our team worked an incentive vision zero the local program it purports for the prop k goals and all the things so our team has been working hard on thinking this flue one thing we've done is kind of he limit the incentives and on the state program to exactly what the state requires we grant only height when necessary and the only incentives that are required per

our analysis wherewith the local program we're saying yes, of course, you get the height you have 80 a few more options the other places in the legislation that the mayor introduced thinking about the review process and how we create more clarity a styled approach to it so in the eastern neighborhoods was development because of a large project authorizations you've seen a few projects under this we've created that kind of process for any project that has affordability and higher what's great they kind of have all the considerations under one case so the modification the density bonus and the affordability comes down to you in one package and a little bit more clear and the design guidelines are consider at considerations are

more focused in terms of what the commission weighs in on at the final hearing we've received comments about that process and how the way we've drafted it includes all the projects thirty percent affordable and more and the l ta that has a size threshold this is something we're looking at maybe projects noted that big the smaller projects and commissioner president fong was talking about might actually you know have a more staff dense i have process we're looking at that and the other thing people second-degree murder we haven't introduced is an idea of provided processing if you do the thirty percent affordable housing and this i think we've had a lot of conversations if you give everybody priority wait the priority that is a a question

for us internal keeping it filled and if this creates a large volume of projects this delet us that. >> if i can weigh in we're trying to figure out i mean the city program up to thirty percent affordable so the question is what could we do beyond and ii think we're not comfortable saying add 5 stories or something but so we are looking at the approval process to be honest one of the things that comes up a lot in conversation a way to allow a project thirty percent affordable or more more to say it is reviewed at the administrative level that's one of the things that's come up and one of the things to go look at it because a process that take have to 8 months does, in fact, save a ton of money money and an

incentive to the community if we're trying to think of a way to get affordable units out there we may want to consider that. >> i appreciate that response 4 this is a way better response we had 6 months ago. >> done good work. >> i don't know if in the legislation or the planning code change or how we'll change our process i'll be post ever that from a program more things on the consent calendar up to the staff taking some of the projects and doing that more at a staff level i'm supportive of that. >> just a couple quick comments we have a few more we can see if we go forward with this and seeing that again and commissioner president fong and other comments yeah definitely general plan amendment are clear

in terms of the prioritizing the building district rh3 and r m and above but certainly in a lot of the parts of the city have a mixture i see it adding a lever we can use to get good traffics for more affordable housing; right? so me not every single right we've just discussed and in the section every developer will not take up an opportunity but if this is a lever i see this commission in the future iterations with that in the future looking at those trade offs in terms of design and maybe characterization how have they consider that for more affordable housing we did that last week last week with other promotions for additional units we're happy with the additional height or maybe some more

captains active variance or things like that i don't see that changing we have people protest at the planning commission i appreciate that. >> thank you very much for your presentation. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks so i think that will be helpful as commissioner president fong asked to see both the design tip metrological at the least for it it be next week seems two soon that takes us to november 5th i don't know if there is enough will to hear all the models and the item on the same day more of an foj informational i think we need the information to understand a little bit better so if this only for a new construction believing in you had an existing 4 story building

add two stories to it and somehow get to this percentage within the building. >> we see that the addition might with work we're curious that means a lot of more study but meet the fundamental goals for the whole building financing only for new construction. >> that's why i think it is good to look at the communication when you add 2 stories no longer any density controls; right? so if a 4 story building had 4 or 5 units and added in the two stories all the smaller units that then got you know get the numbers you need to get it. >> this is only for new construction that's how we intend that that make sense.

>> along the same lines i wonder if in this your clarifying a financial incentive to demolition the building let's have a 4 story building is there an incentive to demolition it and replace that is very tricky or dangers. >> that's a great question and honestly case by case we're lucky that last fall the state adopted ab 2222 is that the right number yeah, so this is a clause any existing residential uses that are affordable reasonable person rent-controlled that's the exact terminology and to choose the density program you have to replace those units as part of your project the financial incentive to demolition and those units is lost by the

requirement to replace them and is the replacement a physical or as rent-controlled. >> with the affordability correct. >> is that legally possible. >> the state just passed this law. >> you will have to replace and on top of meet the 33 percent. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles the state law seems to relying ply those could be part of whatever it is required up to 3, 4, 5 percent. >> that seems problematic; right? because your units are the affordable units. >> it depends on - >> so again why question should look at. >> couple of cases. >> yeah. a couple scenarios that would happy correct. >> we had this easily what is a one story the number of feet?

is that a different measure are you adding 20 feats or. >> the planning code offers a 10 or 20 foot ethnic increase and then we try to limit the residential stories to within those ten foot increments we don't regulate those and not changing. >> so the equivalent bonus would within a give in the number of feet. >> correct and currently as draft it requires each residential floor to have height toe ceiling but to make sure we're not getting the problem of the floors squished in that's the challenge we have how every many hours ago. >> if there a financial in the financial model if there is a possible incentive to demolition the building or something like

that there needed to be a first right to return the strongest this nation has ever seep to make sure that none losses their housing because there is construction and they're being moved out and lastly i'll say the general plan language is absent soft it basically says and i'll block to the city attorney we may give more in height or something like that it seems like a little bit open-ended the reprehensive to the programs as needed are something else i feel is it might open some other doors. >> maybe we need to look at that that is a point the reason is say may because we don't want to give the height to achieve in terms of a number of zoning

districts. >> the city may do you want affordable housing policy it seems like a little bit large. >> again deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles the reason that the language is written that way it is a conforming change to the general plan that so forth from the specific areas so the actual part of policy already in the housing element the implementation measure is the one that that says the city should you know work on adopting density policy programs and the amendments before i mostly today are to conform and make the general plan consistent overall the language is permissive not

in all cases density need to be incased and generally try to keep the language in the general plan general so that it give us flexibility and implementation with other general plan policies. >> okay. >> so i'd like to hear from other commissioners about it there are more desire for phenomenal and scheduling. >> i just want to support commissioner wus issues pointing out it would be an incentive for this commission for a while to take a strong stance an demolition only about to fall down situation i mentally applied this to the new famous case an clemente when we tried to look at a occasion that probably is a perfect site it is

50 feet wide you could go up to 60 or 80 feet the neighbors were upset and appealed and board of appeals or the board of supervisors but this is a good case scenario of the type project potentially there were two or three rent-controlled units easily and put it in market-rate because of it's size i think that is a good scenario. >> commissioner richards. >> i fully support of concept but think a lot of the the devil is in the details the stricken we do something and face the policy implementation afterward i think the questions by fellow commissioner wu and commissioner president fong raised questions in my mind are we're going to put something in place for

creating issues later on and not get it right the first time we've met and i support the xheptd concept any other changes the zoning for the pressed guideline. >> we've done a lot of research on the history in the city and working on a map that shows the timing of everything i'll certainly look at that. >> i'm worried about and i have questions i wrote down to demolition we've not established a policy amongst ourselves and creating a policy to incentivize that i asked for a schematic in the middle of a block i share the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood and the bmr have to be onsite. >> that's correct.

>> okay. do we allow lot combinations drive by two lots mid block and create a building. >> that's a bit of a worry. >> so the rules keeping consistent within the existing controls. >> that's a bit of a worry for me i guess you know mr. distell wrote a long letter i think some of it especially around the design and i read the letter he was up here i'd like for you to look at that and make sure that there isn't anything we're missing and want to say again, we're in a crisis the plane is running out of gas rather than fix the plane what would three or four weeks make us feel more

comfortable in terms of the addressing some of the questions raised by the public i've been in their shoes back in 2005, 6 and 7 market octavia pulling a face one and rushing this through germany see a problem people are raising the issues just to obstruct there but there is design issues we should smoke out first before we move on this. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he would agree i think this has a lot of potential my fear we can't have one one-size-fits-all and i'm concerned that we would be creating these blanket approvals of additional floors if you meet certain categories without a process i heard that will the hundred percent affordable that's a big problem i've spoken about the neighborhood in san

francisco where i live and where it applies to the other streets and norway we go and car very well and others that are named the idea is you have single story and other institutions that have surface level parking lots that are better three or four floors retail on the bottom and housing as well but the problem your proposing if that zoning is 40 exhibition they'll do it but potential 6 or 7 floor buildings and if there's no public process for this to come before us and decide if this is a proper project i think that is not the way to do that i mean it is desirable to have more affordable housing particularly middle-income elements but i think the abbreviating the

process is a big problem i'll be okay with leaving this as a possibility it could be used in areas but i think they still have to go through a process for example, to have the 4 story hundred percent affordable or 3 additional stories is something i'm going to have controvertible voting for in a 10 year you'll have a lot of option and if you are going to give a good bonus better for the opening statements you satisfy the educate with the middle-income buyers and renters most of whom have families that live in many in the western neighborhoods and hard for the children and others to afford housing that's the best part of the whole program having a little bit more addressing the concerns that were mentioned today, i'm

probably going to vote for an e annihilation but it has a protection for the public against individual projects how about if you blanket in a program it is really ugly not only the height is bad but a real eye sore not the possibility for a public hearing to be disapproved and the transit issues by the other commissioners you can't expect people will will spend a whole day riding the bus adopt geary to get where they're going we have to look at the transit i applaud the idea it is a good one only had to be properly structured with the projects being throne up without any progress. >> i want to make is clear the

conversation that and i and the director supervisor tang introduced the legislation all of the projects will be coming to the commission that has thirty percent affordability or more. >> so even hundred percent. >> correct. correct. >> that's helpful and less than thirty percent they'll come to us. >> those projects will be consistent with their counter process so if they see you they'll trigger a cu whatever. >> i understand. >> there's 4 hundred reaps they might so, yeah. >> i just. >> commissioner richards did you get our questions about the merging and assembly blocks. >> i'm yosemite it is allowed. >> it would be allowed as of today. >> remember the rest of the

planning code still applies not throwing out the planning code for the provisions so - >> so i could buy a gas station and mortgagey. >> if you wanted to. >> commissioner johnson. >> 0 so i'll end my comments with a motion to initiate i don't think that the general plan amendment that we were initiating don't speak to any of the questions or issues we're asking up here i want to make that clear to people that are listening to us they sort of make sure that the policy objective i've not heard aircraft about are represented in the general plan before you we look at any legislation so i think you know, i have a couple of things i want to say and end

with a motion to initiate that didn't preclude us from giving us ourselves a couple of weeks november 5th we can look at the amendments and not take action. >> that's correct. >> so just a couple of things that that will be helpful i think that commissioner antonini's point at the came in the process that that is how 0 incentivizes the program so we want to see it and really you know can't do too much how much it shakes auto particularly for smaller scale projects but save time and money owning on process not necessarily coming in the commission but to the community where priority processing for things take less staff times and come to the commission and any

number of things that are part of legislation and others not they could be discussions making later in terms of the department process how we look at things i want to make that clear about in terms of process in terms of the hundred percent avenue, i kind of had a similar thought to commissioner antonini but i remembered that it's been a year and a half the discussion in the mayor's office of housing one of the things if you implement something that is a density bonus program or anything to incentivize with the may i have a minute development it continues to put the pressure on the ability of affordable housing are developers to build a site and puts them at more disadvantageous they have to get the funding and support from whatever having an additional

bonus allows to those to be on parity with the density bonus one things in terms of the size unfortunately, i think it is unlikely to see hundred percent affordable housing projects taking the once you go from two or three stories to 5 or 6 you significantly increase the costs unless you're talking about a site that is pretty big not get smaller scale hundred percent affordable housing likely to go to wood construction or whatever it is called. >> commissioner, i think that the, do a wood frame 5 over one. >> 5 stories. >> four or five. >> that's basically the height

of what a fire truck would be. >> so tlits there's a lot of 40 in the district we do think this is an incentive go from 4 stories to 6 using the same and more specifically kate howard and others will join aussie explain how this benefits in the portfolio of affordable housing there are some specific sites we're looking at how those 3 stories will help and that kind of how we invented it in the affordable housing development community a couple of different opinions how helpful that will be and people are thinking about they're specific projects but as the director was pointing out if you stay within that 85 foot height limit with really the construction type of is something we see happening with the hundred percent affordable we're aerobic it helps in many

cases but hundred percent affordable housing that don't take advantage of the - they want to stay at 60 it depends on the financing. >> i appreciate director ram correcting me my memory was fail me i thought that was more like three or four stories and after that, the door pricing transpires or double fantastic. >> i'll be curious to have dbi look at this and i'm sure in that somewhere or commissioner wu's had an additional 2 stories with the existing and stacking another two stories on top of that wood and flat will bring complications. >> in terms of the additions in terms of vertical additions

we started to realize it as a whole separate project on a long wish list i suppose as a planning department as we dissect that this is for a design construction. >> so just in terms of i think the commissioner richards sort of brought this up and commissioner president fong but this does not precluded us how to question the impact for example, lot mergers is one of the discussions that is launching on our list of things to do and look at this legislation harms that discussion it shifts that well, now we have this other incentive or other topography that potentially could be in the neighborhood how does that shift the impact of allowing lot

mergers this is a lot of points don't need to be wrapped up in a different program but keeping with the general plan and okay. >> commissioner richards. >> i think for myself personally after hearing everything today i'll support one more informational to talk about the policy design issues the details on the break out for the district two cd and how to achieve that one of the things it will increase the number of drs so i would support an it possible on this before i initiate. >> i don't know your calendar i'll suggest you could initiate and hold one on the fist and make room on the following for adoption the 12 jonas. >> commissioners that's fine i'm just all of the hearings in

november have already been closed their that full we closed december 3rd clearly entirely up to you if you want to stay late. >> also want to add this is board initiated mayor initialed we have a 90 day window. >> i think it would stop in the middle of december this was introduced on the 29 of december so the 90 days - >> that's the commissions response. >> correct. >> if i could - i do not have much more appetite for a 12-hour hearing so i think this is a good idea to have the informational on november 5th that was the date proposed unfortunately not another open calendar until december 10th as

long as it falls within the 90 days. >> okay. well, we could scheduled the fifth as adoption and continue it if 23 is amenable or jonas a time next week for informational - >> my recommendation it will be request to initiate today by you have november 5th as a informational and then we need to figure out a date for an action hearing he realizes the calendars are full but in recent experience a lot of projects have been falling off calendar too i'm not trying to rush anything by way of i'm fine to ask staff to go out and have more meetings in the neighborhood that's fine two i feel am urgency to move forward i realize this was in september

but discussed well over a year with the mayor's task force it is entirely a new concept try to do it in november i recognize that those hearings are full but a lot of projects do come up. >> will you guaranteeing us (laughter). >> try to move some ultimately it is your call. >> my original thinking along the lines of commissioner richards so i'll pass on to the next person. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'll agree we can initiate informational on the fifth and see if we are happy with the information we have on the fifth and from the calendar permits on the 5 or some other time in november or december at the worst but within the 90 day period we have jurisdiction.

>> that's the way. >> commissioner johnson i'm going to make a motion to initial e initiate and in terms of i think we have take that motion first and then talk about the dates. >> however, you want to go commissioners i mean i've heard our initial motion to initiate i've not heard a second. >> i'll second the motion to initiate. >> okay. >> you want informational on the fifth. >> yeah. that was my question i would be okay with - we'll do an informational on the fifth and - i think we should just add to our ridiculously long third, that give us a couple of more hearings to push it out further

i don't want to leave that piece open we'll interest have the same conversations in november how the hearings are full and we'll be here until forever. >> i would be in agreement and as we had put it on the calendar and for whatever reason we need more information we continue it but put it on the calendar. >> it is none the calendar and hopefully, we'll ended up having a super long hearing maybe another project will fall off until next year. >> before you call that i do want to thank staff and i want to thank the director and the mayor's office that is a bold strong attempt trying to take care of the affordable housing

and middle-income housing problems in san francisco it is a bold swift move but i think the entire commission here and commissioners not here have the same opinions it is the right direction. >> all right. commissioners there is a motion and a second general plan amendments for sorry for affordable housing bonus program commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero commissioners item 10 for 2015 this is a childcare increasing plan code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and fellow

planning commissioners i'm staff planning department staff i'm here to remedy the approval for the childcare increase in the application ordinance before i begin i want to recognize supervisor yee he'll provide some comments. >> thank you schong and the other commissioners thanks for allowing me to speak on this item >> so i just wanted i'll keep this as short as possible you've been here a few hours one of the goals in san francisco in this position would be on the school board to try to keep the families and children in san francisco whether family housing in this case about childcare what is happening you have this

discussion amongst my staff and colleagues developers and childcare for the last few months it seems like only the last few months for some people but me that's a discussion since 1945 i 85 when the childcare response was actually created i was part of that discussion i wanted to do some of the things i'm incorporating into the new legislation today thirty years ago but some of the ideas were a little bit premature for the time and a couple of things that really kausz some urgency for me one thing is that we already know about the population growth we'll see probably another couple of thousands of people in san francisco living here in the next few decades that coupled with the fact that today

currently with very 35 hundred children on the eligibility list waiting for childcare in san francisco we don't have enough licensed childcare space or capacity for 32 percent of the children in san francisco that's current coupled with the growth i think we need to something has to be done what it means also where are we're going to get the resources we have to be creative at this point the list will accomplish a few things one of them to expand what we call the childcare impact fees that was created over 25 years ago to not only citywide commercially but a new piece the residential piece and the also the development

piece we have exist we're asking for increase in fees according to the nexus study that was done last year this is embedded we've had a hearing on that and we talk about the fees and basically no objection to it the additional fees would result in upward to $5 billion for the childcare facilities fund over the next 7 or 10 years it is not a lot of money but you know relative to what we give now the system we've doubted the amount we're getting i'll say we need to tenfold that to catch. >> just for our information to create a small just small childcare center in san francisco it costs between $40,500,000 and my experience it has been at

a personal level i've created the childcare centers that is about the amount we've seen if you look at what the developers put into the fees it is a lot less than what it costs to create it so the real renovation one of the ways to establishment the childcare space through licensed home based family childcare this has been proven and has is an ordinance 0 the legislation will create an option that is the newer part we're going to be adding to the childcare fees to find a way to mitigate and this would money matt haney that the developers we'll ask them to dedicate the

affordable units to family childcare each one of the units could serve as many as 6 we're talking about small childcare family licenses on top of that we didn't want to have overflow of 20 two many childcare facilities in one building we lee wasn't like to limit to 3 units this way you don't cause those basic businesses to fail and this allows them to receive a decrease in the amount by allowing this aspect it reduces the amount of money that is developers will have to pay into the chiropractor facilities fund we strongly believe that will lead to the creation of dozens of units on the long hall noted immediately but have the potential of assisting hundreds

of families while allowing usage again, i want to emphasize that the vast majority of children in family childcare have in the age bracket of 2 to 3 and when you look at the childcare centers we don't have any focused on the amble bracket so, i say this because we we see over the 25 years in collecting this fee there hadn't been really one of 0 two facilities that has been built by the vendors the rest going both into the fee itself by doing this and lou for this aspect it allows especially in the residential that you have some services right where the people are life-threatening not where they have to bring a 2-year-old miles

away so i said want to address the memo i'm submitting to the planning commission outlining 3 amendments i've been working on the first one is correcting the impact fee assess the project moves from pdr use to residential use the fee should be one dollars and $0.04 per gross square feet and the reason for that, of course, is that there's really a usage the conversion from zero to residential is much greater than from pdr to residential so and the second item redefining the designation of childcare units what we like to do is include the language that says that a unit that we can use

for this purpose of a family childcare has to have at least one thousand square feet we didn't want to leave that - it to the discretion of the developers not end up saying oh, this is affordable 5 hundred square feet and maybe not much to do with 5 thousand square feet but a minimum of a thousand square feet and that will be appropriate for taking care of 6 children and the third item would be insuring if he any person attending for any reason unable to continue to operate the family childcare self-center in the subject to eviction we're exploring the possibility of pro rating the impact fee over the

10 year requirement to guarantee fairness for this city and the developer that applies for 0 this program those are 3 and finally address a challenge that legislators face when this kind of legislation is first introduced i'm looking at what aspects of the program should beleaguer lad and what spanks should be left to the implemented agencies i've been around other people other policy decision makers where they're on the school board and sometimes a balance 24/7 policy and what can be done any of usly and in this case, i could have sat down and this is a policy and this is the way you should do it and every daily guess what it didn't work i have

to come back to the board and ask for amendments to renew the policies and i don't want that to happen what i'm trying to say give you overarching ideas i expect the appreciation of the mayor's office mayor's office of housing and community development and find a common solution for the implementation and by way of by time would be in a unit that is going to be licenses we're talking about a year away so i'm pretty sure we can figure out administrations active to see 24 policy i'm introducing i want to let you know the operation of family

childcare if passed will be the will to do this and i'm appreciate our support for this item i think that is due time as a city start looking at the childcare issues and moving in the right direction and the ability to create more facilities thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you supervisor yee. >> i also wanted to let the commission know that always the staff of mayor's office of housing and community development mary benjamin is here to answer questions and dobson from the early care and education is also here currently, the city charges childcare fees for this residential development in planned areas the childcare fees must be spent within the area plan borders and spent throughout the city as all

impact fees must be capital costs associated with the childcare needs this proposal creates a new residential childcare impact fee is applies citywide the legislation will change the childcare requirement for the office and hotel development to add an additional of 25 or more space new commercial and remain fees will be charged based on the number of units priority and the fees remain the same the difference of the fees both the newly childcare fund exception to the new fee will apply to the residential projects government-owned properties and that he document prior to the date alleged fees for the non-residential to residential space as well as pdr space residential projects also choose to provide a small daycare in lieu of the

fee a designated childcare will be an onsite bmr unit and a two bedroom for a tenant that agrees to operate a snams for 10 years 3 recommendations that are reflected in the resolution the department proposed represents recommendation number one remove it from the inclusionary program and create a separate program the city applauded the efforts especially small dafr homes it present several concerns based on input from the mayor's office of housing the department has concerns of tying the programs to the inclusionary childcare and no facility and building that establish a program independent is more

appropriate the creation of the childcare unit for the credit for the childcare fee and counts towards the city's - a pardon will be doubling and receive the credit for affordable housing and here on behalf of the appellant it will include an inclusionary unit the city is in the process of it make sense for that the childcare provider not part of discussion until now and the city is not clear how this effects the inclusionary program this is tied to individual making 50 percent of ami surgeon $60,000 for a family of four and able to start a childcare center should be considered and the family daycare is not able to

run 10 years arrest 9 months the city could be put in a situation of other tenant the department asked this be inclusionary and not tied to an individual's income this provides the fee reduction for the project sponsor without burdening the occupant in order to do this we ask important a creation of. >> unit after one year a childcare unit not there we ask for the fee waiver and if it is infeasible to eliminate the fee altogether recommendation go two clarify the childcare fees currently it is unclear from the fees unlevied will be unchanged in the legislation to have the fees remain the same and adopted button childcare general fund.

>> recommendations number 3 the office of early childcare and education should be the agency currently the agency to insure that the designated childcare is running a home for 10 years given that the planning department didn't regulate childcare or determine what constitutes a legal childcare in the home it should remain in the office of childcare education and the childcare facilities therefore we ask the planning commission to remedy the approval of the ordinance recommendations again staff is available for questions. >> thank you. >> open up for public comment if there is any. >> ms. johnson it is poor i

know response and also working on trying to get - also with the contracts that she's wanting to develop and sorry that what you call the - the postpone put in any system that developed is from its not going to be you know on that much i'm looking forward into building houses and trying to establish my schooling that i've been waiting for my diploma, you know, escorted into the childcare services and

contract which mostly should be written on a computer so they can understand exactly what aim saying i've heard they're not understanding what i'm saying so the better he get the computer and the classes i've went into classes for you know clinic substances they have lines about the people that died and i'm going to go to those classes to know about you know new that cause more money to be established for the state and to more on you know better

relations to end i'm looking at prouvens myself in a better manner in precede in business and also looking at what we've lost with my aunts and acting classes and i've already applied for i think this is the consumer - not going to somebody that going to steal money anyway knew it it anyway, i didn't respond in my - thank you. >> hello commissioners. i'm

rosie a former family childcare provide provider in san francisco it is not often development promotions but i think this is very much what happens to the care and whether the parents can go to work and very much part of the infrastructure of the city and we all know that it is problematic for childcare a lot of home based childcare are being evicted and a cumulative for me effect that means that young parents actually cite the policy number one concern concern for the well-being the kids and go to work and hold on to their jobs so what this legislation proposed addresses that problem and give a lot of

families in the city to have the hope to develop chiropractor in the city that's it and thank you very much for considering it. >> okay is there any additional public comment. >> all right. seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is a good concept maybe i can ask staff the nexus was 90 percent of nexus on the high ends but if you felt that is of the the appropriate increase. >> yes. we working closely with the planning department staff and i know at land use and the fee is appropriate and within the range i'll tell you the commission not a be feasibility study but a nexus study study not done. >> in lieu of the impact fees we want to make sure it looks like it will be a proper amount to charge.

>> there is some question of feasibility for large projects projects over hundred units inner i believe this was outlined in the table you have the feasibility study for the fee we don't have one it is hard to determine the feasibility but based on the feasibility and talk about to the staff that worked on the usf. >> i'm in support i agree with staffs recommendations i mean splitting out the designated childcare unit that needs more work i understand the mayor's office is working on the detailed we'll splilt split that out and approve the first part and continue that iuoe or how will that be handled administratively. >> i'll make a recommendation to approve the fee portion but

ask that fee the other portion taken out and considered at a separate time. >> right a recommendation to the board that make sense and also the part that the fee should remain stable in plans we've established those fees that's difficult to pass legislation that is not in concert with the fees and finally, the office of early childcare and enforcement is the right place for it to be i'll make a motion to strike to the following approve the increase in the in lieu fee as outlined in the legislation but split out the designated childcare unit part of legislation for consideration under the future time with the also the recommendations of fees to stay stable in area plans and that the office of early childcare enforcement the agency to monitor this.

>> sure i wanted to clarify the elements for the office of early care and education for the part politics to the part of addition education. >> it should be stripped from my motion will be considered later with the only two parts are industrial strip it out and approve the fees and keep the fees stable in the area. >> just to be clear you're making a motion to adapt a recommendation for two and three. >> and also to strike out - >> sorry. >> so i think the elements is just to clarify the fees levied in the areas will stay in the planned areas in the planned areas the fee will be charged the citywide fee will be charged by the portions goes and left

over to the statewide bucket. >> that's like taking the previous. >> now i'm clear that is making sure that what is specified in the planned area stays in the planned area and still can charge but citywide. >> that's the intent of the supervisor just we said more clarification and that clarifies it that sound good. >> do i hear a second. >> any more deduction. >> commissioner johnson. >> i want to second but i'm a little bit confused on the first recommendations from the planning department about them using the ccu and creating a separate program would that operate program have to come back to the planning commission what commissioner antonini meant in his motion was not the recommendation in the report.

>> i actually defer to the city attorney would that have to come back i'm not sure. >> it depends on deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles through through the chair it really depends on how the new the rice legislation will come back about you have considered the designated childcare unit and considered the proposal by staff to straight it from the inclusionary program it's been before you for example, from the land use commission split the file at ludicrously both could move forward without necessarily coming back to the mraks if no further new concepts were added if, on the other hand, the supervisor introduced a new piece of legislation to tale with the designate childcare unite that legislation will come back to you. >> thank you. yeah, so i kind of had that in my mind i love

this program i love that supervisor yee has focused on family housing i think that we should be going favorite than this how 0 create the physical environment not just residential unit but having unit on ground floor spaces and looking at the planning code and seeing a way to create the involvement to have in the area have places to do that and, however, i'm - the designated childcare unit i think that is needed more work i don't know that i support it being part of the inclusionary program one that it takes away part of thought units generally speaking and two missile multiple discussions about the lottery system and talking about the neighborhood preferences and another preferences i feel there is alexander on to it and part of discussion so i'm looking at

staff and asking that question i want to see this happen but if it means that we're basically push out a potential change to the inclusionary program without further discussion none if i'll support is a creative way to move forward but ways we can normal it into inclusionary housing programs. >> other ways to create this as a way of childcare. >> so staff will be happy to work with supervisor yee on a separate ordinance that dealt with the designated childcare unit we need more time to understand how that program works we'll be happy to do that as a separate piece of legislation. >> supervisor yee any comment or - >> you don't have to comment.

>> no, my preference will be to leave the legislation and be supportive of it ii had this discussion with the mayor months ago the legislation was put out in july and some of the issues we are talking about the - can be resolved at&t administrative level weather whether or not we're taking away units we're saying that those that go into one designated or two they have to be low income and it is just the other kwfks if you're saying you'll do a family childcare

you'll. and we're referring you know one of the affordable units to allow for that up to 3 depending on how big the building is we could also not regardless but if you were to separate it out i would try to pursue it and continue to pursue at the boards level to include this in the legislation he have before you. >> thank you. >> i then i got - i mean i don't want to do this i have a august for a continuance to ask for changes from the inclusionary program arguments how to make it go easier and more acceptable and understandable for everyone i know we're note taking away

units but creating a presence that is specific use not just someone of low income but someone that will run this type of business in this unit and addressing we're saying one of the amendments that supervisor yee made supposing was if it family in that unit was unable to run that business they can't be evicted it will defeat the use of that unit and then two years ago or three years ago later canned run the business i think this need more thought i completely respect supervisor yee's comments wanting to move forward his legislation i don't know if i can support it leaving the commission how uncleaver that works. >> commissioners, i think that was the intent of commissioner antonini's recommendation your recommend recommending 9 board

pull that out as separates legislation remember our making a recommendation to the boards whether you continue it to another date or not they'll move forward as they see fit continuing the whole package didn't wouldn't necessarily change that. >> absolutely we've been much more adamant in the history of providing clarity to the recommendations i think that saying we don't sort it in the current form create a separate program that could have any different types of forms that provide a lot of direction or clarity or help to the supervisors who will be considering supervisor yee's legislation so i don't know. i guess i prefer to have a little bit more thought in the planning commission in terms of what

could be modifications or alternatives to describe the program so supervisors will have more material to chew on versus not having that. >> again, i love the legislation he love where it is going i'm not supportive of it personally but happy. >> so i think staffs recommendation is that we last week the program for the units being designated as a childcare unit we don't want it to be tied to an inclusionary unit the program is fine not inclusionary unit so that's where we're coming from the other spanks in the program wear fine with. >> right of taking it out of the inclusion program opened up other questions the philosophy

interrupt f many confronting have the lower-income families have an opportunity as a type of enterprise would appeal to that segment so as a below grade apartment enties families to take that option we need to think okay. if? the philosophy the people we're trying to run that enterprise that unit but yet we don't think this should fit into the inclusionary program what's the alternative sprefrz if we don't provide thinking around that they'll send is it to the board of supervisors level and have to come up with it. >> that's what i'm thinking. >> commissioner wu.

>> eject so i'm a little bit confused right now so off the staff recommendation it sounds like there is a consensus on staffs 1, 2, 3 but with staffs first recommendation to remove the d cc you from the inclusionary program it doesn't sound that is what the supervisor intends to do this commission can provide that recommendation but ultimately it is recommendation and correct (laughter). >> i'll prefer to move it out today. >> i'll prefer not to continue. >> commissioner richards. >> a couple of questions i see the benefit of kind of hitting

two birds within one stone the questions i look at the percentage of ami for 55 is 36 k for one person plus center have we done an aside test if they make that by themselves line item to that amount of income if an additional child came offer. >> staff has not done that analysis. >> it an important lens to look through. >> thanks for that question we actually thought about that number one not we want lower-income or to do this but the reality when you had a small

business you'll not make a lot of money but over linebackers but the majority of people as you startup a childcare generally - so there are few people they're going to make hundred and $50,000 so that's the reality of what it is and i think when we put this development together look at the reality how they benefit and as mentioned earlier the other they know and that's happening there is a lot of new people getting evicted from in their homes and the percentage of people in childcare they're getting evicted we know people are ran those things so what we're willing to do so we understand that you can qualify when you step into the door before i run a family childcare but find a

childcare you can be over the limit and much over the limit but over the limited and one of the things we stipulated stipulated from the legislation when she's kicked out of running a small business just to be clear one could operate a license family chiropractor in any apartment anywhere and the law protects that in this case weigh saying get an incentive for people to come in and operate and provided a service and the trade off is yes, so the developer saves fees we're asking that we not convert the rental unit into a property for sale so basically, we're allowing them the business to be there

for 10 years that's the trade off. >> the question if i may if i'm a developer and said to you i'll create a bmr units for an ellis act or whatever the preference and create a united for childcare an bmr who would you take two units rather than one and the bmr plus a new bmr for childcare because i'm loud that. >> you can do it why not. >> i'd like to move this forward and have two units created if this is available and voluntarily want to do it under the program. >> i'll look at that. >> i support the recommended amendments that's what i want to see. >> commissioner antonini. >> just a clarification if my motion goes forward then we

would probably if there are changes i assume changes because of the legislation would have to be nuanceed it will come back to look at the nuance version. >> only from the supervisor sdp does an additional legislation otherwise no. >> that's the first thing i said to ask the woman from the mayor's office if you're a happy with the motion or prefer it. >> maria beige i'm very happy with the motion you put forward while i'm we're - we think this is great we think that will be great to support our low income families that can't locate affordable childcare and doing the childcare in the building it is a federal bureau of investigation thing but so many

unanswered questions we need to work out a lot of things before we e feel confront spellings an inclusionary unit we also are uncomfortable with the idea of taking away a unit from the - so we would be thrilled to have a chance to put mind thoughts and figure out how we can make is work. >> thank you very much i agree they're good ideas but the two pieces of legislation have distinct and you know even though they deal with childcare they're two distinction subjects and the increase is pretty much self-explanatory so no real option but the other needs a lot of nuances it sounds like you could 20 take too units out of the stock for the childcare

center and home for the person running it that sounds like it was being proposed. >> that would be detrimental to our stock of. >> and that's not what i was proposing. >> that might not confusing in the legislation so i'm still in supportive of what i proposed i think we had a second. >> i'll second it. >> okay. >> commissioner johnson. >> so he seconded the motion again, i'm super supportive i'm hoping to ask the staff if it does anything or make sense to add the recommendation to actually lift that recommendation that make sense. >> that would when you make a recommendation we bring it to the land use commission and state an record kwhat

recommendation so the 3 peripheries on this committee will mare that and get the information. >> ongoing. >> i'll accept that as part of motion that goes without saying in the motion and. >> i just 80 want to make sure that is not what that says okay. >> we're adjust the planning department recommendation. >> clarify how you - >> you're asking for the inclusionary unit childcare to be split from the file? >> well, not necessarily in my motion i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> yeah. that's probably whatever the mayor's office feels what are the two working with the supervisor and works this into an acceptable form but you know i mean where they split that out that would be advisable splitting the two parts of legislation as opposed to -

>> just to consider them separately. >> yeah. separately but your recommendation is a good one of the one part as opposed to the second part. >> i believe - >> we're the recommendation is to rove that piece from this legislation and consider it separately. >> yes. >> that's the motion and then i - and that was my finding with commissioner johnson is take the opportunity is certainly a good input for future work on that part of motion. >> a it's taking staff's recommendation to future considerably a separate recommendation and . >> just want to reiterate i love that sxooe is puff this this is a fantastic program and sincerely he's 0 spiced me to be more of a voice to create

american people environment for housing and how you lay out the space for larger families and create the i fiscal environment i'll be talking about that. >> on the other hand. >> on the motion tool do you want a recommendation for approval with staff's recommendation for modification clarifying that item one would be split into a new piece of legislation commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson and commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 57 to zero commissioners, that places you under your on item 11 at 2443 plus fillmore an jackson a conditional use authorization.

>> good evening, commissioners wayne planning department staff the item before you a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a change of an party and formula retail use at 2453 and 45 of him street the subject site located within the upper fillmore commercial district the project sponsor blue bottle coffee to merge two businesses and a vacant storefront on of him most recently operated by a formula retail use restaurant d.b.a. as coffee that closed in 2014 blue bottle coffee a rooster with 22 locations wield and identified as formula retail use

the thinking outside the box seeming seeks to resume the formula retail use restaurant that is no longer permitted in the upper fillmore this allows for the expansion of the non-conforming use a reference to the code sections was left out of the draft motion before you but you'll be sorry added to the financial position the exist density is approximately thirty percent of businesses within the district and 29 of the can he recall merrily formula retail use that replaces a former formula retail use no change to the formula retail use businesses the adjacent storefront will not onlyly only

there the formula retail use this planning department has no comment overall the use is appropriate and found to be compatible with the nature of the upper fillmore mcd and will file a vacated that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> any public comment? >> oh, project sponsor please sorry. >> oh, hang on we'll hear from the project sponsor first my apologies. >> if good evening jim council to the coffee thanks for the staff for their support and ask you for to approve the conditional use authorization this is a coffee shop since 1987 they were there since 1998 years

ago but been a coffee shop for a long, long time we want to work to arrange the location their back up and operating and we ask for your support so a representative is here in case you have questions. >> thank you very much. >> okay. now open up for public comment. >> hello my name is sarah johnson i would try to mention this i've invested in property not aware they said its site there for a long time and because of people go in there and you know try to

make a lot of not very good plans i have to pay this so i'm looking at more as market in market street and also that in phil business and try to get any computer and do classes so i'll be very- that establishes health care start i also have the noon classes and degrees and they have told me should some of the things i'm already qualified for so i'm you know looking for more contracts to be you know put into the better the computers the better will be i'm looking

at one $200 to understand some of the things to be stranded out and a radio station and i love them very much their songs they put out is good and i'm sorry i have not been down there i've been trying to recounty from this tumor it is not easy the thing i'm been making it and thank god finally you know succeed in you know my current communications and my progress and i'd like to make it to where those coffee shops you you know businesses on you know staying

and that in this area and you know we have a more progressing we can do you know federal loans and stuff that we need to make this possible and i hope that you understand me a whole lot better than when i was ill having problems with my tumor in my head he won an award for having ththis - >> and good afternoon. i'm paul wormer this location is in my neighborhood

i was involved way back when when out the door wanted to open on bush street and getting the neighborhood associations to come before the planning commission and urge that the restriction on the number of restaurant in the european fillmore b be lifted one of the - the restriction on new restaurants one of the things we wanted though is part of that is an agreement that formula retail use food service would be prohibited from the upper fillmore commercial district that was part of the agreement tully have been before formula retail use was a concept. >> i'm concerned that because a preexisting chain on first name is considered a non-conforming use a formula retail use restaurant oh, we're

replacing the formula retail use routine u restaurant i'm concerned the planning department knows this is took expand the square feet for a formula retail use given we have this band in place if we're going to replace the conforming that didn't expand the area occupied i understand full well actually i didn't see has been given federal and state this is about the time juicy was told they were going to be evicted as well that is though the decade property that became vacant because the proprieties were not interested in staying there i'll ask you oppose and honor the intents no formula retail use ount restaurant in the upper

fillmore we can't do anything about the preexisting change over and over the stores that grew up that like the lounge we have love la lounge as formula retail use non-exist but those spots were non-conforming use and they're related to in the other neighborhoods where formula retail use restaurant have abandon that is a will precedent what can go and where ask you to consider that. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i'm supportive i don't know the logic i know the actually i didn't see was thetu

>> one is replacing the other i've been to juicy news it is located to union street this is also a place in need of that type of store so i'm supportive of this replacement of an existing coffee shop with one that is also formula retail use i mean, i'll move to approve. >> fact check me tully's was the formula retail use coffee before starbuck's but in san francisco tully's four or five locations i understand your point of expanding and growing bigger a news stand there before but a groeshsz across the street and another 1 across the street very well received in a neighborhood area that loves the

model so happy to support and be a second. >> commissioner richards and i guess a question for staff are you aware of the lifting of the number of limited restaurant provided no formula retail use is that a grandfathering that was mentioned. >> i was not present as far as those discussions but the planning code did specifically preclude new limited restaurant from openly in the upper fillmore mcd that is why it as non-conforming use limited restaurant are allowed but the combination of two is not permitted. >> so if there was to open up like a hardware sophomore not allowed. >> i'm sorry. >> if i had a hardware store

and if this is not a tully's and expanding to jason spot we're hearing that. >> yes. section 178 describes the situations where a formula retail use operator can convert from one use to another and allows for formula retail use of the same type to enjoy that non-conforming status with the conditional use authorization so if tully's wanted to be base hardware that's not the same thing. >> i'm generally supportive of that i actually go around the world with my iphone and take a picture of starbuck's bylaw is hardly a starbuck's so i am

generally supportive. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second shall i call the question. >> on the motion with conditions commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner richards commissioner president fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero which will place us in general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> any general public comment? >> seeing none, meeting is adjourned. >> thanks. >> perfectúxrescheduled

meeting we should have had odd for the oversight committee october 15, 2015 i'm yee, the chairman and to my right is supervisor -- we would like to acknowledge the staff at sgtv, jim smith and leo who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. before we get started, colleague, can i get a motion to excuse the supervisor christensen who won't be able to come to this meeting today. >> yes. >> no objection, the motion passes. madam clerk, do you have announcements?

>> yes, please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. complete speaker cards and copies of documents. it should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be for october 27th. board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. madam clerk, can you please call item number 1 and 2 together. >> item number 1 and 2 hearing on the recently published 2014-2015 civil grand jury report, entitled unfinished business: a continuity report on the 2011-2012 report, déjà vu all over again. >> item number 1 and 2 hearing on the recently published 2014-2015 civil grand jury report, entitled unfinished business: a continuity report on the 2011-2012 report, déjà vu all over again. >> thank you. resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2014-2015 civil grand jury report, entitled unfinished business: a continuity report on the 2011-2012 report, déjà vu all over again, and urging the major to cause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through his/her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. >> alegra futandi. sorry about that. would you please come up and present.

>> okay. i'm alegra, a 2014-15 civil grand jury. we would like to thank president yee and breed for holding these hearings. the report is a continuity report on the 2011-12 report. déjà vu all over again. we need a culture shock. most of the work done was done by me and marion, another juror who could not be here today. a continuity report is different from an investigative report. basically jurors review of past investigation to see what progress might have been made in full filling recommendations suggested by, in this case, the 2011-12 jurors and outline what issues might exist. it does not involve a full investigation, although our report ask that a future jury look into city wide technology again. since 2011-12 came out, there have been changes and we

commend the city, county and government for making improvements. as outlined in the report itself, changes have been made in the structure and reporting relationship -- okay -- changes have been made in the structure relationship -- the committee on information technology in the senior leadership of the department of technology including the creation of new offices in the stream lining of the cia review process in more communication among departments in the greatly improved 5-year plan and increased funding for technology. in the completion of the e-mail and data center consolidation, and continuing development of an it management system. city should be commended for these improvements, sometime problems identified in the 2012 report continues to exist. we thank the mayor and others responding to our report for their movement on the restructuring

of the department of technology with more emphasis on day-to-day service. we also thank you for the promise of improvements to emerge people so that the skills and education of city it personnel can be recorded. we hope this skills inventory will go beyond the position that any it employee holds. i'm sure many continue their education or have training and skills in areas that are not utilized daily in their current positions. the skills inventory should reflect this. however, there are still three areas of major concern. one, the disingenerous response the mayor on the network infrastructure has been implemented, and hiring the real funding needs. the city might be funding at a greater rate, but still not fully. as our report indicated for the

network infrastructure alone, 15 to 20 million, more than the 6.9 millions invested according to the mayor. the operative word is fully. an infra sfruk tour -- the infrastructure is vital. at the very least, the true response to our first recommendation should have been needs further analysis or even better, has not been implemented but will be implemented at a future date. two, as a result of the 2011-12 report, an it hiring group was formed. this group came up with a pilot it hiring project for two job classifications. senior and it analyst to decrease hiring times. it was determined if the pilot were successful, it would be rolled out to other positions. jerry was told that preliminary results the pilot would be

available in late march 2015. in spite of getting -- our hope today is that one of the supervisors will ask dhr to give us public report about this pilot project whether it has been expanded to other job classifications, what results have flowed from the project, how it's being evaluated and if the department sees value in it. despite the mayor saying that dhr gives reports about this pilot report, they have not done so since january of 2015. right around the time when the pilot began. this might indicate that its results are probably lacking. three, the jury recommended the establishment of a task force outside dhd to discussion recruiting and hiring its personnel beyond what drh is

doing. in san francisco's competitive it hiring environment, everything should be on the table. using figures obtained from the controller's office, it -- and the department of technology at the of the report had a vacancy rate, 100% higher. the city needs new approaches. our jury sincerely hope our report will move the city towards greater it funding and making it better across all city departments. thank you. >> okay. thank you, ms. fotanadi. right now, is suzanne guard here? would you like to present and then after that, steve. >> i'm with the department of

technology. i'll be presenting initially first. an overview of the accomplishments we've made. >> that's fine. >> thank you. my name is brian, and i'm a deputy director with the city of technology. i would like to thank the grand jury for their interest in the department of technology and their hard work for putting together this record and the board giving us an opportunity to comment on the report. in 2011-12, the grand jury report highlighted major issues that the -- we feel we've made real and meaningful progress since then. since that original report, we've continued to improve city wide coordination on it needs specifically to coit. the city's information on the city's technology. our most recent plan, or ict plan was released this spring and it provides a framework how the city will -- this plan recommends $150 million in city

general fund investments over that same time. as you know, the fiscal year is 2015-16 and 2016-17 approved budget includes $190 million in it investments. of this, $61.3 million is slated to come from the general fund. this represents an important step in improving the it infrastructure. this includes the radio replacement effort and a new city wide financial system, a new property tax data base and the rollout of -- as well as projects that are apart of the city's initiative. the department of technology is collaborating with the department of human resources to review the city's it hiring process. from recruitment of candidates to the on boarding of new hires. for example, this coming monday, the department of technology will welcome an additional recruiter

as suggested by the civil grand jury to work exclusive on it hiring needs. in addition, the it hiring group led by the department of human resources has developed and began in-- approve it hiring city wide and to help departments secure the it talents and skill sets. this hiring group has been and will continue to regularly present updates to coit and the civil service commission. you'll find detailed responses to each the grand jury's findings and recommendations and response submitted in our response submit today the supreme court on september 18th. the department of human resources and the controller's office and the mayor's office is here if you have questions you may have. thank you for this opportunity to comment on these important issues. >>

good afternoon, chair yee. i'm suzanne guard with the department of human resources. i want to thank the civil grand jury for their work on this. we agreed that it's important and it's vital to the cities future to improve our it hiring processes, so that we have a sustainable technological group working for the city going forward. so i'm sure you're aware, we're not the only public agency facing technology hiring challenges. a recent report from the state chief information officers said that a shortage of qualified candidates hampered 66% of states from achieving strategic it initiatives and moving forward with technological goals and that at the executive level in california, 88% of it staff are eligible to retire. so, these statistics in our experiences, san francisco, help us to understand that we

-- we have a comprehensive not just of field positions now, but to create a sustainable pipeline for the city's future needs and to do that against our current back drop of 3.5% unemployment in san francisco proper. we also want to point out that the department of human resources believes in the merit hired system that the city has, so our challenge really is to balance those principals with the city's names and the market factors. mrs. fortunati mentioned a pilot we launched in 2015. we had plans to present the results of that pilot and our strategy moving forward at a meeting scheduled for today, but it conflicted with this hearing, and their be rescheduled in november. we had a goal of testing the effectiveness of an online, on demand examination for

permanent civil service hires con ducked for it business analyst. four departments participated in the pilot over six months, the department of public health, the emergency management -- 8 positions went through this pilot process. the exam was online and on demand, so candidates did not have to down to a testing center. when they qualified, they were sent a link and rated. six hires were made through that process we know of in addition to the hires the department made. the eligible list were boryed by row -- the list was borrowed. >> when was it done? >> in a six-month period. >> you mentioned 8.

>> 8 jobs were announced through the pilot process and 6 people were hired of 8. additional folks may have been hired by departments who borrowed those list, but we don't have that specific data. so the -- one of the goals was to reduce the time from announcing and establishing an eligible list. we were success. the time of playing a job on the website to having an eligible list of candidates that the department could hire from was 32 to 37 days. some of the successes from that pilot, the timeline for creating an eligible list was shortened considerably. the vast majority of the applicants we surveyed after the task found it convenient and easy to use and felt it help them see the city as innovative and forward thinking. they found the process convenient. when you start anything new, an electronic system, there's

glitches at the building, so those who participated at the end were definitely more happy with the process. so where we were not successful is that this exam only addresses one more component which is -- what is a very large and can be lengthy hiring process. so we agree with the civil grand jury that a comprehensive change is needed in the way the city conducts its hiring. there has been a time in -- not too distant past -- where we were overcome by the number of applicants we had for open positions and especially with it hiring, that's not where we are today. we had to move from a process based on what the city needs to a process focused on what the candidate and what the departments need. so what we've been doing is focusing on changes from the way we recruit

candidates to the way we bring them on board and their experience when they be -- become a city employee. what folks are doing that's not the city and county of san francisco. like, what is twitter doing? how are they recruiting folks? we have a coalition, not just of the city, but external partners to help us understand how to update our recruitment and hiring process and redesign our candidate experience, so those coming into the city have a good impression of who we are from the beginning to the end. we're doing some things in this process we've never done before, and one is working hand and hand with a large coalition of city departments. hr, and it to bring everyone together to ensure we're developing a solution that meets everybody's needs. we're planning things like a tech only job website. we're highlighting our value

proposition, all the different cool projects city employees do and all the reasons why someone would want to work for a city. we're designing an enticing situation for candidates. we believe in a year from now when we come back and talk about this again, which is what we would like to do, the landscape will be considerably changed from what it is today, as we're able to implement a new exam, but entirely new process focused on the candidate and enticing them, and interesting them in becoming a city of san francisco employee. i'm happy to take questions you may have. >> you sort of mentioned some improvements that you would like to make by the end -- by a year from now. and i'm just curious, do you have, like, a work plan or -- that shows timelines of things that need to be done next month and three months from now? >> we will. actually in

approximately a week from today, we have a project manager on board. and we are -- we have developed a set of recommendations so there's things we've already done as we've done surveys and focus groups with those candidates hired within the city the last two years and those who dropped out of the process. we've conducted surveys with the hiring department to see what works and what doesn't work in the process. we established five different working groups to look at minimum qualification in salary. our recruitment process, the candidate experience, how we select candidates. and there's one more that is just flying out of my head at this moment, but each of those working groups got together and came up with a series of recommendations that we will be moving forward to implement. so we're doing this in a way we feel is scientific and will be sustainable. so our next project is to take all of those recommendations and weigh them

down. there's a group meeting today right now. who is taking the recommendations and taking them down. the next step prioritize them. what is most important, and what do we have the resource to do? and those are the things we'll do first and foremost. as ms. fortani, all thing are on the table. there's exempt process for hiring. there's a way we can hire expert it folks as a way of contracting in. instead of contracting out, we don't have the capacity to provide within the city. there's a way to contract in those expert services. >> well, i think i'm -- i would be and probably other members of this committee would be interested to look at -- when you do make those final decisions in a week or so. to look at that report. >> absolutely.

>> and maybe a grand jury, members would like to see it too. >> we would be happy to share it. >> it's nice to hear you're going to make progress and it sounds like you are. i'm just curious, if the a-positions are the 6 people hired, just to have a comparison, how many people were we looking for to enter into the it department? >> well, i don't have the total number, but i think a good example is the department of public health. the opening of san francisco general hospital, they have between 80 and 100 new it positions that they need to hire for. so those positions haven't been vacant for a long time, they're new positions coming on board, and we need to hire for those. so in terms of that, there are things we can do in the present moment that help to hire those

folks quickly and get them on board, and there are things we can do in the long run to ensure these changes we make are sustainable. >> okay. thank you. any other questions? i have a question for, i think, this might be for mr. balace. in regards to the funding that's needed to do all this, you mentioned, in the budget, in the next two years, we have a fairly large budget for the it department, but i'm just curious, how much would it cost to implement these things we're talking about because part -- what you mentioned was 100-something million or whatever it was. $61 million. what i didn't get was, what part of that budget would be to

implement new approaches? >> well, so $150 million over the next five years is what's apart of the it plan. we've -- which is a significant amount of money. we have a lot of need. we have a lot of projects that are in need of more money all the time. but that's a significant investment. i don't have the total number of what it would take to do everything that is requested. but the $61.3 million is what we mentioned over the coming two years. and as far as what the short fall is, i don't have that number. but that amount is what we have identified as requiring to meet those initiatives we have described and it's in the report we submitted. is there a specific initiative or project, maybe someone from

our department can provide more - >> i just am interested in the short comings of these projects. what is the budget need to fully implement the things you want to implement? >> i don't have that number. we do a better job now of identifying what are the significant and the essential projects and we're focusing on those, and that's what we've provided in the response here. as far as the -- any other projects that aren't mentioned here and what the short fall is, i don't have that in front of me. >> ms. garner, in regards to the implementation of these ideas you have, is there a price tag attached to it because again, i assume this is going to take funding to do some of this stuff? speaker: absolutely. the question is, is there a budget

attached to those ideas. there will be need to be, so we will be -- i'll give you one example. one of the things that is a recommendation that will come out of this group, i talked about, is we think it would be helpful to have one central team that focused on it recruitment, and helps department stay up with current technology, current terminology, helps departments write mouth watering advertising to get folks interested to coming to work for the city. having a team like that will require resources. >> i appreciate it. when you do that report by a week or so, have those -- >> hopefully we'll be able to put those price tags on them. i do want to say thank you to dt and the recruiting they're bringing on board is a great help for us, and in putting all of these things together, but yeah. so the answer is yeah. we'll be able to put price tags on that and share information in the report. >> i appreciate it. any

questions, supervisor? thank you very much. >> thank you. is there another report? >> no -- yes. any public comments on this item? seeing none. public comment is now closed. i guess what we want to do now is go through the findings and recommendations. so would you call each finding, madam clerk. >> yes. finding number one, the city has not prioritized critical network infrastructure investments as demonstrated by the failure to fund network improvement. >> okay. i'd like to recommend that we disagree with finding holy. and the comments we have is major it infrastructure, projects have been a major

focus for the city. coordinating effort to improve the city's network infrastructure is included ads a priority in the information and the communication technology plan. okay. >> finding number two, significant problems exist within the department of technology, that limit the service it's provides to departments, largely due to the inability to sale job positions and job restraints. >> i recommend we disagree with this holding. the board of supervisor has no jurisdiction over the hiring process that dh and dt has and continue to update. the board through the an maul budget process has made significant investments to the department. >> finding number, the three reorganization three to designate a -- could be a positive step in building dt's credibility. >> we will agree with the

findings. >> finding number four, dt business analyst capabilities to launch new processes to make dt more efficient and more effect. >> we disagree with finding in part. the board of supervisors was able to fund both the new business engagement manager position and the second business analysis. analyst requested by dt -- it. the department of technology. dt. >> finding number five, the skills capability of the people soft system as con figured will not enable department heads to identify city employees with skill set and demand. >> we agree with finding. >> finding number six, the department of human resources, dhr effort through the information technology, it hire -- and stream line it hiring

will not sufficiently impact the it and dt. >> we would disagree with this finding holding. the board of supervisors have no jurisdiction over the hiring process of that dhr and dt. have established and continued to update. >> the final finding or finding number seven, the absence of a way to bring in it services whether at will or service based system puts the city at a great disadvantage and all other risk of technology -- >> the board of supervisor have no jurisdiction over the hiring board. we have established and continue to update. would you like to go onto the recommendation portion? >> okay. chairman yee, i would be happy to go through my

suggested responses to the recommendation. can you please read recommendation one. >> recommendation one, the mayor should pry ore these the network infrastructure and fund the platform. >> this recommendation has been implemented. and our response text is as the mayor response indicates, the 6th network project was highlighted as a high priority into the most recent it plan and funded with $4.3 million in the mayor's fiscal year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 budget, the largest single allegation from koit's allegation. >> recommendation number two, the mayor and the board of supervisors should have a six-month report. >> this will not be implemented. while any

individual supervisor can call a hearing on this topic at any time, the board of supervisors could be predict if or when one may do so. the board president, myself, sits on koit which will receive progress. as the department's response indicates in september, dt began releasing a monthly project status and key performance indicator, a key -- and key performance report for department heads including measures on services at a project level network of time and other yet to be determined matrix. >> recommendation number three, a user satisfaction survey should be sent to all dt clients before the end of 2015 and later in six months. after the reorganization to assess whether the new accountability structure is making a difference for the clients.

>> this has not been implemented but will be in the future. for clarity, will i need to specify a date if that's the case? >> through the chair, supervisor breed, i believe so and the outlining date can be six months from when the report was issued. >> thank you. this is largely beyond the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. dt plans to distribute an initial survey before the end of 2015 with a followup survey by the end of 2015-2016. okay. thank you. recommendation number four, please. >> the office of the controller should develop a skills capability by the end of 2015-16.

speaker: this has not been implemented but will be in the future. as the controllers response indicates, they plan to implement this in the specified timeframe. it's in the controller's audit -- i mean, the controller's response. thank you. recommendation five. >> dhr should present the results of its pilot hiring process to the mayor and the board of supervisors before the end of calendar year 2015. >> has not been implemented, but will be in the future. as the department response indicates, dhr plans to complete this by the end of fiscal year 2015-16. >> recommendation six, dhr should issue a monthly report showing the number of it positions at the beginning of the month. the number of the new it position recommendations

received in the current month, the number of it positions filled in the current month, the number of it positions at the end of the month and the average days to require the it positions closed in the current month. >> okay. this recommendation will not be implemented. implementation of this recommendation is largely beyond the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. any individual supervisor could call a hearing on this topic or request a report at any time, the board of supervisors cannot specifically predict if or when one may do so. more over, reports with this level of gradually and frequently would be excessive for the board's purposes. >> recommendation 7, dt should launch a task force for recruiting it staff at the at-will basic. >> okay. this has been

implemented. as dt's response indicates, this task force was developed in response to the civil grand jury previous report. the board of supervisor thanks the grand jury members for their contributions in improving city it. >> recommendation number 8, the mayor and the board of supervisors should calendar a review of tax proposals within six months of its convening. >> this has been implemented. the task force has and will present to koit. a body on which the board of supervisors and many other city leaders set. >> recommendation nine, dt needs a recruited dedicated exclusively to dt and other it staffing needs. >> will not be implemented. this is beyond the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors, so the board will support dt and its effort and evaluate any possible staffing reports during the annual process.

>> the final recommendation is number 10. dt need to hire business -- new reorganization and new initiative. >> this has been implemented. this is largely beyond the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors, but as the department response indicated, there's an engagement process as apart of this pre-organization working on these efforts and have funding for additional staff to do so. and so that's the final recommendation, and with that, chairman yee, i propose that as our official response from the board of supervisors. speaker: thank you very much, supervisor breed. first of all, can we have a motion to file number one. >> because the recommendations three, four, and five has an implementation to be in the future, it will be need to be continues. >> i make a motion to continue

item number 1 to the call of the chair. >> no objection, motion passes. now, can we have a motion to forward this item number 2 as amended to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. >> so moved. >> okay. with no objection. the motion passes. >> before -- oh. >> go ahead. >> before we move to our next item, i want to thank the members of the civil grand jury for the work that was put into preparing this report, and thank you alegra for your work on this as well. i know you've served on the civil grand jury in the past, so we really appreciate your commitment to working on these reports and working to make the city better. thank you. >> i also dido that. this one has been a very interesting one in which we all know that we can mast vast improvements to our system when it comes to the it, so thank you very much, and thank you very much for others

that have also contributed to this report. okay. so, madam clerk, can we have item number 3. >> hearing on the recently published 2014-2015 civil grand jury report, entitled "san francisco fire department, what does the future hold? >> okay. so, the person for a grand jury for this report is janice. i guess also -- go ahead. >> supervisor yee and supervisor bree. i'm janice petty, for the person of the 2014-15 grand jury, and i was on the -- another grand juror is going to present the report to you. >> thank you very much. >> i'm jack tumey. i'm pleased

to be here. the most recent investigation of the san francisco fire department by the san francisco civil grand jury was way back in 2004. we focused on the 1990 emerger of an emergency services from department of public health and to the -- i saw -- it solved problems with poor emergency responds with local 798 with a complex as well as harassment towards emt's and with 24-hour shifts for emt's. in the years, we've seen dispatch -- shifting from the static mode of being stationed at fire houses to the dynamic mode of being home -- and they moved to be disbursed across the city. also, emt's have returns to

12-hour shifts. newspaper reports in 2014, again, reported on poor fd emergency response times, and in september of 2014, the local 798 issued a letter to the mayor stating that local -- total lack of interest of confidence in the current ssfd administration. boelth of these stories peaked our interest when they did an investigation into the fire department. during our initial look, we toured the training facility of treasure island and we were impressed with the state of the facility. firefighters train in-house and it has been set afire with propane. yet the house does not burn down and it's available next week for further training. firefighters are move over broken ground in full gear carrying hoses. the capability for a live training

on a bart vehicle is -- we found out this wonderful facility is all going away within a few years because ti is devoted to housing and businesses and parkland. there's no room for a fire training facility. yet the existing sewerage facility is staying. during our investigation, the jury again find a major problem in fd which is not responding to emergency and medical emergencies fast enough. the department has -- recently received new ambulances and must rely on some ambulances more than ten years old. there was slow response times in the southern half of the city and recommended that ambulances in those areas go back to their allegation. sffd responded to recommendation with a plan to allocate fire house in these

houses -- ambulances to return to evans street during their street to replenish supplies. this just might work. not responding first -- which is ten minutes for code three emergencies and 20 minutes for code two. the aspect of not responded often enough refers to not fulfilling the 80% mandate the exclusive operating area agreement. not fulfilling the eoa agreement means loss of funds to sffd and that private analyst get more than the 20 to which they're entitled. the jury found a lack of strategic planning at sffd. the department said that this is due to the economic turn down in 2008 when they laid off their strategic planner in order to keep one more firefighter on the job. the

department's response to recommendation are 1.5 list its effort being taken in regard to this strategic planning. the areas in dire need is -- they keep the facility there. the mayor appoints members of the board of directors of tita, the treasure island development authority and it has approval from the board of supervisors. without ti, the city has to get on with finding another area in the city that can accept the propane storage tank necessarily for the [inaudible]. this will not be cheap or easy, and sffd must not [inaudible]. another strategic planning is the maintenance of fire engines and fire houses. what we have now is deferred maintenance. the

deferred bill is already high and getting higher. thank you. >> thank you very much. any questions? let me have fire chief hazewhite and her crew to come up here. and then also owe goe ahead -- go ahead. >> hazewhite, the fire department. i wanted talk about our fire president andre evans and fire commissioner mike and he custody parted due to another appointment and that's fire commissioner stephen. we also have present, mr. bob beck from treasure island department authority. there were two areas where tita had to respond. we appreciate

them being here. i have 8 slides. you have our -- it itemized -- before i get started on the presentation, and i know three are here today, the members of the civil grand jury. i'm impressed by the participating nature of our community members, and they volunteered for this assignment and spent hours working with members of my staff to get a better understanding of our department operation and we appreciate the work that they did. so, first slide, and i want to acknowledge the members of my staff here. mark is going to help me with the slide show. so department representative met a number of times with the civil grand jury and explored and discuss a number of topics. at the end of the day, there were two areas that the grand jury focused their report on. the

first was the ems response and the second was the status of the department's training facility on treasure island. so the following slides will address those two topics. related to ems, issues highlighted in the report as you know, our city has seen growth over the past few years that increases the demand for services. with both day and night services -- the result has been increased calls on the medical services side. the city's ambulance resources both san francisco fire department and private partners unfortunately have not been able to keep up with the demand and that resulted in response issues in the fall of last year. as a result, a city wide work group performed pulling partners and stakeholders from our department, the department of emergency management, the mayor's office, the controller's office, board of supervisors, president breed

was at those meetings, labor and doing an analysis of the systems and makes recommendations on the improvement. there was an investment made in the department which the economy restored here in our city and it has supplied much needed resources to address some of the issues. the next slide, we bulleted it out some of the new initiatives that we've taken and resources added since just a year ago. and i'll review these briefly. we do have an academy of 42 members, emt, join the san francisco fire department, so they provided additional staffing. they came in april and graduated in may of this year. we saw the delivery of 19 new ambulances in service. proud to report related to ambulances we have another 9 coming this fiscal year. 5 were awarded through a grant. 2 were privately donated by a couple from the community. and 2 are in our

budget. so with the delivery of those the added to the 19, we will have more than 50% of our ambulances with less than 3 years of service which we're delighted to present to you. we also just recently shifted to a 42-hour workweek for the ambulance tier. and it allows for greater coverage that the previous schedule did not, and we just embarked on september 26th. we also are working on an enhanced supervision model at station 49. we received -- greater level of supervision on a greater basis. joining today, i asked dr. clenan who is our director, he's also he's practicing emergency -- he has a very thorough understanding of the challenges we face here in the city, and he has spear

headed the restoration of version 2 of what used to be called the home team. the homeless outreach medical evaluation team. we've repurposed it and it has been funded to have two captains that will work full time responding to the frequent users of this system. if we see a pattern by a certain person, instead of having our resources rushed to that scene, wore going to have a proactive resource. we're in the process of recruiting for those positions at this time. they were recently funded as of october. we think that will have a direct impact on appropriate resources for these frequent users of this system. dp nurses, i believe, as you may know, we have a heavy call volume to one address, 101 pulk street which is a drop in

shelter. responders were responded 80 or 90 times a month, and in working in conjunction with the department of public health, we asked for medical expertise, so the dhp replaced a nurse at that city. the calls have dropped by 50% by month, because we have a higher level of expertise to say does this person that i'm evaluating need 911 services or do they need another service. we believe that's a great i will -- a great illustration that we've embarked on. we're in the process, as was addressed by the civil grand jury, as opposed to having just station 49 at 14 evans, 15 avenue znswer b, the equipment

crash house is getting -- and we also continue, as apart of the work group to have the sub-committees in terms of the ems, ambulance provider group members. in the last year and a half, we have become much more closely aligned and the lines of communication are good. they're improved with our private partners and king american. and so they continue to meet on a monthly basis. our department and the private providers. we've close with department of emergency management of tracking data and that working group continues as we refine and analyze our data. we're working closely with dt on it upgrades, and we're delighted that under the direction of deputy chief cambardi working on the ems facility, a grand new facility

that we envision being placed on the 2016 health fund to the tune of $45 million. it will replace the station 49 facility which was always envisioned to be a temporary facility. we've grown and we've managed to make it a facility that will continue to accommodate the great work that our members do. we really need a brand new facility and we envision incorporating ems in into -- what we've locked down is a location behind our station 9 on jerald avenue. and we can answer more questions about that if you have any specifics. the next slide is a graphic. as you can see from the chart, this is included in the department's response in your packet. emergency or code 3 life-threatening response times has decreased given these additional resources that i talked about. and initiatives put in place or in the process

of being implemented. response times and assistance performance improved over the summer even after the publishing of the civil grand jury report. it's not to say that the work doesn't continue. we need to continue to improve. we're constantly monitoring the system and analyzing areas of improvements or pending issues that may arrive. we've experienced increases over the last 12 months in light of these improvements so our impact on staffing is being monitored closely. we did want to put in a slide about strategic planning although it focuses on the straining facility. the department has been lacking in administrative and planning resources. we have regularly, since we lost that position, nearly a decade ago have advocated for that, and i know

chair yee, you and i have spoken about the response of strategic planning and i know it's a priority for president breed. this year, we had to fight tooth and nail to keep those positions in. we have new positions which we're in the process of filling, and in addition, we want to incorporate sort of all these separate documents into one large comprehensive document that we'll plan. i would like to acknowledge evans for helping spearhead a strategic planning committee which is comprised of various committee members, that we've met three or four times and talked about the initiatives and five topics we've been talking about. and it's surrounded by the people and the policies and the preparedness of our department. that's forth coming. our goal is to initial a plan some time

in the spring during the fiscal year. the following two slides, address our treasure island training facility. when i was a direct of training from 2000 to 2004, we had just inherited from the navy when the navy decommissioned that facility, we inherited and i can say from personal experience, that facility is worth its weight in gold. we operate an extensive goal on treasure island where we conduct a variety of training including recruit training and regional trainings and exercise. we do have a training facility here at 19th and fulsome. the experience gained from this facility is unmatched. we do have a live burn facility. we've basically replicated an underground muni and bart situation, electrical, water emergencies, you name it,

that facility has it. and we feel that it has definitely assisted us -- i'm a big believer in training. training is the success of any organization, but it takes on a greater meaning when you're talking about saving lives and property. so we have been good partners with mr. beck and his staff. as you know, we have a state fire station over there. we're responsibility for taking lives and property on treasure island. the treasure island plan, the department is anticipating to vacate that facility in later phases of that development. we need to replicate this facility. candidly, it will be difficult because of possibly noise as well as the requirements of

having a live burn facility. i know there's plans and i'm respectful of plans and housing, but speaking with my fire chief's hat on, i would like engage in revisiting this issue. and we are cold heartily behind it and appreciate the objective recommendation from the civil grand jury that this is a facility that is second to none. i believe there's only two -- this is the only one i believe in northern california. we have ideas that we'd like to enhance, but because of this blooming 7-year deadline, we haven't done so. we believe we could continue to use this facility. it would have revenue generating capabilities if we open more of the regional asset. i would like to throw that -- i know our fire commission is of that same opinion. we would love to have a further conversation about the possibility of keeping that

facility, and i understand it would be potentially enough -- i know there's parkland that's expected to be in that area, but -- and i get it, i'm a mother. outdoor space is important, but this is, i think, where we need to be prepared for a man made disaster. you can't get the type of training that we're able to put on treasure island facility. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> we need to take a real quick 10-minute break right now. and we'll have a

>> let's, i guess, the recess is over. thank you chief for your presentation. are there others that will be presenting? >> not at this time, but i may call on them for specific questions. >> okay. at this time, supervisor breed, do you have questions? >> yes, i was hoping that the treasure island development authority would provide a presentation based on their response regarding the facility. >> thank you, chairman yee, director -- supervisor. i don't have a presentation for you today, but i can certainly speak to the response that was

provided as was mentioned in the response. the fire training facility was not included in the future land use plan. i'm still reviewing some of our historical documents, our files to see if i can find a more extensive analysis of some of the thinking that went into the conclusions to not include it in the land use plan for the future of treasure island. we certainly -- i have a long history in my career of working with the san francisco fire department, and understand the important role that the fire training facility plays in the department's programs, and i look forward to working with them and the department of real-estate as appropriate to evaluate potential future sites for the fire training facility or for its potential continued presence on treasure island.

if the continued use of the navy facility has been viewed largely as an interim use, since the base was closed, and so moving forward, we would need to do a full environmental analysis for either continued operation of an existing or rehabilitated facility or a new facility on treasure island and recommend that be treated as a distinct project rather than reevaluating our program. but understand the role that the facility plays and the need for such a facility and we look forward to working with the fire department and the city to do that evaluation. >> so there anything in the agreement with the navy that prohibits tita from allowing the training facility to remain at its current location? >> there's nothing in the agreement with the navy that

would prohibit the facility from continuing, but the adopted development plan for treasure island and the land use for treasure island did not anticipate the fire training facility and so its continued operation as a permanent facility and function would need to undergo environmental evaluation. >> and it would be something that the tita board would need to approve, not necessarily anything else? >> it would need to be approved by the tita board and it would need to be approved by the board of supervisor and we need to evaluate it. >> we could run into some challenges with that.

>> yeah, there are certainly a number of complex issues that we need to -- would need to be evaluated that would be you know, potentially significant hurtles to continue operations on they land in a permanent function. >> i don't recall in the initial discussions the -- i vaguely recall the fire training facility being considered more long term, so i guess i'm just trying to understand what happened that took it out of the mix as more of a permanent location. i know for example, the brig and the police academy and other discussions around other city department zs -- and those were moved out of the fix, but i wasn't under the impression --

the fire training academy was supposed to be considered long term. >> that's apart of the area i'm still investigating. you know the treasure island department program underwent a lengthy planning process between the time that the base was identified for closure and ultimately closed in the time that the land use -- the dir and the land use plan was adopted in 2011. and were in that timeline the decision -- and where in that timeline it wasn't including the timeline -- and the basis of that decision is something i'm researching. >> i would say things change. it has been going on for many, many years, trying to move treasure island forward in a certain direction, developing housing and parkland, and in the meantime, i know there's a

lot of empty spaces and spaces that can and can't be used, but i'm very familiar with the fire training academy, and this is one of those particular spaces that i think is being used well and serves the city well. i think when things like this happen and things change, we ought to adjust to those changes, and so i would definitely like for tita to really do whatever it can to try and keep the training facility at this location permanently. if that's a possibility to work on a level of agreement that could lead to that. it's important for our city. our city is growing, and i'm not suggesting that treasure island to bear the blunt of this growth, but treasure island is apart of the city. tita is apart of the city and sometimes decisions need to be made to make

adjustments when we need space for a purpose of this nature, which is a real public safety issue, so i would strongly suggest that we really explore this and try to come up with something a lot more permanent so we don't find ourselves in the situation where the development is happening and we're out luck and facility closes down and we're trying to figure out what we're going to do. this could impact the quality of life, not just residents all over the city, but those residents who live on treasure island because we need a place like this to train our work force. we're growing and we're going to be hiring more firefighter and we need the space to train them and this is an important part of that. i'm hopeful that could be taken into consideration with the tita board and i'm hopeful the mayor's office is heavily involved in this as well in

trying to get us moving in the right direction. >> yeah. well, we certainly, you know, this is a very good time for us to be having this conversation. we're beginning the development effort now. and we have about 7 years or potentially more before the existing site would be affected by development. so we do have a window of opportunity here to evaluate whether continued presence on treasure island is viable, and if not, what i'll alternative locations might be, and where we might be able to secure a site that we'll be able to support such a facility. it is a -- we look forward to working with the fire department and the city, the department of real-estate and the planning department on that evaluation effort. >> i can speak for -- i'm only speaking for myself, but as a member of the board, if there

were approvals that were required of me that involved the development and the property and didn't involve a well-thought out plan that would allow for permanent location department, i'm not certain i would be supportive of that plan, so i want to put that out there moving forward, so hopefully something can be done. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> yep. >> thank you, mr. becon. >> i concur with supervise breed on this position. i haven't been able to visit the facility itself, but from the feedback i've gotten from rank and file, people that have gone through training, they speak highly of it, and if it's going to help us save lives in the long run, we need to make adjustments so that our firefighters are best prepared, that they could be. so anything you could do to help

that along, i certainly would be very appreciative of that. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comments on this issue? >> i did have some more questions. >> okay. >> do you want to finish them? >> i did have some questions for the chief. thank you for your presentation. i know that -- i mean, i didn't find the report surprising as you probably know, mostly because of the strategic planning part of the report, i've always been concerned about the department, and the fact that the department did not have a strategic plan to deal with staffing, to deal with the equipment, to deal with a number of challenges that the department faces especially when there were really challenging budget times and there had to be cut made and i understand that. i guess, i'd like to understand a little bit more, you know, when the last strategic plan, when and if

there were a strategic plan done for the department, and can you explain a little bit more - i know the civil grand jury report is focused on the fire training facility as well the engines and the houses, but can you explain exactly, you know, what kind of strategic plan you're working on. is it a comprehensive plan or is it more specific to what's in the civil grand jury report? just a little bit more information for the department. >> supervisor yee, chair breed, the goal is comprehensive for a road map for the next three to four five years. we worked on a streej -- we worked on a strategic plan in 2005. there's plenty of plans that exist, but it's putting them into one single document. we've had a hiring plan since 2012. that was in conjunction with the mayor's office. in

the next three fiscal years, we anticipate hiring roughly 375 firefighters and anticipate 200 to 375 retirements. we did a lot of that work, but it doesn't exist in a single document. you've spent time on fire commission, we've had an apparatus plan that has been approved by the staff. our budget reflects that request. the difficult part is that has not been funded to the extent that the plan calls for, so the plan exist, funding has been an issue and that's probably our biggest initiatives coming up, which was not in the grand jury report, but we were making plans for apparatus to make sure we have appropriate apparatus standards. the plan will be comprehensive to address the two components of

the civil grand jury report, ems and training, but also fleet, health and wellness, community outreach, it will be very comprehensive. >> and for the engine -- i mean, for the houses like -- i know there's been bonds that has been passed by the voters, the amount of money that we, say, in the bonds we were using for the fire houses aren't the amount of money we're using for the fire houses. i wanted to know, are there any plans to address long term, some of the challenges with some of the houses? i know that we're -- we're completely doing station 5 and station number 1. a brand new station. we have the new emergency -- the arson unit and others --

speaker: public safety buildings. >> public safety buildings, thank you. we have a number of things that's happening, but we still have a lot of challenges with our fire houses and so our -- do we have, other than that i know the city's capital's plan and information about what we plan to do city wide, is there any plan with the department in terms of the fire houses as apart of the strategic plan, that will be incorporated into the strategic plan in terms of the standard of every facility should make sure that it's a safe environment? particularly, it's a 24/7 facility. we have a work order funding into the department of public health, and we have an hygenist on board. we have been blessed by the bond funding. we would not -- maintenance has been an

issue throughout my 25 plus year career in the station. we've always been, in my opinion, underfunded. we have 50 plus facilities and what it boils down to is less than $100,000 a year. it's more than 25,000 per facility. without these bonds, 2010 and 2014, we would be not in very good shape. we definitely need adequate funding for our facilities. we understand there's going to be -- our strategic plan will make sure we have proper funding for these aging facilities. you referenced station 1 on fulsome, station 4 in mission bay, but most of the facilities are 50, 60, 70-year-old and it's like the hmo philosophy.

the maintenance has been delayed. can you talk a little about response times and where we are now since this report came out? i know we have more ambulances. i know we're hiring more paramedics and we have more paramedic on the street and there's the information regarding pair mets that are -- regarding paramedics at the station. are there 24-hour a day paramedics in the station. if you talk about that? >> we have seen an improvement. a drop in our response times. the problem we were having wasn't getting a fire -- it was the third timeframe, the 10-meantime frame. we have

seen a drop in that due to the investment in staffing as well as apparatus. so we are 87% of the time, we're responding within our timeframe for code 3 emergencies. >> that's less than ten minutes, right. >> ten minutes or less. so the threshold we like to see, which for a number of years, not just last year, to have -- in 90 percentile has been a challenge for us. we continue to be challenged given traf patterns, given the increase in call volume, but we have seen significant improvement since last year of this time. regarding the paramedics, last year, due to staffing, we dropped to 27 fire engines that had als capability. so als means advance life -- there's a

basic life support certified person. $27 fire engines that had als capability. so als means advance life -- there's a basic life support certified person. the vast majority of response by our department can be achieved and treated by a bls training person. it's evaluated to have a paramedic on the engine. we've seen those paramedic engines rise from a 27 to 33 out of 44. at this point -- that is addressed in the civil grand jury report. at this point, we are more than meeting that 7-minute threshold to have an als provider on scene within the 7-minute timeframe. that has never been a problem for us. and we will continue to analyze the all als engine model which i think has a lot of positives to it, and that you have every engine with the same training -- level of training and that's something we're looking at and

we'll probably discuss during the budget season. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. at this time, i'd like to see if there's any public comments on this item. seeing none. public comment is now closed. i do have one more question though. prior to training facilities that you have access to on treasure island, where did we do our training? >> we were training at 19th and fulsome. there's a large training tower there jacent to station 7. when i first came in, we had a limited sort of live burn which the epa would certainly, in this day in age would not allow. we would have a smoulder fire down in a basement at 19th and fulsome. that went away in the mid-90s.

we had discussions way back then under chief demins and chief tabaco and chief -- i worked for all three of them as director of training and we really felt that it was valuable as set for our -- a valuable asset for our members and getting -- >> thank you very much. >> i'm sorry, i forgot to ask, where are we with the eoa and are we in compliance at this time with the eoa. >> the exclusive operating area that you're referring to an 80/20 market share. 80% being from the san francisco fire department and 20% by the two private providers as apart of that operating area. we're not

quite at 80%. their most recent statistic is 85%. >> i know when we were experiencing the height of our crisis, that the private ambulance companies were helping the city out which i figured may create a challenge in terms of the eoa, but most important, we wanted to make sure there were ambulances out there on the street, and so -- we're working with the private companies a lot more than we have before, but what do you think -- what would you attribute the change, the increase in our commitment to the eoa too? i would say definitely the infusion of

additional staffing we hired in april and one of the things i didn't indicate, but it segways into your question, we did something -- just last weekend, we debuted a model so if we have a surge period of time in the city or we have a discretionary leave, we have trained fire department individuals who come in. a -- >> are they making overtime? is it a per diem difference than overtime? >> i'm going to ask mark to talk about that. i might ask dr. ya to speak about the era.

we're going to address -- >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon, it's a per diem employee. it's not overtime. this is for employees that are not regularly employed by the department or employed elsewhere and come work on a part-time basis with the department. >> got it. that's creative. >> thank you, supervisors. i was asked by the chief to mention something about the eoa compliance. a lot is true. we don't meet our goals in terms of market shares. the state has recognized that the important thing is we're providing the services to our citizens. we want to jeopardize that in sake of meeting a number. externally and internally, there's pressure on making sure the processes are in place so we can meet them. that is that we

have the infusion of both measures that will make our facility more efficient and allowing more staff to get to 80/20. it's recognized by the state as well as by all of our eternal partners, the privates that we want to get to the 80/20, although it will take time. >> great, thank you. >> did i close public comments yet? i haven't. >> thank you. >> thank you, public comment is now closed. first of all, i would like to thank petty and jack for being here and presenting and for the grand jury that has worked on this issue. you know, this is a very important issue. we want to keep our city as safe as possible. and as much as we

might have non about these issues in the past, it's helpful sometime to highlight and say we need to get some things done. to me, it's not just the fire department by themselves getting it done, but it would take all us to support the fire department whether it's from the budget process or the mayor saying, let's go hire some more folks to fill in the vacancy. let's get what we need. i know this has been an important issue for supervisor breed and for myself. i'm ready to continue to support the efforts of the fire department to get us to -- it seems like we're moving in right direction. so would you like to make anymore comments?

>> yes, thank you to the members of the civil grand juries for investigating issues. i know over the past, i guess, year or so, i was really highlighting this issue because of the challenges that many of my residents faced in our district with ambulance response times and i must say that the investment has definitely made a difference, although there is still a lot more work that needs to be done to get us to where we need to be as a city with the department overall. the fact that the board of supervisors and the mayor have invested a significant dollar amount, over $30 million, additional funding to hire more firefighters -- to hire more paramedic and to try and support the department in a significant way is really

commendable. i do think that we definitely need a strategic plan. we definitely need to understand exactly where we are in the department, where we are in the equipment, with our engines, with our facilities, with our employees. more so because when i first started serving on the commission, i recall there were one year there were over 70 people or 80 people that retired in that one year, and i thought to myself, okay, if we're not bringing on 80 people to replace those people, number one, what are we -- how are we filling those positions, but more importantly, that's a lot of institutional knowledge that's walking out the door. the city needs to do a better job to make sure we don't wait 10 years before we have a class or

waiting 10 years to replace equipment or waiting 10 years before we develop a strategic plan. we have to think long term so we can make sure as we approve this development, as we add over the past -- i guess since 1991, over 100,000 residents, and we're expected to have another 100,000 over the next ten years. we have to keep an eye over the departments. it's really important and i appreciate the work that has been done by the civil grand jury to shed a light on this and i appreciate the department on improving the issues that has been in the department. and lastly, i want to say i do think it's important that, you know, and

just for clarity sake, treasure island authority is apart of the city. the members of the commission are appointed by the mayor, approved by the board of supervisors and there's a process here. i understand there are a lot of, sometimes red tape or legal issues that tie us to certain agreements, but the fact that there has been no leadership to address making sure that this particular training facility would somehow apart of treasure island's long-term plan. i'm not certain how this ball got dropped and i do think that we need to look at this issue very seriously and try and figure out something a lot more permanent because this is about public safety, and treasure island is apart of san francisco, and we hold the

authority on what happens with treasure island and we need to be a lot more aggressive when making sure that a facility like this, that provides this level of training for people who are protecting our lives every single day is definitely the least we can do, is make sure they have a state of our facility to train at. and so this is really important to me and i'm hoping that this sounds of alarm for that particular piece of well. thank you to everyone who is here. thank you to the commissioners i see in the audiences and other members of the department. and i look forward to, hopefully, you know, as time progresses, you know, an even more significant change in the department. thank you. >> so can we have a motion to file item number 3. >> yes. so moved. >> no objection, the motion

passes. madam clerk. thank you very much, madam clerk. before we entertain a motion to convene in closed session. can you call item 4-6. >> item number 4-6 authorizes for approving settlements against the city and county of san francisco. >> before we entertain a motion to go to closed session, is there a member from the public that wishes to speak on items 4-6? >> just for con -- confirmation number 3, was it to call or call to the chair? >> file. >> thank you. >> okay. so can i have a motion -- i see no public comments. public comment is closed. could i have a motion to convene in closed session. speaker: so moved. >> motion passes.

>> deputy, the committee voted by a vote 2-0 to forward 4, 5 and 6 with positive recommendation. >> supervisor, can i have a motion to not disclose what happened in closed session? >> so moved. >> no objection. motion passes. madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda. >> no further business. >> if there's nothing further, the meeting is now adjourned. thank you very much. úx for the

allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> president lofts i would like

it call roll. >> please do >> commissioner prosedant loftus here. commissioner termman is excused. commissioner marshall, commissioner dejesus, present. commissioner [inaudible] commissioner hwang [inaudible] president loftus you have a quarm. also with us tonight is cheer gregory suhr and joyce hicks >> good eerfckening and welcome to the october 14 police commission meeting to everyone who is here to so many faces here and everyone watching at home, welcome. >> item 1, general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on toonts agenda but within the subject matter. people shall address the remarks to the commission

as whole. under police commission rule order [inaudible] commission are require today respond to questions present bide the public but my provide a brief response. refrain from entering in debates. please limit your comment to 3 minutes. >> any general public comment?

no problem. good evening mrs. brown, welcome >> my name is paul etbrown and here once again concerning my son [inaudible] i look a little wild today but that is what happens when you are grieving and going through things. you don't want to spruce up, but i'm concerning my son obru[inaudible] murdered august 14, 2006 [inaudible] to this day still no [inaudible]

perpetrators or closure for myself. i just want to congratulate london breed and cohen but the 250 thousand dollar reward even though i have mine already. i am i-it is a victory for me the other mother jz fathers will get this also. i want to say even though we have this, i had this for 9 year jz still no one has come forth and think if we have this this needs to be-we have no venue. we need to be in the public face daily. [inaudible] dmv, moter vehicles so the perpetrators can see their victim because if they don't see it no one will come forth. all these other young men are homicide victim cases not solved and as a brought up last time before

they have the names. these names on are my sons case. thomas hannble [inaudible] anthony carter, [inaudible] they are still walking the street to kill again. [inaudible] is getting out next year, in august. he supposedly killed my son so he is getting out. what will happen with that? i say that because this is what he left me with. this is what he left me with. this is what all those names left me with. i'm not ashamed to bring this up, i need to. i need had perpetrators off the street. we need a venue for childrens picture. give us a memorial and put the childrens names up so some the mother cz feel

better than they do. this is what they see in their minds every day, what i look at. >> thank you mrs. brown >> we do need a venue for our children. please consider that. consider that for our children. they have the police commission put my sons pictures on the bus a while ago, how come that can't happen again? can i use the overhead one more time before my minutes run out? by the police association, the san francisco police association put that on the bus again, can that happen again >> if anyone has information [inaudible] 415-575-444. 4. >> i could go new and boston

but i'm here in san francisco. we have 2 cases pending right now. right now. one is aclu lawsuit of 14 or 15 year old black male was pulled out of his car, thrown to the pavement by sfpd thmpt kid was in college. you are aware of what i'm talking about. you are aware. we have to deal with mrs. lopez. mr. lopez was cambodian. sfpd said [inaudible] with a knife. somehow according to the corner he died from a gun shot wound to the back. i'm logical. if i come at yoi with a knife i look at you in the face, how do i get a gun shot wound to the back? kind of weird. i

turned around, but if i turn around i'm no longer a threat. i turned around and have my knife and no longer a threat. there were undercover officers in the mission. hum, hum, hum, hum. kind of weird, hu? kind of weird. the young man, the college kid he wasn't driving the car. you guys know the specifics, you do, but how do we handle it? well, we'll handle it. we'll handle it. we'll handle it. we'll write a check and make it all go away but conduct most likely will not change. most likely will not change. sadly but true. i have been around a while. i have seen this happened 40

years ago. today we are fortunate, we will have body cameras and video, all this, but you know sometimes it makes me cry. i'm not stupid. wait a minute, how do you get shot in the back when you are [inaudible] at a cop. i spoke to a cop [inaudible] the whole thing was strange. he was stealing a bike. that is your decision. >> thank you . any further general public comment? >> you see in front of you 85 years old homeless mane. it is only in the united states this fasest

terrorist country with san francisco police with this hitler chief. evict 6 people. 6 people came at 12 o'clock at night. why at night? it is kgb when they didn't want to know and gestapo. they evict san francisco police evicted 85 years old on the street to die. it is interesting, you are sitting here commission and this fascist police-do you know that homeless people not my age only, but homeless people eating from garbage can? drinking

from garbage can to go to toilets they can't and that is quhie they do it in [inaudible] because it is no toilet on the street. [inaudible] i asked the captain of the ship how much cost [inaudible] he said many billions, not millions. many billions for this billions you could make home for 5 million from new york to san francisco and los angeles. terrible country and what terrible mistakes i made

since i went from russia. russia is not good too, but nobody of 85 years they are sent on the street to die. god punished them. >> any further public comment? hearing none public comment is closed. >> item 2 reports and announcement. 2 a chief rereport discussion and

review oaf activities. status update of 6.09 domestic violence [inaudible] emily murase, minouche can del. bevly up ton, katie albright, abigail, stewart kahn. shery ezhuthachan, mollie brown [inaudible] >> if you allow me i would to take number 2 as 1 and go over recent activities. >> that sounds like a great idea >> i would like to invite acting captain eddy santoze the the podium so he can tell a story >> the police commission,

present loftus, chief suhr, members of the command staff and community. as you may be aware october is domestic violence awareness month. the police department and membererize commit today reducing domestic violence and providing service squz resources to the survivors of such tragic events. in a effort to provide the best services possible to domestic violence survivors and family, the saf police department worked collaboratively with memberoffs several key organizations which i'll introduce shortly. in january this year chief suhr assigned me to the special victims units and didn't realize what a big tang i had for me

and was very [inaudible] to accept this position. it was then i began working with domestic violence advocates and city agencies in a effort to develop the best practice and provide service for our providers. in doing so, i have the wonderful opportunity to work with the most committed, drichben and dedicated people one could ask to work with. these are people who care about people and want the best possible outcome for those involved in a unfortunate live changing event. in order to provide the best possible service and practice we have to have knowledge of the service each organization or agency can provide. today i can say we have that knowledge. thoferb last 10 months together we have forged a partnership that has giveren the survivor a voice but a

chance to have their life back. i can't thank enough the people i had the pleasure to work with. they are truly amazing leaders working together for a great cause. at this time it is my honor and plezer to have the opportunity to introduce you to the people that make it happen. with that said, we would like to present it following people with a certificate and recognition of appreciation for the work that they do with the police department and make our practice the best we can be. i would like to start off with- >> if i could read one this goes to liz aguilar tarchi of the district attorneys office. [inaudible] it reads

in recognition of partnership commitment and contsbution to had san francisco police department special victims unit and domestic violence units on behalf the police commission i & san francisco police department you are hereby awarding this certificate of merit and appreciation. it is important that it be noted that commissioner loftus said and they have to be the good certificates. >> not that there are any bad ones. >> never ask a trial attorney not to speak. members of the police commission, president loftus, cheech suhr what a honor to be among this group but i cannot thank enough the work i have done over29 years as a prosecutor with chief suhr, started as

a misdemeanor da. we collaborate and work as a team and rarely have difference squz what i appreciate stemming from chief suhr and captain santose it is never we need to look into that t is what do we need to do to make chairchgs so thank you so much for making the lives of these families lives safer and thank you chief suhr and captain santos. >> sylvia deporto. jackie ortiz from the district attorneys office

victims services. >> thank you >> beverly upton, family violence counsel. >> i just want to thank the department and the community and to be in this group that is recognized tonight. we have done so much over the last decade and have so much more to do. i look forward to a bright future. thank you. >> abgal stewart kahn of the

childrens advocacy center. >> thank you for having us >> doctor emilymer murase. [inaudible] please forgive the dodger blue >> [inaudible] gone 44 month without a single domestic violence homicide until [inaudible] that record would haven't been possible without the leadership of the commission and partnership with the police department and all the advocates mpt just want to thank you very much. we can do it again. we did it once before. minouche candle. >> i want to say how wonderful it is to

be honored with advocates and city department staff. it is a honor to work with the city with such great collaboration, thank you. >> sherry ezhuthachan, childrens advocacy center. >> thank you so much. >> gina castro-rodriguez, victims services. >> thank you very much. >> mollie brown for huckleberry house. katie albright from the childrens abuse prevention center.

>> on behalf the san francisco child abuse prevention sentser and my colleagues that so deeply dedicated to this work i want to thank the commission and police department. someone close to me said child abuse is a crime against the fuch squr humanity and can say the same about family violence but together we can end family violence and i'm so privileged to part with the commission and police department to make this happening. we can do this together so thank you for your deep partnership in continuing this work. >> last but not least our own police commissioner sonia melara.

>> i will date myself a little bit here, but i'm thinking of 1975 when we went to the police department and talked about domestic violence and the police chief said, what is your problem? i looked at him and we looked at each other and we said, what is his problem? now i'm looking at this and thinking, we have come a long way. thank you so much. >> sonia i want to [inaudible] gracious in not saying the name of that chief >> the rest a googling chief in 1975 >> i don't have a certificate but have the upmost respect for

everything captain santos has done through the drop program and the patient the group showed when they [inaudible] hang on to expertise and the work they have done and everything this group has done to make us a better police department. there is no way we get there without everyone behind me and under eddy's leadership. >> the commission wants you to have a group photo. >> did we bring our commission photographer? >> everybody come up to the front with the captain and we'll take a picture. >> i think if we could too maybe we can get the [inaudible] captain

ewins is back there. >> come on captain ewins, you are up. >> are the commissioners in the photo. ? >> commissioner melara, you are

needed as a commissioner. to all

these awardees, so many want to say something to you. >> thank you president loftus and thank you everyone for being here tonight and all the work you have done. 25 years ago i had my first domestic vilnss case and jackie ortiz which in the district attorneys office and rick forman was onef of the first prosecutors and we didn't have the support and different organizations helping back them so this is a great development and for all of you involved in domestic violence cases thank you so much bah we know as prosecutors it is the most dif cut case and commissioner loftus and [inaudible] it has come a long way and the cases i'm sure are still difficult

but have support so thank you for all you have done, it is incredible and appreciate it. >> i just want to thank everybody and the captain, this is great and think what the chief said i want to eco it, you make the department much better with all the expertise and knowledge. i [inaudible] was a class mate of mine in law school. she was a district attorney when i was a public defender so known her a long time and mrs. ortiz know her as well and know everybody else by reputation and proud of everything that you guys have done and thank you so much. >> commissioner hwang, i want to eco that and recognize how fun it is to [inaudible] i remember liz coaching me through one of my last trialwise the sexual assault unit. i work with many

of you and will be with doctor emily on friday so it is a pleasure to honor all you work on a day to day basis doing the front line trauma work and glad you finally got recognition for what you do. >> thank you commissioner and that is a perfect segue to what i wanted to say, i started off the meeting by saying so many familiar faces and people we worked with for so long. what i think is extraordinary about this group is you don't do the group for reward or award or anyone ever saying, thank you you do it because you are trying to make things better for kids and families and it is really hard work and that is quhai it is pornts to recognize what you do and encourage you and honor it is slsh to do what we hope to do which is end family violence and do a better job protecting kids and moms and families. thank you for what you do, thank you for being here after

a long day and keep it up. closer remarks from doctor joe marshall >> i will just say i worked with a lot of young people who live in homes like this so it is bad on adults and really bad on kids. let's hope we can eradicate this and keep on moving. great, thanks. >> so chief did you want to go back to your report now or anything further? >> thank you. moving along with the last sal bruitary we view of events. this weekend-the week and weekend were busy so we were able to

navigate getting president obama in and out on friday and saturday before the air show started on saturday afternoon. as knroi there is restricted air space when air force 1 flies so that was anxious but there were no problems. the columbus day parade went well. thank you commissioner mazzucco. it was as large as officer we have had in some time. a lot of that credit going to [inaudible] who feeling his italian pride he want ed to march with the other italian officers. other things that of a high note, we did graduate cadet class number 4 on std and

have a total of 56 cadets. 45 are assigned to various stations and departments 11 are down at the public safety building. nbc did a feature on jason johnson, theophorouser that is doing such great work at hunters view. he is a reluctant celebty but does great work. on saturday [inaudible] the hall of justice. it is a program designed to [inaudible] human trafficking and member thofz san francisco and oakland chapter of the national black police officer association collected the donations. it was just a great event. our cay 9 unit participated in a event, bark in the park. i didn't

make that up. saturday they did can nane demonstration with military personal elto show how some of the veterans get past ptsd. there was a couple examples in the media, the 3 referred to as drifters that committed a homicide in fairfax in marin county. we noticed all most immediately when we learned of that homicide the similarities to the golden gate park homicide were startling. we reached out immediately to marin county and compared notes and then when the yoga instructor victims veem was founds in oregon.

very good case and that case will be prosecuted in marin county. they did make a apairns today but believe the arraignment is delayed to later in the month. also there was a suicide at the marriot mar key which revealed a sexual assault occurred. it appears we have to wait for the test to come back but believe the suspect that committed the suicide is the suspect in the sexual assault. the victim in very bad shape at the hospital is expected to ser vive. finally we had a fatal bicycle collision along market street. the bicyclist appeared to have gotten the tire stuck in the street car track jz traveling between 2 buses and went under a bus. very sadly but

hope achieve vision zero within-by 2024, this is our 17th ped or bike fatality of the year. i wish i could conclude on [inaudible] >> pedestrian >> and bikes >> 14 pedestrian and 3 bikes >> chief, do you have last years number at this point in the year? >> i do not >> as a comparison point. that is helpful. commissioner mu zuke mazzucco, did you have a question? questions for the chief? i should look at my screen. commissioner hwang >> i ments to ask this question last week but there was a report in the media regarding a allegation of favoritism that academy and

wondering if the department has a response >> the article was more inaccurate than accurate. i do know the recruit they are speaking of. that recruit was not extended in the academy. he had a initial failure and aloud to recycle which is often the case. he was successful in completing the academy and went into the fto program. he was struggling so this is often the case he was not extended and in the article it said 3 months and was allowed to go to a different station. sometimes a change of scenery awards the recruit to be successful and he was not successful and no longwer the police department. >> doctor marshall >> i just want to say and to the

commission that officer jason [inaudible] was excellent. it is a great piece. i have it and if you want me to snd to you so you can see it i recommend everybody see it. he is just a great example of-if you want to use the term community policing and see a human being do it, it is jj. [inaudible] he makes everybodys job a lot easier. >> chief i have one question it was about the neighbor concerns on hate rr straight hate street for the youth of meth >> there was has been community complaint about hate rr straight for the first 4 blocks of h hate

street. captain [inaudible] that you they bought meth, extusy, pills marijuana. we are tracking those cases through the da's office and additionally he put more foot paroles in the neighborhood and we are supporting him with more [inaudible] as more versatile and able to get around tool. it is important to note that when it was-somebody may have mentioned i don't know if through next door or neighborhoods conversations that the suspects spent time in buena vista park and it upset the neighbors further. there was a meetest last night, breed and san ford took the meeting and a lot of the energy

in the meeting everybody thought it went well and we'll be helping with additional resources in that area until we get it to where the neighborhood believes it should be. >> great. great if you can keep us posted on that. any other questions for the chief? okay. chief do you have the next item on the status update on 6.09? welcome back up captain santos >> talking about the department [inaudible] 6.09 domestic violence. the way i see it from my position it is working. i think it is very well constructed and like to give you a idea of why i believe this order is working. we first start by looking at

the training that is given in regards to 6.09. at the academy the department provides 14 houroffs domestic violence instructions to new recruit officers. our peace officer [inaudible] requires that the department gets 12 vlt you can see by the 2 extra hours these recruit officers are getting additional and more valuable training than the required 12 hours by post. those 14 hours of instruction include the department general order 6.08, 7.04, children of [inaudible] parents and 5.20, english proficiency as well they get present would the post [inaudible] domain and a video presentation. >> captain santos can i stop you a second? we are hear hearing

about 6.09. we adopted it last year. there was questions about what the implications might be and changes to the way domestic violence is investigated and cros referlthism commission asked for the department to work with community partner jz who are here and working oen this to look at some of the way that the [inaudible] is rolling out. nrfgz information we have now and what we are looking to. we asked captain to report on the progress. captain sorry i didn't give the proper introduction >> looking at the implementation of department 6.09 we look to see how it is impacted the future based on the past. we looked at the referls to the family childrens services for 20s 13.

there were 254 referrals and of those 17 children were removed from their homes, 6 were removed in respect to domestic violence. in 2014 there were 387 children referred to the family child services, of those, 34 remember removed and 17 were related to domestic violence. in 2015, we had 364 referrals. of that 16 children had been removed and 7 had been removed as a result of domestic violence. from the members that i have seen presented i think we are consistent. i don't see a spike in the numbers that have been reported. i think as a result our officers are really doing a

tremendous job making referrals appropriately in the situations they are placed in. i think we have done well. now, as far as a breakdown of the race of the children that have been removed, i don't have that available. i reached out to the family children services and sieveia deporto the director of family children serviceicize out of town but we have been in e-mail communication and she'll look into that as soon as she gets back. as well we also looked at the family children service card we want to give to all the officers. there were 4 questions that the advocates have concerns about. language that needed to be

addressed. we reached out to family children services and that will be coming shortly. i had a conversation with director deporto and assured we'll get this taken care of as soon as she gets back. >> are you referring to in the last piece the referral card officers will give to for example, a mother when the police officer made a determination to call family and child services because there were the various factors felony and arrest and other things present, a weapon and gun in the home, all the factors in the dgo, that is the card given to the woman or parent and let them know what to expect? >> that is correct. it helps guide them through the process so they can work through a difficult situation in a way that would make it easier

for them. >> that is right. do you want to talk about the community par tisitation in the creation of that card? >> yes, i [inaudible] have a opportunity to work the advocates [inaudible] was tasked with that responsibility. he represented the special victims unit and worked to make sure the language in the card is currents and represents the best interest of all the advocate squz the services they provide. as well it is a construction of the great tool for the officers to have so they are not in the field wundsering what to do next. now they can give the card to the victim can confidence knowing that they have the opportunity to seek a resource that will help them. >> so the idea behind it is obviously therehas been a domestic

violence arrest and because of the [inaudible] factors now family child services is brought in so it is information for the parent and mother to know exactly what to expect and what resources to avail herself of which is important we have the community partners involved because the whole idea is that a scary moment for the survivor of the domestic violence to think there is another system to interact with. is there anything else you want ed to the share as a update? >> like i said, i can't thank our advocates enough. i can't thank the commission enough for supporting the work that we do. domestic violence is truly a unfortunate incident

and people that have to go through that it is a life changing event and an event nobody wants to go to. it is something children have to grow up trying to understand. now we have the tools to take the children involved in the ensdant including the victims and survivors and helping them toward the future so think it is a great collaborative effort by all and want to say thank you. >> okay. any questions for acting captain santos? did you want to invite-is there anyone in particular who youmented to invite up to speak as a partner to this work? >> would anybody want to come up? >> come on beverly. come on.

>> thank you so much. we were here together a year ago last october and you were so gracious in adopting in looking at officer involved violence and new dgo. i think we still have work to do. i say that when i'm here, but we do. we want to make sure that the cross reporting with cps doesvent a chilling effect on the community and they will still call for help and not have a chilling effect [inaudible] the fear of a system is quite real. but i do think we made a huge difference and meet as much as we can and need to do more and think we'll be in better shape when we fully implement the

[inaudible] questions that minush worked on the department adopted. i don't know if we are training on those yet. the know your rights cards will make this difference. we needed this yesterday so the sooner the better and new training and protocol to implement the djo. in some ways we have done okay but we haven't all our tools in place so we have kind of been flying under the radar for a year so we need to get all those tools that the community and department and commission committed to do. i'm glad the numbers are not terrible but let's get them better. let's have earlier intervention both in the community and with law enforcement so we are not seeing these situations where cps has to step in to a already terrible situation. we have a lot to do and can be proud of what we

have done so far and thank you for your leadership. i also want to thank [inaudible] from asian pacific islander [inaudible] the language for the card and it is a honor to work with you all. >> commissioner hwang. >> in the past year i think i heard anecdotely about cases where the lap protocol wasn't filed and think there was one complaint filed with the occ regarding a incident with a moan lingual victim wasn't interviewed in the course. i wonder if the community or if acting captain santos has seen any of these cases or put that in the con text-have we seen use the

language line [inaudible] is there anything to see if that protocol is working in the cases? >> again, i read a lot of police reports and think 609 is a success. quh you look at the language english proficiency general order we worked very closely with beverly upton and samara marian making sure that the process that we take is smooth. we had some issues that we noticed that we addressed when it comes to reporting. we are using that language access line much much more and i think if mr. marion was here i think she would state the same. we had meetings every month regarding the lap and at that meeting we scr a opportunity to discuss

issues before us and any issues wevent resolved we are working to resolve so the language access line is working and we are move toog get a couple more languages installed so we can better serve a greater portion of the people that reside here in san francisco. >> one thing that is a benefit about the language access group is samara-commissioner melara attends to the extent to a issue comes up where there is a breakdown either deputy chief or someone at the levl attends the meeting so they try to troubleshoot in real time. doctor marshall. >> this is moving outside the scope of the [inaudible] if anybody-in the domestic violence cases that happened in the last year, is it still

overwemingly male on female violence? it hasn't changed? the reason i ask is i hear the card being giver toon the mother. that is probably 95 percent the time. i wonder if that is still pretty much the scenario. >> commissioner marshall to answer your question, yes that is still the trend that occurring now. there hasn't been any significant change so we are still seeing male on female battery. >> thank you. >> other questions from the commission? abigail stewart kahn, welcome >> commissioner president loftus on behalf the child abuse prevention sentser we were here with our colleagues a year ago and want to offer or support for this order.

reporting of domestic violence to xhiled protective services and the continued work with child pective services and police department is good for children and survivors of domestic violence if we do it correctly. it is really important those charged in the city with protecting children and keeping the safety know about those kids and it is equally important we provide the resource tooz the survivor parent so they can say connected to their child and be there with their child. they are their primary protection. what we would love to see more of is continued look of data on this to make sure it isn't having the chilling effect and the cases are managed in children service squz to work with children service squz the police department to understand the deep complexity families

struggling with domestic violence on a daily basis. these are not open and shut cases and the more we can educate officeerse, child protective services the more we can support the children who are the victims and the parents who are also the victims of these crimes so thank you for your leadership around this hoard order and keeping the spotlight here >> the reason i ask that is because we want to eliminate this. what he is talking about the victims, the children who are the victims inch in the this case the women but don't see enough done with the perpetrators that put us in the situation we are talking about. we have to get to them so they don't do it in the first place. [inaudible] i need to know that so i can continue to step up the work in that area because we need to stop them from doing it in the first place >> i think commissioner melara

has thoughts for you doctor marshall >> doctor masher one of the biggest voids that exist in the service is service for men. unfortunately there is nothing that is funded in san francisco or actually in most places the only place that services to men are available are mandated when there is a criminal case a probation department has services but that is about it. in those cases where there is no criminal case involved, there is nothing available and unfortunately that is where we are at and i love to think we can do something. i don't know how, but there is no funding available for men services when it comes to issues of anger management or stopping the violence. >> i do think that often times

as terms of probation bl thereare a number of nationally iward winning programs in san francisco resolve to stop the violence and a number of other violence wuns someone is held accountable and on probation which we know there are so many challenges [inaudible] once we get there are programs. i just want to say we were here a year ago and had a discussion 2 years before that and think this is a good example we don't always agree completely but we will reject the notion that we'll choose between survivors oaf domestic violence and children. we will work together and keep resolving the issues. it is good to see we haven't seen a spike and need to stay vigilant. i appreciate the captain continuing. [inaudible] can help catch things maybe we

forget. what we often say is policing is reacting to things happening but this is a commission that has a continued focus to make sure we see hoy the djo plays out and will continue to look at this and grateful for the partnership because it happens when you don't agree. the fact we are still at the table and talking about these things on behalf of kids and families so thank you to everyone who is here. yes, come on up. >> berry johnson here for [inaudible] i also wanted to thank you for the leadership in thir area and express or continued partnerb with sfpd. we are working on a protocol with captain santos and his lieu tinants and the cac and the child abuse prevention