>> welcome to our land use committee meeting of may 21, 2018. i'm katy tang, to my right, jane kim, to my left supervisor safai and we're joined by supervisor peskin. madame clerk, any announcements before us? >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and

electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clark. items acted upon today will appear on the may 29 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> item number 1 is ordinance amending the planning code to increase the transportation sustainability fee by $5 for projects larger than 99,999 gross feet except in the central south of market area plan. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair and colleagues, and thank you for the chair for scheduling this item and hearing it after the unfortunate scheduling snafu at planning, that was heard by the planning commission, though the 90 days

had lapsed and you're all in receipt of a letter dated friday, may 18, which indicates the unanimous recommendation for this legislation by the planning commission. as a matter of fact if you watch the planning commission hearing, commissioners representing a range of perspectives on the commission actually pushed back on the discussion around whether or not the $2 fee in the central soma should be higher. but we're overall in agreement that the $2 in the central soma plan was probably still too low. but recommended the tsf legislation that is before you today. the new protections put out by the planning department based on what is pepping in the pipeline, shows a significant compromise in the desire. in the desire to accommodate

concerns by the planning staff, even though their own study showed that a $5 increase was not only feasible, but actually a drop in the bucket. we've taken the projected revenue down from 23 million dollars to $12 million with this compromise, but we know that the numbers don't really give us an accurate prediction of the future, which is of course volatile. what is before us is a policy decision that i think we should have made some time ago before for instance, the sales force tower went up and the building that continues to be at a fever pitch throughout the city. today, we have the opportunity to really plan for the future and not make that same mistake again. we have the opportunity to create a transportation fee baseline now that can be

reevaluated later and from time to time, and i think we should redo the feasibility study from 2015, because i think we'll find there are other tiers that can be explored in this current hot market. and the vacancy and rental assumptions made by planning three years ago are out of date. but most importantly the lack of public outcry reinforces what the planning commission knows and said last thursday, these projects are absolutely feasible. that increase to transportation structure benefits these large commercial projects. and again, we heard this two weeks ago, we have a lot of public support, we did not hear any words of opposition. nor did the planning commission and a publicly noticed meeting last thursday, and with that,

colleagues, i commend this piece of legislation to you and i would like to thank all of the supporters we heard from at the last meeting. and hope that we can send this to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. colleagues, which other further comments, questions? all right. and do any of the department staff want to say anything? >> the san francisco planning department, i want to reiterate on may 17, the planning commission voted unanimously to support the proposed increase in the tsf, $2 in central soma and $5 elsewhere. that concludes the presentation, i'm here for questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. at this time, i'll open it up to public comment then for item number 1. >> my demonstration is not only

going to give information pertaining to the topic, but also the 30-day rule where agenda is going to take place pertaining to business and tax of the planning code of south market. in order for that tax code to be put into effect, i want to highlight this information should be taken under consideration. for the year, 2017, there is a total of $873,923,572 of uncollected taxes from twitter and nine other high-tech companies. this came out in 2017. the year before that, there was a total of $1,357,216,777 of uncollected taxes. that's a total of

2,271,171,143,of uncollected taxes. that is proof how the high tech companies are getting preferential treatment and it's putting a bind on all the departments and all the people that are economically disadvantaged and vulnerable and have a combination of mental and physical disabilities in our veterans and homeless people. you're wasting money on shelters when the truth of the matter is, this should be spent on low-income families to stop the homeless problem. safai asks how can you finance the homeless problem? i showed him $2 billion that has been wasted not collected from twitter and five other high tech companies. now it's nine high tech companies that is taking advantage of these tax breaks. these multibillion dollars companies don't need a break, the people that are

economically -- [bell ringing] -- and homeless on the street need a break. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jeremy polak, speaking on my lunch break, thank you for considering this. i would like to echo supervisor peskin's comments. i think in general i urge you to support this, at least as proposed here. it's clear to me that the central soma plan could stomach that $5 increase as well. i commend the planning staff on their work on the fiscal feasibility analysis. i think that's really helpful to have those numbers broken down, but that analysis is only as accurate as the data and assumptions that go into it. and seeing analysis based on $74 per square foot price when we saw facebook leasing part towers and that is over $100 square foot, is such a dramatic

increase, it shows what incredible demand and profitability there are in the large office towers and we know how much transportation and housing impacts those have. and we need to do a better job of capturing that value. that uncertainty in the cost and the assumptions in these analysis is what drives a lot of the problems we have in coming to an agreement on issues like this fee and inclusionary housing fee and i urge you to get more certainty and transparency in the numbers. and i think some way to look at the pro forma of the development projects to get a real idea of what the numbers are would go a long way to building trust in these debates we have. [bell ringing] and i think projects that receive public subsidies, you should look at the pro forma to make sure we're all on the same page in debating the fees they pay. i urge you to support this as

it's written and reconsider this fee along with the jobs housing fee based on the profitability of office space in the current economic climate. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, so we wrote you a letter supporting this fee increase and it's very good and i would repeat supervisor peskin's words that's it's really just a drop in the bucket, much more is necessary. but i would like to think about feasibility. when i see, when you have these fees, what you're doing is reducing the price of the land under any of those projects. and lord knows, that landowners, including myself have had great windfall over the last 40 years in the price of land under the buildings or vacant land. so when you increase the fees, it's not a really big deal as long as the developer has notice and the owner has notice, you

should do them in advance, give everybody notice is going to happen, so they negotiate the price of the land, knowing that these fees are going to be in place. and then the fees can be much higher and we can do a better job. because none of those projects are feasible without transit. they need the transit as much all the people who ride it do. you're doing the right thing. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 1. >> good afternoon, i'm sharon, we're one of the key development sites in central soma. wanted to say we appreciate the board's consideration as well as the planning department analysis on this. we certainly agree that transportation and infrastructure investment in the neighborhood is very important, which is why the planning process over 16 separate planning commission hearings have created a very

comprehensive community benefits package for central soma. $500 million out of the $2 billion anticipated will go toward transportation infrastructure. and we just urge the board to consider that as you move forward into your tsf recommendations as well as the future central soma plans impact fees on your decision today. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public, please come on up. >> matt field, tmg partners, thank you again for your work. i'm a resident and native and appreciate focusing on transit sustainability and acknowledge the $5 and $2 in central soma, we appreciate that in respect to project feasibility. and would echo sharon's comments, in the context when you take the greater central

soma plan, if you can consider all these fees in context, we would greatly appreciate it, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mike russo from kill roy corporation. i wanted to give the message we're in support of transportation in the region. would like to respectfully ask you when you consider central soma to consider the total fee package, including the context of this transportation sustainability fee. if you do adopt it. central soma plan as mentioned already has a very robust fee package. it's been many years in the making and as was also mentioned is generating $500 million for transportation improvements. so we're certainly in agreement that is important funding and

would like to keep that context in mind when the central soma plan comes in front of you, thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: any other comments? seeing no other members of the public who wish to comment, i'm going to close public comment for item 1. supervisor kim, i think you want to speak after public comment. >> supervisor kim: yes, thank you, chair tang, i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing back the transportation sustainable fee for large nonresidential projects. this was a debate when we were -- when supervisor john okay lis reintroduced the iteration of our impact fees and how the large commercial developers pay into the fee, understanding as we create jobs, there is burden on sfmta and we need to make sure we have a transportation system is able to absorb new workers and residents

in our growing city. i just want to say that then i did support a larger increase to our transportation sustainability fee for large nonresidential projects. and support the fee increase outside of the central soma plan area. actually, a few weeks ago, when i talked to supervisor peskin, i asked to hold back the central soma fees as we are currently looking at all the fees as a whole in the central soma plan in late june. however, the planning commission has now heard the central soma plan and has heard the tsf increase and they have recommended the $2 increase for the central soma plan. so understanding that this is now been supported by the planning commission, i'm happy to support this today. we will have an overall conversation on all of the fees as the central soma plan moves forward to the full board through june and the beginning of july. i'm certainly happy to continue

this conversation, but i think given the strong recommendation from the planning commission, i'm ready to support this today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just had a couple of questions for maybe staff? you can come back up. can you just reiterate, i know supervisor peskin was telling us, but how does this generate inside central soma and outside. >> the $2 is about $12 million. let me get that. >> supervisor safai: either one of you is fine, maybe ms. jones from sfmta. >> yeah, the $2 increase in central soma and the $5 elsewhere would generate under our estimates $11.4 million. >> supervisor safai: how much inside of central soma? >> 8.2.

>> and then 3 outside of central soma. >> supervisor safai: is that attached to the actual feasibility. i know the last time the feasibility said it did not compute for central soma. >> the department analysis was that it did not compute, however the planning commission is feeling strong, it probably could. >> supervisor safai: what was some of the reasoning behind that? >> they didn't hear anybody via e-mail, via public testimony -- >> supervisor safai: there was no financial analysis, it was based on the response from the community? >> yeah. >> supervisor safai: is there a component in here that talks about redoing the feasibility. >> supervisor peskin: the answer is yes and i spoke to that in my remarks and planning is intending to do that in the coming year. but i also wanted to hark back to something i said a couple of weeks ago, which is that in our

other incarnation as the san francisco county transportation authority and saying this remembering that the sales tax tanked and that we have the collective responsibility as part of the transportation task force, 2045 endeavor to find $100 million a year. and as i was clear in the last meeting, this $10-12 million would actually come out of whatever instrument we bring forward, hopefully in november, in order to do our collective part. i also wanted to say that -- >> supervisor safai: i had another -- >> supervisor peskin: sure i just want to add one thing. there are six major sites in the central soma. you have representatives from half of them here today who have stated what they've stated for the record.

but i have to say this. which is every single one of these six property owners and developers or companies under contract to buy property, are extremely sophisticated. each and every one of them pay lobbyists and consultants to read our agendas, week in and week out. this tsf is not a secret. in fact, it was written about publicly, you didn't need a lobbyist or someone who reads the board agenda or legislation introduced, it was the subject of a hearing at this committee. it was the subject of a planning commission hearing. and i do want to state, because i'm mildly annoyed by it, that were it not for an unsolicited e-mail communication from a city official who was actually defying what the planning

commission, the oversight body appointed four members by the mayor and three members by the president of the board of supervisors, acted upon last thursday, had that e-mail not gone out on friday, they would not be here. but i am certain that their lobbyists and consultants knew this legislation is pending. so this is a mildly manufactured thing and i had to get that off my chest because the individual who did that knows i'm less than pleased about it. >> supervisor safai: so back to my question, through the chair, it was about the feasibility. and i appreciate that, supervisor, i'm not trying to mine myself that. what i want to -- minimize that. can we put into the legislation that we have a process for the review? >> supervisor peskin: we do. you can see mr. sanchez is

nodding his head. we have that, we are the board of supervisors, we take anything up, simple answer i'm not comfortable inserting that. >> supervisor safai: not for central soma, for the transportation sustainability fee so we can see how this plays out. i'm fine with what you're proposing today, but what i mean is have the opportunity to look at the fee itself and what impact it has on nonresidential overall, so we can have a report back and see how the impact is. >> supervisor tang: if i can jump in, and correct me if i'm wrong, department staff, but the controller's office is supposed to do analysis of the impact fees every five year and the next time they would do it is next year. this feeds into my comments from the last committee meeting, but i would have liked us to be considering increases to any fees, whether in central soma or

elsewhere after the analysis or future analysis would have been done. that would have been my preference. i also shared for about $12 million, you know, it's a small amount, for a lot of the pains they're going through, but i also understand the responsibility that supervisor peskin has and feels with his role as the t.a. and the chair there. in any case -- ok -- those are my thoughts. but to answer your question, the controller office will have analysis on the impact fees next year. >> supervisor safai: on the tsf? >> supervisor tang: these are impact fees in general. maybe the staff can answer that. >> supervisor safai: i was referring to the idea of this new fee that is going be added to nonresidential. and then having the opportunity to come back and look at the feasibility and what impact that

has on incentivizing or disincentivizing. i think it's going to be a positive report based on the passionate feelings of the planning commission. >> supervisor tang: why don't we turn it over to ms. jones? >> yes, sfmta planning director, sarah jones. there is a review of all city-wide fees every five years, but the board of supervisors also included analysis on a three-year cycle of economic feasibility. >> supervisor safai: is that currently in this ordinance or is that company wide policy? >> yes, we've incorporated into our budget supporting the planning department in conducting that feasibility study. >> supervisor safai: if we pass

this today, how much time will pass before we have understanding of the fiscal impact and feasibility of this, three years? >> no. for this upcoming year, the study is going to be undertaken in the next few months. >> supervisor safai: so a year from now, this will be studied? >> within the upcoming year. >> supervisor safai: got it. ok. that sounds good. thank you, madame chair. >> supervisor tang: ok, so hearing that, i could have gone both ways, right? i would have again preferred that regardless if it was a controller analysis of the city-wide impact fees or the tsf feasibility analysis coming up in the upcoming year, i would have loved the increase to be associated with those studies, but you know, i will defer to our district supervisor where much of the impact is, as well as the planning commission that supported it. so it is what it is today. supervisor safai, still

comments? >> supervisor safai: one more through the chair to supervisor peskin, when i heard the comments, i think we talked about this for a second, the idea that there is $500 million in fees that are being generated by central soma. there is a lot of conversation about transportation and overall fees. we're going to be taking that up in the next two months. so the idea of taking this and putting it into the consideration of that and potentially having that -- >> supervisor peskin: why don't we have ms. jones attempt to address that who will be more articulate than i ever will be. >> this is just scratching the surface of the issue, but there is a distinction between what the fees that come off of development projects pay related specifically to an area plan, or to a community benefit district, and what we are able to spend our transportation

sustainability fees on. the money that is levied onto development projects in the context of an area plan, some of it goes to that invisible stuff that nobody really wants to think about or pay for. but most of it does go to something that is clearly tied to and supporting a development project like a complete streets project right there. or you know, transit. or transportation infrastructure that is within the area and enhancing the area and the development projects overall. in contrast, transportation sustainability fee is a funding source that helps us put money into the transportation system in ways that improves it in sort of a more invisible basic kind of way, so for example, you can use transportation

sustainability fee to pay for a new engine for a bus that extends the life of that bus, deals with state of good repair, that kind of thing. so it's not a directly comparable funding source that you can just swap out indiscriminately. so there is a certain value to mta of tsf that doesn't come from the projects. which are also very important improvements as well. >> supervisor safai: i get that. that makes sense. thank you for the explains. through the chair, i would say that in the context of all the fees considered in this larger package coming up at central soma, there is a point by which we cannot go past, otherwise some of the projects become unsustainable. so i it's important to consider that in the larger context since we're to the end of the road on that debate. we want to consider this fee as

part of the larger package that is coming in front of us, but thank you for the distinction, one seems to be more local to the area and one can have impact on the area, but impact in other areas of the city as well. i appreciate that distinction. thank you, madame dam char x. >> supervisor kim: we are currently working with our key site developers and other soma developers and the community on developing a cohesive plan with all of the fees. it's not to discourage what is happening today, but i feel very confident that when we make a final vote, it will be a comprehensive look at everything together. i feel comfortable supporting the $2 fee and it will be known to everyone that transportation

is important. we're not try to prevent development in central soma. we want ta thank to happen. -- we want that to happen. i do feel comfortable moving forward with this today. it's not that we get another bite at the apple, but again, the whole plan is coming before the land use committee on june 25th. >> supervisor tang: thank you. appreciate your comments. with that, colleagues, do we want to have a motion? any further debate? >> supervisor kim: i'll move for recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. any other items today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor tang: thank you, we are adjourned.

[pledge of allegiance] >> president cleaveland: thank you. >> clerk: this is a reminder to silence all electronic devices. fire commission regular meeting, wednesday, may 23, and the time is 4:59. we'll do roll call. item one. [roll call].

>> clerk: item two, general public comment. members of the public may address the dmigs for up to three minute -- commission for up to three minutes on any matter in the commission's jurisdiction. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department personnel. commissioners are not to enter into debate or discussion with the speaker. the lack of a response by commissioners or department personnel does not necessarily constitute agreement with or support of statements made during public comment. >> president cleaveland: is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> clerk: item three. approval of the minutes. discussion and possible action to approve the meeting minutes of may 9, 2018. >> president cleaveland: is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioners, what is your pleasure? >> so moved. >> second. >> president cleaveland: commissioner hardeman made the motion and commissioner covington seconded. all in favor. [ayes]. >> clerk: item four, report from chef of department joanne hayes-white since the fire commission meeting of may 9th, including budget, academies, upcoming events, communication and outreach to other government agencies and the public and report from administration deputy chief, jeanine nicholson, on the administrative divisions, facility status, finance support services, homeland security and training within the department. >> president cleaveland: good evening, chief. >> good evening, president. this is my last report since may

nine. wanted to talk first about the budget. we have continued regularly to discuss the budget items with the mayor's budget office. as you know, mayor mark farrell will be submitted a balanced budget on june 1st and attend the scheduled department meeting on may 31st. i would propose at a meeting next month, the finance director would be able to give an overview, specifically on the budget. i will say i'm remaining on the mist you can about what we had put in for related to our budget. we have had very promising discussion with the mayor's budget office. but i don't want to comment any further just because it's still actively in discussion. but i want to echo and once again acknowledge each of the commissioners for being very supportive of our department as well as the members of the

budget committee who were very helpful in coming up with priorities and being actively vocal regarding our needs. so, things are looking well at this point. i will be going before the budget and finance committee to ret our department on june 15th. and if needed -- remits our department on june 15th -- representing our department on june 15th. they have their own budget and analysisist that takes a -- analyst that take as look at each department. so, we will -- once we get the report that analyzes our budget, i will forward that to you. we will be ready in june to give you an overview of what went

down, if you will, on the june 1st submittal. and there's public comment. this is for the public comment. there's public comment on the budget on june 18th before the budget and finance committee. the 124th class is in their ninth week. two resigned due to injuries. we have 52 members. i would like to acknowledge the great work of the division of p. and i believe h.r. will be sending out a survey, which is what we do after each new list becomes available. so, the list is refreshed. a survey will go out and then we will have a new list from which to consider candidates from. i believe commissioner covington had asked about upcoming retirements. you have something in front of you and i have asked the commission secretary to put up

for the audience an overview, a snapshot of our retirements and separations and i asked for a historical perspective. what i will get and confirm because it is something that i just noticed, i wanted to specifically give you the number -- can i ask sfgov tv to display what is on the screen. thank you. perfect. what you have is a historic bar chart on retirements and separations since fiscal year 22 2010-11. the red bar indicates the uniformed members. the gray, civilian and then the blue on the last bar because it's this year and fiscal year is not quite over indicates that 32 members have requested or put in paperwork to retire. but that is not -- we often see

members change their mind and they can change their mind up to the day until they said they are going to retire. that has happened -- that happens on a pretty regular basis. the one thing that i will get for you because i just found out, it does say retirements and separations. the number includes those that have been released or that have resigned and not reached full retirement age. but the bulk i would say reflect retirements for the most part at least for the uniformed members. and one of the questions i had, even though i was the chief, it's been a few years. we had a high number of civilian separations in '10-'11. and 11 of those 21, i know commissioner nakajo will recall was transferred turnover to the pc. they weren't retirements but transfer over to another

department. so, again, the numbers include res egg ligss and -- resignations and releases. we were 74 in '10. and then we dropped a bit through '11 through '15 and we're picking up again. i think that's something we had always anticipated just because the department did not hire from 1982 until 1987. there was a five-year gap in hiring and it's reflected in as you look at the bar chart. once again we're seeing the climb because there was a large amount of hiring done beginning in 1987. so, fast forward 30 years and people are reaching their retirement age. so, we anticipate in the next two fiscal years similar numbers of retirements. and then between 80 and 100 in the next two fiscal years as we have members reaching retirement

age. as of july 1, 2020, 30 members will have 30 plus years and 191 will be at 55 years of age. so, that's -- thank you. you can take that off now. thus the importance of having our hiring plan, which we began in 2012, under the guidance of this commission as well as mayor lee. and we have been hiring regularly since 2012. we are matching the new hiers with the number of -- hires with the number of retirements and getting back what we lost during the recession year. we are in good shape in terms of our hiring plan and between now and 2020, there are three more academies planned, 125, 126 and 127. i'm happy to answer any

questions at the conclusion. just a snapshot of what has occurred since our last meeting. on may ten, i attended a meeting with supervisor fewer. the richmond district commissioner regarding additional work related to the water supply system. we meet typically every month. many of us as department heads to talk about the projects and what our particular piece is related to all the work being done in the city. on the 11th of may, i atenlded a improvement district event -- attended an improvement district event. on the 12th at lake merced, we a attended the interstation run which is 41 years in the making. i would like to acknowledge a

lieutenant who has picked up the ball on that. jim gallagher, it was his vision 40 years ago when nobody was as active as they are now really into running and has carried on this tradition. so, this year they included a car show, which brought out even more people. and the lieutenant has asked at some point in an upcoming meeting we bring retired firefighter jim gallagher before the commission to acknowledge him for his efforts. he was there this year and i would like to do so. maybe i could work on that, picking a date with you, president cleaveland. i would like to congratulate commissioner covington to her reappointment. congratulations to you, commissioner covington. >> commissioner covington: thank you. >> congratulations.

i had the pleasure of being there. [applause] >> then on the 15th, we attended a labor management meeting which we do monthly with the executive board of local 798. i also met that afternoon introduced the deputies to the new department head over the health service system. i have known her previously. she worked in the ems field for a long time and most recently had worked at st. francis hospital. so, it was good catching up with her and meeting a fellow colleague. on the 18th of may, i attended a hotel sponsor women leadership conference. i attended the morning portion of that. this week we're celebrating ems week as most of you know. and july 1st, 1997, was when the

san francisco fire department inherited the paramedic division. there were some painful stops and starts as it was related to how we were going to work that out. i'm proud to see we have a very good system. it's a system that has looked to as a model for how we provide free hospital care to patients that will be transporting to the nine receiving hospitals. so, there's a lot of different events this week. i would like to acknowledge assistant deputy chief andy and his section chief. they have been active this week. jonathan baxter has put a lot into ems week. so, wanted to acknowledge all the different events that are happening this week. yesterday i attended the grand opening of sales force, which was a very exciting event. largest, tallest building in the city. that opened officially yesterday. the board yesterday, president

breed acknowledged ems week and a number of members were acknowledged and i had assistant deputy chief acknowledged for that. attended the association luncheon where they typically acknowledge -- and i sat next to commissioner veronese's mother this afternoon. they typically acknowledge a member from the police department and fire department. i nominated and selected rescue captain becky. shefk acknowledged for an incident back in october of last year where -- and she acknowledged the team as did i. it was after a commission meeting. there was a very serious car accident at park presidio and crossover drive, where there was three victims that needed to be extricated. there was one that went on for

nearly two hours. and easily, the driver of the vehicle could have died. we personally witnessed the great care that every member extended. but we acknowledged the rescue captain because she ran the medical portion and really was at the patient's side the entire time. and as i said today, it was so serious that because we were having a difficult time extricating him, there was a consideration we do a field amputation with the surgical team coming from s.f. general. he has made a full recovery. both his legs are functions. it was appropriate that she be acknowledged today. and then we look forward to on friday capping off ems week with having a lunch. all of you are invited out at station 49 for all the members at station 49. anybody from the department really can come. we do have food coming later for

the crews coming on later. they work 12-hour shifts and some will be coming later. we want to make sure we properly acknowledge the get work all our members do and this week we're really highlighting ems. today in the plaza, there was a display of not only our vehicles and when i say ems week, we are partners with them. the two private companies that also assist in the response. we want to acknowledge them as well. wanted to acknowledge those that were present on the command staff over at the library a couple of hours ago. i attended briefly but then met with you, president cleaveland and vice president nakajo. helping present an award to the ray lim award to retired captain sandy tong. lots going on this week and proper acknowledgments being made. that concludes my report at this time. >> president cleaveland: thank you, chief. is there any public comment on

the chief's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners. commissioner covington. newly appointed -- reappointed. >> commissioner covington: reapointed. just don't -- reappointed. just don't call me a retread. >> president cleaveland: we are lucky to have you. >> commissioner covington: thank you. i'm lucky to be here. thank you, chief for attending. and thank you for these retirements and separations figures. i've added up the red bars and it comes to 537 total people who have retired or been separated from the department since 2010. that's a pretty big number, even without including the 32 people

who have put in the paperwork to retire very soon. so, that would bring the total to 569 people. and so, i just want to reiterate how important it is for us to continue to have these academies. i used to bend mayor lee's ear about the academies, keep the academies going. and that's why i pushed for the increase in the number of people accepted into the academy from 48 to 54 because our attrition rate was getting to be high in some classes. so, it's heartening to see that we are making progress. that we're not going to be faced with a crisis at some point because when people are ready to retire, they go. [laughter]

>> commissioner covington: you can offer them all kinds of things, but once you have that retirement mindset, it's like i am out the door. don't stand in my way. so, it's good to see that we are catching up or going to be okay. so, for the new mayor, whomever the new mayer happens to be, it really behooves us as a commission to continue to let the person in that office know how important it is other wide we will go back to the mandatory overtime days, and i don't think anybody wants that. the job is demanding enough without having to be forced to stay on an additional day month or whatever. it is very disruptive to families and we want to avoid

it. so, i'm heartened by these figures and the fact that we're going to have two more academies coming up. now, chief, you did say that you're anticipating between 80 and 100 retirements over the next two years. is that per year or is that combined? >> per year. and we're projecting to hire 108, knowing that -- per year. knowing that we don't always have everyone graduate and we've had that conversation before. and that's one of the reasons we were able to bump up from a few years ago. i know you were a big advocate for that. so, like i said, we're matching the new hires with retirements and then usually there's a little bit of a buffer on the good side to kind of rebuild when we're at a low point.

we're pretty much right on track. >> commissioner covington: okay. good. i'm very, very happy that we are on track. thank you for that. and ems week, i am so sorry i missed today's -- i got my weeks mixed up. somehow i was thinking it was next week. so, i'm glad to note that there was due recognition given to everyone and i'm happy to see that there were lots of people in attendance. i'm just sorry i wasn't one of them. >> you have two events on friday. >> barbecue. >> commissioner covington: i heard people will be putting on the feed bag as it were? >> yes. >> commissioner covington: thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you commissioner crow. commissioner veronese. >> commissioner veronese: chief,

looking at these retirement numbers, in the last three years, how many classes have we had? you said we're keeping up and that's great to hear. how many classes have we had in the last three years? >> i would say six. approximately two per year. >> commissioner veronese: so in the last three years we have been in the plus 20 there and perhaps even another 20 here. okay. >> yeah. i think we've managed it pretty well. >> commissioner veronese: looks like you have. that's not an easy thing to do. especially when you have to look so far ahead and dealing with budgets. how does it work with budgets just to educate me on this? when we lose somebody to retirement, that's a full-time position that's freed up here at the department. right? and that position is anticipated in the budget, obviously, that we present to the mayor's

office, right? >> yes. it's not an exact science because as you know, it has changed since even when i came in, in 1990. typically we saw most people working a full 30 years and being at least age 55. that has changed. we now i'm seeing people not reach 30 years. between 25 and 30 is more the norm now. and some people are not even working until 55 and some are working well over. it is not an exact science. we forecast based on number of years in the department and the age of a person. but again, we don't exactly know. so, in 2012, we entered a five-year hiring plan. we went from 2012-2018 and that worked really well for us. i think having that stability to have this plan worked so well that we -- i credit the good

work. i worked very closely with mar corso at the time when we were doing. we have always been a department and sometimes we're criticized from within, we have always asked for what we need and really doesn't necessarily go overboard and embellish. i think we have gained a reputation of being realistic. when we say we need it, we need it. we have been within our budget within the last 15 years since i have been the chief because we're very conservative in our numbers. coming out of the recession because we couldn't hire somewhere between '82 and '87 there was no hiring. there was budgetary restrainlt -- restraints. and then when we were able to convince the executive branch and legislative branch that we needed to begin increasing our

staffing to restore what we had had, we hit our numbers pretty well. and we said to have a stable hiring plan projected for five, six years is a good thing for everyone. and it worked so well that midway through there, we were able to extend it through 2020. >> commissioner veronese: so when somebody retires the pension comes from the city or from our budget? >> it comes from the city. it doesn't come from our fund. it goes to the retirement boards. >> commissioner veronese: so, that's not a liability that is covered under your budget? >> correct. and generally we realize a little bit more savings, if you whether. because someone that has a lot of experience and so forth has a higher rated salary exiting than a new person coming in. so, there's some relief on our budget. but once someone moves across the line and separates, they

become -- the retirement board kicks in. the retirement system kicks in. >> commissioner veronese: so, what i'm hearing is threats -- there's a little bit of guess work when somebody is going to retire. >> correct. >> commissioner veronese: and keeping the spots filled. but you have done a pretty amazing job looking at that work. >> it has worked pretty well, yeah. >> commissioner veronese: as far as the city expanding into -- well, let me ask you this. when somebody retires and that spot is not -- so, we have been filling the spots for every retirement for the last it looks like at least four years. right? >> yes. >> commissioner veronese: when the city grows like our city has into neighborhoods that didn't exist when i was growing up in this city, for example, south of market, are we anticipating new stations added south of market? >> yes. a perfect example of that would

be a few budget cycles ago, we asked for additional fte's to staff mission bay. we asked for to staff an engine and a truck company. so, nine more per day. and then there's relief factor. so, another 35 or so to staff that station. >> commissioner veronese: okay. >> so, we anticipate the southeastern part of the city growing. there's 10,000 units being contemplated and being worked in the candle stick, hunters point region, which equates a unit is usually 2.5 people. so, nearly 30,000 people in that area. we are projecting that we will need a double house, an engine and a truck company. and then a single house up on the hill towards visitacion valley. that right there is 13 more people per day. >> commissioner veronese: and what about like equipment,

engines and trucks for those? are we projecting those budgets out too? are they included? >> they will be factored in when that time comes, which will probably be in the -- outside the next two-year cycle but right after that. probably in the early 2021-22 range. >> commissioner veronese: along the lines of our future training, looks like our budget is pretty robust for future hiring. when is our eviction date out at treasure island? >> to be determined. mid-2020 we are hearing. and that's been extended. so,' 25,' 26. no later. that's why we're definitely looking at alternatives. >> commissioner veronese: is there maybe in the future, at a future meeting you could update us on how that's going. >> sure. >> commissioner veronese: i know that's an issue that is close to people in this commission. >> and i know commissioner covington has asked for that.

off line we have briefed her. we have a lot of ideas and a lot of options, but at this point, there's nothing definitive that we wanted to share publicly. but we have irons in the fire. we're working on it. >> commissioner veronese: i would just say that the sooner we land something, the better because the price of land both in the monetary sense and in the availability sense is going down in san fran as we all know. in regards to ems week, i have a huge appreciation for what ems does. and i just want to congratulate anybody who has anything to do with ems. i guess that includes alas and what's the acronym? >> els. >> commissioner veronese: e will,s. >> i highlighted station 49 because i think sometimes their work is not as highlighted as the great work that happens in

the stations, the fire houses. but it is really everyone. it touches everyone. everyone since 1989 has been part -- minimum requirement is that they are emts and they work at every station. i'm an emt and anybody who has been hired since '89 has to keep up their emt certification. and we have the subset that provides life