and now for someone asking for more than what we've talked about for the last six months is really hard to understand. i don't think we'll ever get to a point where everyone's happy, but i think what i've offered is something that i think is fair to everyone. this is -- this is a zone -- this site is zoned for seven units. there's this height limit. san francisco has the topography it has. i was born and raised here. i lived up on beacon street. i know what san francisco's all about. we build here, we try to do it with scale, we try to do it with material. you know, we try to work with the site lines as best as we can. and like i said, i even offered, and this is noted somewhere that we would work with the neighbors to enhance the greenery in our back yard so that we can obscure as much as that base of the building as possible. i mean, this is a sloped site. there's nothing that -- i can't change the topography of the

land. i think this is a really good solution. i think it's fair, and i hope that you could see that we worked very hard for the last two-plus years on trying to get this to this point, so i appreciate your time. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. okay. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so interestingly enough, i think the slope of the hill is extraordinary and exceptional here in the city. i know when i worked on market and okaytictavio, this is what happened. i completely respect your work. i know you're doing what the project sponsors are asking you to do. the one thing that's interesting to me just as i talked with the project sponsor's team this week and we were looking at the project set back -- the set back from the property line and the set back

from the rear, that i hadn't really looked at and just got clued in, we've got each -- you have 2,056 spaces -- 1,056 square feet on b-2, and 47 on b-1. 893 square feet perunit that's parking and storage. and the height of the building in the back is causing the issue, so that's really where i want to focus is -- you know, i don't think the units are exceptionally large. they're actually coming in at the average of a flat in isk san francisisk -- in san francisco, so i'm okay with it. i really want to focus on the need for that additional 900 square feet perunit between storage and parking. if you look at b-1, and the parking spaces and all the different other space in the --

in that -- on that floor, i think they're -- there's enough room for a storage including on b-1, which hopefully will just be b, if other commissioners agree, for commission ornaments and things like that, you have closets for things you use every day. the storage downs, i honestly -- down stairs, i honestly believe for things you use once a year, you're going to be able to create on b-1. you don't need to offer an additional 900 commissioned space perunit, which i think is excessive. the question i have for mr. winslow is open space requirement, this is code compliant buildings, so is there any open space requirement, you know, rm 1? >> i'm going to defer to chris towns, the current code

inspector on this project. >> the answer is yes, there is an open space requirement perunit in this district. 100 square feet if it's private, 133 square feet perunit if it's common. >> commissioner richards: okay. the back yard itself doesn't qualify. >> it also qualifies. >> commissioner richards: but, if there was no roof deck, would the back yard in and of itself qualify for the roof space requirement? zbh i'd have to check that. >> commissioner richards: is there a pattern of roof decks in the neighborhood? >> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner richards: i'd probably focus on the roof deck because it is towering over everybody. i don't think the backward's that usable at a dougherdownwa but i think we have to look at the trade offs between the b-2, b-1 issue that i just raised.

>> seven units, seven maximum -- minimum requirement of one perunit. they're proposing seven units, so they're doing the one perunit. they're allowed up to 150% of that amount, so they could go up to 11, so they're doing four less than what's required. >> commissioner richards: and b-1 would not be a great living space. i think the height of the garage is causing me anxiety for the folks on the west. i think there could be a solution where they don't really have to change too much, but you could actually get rid of a floor that's really not for living at all. it's just storage. >> vice president melgar: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i'd actually love to invite the project sponsor to comment on that, the thinking behind it. >> yeah. it's more of a technical thing.

so we've started the ramp at the lowest part of the site because the site kind of slopes from east to west. >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the mic. >> oh, yeah. it flows east to west, so we started with the ramp. the problem with what you're saying, i would have to take that ramp further further down to drop everything. >> commissioner richards: on you about a -- because what we've seen on other projects, you drive your car, it's an elevator, and you go down. you don't need a ramp, you just need enough room for that elevationor to take them down to the floor. they're putting elevators in tiny homes these days, so here's a seven-unit building you might be able to do that. >> we're doing that on much, much bigger projects, and a single-family home, the owner can actually do that because

they're responsible for themselves. on a larger project, which we do downtown, we use elevators, but that's with a valet. the owner would never get in that car and do it. the problem i have here is because it's a seven unit project, they would have to valet that elevator unless it's a single-family home. >> commissioner richards: that's an osha requirement unless it's a single-family home. >> if it's a single-family home, can you do it -- you can do it, but if it's a multifamily home, you can't do it. i'm looking at the topography on the site, to see the least amount possible to go down. like i said, this is a family -- it's kbaered towards family -- geared towards

storage space. imagine you have a single-family home, like a lot of these people do. they have a storage, they have car, they have storage in their garage, and then, they have their home. this is similar, but this is just seven of them. >> commissioner richards: makes sense. i guess my question for mr. -- i'm having a brain malfunction -- and congratulations on your new role. i think we're going to be seeing you more in this position, that you're now the d.r. guy. okay. great. just tap me on the way out. >> the ides of march. >> commissioner richards: this wedding cake terracing, is this common? it looks like the inside of a portland hotel to me? what's sculpting look like to you. >> our first comments were in response to the scale of the building at the back, and they were generic, take your best

stab at respecting both the topography of the site as well as the scale at that midblock condition. i -- i think, you know, significantly sculpting the building, and that can take many and any forms, right, without being prescriptive. when it came back the second time, after the d.r. was applied for, we did get specific with respect to the terracing of the upper most floor, and the dplengs that takes height off the top, but also respects -- if you look next door to the building on the east, it has a top floor that's considerably set back to the rear wall. so that was kind of the cue that we were looking at in being more prescriptive on that second d.r. review. so we aren't looking at the tower of babylon.

>> commissioner richards: i'm a little bit not understanding what an additional 2 feet would do because the other buildings are 50 feet away in the back. >> i did a little research on that. if you look at the plan of those buildings adjacent to us on the east, they are massive. they're twice as wide as our lots, and the reason that these developers chose to pull those buildings back on the edges is so that they can actually get light and air to the middle of those buildings. we don't have that condition. we have back yards on one side, so the 3 feet is what we're offering in order to get that planning strip. it also allows us to get windows along that side. but the reason that 5 feet is not a -- it's not a zoning thing that anybody created, it's induced by the

developers -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so you agree to 3 feet? >> i totally do. >> commissioner richards: okay. that was number one on their ask. number two, you're willing to do 13 feet? >> 13. i just felt that rdat didn't recognize the west side at all. didn't ask us to most the west side at all. i think from a planning standpoint, doing in from both sides. they want something from the west, these guys want something from the top. the top is pretty far below here. even at 10 feet back, you're barely going to see this thing. 13 is fair, and i would set back the handrail, as well, so that that stays back another 3 feet so it doesn't come to the edge to reduce that rich. d >> commissioner richards: and number three, we ask -- >> yes, i did that.

>> commissioner richards: great. and then four, they asked for two more feet on the guardrails on the decks. instead of three, they want five. that doesn't do that much to your project. >> that doesn't do too much. >> commissioner richards: so it looks like you'd agree. >> yeah. >> commissioner richards: include neighbors in the process of appropriate planning, agreed. so i think you've agreed to the six of the seven. the 13 feet is the 20 feet is the big difference, and it looks like you've kind of gone halfway with the 3 feet and the 13 feet. i'm satisfied that this should work. >> it's going to look good. >> commissioner richards: i'll let commissioner koppel make a moti motion. >> commissioner koppel: i'll make a motion to take d.r. with

the stated conditions that commissioner richards just stated. >> clerk: 13 feet from which side? >> commissioner richards: from the back of the property. >> from the rear wall. >> right. instead of ten, it's 13. >> commissioner richards: 3 feet set back on the property, top floor to third floor, set back additional 2 feet, maintain an indentation in the original zieb facade. on the -- design facade. on the third floor, 5'6". >> no. >> commissioner richards: so this would be on the fourth floor. >> the third floor doesn't set back. >> commissioner richards: okay. so then, it would be the fourth floor. >> no, the fourth floor goes back 13'6". >> commissioner richards: that's what i -- decks removed from the fourth floor, parapet

on the entire fourth floor belowered to a curb, and include neighbors in the appropriate selection process of planning, so -- >> yes. >> commissioner richards: do i hear a second? >> vice president melgar: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. so basically, we are taking d.r. and approving this project with modifications pursuant to the ask submitted by the d.r. requesters, accepting items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, not 6. >> commissioner richards: right. >> clerk: and number two gets amended to eliminate the third floor set back ask reducing the second floor set back to 13'6". very good. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners item 20 was withdrawn, so we are on item 21 for case number 2013.0847 d.r.p. at 1503 francisco street. please note on may 24, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to july 19, 2018 by a vote of 6-0 and on july 19, 2018, without hearing, you continued it to today's date. commissioner richards, you were not present on that first hearing, and if you could acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous material and hearing. >> commissioner richards: i have. >> clerk: thank you. as this is the second time we are hearing this matter, the d.r. requester will be provided with a three minute presentation, and the project sponsor will be provided with a three minute presentation. all public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good evening, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. the item before you is a

request for discretionary review for a building permit for a vertical addition interior remodel and revised facade design at 1503 francisco street. as the commission secretary said, the item was heard before this commission on may 24. following public comment and discussion, the item was continued with a request by the commissioners with a project sponsor work with the concerned neighbors to address revisions primarily relating to the exterior design of the project. the subject building is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of francisco and octavia streets, and the immediate area is characterized by a mix of single and multifamily housing that range in height from three to four stories. the project was reviewed by environmental staff and determined to be categorically exempt from further ceqa review. the subject building is not a you historic resource nor is it

located within an eligible historic district. the request was filed by the owners of 1409 francisco street. they've rei they've reiterated that the revised proposals at this time may i approach tanz unusual circumstances, that the communal space of the ground story may not be used as such, that the roof decks are unnecessary and not typical of the neighborhood and that the units should have independent street access. the revised scope of work includes the same internal layout as the original design appropriatesal with two parking spaces and a shared common space at the ground floor, two existing one bedroom units at the second floor, and existing residential units at the third and fourth floor with roof deck access at the roof and fourth floor levels. the existing footprint of the building would not be expanded.

this project sponsor did significantly revise the exterior design based on the feedback from the commission and concerns brought up by the neighbors at the prior public hearing regarding the prior contrary design. the newly proposed design reduces glazing from 40% of the exterior shell to 26 with proportions to better relate to the finestrations of the upper site, and it proposes to change the original cast concrete ridge face to a kol too sooned brick finish to soften the pedestrian experience of the building. the residential design advisory team reviewed the revised proposal and found the design to be compatible in design to the surrounding neighborhood. rdat noted that the windows are

compatible in size, scale, and proportion with the surrounding buildings. the context exhibits restrained building articulation that is typically focused on window detailing and a delainiation of the entry and base and that this design articulates the base with a compatible material in the entry with a material differentiation in high recess. the upper roof deck is limited in size and set back from all edges, and the rear decabutts a blind wall in the street, therefore presenting no privacy impacts. the brick at the -- [inaudible] >> -- with other ground level treatments. the project has been reviewed for compliance with section 317 and was determined not to qualify as a de facto demolition or a unit merger. the area of the existing units at the second floor would not be significantly modified. the project would retain the existing three units, and staff

verified with the rent board and office of short-term rentals that there are no evicti evictions at the property. all three units feature independent accessing kitchens, and were the property owner to seek a unit mer jerge at a later date, they would be required to file for conditional use for the loss of a unit to be heard before this body. at the time of the prior hearing, staff had received 25 letters of support and ten letters in opposition to the proposal. since the revised project was presented to neighbors, staff has received two e-mails in support including the neighbors to the immediate east with

whose property would most be directly impacted by the roof deck,s awell as three letters and e-mails and a petition with 20 signatures, including those of the d.r. requesters and neighbor who's had submitted letters. the department -- [inaudible] >> -- and presents no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. i'm available for questions. thank you. medical melg we wi . >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requester. five minutes -- >> clerk: three minutes. [inaudible] >> clerk: well, let's fix that. >> good evening, commissioners. my name's kristina mcnair, and my sister and i are owners are property across from the project. our family legacy has been tied

to the marina since the early 1920's. our d.r. request represents the out pouring of community from the marina community opposed to the 1503 project and since our last d.r. hearing, we received an additional over 34 additional signatures, including the san francisco tenants union. our concerns include loss of our thinks toric community character, loss of vital housing stock, concern over deep pockets, forever changing a community for their own benefits. shortly after our last d.r. hearing, on several occasions, i attempted to connect with the 1503 team. on the 21st of june. we did receive updated plans, on july 26, d.r. representatives had a meeting with the 1503 team, and now three weeks later we still have not received any further follow up. we'd allowed sufficient time for them to provide changes to the plans. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect. i have ongoing concerns about

the project regarding roof decks, unit mergers, and overall design. we request elimination of the roof decks, three or 4% of the buildings in this neighborhood have roof decks, and there's been strong out cry about roof decks, both in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. there's a blind -- the next -- there is windows on the -- noted there's a blind wall in the report. it actually has windows. one solution to the unit mergers is to provide an open air lobby, which creates a connection to the street and -- and creates a more inviting, communal feeling in the community. current configuration easily allows the units to be merged on the second floor. you can see this is a closed lobby, and again, the -- in the past, the department has forced unit interior reconfigurations

based on known code compliance -- future code compliance problems. there is a current pattern in the neighborhood and in the city in real estate sales to merge units after sale into single-family home. this is exactly the thing that could happen here. it could use some massing changes on the exterior. it's still -- it w's a very bld simplified feature. the finestration is very simplistic. i think it has a need for further detailing, which has not been provided. thank you very much. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. we will now hear any public comment in support of the d.r. requester. so this is the second time we're hearing this item, so one

minute. >> hello. thanks for the time. i'm still opposed to this project. i do appreciate the other side making some changes since we were last in front of the commission. but to me, it comes across as a bit of a bare minimum effort and didn't address all of the points that were raised by the -- the insightful discussion that the commission had after our last hearing. in particular, i'm concerned about the motion of a single-family home really changing kind of the dynamic of our neighborhood, and most particularly, the roof decks. there's also -- the same owners purchased the residence next door and there's a plan to have a roof deck on that one, as well, so we're looking at

putting three roof decks in a very tight area in a pretty much over night. the city has new guidelines on roof decks, of which there's three or four points that are in violation. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> hi. pam davis. i am a neighbor down at 1567 francisco, and i want to also thank them for redesigning some of the exterior. my concerns previously were regarding the glazing. that does appear to have been addressed significantly. my only remaining concern relates to the rear deck. if you look at this photo, you can see this is francisco street where you see the vehicles. and then, the rear deck that's being proposed is actually what would be visible as a side deck from the street, and my concern

is living just a few doors down from here, the noise that is generated from a side deck that is exposed and as open as this area would be is very concerning to me. so that is the feature that remains in this that i specifically have concerns regarding. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm margin requalley. i'm a 23 year resident in the marina, homeowner for the last 14 years across the street from the project. i'm concerned about the impact of the project on the nature of the neighborhood. in particular, there have been a lot of contradictions from the owner about what the intentions are for this building. originally, it was talked about as being a single-family home. i think you've heard we have continued concern with the design seeming that that's still a likely intention in the future.

secondly, it's been stated as using it for corporate housing, again, not keeping with the long-term residential nature of the neighborhood. at this point, there have not been any tenants in the units, so there really hasn't been any impact directly, but between 1503 francisco, this project, and 3255, which the owner also owns next door, four of the five units have been vacant. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. philip meza, and i would echo the comments made by my neighbors earlier tonight, and i would also specify that we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home. overhead, please. we have concerns about the

property becoming a single-family home, and this is magnified that we now have concerns about the property becoming a single-family compound because the property at 3255 octavia received permission to in-fill the light well between the two properties. so i don't know what further evidence you need that this is going to become a single-family home and a single-family compound. thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. instead of echoing the same points that everybody has raised, which i wholeheartedly agree in one minute that i have or less, i just want to point out to the arrogance of power. in this case, mr. minaj is trying to buy the support of neighbors by purchasing the properties, the surrounding building. i have no idea if the intent is to keep purchasing and keep

purchasing the support of neighbors, but i just wanted to point out to you that residential mr. murphy here, overhead please, as you can see, he purchased mr. murphy's -- mr. patrick murphy's how's next door, and this is the same -- house next door, and this is the same house that everybody's pointing is going to be another roof deck on it. i'm just pointing out this is just not right. this arrogance of power is not right and should not be permitted. just, you know, please, you know, like -- okay. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, mark hermann, i live directly across the street from this project. this project started five years ago with a well documented attempt to use the property as a single-family home. we saw it from 2013, a failed dwelling unit merger and the

project sponsor's own statement at the last hearing. in the last five years, we saw this building being used at best as a corporate rental today we have an unchanged floor plan screaming for legal. tomorrow, we have the project sponsor's vacant two unit building next door with proposed remodel details, very suggestive of future unit accommodation. if this project isn't stopped now, i hope you've seen the future from similar projects in other neighborhoods where the planning department is mocked, neighbored are thumbed, and units in the neighborhood are being marketed and sold at single-family homes. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. if there are no more comments in support of the d.r. requester, we will now use the project sponsor.

>> thank you. last we met, we came with a code compliant project, full support of planning, and 25 letters of support. a small group of opponents led my kristina mcnair met us by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us, and more has come tonight, because as i've learned through this neighborhood kristina has a deeply rooted grudge with the city and their planning process. kristina received four citations from the city which she's fought for more than three years. she should not be policing the neighborhood as she thumbed her knows not once but four times to this very process. mark hermann told me when i knocked on his door that his neighbor reported him for a deck he was building illegally in his garden. we were unprepared and remain taken aback by the lies and tactics that are being invoked by the pretense of architecture

design. kristina remarks at the may 24 hearing were not her own words with you rather read from a letter of constance. what kristina didn't tell you is that constance is not within the 311 notification area. her unit is in escrow as we speak. kristina also didn't tell you that she herself empties parts of her building in the last year, there by adding to the density of our neighborhood and adding average rents. mark hermann likes to have conversations here at the neighborhood and at the hearing, highlighting my wife's native origins, the size of her family, and i see had deep concern about using the building to how's her family memory -- house her family and

not tenants. these are not acts nor statements of people endeavoring to act with us in good faith. they have not asked us to meet. we have continually invited them to meet us. in fact, just two days ago, we accepted supervisor's kathrin stefani's offer to mediate a discussion between the principals, and kristina and mark, like other times, rejected the invite. we don't want the good feeling of the neighborhood to be washed away with a few bad apples, so concrete was replaced with stucco, wood, brick, to soften all materials widely used in the neighborhood. windows were decreased from 10 foot in height to 8.5 feet. the overall circumstance was

decreased from -- >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> window patterns -- >> vice president melgar: your time is up. sorry, you have two-minute rebutt al. >> clerk: no, not on the second time. >> vice president melgar: okay. are there any commenters in support of the project sponsor. come on up. >> thank you. how much time do i have? >> clerk: i have a minute. >> my name's patrick murphy. i live at 1526 francisco street, directly across the street from the project. born and raised in san francisco. been on the street for 26 years. i'm very much in support of the project. my view is affected more than anybo anybody else's, and that's the true view here. i think families should be allowed to expand existing units without getting rid of

any existing tenants as many of these other people have. >> vice president melgar: thank you. so -- so we don't have a rebuttal. commissioners? [inaudible] >> vice president melgar: commissioner koppel? >>. >> commissioner koppel: just one question fore the project sponsor. what do you have planned for the basement? >> there is no basement. >> commissioner koppel: there's a basement in the drawings. >> there's no basement. >> commissioner koppel: just saying, drawing a-2 had a basement plan. >> this is common space to that the building occupants can access the guard where my wife likes to guard, so it's for the benefit of everyone in the building. >> vice president melgar: is that -- is that it,

commissioner? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i think the design's improved much over what it was before. i like the idea that the two middle units are around the same square footage. more power to you for expanding the top. the roof deck is small, so i have no issue with that. the only issue i have is the common space in the future becoming a new unit number through with the merger of the two units above, so i would like to take d.r., approve the project with a notice of special restriction to the common space if it were to become a unit in the future, it would become a unit as an a.d.u. >> vice president melgar: is that a motion? >> commissioner richards: it's a motion. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good,

commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the condition that if the common space becomes livable that it become an a.d.u. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. adjourn. [ gavel ]

[applause] >> the hon. london breed: hi, everybody. i am so excited to be here today to sign my first budget as mayor. thank you all for joining us today. today's budget is really a team effort. it involved so many of you here who made this possible coming together to put together what is going to be, i think, one of

the best budgets to implement what we know are our priorities so we can see change on our streets here in san francisco every day. i'd like to thank our board president, malia cohen, who's here today to lead the budget process along with members of the budget and committee, supervisor stefani, supervisor fewer, and supervisor yee. and i'd also like to thank members of the board of supervisors who are here today. supervisor mandelman, supervisor brown, supervisor satisfy tang, a safai, and supervisor tang, and all the budget and legislative analysts who will be fighting me, and the director of the mayor's budget office, kelly ki

kirkpoint rick. yes, you can give all those people a hand. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: you know, these are really challenging times for our nation, and we have a federal administration pursuing an agenda that threatens our core values and dismantles programs for people that we know that need them the most. but this is not the first time that san francisco has faced threats from the federal government and sadly won't be the last. now more than ever our city must respond by protecting our values, protecting our residents and making smart investments for the future of our city. this budget is a clear reflection of our priorities, a clear demonstration of how we will invest our process perin making sure that there is equity and inclusion. and we are happy to be here today at bishop swain community

house because my top priority as mayor is homelessness. we need to get people out of tents, off the streets and into the care and shelters that they need. and bishop swain, a permanent -- we'll just let that go by. we're going to ban helicopters in the city. this will be a permanent housing site for formerly homeless individuals does exactly what we want to see happen in our city. i met earlier with some residents here, and it is clear that our problem with homelessness is not intractable. budget investments like the ones we are making today change people's lives. michael, who i met here, was homeless for three years, sleeping in his van, living on the streets, sleeping in golden gate park after he lost his job

of 14 years. he is now housed and living a great life. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: brenda is here today, as well. -- oh, brenda, is it okay? i better not tell your age. homeless for four years before being connected to bishop swain by the sanctuary, a 24 hour shelter in the south of market neighborhood, these two examples are what happens when we provide a safe environment and permanent, supportive housing where we can make real progress. and the budget includes $60 million in new funding for critical homeless services and programs which will include 430 new permanent supportive

housing units over the next two years. now we know it's not enough to get people indoors. once they get the care and the assistance they need, we are committed to providing permanent, affordable housing and doing more to make sure we ensure housing in our city. $4.4 million will go to operate a navigation center specifically for transitional age youth -- that's young people between the ages of 18 and 24. $12 million is allocated to expand rapid rehousing programs for youths and adults, and $2 million will go towards creating two access points to families and residents struggling with homelessness. additionally, this budget will fund four new navigation center facilities, including one that specifically works with women and expecting mothers. these navigation centers go beyond the traditional shelters

in offering intensive counseling and services to help people break the cycle of addiction, poverty and homelessness. we're investing $6 million to create a dedicated street medicine team, a first in the nation program, to bring treatment directly to people suffering with addiction on our streets. finally, we know the best way to fight homelessness is to keep people housed in the first place. this past election, voters approved proposition f, which provides a right to counsel for tenants who face eviction, and i'm proud that this board and this mayor is investing $5.8 million to fund this program. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: additionally, we are reviewing our -- renewing our commitment

to creating and preserving affordable housing by investing more than $800 million to construct and preserve over 3,000 units of affordable housing. while we work to help our homeless population into care and shelter, it is clear that the daily conditions on our streets are unacceptable. i'm committed to cleaning up our city. i want people in san francisco, when they walk out the door, to feel the difference when they step outside. this will take a focused, sustained effort, and we're making the investments to make this happen. in addition to the $67 million that we are currently spending on street cleaning, $13 million in new funding over the next two years will go to fund comprehensive efforts that will help make a difference. 44 new neighborhood cleaners, split across all of the

districts here in the city so that no provider is upset about getting their fair share. we are opening five new pit stops, and we're expanding the hours so people have rest rooms to use rather than using our streets for that purpose. and we are expanding our efforts in cleaning up needles. that is going to be so important to the cleanliness of our streets and the quality of life. i also recently announced that we are going to be investing another $725,000 for the fix-it team. these are really neighborhood-driven project that's can help make the neighborhood better based on feedback from community members. this is all a part of making our community safe and making our communities clean. this budget includes a strategic plan that will deploy 250 new officers on our streets. over the next two years, you will see more foot patrols

throughout the city and additional officers will be added to help address violent crime and property crime. this budget also includes $1.7 million in funding to implement the 272 reforms recommended to our city by obama's department of justice. and we are adding, because supervisor president cohen is making us do this because of her leadership around police accountability, another $1.5 million to create four new positions at the department of police accountability. when i was on the board of supervisors, one of my proudest accomplishments was helping address our ambulance crises. but today, there are still emergency response issues we know we need to tackle. we're adding personnel resources to the 911 emergency dispatch center to ensure that san franciscans get the immediate help they need, especially when there's an

emergency. we're investing $1.5 million in funding for the fire department to staff a medical assistance response team to quickly respond to medical service calls in the tenderloin areas where we know there is a high call volume for those services. all of these investments equal one thing: positive change for yo our residents, and i am optimistic that we are going to be able to make these changes together. when you walk the streets, you will feel the difference from our neighborhood cleaning group, our mental health and homelessness investments meaning better and quicker response to people who are in crises on our street. this budget investment means more police officers in our neighborhood, more beat trained with 21 century policing. and our significant spending on

affordable housing reinforces my commitment to affordable housing in san francisco. this budget represents our values for a safer, cleaner, more equitiable city. i keep saying this. we all want to make a difference. i love this amazing city. many of us who work for the city and these nonprofits, we know how hard it is to get our city to a better place. we want to do that. we want to focus on making san francisco, and these dollars, invested right are the first steps to help us get to that better place, and i am excited to be signing this budget, and i'm going to be even more excited when i see this money being put to work on the streets of san francisco so that each and every san franciscan can feel the difference for a cleaner, safer, and more beautiful city. with that, i'd like to turn it

over to the president of the board who is also the finance chair for this budget, supervisor malia cohen. [applause] >> president cohen: thank you. hi, everyone. what city would we be in if there were not the occasional hecklers. you heard the remarks from the mayor. she talked about how the budget was going to be spent, and i want to spend a couple minutes talk about the process that we went through that brought us to where we are today. first of all, this is an $11 billion budget. it's a reflection of the city of st. francis, a city that we both grew up in. this budget is supporting the

city's most vulnerable with passion and dignity and also helps us solve some of problems that we are facing. it's the result of a robust, transparent, and inclusive process with an open and often vigorous discussion around our priorities. what i'm most proud of are the investments reducing homelessness, and i want to acknowledge our guests here. thank you for allowing us in your home today. and i also want to call out that we are champions of public safety for all citizens, and we are also committed to making sure that our streets and our parks are clean, that they are safe, and i'm proud of our commitment to serve the residents of all of san francisco. so some of you may remember previous budget processes as being bruising, yes? no? yes, says ben rosenfeld. bruising and somehow

contentious and somehow would draw the ugliness not out of only department heads, not only out of elected officials, but also our advocates. i'm just being honest here. the mayor talks about how she was excited to be signing our first budget, i'm excited to be signing my last budget. now i'm grateful that i was given the opportunity to chair the budget and finance committee, and it truly has opened my eyes on the entire internal workings of local government, but also, many things were revealed to me last year that i set out to correct this year, one of which is how we evaluate the departments that are making requests. and for what reason are we not more policy driven? so my goal, along with my legislative team, headed up by sophia kitler, our goal was to take out the politics of the budget process and really

infuse the policy access of how we are driving our budget. and i think we created a budget that was more transparent, that created robust, in depth, and thoughtful policy conversations that helped shape why we do what we do. i mean, in essence, we're all public servants. most of us took an oath to be here, but we are serving because we believe in the work that we're doing. we believe that we are given an opportunity to help people and have a -- to help them have a positive impact on their live, and we cannot ever lose that focus. and sometimes, it gets lost, so what we set out to do was to have a stronger, more transparent and more democratic process. we wanted to make sure that we are funding our greatest needs and investing in the most effective programs. you see this is a unique process because if you recall, the budget actually starts in september. many people don't know that, but the process starts in september, and last september, it started with ed lee. he gave a directive to his department heads, he gave some

rules on some constraints, on where -- and where the budget priorities should be, and then, by december, department heads have an idea on where they're going. they submit this budget -- excuse me. to ed lee has his hands on this budget. and then, you may recall, he had an untimely death. and so then we were placed in a chaotic state. mayor farrell made the presentation on june 1 on the budget. he had his fingerprints on this budget. so now we are going to be celebrating signing of abudget that has the fingerprints of our mayor london breed. that is a moment in our history. we need to celebrate this because we are resilient. we are resilient, and we didn't do it alone. there are certain parameters that people like kelly kirkpatrick and ben rosenfeld helped put into place.

what we did was we took an entire comprehensive list of requests from all across the city, $140 million that my colleagues had, that departments had, that advocates had. instead of making this list secret, we made it public. we put it on the website and we made it available to everyone. and i think that helped demystify the process for process. what we also did, we had long, multidepartmental meeting to understand not only what we had funded in previous years but also how we are doing in those areas. are we, as a city and are we as a department, meeting our mark? or are we continuously throwing money out there, trying and hoping to meet our mark? so we introduced some metrics that we're going to be implementing -- i hope, in the future. i will not be here, so i'm going to look at my colleagues to do that, to make sure we are

doing a good job to fund programs that are solid and help us solve major problems that we have identified, such as homelessness, such as the cleanliness of the streets. we use this as a framework to evaluate the budget's proposed budget, and so we were asking critical questions such as how do these investments make further the priorities of the department? are the investments missing anything? as we know, the june budget season has always been a chaotic time where the community benefit organizations and frankly those front line people that are working directly on the ground have come to the budget to ask for additional funding. i'm proud to say nothing was cut. the list of budget that the mayor presented to you is an expansion of good things. i at this point would be remiss if i did not think carmen chiu,

the assessor recorder who was instrumental in bringing in the funds so we could have the benefit of spending it. this has been an iterative process. i would like to just call out the committee, the budget and finance committee, the vice chair sandy fewer, supervisor yee, supervisor stefani. i also want to recognize supervisor sheehy because he had a significant role in shaping this as well. jon givner, our deputy city attorney giving fantastic advice. i say a fantastic sparring partner when you spar with him, and ben rosenfeld, who has been our rock. he gives solid and sound advice. and kelly kirkpatrick, a wonderful woman who stepped up in the absence of melissa

whitehouse and has now been donned the queen of the budget -- budget team. i also want to recognize harvey rose because harvey rose is a critical entity in the process of the budget because he takes out the politics, and he just goes straight to the numbers and goes straight to the crux of the issue, and he squeezes, sometimes bloods comes out of this process, but he squeezes dollars and cents that allows us to begin the discussion on how we can add to the budget priorities laid out by the mayor's office. so harvey rose, thank you, you have been fantastic, the consummate professional, and i want to thank your entire team. and of course the clerk of the board, linda wong. as you know, the clerks run the machine. they run the committee. they start on time -- well, relatively on time, but the notes are there, and i would not be able to do my job if i did not have the outstanding help of linda wong. so