and some are unarmed. we are not talking about s. f. p. d. armed personnel who are we talking senate. >> armed securitity guards focus on the protection of revenue collection personnel. they don't guard m. t. a. assets per se. >> so they guard money? >> they guard people. >> the people collecting the money. those are from when you say armed that is from a private agency that takes care of other liability around them having a firearm is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the rest of the security guard that you have hire redirect examinatiohired they are the ones that guard the equipment? >> that is correct. >> that is great. >> do we have info about parking

lots or is that in the s. f. p. d. data. >> my colleague prepare add presentation that didn't make it on the agenda of this meeting. he has a full presentation, and i don't want to put word in his mouth of pretty dramatic security. >> oh, you have. when we were listening we didn't know the regulations around public parking lots and is camera and lighting mandatory and elevators functioning, and the controls around the parking lot after hours and after it gets dark, we didn't know what the regulations were and if we even had regulations in place for our public parking lots and do we have regulations for our private parking lots.

what is the gentleman's name? >> the direct of parking ted graph. >> okay. >> the improvements they made to the parking lot have made a vast improvement over all. there can be officers there at night due issues they have had. we can get you more information the exact changes to the garages, but we don't have that at this point. >> would you say that the public parking lots are fairly safe? >> our city-owned parking lots are vastly changed and our safer than they were. >> so do you think our public parking lots are safer than private parking lots? >> i don't have the data on that, so i wouldn't be able to

answer that question. >> thank you very much. no more questions. >> i have a few follow up questions. when you went through the statistics here about assault and robbery, what is the source of this data? is it police report or do they have separate reporting? >> what we presented is data that we get from the crit data analysis at the police department. there are some phases in which the data is scrubbed or added to. one of the things that we found which we tried to help educate the public there are a case where some don't report the

crime for days or weeks and then the video evidence has been taped over. >> i read something in an exam or article that highlight add few operators that did not feel safe driving, and in one paragraph they mentioned that management pushed them not to report certain incidents, and i was wondering if you had a response to that? >> that is absolutely not true. we take every assault extremely seriously, and whether it is a verbal assault, a physical assault or what is unfortunately a significant trend in operators being spit on while driving anytime an operator reports an assault, we have a wonderful

peer assistance program programs with especially trained employees to talk to the operator about their experience. it is a reality that we are facing and a national epidemic in terms of operator assaults and something that we respond to immediately, and in no circumstances do we attempt to suppress. >> with regard to resources, you listed the resources provided by the san francisco police department and i am wondering if they have decreased over the years. >> they remain fairly static for some time. we have had some challenges in the area that you might be familiar with in the department of funding from homeland secur

securitity. security and we identified fund that we can use to supplement the grant funding we are receiving from d. h. s., so looking forward to going to this year. >> what is the meddology deciding that you want to staff the team with seven uniformed officer or one sergeant and seven plain clothes officers. how do you come to that decision? do you do that based on data that you are receiving? >> we do. commander ewens and i had a conversation about proper levels of employment and what we think would be the most effective. one last question about the operators and you mentioned we

were nearing 100% isolation for the operators. what percentage are we at now? >> we have over 900 vehicles in the suite and over 09% of them have the barrier. we have one fleet type, th the orien hybrids that we are in the process of retrofitting. >> okay. >> does this data include people who are waiting for the bus or just people on the bus? >> that's an excellent question. we changed our data reporting model which at the end of 2012 which made it look like we have this kind of massive crime spike in 2013, but previous to that we were reporting crimes that took

place on the vehicles, so if someone was one foot away, it didn't count. we realized that was not accurate way to capture our crime data. >> so this include incidents of people waiting for the bus? >> yes bus stops, platforms, waiting stations, particular proximity to a bus stop and anything that has a nexus to our vehicles and their operation. >> thank you. i have heard from various women who say late at night they don't feel comfortable waiting at a bus stop by themselves, so have we done assessments around lighting and safety around bus stops? >> not recently, lighting specifically is one of the nuts and bolts issues of physical secure that we certainly take into consideration and there is a a standard for certain level

of lumens at bus stops, and it is concerning to us. i drive around the city at night and i am sure that you do. we see some that are well lit and busy areas and others that are remote and dark, so it is something of concern to us that we are looking at slowly. >> in my neighborhood they are changing all the lights to led which makes it a lot brighter, but wondering what we are doing and perhaps trimming of trees or bushes when there is a park nearby a bus stop, those types of things. >> that is a great point. we have communicated on dpw to make better lines of site and

illumination. >> speaker 1: thank you very much. >> so for the second slide you will see the numbers are different from what chris presented. these are the numbers we received from the police department as far as cases go. you will see dramatic drops. >> do you mean cases filed by the d. a.'s office or just arrest. >> incidents that occur. >> okay. t you will see for the last two years there has been another reduction in robbery, assaults, and burglaries. over awl we are happe all the reduction we are happy with.

a lot of people don't know there is sound also being recorded. it's a huge game changer wen you talk about catches suspect especially with their intention and what they are saying. we are working closely with the d. a.'s office with the cases for our investigators and they are having greatsuccess with that. i would ask you to skip the next slide and go to crime incidents by district. some are up there in central and northern richmond. those can be a number of factors. a lot of times people committing crimes on muni are

opportunists. they will see someone with a bac backpack or purse open they will grab and run out of the bus. i believe that is what accounts for a majority of that. the robberies we have had some series when we are asked to do this presentation we ask how you identify trends. if investigators look every morning to see if there are cases that are similar. if thing that is interesting about muni a lot of bus buss buses are going from one area to another and they are riding from one to the next and they are waiting for the opportunity. if that is a trend that we are seeing we look at that as well, and then we speak to chris and he gets us the video, and times m. t. a. gets us the video

before we ask because they see an issue occurring. we have had very good success. time of day, a lot of people believe that crime os cur late at night, that is not necessarily true anywhere from noon to 8:00 at night is one the majority of the crimes are occurring and you will see that in the time that we have on this slide. the thing that people don't understand is we create high visibility, that is our role, with a search program as well as my personnel that goes to specific areas. especially when they see a trend or there is issues occurring, we respond.

if there is something happening in the richmond, we will send my team to go do operatings. if there is a pick pocket or robberies or theft where people are grabbing something from an individual, those are happening ongoing. >> do you have data separated by gender about the victims? >> no. i believe we had spoken about that prior and we do not account for male versus female. i did speak to my sergeant that does the majority, but it's mainly women that are the victims right now for us, but

understanding that the station teams are handling cases. we see cases where we see a trend or the pick pockets and otherwise the teams take that. >> so after you analyze your data from what you just said, and correct me if i am wrong, when you analyze the data you would be able to see or tease out that information or you don't collect it. >> our analysts don't collect that information. >> would that be a do you hav difficult thing to collect. >> i have no problem asking and i will have to get back to you on that. >> what we are concerned about is the safety of women on our public transportation since we

have heard from women constituents who say they feel unsafe riding muni at night, in particular after 10:00 p.m. and many types they are the only female alone on the bus, and even if it's perceived that you are feeling unsafe or are we really seeing a lot of incidents, both are really important, but i think it's important to that have data pieced out by gender because i think men and women in society have a different level of safety in how they feel safe and by gender. this assault, can you tell me if any of them are sexual assaults? >> no. they are not. >> so the 46 from january to september none of them are? >> no, that would be a separate category. >> thank you very much.

>> can we get information on that category? that is really important. >> i have a few question as we well. on the same article, paul rose said something about the strategies to reduce assaults are working, and i wonder what they are, in particular the strategies to reduce assault are working. he mentioned that minut minute muin has strategies. >> in summertime when there is a lot of ridership, we try to put officers in those critical hours, and again, if there is a

trend we put officers on that bus line, but it's about visibility whether it be law enforcement or muin supervisors all of them play into the idea that visibility is the biggest deterrent. >> that has absolutely been the case. what was a best practice became a standing task for my team and i, so we are looking at best practices across the country. last month i communicated with my counter part. there is no silver bullet with this issue, what it comes down is to enclosures are a big deal and the presence of uniformed police officers are huge factor. when we have gone through two periods with the exception of

the surge program, when there probably wasn't as much fiscal response as there should have been, but during the super bowl festivities, we saw a 40% reduction crime and dramatic assault on transit operators. if training and then what we have tried to do is communicate as best as we can. we did an operator study based on video evidence and we determined that 39% of the assaults possibly could have been prevented with a softer approach to insisting the patrons pay a fare, so we have done training in that area that it's the proof of payments responsibility if people don't pay their fare, so not to engage

with an argument with a patron. we are very hopeful, particularly with the enclosures being installed t chicago tra chicago transit agency saw a reduction in operator assaults in a very short period of time. we saw this night and day transformation. >> do you think we have enough police presence or would you like more. you said you want to get to zero and o of course we all want to get to zero. >> the magic number would be uniformed police officers on 5% of the vehicle in service during peak time and we have

approximately 720 vehicles during peak commute hours. since we don't have the fiscal resources for that kind of deployment we are relying heavily on data driven deployment. >> what happens when an operator doesn't feel safe, how do they call and what are their response times. >> i'm glad you asked that, one of the things that we have noticed is during those late hours, we have issues with people trying to sleep on the vehicles and doing other things and the police response time is very good, typically five minutes or less.

>> at this time we will open it to public comment. >> clerk: public comment is open. seeing no mus must n no members of the public we will close item 6. would you like to file it or continue it? >> i think i have enough information, so i am comfortable filing this. supervisor. >> i am comfortable with that what went on at night and with all hours especially, so if we can get that data, i think it would be fine to close the

hearing and if we need to have another one, we will. >> you want to capito continue or file the hearing? >> there is a motion to file the hearing. supervisor kim, is that okay? >? okay. thank you very much. madame clerk next item please. let's call items 8 through 12 together. [reading agenda item]

>> thank you very much. i will turn this other to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i know this has been a long committee, so i want to thank everyone who has sat with us the entire time. i have 18 amendments that i am introducing to the central soma plan. i have discussed all of these at the full commission and to the

full board and committee, so i will give my colleagues to look through. i have no further comments since i have talked enough about the central soma plan, so at this time, i am ready to open up for public comment and perhaps we can answer questions after public comment. >> that is fine we can keep the ball rolls. >> if any members of public wish to come up with items 8 through 12, please come on up. >> good afternoon. i think it's still afternoon. [laughter] my name is genie and i am with ss blue and central to ma

neighbors. i am here to request supplemental sir. we request that the city prepare supplemental impact report to analyze this new information. this is significant new information that demonstrates that the central soma plan will have far greater traffic impacts than disclosed in the eir. that is all i have, thank you very much. >> hello, my name is gina.

thank you for sitting here all afternoon. i am gina ful phillips. i support sf blue and central soma neighbor's appeal and i support the arguments put forth by richard druary. i would like to give these to the clerk for the document letter that gina just distributed. >> tony roblis. if central soma

plan will have wide reaching effects in terms of gentrification and there must be strong protechs against displacement as it pertains to the plan, otherwise, this will continue to be a piece of city planning and policy making that prioritizes profit over people. thank you. >> the central soma project is part of the market in south of market and any rezoning of it's area has a ripple effect to the entire city. we still have numerous urgent issues and the following areas

still need to be addressed. aggressively land banking sites, requiring at least 10% increase in affordability required as part of the housing sustainability district, create standard publicly owned designs that are student use or family-serving, release the new jobs/housing study completed by office of workforce development, and have restrictions on micro units with exception to allow

100% sf4 developments. we made aware and support using the land that is part of the flower mart site instead of office. we look forward to workin working with the supervisor's office on addressing these issues. thank you. >> greetings supervisor, david elliot lewis, long time resident of the city. i share the concerns of tony roblis, senior disability action about the displacement affects of this plan. displacement is real in the city and a lot of people have lost their housing and people can't afford to move back to their city. i think we need to just -- i'm not against the plan but think we need to consider those

factors before you move ahead. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i have these before you and i presented them to the planning commission as well as discuss them at other board meetings after the appeal and also at viers land use committee meetings. a number of them range from technical fixes to language such as clarifying calculation of land subject transferable to land development rights, to changing the land commission has made -- for our key sites that are super large projects that the tdm was not necessarily intended to or didn't necessary

consider to some amendments that some of the project sponsors have requested on their key sites. these are the amendments that are before us, and i know supervisor safai you may have had a question on 11. >> yes. >> but otherwise i would like to amendments 1-18. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: i have a number of questions but i want to start with number 11. it would be good to hear from the planning department for reducing floor height from 17 feet to 14 feet. >> a variation of this amendment

because introduced back in july. it gave the planning commission discretion to lower the minimum floor from 17 to 14 feet, and also reduce the mass production controls. that amendment strengthens that language and was further request of the project sponsor. this will, just as a right permits this as long as the project provide land for affordable housing. >> right, i got it. i see that. i would like to hear from the planning department because in general i don't support this proposal. i don't support this amendment. i think the project sponsor can do both, i am not sure why reducing their pdr height is tied to affordable housing land. i think they should do the

dedication of the affordable housing and provide the proper height. i know the planning department said they spent a considerable amount of time coming up with heights and i know in sen tra central soma this is the -- height. >> supervisor kim stated this is similar to another various other provisions for various other key sights that are in the code that provide project sponsors an av new to get array of different exceptions in exchange for providing certain public benefits such as dedicating portions of their land for

public housing and those exceptions are generally related to basically accommodating what would have been the full build-out of the site had they not provided those public benefits, so basically provide avenue for them to build the project, there are certain accommodations that are allowed in the code by various mechanisms. >> because i see her number 8 that supervisor kim through the chair says require the pdr space, this is number eight, section 24, page 77, line 16. sectiohave a minimum floor to

height requirement regardless of feet in the building and this is ask for that to be dropped to 14 feet, zero percent on fourth street. it could be about wanting to have more space on the upper floors at the cost of the pdr space and i am not inclined to support this particular ask. i don't know if anyone is here from project sponsor today, so no. >> i will say, supervisor, that a number of these key site inspections were particular to the particularities of the individual sites and what the trade-offs are for accommodating the program on the site with or without the land set aside, so that was something that the project sponsor in presenting

their possibilities of how that could be accommodated made the case for and that is how it made it's way, but in general, yes, you are correct that the plan is also strengthening just the requirement that pdr have 17 feet. >> that is my point it seems to be a direct contradiction and you guys are asking for it to be strengthened in other areas. is that your understanding supervisor, that they are saying they can't do the affordable without this exception in? >> this was not how they requested the amendment. we amended so guff them discretion to lower from 17 to 14 feet this. made the project sponsor anxious because there was a slope and there will be

parts of the parcel where they will build at 17 feet and parts where they will build at 14 feet. they got nervous and asked to guff them this allowance as a right and there was a pushback that there is no guarantee we will get the land for affordable housing. at the the smart suggestion of lisa chen we are now tying the two together, so in exchange for this benefit, we will confer the flexibility on the ground floor. >> okay. i will also, and i have texted the project sponsor to reach out to your office supervisor safai, but i am also happy to take this and separate it from the other amendments and we will take a roll call. in the meantime, you will have

time to talk to the project sponsor before the full board. >> that would be great. is there anything in here about the public benefits packages, is it included in here today? >> yes. >> what one is that on your number? >> the one on my radar was the mint, did you make an amendment on that in this package? >> no i have not agreed to increase the old mint portion of the community facilities distribute from 15 oto 20 million. in the original proposal, i know this has been through many iterations, we had originally provided 10 million-dollars to the old mint. if planning

commission recommended 20 million and we reduced it to 15 million at the lapped use committee in july and i am sticking to the $15 million allocation. currently the old mint, both the intermediary manager p and the permanent site is in negotiation with the community how the old mint can be a benefit to the south community and that has not been made to my satisfaction. i understand that members of this board and land use committee may differ in opinion from myself. >> i would say from my experience because we have a similar one in my district, they

are truly some of the most difficult projects to find finding for restoration, so i understand you position wanting to negotiate access for community groups and organizations to fully utilize the space, but isn't that something that could be negotiated as part of the restoration process, separate from, and not necessarily as a part of, because we still have to find the funding, right? at least in our district we have a $30 million hole that we have been able to find. it's similar and related. >> this is a fixed sum, and i don't feel strongry about subtracting millions of dollars from either transportation regional projects, like the downtown expansion or the air

quality mitigation controls that were clearly laid out couple weeks ago at the full board of supervisors. i would love to fund everything, more transportation, more parks, and give more to caltran, but this is a balancing tact we all play, so at this point i think it is a fair contribution to the old mint. keep in mind, cft is not going to provide a benefit to the old mint until the projects start building and get their certificates of occupancy. part of how i understand they are fundraising for their capital plan is by showing this contribution of the city at 10 or 20 million.

afterconferring with a couple of folks i have heard it doesn't impact their fundraising whether 15 million or 20 million contribution from the city, but that is the current benefit they are seeing with this commitment is the ability to help raise money for their capital campaign in the long-term. i have not been convinced of reducing the pot of cfd within the environmental and transportation buckets to provide additional 5 million for the old mint. there is the so much competing interests that it is always a tough call. i understand that everyone should have a different opinion, but at this point i want to keep the $15 million obligation. >> not to say that this is the largest topic out of the central

soma plan, but since we are speaking about it; i think i would err on the side of wanting to take the recommendation to restore it from the regional enhancement fund by $5 million. if other way i see us being able to do this is there are eight different budgets, so we could take 625,000 from each category which pails in comparison from what each are able to get from the environments. it's such a large asset to our city, and it might sound like 5 million is not that much, but every dollar does count with these restoration projects. i have talked to neighbors who live around there who care about

in big structure really contributes bake to th back to the community. i would like to consider putting that back in from regional transit bucket or from each category $625,000 each. >> my only request is this be done at a full board with a vote of six members. >> my request to the committee on this issue because i don't support it is to make that amendment at the full board. i don't want to make that amendment at committee and then i amend it back at the full board. does that make sense. then the committee can do what it wants and i can prepare the amounts again at the full board in november.

>> i would like to try to get that amendment back in today because i remember us discussing this but not aware that we had in committee amended that underlying committee benefits document, so since that happened i would like to restore the 5 million. >> can i ask a question to supervisor kim, so did you say you didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, or you just wanted to have more time to have conversation about this and dive into it? i just want to hear clarity on your position? >> supervisor kim: there is an ongoing discussion that's happening today between the interneed area management company and philippin philippinephilippine thats.

filipianas. i could make a request to wait one more week and regardless of the out whic outcome make the amendment then. . >> you could make an amendment to the ordinance saying that you approve the plan and the plan document that came out of planning at the last meeting with this one change. you could do that next week and it would not trigger another continuance.

>> i would like to do it today because there were so many amendments flying around and i wouldn't have supported it if i understood we were amending the underlying benefits package summary. >> is what we are doing today going to the full board? >> we have to continue is my understanding for one week anyway. >> regardless it's going to be continued for one week whether we do it now or next week, it won't be sub stan tuff to slow it down. >> there will be a committee next monday and then the monday after. sorry, there is no board meeting the next say so will be sending it to full board on november 13. >> there is a board meeting october 30. >> this will be land use for the

following two weeks. >> yeah. >> john goodman, i think it depend on what the committee does today whether this will be in land use two weeks from now or just next week. >> except i will be making amends next monday that probably will be sub sta substantive and require it to come back november 5, and my optimistic hope is we will then send it with recommendation to the full board on tuesday, november 13. >> supervisor safai: can i make a suggestion since supervisor kim has said she is going to make amendments next week again. could we delay this for one week because i am supportive of adding the $5 million myself,

but this gives one official week for there to be further conversations and if there is no movement we have the ability at that time to add it back in. >> i will be okay, with that. i have will just say that without the funding for the project itself, i think it's hard to assume that there could be a community benefit. we need to project to be completed for the tenants to benefit from it, so my goal is let's get this project moving and after that we can think about what would go into it. of course you want to start the conversation now, but if that project can't get off the ground that is a concern. >> i agree. i think what i heard supervisor kim say is this conversation is going, and a one week delay could help in those

conversations, and maybe then she would be supportive of our position. i am supportive of adding the $5 million back and also in support of allowing one more week for conversation between the interested parties. >> okay, we can wait one more week, so i so will make a motion the adopts items 1-18 minus number 11. sorry. supervisor sa safai. >> did you have something you wanted to present. >> didn't mean to derail -- i had a clarification of item not on the list. so if you look at number 15 and 16 they are kind of a match set related to the impact fee, the central soma impact fee and the

cfd tax so, the package of ordinance and plan as afforded to the board back in may, the planning commission had inconsistency in the code where it had a rate for residential of $20 a square foot, but in the -- document it said $10 a square foot, and i wanted to clarify because it's not on this list and immediately apparent and we are recommending a split where the $10 applies to condo projects. >> thank you. supervisor kim, do you have a response. >> sorry, which piece? >> ms. chen, would you mind? >> what was not included. >> that was not my doing. >> it was a clarification that

we need to amend the implementation document to reflect this new fee scheme. it may be conforming edits -- they are adopted by reference in the planning code so under your per view. >> what is the question in. >> is that item the 15 that you want us to make conforming edits so the underlying documents. >> to the implementation documents. >> i don't have any problem with that. deputy city attorney can we add that part in, amendment 17 to have it coincide with or apply to the implementation documents. >> the committee does not need

to make that motion to amend, planning can modify the document to conform to the ordinance. >> i am guessing there is nothing else? thank you. supervisor kim. >> i will take the motion to adopt all of the amendments except for amendment 11. >> just to clarify, i believe there is a draft ordinance circulated to the committee as well along with the chart? yes. >> just wanted to make one clarification on page 144 of that ordinance online 6, this is the cfd section, 434, supervisor

kim is prosecut proposing amendment that would change the 40,000 gross square foot trigger to 25,000 square feet. that is not on the list sent to you but wanted to clarify that is one of the amendments that supervisor kim is proposing and that the committee is voting on today. that question is significant, one, we want to make sure that we get to document right when we submit it to the park but because the 25,000 square foot change would require -- to planning. >> yes. we did discuss with staff an planning commission has the right to hear specific piece if they would like but we did

discuss to make sure it didn't impact the tom timeline. >> can someone else plai explain what that is? >> that is related to the applicability of cfd, and in the changes described here on the list, in shifting sites from residential to nonresidential the fles threshold is lowed from $40,000-square foot to 25,000 square foot. >> how many are impacted by that? >> we don't know that we have any projects that have proposals in today. it's possible that it could

affect a few in the future. >> through the chair, what is the purpose of that amendment? >> just to capture projects that would trigger the office allocation threshold which is 25,000 square feet because as you know commercial projects smaller than this are not subject to allocation. >> did the planning commission approve that? >> it was not specifically considered.

>> they can choose to hear that or not. >> did we hear from them. >> we bring it to them from thursday and query them at their hearing whether they would choose to hear it. >> is there any indication in advance whether they plan on? >> we do not believe they will probably want to hear it, but up to them. any member of the commission could ask to hold a hearing or not. that is why we will bring it to them on thursday. >> thank you. >> thank you for that. thank you deputy city attorney for catching that just because we got this packet today in committee, so it's hard to read through 235 pages. i think there is a motion on the floor to talk all amendments except item 11.

can we do that without objection, so then we will do that. then amendment 11 roll call. >> a point of clarification to the chair. i thought we were putting the vote on that item for the week. >> okay, sorry. >> i wanted it to be put off additional week. >> so today we only adopted 1-18e18 minus 11 plus the trigger reduction. do we have a motion to continue it for one week as amended? we will do that without objection. thank you very much.

better streets item. >> clerk: item two item modifying better streets plan requirements and curb cut restrictions. [reading agenda item] >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: after conferring with the city attorney, i will stick with my original motion, which is to move forward item two as amended to the full board and make a motion to duplicate the file where i do amendments on the nsf and request the city attorney to in