through stresses of public service who shown what it means to be loved, to love to be wrong, to be compassionate and vulnerable. thank you for seeing me. thank you for seeing supporting my love for this work. i'm so fortunate to have these people in my life. who shaped my approach to public service, not all of us can be so lucky. not all of us can rest at night knowing that the love and care we hope for is part of successful life will be for us when we need it most. it's that awareness and those values principles and ethics that my family has instilled in me, carried with me the toughest times through the hardest of life challenges. when i called out for help, not knowing if it existed for me, it

was my family that heard my call. it's that care and our ethics that i work to infuse in my 11 years of public service to the city. they've given me the confidence and strength to know that every shred of my being that my community need to be listened to and heard. it's those values i will bring to this new role as assessor-recorder. these are the values we need always. but especially today, when people are hurting so badly, so deeply when they need to know there's a government caring for them with caring and doors open and not shut, a government that's accessible and be accountable to you the people that we are proud to serve. i want to thank city administrator chu for her commitment to the professionals at the assessor-recorder's awesome. thank you for haig this

-- makingthis transition a succl one. i joined a team of hard working and professionals that made carmen's vision for fair and efficient government, not only a reality but an envy of offices up and down the state. that's a legacy i'll strive to continue and excited to learn and work with all of you at the office to continue down that path. one of excellence, one of continuous improvement for the betterment of san francisco. to the team i part with today, the office of economic and workforce development, you have prepared me for this moment. it's been long hard year for so many businesses and workers throughout this pandemic for the barbers, gyms, bars, the fears, the actors, the concessionaries, the tattoo artist and

restaurants, hotel workers, janitors and office workers. nonprofits rising up and you all every single one of you rising up to meet these moments. to meet so many entrepreneurs determined to make it through this. for their workers, for themselves and for it city that they love. what you shown me, what all of you have taught me, those were the moral authority, those with the formal authority. the mayors, the assembly members, senators and controllers and supervisors, which you taught me once again is that there's always hope on the horizon. every storm eventually breaks for the clear sky above. to the diverse communities that i serve with respect to gratitude during these 11 years of service, for the neighborhood leaders, coalitions of parity

and equity for the public housing, merchant leaders, thank you for the confidence you placed in me. to serve you for many years more. to find new paths to build a better and more prosperous san francisco for all of us. i thank you mayor breed. all of you for your leadership and your trust. now i'm ready to go to work. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all so much for joining us today. this concludes our program. stay safe and healthy.

let's get our city open. [applause] >> the san francisco board of appeals daryl honda is joined by vice president eduardo santacana, commissioner and also present is brad russy who will provide legal add voice this evening. at the controls is the board's legal clerk and i'm julie rosenberg the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. scott sanchez, with the planning department and joseph duffy,

acting deputy director for the san francisco department building inspection. the board meeting guidelineses are as follows, turn off and silence all crowns and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present and throw minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to tee implants each to address the board and no rebuttal. mr. longway, our legal clerk, will give you a verbal warning before your time is up. four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules are hearing schedules e-mail board staff. now public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board and every effort has been made for the inperson hearing process. to enable public participation,

sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live. sfgovtv is providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watch the hearing on tvg. to sfgovtv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on friday. a link is found on the home page of our website at sfgov.org/boa. public comment, you can join the zoom by computer. go to our website and click on the zoom link or call in by telephone. call 66990006833 and enter webinar id8913973734 and it's broadcasting ask stream phone number the access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you watching the livestream or broadcast.

to block your phone number when calling in, first dial star 67 and the phone number. listen for the public comment worrying of your item to be called and dial star 9, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you will have three minutes to speak. our legal clerk will provide with you the 30 second delaying. there's a delay from what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet so it's very important people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting. if any need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, make a request in the chat function to alice longway or send an e-mail to board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now, we will swear in and affirm any of those who wish to

testify. any member of the public may speak under the sunshine ordinance. if you testify tonight, wish to have the board give your testimony evidence, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. so do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? ok. thank you. if you are participant and you are not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. we're now moving on to item number 1. which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for. >> we'll just -- we have one housekeeping item. and this is item number 4. which is appeal number 20-087. subject property 482 16th avenue. the parties have requested this matter be continued to march 3rd, 2021.

>> i'll make that motion. >> ok. is there any public comment on the motion to continue this item? >> ms. mark soul. the report owner. i didn't realize that you met every week so we would like to have this done next week if we can. >> we don't meet every week. and since you agreed to march third, that's the date we have to go with at this point. on that motion vice president santacana [roll call vote] >> so that months carries 5-0 and this matter is continued to march 3rd. we have move on to general

public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter that is not on tonight's calender. is there anyone here for general public comment? if so, please raise your hand. i do not see any hands raised so we'll move on to item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> i would like to start off and send my condolences to the shultz family to charlotte and their whole family on the passing of george shultz. i mean, what a guy. he was actually secretary of state, secretary of treasure, i believe the secretary of labor. my sincere condolences go out to the shultz family. also, i wish everyone a happy chinese new year. happy lunar new year. >> thank you, any other commissioner comments or questions.

is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. there's no public comment, we will move on to item number 3, adoption of the minutes. before you have discussion of the minutes january 27th, 2021 meeting. >> without any changes or additionors modifications, does anyone make a motion to accept those minutes? >> i make a motion to accept those minutes. >> ok. is there any public comment on the notion adopt the minutes? so we have no public comment. we have a motion from commissioner swig to adopted the january 27th minutes. an that motion -- [roll call vote] >> thank you, those minutes are adopted 5-0. so, we are now moving on to item number 5.

and this is appeal number 20-o 086thierry castro versus the department of building inspection planning department approval. subject property is 819 hampshire street. replacement of old windows and street facings front existing and proposed aluminum windows. this is permit 202012030127 and we'll hear from the appellant first. >> thank you. good evening, mr. president and mr. vice president, members of the board. my name is michael and i'm an attorney with the tenderloin housing clinic. speaking on behalf of mr. thierry castro and his family and his two children who live with him at the property. unfortunately here tonight with what i imagine for most of us is

a bay of deja vu, actually. i believe four out of five of the sitting commissioners here tonight were here the last time my client was forced to deal with the issuance of a building permit. and unfortunately, a lot of those issues are still happening and unfortunately there's been multiple new issues. just as before, my client, along with his children, are the sole tenants remaining in the building. just as before, my client has been doing his best to try and live there while being subjected to numerous, unprofessional and unsafe construction practices. just as before, he has tried to worrying those issues out of trying to get it resolved by working or attempting to work with the building manager and as well as making complaints to d.d.m. unfortunately, also just as before as the risk of sounding like a tape recorder, in order to ensure he is able to safely

continue living in his affordable housing, something more needs to happen. and so we're hear tonight, ladies and gentlemen, of the board, to seek modifications to this building permit to ensure that the construction is done safely and without unnecessary harassment and disruption to my client. in the interest of time, i won't spend too much time going over what happened the last time we were here, there were a huge number of issues and when it was said and done and the board issued an order that we have attached and exhibit d and where the board ordered removal of a client permit where it was listed last time and that the days and hours of construction, the limited to monday through saturday and 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the there's a 48

hour notice. the last time we were here, the owner provided a letter stating other items that they would follow as a property. and unfortunately that hasn't happened. as we stepped in our brief specifically on page five lines 5-19, there have been multiple issues about working on sundays with monday and saturday working past those work hours at 9:00 or 10:30 at night. failing to secure the property at end of the day and leaving heels of construction debris and even having excessive noise construction such a allowing alarms from days on end. my client recognizes that renovation work has to be done and in this instance the schedule placement of old street-facing windows it might

not need to be done but rather, given the on going issues of safety and hazards created by unprofessional business practices, we're here asking for conditions on that permit and before i get too much further into the specific conditions we're looking for, and the interest of making sure that the board gets to hear from my client, i'd like to invite my client to come up and speak for a few minutes so you can hear his own direct personal experiences with what has been going on. >> we do have -- can you freeze the time, please? >> commissioner swig, your hand is raised. did you want to ask a question at this point or do you want them to finish? >> please, have him finish. >> please go ahead mr. castro. >> hello, everyone. thank you for seeing us again. we have to come before you and ask for your help.

i live at 821 with my two children and i've been here for 16 years and this project here at hampshire street has been under a lot of and recently i believed they changed the general manager of the construction and it's a different general manager now and definitely better and more professional than the previous one. still, there are many issues just like michael has outlined and many issues persist. especially having to do with security and noise and the work hours and those kinds of things. for example, the new general contractor turned off water to our electricity and they've at least given me a half an hour heads-up where the previous one would give me none whatsoever.

it's better but it's not good enough but it's definitely better. so, as michael has clearly outlined in all the documents, we're requesting your help to have things like, they want to put scaffolding back up. last time they put it up for over a year, didn't do any work on it and it was a huge security risk. we would like to know, if they want to put one up again, show us a schedule and tell us what it will go up what's day, what work will be accomplished and what day will they come down when that work is completed. very, very simple. very straight forward sort of project management and request that we're making. i hope that helps. >> that's a really good segway into the actual specific questions. we have as a board today. for modifying this permit. first, as mr. castro has already

indicated, we would very much like a schedule for what that work would be. it's my understanding from a document that mr. allen ease and he said the scaffolding should be put up for less than a month. it's great news. that's fantastic and my client is very happy to hear that. and pursuant to that we would like to have an actual schedule provided that shows that so that if that timeline is not kept, my client has something that he has. given the last time constraint i'll leave the rest of the issues we have listed in our papers what we're requesting. these are outlined on page 8. i'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. thank you. >> thank you. we do have a question from commissioner swig. >> so, i was one of the commissioners who was involved

during the last hearing. and i remember the case very clearly. i want to ask you, councilor, first of all, i want to be clear because past president honda but this was president lazarus digression is something that frustrated her justifiably and i want to digress why we're here, yes or no the permit. when we do what we are going to do with this permit, there have been raised issues of accountability in your presentation from the last permit. when there are issues which were in breach of our findings and direction, last time, how did you seek some help for accountability of the permit

holder legally? or did you -- was your client just frustrated and let it happen? >> so, that's a good question. we tried to address the issue with a number of different ways. i know my client, on numerous occasions he communicated directly with the property managers that he was notify were working at the building. some of the turnover that my client mentioned included different property managers so there's two or three separate individuals. on my end, because as mentioned in our papers we are actively litigating this eviction, i actually have brought up some of the issues directly to the managing member of hampshire flats llc during depositions where i actually specific put this order in front of him and asked, you know, is it your understand tag work is going on beyond these hours and why. and unfortunately, the issue has

still been going on. so, we primarily tried to rely on my clients speaking to the agents of the owner directly because at the end of the day, i think all parties here today can recognize that sometimes attorneys like myself come in with a little bit of heat and make conversations not be the most productive. we've tried both. unfortunately, our appeal here today is the conclusion of those efforts not bearing the fruit that we would like. >> i want to ask the attorney something, please. >> so as you know, as the commissioners know, nothing makes us more upset than when we attach some conditions to the approval of a permit and those conditions, are heated. who has the jurisdiction of what is the accountability for items

which are dagged on as a condition of approval, please. >> good evening, commissioners. city attorney's office. the conditions that are placed on the permit by the board would be enforceable to the extent they are enforceable by the inspection sometimes when the board places permit conditions and the decision we asked the department of building inspection whether it's going to be -- whether they're able to enforce them so it's important when considering whether it's feasible. >> what advice, brad, would you give to a permit to anna tell

ant who has come to us as the last time and we placed some considerations and conditions on while issuing the permit, and what would you advice the appellant to do and what is his advised method of accountability for the permit holder when one conditions are done? is it just going to the permit holder and say, hey, you are not upholding your end of the deal or what advice would you give the a tell ant's council or the a tell ant's if such behavior conditions again? >> i think we had a discussion at the last hearing about d bye potentially, their ability to enforce these conditions so i would have expected them to go to dbi and.

>> i wanted clarification exactly of what you said so that. >> theresa: they're not. >> thank you, very much. >> i'm sorry. >> i was going to say, commissioners, it would be helpful, i could speak to that a little bit, specifically to the dbi element and the unfortunate because i remember that discussion last time. i don't know if that would be helpful to the board but i'm happy to speak to that. >> we should get through this case and if there's any questions we can ask you councilor. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the agent for the permit holder, mr. >> my name is manny and i'm project manager. we took over the project in late november. and i'm also the company owner of the general contractor that took over and first and for most, i mean, i've heard the

stories that mr. terry had to go through with the prior contractor and i saw the timeframe that at the took and it was astronomical but to prove that we're moving forward and making progress, the 819 unit and 829, they're done with final inspections so they're ready to go. we're working on the middle unit. we need the plumbing final and electrical final and the last bit of work that we're doing is actually the unit above mr. castro and we're finishing up the tiles and we're start particular in that one and in the unit adjacent to that one so essentially by the end of next week and it will essentially be done besides maybe an inspection here or there or some showing from the real estate agent and we took over and i tried to introduce myself that mr. castro

and he was in a hurry and he had to go somewhere and i came back and he can correct me on that and i don't remember exactly but i tried to talk to them and he was busy but i left him my business cards so i'm trying to make communication between us and he had my business card and when i got the case, i e-mailed mr. satani so he had my direct e-mail as well. what i'm trying to do with this, i just want to let you dies know i'm here to answer and we're not going to hide and i want it to be strictly significant. i want you guys to keep us separate and the property owner.

>> the most recent one that was the issue and i want to bring up that they were working sundays so what happened there, i want to be completely transparent. they weren't working. we had a couple of guys stay in the building. i don't know if that was permissable if it's not, we'll fix it. but that was the whole purpose. we kept our tools there. we kept all the materials there and we didn't want anybody to go in because someone got their tools broken into and stolen in front of where we parked so that was the purpose. when they were there on sunday, it was just to play security. anyone that is a red flag to you, let me know. shoot me an e-mail, call me. we'll fix it right away. as far as the scaffolding goes, what i'm letting now is that we can put all the towers aside

like we can make sure it's not in front of your window and we have no intend of replacing your windows and you are living there and we don't want to disrupt, when time comes we can replace them but the whole purpose is to replace the windows broken or the previous contractor tock them out without a permit because the unit is getting weathers in without the rain and i want you know i'm here to make this as easy as possible and like you said the schedule we can give that to you no problem and the most that scaffold will be is three weeks and that includes for siding repair, the paint and the window replacement and i can send that over to you whatever we need and you can e-mail me or call me and we're here to help and make this as painless as possible and i promise, you want to be out of hampshire within the next month and we can make it happen. as long as we can proceed and that's pretty much it.

the woods are on hand and we have the scaffold on deck and we just need a couple days notice and we can give you a safety pretty much a safety protocol and make sure that mr. castro has a passage of protocol, stop work when mr. castro exits. we can go any which way but safety is our number one concernment make this as painless as possible as long as coordinate. when we go in somewhere, we want to get it done and at the end of the day move onto the next job. those are my remarks. >> thank you. we have a question from president honda and then commissioner lazarus. >> so, first of all, thank you for being as proactive as you are evidently, were you aware

there were problems prior to you starting and commencing this project? >> so, frankly speaking, no, the only thing the owner told me it was a hard job but then as i kind of went in and we started to hear things left and right from not from the owner but from the people who used to help him. i called on finishes, they would say it happened. >> so when did you take over, sir? >> we took over, i would need to check and the contract we send the contracts early november and we started in november. >> were you aware that there was stipulations on the permit that this body actually had put on so besides your normal work stuff from the department of building inspections, this board stipulated additional restrictions, were you aware of those at all by the owner? >> the restrictions no.

the only thing i was aware of was the work hours but i looked up on your website and saw what hours were acceptable and as far as anything else, i was not aware. >> you know, which way it goes this evening, i would look at what was mentioned because those need to be adhered to no matter what. >> ok. >> thank you. commissioner lazarus. >> yes, thank you. this question is also for our city attorney following up on commissioner swig's questions. i guess i'm still confused as to what our options are here. i mean we heard the permit and granted the appeal, conditioned the permit on certain conditions being met and you indicated when those aren't met those are, if you will, appealable to the building inspection zoos, what are we able to do? can we grant at peel and add more conditions? it seems to me that these

permits can continue to bounce back, if that's always the case. so, if you won't mind clarifying that, it would help me. >> my understand it's a different permit than what was appealed before and the board could grant the appeal and add conditions that would be appropriate for this particular permit to the extent you deem are those are appropriate they can be consistent with the conditions from the prior permit if that's appropriate for this permit and they could be something different that would be helping the ten at more in this situation. >> so this is a new and separate permit? >> i believe so. i believe the permit was something else. maybe someone can correct me. >> it's a separate permit. >> it's a new permit for the windows. >> i see, ok.

that helps. thank you, very much. president honda. >> is the project sponsor online or just as representatives? >> it's my understanding just as representative. >> i mean, my concern is is that i can't imagine why he would not tell his new property manager of the prior situation. ok. i just wanted to see if he was online. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. i'll be brief. most of the issues raised by the appellant are properly building inspection issues. there's an open planning case related to the windows and this permit would correct that violation but properly installing the windows that were removed without permit. and the issues that you would defer to be conditioned that were suggested by the appellant

and whether or not they're enforceable and i'm available for questions should there be any. >> thank you. so i don't see any questions so we'll now hear from the department building inspection and director duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy dbi. permit application replacement of old window street facing front existing a proposed other aluminum windows. it's been properly issued on the third of december 2020. suspended on the 15th of december 2020 and the permit is good. the good news that i heard was that there's someone new involved in the project and i think mr. castro mentioned that things had improved so it seems like we've got a couple of good positives here. the dbi is familiar with the

building and in deed we were called out a couple times in 2020 regarding the security issues and doors left open and i would say the construction that was back in june. probably by the old contractor. we did issue a correction notice for that just to secure this site and that is part of our building code. we also have a notice, we have a couple of active notices of violations on the building that will remain until the work is all completed and the building permits signed off. so it was very -- it was back in the 23rd of june 2020 was when we issued the last notice of violation so, i am seeing a response from our inspectors to the complaints of mr. chan so i remember the building probably two or three years ago and i was surprised to see an appeal on it because i felt the work was

finished. i'm available for questions but i'm glad to hear the contractor is reaching out to speak to the tenant or his attorney. i really would encourage that. that offer should be taken up immediately. if they want to come up with an agreement between the work hours and what some time limits on the schedule york think it's unreasonable and it's more of the civil issue than a d bye get it very hard sometimes to enforce that and i don't think we can, actually. we can oversee it but if it goes sideways, it is going to be more of a civil agreement in my opinion. and i think we spoken before the board of appeals such as work hours and that on the broke and we can oversee it and report back but i'm not sure what the enforcement is more than a civil issue. thank you. >> thank you, we have a question

from commissioner swig. >> you are on mute. we condition hear you. >> >> thank you. >> thank you for updating us on the progress of the project and will you for updating us there are notice of violation and i'm not going to make the a sum sunn the contractor knows about those because he seems, although i was highly compliment him for his attitude both in-person tonight and in his written presentation. it seems that maybe is not fully informed based on the accessibility about every intimacy of the project and would you please inform him or may i ask him, please, to be in touch with you so that he might take care of the notices of

violation which he is not familiar with? thank you. >> it's a great idea. i forgot to mention if he want to contact me by e-mail and i have a decision from the last permit which he should be be aware of because it has conditions and i can share those with him. it's not a problem. >> thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. i do not see any hands. so, we will move on to rebuttal. mr. zatoni, you have throw minutes. >> thank you, very much, madam director. so, we are very happy to hear that the contractor is willing to work with us on the issues and i think i can speak for my client and myself both. we'll be happy to take advantage of that option.

we have something that is already evident to the board here tonight which is the restrictions we're asking for which serve as a guard against the communication issues that are still happening on the other side. i hear the contract that he wants to work with us and i love and adore that but the conditions we asked for in our papers will guard against the lack of discussion and lack of communication between the owner and the contractors for different contractors. just for a example, even in the context of this appeal, after he first reached out to me because i believe that, i reached out to him to find out if there was an attorney representing him like there was the last time and if you eventually responded and you said there wasn't but in the time he said that, he took the response which is understandable, communication takes time. i also reached out to the designated person for service of process in this case. and said hello, i just heard and

he was saying that he might be interested in trying to row solve this issue and some other way and we would be open to trying to have that conversation and we're going to in good faith and it didn't seem to go anywhere. i didn't get a response and they tell me i don't think they talk to him about that either. my concern is, the person we have is a good actor who will work with us and work with my client and he is not the only actor and the restrictions are going to guard against any actors is doing illegal conduct not just him. >> thank you, are you finished? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from you. you have three minutes, sir. >> i mean, i'm going to be

honest and the lack of communication that you are saying this and that is, i work, we all make sure that we don't break it and schedules, whatever you need as far as anything goes, like i said, i can't speak for the property owner and i mean, as far as i'm concerned mr. castro and i we can have that communication and after that e-mail thread, i didn't hear from anybody as far as that goes so, i don't know what route that was meant to go and i'm responsive and if you don't want anybody working there, that's fine, we'll do whatever it takes. we'll get it done. we're a month out and we're almost done and out of your

hair, that was it. >> we have a question from commission swig and commissioner chang. >> >> you are on mute, commissioner swig. >> >> i'm here. >> now we hear you. >> nimble i am not. thank you for your attitude towards this project and your willingness to responsive to the tenant and the appellant and are you aware of the notices of violation which exists and are those and are those noticed of violation on a list of your responsibilities before you leave the property? >> yes, sir. all the violations i have to take care of by the time that i continue over the project as the final inspections and the only violation i was aware of that was open was the windows.

and that's why we pulled the window permit right away as soon as we got there because they removed them before they had a permit. >> may i request that you i know you heard it but i have to be clear for the record and can i request you be in touch with mrs are very, very clear on what they exist and when they might be heard please. >> absolutely. >> commissioner chang. >> >> just a couple clarifying questions. so if i understand properly, the permit that is being appealed is the permit to correct a notice of violation for illegally removing windows? is that correct? >> who are you addressing that question to? >> that is what deputy director duffy said, correct.

>> and if the board supports the appeal, and we condition that permit with the requested such as limiting hours and similar conditions placed on the previous permit, as soon as the window replacement is over that it doesn't necessarily i guess that question is how does conditioning this permit with the similar conditions and as applied to the previous permit help address the appellant's concerns. >> deputy director duffy raised the issue that a lot of these conditions are difficult to enforce because they can't be out there at the property.

>> if would you like to hear from deputy director duffy -- >> i apologize. my question is most directed so mr. zataoni. >> yes, i was going to volunteer. you did not have to, thank you. our response to that commissioner would be that the nature of the bay the permit a feel system is my client has to do this one bit at a time. ideally, there would be a world wherewith one hearing like this we would be able to work things out such that everything would be done followed certain conditions and depend on how things going, maybe it's an option in the limited context working with him. however, we're not hira peeling this specific permit because we believe appealing and having conditions on this permit is the panacea to all issues in the property.

rather, my client is at the point where any additional protection and conditions this board can offer protection and conditions that the otherwise has not been able to get through any other means or channels. we're not here look to go win the war, we're just here look to go get him and his family live safely and comfort plea, does that make sense? >> >> can you hear me? >> yes, ma'am. >> yes, thank you. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez. anything further? >> nothing further to add, thank you. >> thank you. deputy director duffy. >> just to add i want to repeat to get the parties to work

together if they're looking on a timeline on the work, it's not an unreasonable request. i heard the contractor mentioned three weeks or four weeks and i recommend he doubles that and gives himself time but if he can get it wrapped up by the end off march it would work better for everybody but don't make promises you can't keep and again just encourage the parties to try to get some good faith and work together. we have a question from more lazarus. >> mr. cuff', i just want to clarify this may have been where commissioner chang was going. the previous permit, it sounds like those conditions could have been problematic for you because you can't be out there continuously enforcing them. if we put those conditions on, will that help him enable the a tell ant to report back to you and ask them be enforced and i

just want to be in a situation where we're putting somewhere there that really is meaningless so i would really start your feedback on what is helpful o the parties, i guess? >> we have no problem with conditions it's just the enforcing of them. we do our building code stuff. beer not a security firm but we don't mind reporting back to the board if it comes back to that and sometimes if the conditions are not met, we're not open at 6:30 in the evening unless someone sends us a video or does something like that. we would need evidence but it would be the problem but it might be something for the canada and the lawyer to go somewhere else and suddenly, with our oversight of projects on the contractor, if you still work in san francisco he will

come across this again and he wants to do the right thing and it's a great thing and we can definitely help a little bit and i would just worry about it we can't write a notice of violation and we can report it to the city and we just really bad. it seems like we can help but i'm just not sure where it all ends up. >> i believe you said thaw think the the best route is an agreement between the parties? >> >> we would always recommend that anyway. they have to come up with a simple written agreement. i think the attorney is a and he could give those conditions to the contractor and i'm sure they're not unreasonable and work security and all the got things you want 6 a construction

site and as long as they're not outrageous they would grow and they can sign off together and it doesn't go to a judge but something we're always encourage. >> this matter is submitted. >> what's before us, i believe throw of us was here the last case, were you here vice president santacana? on this last time? >> yes, i was. >> you know, the issue i have is what the department stated. we sometimes as a board condition the permit and it becomes unenforce able for the departments and as the representative for the project sponsors spoke two of the units are done and he appears to be be very proactive and have reached

out to the appellant twice and to the attorney. i don't feel adding additional terms to modify this is with terms that are really not enforceable are going to be helpful. and so, that's just my thoughts, commissioners, anyone? i agree. to me the permit was properly issued and why think anybody dispute that and based on what mr. duffy has told us, i would simply move to i would support motion to uphold the permit and deny the appeal. >> would you like it make that motion? >> commissioner lazarus. >> is it appropriate or regal for us to reassert, reaffirm or

at least acknowledge the conditions and attach the conditions as appropriate from the previous permit to this one with regard to the acceptable times for construction to answer? >> it wasn't put on the agenda it was a separate permit that was appealed. we really just need to address the permit that the is before us. >> so, what we're doing here then is, and again, i -- it's refreshing to hear the contractor at least his words, and his energy sometimes it's always us that is good. we are really taking a leap of faith here on what is historically been a not so good

situation to my denying this appeal to be comfortable that everything will go as we smooth as we would like. that's my only problem. as a new contractor, he seems like a nice guy and he has the right answers and expressed himself eloquently but i want to bring, you got to remember about nightmares so,. >> unfortunately commissioner swig, there are two forces at hand here and i believe a lot of this is civil. so, what is before us tonight is if the permit before us is properly issued and. >> i support the commissioner lazarus' point of view and it's just what i would like. i always like to surface my thoughts and feelings. >> we gave him a hammer he will be re fleshed with our deputy director duffy and does

commissioner chang have something to say? >> my only question, can you only apply conditions if you uphold the appeal and deny the permit and. >> it would take four commissioners to grant that appeal and then modify it. >> thank you. >> i make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion, vice president -- >> so that motion carries 5-0 and appeal is denied.

we are now moving on to item number 6. this is appeal number 20-072. lady benjamin pd cannon versus the zoning administrator 024 and 5030 third street appealing the issuance on september 30th to jadallah charles of notice of violation and penalty decision. the building containing commercial and building. 503030 third street and fronts on third street and a detached 3-car garage and contains a one-story detached structure at 5024 third street at the corner and subject property is in violation of the planning code for non-compliance with section 171 i object concluding establishment of a internet exchange within the basement and groundfloor of 5030 third street and section 317 for having an

unauthorized dwelling unit at 5024 third street. this is complaint 2018-016696. it does not appear the appellant is present. i don't see her here. she initially wanted a continuance to june 23rd, 2021 because she said she was waiting on discovery she could ask the board for a conditionance and on thursday, she submitted and the proposed hearing date of octobe. they are posted on the website.

would you like to proceed with the case or would you like to consider whether to continue the matter? if you do want to entertainment a motion to condition we need to hear from the planning department and property owner. >> i have read the material in regards to the request and we have to be fair to both parties and it was not handled in timely manner i believe there was enough time given to. >> we'll get straight to the case and we will first hear from the property owner, mr. gidalla.

>> yeah, i believe that will six by seven network needs to be denied. because of fraud and committed on so many fronts. he has been posting as the owner of the building and having different work done on the property and he has had demo work done without any approval or landlords approvals and received permits without landlord approvals and to do different things and he had a company do street work without approvals that damaged the sidewalks that i now need to repair and is in an issue with the building, this lease that we have with him is a three year lease that was done for the basement and storage he was use particular for and now he is squatting or she is squatting in the middle of this whole case

and she is now squatting in the retail space which is 4,500 square feet and the locks have been changed without appeal and. >> there's a garbage. >> lena: lein. she has boarded and barricaded

herself into the building. i also want to point out that there's other attorneys that have just contacted me trying to reach and serve lady benjamin with other lawsuits. if you look at andrewwaters.com/6 by 7 there's a detailed lawsuit sent to the f.b.i. because of cyber crimes detailing by an attorney and ryan pinker ton has a case of fraud against lady benjamin and it's a fraudulent contract and sale that they put together and there's a bench warrant from sanoma county has been issues against lady benjamin that the county police have been trying top reach and arrest him and there's nothing i can do and she is avoiding arrest.

>> so, i'm sorry to interrupt but is there some type of relief you are looking for from this board? >> well, i just want this action to be denied. this appeal to be denied. that's all. >> the narrow question we have to answer is whether the action, the specific appeal should be granted or denied. you should stick to that and if you have nothing to add, then -- >> i wanted to put some color. i know the district attorney's office in alameda is trying to serve him so, there's a little bit of background. if you can deny this we'll move forward. i had an attorney in san francisco working on this for a year and i know it's covid time but it's putting a lot of stress on me. so thank you for listening. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president santacana, did you have anything further? >> no, that's it. thank you. >> all right. so we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez

planning department. i appreciate the comments of the property owner and i think it's provided helpful background for the board on the hearing tonight. what is before the board is an appeal of a violation and penalty decision that was issued by the zoning add straight ter on september 30th, 2020. the subject property is located in the bayview neighborhood commercial direction. the violation in the notice of penalty decisions are the establishment of an internet service exchange use and also issues related to and authorized dwelling unit on the subject property and they were provided by the appellant that would pate that the decision was a discussion and given this is a little bit different circumstances where the appellant has not shown up so i'd like to give a little bit of

background with with to the itance request that was made so it goes back several years to december 2018 when the planning department opened the complaints ex we she'd notice of enforcement in august of 2019 and a notice of vile ace was issued and a request for a zoning add administrator request was filed by the property owner not the appellant in this matter and the zoning administrator held a public hearing on the notice of violation at that hearing and the appellant appeared, the appellant had legal council and mr. jason haines, who introduced himself as the appellant legal council for this case. the zone administrator issued this penalty decision on september 30th finding the

violation was upheld on october 15th, 2020 the appellant filed the appeal of this decision. on november 3rd of 2020, the appellant requested that the hearing be continued and they sided they were waiting for public records request. i responded the same day asking for details on what department and given it was open for two years at that point. and i did not receive a response. they had somehow assumed that we had agreed to the rescheduling even though no agreement was ever given and the board never processed the rescheduling request. a week before the hearing, the appellant kind of resurfaced and said that they were expecting this case to be rescheduled. [please stand by]

>> they included with that e-mail a link to the sunshine ordinance task force which says don't e-mail us, e-mail the -- you know, contact the departments directly through your public records, but still, they missed that, made the request through the sunshine task force. forwarded it to our department. we received it on january 8 and

responded on january 31 to mr. haines with the public records. given these facts, we disagreed with their scheduling request that they had made on january 22. they had ample time to make public records request. certainly at the time she made the public records request on november 3, it was indicated that they had already made requests, but the only request that i can find is on january 8. so we denied that request. the appellant again requested a continuance, stating that they were going to obtain legal council. we denied that request and indicated that they were represented by legal council at the time of the zoning administrator hearing. mr. haines responded that he was not representing the

appellant on this matter, but certainly, there was every opportunity the appellant had to obtain legal council prior to the hearing and within a reasonable amount of time given this case has gone on since december 2018. so i wanted to outline those more recent developments that have happened after the notice of violation was issued. appreciate the property owner's comments tonight. we respectfully request the board of appeals uphold the notice of violation and deny the appeal and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we do have a question from president honda. >> president honda: so let's say the board upholds the notice of violation. so what happens to the property owner here? so the violation is on the property, not on the tenant, is

that correct? >> that's correct. the violation runs to the land, not to the property owner, but they'll have a firm notice of violation, a finding from the city, that their tenant is in violation of municipal codes, and they'll probably pursue, i would presume pursue eviction for the violation of the lease because they -- their lease doesn't allow them to have a use that violates municipal codes, so i think that would probably give the property owner the leverage to deal with this. again, our goal is always compliance. you know, not to get to penalties. we want to see compliance, we want to see the violations abated here, and we'll work with the property owner or the tenant to get this violation abated. right now, the tenant has not been responding to try to -- there have been no attempts to try to address this violation. i don't think they've made good faith efforts through this appeal process, and how they represented their continuance

requests, and this will, you know, will need to step forward and move forward in the process and get the violation abated, and we'll work with the property owner on how to do that. >> president honda: no, i totally agree, mr. sanchez. this has been abuse of city resources and, you know, these departments to basically prolong this. now, if the notice of violation, are there fees that will be attached to this? >> so there are penalties up to $250 a day for each day the violation continues unabated, and that would begin once the board of appeals makes its decision and order. that makes the decision final. there's also tenant materials charges that will be assessed, and we'll work with the parties to collect any outstanding materials or penalties that accrue. >> president honda: so separate question. i know that this body does not have the ability to adjust fees and fines, but it appears to

me, at least in this particular case. that the property owner has been subjected to quite a few already, and then to add more to this is -- so, i mean, is there any way that the department is going to work with him to -- >> i would think this is quite an unusual circumstance, and i can't recall a similar hearing. of course, our goal is always compliance, so we'll work with the owner to bring the property into compliance, and we understand the situation that they find themselves in. >> president honda: thank you. thank you very much, mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i do see that i believe deputy director duffy is still present. deputy director duffy, did you want to participate in this case? >> just to add that d.b.i. does have a few standing complaints and notices of violation, as

well, and still haven't received permits to comply, but that's all i have to add. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> president honda: i have a question for you. so if you become permanent deputy director, does that mean we lose your expertise on wednesday? no, joe. >> clerk: no. >> i'm a long way from being permanent, president honda, but we'll keep you posted. >> president honda: okay. thank you, joe. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. i see -- one moment -- if you called in to provide public comment, you could dial star, nine, and that will be the equivalent of raising your hand. okay. i don't see anybody raising their hand, so we will move onto rebuttal. mr. jadallah, you have three minutes. >> no -- well, i can -- if you

guys can do the whatchamacallit, deny the appeal, i'll work with whoever's needed. my attorney is working on eviction of the tenants. he's working on the eviction side of things, and as soon as we get the okay to go in there, we'll get the street corrected and whatever other violation that joe mentioned that's out there. and then, if you could work with us on the fees, if you saw all the stuff that i've had to deal with on this thing the past two years -- this is like that movie, "pacific heights," so any way, that's it. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. sanchez, do you have anything further? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning, and nothing further to add. >> clerk: okay. thank you. deputy director duffy, anything

further? >> nothing further. >> clerk: okay. thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president honda: commissioners, who wants to go first? >> seems pretty clear-cut to me. >> commissioner swig: make a motion. >> clerk: i'd like to remind you that the level is err or abuse of discretion. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. i'd make a motion that the administrator did not err or abuse his discretion. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus that the zoning administrator did you err or abuse his discretion. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: okay. we can try to reach her, but we already have three votes to deny, so should we -- >> president honda: i think we should try to call her. >> clerk: okay. i'll give her a call. one moment. >> thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: mr. president, maybe i could just take this time to remind the appellant that we do not have any jurisdiction over these penalties or anything of that nature. >> president honda: thank you for that, and i believe that mr. sanchez said that they

would try to work with the appellant, but once again, we don't have any control over those fees. otherwise, some people would be charged a lot. >> commissioner lazarus: and i didn't mean the appellant, i meant the property owner. >> thank you for that. >> president honda: why don't we wait about another minute or so. if commissioner chang -- >> clerk: commissioner chang is back with us. >> president honda: okay. >> clerk: so commissioner chang, we had a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion and the violation was properly issued. on that motion, commissioner santacana -- i'm sorry. vice president santacana voted aye, and president honda voted

aye, and now we're to your vote. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 5-0, and the appeal is denied. and we don't have any further items. >> commissioner swig: wow, letting us out of school early. >> clerk: yes. president honda? >> president honda: thank you very much, everybody. so we don't have a hearing next week? >> clerk: yes, we do. >> president honda: oh, we do have a hearing next week. awesome. see everybody next week. >> clerk: okay. thank you.

>> good morning, and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of siewrvesz. supervisions. i am the char, aaron peskin, chained by mandelman and connie chan. our clerk is mr. young. mr. young, could you please make any announcements. >> members will be participating in the meeting remotely. committee members will attend the meeting by video conference, the same as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on

this agenda, both on channel 26, and sfgovtv.org. i.d. 1464694909 you can call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1875186183. you may submit public comments by e-mail to myself, to the rules committee, and if you submit public comment by e-mail, it will be forwarded to the

supervisions and it will be included as part of the file. that completes my initial comments. >> chairman: thank you. mr. young. >> item one is appointing seven members to the guaranteed income advisory group, indefinite terms. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. colleagues, this is an item pursuant to an ordinance passed by the san francisco board of supervisions to make recommendations around a growing movement not only in this city and in this country, but around the world relative to virtual social security, if you will, guaranteed income for people of limited means. this is being done in conjunction with the treasure's office. i am delighted that we have eight remarkably qualifieds individuals. if you read their resumes

and applications, as i did this weekend, it is quite an impressive group. eight individuals for eight seats, so not a lot of tough choices for us to make. i believe all of them are here to briefly testify, except for bena shimerali, who indicated he was unable to attend due to work commitments. three individuals need a residency waiver. and are there any questions or comments from committee members? seeing none, why don't we open this up to the applicants. and i bet if i press a button here -- i cannot, for some reason, i'm note sure why, find my participant button. why don't we just open

this up to comments from applicants. first speaker, please. >> i'll call on the first applicant on the list, which would be shirley yee. >> can you hear me? >> chairman: we can hear you. and i might have to log off and log on because my computer is giving me trouble. but i can hear you now, so why don't we proceed. >> good morning, chair peskin and members of the rule committee. i'm the daughter of immigrant parents. my father was the mayor of detroit's chinatown. i have worked to address systemic inequities my entire adult life, and most of which is here in san francisco, focusing on wealth and inequity.

i was with mayor breed's o.m.d. policies. i am an active member of a statewide group of g.i. pilots, currently diving deep into benefit waivers, and with g.i. policy advocates as well. i'm also here on behalf of norell knolls, for seat mr. five. not only is he proudly born and raised on treasure island, as a 28-year-old black gay man, he knows what it means to live in the city. he shared just before he was born, his mom was coming out of homelessness. because of programs like section 8, they were able to afford to live on treasure island, and now he wants to help shape programs that give back to other san francisco residents. thank you for your time.

>> chairman: thank you, shirley, and i did just get a notification that norel, as well as roberto, will be unable to attend. so thank you for speaking to norel's qualifications. next speaker, please, and i believe that that would be jacob denny, who has applied to seats one, two, or three. >> thank you, chair peskin and supervisions mandelman and chan. throughout my life, i have experienced the ways in which our economy fails working people, and the ways our social safety net fails to meet all of our needs. i know what it is like to have to choice between fixing your car or paying your rent. as far as economic justice policy director, my goal

is to identify interventions that make it so all people in san francisco are able to experience economic security and live lives of dignity. the uneven impacts of the pandemic, coupled with systemic racism and economic exclusion have made this a need more than ever. i want to better help the people who need it most. thank you for your consideration. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. and i believe the next speaker would be james pugh for seats one, two, or three. and a residency waiver would be required for james. >> i would like to thank the committee for considering my application for seats one, two, or three. i'm really excited at the prospect of applying my experience in this space, designing and implementing and guaranteeing programs in san francisco. in my five years working

on guaranteed income equity, focused on understanding how guaranteed income can be structured to have a transformative impact for low-income americans, particularly in communities of color. and ensuring that these programs don't jeopardize other programs, like heat. [inaudible] >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. and i believe that speaker would be gloria barry for seat four. >> can you hear me? >> chairman: yes, we can. >> good morning, chair

peskin. i'm running for -- i'm applying for this because seat four must be held by a person who has personally experienced poverty while living in san francisco. i've lived in and out of poverty in san francisco from 1969 to '75, and periodically from '87 to 2015. right now i only have veteran compensation, which is a third of what is deemed low income. i've worked for a commission which doesn't always yield a living wage. i also have been on welfare and food stamps before. when i was homeless, i was sent to shelters, and i lived in transitional housing on treasure island. i would not be able to live in san francisco now if it were not for the assistance i received from being a veteran. the demographics i reach out to is black, mexican,

and white. i am 51 years old, and i'm a female and a disabled veteran. i served 13 years in the military. while in service, i went six months without being a dependent -- getting dependent benefits because (indiscernable). and at that time, i had to eat rahman every day because that is all i could afford. hopefully i will be recommended for this committee so my experiences realtime can get with people with the economic experience, and together we can crunch some numbers and do something for san francisco that has never been done before. because it is time that we do something about the great disparity in wealth in the city. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. barry. next speaker, please.

>> i believe the next speaker would be elaine chavez -- >> chairman: i'm having crazy problems with my computer. i may have to -- mr. clerk, can we take a one-minute break. i would need to leave this meeting and get back in. this is not -- my computer is not working. so we will recess for one minute. if i can get back on in one minute. >> clerk: we will take a one-minute recess. >> chairman: thank you. >> chairman: thank you. we will reconvene the rules committee meeting for today, february 8th. thank you. my technical difficulties seem to be better on relogging in. and the next applicant would be roberto vargas,

who is not here. a residency waiver is required for said seat, and he has applied for seats four, five, six, seven or eight, and norel knolls was spoken to by ms. yee. and as i said, earlier, that will take us to our last applicant, elena chavez -- >> sorry, supervisor, i am actually here. >> chairman: we're delighted you are here this morning. please proceed. i apologies. >> thank you, supervisions. good morning, committee members. my apologies for being late. i had to rearrange some things. i just wanted to share that, you know, my family has been in san francisco since 1946, moving to

hunter's point from nicaragua. and, you know, i'm second-generation graduate of mission high school. and my entire career has been in serving low-income communities in san francisco, primarily in the non-profit sector, but also in the san francisco unified school district. i currently work at ucsf, leveraging ucsf resources to help get at both health and economic equity leveraging, or economic and science resources to support getting equity in san francisco. that has included work on reducing diabetes and chronic disease disparities. but i've worked as a street outreach worker for the mayor's gang prevention program, at the real alternative's program "rap," and primarily served folks in the commission district and

bayview hunter's point my entire life. i lived half of my life in bayview hunter's point before getting displaced there several years ago. so i would need a residency waiver. and i still have family members living in poverty, still have family members living in homelessness in san francisco, and family members recently out of homelessness by way of support through navigation centers, thankfully. so, you know, i would be happy to serve in any way i could serve san francisco. including in this capacity. to bring to bear evidence, whenever possible, but mostly to bring a voice of advocacy and support for low-income communities in san francisco, poor folks in san francisco, who are the folks i identify with most, who are the folks i will advocate for and stand alongside with most

in this role and in any role that i serve san francisco. so thank you for your consideration. >> chairman: thank you, sir. and sorry, i did not realize that you had joined this meeting. and i think that takes us to our last applicant, who is present this morning, elena chavez casada. >> good morning. i would like to thank supervisions peskin, mandelman,and chan. i'm an s.f. resident with two young kids in this school district, in second and fourth grade, and i'm currently vice president of programs at the san francisco foundation, where we're singularly focused on economic inclusion in the bay area. while the foundation is the first place i've been in my career that explicitly holders racial equity as our north star,

my entire career has been in advancing economic student for low income communities of color (indiscernable) and before then, in programatic work. as often is the case, as my career path is groundedin my personal backgrou, as a latin-american who has grown up in a mexican-american family. i watched my parents struggle so my four siblings could have opportunities that they literally have never dreamed of. and this is what grounds me. equity is such a big concept and can often feel nebulous and elusive, and i think that is okay. it is on each of us to grapple with that elusive elusiveness and make

meaning of it. i would argue the power of this guaranteed income strategies and why i'm so excited to be part of this is its explicitity. "the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly with a governeded income." and finally i want to say that san francisco has a history of innovation and and leadership and a pilot that sets the tone for cities across the city, like the financial justice program and others, and i'm proud to say i've been involved in each of those programs and one way or another ocean over the years. it would be an honor to be part of this group, addressing those questions and informing the way

forward. so thank you so much for the opportunity. >> chairman: thank you so much. as i said at the outset, this is the qualifications in any number of ways for these eight individuals is really remarkable. thank you, ms. casada for your applying and your work. are there any applicants i have missed? seeing none, are there any members of the public who would like to testify on item number one. i have been informed, after my computer glitch, that supervisor haney is also on. so maybe before we go to public comment, supervisor haney, is there anything you would like to say this morning? >> yes, and i'll be very brief. first of all, i wanted to make sure you called on me, chair peskin, because i got my lighting on point this morning for you. and i wanted to thank you for considering these applicants, and thank you

to member chan and member mandelman as well. as you said, this is an extraordinary group of folks. i'm really excited to see what they're going to be able to bring forward for our city. we worked very closely with a number of organizations and departments in making sure that we really did outreach to get these great groups of folks in front of you. so i am fully supportive of all of the applicants. i also want to quickly acknowledge treasurer sincearos to create this advisory group. they will help lead efforts towards a great guaranteed income. and i want to thank you those from the human rights commission, and natalie foster and terry oli from the security project. and, this is part of a larger effort that is happening all over the country. there are dozens of cities, stockton, long

beach, los angeles, new orleans, who are developing guaranteed income programs. so not only do we have these amazing people who will be serving on our advisory group, they will be sharing information with literally dozens of cities all across the country. and i think the outcome of this will be hugely important for our own efforts and our national efforts to attack poverty and economic insecurity. i want to thank you, chair peskin, and all of the committee members, and all of the applicants. we will take what you provide as part of this advisory group, and make sure it is implemented for our residents, who are especially now can benefit from guaranteed income. >> chairman: thank you

for your leadership. thank you for your leadership locally. great lightly, and to all of the applicants to whom i assume will be forwarded to this committee to the full board, good luck on your next nine months of work as december approaches and that report will be forthcoming. and i also note that this group will stay together pursuant to the law that the board passed, until january of 2023. so you'll all be together for the next couple of years, and we look forward to your advice and your recommendations. with that, why don't we open item number one to public comment. >> clerk: yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, the meeting i.d. 1875186183. and then press pound and pound again.

if you haven't already done so, dial star 3, and a system prompt will indicate to you to wave your hand. mr. coe, do we have any members of the public for public comment today? >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, i would like to make the following recommendation, that shirley yee be appointed to seat one, with a residency waiver. that jacob denny be appointed to seat two. that james pugh be appointed to seat three with a residency waiver. that gloria barry be appointed to seat four. that norel knolls be appointed to seat five. that roberto vargas be appointed to seat six. that vima shiraliz be ap

appointed to seat seven, and elena chavez be appointed to seat eight. seeing nobody on the roster, mr. young, could you call the role on that motion. >> clerk: i believe that mr. vargas also needs a residency waiver. >> chairman: my apologies, mr. roberto needs a residency waiver. soize would like to add that to my previously stated motion. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> i. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> i. >> clerk: the motion passes without objection.

>> chairman: congratulations. we'll hear that at the next meeting. thank you for your willingness to serve. with that, mr. clerk, could you please read the next item? >> clerk: just to be absolutely clear, i am getting questions. we have shirley yee who has a residency waiver, james pugh has a residency waiver, and mr. vargas, who has received a residency waiver. i wanted to state that for clarity. would you like to make a motion to excuse? >> chairman: i think -- don't you have to read it before i make that motion. >> clerk: yes. i will read it. item two, motion appointing supervisor connie chan, term ending february 4, 2023, to the san francisco local agency formation commission. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young, and is our practice. we don't vote for ourselves on appointments,

with the exception of internal racist present, where you can vote for yourself. with that, i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor chan, who is the subject of this matter. can i take that without objection, victor? >> clerk: i will defer to ms. pearson on that. >> department city attorney ann pearson, all votes taken in this remote world need to be done with each member casting a vote. >> yea. >> chairman: on the motion to excuse? >> on the motion to excuse, supervisor mandelman? >> i. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea.

>> chairman: supervisor chan, you have to leave for about one minute. can you please see if there are any members of the public who would like to comment, mr. clerk. >> clerk: if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the cue to speak. if you haven't already done so, a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until it says you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comment. mr. coe, do we have any members of the public for public comment? >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: okay. we'll close public comment, and i would like to make a motion to forward this item to the full board with recommendation. >> clerk: yes, on that motion, supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan excused.

chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> clerk: the motion passes, without objection, with supervisor chan being excused. >> chairman: okay. why don't we let supervisor chan back into the meeting. that item is passed. and then, mr. clerk, please read the next item. >> clerk: yes. i just want to -- supervisor chan, are you back in the room at this time? >> i am, thank you, victor. >> clerk: thank you. next item is item 3: "motion appointing supervisor hillary ronan, term ending june 30th, 2021, to the alternative member of the bay area executive board." >> chairman: once again, my computer is acting weirdly, but is ms. ronan

here? i am not able to access the participant button. i don't see her. is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1875186183. and press pound and pound again. you may press star 3 to be added to the cue to speak. mr. coe, do we have any members of the public for public comment on item number three? >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. i would like to make a motion to send item number three to the full board with recommendation on that motion. a role. >> >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> i.

>> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> next on the agenda is a (indiscernable). members of the public who wish to comment on this item, please press star 3. please wait until the system in cades you have been unmuted. mr. coe, do we have any members of the public for public comment on this item. >> we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: i would

like to move this item forward on full recommendations. >> supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> clerk: the motion passes without agenda. next on the agenda is item five, motion appointing supervisor safai, term ending january 1, 2024, to the behavioral health commission. >> chairman: my understanding is we need to change it to the correct expiration date, to january 1, 2023. >> clerk: that is correct. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1875186183, and then press pounds and pound

again. if you haven't already done so, please press star 3to line up to three. mr. coe, do we have any members of the public to comment on this item? >> yes, i have one caller in the cue. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> thank, mr. chair. in 2019, supervisor safai was appointed to this commission. when she resigned, she never had attended a single one of the meetings of the commission, sending staff to participate in her place. this is not acceptable. and supervisor safai should not continue this. [inaudible] and that resource, paragraph 45: 70, "it is not permitted in ordinary

assembly, unless the laws of the state require it or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it. it is incompatible with the characters" (indiscernable). if the law under which the organization is incorporated allows proxy voting, the adoption of this vote as parliamentary authority should be treated as sufficient provision." my research shows that the state and local law and bylaws are silent on the issue. therefore proxy voting is prohibited in meetings of the san francisco behavioral health committee. section 1513d requires removal of commissioner after four unexcused absences in a 12-month period. i will ask for enforcement

of this provision if supervisor safai does not attend the meetings of the commission in person. thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you for that comment and for letting us know. i will endeavor to reach out to supervisor safai to ensure he will attend personally. are there any any other members of the public for public comment on this item number five? >> mr. chair, that completes the cue. >> chairman: public comment is closed, and i would like to formally offer the amendment to put in the proper ending date of the term of january 1, 2023. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to amendment, supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea.

>> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> clerk: the motion to amend passes without objection. >> chairman: and then i would like to make a motion to send the item, as amended, with recommendation to the full board. on that motion, a roll call please. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: mr. clerk, read items six through nine together. >> item six is a motion appointing supervisor morguard, term ending june 30thn alternative to the bay area executive board. item seven is a motion appointing him to a term ending february 1, 2025. item eight is a motion

appointing him to january. [inaudible] p. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. i thought we should take these all together, because concerns the same supervisor have to augment the goldengate bridge board, and thank you, supervisor melgard for jumping in, into these various important regional rhodes. roles. i don't know if you're there because my computer is giving me a fit. if you are there, supervisor melgard, you are welcome to say a

couple of words. >> supervisor melgard is not currently on the call. >> chairman: i can't pull up the button, and i'll have to take my laptop to my incredible people and figure out what is going on. let's open up items six through nine. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide comment, call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1875186183, and then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. mr. coe, do you have any members of the public for comment at this time? >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, if there is no objection, i would like to make a motion to send items six through nine with recommendation to the full board of supervisors.

>> clerk: chair peskin, regarding item number eight, i believe i sent a proposal to delete the executive director from the motion, because i believe that the goldengate bridge does not have such a director. >> chairman: we can do that. the official title is general manager, and his name is dennis mulligan, which is virtually the same as executive director. i served on that body for a period of time. we can find -- if you'd like, i can look up what the exact proper title is. >> clerk: i don't believe we need to name a specific person. it is a direction to send a certified copy. we can send it to the goldengate bridge, and we don't need to address it to a specific person. >> chairman: and they have a clerk on their board as well, so relative to the amendments suggested to item number eight by clerk young, i would like to make a motion to strike the

executive director, and we will just send it to the goldengate bridge board. a roll call, please. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: and then, mr. clerk, i would like to restate my earlier motion, which is to send items six, seven, and nine to the full board. and item eight, as amended to the full board with positive recommendation on that restated motion. a roll call, please. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor mandelman? >> yea. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> yea. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: yea. >> clerk: the motion

passes without objection. >> chairman: thank you. i believe that concludes our business this morning. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned at 10:43]

>> mayor: thank you and good morning. thank you for joining us here today. i'm here with dr. co fax to talk about our case rate, our vaccination process, and specifically around the challenges with our vaccination process and supply, and also to provide an update on where we are with our schools. today the case rate is about 135 new cases per day. we have about 148 people who are hospitalized, and, sadly, we have had 346 people die in san francisco due to covid since the beginning of this pandemic. now, the case rate is down

from its peak, but the virus is still in our community. so i just want to talk a little bit about what happened over the weekend. we know that in san francisco we were very excited we were in the purple tier, so as a result, we opened outdoor dining and a number of other amenities. and for the most part, there were a lot of people who were doing their part. and, unfortunately, there were some that weren't. the fact is, we are in a better place now based on what you all have been doing, especially over the holiday season. we are at a place where we were before thanksgiving last year. the last thing we want to do is go backwards. and so it is so important that we continue to do our part. i know you're tired of hearing it. i'm tired of saying it. but we're almost there. and the ability to access

the vaccine we know is critical. we don't have control of the supply, but we do have control over the number of locations that we're able to open city wide, and i'm really proud of the efforts we put forward thus far. san francisco has a network of sites all around the city. we have the capacity of over 10,000 sites where we can do over 10,000 vaccines per day. and that's pretty remarkable, and it is really exciting, especially once we get the supply. we know that we can get them distributed quickly as possible. i really appreciate those who have been vaccinated and have gone to places like masconi center and ucsf, and the really nice notes and positive experiences that you have shared with us going to those sites, and how friendly the people have been, how comfortable they made you feel, and how, of course, how assured you

feel knowing you have been vaccinated, and i'm looking forward to everyone in san francisco having that exact same experience. so thank you for sharing just your appreciation to the city, your appreciation to many of our health care workers, our volunteers, and a number of people that are out there helping to vaccinate people as quickly as possible. it definitely takes a village, and we've had a village of support with the department of public health, ucsf, kaiser permanente, and a number of other health care providers. there have been a lot of sites that you have been hearing about. the large sights at masconi and ucsf, have set up in their parking lots, and we're working with them. and we have one in the mission, the bayview hunter's point, the places where the case rates are higher. our goal is to try to meet people where they are, and to try to get to, of

course, our health care workers, our in-home support service workers, and those 65 and older, who are, sadly, the most likely to die if they contract covid. so i want to go to a slide just to give you a little bit of information about where we are, increasing as supply -- the vaccines that we have administered, we're now average about 4,000 vaccines per day. and yesterday we basically reached a new high: 5,542 vaccines yesterday, which is pretty remarkable. it gives me hope we're getting there, and we're moving as fastly as we can. the next slide, vaccinating health care workers and people over 65 has really been our focus, making good on progress. so what we see here is more than 30% of s.f.

residents 65 and older have received their first dose. and we still, of course, have more to do because about 2.5% have received their second dose. and others are scheduled. city-wide, 13% of san francisco residents have received their first dose, and 3% have received their second dose. this includes health care workers. and to be clear, this is based on data that we have in san francisco. we know that there are a lot of san franciscan residents, as well as san francisco essential workers and health care workers that are most likely getting the vaccines in other counties. we are still struggling to get that data, so these numbers could potentially be hiring than what we're seeing. and once we have that data, we will share it with the public. the next slide. to be clear who is eligible now: health care workers, long-term care residents, people 65 and

older. i have some good news: starting february 26th, san francisco will move to phase 1b, tier 1, and eligible people in that next phase include education and child care workers, our emergency services workers, including our police officers, our food and agricultural employees, and those -- that's a really exciting thing, that we're going to be able to expand the number of people who are eligible in the next two weeks, but to also reiterate that the vaccine supply is still limited. so for resources, on the next slide, you can sign up at s f.gov/notify, and

you can make an appointment at s f.gov/get vaccinated, or call 3-1-1. some of the systems, they don't have a cell phone to place a number. we ask that you call 3-1-1, and we will provide you assistance to get you through the process. if anyone has a neighbor that is a senior, or any one of our programs where we serve seniors, we're doing everything we can to get people vaccinated and signed up. but let's take some responsibility here and try to help our seniors through this process. we're going to be doing a lot more outreach to get to many of those seniors

who may not have access to the appropriate language that they need, as well as a cell phone and e-mail, which i know can be a barrier to getting our elderly population. so i just want to talk a little bit about the schools. i want to have what has, you know, been a hard conversation. i know that it has been hard not just for the children and the parents, it has been hard for many of our educators as well. the distance learning, we all know, has been challenging, especially kids who are younger. but we know that every day those teachers still show up, they set up their class lessons, and they do everything they can to hold the attention span of sometimes five, six, and seven-year-olds through a computer. i know they miss the kids just as much as the kids

miss them. and i know that this has been a bit of a challenging subject to talk about. and, sadly, very hurtful and emotional. i just want to be clear that i know this isn't easy for any of us. it isn't easy for us to go back and forth and to be at odds with one another during such a critical time. when we first made the decision last year to shut the city down, that wasn't easy for me. i did it because i knew that it would save lives. it was based on the information from the department of public health. i didn't understand completely how long we would be shut down or what it specifically meant. many of us were just finding out more and more information about covid, but we knew that we had to act fast. so we shut the city down.

schools were shut down. a number of things had to occur, and none of us thought we would be adjusting our lives for the past year because of this pandemic. but i must say that what i appreciate about the department of public health is that they have been leaders, they have made hard decisions. i've had to support many of those hard decisions. they've made decisions based on science and based on data, and they have been probably one of of the most conservative around our policies to reopen our city, probably more than any other public health department in the country. so i don't take lightly the ability to begin a process of reopening with the schools. the fact is, our

department of public health has put our public schools first. so when requested, because an application has to be submitted, we made analyzing the public schools our priority. in fact, in san francisco, we know that there are about 113 private and parochial schools that are currently open. our same department of public health had to go in and analyze those schools for safety measures. and when provided the opportunity to do that for the public schools, we did that. we have cleared at least, based on the application process, six schools that can open. six schools, including alvarado, glen park, john mere, sunset, and cobb. and we're prepared to do

whatever it takes to support our school district, to support our school district with experts from the department of public health, who can help provide us with not only what we need to do for the actual physical buildings, but how we need to protect the students and the educators and the staff and the administrators. that has always been our goal. i think we share that same goal. we all want to be safe. and we all understand that there are some teachers who are concerned about -- they may have an underlying health condition, they may have an elderly parent or grandparent that they take care of, and there are concerns there. we have a responsibility to listen and to address that. and what we try to do, as a partner for the school district, at the very beginning of this pandemic

we were told that in addition to the money that we already give them in our budget, that they were still short. and so the city stepped up. we stepped up and gave them an additional $15 million. i stepped up and put a ballot measure, proposition "j," that the voters, you all, supported, raises for teachers, proposition "j". we support our teachers. we support our educators. we want them to be safe, but we also know our children are broken. last week when i went to support a group of parents and students and teachers who were there as well, at a press conference, not one kid smiled. not one kid laughed. yesterday i met with the little high school students from the black student union who, sadly,

faced racial discrimination in their school, and they're not the first black students to experience this at lowell. it is something that we need to address, but they, too, are kids who wanted to go back to school. sadness in their eyes. i'm here to work to do everything possible to support the science and the data, to ask that we respect our public health department and the hard decisions they've had to make. there is no way that they would have cleared our ability to open public or private schools if it were not for the need to keep our students and our parents and our teachers and everyone safe. so i trust them. and i'm asking the school district to trust them.

and i'm asking us to make some hard decisions. i'm worried that the tentative agreement proposed by the union will not get us to a place in this city where we will even open schools this year. i want us to be honest. honest about what we will and will not do, or what we can and cannot do. our children are suffering. there is no way i would have ever supported using the legal system to try and get our schools open. if we were on a path of moving it forward, and if it weren't for the department of public health telling us that it is safe to do so.

we have to do better. we have to think about these children. and if nothing else, our elementary schools, kids who are in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade -- and i just also want to say that i appreciate the fact that there are so many people who are reaching out, especially a lot of teachers, who are saying, i want to go back to school. i want to take care of my students. i'm worried about them. they're not showing up on the screen; i'm checking in with their parents. they're struggling; they're hurting. they want to be there for them. and this city is prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure that they can safely do that. we know this is hard. this is not about being

divisive and choosing a side. this is about the leaders of this city choosing to work together, to put aside our differences, and do what is in the best interests of these children. i would not be pushing it if i were not advised by our department of public health that it is safe. and not to mention our community learning hubs, with staff from rec and park, with help from the department of children, youth, and family programs. they've been open for months now. no major outbreaks. 15,000 kids in our private schools are back in school. we have examples. we have data. we have information. and what we need to do is

leave the excuses out of the way. we have the ability to do this and do this now. but what we don't have right now is a clear plan and a clear timeline and assurance to parents that these kids are returning to school on a date certain. we can do better than this. so i'm continuing to make my appeal to the school district that this is exactly what i'm here to do, to help, to support, to uplift, to bring together, and to stop -- let's stop pointing the fingers. let's just be better by doing better. these kids are counting on us. you know, this pandemic -- this pandemic has tested us like never before. we have tried to protect

people's physical health, but it has tried to tear us apart because of our mental and emotional health. and we can't let it do that. so many of us are struggling. we have a real opportunity to make sure that our kids, who look sad, who miss their friends, who miss their teachers, who are ready to return to school -- we have an opportunity to at least make some of that possible before the end of this school year. i am hopeful that we can get to a better place. and i am grateful to the people of san francisco who continue to follow the health orders and to do your part in helping to make sure that people in this city are safe.

with the vaccines, with our reopening efforts, with all that we're doing, the city is going to come alive again. let's continue to do our very best to make sure that we don't lose something precious in the process. process, the heart and the soul of our children. with that, for more information, please visit our website or call 3-1-1. and at this time, i'd ask dr. grant cofax to come forward and provide specific information from the department of public health. thank you so much.

>> good morning. thank you for joining us today. and thank you, mayor breed, for your leadership and commitment to our city-wide covid-19 response. as you all know, as a city we've been responding to this virus for over a year now. and, mayor, your steadfast leadership and support continue to be invaluable. san francisco, we have made significant headway in containing the virus during this recent surge. but, as we are seeing nationally, there are still many unknowns,

including new variants. we must continue to practice the safety precautions: mask-wearing, physical distancing, and limiting interactions with multiple households. please protect yourselves and those closest to you by following all of the precautions. together we can continue to move forward and make progress. the vaccines represent the light at the end of the tunnel. while sufficient supplies are preventing us from vaccinating as many people as possible as quickly as possible, we all have reasons to be hopeful. as the mayor just said, we have made great progress in vaccinating health care workers and those 65 years of age and older. and we continue to partner

with health care systems across the city, to build a vaccine eco-system, vaccine sites, focused on equity, speed, and access to meet the needs of san francisco's diverse communities. today, right now, this city has the capacity to administer over 10,000 vaccines a day. we could get 10,000 vaccines into arms a day. right now we are averaging just 4,000 due to a lack of vaccine supply. we just need supply to meet the demands and the capability of our vaccine infrastructure.

and now i'd like to bring you some data on where we stand with the virus. first slide, please. as you can see from this slide, the number of new covid cases in our city fell rapidly after the peak of our most recent third surge. however, what concerns me is that new cases of covid-19 have stopped declining, and there has been a trending up in the last several days. now we are averaging 135 new cases a day. now, that is certainly much better than than when we were at our peak surge, and averaging 373 new cases per day. and that was just one month ago. but our case rate still

remains higher than any other previous surge. our current rate is 15.5 per 100,000 people is roughly the same as our peak summer surge. and, remember, our goal is for an average of new cases to decline to less than 1.8 per 100,000. next slide, please. as you can see in this slide, our hospitalizations continue to decrease from their peak just a few weeks ago. and this is certainly good news. as our ability to properly treat those affected with covid-19 is a top priority. additionally, our hospital rate is a key indicator of both the state and local

health indicators for reopening decisions. right now, with regard to intensive unit care beds, our capacity is good. with 28% i.c.u. capacity, which represents over 90 i.c.u. beds available across our health care systems in the city. next slide, please. the mayor provided a significant update on the vaccines, but i wanted to share this map on the work of the department of public health, and what we're doing to vaccinate populations in our most impacted communities. through the san francisco health network, the health department's health care delivery system, we served more than 100,000 people each year, who are largely uninsured, underinsured, have medicaid, medi-cal, or are served by healthy

san francisco, or other such programs. many of the people in our system are in the southeast sector of the city, which, as you know, has had a disproportionate number of covid-19 cases. this map shows where d.p.h., the department of public health, vaccines are being administered, and it shows that the majority of the approximately 1300 daily doses that we are administering is in the southeast sector of the city. next slide -- oh, sorry. that's it for slides. before closing, i want to say a few words about variants. now, variants are a natural part of how all viruses evolve. some of the covid-19 variants that have emerged

worldwide, and some that have been detected in the bay area, have the potential to spread faster. now, across the nation, we have little laboratory capacity to detect variants. but studies do show that certain ones are spreading quickly in the united states and are likely to become common, if not the dominant strain. now, i know that this can be a scary idea. and there is reason for concern. but we know what to do to slow the spread of these variants. it's even more important to wear those masks, socially distance, and avoid gatherings outside of your household. and it's so important to emphasize that vaccines remain our ticket out, including with variants.

and i can't emphasize enough, if and when you're eligible and offered a vaccine, take it. the variants add uncertainty to this ever-evolving situation. but i can't stress it enough: slow the spread of the virus. take those prevention activities seriously. and i know it has been a year now. i know we're tired. we need to dig a little deeper to get closer to our ticket out, to get the vaccines into arms, to get to those 10,000 vaccines a day so we can really turn this thing around. and our acting health officer, dr. susan phyllis, is here to answer specific questions about the variants. look, we are all in this

together, and together we will get through this. the vaccines are affective; they are safe. and i am hopeful, and even optimistic, that our supply will increase in the coming months. there is truly reason for hope and optimism on the horizon. we will bring back our community and our economy the same way we continue to fight covid-19, by working together. thank you. >> thank you, mayor breed, and dr. cofax, for your remarks. before we begin the question and answer portion, we're going to take a moment to allow reporters to submit any final questions into webex chat. cameras off or on? >> we can begin. mayor breed, your first

question comes from daniel terman. do you support the city attorney's lawsuit against the school district in terms of: is this the best course of action to get schools to reopen? >> mayor: i want to be clear that, yes, i support the lawsuit. and if the possibility of getting schools open sooner, without this lawsuit, were in sight, if we thought that that was possible, there is no way we would have pursued legal action. unfortunately, this is where we are, and that's where we're headed. >> thank you. and the follow-up question: even if san francisco moves to the red tier, schools cannot reopen until those teachers are vaccinated. is there a plan to prioritize teachers alongside those aged 65 and older? >> mayor: to be clear, schools are open. there are 113 schools in san francisco that are currently open, with over

15,000 kids, and they've been open for months. as it relates to the clarity on the plan and the vaccinations, on february 26th, we will move to tier 1b, and that will provide an opportunity for both educators, teachers, child care workers to be vaccinated at that time. >> thank you, mayor breed. your next question comes from joe fittipaldi. mayor breed, you spoke of the black student union, not to take away from the vaccine discussion, but can you talk about what support you've offered the black student union and what you think lowell high school should do to support them going forward? >> mayor: out of respect for the students, we had a lengthy conversation, and i want to make sure that they are comfortable with me sharing information from that conversation. but i did offer to help support them through this

process, to help facilitate conversations with administrators and others. sadly, what they're enduring is something they should not be experiencing. and, unfortunately, this is not a new challenge at lowell. several years back, other african-american students had faced similar issues around race and discrimination. and it is definitely important that we respond to it. and, to be clear, respond to it in a way that provides an opportunity for these young people to have an environment where they can learn and thrive, just like any other student at lowell. >> thank you, mayor breed. your next question comes from trisha sadani, the san francisco chronicle. now that the federal government said it would reimburse san francisco for much of its homeless program, would you support

s.f. h., bringing more people off of the streets, who may not be eligible for fema reembawrmts, and if not, how do you propose the city deal with the many people still out on the streets who may not qualify for fema reimbursement. >> mayor: just to be clear, they are already moving people who are not necessarily qualified for fema reimbursement. hopefully we'll get to a point where we're able to repopulate our shelter system. so this is not, like, frozen in time here. if you look around san francisco, even with the challenges we have around homelessness, h.s.h. has been doing an incredible job with helping to transition people off the streets and into either hotel rooms, if they're eligible, but some of the other options that we have. do we have enough to support everyone who is on the streets? no, sadly we don't.

but we're moving forward with a strategy around homelessness, to try to transition people not just into hotel rooms, not just into our shelter system, but transition them into permanent, supportive housing units. and that's a part of our long-term homeless strategy in general. >> thank you, mayor breed. your next question comes from dan curman, cron 4 news. you said that you do not support the current agreement -- >> mayor: i did not say i do not support the current agreement. i want to be clear about that. >> how can you get a reopening date when the teachers have trouble getting a vaccination? >> mayor: well, again, i want to be clear. i never said that i don't support the current agreement. the current agreement is just not clear. it doesn't provide any timelines, and exactly what we're going to do.

i have a lot of questions, just like a lot of parents have a lot of questions about the current proposed agreement. we have over 15,000 students in school, and have been for months, with the 113 schools that are currently open. and these are people who have not received the vaccine. and our department of public health says that without the vaccine, it is still safe to return to schools. but we do realize there are people who want that assurance. and so fortunately we're in a position where in the next few weeks, on february 26th, we will be able to move to the next tier 1b, so educators, teachers, and child care workers can actually get vaccinated, and i'm truly looking forward to that day. >> thank you, mayor breed. your next question comes from leslie mcclerick. given the tentative deal with labor unions, when do

you foresee schools reopening? >> definitely not this school year. when you incorporate the vaccine into the requirement -- i understand this is something that is important to the union, but at the same time, we are doing everything we can, based on supplies, to get the vaccines to people in san francisco. and the fact is, based on the limited information that i have about the tentative proposal, i don't think it is realistic that we can expect schools to open this school year. >> thank you, mayor breed. the next question comes from christian captan, ktbu. san francisco city attorney has expanded the lawsuit to get kids back into school. one moment, please.

we'll come back for that question. christian captan. the san francisco city attorney has expanded the lawsuit to get kids back into school. school board and union agree that the lawsuit is counterproductive. is this the right tool to incentivize both sides to reach an agreement? and what would constitute concrete details for reopening? >> mayor: if i didn't think that it was the right thing to do, i wouldn't be very supportive of doing it. the fact is that we have tried to be supportive. and you can look back in a

number of press conferences that i've had to specifically talk about the support that we provided the school district, how we put aside, in many cases, many of the things that we were focused on in order to provide that support, in order to make our public schools a priority. we will continue to do that. but the fact is, it hasn't worked. and that's why i support our city attorney using the legal process to get to a place where, hopefully, it will make a difference. not necessarily, you know, if it makes a -- if it makes a difference with negotiations, great, but, more importantly, i just care about getting our kids back in school. so whatever that takes, whether it is the legal system or negotiation, that's fine. but i want to make sure at the end of the day, we're being honest with the public about what will happen. and, ultimately, all of the details don't matter if kids aren't back in

school. i think that is the most important part. what is the first day we can expect to see a kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade kids return to school. that's the most important piece of what is missing here. >> thank you, mayor breed. next question comes from liz hillaman, bay area reporter. what will be the vaccine prioritization after phase 1? one moment. the next question is from abc news. in light of the recent crimes in san francisco, do you think prop 47 should be revisited? do you believe that it has played a role in crime in san francisco? >> mayor: i think, unfortunately, being in the midst of this

pandemic, seeing, sadly, a lot of people lose their jobs has probably played a role in what we're seeing as it relates to crime. i do think when we talk about crime and accountability, i think the that there is -- you know, it is not an easy solution because specifically when you talk about someone who has committed a violent crime against another human being, you know, that's a different punishment versus someone who it may have been their first offense, they stole something, and they need to be held accountable, but at the same time jail may not be the best solution because ultimately we want rehabilitation or we want support or we want an option to try to get that person on the right path. so i think there are various layers of accountability that need to be implemented in our criminal justice system here in san francisco, regardless of a proposition. it is what we're working

with, and it's what we are in a position to try and work within. and, mostly, the goal is to make sure that people understand that they will be held accountable when they commit crimes in san francisco. and i want to take this opportunity to just talk about some of the recent violent crimes. sadly, where people have been murdered in our city. elderly people have been murdered. and in those last three cases, our officers acted quickly and apprehended the suspects in those cases. and they are being prosecuted. we understand that after the fact doesn't matter. those people are no longer with us, but at the end of the day, here in san francisco we are going to take an aggressive stand to protect the citizens of this city against crime, and we'll continue to do everything we can to do that. not just with law

enforcement, but with our criminal justice system as a whole. >> thank you, mayor breed. we will now continue with questions for dr. colfax. >> mayor: thank you. >> this is from a bay area reporter. what will be the vaccine prioritization after phase 1b. will the age group step down in 10-year increments? >> doctor: right now we are focused on vaccinating people -- health care workers and people over 65, and then on the 26th, as the mayor announced, we will move

into phase 1b, which includes emergency service workers, food and agricultural workers, and educators. now we're still waiting for the state to finalize the next tiers of the vaccination priority. we're following the state guidelines. the bottom line is we need more vaccine to get it into arms as quickly as possible. our goal is to vaccinate everyone in san francisco as quickly as possible. >> thank you, dr. colfax. your next set of questions come from joshua sabitini. are the vaccines being equitably administered? or do you notice any disparities? and when will you release the race -- >> doctor: it will be updated regularly with

regard to the race and ethnicity of people who received vaccinations. as i mentioned earlier, equity is a core value of our vaccine rollout. we want to ensure that people in those neighborhoods who are eligible for vaccine have ready access. we're building -- we have built a vaccine eco-system where every door is a right door to receive the vaccine. whether it is a mass site, whether it is one of your neighborhood clinics, whether it is a pharmacy, whether it is a mobile site team that we'll be launching to reach people who need to remain at home. so we're working on all of the above, and every door is the right door approach, to ensure there is equitable access to vaccine. we're very concerned about it. it needs to be a focus. and we're working to get it right as quickly as possible. >> thank you, dr. colfax. you're next question comes

from multiple media outlets. on the question of equity, can you provide an update on how many residents within is zip codes 92134 and 92034 have been vaccinate? have there plans to make more appointments available for hard-hit zip codes. >> the doctor: as vaccine becomes more available, we will expand vaccines in those areas. the in other words and zip codes where covid-19 is most concentrated. right now at the southeast health center, we're able to do over 200 vaccines a day. we're also planning to launch, in collaboration with better health, a mass vaccine site at the produce market off of bay shore boulevard. so we hope to have that scaled up and ready to go within the next two weeks, so that people have access

to vaccine there as well. we're also establishing the neighborhood access sites. last week at 24th and mission, in collaboration with the latino task force and ucsf, and we established a site there. and we're looking at establishing sites in the bay view so people have access there. and i want to emphasize these are not mutually exclusive sites. where people are lining up to get vaccine, thanks to the mayor's office, we arranged transportation for people to go to our vaccine clinic at san francisco general hospital, so people were able to access vaccine there, and not have to wait in line at 24th and cap. and at the mobile sites, these mobile teams are going to have capacity each to do 150 vaccines a day. we'll be launching these mobile teams very soon. so they can focus in neighborhoods where people have the greatest amount of disease, and don't

necessarily have the capacity to get to other vaccine options. so really every door is the right door, with a focus very specifically in the health department on meeting the needs of people in the zip codes where covid-19 is most prevalent, where the rates are highest and people are most at risk. >> thank you, dr. colfax. your next question comes from michael barba. when should the san francisco police department officers expect to get vaccinated? >> doctor: emergency responders, emergency workers, service workers, including the police officers, are eligible in phase 1b, and that will be february 26th. >> thank you. your next set of questions comes from various media outlets. is the city now receiving a stable amount of vaccine from the state, or is it

still unpredictable? >> doctor: let me emphasize that we are directly receiving -- the health department is directly receiving only somewhere between 10,000 and 1 1,000 vaccines a week -- a week. so, as i said, we can do over 10,000in' vaccines,000 vaco arms a day. we hope the supply increases dramatically in the next couple of weeks, especially so we can vaccine night the 1b essential workers, along with the people 65 and older who continue to need to get vaccinated. so we just need more right now as quickly as possible. i'm hopeful there is more on the horizon, but we're ready to go. if i can get 10,000 vaccines after this press conference, we will get it into arms in 24 hours. >> thank you, dr. colfax. your next question comes from mora dolan, l.a. times. any thoughts on why virus

cases have stopped decreasing, and even rising, in recent days? >> doctor: so i think it is important to emphasize it is sort of a balance here. we are way below our peak during the holiday surge, where we went over 140p 140 per 100,000. i think we don't have exactly one reason as to why this has leveled off. i think we know as we gradually increase activity in the city, viral cases generally do go up somewhat, so it is really a matter of trying to mitigate that, and ensure that people still realize this is a very serious situation, and that we need to socially distance, and wear a mask over your face and nose whenever you are outside of the house, and avoid gatherings -- high-risk gatherings -- whenever possible. i think we also need to

also understand that with some of these variants, especially the british variants, the research says that is predicted to become the dominant strain in many parts of the u.s. by march or april. we know that that virus spreads more quickly than what we call the wild site, the original type of the virus. so there are multiple possible reasons. the key thing is we know how to slow the spread. we know that the vaccines are coming. we can do this. we just have to dig a little deeper so we can all get the vaccine and get through this and reopen our city and have life go back to normal as quickly as possible. >> thank you, dr. colfax. your final question comes from robert rodriguez. will the effort to reopen schools change the prioritization or rollout of vaccines in phase 1b at all considering teachers'

desires for vaccination before returning to the classroom? >> doctor: as the mayor said, we have 113 schools open right now. the schools can reopen without educators being vaccin vaccinated. and we share the priority that the kids need to get back into school for the health of the kids, for the health of the parents, and to close out learning gaps. when we reach phase 1b, teachers will be eligible for vaccine. we want to make sure we vaccinate teachers as quickly as possible. the bottom line is we need more supply of vaccine to make that possible. >> thank you, dr. col colfax. now for questions on coronavirus variants, we invite the acting county health officer for san francisco, dr. susan philips.

dr. philips, your first question is: what is the status of the new variants in san francisco? have you identified any of the variants from the u.k., south africa, or brazil? >> doctor: thank you very much for the question. i wanted to take a moment to step back. i know many of us have been hearing about variants, but to give a quick primer, when we're talking about variants, what this really means is viruses, as dr. colfax said, normally mutate randomly. this happens all of the time. when the mutations sometimes cause them to be less fit, we don't hear about them. occasionally there can be a mutation or a grouping of mutations that causes the virus to become more fit, to be able to transmit more, make people more sick, and that is what we're talking about when we talk about variants. these are random

occurrences that then spread in our populations. so in san francisco, we have not identified the variants of interest that have been nationally talked about. so these are the variants that started in the u.k., which is known as b117. it is a variant that began in south africa, which is b13151, and the variant that started in brazil, which is called p1. this is different than the testing that we all know and think about now for many, many months, where we'll go and get a swab in our nose and get that diagnostic test. that is done in very many labs across the city and the region. the sequencing is actually the test that we need to do to find the variants. what that is is looking at the genetic material of the virus, sequencing the

virus genome to be able to see what the mutations are. that only occurs in a few specialized laboratories. and we're very fortunate in san francisco that we have strong collaborations with our colleagues at ucsf and the bio hub, both of whom are experts in doing this type of work. in context as a country, we do not have the robust infrastructure to do this very, very systematically. so we are, by necessity, not able to sequence the 6,000 plus ses men's that specit we are testing every day, and the 2% to 3% that are positive, not all of those can be sequenced because of the specialty issues. we don't have a complete picture across the world, across the country, in the bay area or in san francisco, but we can get a glimpse of what we think is happening by how frequently we find different variants in

these specimens that are tested. so, where what we know, there has been the u.k. variant identified in california and in the bay area. in fact, california has the second highest number of cases in the united states right now. so we have to assume that there could be that virus circulating in the bay area and in san francisco, but we have not identified it. what dr. colfax said is so, so important. we know that the prevention methods that we've been talking about for a year are what will stop and slow the spread of these variants, even before we're able to access vaccine, which is, in fact, our ticket out because the vaccine in studies has still been shown to be affective against these variants, and particularly against preventing against severe disease. while vaccine is the ticket out, we have the ability in our hands right now to stop transmission of any virus, including variants, by masking, by

distancing, by washing our happedz. hands. i want to add one additional wrinkle to this: the less virus that is transmitting and replicating, the less chance we have of having new variants emerge. we talked about how it is random mutation, but every time the virus replicates, there another chance for random mutation to end up resulting in a variant that would be a concern, for faster spread, making people sicker, or a concern with the vaccine. so we have the power in our hand to not only stop the variants that we know now, but also to prevent new ones from emerging. so i would really urge all of us to take the standard prevention methods that we have in public health, as a department, we're working to understand the types of distribution of variants, not only in san francisco, but reachly and regionly.but in the meantime, we

asking for everyone's help in slowing the spread. >> the follow-up question is: what happens if the variant from the u.k. continues to spread in california and becomes the dominant variant down there? will that happen here, too? and what is the level of your concern about these west coast variants? >> doctor: so what we know from the models, and what we understand from science nationally, is that the u.k. variant, because it does spread more quickly, person to person, is likely to become the dominant strain in the united states by march. so we don't have any reason to think that that will be different in san francisco. but, again, we have t-e ability, as we have done time and again, to not necessarily let the models become our destiny, if we are distancing, washing our hands, wearing face coverings all the time, and particularly as we are reopening and coming into

contact with each other more, it becomes so important to do those things. there was a second part of the question about the west coast variant. so this is a different strain of virus, which has been identified in california and in other areas on the west coast. and this is called cal.20c, and it has been identified in some outbreaks, not in san francisco, but it has been identified in individuals from san francisco and in the bay area. our colleagues at c.d.c. are still evaluating all of the data to understand if it is, in fact, more easy to transmit that variant and what all of the implications are. so we don't have a clear understanding yet of the implications. but we do know it is transmitted the same way. we have no reason to think that the vaccine would not be affective against this variant or any others. >> thank you, dr. philip. there are no additional questions.

>> doctor: thank you. >> this concludes today's press conference. take mayor breed, dr. colfax, and dr. philip, for your time. for future questions, please e-mail dem press at sfgov.org. thank you, and have a nice day. please mute yourself in you're not speaking. the first item on the agenda is

roll-call. [roll-call] >> clerk: we have a quorum. our next item is item 2, discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance. board of spurp advicers 210030, amending the building cold through june 30th, 2023. require the department of building inspection to annually report on such waivers in addition to their requirements.

>> good morning, commissioners. [audio interference] for 80 projects on lots containing single-family homes. it does require the building department to submit a report, the type of fee waivers, also

about the applicant of the property. what the applicant's individual business. that kind of thing. it will be retroactive january 1st of this year and expires june 30, 2023 or the first day of the year for which the [audio interference] >> program, whichever comes first. it is accompanied by file 210031, which appropriates $165,000 from the general fund to cover the cost of the waiver for the current fiscal year. with that, it's just the ordinance in a nut shell. >> thank you. i'm the legislative aide working on this. i think john has covered the key points. the intent of the new ordinance

is to support permit applicants in building dwelling units. those could be added to the housing stock. and contribute in terms of arena allocation for housing for the units. and for residents, we are looking at broader housing options across the needs. that's including seniors with mobility issues and tenants looking for more affordable housing options. multiple generations under one roof and young adults who want to stay in the neighborhoods where they grew up. specifically, the ordinance does add language in section 107-a .15 of the building code. that has been amended previously with larger -- with a broader legislation that the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor mar has sponsored in the past in 2019. so in terms of the fiscal impact, we're looking at it

being retroactive to january. and for this fiscal year, it would be $165,000. and we're extrapolating it from the 2019 pilot ordinance, taking into account just the single-family homes that had a.d.u. permits. so that is what we're looking at for the companion appropriations ordinance to go with the fee waiver. and as john said, this would expire july 2023 or if there aren't the appropriations, you know, earlier. the reason for that is to maintain that right line between taxes and fees, so that the costs of the fees waived wouldn't be imposed or burdening another fee waiver.

when this is expired, the city attorney would take this action out of the building code. are there any questions? >> thank you. thank you for your presentation. john, your -- i don't know if all the commissioners got your presentation earlier. your speaker was bad there, the audio. commissioners, i'll open it up for questions to the commissioners. john, there were parts of your presentation there that didn't come through. so i'm not sure. >> i'm sorry. >> it's not your fault. vice chair moss, do you have questions? >> vice president moss: no. >> president mccarthy: commissioner alexander-tut, do you have questions? >> commissioner alexander-tut: yes. thank you for your presentation. is the fee waiver only for new permits or is this for any fees related to existing permits for

a.d.u.s? >> this would be for new construction. adus that are not legalized is separate. >> commissioner alexander-tut: any fees for existing permits for a.d.u.s or new permits for new a.d.u.s? >> i believe this is for new a.d.u.s, uh-huh. >> commissioner alexander-tut: thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner bito, welcome to the commission. do you have any questions, please? >> commissioner bito: not at this moment. >> president mccarthy: commissioner clinch? >> commissioner clinch: no. thanks. >> president mccarthy: commissioner jacobo.

>> commissioner jacobo: no questions at this moment. >> president mccarthy: and commissioner tam, please. >> commissioner tam: yes, any blank canvas space, that is only for that, not an existing space someone is trying to legalize and make an a.d.u., this would not qualify? >> yeah. there is separate legislation about a.d.u.s. this is new construction. >> president mccarthy: john, what are the savings for the new a.d.u.s people get? >> can you hear me? >> president mccarthy: yes. >> i've got my video off. hopefully that helps. under the previous pilot program, the average fees waived for a.d.u. permits were about

$1,700 for permit. that was across the board. it's not an apples to apples comparison. that's sort of about where we are. >> president mccarthy: so we're clear. these are waived? >> they're waived. >> president mccarthy: they're waived. >> they're waived. anybody that filed -- i don't think anybody that would have filed -- well, maybe some folks have gotten an issue if they filed after january 1st. they would be refunded. >> president mccarthy: that's actually, yeah. >> president mccarthy: if there are no further questions, my friends are i believe they help the bottom line for a lot of projects. anything that commissioner mar

can bring to the table to help, i think it's great. and i thank his office for bringing this forward for his presentation this morning. and with that, then, i think if there's no more comments on this, we'll open it up to commissioners one more time. okay. seeing none. can we vote on this, then? do we need -- >> clerk: we would call for public comment. >> president mccarthy: yeah. >> clerk: and there would need to be a motion. >> president mccarthy: motion to support, yeah. we'll come back and make the motion to support. open it up to public comment, madam secretary. >> clerk: we'll open to public comment. for the record, the public comment call in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is 1460874757. if anyone would like to speak for public comment, please press star 3 to raise your hand.

any public comment for this item. >> sorry. i was muted. >> i'm not seeing hands raised. >> clerk: okay. >> from attendees or employees. >> clerk: okay. and is there a motion on this item? >> i'd like to make a motion to support. >> i'll second. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion and second to support and approve this item. and i will do a roll-call vote. [roll call vote] >> clerk: the motion carries unanimously. thank you. >> president mccarthy: forgive me, commissioner jacobo.

i think i missed you the last round. did i? maybe? >> commissioner jacobo: no. >> president mccarthy: okay. okay. forgive me. all right. okay. madam secretary, next item, please. >> clerk: our next item, 3, discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the department of building inspections for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. >> good morning, commissioners. deputy director for the department of building inspection. i will go over our fiscal year proposed fiscal year 2021-22 and 22-23 budget. i'll share my screen.

okay. our first hearing was january 20th. at that hearing, we went over high-level information about the budget and about the budget department-wide level. so what i'll do is first start with the recap from our original january 20th meeting. so let's start there. so the mayor's office projected $352 million deficit in the next two years, due to budgeted declines and covid-19 expenses. the departments have to make reductions. d.b.i. is a special funded

department funded by department fees so reductions don't apply to us. however, we're responsible for covering our expenses. we have to make sure we have enough revenues to cover our expenses. so the mayor's budget priorities is supporting small businesses, recovery, prioritizing equity, implementing homeless and health programming and as well as continuing to respond to covid. and for d.b.i., our budget is based on strategic plan goals and funding priorities. our strategic plan goals have to do with core services of reviewing plans, issuing permit, performing inspections, providing high level of customer services, et cetera. in addition to funding just those core services and core activities, this year's two-year budget will focus on the funding priorities with the mayoral priorities focusing on equity,

implementing phase one of the racial equity plan submitted in december. focusing on technology improvements. to increase our online capabilities, improve our forms and reports and website enhancements. so today's meeting will give a little bit more detailed information. so what you see here, looks like our department organization chart. but it's basically our budget structure. the department has three divisions. so our budget is broke into three, permit services, inspection services, and administration. and these items beneath the divisions are what are called within the budget terms, our sections. you'll see administration has eight sections. inspection services has six. and permit services has four. so when we look at our revenues, you've seen the information before at the department level. this is giving it to you on a division level. when you look at our revenues,

the revenue is budgeted by division. inspection services, the total revenues we received proposed in our budget is $28.6 million. about $1.3 million increase from the current year. and administration about $4.3 million or $600,000 from the current year. and then, in permit services, about $18.2 million or about $1.7 million from the current year. so in our total revenues of course are $51.1 million, up over $3 million from the current year, which was currently at $47.3 million. so here, you get a picture of what the distribution of our revenues. so it's basically services provides 56% of revenues. permit services, about 36% of our revenues. and then, administration about 8% of our revenues.

all of our revenues are going up. but i'll go back to this slide. however, of all of our revenues, it's permit services are doing the best. so you could see at the $3.7 million, $1.7 million is due to permit services. here is because we're doing better than anticipated and budgeted in our plan checking revenues. so expendtures. our expenditures are by division and section. all of the sections are where our expenditures are budgeted. inspection services as i mentioned before, we had these number of sections, and this is how the money is budgeted. and you could see the total expenditures are $88.7 million. let's keep that in mind. once again, the prior slide shows that our revenues are actually at $51 million. so for an expenditure side, once

again inspection services is the largest. making up 51% of total expenditures. permit services, $19 million or 22%. and administration at $24.3 million or 27%. and so that is the detail that was not shared at the first budget before i gave you basically a high level of the department level. so when we go back to the department level, you'll see the $88.7 million that i mentioned earlier. you'll see for the most part our department budget is going down from the current year. so we're going down about $731,000. it would actually go down more than that. because we have not really increased that budget. but these increases are due to salaries. and it's something that was included in our base. so basically, it's covering kolas and in our fringes, too. if you go here, i'll go over.

here's a summary of our changes in our budget. so basically, our salary, infringement is $52 million. adds i said, the increase is cola. retirement health and fringe benefits. we're projected to continue to fill our positions that we'll spend our salary budget. we have made -- i'll go back. we have made some reductions in employee field expenses and travel, in membership fees. although, you can see there's a small portion of our budget. we're making those reductions because based on prior spending as well as during covid we don't think we'll be doing hardly any training. we're keeping a minimum budget in case. same for employee field expenses and memberships. that's based on current year. this is based on what we think we'll be spending on prior

actuals. train something one thing that we did not reduce, because as i mentioned earlier, we want to focus on training, racial he can fee training, as well as training for permit techs. so we made a commitment not to reduce the line item. the other reduction, you see a huge reduction in materials and supplies. a lot of that has to do in 2021 we bumped up our budget a lot to handle covid, getting people set up with laptops and all of those other things. so now we're bringing the budget down. and then, finally, the next one that reduces -- oh, and equipment purchase and automotive, we don't have equipment budgeted this year. and automotive, we are not -- we've been replacing vehicles but we're not going to be replacing vehicles in this current year. in the proposed year. and then, finally, services of the department, i usually refer to them as work orders. can you see that's our second largest expenditure going down by $2.5 million.

so at the last meeting, president mccarthy asked questions about work orders. when you look at a summary of our budget, you see there's very little wiggle room to do a lot with. most of our money is in salaries or the next is work orders. so president mccarthy asked for information concerning the work orders. so this next slide -- apologies if it's hard to read. but there's a lot of work orders. this next slide shows our work order history. and we go back to fiscal year 2015-2016 all the way through the current year of 2021. and also the proposed. as you could see, it's recently as six years ago, our work order budget was $11.7 million. the total amount. it increased up to $30.7 million in 2019. and it's now currently at

$25.9 million. it's projected to go down about $23.8 million in our proposed budget due to some reductions in had city attorney and a couple of other work orders. okay. so i mentioned earlier for revenues, we were at $51 million. as you could see from my expenditures we're at $88 million. that basically means we're going to need to have about $37 million in fund balance to balance the budget. we will continue to monitor our revenues. the revenues that are included now, are based on our july through december projections. we will probably make more projections in february. normally, there's a nine month city-wide in new projections. we hope to see a slight

increase. and we can get a little higher than $51 million. at this point, there's no guarantee. so i always want to be able to let everyone know that, yes, we do have fund balance. but it will be gone soon if we have to continuously spend $37 million a year, $38 million a year to balance our budget. at this time, we don't know where our normal revenues will be. in prior years, we've collected $70 million, $80 million, but those are outlier years. covid rushed our revenue decline. but our revenue has been declining the past five or six years. revenues have been declining, but not at this pace. the reason it hasn't been as obvious is because the past few years, we've been conservative budgeting our revenues, because we've been expecting this to occur, due to a slow-down in the

economy and the fee reduction we implemented in october of 2015. so normally whenever you see monthly reports and yearly reports, it always looked good that we're better than budget. so i want to make sure that everyone is aware that although we've always been better than budget the past three years, our revenues have been steadily declining. and so here, the next steps will be that we will submit the budget to the controller and mayor's office on february 22nd. from march until may, we'll be working with the mayor's office to finalize the budget. we will also be working with a lot of other city departments, because that's what the work orders represent, funding that provides to other city departments. so a lot of work order amounts have not been weibelized that normally happens during this time between march and may. june 1st, the mayor will submit

the budget to the board of supervisors. by july 30th, the last day for the board of supervisors to adopt the final budget. august 31st, we have to submit our budget certification letters. with that, i'm happy to answer questions on anything i've gone over. >> president mccarthy: thank you, taras for your presentation. it's always user-friendly to navigate through with your slide. thank you. that takes a lot of work. appreciate it. with that, i'd like to open up to my fellow commissioners. do we want to take public comment first and see and come back? i think so. can we do that? >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment for this item? if you would like to speak, please press star 3 to raise your hand. >> there is no public comment.

>> clerk: okay. thank you. >> president mccarthy: okay. it always amazed me how there's never public comment on the budget. and i think it's one of the most important parts of our year that we talk about. with that, vice chair moss, do you have questions? >> vice president moss: i don't have questions. >> president mccarthy: commissioner alexander-tut. >> commissioner alexander-tut: thank you for your presentation. again, you have the ability to make complicated things very easy to follow. and understandable. mike mentioned about fee reimbursement for materials, supplies or inspections or work related to covid-19. is any of that fema reimbursable? >> we actually submit our report to the controllers

office. and we have been tracking those expenses. related to covid-19. so far, we've not received anything, but we're tracking it. for every quarter over the past year or so, and in fact, i think the next round is actually due to the controller's office, next week, next tuesday or so. but so we are tracking it. so far we've not received anything. that's been handled on a city-wide level. so we do everything through the controller's office. >> commissioner alexander-tut: thank you. just a follow-up. this is not my world. so i appreciate your patience. when you say you're tracking everything but haven't received reimbursement, does that mean the controller says you're not reimbursable? or is there a hold? might you be reimbursed in the future? or are we uncertain? do we have to budget for it? can you give me guidance? >> sure. we've submitted. no one has not said it's not

eligibility. it's just not submitted yet. there are a few items that we said this is not eligible. particular on salaries and those things. it's just that we've soot received information back saying these are reimbursable. >> >> commissioner alexander-tut: okay. thank you so much. we don't have a time frame when we might get an answer on that? >> i can follow up. because as i said before, we will be submitting our latest quarter on february 16th. so i can follow up. i mean, i can say that is isn't a large portion of our portion for the materials and supplies and those things. and it will be in the current year budget. so basically we're getting reimbursed for these we've done so far. >> commissioner alexander-tut: okay. >> i'll be happy to provide an update on that. actually at our big meeting, i can follow up. >> commissioner alexander-tut: thank you so much.

>> president mccarthy: commissioner bito, please. >> commissioner bito: no questions at this moment. thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner. commissioner clinch. >> commissioner clinch: taras, thank you for the presentation. i have a couple of questions. could you scroll back two, three slides back, which was the expenditures. there you go. that's the one. i was curious -- >> all expenditures? >> commissioner clinch: sorry. work orders. perfect, thanks. i was curious about the department of technology item. that was last year, wasn't it? okay. so that's not going forward. yeah. >> right. >> commissioner clinch: this might be why -- my second question may be partly due to that number there. you had a bullet point, which is interesting, about the fact that our expenditures have gone up

from 2.5 times. i'm curious, you may have said this and i didn't hear it. can you explain what that is due to? >> if you're referring to the work order expenditures that have gone up two and a half times -- >> commissioner clinch: it was 11 million to $22.5 million. >> it's gone up because of the existing work orders from 2015-2016 have increased. you'll see $2.3 million for city attorney and it's now $3.5 million. it's gone up because there's variety of new work orders added to the budget. you'll see the new work orders, permit center, data policy. you'll see the fire department. the fire department, at one point, the work order was $150,000. and now, it's $1.1 million. it's a variety of reasons. it's increasing work orders

continuing to increase and newer work orders that have been added to the budget over the past few years. >> commissioner clinch: okay. thank you. >> as well as -- and also, so we have here, like for instance, the larger work orders are the assessor's office at $1.3 million in 2015-2016. and now, it's at $3.4 million. >> commissioner clinch: i see. that's great. thank you, taras. no other questions. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> president mccarthy: commissioner jacobo, please. >> commissioner jacobo: no questions at this time. >> president mccarthy: thank you. commissioner tam. >> commissioner tam: no further questions at this time. thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you. taras, thanks again. on the work orders, i think commissioner clinch kind of touched on, and you answered those questions. let me just understand. if i could dig a little bit further on the -- because as i

look at our overall department numbers, i have to -- and i think i've said this probably before. i think we're efficient how we spend our money. and i think that's kind of something that never has been pointed out. when you bundle these numbers together, you think you have this massive, big expenditure. when you look at the day-to-day operations of our department, i believe we're quite efficient as far as departments go. i wonder if you had comments on that. as you are a number person that worked in other departments, would you agree with that? >> yes, i do agree with that. the i think our budget reflects like most city departments, the large percentage -- i have here just a summary of the expenditure details of our budget at a high level. like most departments, most money goes to salary and fringes. but over the past few years, our salaries and fringes have not increased, because we're adding new positions. it's those are things that are

many ways out of our control with c.o.l.a.s, health benefits, increases in social security and all those other things. we try to be frugal. we have to provide a service level, and we have to be able to do this. if you look at non-salary budget, it's very minimal. the next largest expenditure you'll see is $2.5 million. that's for the professional services contract primarily for peer-review. and we provide funding to our c.b.o. partners. so $2.5 million to the city grants program i'm pointing out here. the next place is services to other departments. the department does not include -- does not have a lot of -- i don't know if it's -- plus in its budget.

we just don't. we normally budget to what we need. that's part of the reason why we've been able to stay within our budget. and accumulate some savings. and yes, our revenues have been very good in the past. and that's why we've been able to accumulate savings. we've also been able to accumulate savings due to expenditure savings, too. because when we -- you know, sometimes we do not spend our entire budget. so i would agree that, yes, our budget has been pretty -- we've tried to be pretty frugal with the payors' money, wanting to do what we can to provide services, and also, recognizing it's public funds and being frugal with the money. >> president mccarthy: thank you, taras. i think it's important. where i kind of part company with the budget is the work orders obviously. can we go to there again. i want to dig deeper back to the work orders there.

thank you. perfect. and i know commissioner clinch kind of touched on it there. for example, help me understand if, let's say, from 2011 we were at $11 million. and we're up to $24 million plus and rising here. i don't want to particularly take any particular work order. let's say for example, the one that jumped out at me is the assessor's one at $1.3 million it started off as. can you explain to me why, first of all, why would they come to us and ask us to fund their department for $1.3 million. and help me understand what happens after that where we go to $3.4 million. and procedururally how is that approved? help get my head around it. i'm trying to figure out why they're jumping so much and why it's so different over the year, increasing to that level. is that a fair question, taras,

at this point? >> yes, the reason that many of these work orders are increased -- or in this one in particular, is because the number of staff that's being funded by the work order has increased. so at $1.3 million, there were probably fewer people funded on the work order. versus now, there are more people being funded by the work order. there's higher expenses on the work order. >> president mccarthy: so can you give me some insight what would the work be they have? what would d.b.i. have to fund the assessor's office they would have to increase such a work force like that? give me an example. can you? >> this work order funds staff to do, i guess, assessments after -- because d.b.i., the

permits, the inspection and the remodel, that triggers new assessments. so it's my understanding that this work order funds that. >> president mccarthy: okay. so they -- okay. so all right. okay. so what they're saying from $11 million to over the years we've had a lot more volume over the last 10 or 15 years, right? and we need more people because a lot more building went on, is that correct? yeah, yeah. that would be kind of it, right? >> oh, i'm sorry. is that a question? >> president mccarthy: sorry. i'm thinking out loud here. because a large volume of construction has gone on and finished product, that there would be more people to do the assessment of the properties; is that correct? >> i think so. >> president mccarthy: i think so. >> i just know that probably

this increase is because there are more things being charged. and normally, that means more people. >> president mccarthy: were needed, yeah. so you had a decline in market and have less of this work needed, how does that work with the work orders? do they come to you and say there's not as much building going on in town, so we don't need as many people. does it work that way? how does that work? >> so far we haven't had that conversation. and a lot of times with many of the work orders, like i said before, those don't start until after it's been submitted. i don't have anything to base this on, because 2015-2016 was -- so i don't think i can go back and do a history showing that before it used to be this, and then, it went down during the second one. because i believe 2015-2016 that was the first year the work order was established. >> president mccarthy: yeah. >> it can be something that i

can ask concerning this work order. >> president mccarthy: well, i guess, you know, if the reason these work orders went from "x" dollar to a larger dollar is because of volume and workload. and now, we're demonstrating over the next two or three years, let's say that that workload, that volume is not there, i mean -- i mean, i don't see looking at these numbers, too many work orders going backwards, right? >> no, they aren't. the attorney's work order is reduced. we've already -- this one is i think will be final, because we've already reached out to the city attorney, and they did -- based on current year spending, as you could recall, it went up a little bit because there were a bunch of cases. but now, based on current year's expenses, that went down. >> president mccarthy: yeah. i'm kind of the mind set, this $27 million deficit is just not

sustainable. i'm also of the mindset, and i think you kind of touched on this in your presentation, where this gold rush that we had for the last so many years that gave us this almost $17 million in permits consistently, i don't think we'll see those days any time soon. so i'm kind of coming from the point of view that we could be looking at the new normal as being like $60 million in permits. i'm just talking out loud here. i'm trying to figure out how do we at the department, if we have let's say five years of this, that we on our operational end are quite efficient and lean and mean. but on our work orders are still increasing but there's no justification why they're increasing. i'm trying to get my head on where do we make our adjustments so that that deficit declines? you know. >> yes, i understand.

>> president mccarthy: i know you do, yeah. so i'm just kind of talking out loud here on that. at the end of the day, you already got the information that is given to you so you can put the numbers together, right? we're trying to figure out if this $37 million deficit doesn't decline over the next five or six years, how we as a department can sustain this? so another question would be let's say if the deficit -- if you're upside down $30 million plus for the next five years, how long is our fund there -- >> oh, yeah. [simultaneous speaking.] >> i'm sorry, commissioner. we cannot wait. if we have a $37 million deficit the next five or six years, we're not going to be able to handle that, right. we might have enough money to get us to maybe two years or so.

i mean, the good news is that ordinarily, even though this amount is budgeted, and that's -- maybe that's something that i will follow -- i've asked and will continue to follow up. we normally have savings in our budget not just because we don't spend. there's sometimes savings in our budget because the work orders don't spend either. normally, we'll have some type of savings. now is a good time for everybody to go back and look at that and make sure that's the right side of the work order budget as well as what we've done on the right side of our materials and supplies and those other things, too. but if we had to come up with 37 -- if we literally are at a $37 million deficit, that's not going to last five years. maybe it will last three. if we're lucky. and i'm not sure if it will last three, right? so i don't think -- if we -- and

we wouldn't wait until -- and it isn't a good strategy to wait until you're completely out of money. so that's why we are trying to reduce and make it a gradual reduction. so that it won't be so stark. and that we won't -- oh, yes. we're at $88 million. two years from now, we have to go back down to $60 million. that wouldn't be the best way to go. it isn't easy to absorb a $20 million or $30 million cut over the course of a year. it's better to kind of spread that out. >> president mccarthy: yeah. no. i get it. the shock of that. but i'm just hoping the conversations are happening. i guess that's my hope here. and that, you know, that they're seriously looking at their work orders, and they're not just, you know -- they're going to -- i guess they have to justify this.

i mean, but how do they -- yeah, yeah. i mean, i'm kind of probably getting ahead of myself here. but if we have a continuation of this type of road map of finances here for the next couple of years or so, you know, how these work orders are actually going to be vetted, is very important to me, you know. and justified. and because i don't see where we could do a lot of changes on our side where actually the expenditures are. to me, i look at the work orders as the next area we could save money so that, you know, our rainy day fund isn't depleted faster than we want you know? so that's my comments on that. thank you, taras, for entertaining me on that. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president mccarthy: okay. with that, unless there's further questions from our

commissioners, is there? i don't see any. i can't see anybody right now. we could vote, please. if somebody would call the question to move and approve the budget for here today. do we actually need a vote on this, taras, today? >> yes, we need a vote today. >> president mccarthy: okay. would somebody call the question if there's no more comments from commissioners. >> so moved, alexander-tut. >> >> clerk: there's a motion and second to approve the budget. i'll do a roll-call vote. [roll-call vote]

>> clerk: the motion carries unanimously. okay. and our next item is item 4, adjournment. do we have a motion adjourn? >> moved. >> second. >> clerk: second? >> commissioner alexander-tut: bito, second. >> clerk: thank you. >> we are now adjourned. it's 10:50 a.m.

>> welcome to the remote hearing first, february, 4, 2021. on february 25, 2020 the mayor declared local emergency and authorized the planning committer for shelter the place. this is our 40th remote hearing. if you are not speaking, mute your microphone. for public participation we are streaming this hearing live at sfgovtv. comments or community goes to speak are available at 415-655-0001