>> 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 access code

(146)503-3971. when we reach the item you are interested in press star and 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted begin speaking. each superior is allowed up to three minutes. when your time is reached i will take the next person in the queue to speak. call from a quiet location, speak slowly and mute volume on your television or computer. take roll at this time. >> koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> yes. >> commissioner chan. >> yes. >> commissioner diamond. >> hear. >> commissioner fung. >> here.

>> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you. first is consideration items for proposed continuance. 1. 2020-003223 c.u.a. at 249 texas street. this is to continue to march 4th, 2021. 2. case 2019-021010 c.u.a. is withdrawn. further under regular calendar item 10 case 2013.1535 at 474 o'farrell street street and 532 jones street conditional use authorization is requesting continuians to march 11, 2021. item 11. 2018-014795 at 1516 folsom

street requests continuance to february 18, 2021. i have no other items for continuance. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak for any items proposed for continuance. press star 3. one member of the public. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. this is ella strong, president of the executive board of church of christ scientist. cosponsors of o'farrell street street and request continuance of our item. thank you. >> thank you. >> last call for public comment on items to be continued. no further requests or

additional requests for public comment, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue items proposed. 1, 2, 10, 11. >> second. >> thank you on that motion to continue all items. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> that passes 7-0. that puts us on your consent calendar. only one item on consent. that is your consent calendar to be routine by the planning

commission by a roll call vote of the commission. no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or public or staff requests. then it shall be removed and considered at a separate item. 3. 2020-007346 c.u.a. this is 2284-2286 union street. we will take public comment for anyone wishing to pull this off consent. members of the public press star three. no members requesting to speak at this time public comment is closed. your consent calendar is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion to approve item 3 under consent calendar commissioner tanner.

>> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. that places us on commission matters. 4. consideration of adoption draft minutes january 21, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the minutes. no members of the public to speak public comment is closed. minutes are now before you. >> commissioner diamond. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes from january 21, 2021 commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond.

>> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> item 5. commission comments and questions. okay. moving right alongying no requests to speak from commissioners. department matters. item 6. directors announcements. >> no announcements today. >> all right. item 7. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals did not meet and historic preservation commission met yet yesterday. there is a brief report. >> manager of legislative affairs. at the hearing no planning department items.

the full board approved the landmark des designation by supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman introduced review of large residence development and issued four units in rh districts on corner lots and lots within a half-mile of gated transit stations. as the ordinance is not drafted i don't have that one. the large home ordinance requires conditional use authorization on any projects in rh with more than 2500 gross square feet less is increasing more than 50% or up to 2500 square feet. it does provide exception to the 50% rule so long as the project increases density.

no resulting units over 2500 square feet less than a third the size of the largest and subject is not historic resource. allows 10% increase for buildings 2500 square feet or more. members of the berkeley city council announced they are introducing a resolution end to exclusionary zoning laws in addition to sacramento and portland is positive trend in the housing policy on the west coast. that is all today and i am happy to take any questions. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. the regulation or proposed legislation no house over 2500 square feet in the city. that property could add another unit and that is no unit over

2500 square feet? i am confused how that would relieve the limit of the size. >> it only helps with a 1200 square foot home and you want to increase more than 50%. you are below 25 but below 50%. that is the only exception. >> thank you. >> if there are no additional questions regarding the board of supervisors, historic preservation met yesterday and considered the department 2021 budget and add adopted recommendation for your approval today. they considered two legacy business registries agcr body. second for g and son hardware. the only important thing here is both of these legacy business

applicants are in district 10. they considered the preservation alternatives for proposed development project at 1101-23 sutter street. if there are no questions related to the historic preservation we can move on. general public comment. each member of the public may address commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to speak to general public comment by pressing star 3. you will have three minutes.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, this is georgia. i sent you an e-mail yesterday with an attachment. i want to clarify something i wrote in the e-mail about the quote from the president of the planning commission a year ago january 23rd at a hearing on the budget about housing affordability. his actual line that he said was is there some way we can take a look at it? it was just referred to staff, but that is a year ago. i go back to the attachment i sept to you from the staff in 2009 about march 26, 2009 about how they were going to come back to you with adjustments that never happened.

it is unfortunate. there was everything in nowi valley. now we are in a situation similar to where we were back in 2008, 9, 10 as we came out of the economic town turn. we have in an economic downturn now and all of this explosion of these projects taking advantage of this big loophole. i worry about that happening again. i remind you one other thing. back in 2015, the staff did look at a sample of five projects in nowi valley. 40% should have been analyzed and reviewed per the original demos from 2019 not adjusted. that is all i have to say. i hope you read my e-mail.

have a nice break and happy valentine's day. be well, be safe. good-bye. >> thank you. members of the public last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. we will move to the regular calendar. item 8. 2020-0104c r.v. fis dal year 2021-2023 proposed department budget. ms. landis are you prepared for the presentation. >> we have a few slides for you today. director hillis will start us off with an overview. i will run through the numbers and go over what changes there

are since two weeks ago. >> thank you, commissioners. as you know, we were before you a couple weeks ago. we are here to answer any follow-up questions we sent in the memo that addresses some of the questions that came up. i just wanted to hit some of the highlights from the budget that we are proposing. we hope to get a full recommendation for the 21-22 and 22-23. as you know it is a challenging budget year. we are asked to reduce our general fund support by 7.5%. $500,000. we are looking at $2 million reduction off our base budget based on the look ahead of where the economy is going as we talked about in the past somewhat difficult to project.

those reductions in expenditures mostly focused on vacant positions and with this reduction it will leave us with some 20 plus vacant positions to kind of hedge against potential future reductions in fees. some of the problematic changes to the budget as we talked about were implemented the equity assess meant tool we utilized for this year's budget. we created the community equity division and continue to build the capacity throughout the department for our work on racial and social equity. we prioritize planning efforts we have been talking to economic recovery in protecting priority populations in the city. i wanted to thank debra for

continued management of the budget putting us in a good place to absorb reductions. we are developing the equity assessment tool. i will turn it over to deb. >> thank you, director hillis. looking at the revenue for next year. main change here from two weeks ago is that the impact fee budget is going down from the current year in the next two years reducing each year. because of fewer transfers to non-city agencies. we were with planning in the budget then distribute that out. in the current year we have more projects going outside of the city and next two years fewer of those. that and the expenditure is

slightly different. how this is working for other city departments requesting services and recovering costs. those numbers will continue to change over the next several months including after we submit the budget to the mayor's office based on what other departments expect to request of the projects we could support with them or for them. a note again. the reduction from the base budget. we open up the budget system and general support with $8.2 million and we are taking it down to 7.7. the other lines are unchanged. the charges for services are fees, and out year we don't know what the grant opportunities might be. the out year is lower whatever we budget. it will almost certainly increase when we come back next

year and it is in the budget year instead of the out year. the revenues only big change is impact fee budget. on the expenditure side you can see the impact fee budget is reflected in the project. nothing else has changed since the last time we were with you a couple weeks ago. the overhead number controller's office in the budget system and that happened after the planning department is done. we do know that number will change we don't know what that number will be. nonpersonnel services, contracts and leases and any nonmaterial expenses. materials and supplies we had raised the budget for 2021.

we are reducing it for next year and the following year. reminder capital and equipment is anything with a lifespan more than 3 years and costs more than $5,000. we are in a new building with new equipment i.it was in our budget last year. we don't have any projected expenses in the next two years related to equipment. projects is where we generally budget both impact fees and grants because in particular with grants the incertainty with what we are funded for and that gives us flexibility to spend it on salaries, services supplies. inter-department mental services is what we are charged by other departments. our represents, city attorney costs and department costs.

again, not very much change from last time. schedule remains the same. we were at historic preservation january 20 and yesterday. with you january 21 and today. in a few weeks we will submit the budget. twenty-first of february is a sunday. we will present it on monday this year, the 22nd. the mayor publishes her budget june 1st when we work with the board of supervisors and they consider the budget during july. that concludes my presentation. i believe we have an opportunity for public comment. if there are any questions, i would be happy to take those after public comment. i apologize if you hear the hammering outside of-front door. let me know if i need to repeat anything. >> we do hear it.

we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to speak to the department work program and budget by pressing star 3 to enter the queue. no requests from members of the public at this time public comment is closed and it is now before you. >> great job, debra for the valuable information and sound effects. we would entertain a motion. commissioner imperial. >> thank you. the budget looks generally okay

with me with the priorities that we have, i also. [indiscernable] nothing has changed from the last presentation. if i move. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from the commission there, is a motion seconded to approve this matter. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. we are on item 9 for 2017-015181

c.u.a. at 412 broadway. this is a informational hearing. staff prepared to page your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> good afternoon. department staff. the item before you is an informational hearing regarding the conditional use authorization granned to the restaurant and nighttime entertainment at 412 broadway allow operating hours to 4:00 a.m. daily. it was approved by planning commission on october 25, 2018. extended hours operations first began for the penthouse club and restaurant on march 7, 2019. the commission required the sponsor for ongoing engagement and responsibilities from the liaison requirement for performance update based on the first year of extended hours of operation.

that is the purpose of this hearing. the project complied with the conditions of approval. the interested neighborhood groups met twice. we met with others in the community. the business circulated a maleler to the neighborhood prior to the extended hours operationallerting to the creation of a phone line monitored by the business that neighbors could call if they experience issues with the business or patrons or general issues. there was an intent of the performance update to evaluate the extended hours of operation on the surrounding neighborhood. as discuss understand the memos, there were no formal issues from the entertainment commission that affected the extended hours. the sfpd did not report any incidents specifically associated with the business during the first year following

extended hours change nor has staff received e-mails or phone calls from the community since the change has taken place except for e-mail conditions with primary neighborhood represents. the staff conducted in depth analysis of the incident data from mar2018 through march 2020 to capture one year prior to and after the extended hours change was made. the staff memo contains detail. there did not appear to be evidence the extended hours resulted in increase of sfpd incidents. if any there was a decrease in the incidents for the year following the extended hours change, particularly during the period from midnight to 5:00 a.m. no action is required from the commission at this time. that concludes the staff presentation. i am available for questions.

thank you. >> commission chair, do you want to afford the sponsor any presentation time, three minutes? >> yes, go ahead. >> okay. mr. paul, if you would like, you can have three minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you, president koppel, director hillis and commissioners. on march 7th of 2020 was our anniversary of first night of operations after hours under a conditional use authorization. in our first full year nothing surprising or unexpected happened. one week later covid-19 shut the entertainment industry down. that was unexpected. last day of operation was mar14,

2020. two days before mayor breed's shelter-in-place order. no public activity at 412 broadway since that day. our operations went smoothly on march 7, 2019. 4:00 a.m. closing was popular with both guests and workers. on most weekends we observed few guests actually leaving the club directly at 2:00 a.m. following cessation of alcohol service. typically groups trickle out 2:15 a.m. to 2:45 a.m. especially those who ordered drinks at 1:40 a.m. last call they are sticking around to let the alcohol wear off before heading home. this is the effect we hoped to realize. during the year of operation, we operated with extended hours

every thursday through saturday night and have occasionally stayed open after hours to accommodate large parties or unexpected convention groups on other nights. ability to remain flexible in the interest of customer safety and neighborhood tranquility is a tremendous benefit on the permit. in addition to remaining open past 2:00 a.m. on thursday, friday, saturday night from march 2019 to mar2020 we opened late saturday night on all three day holiday weekends. of the estimated 170 nights the business remained open after 2:00 a.m., less than 20 nights did the club remain open until 4:00 a.m. typically at 3:00 a.m. the manager on duty walks the premises to evaluate how many customers remain and disposition

of employees. the manager may decide how much longer to stay open. i guess my time is running down so i want to conclude by saying this has been a very successful launch of after hours. we have had no problems with neighbors. the community likes it. the crime incidence dropped as a result of people not wandering out drunk after the last couple shots. we are careful to make sure people know where they are going when they leave the club if there are signs of anniebryation. thank you to mr. perry. his work was helpful to make this a success. >> members of the public this is an informational item but you need to press star 3 to get in the queue. no requests to speak public

comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> it is only informational. deliberations haven't begun yet. there is a member of the public to speak. should we re-open public comment? >> yes. >> member of the public you have two minutes. >> i am terrance allen, original and founding president of the entertainment commission. i heard clearly and loudly. it was an honor to speak at the original hearing for this location, and to underscore the necessity of careful overlook

for after hours permits, as our city grows and changes. covid struck a major blow to everyone, and the entertainment industry is especially troubled by the inability to gather in any way, shape or form. however, we are all looking forward to the pay when tourists and conventions and the music and art community return to their venues and begin the practice of normal life. having venues open after the final hour of last call is critical to the public safety experience on the street. we encourage you to use this excellent example as a template when other businesses are getting ready to open and asking for extended hours to make it safer for customers that you remember the positive nature that this had on all neighbors,

patrons and employees. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i wasn't here when this item came before the planning commission. i want to commend staff on the excellent reporting and thank you for bringing this back to us this year. i am sad that the pandemic caused the activities that were going smoothly and i am pleased at the collaboration with no negative impacts but positive impacts. thank you staff and project sponsor as well. >> commissioner moore.

>> just a quake view in the rear few mirror. it was very controversial at the time not because of this operation but because of disturbances in the broadway corridor are many and the lines to delineate who did what are impossible. there was a lot of push back at that time. as the discussion and the conditions make it clear it would be a good experiment. as we hear today that experiment has paid off and we will move to the future i don't mind establishing conditions after the fact or one year revisiting of the subject matter as we have today. i am glad to see the report came out as positive as it did. thank you. >> thank you. if there is no further deliberation, commissioners, we

will move to the next item. i apologize. we had intended to call up the first dr out of order at the beginning of the regular calendar. we will call item 14. 2020-0011229drp at 73 fountain street. original intent was consent calendar. both parties have come to an agreement. the request of you now is to take discretionary review and approve as modified. david, i know that both parties were informed this would be the case. i do not believe it is necessary there are any presentations. we certainly will open this up for public comment if any member of the public cares to speak to it. >> that's right. neither d.r. request or project sponsor had intended to testify.

they were content with the agreement as stipulated in the report. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter for item 14 at 73 fountain street by pressing star 3. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. the request is to take the project as modified. >> move to approve as modified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. to take dr and approve as modified commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye.

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. thank you for that. now going back to the regular order of business items 10 and 11 are continued. we are okays 12. 2020-001286 c.u.a. at 576 27th avenue conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the project is requesting conditional use authorization to demolish existing single family dwelling at 5767 27th avenue and construct a two family dwelling. this is in rh-2 zoning. the existing dwelling unit was constructed the year 1912. it is age eligible not a

historic research. replacing the structure is a four story over basement two family dwelling totals 4700 square feet. one dorm unit in the basement first and secretary con. second is on third and fourth. it includes two car garage and roof deck. the department has not received any public comments regarding this project. existing structure is proposed for demolition because the size, layout and condition of the building on the lot is not conducive to maximizing density nor the rent controlled unit lost as single family dwellings are not subject to rent control. this will create one dwelling unit to maximize the density in the rh-2 zoning district. while the structure is larger than the surrounding building the design review has determined any negative impacts to adjacent properties is not significant.

it is compatible and necessary and desirable for the community. we recommend approval with conditions. additionally i would like to read two corrections in the draft motion. on page 6 of item p six bedrooms in eight dwelling units. this should be two dwelling units. page 14 under authorization the motion states eight family dwelling. this should say two family dwelling. i apologize for these discrepancies. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thanks. >> thank you, mr. dito. >> project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i am amy lee i represent the sponsors at 5767 27th avenue two families with an additional set of grandparents. they purchased in late 2019 with

the intent every siding together. after hiring architects and structural engineer it was apparent the current condition of the home with dry rot in the floors and ceilings and louchelyings could not support any expansion without becomes a demolition. sponsors worked with the planning department completed review and determined it would be best complete demolition and construct two new family sized units. prior to the purchase in 2019 it was vacant over 5 years after the death of the occupants who live understand the home since 1952. they had neighborhood meeting and there is no opposition. the immediate neighbors have expressed support and would expedite construction despite efforts to prevent trespassing. the proposed structures meet the

residential design guidelines, code compliant and not seeking variances. the architecture windows and the stucco and siding will be utilized to be consistent with neighborhood. this family project was to contribute to the existing neighborhood of two to four story buildings. it is the best features of the surrounding buildings and enhances the area. we request the conditional use authorization to demolish the deteriorated building with no historical relevance to construct two new family sided dwelling units. >> thank you. does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes my presentation. >> members of the public we should open this up for public comment. press star 3 to enter the queue. no members of public requesting

to speak at this time public comment is closed. the matter is before you. >> the project seems straight forward to me. i am in support and would entertain a motion. >> commissioner fung. >> move to grant the conditional use. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioner tanner did you have comments? >> i wanted to second that. >> thank you. in that case there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the conditions on the motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond.

>> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. we are just moves right along. item 13. 2019-020049 c.u.a. at 1131 polk street conditional use authorization. staff make your presentation. >> good afternoon, i am staff. this is conditional use authorization for property located at 1131 polk street at southwest corner of sutter street. it would establish a business containing bar, restaurant and nighttime entertainment uses. considerable use specifically required for the nighttime entertainment and 2000 square

feet. zoning changes were passed several years ago within the alcohol restricted use district to return to the site without separate authorization. in addition the proposition of proposition h during 2020 make this a permitted use without authorization. the site is under construction with a project approved in 2017. when complete the new building will reach six stores with 54 dwelling units and 88800 feet of commercial space of the previously there was the hem lock tavern a bar hosting live music and entertainment. the actions before you today are to allow establishment to return to the site. the business will measure 3570 square feet in two-story space in the same location of the

tower. as noted in the staff report, the department received one e-mail opposition to the project. following publication of the staff report we received communications in support from residents and business owner in the area. they emphasize the business will revitalize the polk street after the pandemic. inconclusion approval will allow liven betertainment compatible with the polk street corridor and contribute to culture and nightlife of the city. the two-story of the space allows larger use without dominating the block face. staff recommends approval and i am available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. guy.

project sponsor make your presentation. you have five minutes. >> thank you so much. good afternoon, president koppel and planning commissioners. i hear an echo. >> we are not. >> good afternoon. i am alexis pelosi i am here on behalf of the project sponsors. i thank the planning department for the hard work. we are seeking conditional use for nighttime entertainment and non residential use greater than 2000 square feet in the polk street. i want be to give background on the project and explain why we are here. it was started in november 2014 when my client began demolishing the structure on the site replacing with 54 units in six

story mixed use building with ground floor retail. that was approved in december 2017 is 85% complete. during the process of the new building a key issue raised concerns about the hem lock tavern, a bar at the corner of polk and hemlock. because of the lower polk street alcohol controls -- there is an echo. >> are you still there? did we lose ms. pelosi? it does appear as though we lost ms. pelosi.

i suggest that we take public comment and hopefully ms. pelosi can rejoin us shortly. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star 3 to be entered to the queue. there is one member of the public requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> hello. i am david, president of the lower polk business collaborative calling both as president of that merchant association and resident adjacent to the subject property. we are in opposition of this c.u.a. and asking for a continuance.

we tried to reach the project sponsors for community outreach. they have refused to return our calls and e-mails. we have some concerns and issues regarding the subject project. we think they can be resolved through community outreach but again we ask for a continuance until the project sponsors are willing to perform community outreach which has not been performed. we learned of this by the notice from the planning department this was up for hearing. that is about it. there is some issues. the previous business there was extremely problematic. we want to try to avert that from happening again with the new project. if we can get community outreach from these folks that would be greatly appreciated. >> so kay. thank you. i do see that ms. pelosi

rejoined us. >> so sorry. i have a terrible echo. i dropped off thinking that was it. i will go through my comments. >> you have three minutes. >> the project is under construction approved in 2017. it is 85% complete the key issue had to do with the hem lock tavern at the corner of polk and hemlock. because of lower polk street controls there was no way to close and re-open in the new building. we were working with supervisor peskin. this legislative change limited to the liquor license is it now possible for the hemlock tavern

in a new building. the project sponsor thought they completed the steps necessary to return the use to the new building. as evidenced by us here that is not the case. to return a bar entertainment use to the same location in that building two authorizations needed first for the size of the nonresidential space and second nighttime entertainment use. regarding the de stein additional soace for the hemlock tavern was below grade. the space is now split with approximately 1700 square feet above grade and remainder below grade. approximately 3500 square feet for entertainment creates a entertainment area that is functional. the hem lock tavern's history has losted live events and bands and performers. the two level space was perfect and provides flexibility for the operator. in the polk street entertainment

use requires c.u. authorization. because of the two authorizations are required to return use to the knowledge the project sponsor seek to make it easier for the operator to come in. in the letter we sent to you it is to address any issues related to noise in the building. we are seeking that any future operator needs a permit and necessary permits. regarding whether the operator will be the hem lock tavern an issue raised. we do not know. at the time of the legislative change in 2018 there was an operator to operate the bar and nighttime entertainment venue. that operate's license changed and adding covid and the impact of the bar and entertainment business it is uncertain. the property owner is committed to reintroducing the bar to the new building if it is her or

someone else. i did hear the public comment and michelle from the project sponsor's team is on the phone and she can address any questions regarding outreach. there has been outreach to the neighborhood. four letters of support the city received as well as verbal nonopposition from the lower polk neighborhood association. we are happy to talk about that. thank you to are your time. sorry for the technical difficulties. if you have questions let me know. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should re-open public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter. no requests to speak, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> there is one person to speak. you have two minutes.

>> i just have a quick question. i kind of had this question when you were talking about item 11. it has to do with any item that has to do with condition permits. i am just like trying to learn more how the planning commission works. i am wondering if something is approved with conditions when are those conditions discussed and solidified. >> if you want to shoot me an e-mail i will help you out with a better understanding of that. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. members of the public last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. it is before you. commissioner moore. >> this was approved in 2017 was a much supported project right

size and light location. as always, particularly today ground floor commercial uses are extremely important. i am in full support of bar and entertainment use back to this location including the legislation which supports that use to return once it left the vacant site. the project has a lot of support and i will move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner diamond. >> question for ms. pelosi. is she still there? >> yes. >> there are two references in the findings to a locally run business operated the bar. could you talk about that? >> again, thank you so much for the question, commissioner diamond. this gets to the hemlock tavern

and original legislation and prior use that was there. as i noted in the comments the intent was to return the hem lock tavern to the space and there was a local operator to do that. in the intervening years that person may not be able to operate. it is our intent to operate a bar in a venue and entertainment space in the location whether or not it will be a local operator is not something we know at this time. of course, that would be the intent to find someone locally to take over the space. the key is to get as close as possible so when things can pick back up and we are able to identify an operator they can hospital in to work with the commission to get entertainment and those types of things. >> follow-up for staff.

there is no requirement this be a local -- no condition of approval it be a locally owned business. >> correct. >> no requirement in the code for this use at this location to be a locally owned business, is that correct? >> correct. >> it would seem given the current tenant in mind is not likely to be the tenant i am not sure why we are inserting language of locally owned 10nants. -- tenants. it is not applicable to what is likely to be the case. i am finding it confusing. i am also in favor of this project. i would suggest if we approve it that it be done in the language in the findings about a locally owned business. it confuses the decision we are making. assuming the commission wanted to go that way is that a problem from staff's perspective?

>> no, thank you commissioner diamond. as we discussed earlier there are policies in the general plan which point to independent businesses which aren't necessarily locally owned. we look at the construction of the findings if you are inclined the substitute language substituting independent in place of locally owned could be appropriate change. there is no problem striking the language out of the motion. >> i would be inclined to strike it without coming back without a permit. i don't know what we mean by independently owned. it muddies the waters. we should approve based on the use, not the user. if we don't want to limit to condition of approval i don't understand why it would be in the language of the findings. i would be in favor of approving

this project subject to deleting that language from the findings depending on what the other commissioners want to do. >> is the maker of the motion amenable? >> i would like to hear other commissioners weigh in. i have my own thoughts i will express when it is my turn. >> commissioner tanner. >> the thank you. that topic we were on. i don't have strong feelings. i would agree with commissioner diamond if it is not required to be locally owned it is unclear at this time whether or not it will be or if it will be independent. it doesn't seem to be a problem to strike the language. any formula retail would need to return. we would be aware if it is that situation. i have a question for the project sponsor, ms. pelosi. you said something on the line could describe what would take

place. i am curious to know nip notices the planning -- any notices the planning department mailed out what occurred to reach out to the surrounding area. >> michelle, can you talk to the outreach under taken? >> that is not audible. >> we are on the line. i added her in. michelle do you want to tell me about the outreach that you did. i will relay it. >> they reached out to the neighboring businesses and also to the lower polk neighborhood

association. >> are you aware if it was mail, door knocking, how? what was the response from the folks that were reached out to? >> e-mail and verbal. they weren't able to take a formal position. in the conversations with them there was no opposition expressed. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. i am supportive of this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to get clarification on the suggestion of the language regarding local

leoned. my preference is to give local entrepreneurs the ability to open in this corridor. having a location, a liquor license and i think for me an invitation to promote local entrepreneurs versus leaving it generic. ms. pelosi could you comment and qualify what it means to leave as it is or take away. >> thank you for the question. in talking with my client, if there is an intent to ensure the business is owned by a locally owned business operator, that is language that is fine to continue in the coped. that the always their intent. we agree it is better to work with local businesses and give them the opportunities. the language in the question was just at this point it is the project sponsor proposing, not

the operator which is why we can't, you know, we are not a local operator. it is our intent to work with someone local. >> you are not objecting to simplify that language in that particular portion of the approval but leave it up to the owner to give local operators preference? >> yes. >> thank you. with that said i am prepared to amend the motion to follow commissioner diamond's suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wanted to point out the two sentences causing confusion. at the end of policy 6.2 on page 7 of the motion it says in

addition the project would be a locally owned establishment to provide employment opportunities for san francisco residents. in section 10a the last sentence the project would provide opportunities for residence employment that is fine. then it says would establish a locally owned business. it is those two things where it says it would be a locally owned business that are inappropriate. i am delighted to hear the owner wants to give preference to locally owned businesses and that is wonderful and we would love to see that happen. the language in the findings makes it sound like it would be a locally owned establishment. i am believing this should be approval of the use, not the user. >> commissioner diamond thank you.

>> commissioner imperial. >> no questions. my questions are answered. full support. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to improve with conditions relating references to locally owned businesses. tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0. that places us under discretionary preview for 15. 2018-011022drp. 2651-265 3:00tay regentleman

street. >> good afternoon. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2017.08 to construct a fourth floor vertical addition rear addition with decks and roof deck to an existing three story two family house. this project was heard on february 6, 2020. almost a year ago as public request for discretionary review and approved by 4-1 with commissioner moore dissenting. the exemption issued was apbe would to the board of supervisors on -- appealed on july 28, 2020. the board overturned the

september 5th exemption in the motion the board directed the planning department to analyze history of the text the ad adjacent golden gate branch library to consider if the potential impacts of lighting inside the main reading room would impact those features. as a result, the september 5, 2019 review was resended on jan 27, 2021. no changes are made since the july 28th appeal hearing before the board. on behalf of the 2063 4:00 tavia association and green street homeowner association neighbors

across the street to the east are concerned the proposed project is out of character. specifically with impact the scale of block face goes against the climate change policy by blocking solar access to the library solar panels. elevator roof deck exceeded allowed height restrictions in the proposed roof deck will create privacy annoys impacts and result in light, view and real estate values for the neighborhood. the alternative is to remove the additional fourth floor from the project. since this report the department has received 11 letters in opposition siting impacts to light compatibility with the library and one letter in support. it meets residential design

guidelines with scale and preservation of light, access to light. project sponsor designed the building to add to the existing building to maintain the scale of the street and access to light. furthermore additional analysis finds that the golden gate library was designed with 15-foot side set back south to ensure access to light. as document understand the january 27, 2021 exemption, department determined except for class one for existing facilities. department determined the project would not results in a significant impact on historic resource including golden gate branch library. in terms of project meets secretary standards for rehab participation. it is retaining the character

defining features as outlined in the standards and losses. it does not require further evaluation. as discuss understand the preservation memo prepared january 26, the adjacent golden gate by liar reis a historic resource and is currently undergoing landmarking. the department determined that the libraries reading room is a character defining feature of the library. inferior light level are not. the proposed project will reduce some natural light through the half windows on the south elevation of library. the department determined the project would result in minnesota mallorie deduction of natural light and no significant impact to the character defining features. to fulfill the board direction the study was prepared and

supported the conclusion the project would not reduce the indoor light level in the reading room. the proposed project will not result in any other changes to the adjacent library. because the 2019 approval relied on the september 5th ex else constituted approval action we are asking the commission to review the project in light of the new exemption and approve relying on this new exception. in addressing other issues by the d.r. requesters the proposed design extending the roof to incorporate the scale of street and features of the existing building front. the 10-foot wide at the ground level and entry is widened. window sizes answer proportions are similar scale as neighboring

buildings. furthermore solar panels are not protected by state or local laws. doing so would allow them as de facto impediments to development. the code allows -- [indiscernable] >> we are moving right along there we lot your audio and video. are you still there? turn your video off. >> i turned video off. >> now we can hear you. >> very good. i will pick up where i think i left off. solar panels are not protected by state or local laws they would impede development. the code allows certainly projections to exceed height. roof deck is five feet from side, front, rear building. the roof slope is set back

20 feet from the front building wall to impose minimal impacts to neighbors with respect to noise and privacy. from loss of light to other neighboring properties is not exceptional or extraordinary. as the proposed set back and width of the street provide more than reasonable distance for the additional story with respect to light. the dr does not present any extraordinary circumstances. staff recommends approving the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i am joined by ally son and kay from staff. we are happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we should go to the d.r. request. you have three minutes.

>> thank you, i am representing the group of residents and neighbors on behalf of the golden gate valley branch library. they received -- the public and planning commission received the daylight impact analysis report one week prior to this hearing. not enough time to review the complicated and detailed study. we request more time to fully review the materials and from each commissioner who did not approve the previous dr to approve the board of supervisors packet. we would like to speak to wishes. it impacts solelar panels and light of the library. it alters street scrape with the rooflines on octavia. increases the foot present without contributing additional housing. we request clarification that the project applicant will

reimburse the city for the cost of daylight impact analysis report. this is a picture of the interior of the library showing the reading room, a key defining future. the windows and light contribute to the experience of the special volume. no one can argue natural light is not integral to the library. this was designed with windows for maximizing the right to the reading room. it may not be material entity it contributes to the reading room. to obstruct light would alter the reading room as much as physical. the renovation in 2012-inch stalled high performance windows controlling solar heat and solar panelings butt the south windows ensuring the light is converted. the library windows will be

blocked. solar panels are directly above these windows. regarding the streetscape. the city residential design guidelines state buildings should respond to articulation of the buildings. the impact analysis makes the roofs look boxy. the actual conditions are that the roofs are varied. the proposed project does not meet city guidelines. it is larger and boxer. >> summary. this expansion negatively impacts. the review of the studies reveal it has negative impact on the library. it shows decreased natural light to the south windows and reduced function of the solar panels to meet the clean energy goals. expansion changes roof gain.

project does not provide additional housing. we request the planning commission to take the dr and encourage the sponsor to modify to lessen the impact. thank you. >> thank you. >> project sponsor are you prepared for your presentation? >> yes. >> you have three commits. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is the second time we are before you to defends our proposed plan. we are in the process of obtaining permits for the projects since august 3, 2018, two years and six months. the plans are to enlarge the buildings to accommodates ada compliant living for our families. at our first hearing it was 4-1 not to take dr. the maybe neighbors stated it

would have adverse effects to the gold ten gate valley library. the board of supervisors upheld the appeal and requested the study be performed on the interior of the library p.specifically i am going to talk about our impact on the library because it was already determined from the previous er the other points the requester brought up today have been agreed to. the space is 25-foot wide building with workstations surrounded by windows. north east and west are nine windows. they flood the space with natural light. there is a large light bulb between the two buildings which allows the light to the windows. i want to discuss the interior

study and environmental department did on the request of supervisor stefani. evaluated skies for september and june. three times of the day 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. the library concluded the vertical addition reduces the light level. overcast sky mines 4%. partly cloudy skies 11.1%. clear sky -1.8%. is important to note for all times of the day for existing and proposed conditions on partly cloudy skies and overcast skies electric lighting is

required to meet the idf standard minimum for libraries. the small difference in light during these times are irrelevant. the next three slides show the existing and proposed conditions side-by-side. visually you can see there are differences in light level. this is the first clear sky scenario. difference 1.8%. you can see no difference in light values in the existing and proposed. very little difference between existing and proposed. >> thank you. that is your time. you have two minute rebuttal to tip the presentation. public this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star and 3

to enter the queue. you will have one minute each. >> hello. this is bridgett i am the author of the landmark designation report. i did send in a letter that you should have received. i wanted to point out two key points. i really believe that the light is a key component to understanding the volume of the space. it is flooded with natural light as the applicant just noted. the space is further impacted with the increased development. secondly, the other libraries are landmarked only one hads a

slightly taller building adjacent to it. it is the building adjacent to that was probably constructed prior to the library. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star and 3 to enter the queue. go ahead, caller. >> hi, i am calling in support of the project. is this the correct time? >> yes. >> i am sarah. i am part of the design team for the project. i just wanted. >> ma'am, i am sorry to cut you off. you are part of the project team. your time to speak is during the project presentation. next caller.

>> hi, i am calling to register concerns about the project. i am a neighbor living on green street. i just want to reiterate how important the library is. it is historic and landmark resource. significant fund-raising was done in the city and from the community and our family like many other neighbors contributed fairly significantly to the library. the design and restoration of it really accounted for such light. i really -- light is such an important issue in san francisco. it would be a horrible shame to lose what this library enjoys. thank you. >> go ahead, caller.

>> hello. i am a neighbor a block away. i want to call to register concern. i want to underscore that we are not talking about one private residence next to another one. we are talking about impact on a very important public resource serving visitors of all ages offering high-quality programming at no cost. this is one of the most beautiful library branches that draws people from all over the city. the light study you have been delivered focuses on models, not real life experience. this modeling talks about not

the quality of the light. we know that natural light is different from artificial light. the park a block away if we cut the natural trees and replace with plastic trees they would have the same experience. same is true with natural versus artificial light. >> members of the public last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. we should go to rebuttal from the d.r. requester, ms. holt. you have two comments. >> since this is complicated study and detailed. i have a background in statistics and i am not a light expert. we need more time to absorb and

review this study and to look at some of the conclusions that were forwarded that seemed that they could have been interpreted multiple ways. that is the first thing with the study. second thing is the caller just called to bring up the quality of light. that is huge. light is not the majority light in the room. this was designed to maximize natural light coming in. on the planning department's website there are archives speaking to a 1915 pamphlet which says the site is chosen to emit light on all sides. there is a 2001 document that says all carnegie libraries contain natural light from tall windows. light is a characteristic and

defining feature of this. in terms of otherrish views, we are very concerned why the city allows the development to compromise investment in renewable energy. why are private citizens. [indiscernable] it only benefits private developer at the expense of cultural public city asset. why aren't other city departments weighing in? we would like the city to confirm the daylight impact study was reimbursed by the project sponsor and not a city and taxpayer expense. finally, we did receive 19 or 20 letters of support sent to the planning department. we have broad support across the community. from individuals and groups as well. >> thank you.

sponsor you have two minutes. >> slide 9. regarding the light in the library. the study was done with no electric light proposed. look at this slide. the daylight calculates the difference between existing and proposed light. [please stand by]

>> clerk: great. thank you. members of the commission, that concludes the public hearing portion of the project. the matter is now before you.

commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: happy to jump in. thank you, mr. winslow for our work on the project and the project sponsor. i want to say i agree this is a huge asset. it's an important location. and the design does having light and the access to the sunlight is a huge feature really of the library and the way it was designed. a similar review of the extensive and informative information regarding the shape of two solar panels and shading impacts of light to the windows itself, i don't see that this project has a significant impact in reducing the light for the solar panels or the light into the interior of the library. i would be prepared to not take the d.r. and approve the

project, as proposed. i would like to hear from other commissioners. >> president koppel: i would second that and call on commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i would say the same. reviewing what is in front of us, there is no -- aside from the fact that the study itself is difficult to read partially, [indiscernible] question of quality of light. it's tonality, its shape. it's not clear to me. the objections that i have before is that i do not believe that private development should be impacting on public resource, public asset. further to that, the fact that this project does not observe

the typical stepping of building from the entire block. and impact both on space. and i find that a negative. and since the units in question are already sufficienty large, the project is basically enlarging without adding density, i find that objectionable, especially since it was more focused with the project first around. private interests impacting the public spaces is a concern. those neighbors supporting the library and renovation and conserving with private resources, i can only stand with them. and basically not support this project that is in front of us

today. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, i was reading this. and thank you mr. winslow in forwarding the golden gate landmarking document. and i find it interesting reading the historical background of the golden gate library and architectural history. one thing that noted to me that stands out the most, is the shadow impact. and even though the shadow impact analysis, you know, mentions that there will be -- in different day cast, like 1.8 on clear days. negative impact on it. however, when looking into the existing daylight there's 47.8%.

that means almost half of the library right now doesn't receive natural daylight. when you look into the history of this kind of library, that is designed to have natural daylight -- i agree with the public on this. it is designed to increase natural daylight. even though the negative impact will be 1.8, that's still significant. when we look at given the shadow impact a .01, .02 is already significant. depending on the uses. and not because a library -- also, this library where it's also affecting the children's library and a -- i mean, the children's reading room and adult reading room. so i am more inclined to take

the d.r. to just the bulk that would not place more shadows significant on the historical building itself. i'm happy to see -- i mean, also on top of that, since this is in the proposal for landmarking, i think we need protections in terms of historical buildings in our city. so those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: the library is an extraordinarily important building. and light in the library is very important. but i feel like the staff did an exhaustive drive with the shadowing light analysis. and that the impact is minor. and that the sequenalysis is

sufficient and not resulting in exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that result in taking d.r. i don't believe it would use the solar panels as a way to say no to this project approval. otherwise, we would be setting a precedent for all over the city allowing anyone putting in solar panels to prevent construction next door to block light to the solar panels. so i am prepared to accept staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you, president koppel. i want to take a closer look to the project and thank you to the members of the public for your comments and especially for your concern for the library and assets. i have a few questions for planning staff. i'm wondering if the library has weighed in about the potential impacts? i don't know if that's a question mr. winslow could answer. >> it's not. not that i'm aware of.

i'm going to ask our staff that are on this call of this meeting as well if they have had any input from the library? allison or jake, was there any input from the public library staff or administration with respect to this project? >> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner chan: okay. thank you. i was curious. and i also wanted to clarify if staff has done a site visit? i think in the packet, a sponsor mentioned half the windows facing this property were

already covered on the bottom half. i want to understand if this is something you observed and tie in about the potential impact from your site visit. >> yeah, thanks for the question. in fact, we did a site visit with preservation staff, who are not on this call, prior to the last hearing. while it's anecdotal evidence, but we observed in early february, middle of the day, was a very light-filled room with the shapes that come from the bottom up, about halfway, if recollection serves, halfway up three or four of the, i think five or six windows in the great hall that face the southern exposure. leading me to anecdotally again, observe that light might be a problem from the standpoint of over abundance in some

instances. i think it's certainly filled with light. and i believe it was a clear and sunny day at that time. >> commissioner chan: thank you, mr. winslow. i think it's helpful to have the anecdotal evidence. and then, on top of the study with more statistical evidence. so i appreciate hearing get other commissioners' comments. i think it's important with the natural lighting to the building. i think it's really clear these main reading rooms are like any part of the library, you use the library as the various reports stated for having sufficient light and ventilation from all sides. i don't think given the evidence that we have before us, we have to respect and include the potential impacts of the project do not lie [indiscernible] those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner fung.

>> commissioner fung: i'm acceptive of staff's position on this case. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion, commissioner tanner. [roll-call vote] >> clerk: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> no. >> clerk: this passes 5-2. with commissioner moore and imperial against. that concludes your commission today. based on your perfect attendance, you all deserve a break and i'll give you next

thursday off. >> thank you. >> we're adjourned. >> thank you. >> for the afternoon. [adjourned] virtually... good morning, twice before we've gathered in late january. first at the national lgbtq

center for the arts. then, last year in the rotunda of city hall. so i could share with you my view of the state of our city. as we gather virtually today, you don't really need me to tell you the state of our city. we are anxious. we're frustrated. we're impatient. and we are lonely. i know it, because i feel it myself. and i know in many cases, folks are hurting even more than that. but if i can impart anything to you today, it is that we deserve, we need to feel two more things: pride and hope. pride because we have pulled together to weather storms like we've never seen before. hope because we can see a brighter future. the fact is, the state of our city is resilient. and it is resilient because of what all of us, every one of us, have accomplished this past

year. i'm speaking to you today from asconi center, but i want to start a few miles from here at lagoona honda hospital. one of the largest scale nursing facilities in the country. 155 years since it was founded to care for aging pioneers, it's served the neediest people of san francisco through thick and thin. my grandmother, miss camillia brown spent her last 12 years in that hospital. dementia had taken her ability to speak before she arrived, but it had never taken her personality, not all of it anyway. miss brown loved chewing gum. she lost her teeth by then, but loved chewing gum! the nurses and staff there would bring pieces in their coat pockets and handed it to her to brighten her day. miss brown was particular about her hair and nails.

she was a southern lady at heart. the staff painted her nails and left each other careful notes to make sure her hair was done just right. she couldn't speak, but her caretakers were making sure we understood our grandma was still in there. we all have been reminded of something in the last year. something that i think i've known for a long time. the men and women at lagoona honda, nurses, doctors, paramedics, staff there, along with all of those taking care of people in need across the city, they are heros. they are the best of us. at the outset of the pandemic, we saw frightening news accounts of outbreaks in nursing homes all around the country. some called laguna honda a ticking time bomb, a powder keg. it's true, the virus could have easily swept through laguna honda and kills hundreds, thousands. thanks to the frontline workers

and department of health and everyone that had done their part, covid was contained at laguna honda. it's relief and pride only a couple of weeks ago we saw the staff and residents of laguna honda get their vaccinations. our most vulnerable san fransiscans among the first to get vaccinated. that filled my heart. that's who we are. a year ago. he declared a state of emergency. ten months ago, with our neighbors around the bay, we implemented the first shelter-in-place order in the country. from there, we continue to make difficult decisions, heart-breaking decisions, all year long. today i'm standing in the beating heart of our emergency response. it was here where city workers from so many different departments came together to do whatever it took to protect this city. when we didn't have enough test to go know where the virus was,

they were here. when we didn't have enough p.p.e. to go around, they were here. when we didn't have a federal government ready or willing to lead the way, they were here. the hours were long. the days were chaotic. and any sense of an ending to all of this was impossible to see, but day after day, rain or shine, our city employees came and did the work. and i want to thank each and every one of them who has walked through these doors or been out in the community. and those who are still here working today. back in march, a neighbor in midtown terrace wrote this "when you go out and see the empty streets, empty stadiums, empty train platforms you're seeing love in action. what you're seeing is how much we care for our each other, parents, grandparents, doctors

nurses, people we may never meet. take a moment to look into all that emptiness and marvel. it's the most remarkable act of solidarity we have ever witnessed." san francisco's response to covid-19 has been hailed as a national model. we have the lowest death rate of any major city in the united states! and though every life lost is a tragedy, we have saved thousands of lives. and now, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. we were able to do this not just because our city government was collaborative, flexible and full of dedicated public servants, though it is, we were able to do this not just because our hospitals, nursing homes and medical professionals are some of the best in the world, though they are. we did this because of you. we did this because of the sacrifices you made, losses you

endured, the love you showed for people you may never meet. years from now, people will look back on what we've done, and i hope they will remember not the frustration and pain we feel now. but the love we show. the lives we saved! take pride in that, san francisco! find hope in that. each of these lives is precious. every one of them. each is one more grandmother, grandfather, mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, who will be there for the next birthday, the next wedding, the next anniversary. each life saved is precious. so yes, it has been hard. and no, we're not out of the woods yet. but we have been fighting for something real. we have been fighting for each other. don't forget that. and there's reason for hope. on monday, the stay-at-home order for the bay area was lifted.

today, san francisco can begin to recover. today, we can begin to reopen our doors, reopen our businesses. begin to resume our lives. with some restrictions and many, many precautions, of course, but we are reopening. we're vaccinating more and more people each day. and very soon, we will open another large vaccination site right here at the center. and with support from the state, and thank god, the new biden-harris administration in the white house, we have a plan to administer 10,000 vaccinations a day. we can see the light. folks, our recovery starts now. so i want to say something to all the people who are writing us off. to those who are writing obituaries of san francisco, we have read all of those before. we've proved them all wrong before. and we'll do it again. cities aren't a collection of buildings. if they were, the year 1906 would have been our last.

cities are people. working from home doesn't spell the end of urban life because cities aren't merely a collection of jobs. cities are people. cities are passion. culture, vibrancy and change. look, we san fransiscans have thick skin. we'll show the rest of you how we bounce back. when you get restless and want to come dance to live music or see steve curry do his thing on the court, eat at the best restaurants, drink at the best bars, start your next business, host a convention right here, or just watch the giants from your kayak, we'll be happy to have you. san francisco has always been and will continue to be a magnet, a destination, a place that draws people. we are the city of pride. today, with hard lessons learned and so much yet to do, i believe we are at the start of an

incredible recovery. we aren't just going to repair. we're going to reinvigorate. to come back even stronger. we will put people back to work. our businesses will flourish. opportunities will expand. and as we do all of that, our recovery will focus on moving our city forward. the and putting people first. we will continue our work to cut the red tape for small businesses, because it's more important than ever. for example, in november, voters passed our small business streamlining measure, proposition-h. and it's already working. one small immigrant-owned business that wanted to convert a hair shop to an ice cream shop, saw their approval time cut from the normal six to nine months down to one day! one day! we'll build on this success. and make it even easier to turn an idea into a thriving small

business. bureaucracy cannot keep getting in the way of people. our recovery also means building housing. now! during this economic downturn. as we rise again, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. we will put affordable housing dollars to work, and streamline the approval process. even if it means going to the voters to do it. we will keep pushing to meet our goal of building 5,000 new homes each year. and can we finally put to rest the fantasy that supply and demand doesn't apply to our housing situation? you may have noticed rent prices went down, way down last year. why? because demand went down. when it goes back up, and that is a when, not an if, let's be ready with more supply, more housing, so everyone can afford to live here. we will continue to aggressively push forward our homeless recovery plan. which includes the largest

expansion of permanent supported housing in the last 20 years. and we will implement mental health reform. so we can get more people off the streets and safely indoors. we will continue to divert 911 calls from the police through innovative solutions like our street crisis response team. so people struggling with addiction and mental illness get better care. and just as importantly, so our police officers can focus on their work to address violent crime and the burglaries and break-ins happening in our city, we want nothing more than to prevent crime from happening in our city. and sadly, when it does, it is just as important to hold people accountable for the crimes they commit. we will continue to enliven our neighborhoods through outdoor dining on our sidewalks, streets, and public spaces. we will do more for families starting with getting our kids

back in school. our city can't fully recover until our students are supported and our schools are open. i will continue to do everything i can to help get our kids back in the classroom. we will invest in people by investing in infrastructure. we can put san fransiscans back to work by harnessing the power of public investments. we will strengthen our seawall, build parks, police and fire stations, mental health facilities, and improve public transportation. yes, public transportation is the life blood of a great city. and making muni work better than ever is critical to our economic recovery. in all, i plan to move forward on more than $3.5 billion in city projects. just this week, for example, we opened our new navigation center in the bay view. this 200-bed shelter will serve some of our most vulnerable

residents. but the project also created 330 jobs during the height of the pandemic. that's 330 people who can provide for themselves and their families. and our recovery also needs to be about the arts. our cultural institutions. and cultural-diverse neighborhoods, and the public spaces we all miss so much. we will also help music venues, clubs and bars who have lost so much, get reopen and back on their feet. 2020 was a year like nothing we've ever experienced. this terrible pandemic tore our neighborhoods, tore through our businesses, tore us from one another. it's taken lives, destroyed businesses, our economy, and tore at the very fabric of community. we suffered months of wildfires that choked our air. we always told ourselves, the

sun will still rise tomorrow. until one day, it didn't. the streets of san francisco and cities around the country, erupted with protests. as our nation's legacy of racial injustice, white privilege, and violence against black people boiled over. i will never shake the image of george floyd on the ground. a knee on his neck. that knee, that knee has been on the next of black americans for 400 years. and it's the knee of the chinese exclusion act, the briggs initiative, japanese internment, red lining, urban renewal, children in cages and transgender discrimination! san francisco is in many ways a collection of people, who were tired of living under someone else's norms or needs. and came here to find common cause. our diversity, our acceptance, our spirit, is what makes us

strong. and no virus, whether it's named covid or hiv will ever take that away. quite the opposite. it will only make us stronger. it is in times of crisis that san francisco has shown its true grit. we've been tested before. earthquakes, fire, recessions, shocking assassinations, aids. every time we were shaken and tested, and every time we didn't just bounce back, we pushed forward. out of ashes, we built an even greater city. out of despair, we formed even stronger alliances. out of tragedy, we forged even greater humanity. let's not remember 2020 only as the year we suffered. it was the year we learned what matters most. what binds us together. it was the year we sacrificed to

save each other's lives. the hard winter is almost behind us. and hope lies ahead. as amanda gorman said just two weeks ago at the inauguration "even as we grieved, we grew. even as we hurt, we hoped. even as we tired, we tried. and when day comes, we stepped out of the shade, a flame and unafraid. the new dawn blooms. as we free it. for there is always light, if only we're brave enough to see it. if only we're brave enough to be it." my fellow san fransiscans, there is light. let's be proud. let's be hopeful. let's be brave. thank you.

you may call this meeting to order. >> thank you, donald. good morning. i would like to call the tjpa board of directors meeting of february 11, 2021 to order. i am the vice chair. this is being conducted pursuant to provisions of the brown act. recent executive orders to facilitate teleconferencing to reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission at public meetings. ordinarily, the brown act sets strict rules. the governor's order suspended those rules. as noted the agenda, members of the public may observe this

meeting via sfgovtv and they may offer public comment by calling the public comment phone number. i would like to welcome the numbers of the public and staff watching live on sfgovtv. mr. secretary, could you please call the roll today. >> thank you, prior to calling roll i would like to welcome alisha john baptiste and diane shaw the ac transit representative and chang is setting in and the director has a scheduling conflict and will not be present. please respond when i call your name. >> chang. >> here. >> forbes. >> here. >> john baptiste. >> here. >> lipkin.

>> present. >> shaw. >> here. >> tumlin. >> present. >> vice chair gee. >> present. >> we have a quorum. i will call your next item. >> item 3. communications. we would like to provide further instructions for the public comment. to provide public comment dial to the published number. 18552826330 and enter access code (182)585-8053. pound pound and listen as you wait for public comment to be announced. members of the public have three minutes for each item. i will announce when public comment is open. general public comment callers dial star 3 to be added to the

queue. this access code will stream on the screen during the entire board meeting. when callers dial star 3 they will be added in the order entered. all callers remain on mute until the line is open. the automated voice will let callers know when to speak. it is best to call from quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down the radio or television. any communications from board members at this time? >> there are no hands raised. >> i will proceed. directors, item 4 board of director's new and old business.

>> i do not see hands raised. >> item 5. executive director's report. >> good morning, directors. i would like to welcome the new board members. i look forward to working with both of you as we execute the initiatives and add vance the downtown rail extension. i want to thank director hirsh on delivering the important transit services. last month we welcomed president joe biden and vice president harris. we are excited for the new administration. our project will receive funding

over the next few years. we are excited for the new transportation secretary. a few local represents from this area. we continue to monitor federal stimulus package as it may beings the way through the legislature. we are optimistic the $1.7 billion in funding will keep the bay area transit expansion and modernization projects on track. we join the metropolitan transportation commission and other operators in cosigning our congressional delegation in support. we are in correspondence with m.t.c. to include the tjpa in the funding. as we deal with the pandemic we are optimistic.

we are working to provide outdoor services to respond to the order. we continue to monitor the stay safe at home for collective efforts to reduce the spread of covid-19. adhering to the guidance and working with our transit operators. we continue to provide commuters and visitors the most up-to-date information about mask wearing and fiscal distancing ensuring hands cleaning protocols are in place. as rollout of vaccines occur we are working with redevelopment ventures to plan for and help ensure we are ready for increased activation when it is safe. we hope it is sometime this fall. earlier this week we hosted sales force for their kickoff. though showcased our rooftop art

through the international audience including 50,000 employees and global partners. they expect these to be broadcast to 10 million viewers. we continue to make progress on the advancement of the project with the steering committee partners including funding plan strategy, travel forecasting and ridership modeling. together with the staff we have been reaching local partners. we went with region 9 administrator and his local to reintroduce the project. we appreciated feedback to prepare the project for the program. we work closely with them to ensure the project development this fall and complete the process within the two year requirement. also, we are scheduling the commissioners to provide briefings in the upcoming months. we are excited for launch of the

project in the powers authority. we realize the connection to the east bay. we are working to plan for and build a seem less connection for the future integrated transportation system. we also sept m.t.c. a letter in response to 2050 five year implementation plan and asked them for resolution project and ensure they receive continued funding from local and regional measures to ensure the transbay program is built. early this week rail authority issued the revised draft business plan 2020 for public review and comment until march 12th. we join the high-speed rail authority the future operating partner in commitment to delivering passenger rail service to the state. the significant impact of covid-19. it prioritizes environmental

clearance of phase one between san francisco and the transit center and los angeles. we will be tracking and monitoring the plan through the legislature in april and authority's request to release state bond funding to continue the construction. we support the authority plan and request for state bond funds. lastly, directors, the cac recruitment continues. we encourage anyone to apply for this opportunity and applications are due february 26th. that concludes my report. i will take any questions. we have john here. >> thank you director. any questions on the report this morning? i am not seeing any hands

raised. thank you for the report. >> thank you. good morning, directors. i will bring up the slides. as mentioned. we are continuing to provide the intense high touch area cleaning throughout the center while also deploying the minimum amount of consultant resourcesness as part of cost reduction measures to balance our operating budget going forward.

additionally, we have been working with fitness sf on outdoor space. they continue discussions with the city attorney's office as well as the department of public health to move into indoor operations that may being economic sense for them. in the meantime they continue without door footprint. we are happy to accommodate them on the left part of the top photo. as mentioned, we have been hosting sales force virtual event culminating in live stream event two days ago that wrapped up the show. the generator on the other side in the picture, the tent located below for catering. the next slide is better perspective on howna toma was used so we can see the fitness

activities there. there has been a line waiting to get in anytime i have looked during operating hours. it is great to see that they are getting membership expansion through this expanded outdoor pod. another activity ongoing discussions with our neighbors to the south at 181 fremont, j paul, working to fastate a number of things underway. one is window washing. that is boring but when you have a high rise that butts against our facility it is a challenge. we have worked with them. the license agreement to facilitate the three week affair for window washing. they also have window repairs that need to be affected above the 40th story.

there are minor bridge deck repairs that started yesterday. that work is ongoing. minimal impact to the facility. the highest impact issue is the window repair where we have to have a fall protection area in case of mishap. that will involve a partial closure of the pedestrian path on park. you can see that on the facade depending on weather conditions. the park activities. we did have a holiday lights extension so that was through january. those lights have been removed just before sales force mobilized for their virtual event. it was a two location event on

a live stream from two days ago. we let off here at sales force park followed by the chairman presenting from singapore. latest check on website indicates estimate over 8 million views. that is the world wide exposure we received by facilitating this event with our partners. also, we can see the covid-19 check in area. to get to their area within the amphitheater required a tje; check and some protocols. we made sure that everyone was safe in moving forward working closely with the department of public health and city of san francisco. retail leasing. we have a number of active engagement to continue to negotiate food and beverage kiosk moving nicely.

lease negotiations continue, not complete but getting there. suite 232 in the green off beal street side. those discussions are going well. the key point here is while there is a lot of gloom and doom in the media relative to retail and particularly downtown san francisco, we continue to have active interest to the point where frankly we only have two first floor suites that aren't in active discussions. only have transactions ready to present town. i am encouraged there is that level of expect in our facility at this time. they recognize the value we will bring when things begin to return. we will have more information on that as these transactions get closer to fruition. this shows you the details. no change from the last meeting in terms of occupancy rate just

under 80%. successful in these pending negotiations that number will change by the end of spring. that is my hope. improvements. this slide will look familiar. verizon express is open. kaiser has completed work. they have occupancy permit from d.b.i. and are ready to go. looking at target of may 2021 for opening to coincide with downtown with the unit that cannot be found elsewhere in the system. we have more on that as they share what they anticipate the operations and service system available from kaiser. across the hall from tjpa on beal street side is the spring fertility suite.

they have made great progress. they have moved in furniture. this awaits the permit for them to begin occupancy. commencement started last year they are targeting the end of this month or more likely early march based on intelligence from d.b.i. apstatus of permits. this is a quick rundown every maining tenancies. 11 begins commencement yesterday. they are one of the first to open given their relatively limited tenant improvement package. our building effort moving nicely. we expect quite a lot of material delivery for the kitchen exhaust project to come toward the tail end of this month and early march to

dovetail nicely with the anticipated q3 and on the next slide q4 openings. we are trying to marry our delivery of the spaces with hope for return of downtown tenants and office occupants and patrons. happy to answer any questions you might have. >> john, thank you for the report. directors, any questions for mr? i don't see any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary i think we can move to the next item. >> item 6. cac update. we have the cac chair to address you on this item. >> good morning, directors.

i am derek holt. we had a citizen advisory meeting this past tuesday. we welcomed the new role for donald and he will be outstanding. we will walk through the staff report including the efforts to ensure the projects are in federal and state transportation funding, global exposure with the global broadcasting coverage, regional transportation project week 21 development. several cap members are turning out in recruiting efforts underway. i want to thank those members turning out for sacrifice of time and contribution of ideas and questions in an effort to make this transportation project one of the best in the world and feed the needs of the community. the meetings were pleased with answers to the question to

connect transit center dynamics to regional partners. that link 21 is appreciated by the cac members. comments and questions address the mega transformative rail program objectives, capital corridor elements and connection to the transit center. there was a great deal of interest from members in the community in elements such as potential for new transbay crossing and benefits to the citizens, requirement the quality of life and transportation in general. we appreciate the contributions to the cord nations between link 21 and sales force. there were questions on the lines on the map that spoke to different rail routes. i do note there is cap interest in reviewing topics regarding track alignment, how developed,

constructive ideas for alternatives. i noped the presentation from link 21 asked for ideas and suggestions from cac members and the public. i thought that was great. members of the cac such as paul and howard and bob and members of the public should ask questions regarding speeding up the timeline of moving forward on the construction and completion, track alignment. safety of buildings and consideration of big picture ideas to incorporate to the transportation plans. some of the big pictures included expanding ferry service, impact of autonomous vehicles and impact of covid. we loved s.f.c.t.a. in the presentation by jessie. it covered the valley to valley

service and more. questions from danville and others involved around identifying the inputs for modeling, impact of covid, identifying the targets for number of transit hours connected with the transit center and key hubs. they were well received. of course, we always want to understand what is going on inside the transit center. john updike, thank you for the facilities update. members suggested using the wi-fi in the rooftop park for k-12 student classroom activities. interesting idea or adult classes or academic activities. we have done a little bit of that already. i will wrap up pie pointing out future agenda item requests include rail yard updates and

budget forecast updates which executive director gonzalez will provide with the help of our esteemed cfo in the near future. in conjunction with working on new cac members we acknowledge that it is difficult during covid to offer the tour. based on discussions with executive director gonzalez we will develop an update review of all key things and share the virtual tour with new and old members. this will be part of our efforts to get new members up to speed on all things transit center related. this concludes my report. >> thank you for your report. directors, any questions? mr. hall.

i do not see any hands raised. thank you for your report. thank you to the members for finishing the terms on the cac. it is a service, a passion. it is a commitment. i appreciate it and the board does appreciate it. please pass along our appreciation. have a good day. mr. secretary. >> yes, this is informational appears a them member of the public raised their hand. please let in the caller. please state your name. you have three minutes. >> good morning. the only thing i would like to add to the report is that it was very over debt during the -- overvi debt that -- evident it

has a profound impact on the second street alignment. thank you. any other callers? >> that appears to be the only member of the public to provide comment. i will call the next item. >> director's 7 is public comment. opportunity for members of the public to address the authority on matters not on today's calendar. it appears we have a member that wishes to address you. first caller.

>> hi, jim patrick, patrick and company. i would like to follow up row land's comment. he is a engineer, i am not. he has a bright idea of the alignment for second street. everyone discards it because we have done environmental impact report and can't look anywhere else. i believe that is short sighted. there is a lot of money to be saved, in the billions, there is a lot of gains from his idea. i would like to ask this board to solace it is a presentation from roland as to what he thinks a better idea is instead of sweeping this under the table. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. any additional speakers? >> that was the last member of the public.

next item. >> before you call the next item, let me also offer my welcome to director john baptiste and director shaw. you are coming on board at a great time to look at what is next with the downtown extension. i want to offer my appreciation to director hirsch for his time. it is a partnership and i value and appreciate his presence on tjpa. to our new directors, welcome. >> item 8. approving updated board policy no. 001. the chief financial officer will present. >> thank you. i have a request to approve updates to the policy.

we are trying to implement updates based on federal guidance to allow for micro purchases and large purchases to be increased from $3,000 to $10,000 and large purchases up to $110,000. the federal guidancal laws up to 250. we felt we should limit to keep in line with the city and county of san francisco administrative policies and the boards and agencies you all represent. additionally, we wanted to update the policy to include affirmative statements on prohibiting communications during r.f.p.s and affirmative statement on prohibiting collusion in contracting. these two updates come as a result of a report issued by the city and county of san francisco

controller's office on public integrity review. we felt these updates were timely and pertinent to our affairs and wanted to recommend these updates. i will take any questions if you have them. >> thank you. any comments or questions from directors? >> i would like to move the item, please. >> that was director lipkin. second? >> second tumlin. >> motion and second. any other questions or comments? >> lipkin and tumlin. now roll call vote. director chang. >> it is advisable to see if there are members of the public to comment. >> thank you, ms. miller.

>> apologies. >> there are no members of the public to address you on this item. i will proceed to roll call. >> director chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> aye. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> shaw. >> aye. >> tumlin. >> aye. >> vichair gee. >> aye. >> there are seven ayes and item 8 is approved. >> thank you, mr. secretary. before you call item 9. i would like to let the board and public know i will recuse myself from item 9. in abundance of caution to avoid perceptions of a conflict as i

am the appointee of the jpb. i would like to at this point ask that director tumlin handle this item. i will go dark on my video and rejoin when this item is concluded. >> i would be happy to take the gavel. >> thank you, director tumlin. >> thank you. i will go ahead and call the next item. >> 9. approving the interim executive director to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the joint powers board for operations analysis for amount not to exceed $185,000 in support of the downtown rail extension phasing study as required in the memorandum of inning and interim project

director will present. >> thank you. good morning, directors. the purpose of the request here is to authorize interval executive director to execute moa with joint powers and provide funding in support of operations analysis to complete the phasing study. cost for this would be shared with the socta with tjpa contributing $185,000, and $75,000 for the total cost. need is related to some of the phasing concepts that were proposed and developed by such as the two versus three track.

deferral of high-speed rail that requires analysis, operational analysis not previously available. the way to conduct this work is using caltrain and high-speed rail existing operations consultant. we feel it is an efficient way to conduct this work. the scope of work is to run various service level to simulate the level and associated infrastructure improvements ranging from relatively minimal service of six trains per hour and no high-speed rail trains all the way up to eight caltrain trains and four high-speed rail trains. the scope of work including the simulation of regoperations to determine reliability and flexibility but also disruption operations to determine what reliable the service is in terms

of recovery should a train be out of service for some reason or other delay. this is an important way to look at operations pause delays occur from time to time. we will simulate as well a run through operation at sales force transit center envisioning for example a future link 21 connection the east bay and determine if that connection in some way reduces infra structure requirement to share that information with the executive steers committee as we bring the phasing report to tjpa board with you the directors. the source of funds for this request is unexspended funds from the cta grants 1-5-914-028. with that that completes my report. i am happy to answer any questions the directors may

have. thank you. >> any questions or discussion? >> i just wanted to appreciate the teamanticlar caltrain and high-speed rail task who are the lead under the work program. it has worked out well. the consultant is on knowledgeable already about the operations. thank you. >> any further questions or discussion? seeing none. do we have public comment? >> seeing none as well. is there a motion? >> i move. >> second.

>> first chang and second forbes. will i call roll. >> director chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> aye. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> director shaw. >> aye tumlin. >> aye. >> there are six ayes and zero nays. item nine is approved. i would like to note as we were calling roll a member of the public raised their hand to provide a comment. if it is okay with you, i will let that member of the public in. >> i will allow the comment. >> please let in the caller.

>> thank you. san jose. i would like to briefly take an opportunity of echoing some of the metrics that i shared with the cac for this exercise. specifically, to establish specific targets because we can get away with six trains and worry later. it is ridiculous. the target as follows: the target is 12 trains in the amount of transit center with two tracks, not three tracks. with 21 your target is 30 trains in and out of the transit center every hour. if the simulation indicates that this is not possible, i

respectfully suggest that you start looking at different alignments, similar to the alignment that london uses for the olympics. that is how they got 12 trains an hour in and out. also, i suggest it is impossible to get 30 trains an hour up and down the peninsula. we need the scope of the simulation to additional track work in brisbon south of the bayshore station. in closing i will make it very clear especially to the san francisco transportation authority that unless these targets are met, caltrain will never ever be able to if fourth and king. thank you.

>> that concludes members of the public. i will call the next item. >> i will hand the gavel back to acting chair gee. >> thank you, director tumlin, appreciate the assist. >> directors, item 10. approving the minutes of the january 14, 2021 meeting. >> is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second lipkin. >> no members of the public to address you on this. first tumlin and second lipkin. i will proceed to call the roll. >> chang. >> aye.

>> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> abstain. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> shaw. >> abstain. >> tumlin. >> aye. >> vice chair gee. >> aye. >> there are five eyes and two abstains. item 10 is approved. >> thank you. go ahead and call the next item. item 11 is san francisco peninsula rail program executive steering committee update. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to provide the monthly update on our work at

the integrated project team. high level of outline. i will take a few minutes to briefly update you on activities listed here. it remains a very, very busy time for the whole team we appreciate guidance of the board through this period. in terms of the funding man as the interim director gonzalez mentioned. this is the 2016 funding map to update the existing sources, committed once as well as newer ones, working with funding partners we confirm the forecast of funding sources such as the tax increment revenues and evaluating the sd1 gas tax funded programs we have applied in the past and will apply for

the transit inner city rail program and the solutions for congested corridors and other relevant programs at the state level. city has the agency working on the pricing study. should that be approved that is a potential source as well. there are recently passed or planned revenue measures to consider as well. in addition we are reevaluating the fta federal transit administration resource funding. i will come back. we had a productive conversation with the region nine office as interim director mentioned. there is potential for private participation in creative financing which we will be exploring. near term the jtpa and the staff are working to seek an amendment to the prop k allocation the transportation authority approved last year to update and align the activities with the

work plan that you adopted in december. this is going to reflect potential acceleration of the project schedule to see if we can make earlier submittal to the federal government on the restarts program. it showed august 2024 submittal. we are exploring to move that up to august of 2023 as i reported last month. this is a once in a year submittal window. that is a important decision all partners and you will be making. if approved, the prop k funds would support the team's work through the end of this year including approval of the operating project definition. that is key this fall. we would also need additional funds to comment the prop k funds by other sources going to 2022 and 2023. i will note that is the current focus of the work with the partners. we are discussing this as well

so we can present that to apply for the entry to the federal program to fta. as the interim director reported that was a successful meeting february 4th with the administrator. several members of the staff joined the virtual meeting to provide encouraging feedback as well as helpful guidance to the people. we were introduced to the entire rile ma'am partnership with importance of the multi agency collaboration and we reviewed the purpose and status of the phase-in study and importance of looking to see how we can make that strategic decision about balancing cost savings with other factors and criteria. we further introduced the ridership modeling task. it covered the different aspects of those technical decisions. also the capacity of the fta

program. again, administratortulelis and members of his staff were very supportive and ledge pledged -- pledged to guide us for entering the federal process this fall. we appreciate fta administratortule lisa's signed a member of his staff for this work. on the ridership forecasting that is a very important activity right now early leading item to establish the benefits and really understand the scenarios that will be evaluated as the last caller mentioned. sfta's modeling team is reviewing the forecasting scenarios and input with s m.t.c. we want to be consistent with 2050 and regional assumptions as well as the operating agencies who all have their own business plans and

forecasts as well as high-speed rail authorities models. we are working together very closely right now. there has been some discussion about not only this project but no project that we are picking up fta guidance and m.t.c. treatment of key assumptions during this difficult period in near term but moving forward establishing what the future demand profiles will look like as we enter the evaluation of investment through 2035. consistent with the blue print from the planned bay area we will ensure there is a wide regional look at the potential benefits including integration across the bay. as mentioned before by steven, the team continues to analyze

the options to identify cost reductions for the operating project. mindful of the trade-offs. we will bring that to you in coming months. thank you for approving the funding for operations analysis to support the team's work. turning to the planning benefit assessment. in addition to demand forecasting we have a business case analysis. last week bart and capital corridors link 21 vision did include analysis by the bay area council economic institute which published report estimating broad and significant benefits of the potential regional program featuring the crossing across the bay connecting to the other sales force train box. similarly, we will prepare a business case as well under the tpa for the lead for that task supported by partners for

mobility and cost-effective and congestion and greenhouse gas reductions affords ability and economic development affects. we will bring that to you as we scope and develop the analysis through the executive steering committee. it will be a companion to the recommendation in the fall when we come to the conclusions for the initial operating phase analysis. we do expect to see similar results to the bay area council institute 21 analysis with robust economic benefits of the whole rail program including transbay crossing. we will collaborate with connections to the centers which we examined at high level and shared connections with the link 21 team as chair holt mentioned earlier presented to the cac

recently. these links will be further developed by the bart and capital corridor team through the next phases of their study. turning to the outreach engagement. our team has made presentations to multiple groups including cac chair and i will note regarding 21 interested members of the public are invited to participate in the survey located at survey.link 21 program. org/goals. that is a way to express your feedback to bart and capital corridor. the tdp team commenced work to update the project website and outreach materials to subpoena -- support other briefings planned such as commissioners and this will continue the outreach as done with caltran senior officials as well as state legislators earlier last year. finally, i was pleased to speak

about the recent symposium to prepare for the biden infrastructure and climate plan hosted by the foundation on economy and environment. speakers included the u.s. transition team chair washington, m.t.c. executive director and acting administrator, high-speed rail authority director kelly and private industry leaders. we discussed innovations and opportunities for public private collaboration in projects. there is high private sector interest in projects well defined and supported by local sponsors. we will conduct markets as we study various delivery methods to support the project. we are prayer pairing input to

-- preparing input to congress as they bring up the bill in the coming weeks and months. we hope that bill will be taken up by the middle of this year. we are getting ready to provide input at that time. thank you. i will take questions. >> thank you for that update. directors, any questions of director chang and the esc team? >> i don't see any hands raised. mr. secretary do you see any hands raised? >> i do not. >> any public comment at this time? >> there are none. >> quick question. thank you for your hard work. i am sorry. >> a member of the public raised

their hand. >> first caller. >> thank you. this is roland. there is something seriously wrong with picking up requests to speak from the public. i really want to thank director chang for her report. the only be thing i would add is that the new bart project manager is watry. he correctly identifies the only viable alignment that they are working on the last four years. i would like to remind you if you were on the board at the time. the reason we have to stop

working on that alignment we lost the powers alignment when the tjpa sold block five which is where the tower is. mr. waltry defined pretty much the issues caused by this pushing the transbay crossing into the bay. i really hope we continue to work with him and come up with solutions that are going to push these platforms back to where they were to be in the first place in the middle of the train box. it means that there will be no train box extension. that is where the east bay goes. thank you. >> thank you. any other public speakers?

>> no. that was the only member of the public. >> thank you for the update. i know this was ambitious work plan. a lot of work is being done. i want the check is the work plan on schedule? >> it is by and large on schedule. that is the subject of the prop k amendment to reflect the changes in the work plan itself that was adopted by this board. there is a lot to view. there is risk. we are asking to track that. in fact we have an item at the meeting this month to review. we can provide better update next month on the potential schedule impacts. >> i think you and your team with the esc work plan was presented in december had a big schedule that went with it. would it be reasonable to ask that be updated in the six month mark? >> absolutely, director gee.

if the action of the director chang spoke about is approved we would come back to you for approval of the accelerated schedule. >> thank you. i don't want to add any more work but it is important to know you are on schedule and add adjustments are being made to manage the expectations. >> we are on schedule. i will come back with more detailed presentation. >> very good. thank you for the hard work. >> any other questions from directors? seeing none, mr. secretary, let's keep moving. >> at this time you are scheduled to go into closed session. as i check to see if there are any members of the public. i have not received any indication members of the public

wish to address you. they have an opportunity to do so at this time. >> we will hang out to see if the system identifies anyone that wants to make a comment. >> yes. anybody raise their hand yet. >> no, sir. >> okay. ms. miller, do we expect any action out of this closed session so the public doesn't need to hang out? >> i am not anticipating there would be any. >> thank you. seeing no public commenters wanting to speak to the board about this we are ready to go to closed session. >> thank you, vice chair gee. i will put us

>> van ness avenue runs from market street to bay street in san francisco. south vanness runs from south of market to cesar chavez street. originally residential after the 1906 earthquake it was used as a fire break. many car dealerships and businesses exist on vanness today with expansion of bus lanes. originally marlet street was named after james vanness,

seventh mayor of san francisco from 1855 to 1856. vanness heavy are streets in santa cruz, los angeles and fresno in his honor. in 1915 streetcars started the opening of the expo. in 1950s it was removed and replaced by a tree-lined median. it was part of the central freeway from bayshore to hayes valley. it is part of uses 101. it was damaged during the 1989 earthquake. in 1992 the elevator part of the roadway was removed. it was developed into a surface boulevard. today the vanness bus rapid transit project is to have designated bus lanes service from mission.

it will display the history of the city. van ness avenue. 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. >> you're watching coping with covid-19 with chris manners. today's special guest is joshua arsay. >> an i'm chris maners and you are watching coping with covid-19. my guest today is joshua arsay. he is the director of workforce development at the oewdt city's office of economic and workforce development, and he's here today to talk to us an about the

resource and services that are available to the recently unemployed or for people who are looking for work. mr. arsay, welcome to the show. >> thank you. thank you, chris. thanks for having me. >> the pandemic has devastated large part of our local economy, and in particular the service sector, but i understand there are some services and resources available to help the recently unemployed and for people who are looking for work. could you talk to us a little bit about the worker's hotline? the city's resources to help people apply for edd unemployment insurance, and the right to recover program? >> absolutely. chris, as you said, the pandemic has had such an incredible impact on the local economy, and that's because we had to make the necessary public health steps and safeguards early on and several times throughout the pandemic when the surged and that has meant closures of businesses and loss of work for so many workers.

the resources that you mention are critical. you mention the san francisco workforce hotline. that was one of the first efforts out of our office in partnership with the human services agency to provide a live voice to those men and women who in the earliest days of the first shelter in place order wanted someone to talk to. we were all overwhelmed at the local level, state, and federal to answer the questions and a lot of people were really struggling just to get someone on the phone. and an email address or a voicemail is one thing, but we really found that people wanted to have someone that talk to. as soon as the shelter in place order went in place in mid march, we actually in our office stood up a hotline. we answer phone calls in seven different languages. if we can't get you live in your language, we will call you back in your language. organizations like mission, economic development agency, self-help for the elled elderly and help us with spanish,

cantonese and mandarin. it is 415-701-4817 is the san francisco workforce hotline. there is no question that we won't do everything in our power and ability to answer whether that's applying for unemployment and maybe not getting through with one of our partner. we work very closely with at the state edd to help deal with the historic demand for their services and unemployment benefits. we will help you create your account. we will help you log on. we will help you find out information as best we can about the status of your claim and your benefits. we'll do whatever it takes helping you access paid sick leave if that's available to you. referring you over to our training programs which i know is some important we want to talk about a little bit later as well. but with respect to programs like right to recover and other covid relief programs. not everyone is eligible for unemployment. that might be because they haven't worked long enough to

accrue the benefits or one's immigration status or any reason at all, there are people that fall through the cracks of the benefit. may not have access to paid sick leave or quality for other public assistance. the right to recover program which was introduced by supervisor ronen and partnership with mayor breed, our office, department of public health, will help get you funds to safely quarantine and isolate should you, god forbid, test positive and need help to make ends meet. we will provide some resources to help you with your stay. there is other funds there, again, and the way to access those information and access to those programs specifically is to call notline 415-701-4817. five days a week. 8:00 to 5:00. and we're ready to answer calls in seven different languages. >> what resources are available for somebody who's lost their job in, say, the service sector? what kind of train canning they get to move into a new industry?

>> for the pandemic, we are foes kued and four areas -- we are focused on four areas of opportunity. when we look at jobs that are available, we look at the availability of someonement coing from a nontraditional pathway into a good paying job that leads to a career. those industries identified were tech, construction, health care, and hospitality. you can get training today to go out to learn the skills that will make you a competitive candidate out there in the tech industry, which has had impacts, but is hiring now and we expect is going to grow once again as we re-emerge. city build, one of the flagship training programs for construction, opportunities with the building trades and construction through city college and union apprenticeship programs is available. our next class will start in february. we just graduated close to 40 participants a couple of months back and they are all out there going to work because construction hasn't been as

impacted as other industries. health care will be essential, is essential today, and will be. there is opportunity there is, again, through the website oewd.org. and hospitality initiative and talked about training hotel workers, training for restaurant and culinary experts. that work doesn't exist the same as it did before the pandemic. so right now there's opportunities to get some skills in the security industry, preparing for tourism once again, but really what we're doing with respect to hotel workers and culinary workers especially in partnership with labor unions is supporting those men and women who lost work to prepare to re-emerge. >> i know the city's job centers are still open, but i hear they're operating a little differently because of the pandemic. what can a job seeker expect when they get in touch with one of the neighborhood centers? >> right now if you go into one of the job centers, you're going to be at this time doing it

virtually. you will be logging onto our website, oewd.org/jobsenters and you can pick one of the different sites. you can call, go online, you recollect email. we've got a jobs board we put out every week from our office. you can sign up and you can even on our website sign up to get that list of all those opportunities of employers that are hiring. when you go to the job center, you will learn about opportunities to train. we have talked about the opportunity to train in technology, construction, health care, or hospitality or elements where there still is opportunity right now. you will learn about those opportunities and more than anything you are going to get a sense of resources that may be available. some assistance as we mention around accessing unemployment and other benefit programs, covid relief funds you may be eligible. the most important thing is just to connect whether it's calling the workforce hotline, whether it's logging on with the job

center. the most important thing is to stay connected with us so that we can do whatever we can to support you. so you can go to oewd.org/job centers. spelled just like it sounds. and access one of these seven great organizations and whether it's young community developers, meta in the mission, over in the omi lakeview, inner city youth, self help for the elderly. and central hospitality house and tenderloins, south market, or the western addition success center are great organizations to start with. a lot of the work will be virtual right now simply because of the realities of covid-19 and not being able to get together and do the work. but the work is happening. >> well, that's great. finally, let's talk about the recent stimulus bill. what measures were included to help workers with covid-19 relief? >> one of the really important steps that our partners at the human services agency did was to

work with the mayor and our office to relaunch and expand the jobs now program. jobs now is a weight subsidy program and certain workers and can have access to wage subsidy to help pay the wages with an employer who commits to bringing on that individual and going to work. i bring that up because that was a very early stimulus strategy during the last great recession under president obama's leadership. and we're really hopeful in the early days of the new administration we might similarly see a scaling up of that investment. there is something else that we're really excited about that is going to happen with the federal government that will impact and benefit san franciscans, and that is in the last year we were able to get some resources, some national grants to support dislocated workers who've lost their work in particular industries with the state of california, edd office, we got a $1 million

grant to support as many as 1200 laid off masconi trade show convention center workers. close to 400 have signed up with the city build program to do a special training to get skills to transition into construction work. we have a similar grant with san mateo county and san francisco airport to support the thousands of workers who lost work at s.f.o. and there is a proposal in with the federal government as well to fund that through a retraining and support program to again support hundreds of workers that have lost work. we're very hopeful that we can continue to work to bring those resources to bear and support those san franciscans who need it, those worker who is lost work or struggling or getting ready to come back even stronger. >> well, that's very useful. you have given us some great information today, mr. arsay. thank you so much for coming on the show. awe thank you. thank you, chris. >> well, thank you, again. and that is it for this episode. we'll be back with more pandemic-related information shortly. you have been watching coping with covid-19.

for sfgov tv, i'm chris manners. thanks for watching.

>> thank you for joining the press conference with mayor london breed. for q & a, state your name, outlet, and questions in the webex chat. now we will go to mayor london breed. >> good morning and thank you all so much for joining us here today. i appreciate the fact that we have our police chief bill scott and our district attorney who are both here today to talk about the challenges around violent crime in our city and how we plan to address it. we know that we seen an uptick in violent crime in san francisco. some really horrible events that have occurred, we seen them on video. we heard about them. we see people talk about them on next door, on social media, and

other outlets. as we speak, there sadly was just a homicide in the bayfield hunters point community. when i think about what's happening in san francisco, the violent crime, domestic violence, the attack on our seniors, the gun violence, it's all too familiar. it reminds me of when i was growing up in public housing in san francisco. yes, i loved my community. there were so many days where i lived in fear because of the violence, because of the gun violence in particular, not knowing if a stray bullet may hit me or people that i love and care about. it was all too common to walk down the street and be on high alert. it was all too common to be in a situation where you hear gunshots and you start to duck to the ground or the floor or

what have you. what we're seeing today is hurtful, it's sad, it's heartbreaking, and i know that we are better than this. we saw a video of an innocent senior being violently assaulted in the middle of the day. i can't even imagine what his family is going through right now. it was heartbreaking. the fact that another human being would do that to an elderly senior in our community is one of the most disgusting things i have ever seen. the level of violence directed at a completely defenseless 84-year-old senior was shocking

and intolerable. for jack, a long time san franciscan and storied detective to lose his life right in front of his own home. i want to communicate my deepest sympathies to the families, the friends, and the loved ones of both mr. palidino and mr. -- because we know this is something unexpected, to walk in your neighborhood and feel safe is one of the basic things that we should have in a city like san francisco. i know that they are suffering the horrific pain of losing people they love to defenseless and vicious violence. when i think of the challenges we continue to face as a city, i know that incidents like this make people feel unsafe. no one should be afraid of

taking a walk around the neighborhood or taking photographs or a kid just watching fireworks like jace was last year during the 4th of july in his community with other kids. 6 years old, lost to gun violence. i'm here with our chief of police and our district attorney to let everyone know that violent crimes committed in our city will not be tolerated. public safety is our top priority and we are not pointing the finger. we are here to work collaboratively, to make sure that we keep people safe. we each have a responsibility. if you commit a crime in san francisco and you hurt someone, you will be held accountable to the fullest extend of the law. that's a commitment i have from our police chief and the district attorney. a tax in crime committed against

our most vulnerable, especially our seniors and our children, are unacceptable. i was raised by my grandmother and watching that video, i could not help but imagine if that had happened to my grandmother. if someone had did that to her, had hurt her like that, had killed her like that. i don't have the words. i can't even begin to understand how anyone could think of hurting a defenseless senior and i want to be clear. you will be held accountable by the police, as well as the district attorney. there will be consequences. let's dispel the myth right now that there are no consequences for committing crimes in san francisco, especially, especially as i said against our most vulnerable people. san francisco police are on

heighten alert and will pursue every case vigorously to bring you to justice if you try to rob or attack members of our community in san francisco. i don't care if you are a san francisco resident or a bay area resident. you will be held accountable. you will be brought to justice. the district attorney will hold you accountable and you will feel the full weight of the law, just as his charging announcement he will make will illustrate today. look, i believe in second chances. i believe that people are better than the worse things they have done. when you across that line, when you commit murder, when you take someone's life like that, we as a city and as a society, we have to hold you accountable for your actions. you have to take responsibility

for the pain and the suffering you caused. san francisco is an incredible city. we are seeing sadly an uptick in crime. we know that as a result of this pandemic, people are home. people are frustrated. people are tired. domestic violence is up. suicides are up. mental health challenges continue to persist. this is hard. we also know as leaders of this city, we have a responsibility. as mayor, i take the responsibility to protect and serve the people of san francisco very seriously and as a high honor. we will continue to do everything we can to support this city. i want to thank the san francisco police department for their work in this case. it was a collaborative effort between a number of units,

including parol, investigations, tactical, homicide, station investigation teams, robbery detail and the community liaison unit. i want to give a special thanks to mike redman and sergeant joseph akeem for their outreach and support to the family of mr. radna and mr. paladino. we thank you for the work you are doing to help families get through this horrendous tragedy. the thing is, this is our response after the fact, but we will have to do more as a city to make sure that these crimes are not committed in the first

place. part of it is accountability. the other part, it's making sure that we are doing everything we can to keep our community safe, to make sure our police officers are out there patrolling and walking the streets, our neighborhood watches, and providing opportunities so that people never ever get to a place where they commit the kinds of crime we have seen in recent weeks that happened on our streets. i know that nothing can take away the pain and hurt of what these families are going through, but we are here to offer support and we are here to make changes so that some of the mistakes and the challenges that existed that made it tough to bring people to justice will be repaired and will be addressed. with that, i want to turn it over to our police chief bill

scott to talk about specifically what the department has done and i want to again commend the department for quickly apprehending the suspects in these cases and now chief scott, if you can say a few words about these investigations and thank you so much for being here. >> thank you mayor breed and thank you for your leadership in bringing us together. i want to thank the district attorney and his team who worked tirelessly with us through the weekend to bring these cases to a resolution. i know i speak on behalf of the entire police department when we say how sadden we are about the tragic loss that two families are now suffering. to all the victims of violent crime, you mentioned the 6-year-old that lost his life this past summer. this department is sadden by all of the loss and we are committed, committed to holding

those accountable who hurt the people of our city. the families of the victim, you are in our thoughts and prayers. they were both seniors, although the incidents were separate, each were assault in an unprovoked attack and in broad daylight. this kind of horrific violence has no place in our city. we want everyone to know that your city officials, starting with our mayor and every member of of the san francisco police department, the district attorney and everyone in the criminal justice system, stand united to make sure justice is done in these cases. although we a preheppeded suspects in both of these cases, i want to remind our media

partners and the public that these cases are active and ongoing investigations. they're not over yet. anyone with information or evidence is asked do please contact the san francisco police department and you may remain anonymous. you can call sfpd's 24 hour tip line or text to tip411. again, the text message with sfpd. a little bit about both cases. on thursday, january 28th at 8:28 a.m., he was the victim of an assault. san francisco police officers responded to the assault. officers arrived at the scene and discovered an 84-year-old

male victim on the sidewalk. our officers rendered aid and summoned san francisco fire department medics to the scene who promptly transported him to the hospital for life threatening injuries. their initial investigation, our officers established that a male suspect ran at the victim from across the street, pushed him to the pavement, and then fled with a female associate. based on an initial investigation led by our station investigation team general crimes unit, our officers identified our suspect as 19-year-old antoine watson. we also identified his female associate, 20-year-old malasha. on january 29, 2021, investigator obtained an arrest

warrant for mr. watson for assault with a deadly weapon and elder abuse causing great bodily injury. on january 30, 2021, our investigators were notified that he had succumb to his injuries sadly. at that point, our homicide detail took over the investigation. on saturday, january 30, 2021, at approximately 8:45 p.m., officers from the san francisco police department's tactical unit and the san francisco's homicide detail served a search warrant on the 500 block of daily city. officers located the two suspects who were taken into custody without incidence. now for the case involving jack paladino. san francisco police officers responded to a reported robbery

in our city's asbury neighborhood. arriving on the scene, officers discovered a 76-year-old male lying in the street. the male, our victim, mr. jack paladino was being treated by medic from the san francisco fire department who transported him to the hospital with life threatening injuries. witnesses reported seeing a suspect in a physical struggle over his camera. during the struggle, the vehicle sped away, causing mr. paladino to fall to the ground. investigators developed information that led to the identity of two suspects, lawrence thomas of pittsburgh, colorado and 23-year-old tyjon of san francisco. on friday january 29, 2021, mr. thomas was taken into custody without incidence in the area of middle point road and

hair street in san francisco. the following day on january 30, 2021, he was located on the 2500 block of east second street in reno, nevada. he was taken into custody without incident. yesterday, monday february 1, 2021, sadly mr. paladino succumb to his injuries in the attack. this incident is now investigated by the san francisco homicide detail. in conclusion on behalf of all of us in the san francisco police department, first of all i want to express our condolences to the family, friends, and neighbors of these victims and all victims of homicides and violent crimes in our city. i want to express my appreciation to the san francisco police department members who worked tirelessly the last several days.

mayor breed mentioned these units but i want to reiterate. i feel the operations bureau, investigations borough, tactical unit, homicide detail, community liaison unit, all worked together to bring these cases to a quick conclusion, to hold the individuals responsible accountable. they gather evidence, pursue leads, identify the suspects and then successfully apprehended them without incident. we're also grateful to our partners in the daily police department and the f.b.i. in the safe street task force. our partners in the san francisco fire department also deserve recognition as well. it is our medics that responded immediately and worked heroically to save these victims' lives. lastly, our partners at the district attorney's office led

by our district attorney chesa boudin. thank you for your leadership and your team for their partnership in this case and all cases that we have to work together on to resolve and bring these individuals to account for hurting people in our city. we will continue to do our jobs and i want to reiterate what mayor breed said. for anybody that thinks that san francisco is an easy touch, you need to think twice. for anybody who thinks they can attack elderly individuals in our city, you need to think twice. for anybody who thinks that you can murder a 6-year-old child, enjoying 4th of july with his family, you need to think twice. we will bring every resource there to bring you into account and we won't rest until that's done. thank you mayor breed for your

leadership and thank you district attorney boudin and now i will turn it over to district attorney boudin. >> thank you mayor breed, thank you chief scott for your comments, for your leadership, and for your unwavering commitment to public safety. i also want to give a special thank you to all of our first responders who worked tirelessly to provide support and assistance to people injured in crimes and who have done a phenomenal job investigating these cases and other cases that we partner with the police department to hold people who cause harm in our community accountable. as chief scott said, these cases are still under investigation. there is much more work to be done, but the police have done a phenomenal job in a quick and expedient job in identifying suspects and arresting suspects and giving us the information we need to hold them accountable.

now the three of us, the mayor, the chief of police, and myself stand here, united in our shared goal to keep san francisco safe for all of its residents. i know that the recent tragic and violent events have made many in san francisco, especially our most vulnerable, our elderly feel unsafe. we are here today to inform you that we will hold those who committed these horrific crimes accountable, period. prosecuting violent crimes is and always be my top priority. we are also here to reassure you and to remind you that despite these recent terrible crimes, san francisco is and will continue to be a safe city. we will make sure of that. you have all of our commitments that we will defend the safety of our community, no matter what it takes. it is especially important that we help elderly san franciscans

to be and feel safe. we know the pandemic has hit the elderly particularly hard and we will go through whatever steps it takes to keep our elderly, our young children at 4th of july celebrations and birthday parties, wherever it may be, safe. chief scott mentioned some facts of the case and i want to reiterate. in the killing of the 84-year-old man who was senselessly been violently attack while taking a walk in his own neighborhood, i want to commend the extraordinarily effective and quick police work in this case that arrested two suspects who were not previously known to the police. they did a phenomenal job as chief scott said, the investigation is ongoing. my victim services team stands ready to support the family.

we have already met with the family and our heart goes out to the family for this absolutely heinous and unimaginable devastating loss. i know that many in the community are in pain. many have experienced violence or hate over the last year. many feel secondary trauma from the shocking video of the murder. my entire office condemns violence against anyone, but particularly against the elderly and the vulnerable, members of the aapi community that have been unfairly targeted during this pandemic. now the police have given us enough evidence in this case that we made a decision and we are pleased to announce that decision, we will be filing murder charges against mr. watson. we will be seeking his detention. i directed my staff to file those charges today and we

expect he will be arraigned in open court tomorrow afternoon and we will file a detention motion, pending trial on murder charges. i also want to correct some of the confusion and misinformation that we seen on social media and other places. mr. watson was never arrested and released in san francisco. he has never been released on this case. from the moment the police took mr. watson into custody after this killing, he has been held in custody and my office will continue to seek his detention going forward. in fact, mr. watson has no prior convictions or criminal charges in san francisco ever. at times of tremendous loss and high emotions like this one, it's common for misinformation to spread. it's essential that we focus on facts and verifying data so we can hold mr. watson, the man we

believe is responsible for this death accountable. also i wanted to mention the other tragic murder that occurred in san francisco against an elder vulnerable victim last week. last thursday, two men tried to rob jack, a beloved, well-known, heroic investigator outside his home. yesterday he passed away. he was a san francisco legend, someone who dedicated his career to pursuing justice and truth. it is fitting that his own camera helped capture evidence that we expect will help us prove this case to a jury. we know that this tragedy, like the other one last week, affected the entire san francisco community and our hearts go out to mr. paladino's family for their loss. it's unacceptable, intolerable,

and there will be consequences for the people responsible. my office filed numerous felonies again the two men that we believe committed this crime. again, i want to commend the police department for extraordinary quick work in identifying the suspects and bringing them both into custody without incident. because we initiated the paperwork while he was still alive and on life support, we charged the case with attempted murder and variety of other charges and have filed detention motions to keep both men in custody from as soon as we receive an official opinion from the medical examiner, determining the cause of death, we plan to remove the attempted and charge both men with murder. we will continue to seek their detention in this case and we will continue to work together with all of our public safety partners, especially the police department and the mayor's

office to promote public safety, to promote accountability and to make absolutely crystal clear to anyone who has a doubt or second thought that san francisco will not tolerate violence, will not tolerate preying on elderly or vulnerable members of our community. if you come here or choose to commit violent crimes, you will be held accountable. these murders are still at early stages. we will be prosecuting both of the murtd murders. i made that decision personally and i made the decision to seek detention in both cases. we stand here together with a very simple message. we are here to promote public safety. we are here to hold people accountable who commit violent crimes in our communities. we will stand by our aapi community, the elderly, the young, and anyone who is vulnerable to violent crimes and we condemn violence and hate in all its forms. chief scott, the mayor, and i

are all committed to working together tirelessly to do whatever it takes to promote public safety in san francisco and to ensure that san francisco is not only a safe city, but that it is a city in which everyone feels safe. for the families of jace young, for every single family, for every single member of our community, we are here for you and we have your backs and we will keep you safe. thank you mayor breed and chief scott, for your collaboration and your leadership. >> thank you to our district attorney, our police chief and before we open it up to questions, i just want to really put this into perspective. because as i said earlier in my remarks, i grew up in a community where sadly as much as i love my community, i lived in fear. one of the things that we have

to do, and i take full responsibility to do, is to make sure that people in this city are not living in fear. so those of you who inflict that fear with your actions by attacking the residents of this city, whether it be assault with your physical hands or with a gun or a weapon in any case, we will be aggressive in our pursuit and aggressive in our prosecution. do not come to san francisco thinking you are going to victimize another person here. whether you're trying to come here to rob somebody, assault somebody, or what have you,

everything is on the table for us to pursue when you cross that line. we will be watching. we will be vigilant. we will hold the people in these cases accountable because we are not going to live in fear. we are going to change that in san francisco. thank you both for joining us and now we will open it up to questions from the press. >> thank you mayor breed, thank you chief scott and district attorney boudin for your remarks. we're going to allow our reporters to submit any questions they the first question is for district attorney boudin from the s.f. business times.

many small business owners do not feel safe because they have been hit increasingly by break in burglaries and vandalisms because of the pandemic. there is perception that your office is not pursuing prosecution of these cases. what are you doing to assure the victims that there are consequences for property crimes in san francisco? >> thank you so much for the questions and thank you to our business community for helping to create jobs and for weathering an unprecedented year of challenges. no one more than small businesses, because of the constant challenges around health restrictions and around decline in tourism, we know that it's been a year in which many businesses have closed for good.

we are doing everything we can. i want to commend the mayor for her leadership in helping to support small businesses and i want to assure you that we prosecute the mass majority of the cases you referenced that the police bring us to prosecute. we know these are often difficult cases to solve and prosecute, but we do file charges in the majority and we hold people accountable. we do more than that. we also have a pilot program in district five to help small businesses that have been harmed by vandalism or broken windows during the pandemic, get reimbursements for their expenses. we hope we can bring that pilot program citywide so we can do more to help every single small business that has suffered from vandalism or graffiti or broken windows in the last year, regardless of wlosht -- whether or not we're able to prosecute the case. the majority of the cases the police bring us, we're able to prosecute. that's something we're committed to continuing to do.

we have a wide variety of tools we used to hold people accountable. we look at every single case the police bring us and we take them seriously. we will continue to do that. >> thank you district attorney boudin. the next question come from gregory from the san francisco community news. is there no bail set for jack palladino's murder? >> we asked the court to impose a detention order, meaning no bail. i don't believe the court has yet ruled on that request. the individuals are currently in custody, both on the initial case we filed while mr. palladino was still alive, as well as on another hold that we worked with the police department to put in place to ensure that they would not be able to get out of custody,

pending an opinion from the medical examiner. the short answer is there is no way they will be released and we will be asking the court to make a formal ruling as soon as we're able, holding both men in custody without bail. we know that these cases are of tremendous concern to all of us. that's why we're here today and i want to reiterate what the mayor said, what the chief of police said, these cases are our priority and we will do everything in our power to hold these men accountable and keep the community safe from them while the case is pending. >> thank you, your next question comes from stella chan of cnn. can you elaborate on how palladino helped crack his own case? >> mr. palladino was a renown and famous private investigator.

many described him as having a six sense when something was off or wrong in his neighborhood or anywhere he worked. on the day of his death and on the day of the attack that caused his death, he left the house with his high end investigative camera to take photos. as chief scott said, the investigation is still ongoing. we know that mr. palladino took photos right before his injury causing death of the car that the assailantings -- assailants were in. that video will be used in court to hold the men accountable. it's an unusual event for the person that was killed to play a part in the investigation of his case. to the very last act of his

life, he took photos that helped confirm police work, identifying the two assailants in this case. as i said, we expect we will be able to use the photo he took, his last photo as evidence in this case when it goes to trial. >> thank you district attorney boudin. at this time, we will continue with mayor breed for questions. mayor breed, this question comes from dan simon of cnn. there is a real perception that quality of life has gone way down. people are fleeing the city. what can you do to help restore confidence that san francisco is not going down the drain? >> let me start by asking is there any other major city in this country that doesn't deal with similar challenges like we do in san francisco? there may not be a more beautiful city than san francisco, but the fact is that we are a major city and we have