Skip to main content

tv   Police Commission  SFGTV  December 8, 2022 5:00am-10:01am PST

5:00 am
pedestrian. the obvious fix (inaudible) the easiest fix is in the 4th line before the word moving put in the words pedestrian or a. i bum barded the commission with scores of pages so won't repeat arguments and don't have time anyway. i don't agree with the process. i think despite the best efforts including the hrc it is determine istic. with that mr. vice president may i--(inaudible) >> caller you have 2
5:01 am
minutes. >> good evening commissioner, director henderson , chief scott (inaudible) glide is a proud member of (inaudible) representing over hundred organizations united in the goal to end pretext stops in san francisco. traffic stops are most common way people come into contact with law enforcement. san francisco is especially egregious in over-policing communities of color (inaudible) which lead to police misconduct and use of force and banned in other jurisdictions. many complaints the department of police accountability stem from pretext stops reducing the stops reduce complaints and reduce backlog of complaints sfpd failed to address in a timely fashion. based on data and stories related (inaudible) we need ban the stops that produce these results and very
5:02 am
thoughtful about exceptions the policies allow. (inaudible) the needs to move quickly is reinforced by the june 2022 report that found san francisco rates the worst in state with (inaudible) black residents. some commissioners explained, this policy will not negatively impact public safety and benefit the community because pretext stops are causing damage and harming safety of community members. proceed to address these harms which (inaudible) any pretext stop has support of the community and leadership. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. i feel laws are to keep people safe and insure civilized society so completely against limiting the police
5:03 am
ability to enforce laws. i think all people should be treated fail laer and equally and law levied equitably. pr venting the police stopping from infractions does legalize them. i with don't think these fractions are miner inconveniences. the bicycles on the sidewalk are quite dangerous. when crossing the street i try to engage and look in the driver eye before crossing. come across cars with tinted windows and can't see inside and see their intentions and i find it dangerous. also from a registration perspective i think if they don't have a current registration they likely don't have current insurance which is a danger to others as well. on a more personal basis, i got a 16 year old daughter. (inaudible) she was pulled over for
5:04 am
not having her taillights on. strangely the car has a setting where you can have the day time running lights on, instrument dash lights but no taillights. the officer pulled her over, sized her up in her high school soccer gear, decided he wasn't under influence or causing trouble gave her a safety lecture, got her to get her lights turned on properly and let her go. very respectful interaction and contrary to data i think it is very dangerous to be driving without taillights and actually glad as a parent i can't be there all the time. i'm glad she got pulled over. glad she was given the safety lecture and glad that was something hopefully will correct her behavior in the future. thank you.
5:05 am
>> my name is (inaudible) hussain. i came for another matter but after hearing the comments i wanted to chime in myself. i am just against taking the police ability to enforce the laws. it takes away in my opinion a tool that keeps us safe. growing up i never liked the police myself. when i was young probably when i got my license probably one of the biggest life changing insdants of my life when i got pulled over and it was a pretext stop. i am a
5:06 am
minority. that officers probably changed my life had i not been stopped that day? instead of getting me in trouble or doing anything like that, he made me write a essay as to what i was doing or what i was doing was wrong. i think that kind of policing creates better people. i'm sure i would have been a much different person today had not been for that stop in my view was a pretext stop but it changed my life. i respectively would like to request the commission take into consideration to give the police the tools they need to be able to keep us safe in the city. thank you.
5:07 am
>> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) living in district 7. calling to oppose the december 14 revised draft of the general enforcement order 9.01. we are losing enforcement of violation is not the way to eliminate bias in traffic stops. it is dangerous to public safety. it is not safe to drive a broken headlight or taillight especially in the fog. this will cause many accidents which will raise everyone insurance rates and cause injuries and death and we know criminals remove license plates (inaudible) while committing crimes. many criminals assault our community and (inaudible) would not benefit the police arresting these criminals. it is not safe to drive
5:08 am
with broken-(inaudible) we want public safety not more deaths and injuries. (inaudible) you should not limit the ability of the police. the focus should be on officer training and hiring. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you. also for glide and coalition (inaudible) [speaker speaking very fast. difficulty understanding] presented a false narrative that banning pretext stops will impact public safety.
5:09 am
sharing the information about the dgo and (inaudible) impacted by the policy when it is the harms that (inaudible) jeopardize public safety. pretext stops waste community resources and result in (inaudible) to suggest otherwise diminish generational harms caused by racial profiling. this policy has always been about the safety and wellbeing of the community. reducing enforcement of pretext stops does not increase public danger and the policy will not diminish confidence in city government. if anything it demonstrates san francisco ability to make rational data inform decisions and recognize that it st. time to join the other cities counties and states that have already implemented similar effective policy. (inaudible) proven best practice does not require a pilot program. this is not how the commission (inaudible) no need to single
5:10 am
dgo9.o1. the policy reduce the burden we place on police which increase officer availability. (inaudible) implemented this in all corners of the country and no adverse consequence. please adopt the most comprehensive version of the process to address racial profiling and end pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> yes. my name is (inaudible) and i am calling in to talk about specifically the turn signaling. i'm not sure where you get your figures but society of automotive engineers conducted a study which indicating failing to signal accounts for 2 million accidents per year. that is nationally. i'm going
5:11 am
to read a e-mail i received work for non profit that is focused on victim rights and public safety. the following is from a party. hello, i do not drive, i don't know the rules. for sure bicycles on sidewalk is danger for people like me, legally blind disabled. bicycles usually do not stop to let me go when i cross the street. it takes longer for me to cross and still on the road when people start to run. it is really dangerous. should the light house for the blind become involved? thank you. (inaudible) thank you for my comments and police do not adopt general order 9.01 mpt thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you commissioners lee
5:12 am
and byrne for your cogent analysis of how poorly this has been drafted. i am concerned there is going to be no enforcement of expired registration. a car in san francisco can go for 5, 10, 15, 20 years with no car registration which means no insurance because you can't have insurance without registration and vice versa and can go years without a smog certification. me as a citizen is paying for all of them. if you do that why don't you assess further and say no enforcement of neighborhood parking permits or disabled parking. commissioner benedicto i find it ironic you say don't do it on the road but police officers have all the time in the world to ticket a parked car when they are supposed to be investigating more serious crimes, right? also section 3 of
5:13 am
commissioner byrne pointed out (inaudible) the car turns the corner and a police officer sees that,x there isn't a felony that is life threatening because he or she does not know the felony reaches the $950 limit. (inaudible) all are so many issues with this clearly (inaudible) i think what has to happen is a refacing how we look at crime versus safety versus enforcement. i find that you're not making san francisco any safer, why we have the highest (inaudible) of any city. the slowest return rate of tourist because we are creating a dangerous city. as a example how poorly this is written as many
5:14 am
pointed out-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) i amazing with the amount of misinformation circulated about this policy. this isn't going to prevent officers from investigating crimes from enforcing the-it doesn't legalize these low level crimes. what it does is limits the interaction between police officers and the community by eliminating the stops based solely on low level crimes. i don't think somebody should be stopped because they have something hanging from the rearview mirror. the fact you have such a large number of folks who are african american being stopped compared to the amount of people
5:15 am
living in the city is concerning (inaudible) 28 percent of the stops from them and (inaudible) this makes it clear to me these are bias stopped. we want to work to eliminate this. we want to make sure our community is protected. (inaudible) such as are you-do you have a felony, do you have-or people held at gun point for something ridiculous as the other members mentioned at the hrc hearing. this is what this ordinance is
5:16 am
trying to prevent and we want to create safety in our community. again, it frees-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. (inaudible) we urge you to adopt the strongest possible version of this policy. sfpd found black san francisco (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality]
5:17 am
>> caller you have 2 minutes.
5:18 am
>> good evening. carolyn (inaudible) a mother of 2 and long time san francisco city employee and resident. also part of the coalition to end pretext stops and amazing seeing individuals from every community in san francisco come together in support of (inaudible) including the city leading traffic safety and pedestrian advocate who strongly supports the new proposed policy. we are all united around thes because this is data and evidence driven policy aimed to reduce violence and increase (inaudible). what some folks seem to be forgetting is traffic stops discussed are not used to pull over and harass people who look like me has a chinese and white person. it is black and brown folks in certain neighborhoods of the city stopped and harassed due to race under
5:19 am
(inaudible) spoke in front of you about her experience. you have seen the data. the is outrageous. pretext stops do not make reduction in criminal activity, do nothing to support public safety and high time san francisco put a end to the problematic and racially bias tactic. thank you and urge you to support the policy to prohibit racially bias stops. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. this is jennifer friedenbalk coalition on homelessness and i am calling about the pretext stops. 2018sfpd stopped black people 6 times the rate of
5:20 am
white people. (inaudible) and at least 12 times more likely to use force on black people then white people. this is really about sexual racism that needs to be separated out from individual bias or racism. with individual racism bias can be addressed through developing trust and having deeper relationships but with structural racism there needs to be a change in policy and practice and that is what this policy is all about. it does not impact negative way public safety. i think the has been a lot of misinformation put out there. it also should not be read as anti-police. there is also a of work done to get rid of racial discrimination on (inaudible) that doesn't mean folks are anti-supportive housing providers or housing providers. there is a
5:21 am
lot of work done to address disparities in health care, that doesn't mean people are anti(inaudible) so it shouldn't drive a bunch of folks out in response to that. this is really evidence based scientific and needs to be supported. thank you very much. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. i'm flo kelly and work with coalition on homelessness. i am calling because it is really important that we not continue with pretextual stops. they are not making our streets any safer for people who walk bike or drive. in fact these stops are a waste of resources when we
5:22 am
should focus on very dangerous things like speeding and running red lights and not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk. for sure this policy is data driven. san francisco (inaudible) communities of color (inaudible) in 2021sfpd conducted 27.500 stops that resulted in 6,000 searches. black people make up 5 percent of the population in san francisco but accounted for 26 percent of all stops and 36 percent of all searches. my goodness, it is embarrassing to say when a police car is behind
5:23 am
me and not sure what they are daing doing and if they are following me, i feel myself, at least i'm white and have white hair to show my age and it probably won't stop me. i know if i was a different person with darker skin then i would likely be stopped-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) born and raised in the tenderloin and building manager at the san francisco bike coalition and proud members (inaudible) we urge to you adopt the policy that requires data transparency and put end to pretext stops in san francisco. we join the coalition because (inaudible) there is nothing safe
5:24 am
about pretext stops as a tool to over police black and brown communities and nothing safe (inaudible) most of the streets (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] there are 5 specific behaviors that lead to serious and collisions on the kwreets we are barely enforcing now. none of the 5 behaviors included on the pretext stops. (inaudible) what the policy does is limit what happens after a stop is made and reduce the burden placed on police so they don't enforce dmv regulation (inaudible) allow them to do real police work. the data shows pretext stops are not
5:25 am
making our (inaudible) comprehensive and data driven and focus on public safety. thank you so much for your time. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) i would urge you to either not adopt this or make modifications. i think it is well intentioned but don't get (inaudible) i can see about the registration. it is easy to steal a license plate and put it on a car and the officer-(inaudible) the other thing i'm very concerned about, i can't tell how many
5:26 am
times i walked oen the sidewalk and someone barely missing me on a bicycle. for a police officer not have to the ability i wish i was young enough it didn't matter if i was hit by a bicycle. unfortunately, the best way to describe it, i like (inaudible) i don't have to use their services. i really urge you to either look at this differently or and make modifications, or quite frankly to (inaudible) i think it is well intentioned. i don't think it is well (inaudible) thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is
5:27 am
(inaudible) and i live in district 7 and work at community resource initiatives and community resource initiativeicize a member of the coalition to end pretext stops and urge the commission to adopt a comprehensive policy that puts a end to pretext stops. (inaudible) never have i seen a police intervene in the middle of a traffic (inaudible) there is no changes to public safety and we have seen the use of pretext stops made streets more dangerous. from 2016 to 2021 nationally police officers (inaudible) who were not under (inaudible) were killed by
5:28 am
police after pretext stops. many of it stops started with common traffic violations. black drivers are over represented among those killed. ending pretext stops would not make the city unsafe , it will make the city safer (inaudible) i just want to be clear this policy should be beginning. the racial disparities seen (inaudible) throughout all the interaction of people. i urge the commission to (inaudible) >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello, my name is (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality]
5:29 am
and ends pretext stops in san francisco. the human right commission (inaudible) have the worst record in the state solving (inaudible)
5:30 am
>> caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is kristen evans small business owner. it is late for me so i'll make my
5:31 am
remarks brief. i organize with council district merchants association and (inaudible) but i'm calling today on behalf of myself a small business owner. i urge you to focus on policing hours on issues impacting small businesses and not wasting resources on pretextual stops which are not resulting in safety for our community. i am going to mention when i was a younger person i (inaudible) that insisted long hours in the office and have to say there were a couple times i pulled my car over to take a nap and i knew the people that are in their vehicles that are getting shut eye are often working multiple jobs as many small business employees have to do to make ends meet and
5:32 am
very expensive city. i feel like it is urgent that we let people get rest because when they pull over they need the sleep and it is in their interest and public safety to get that sleep they can operate their vehicle with safe (inaudible) i also want to say that i have seen how policing can impact communities of color disproportionate in san francisco and i have real concern that the data shows that inspite of talking about inherent racial bias the sfpd is so slow in addressing those inequities. this is a point that we- >> caller you have 2 minutes.
5:33 am
>> my name is (inaudible) a criminal justice student organizing (inaudible) watching my dad pulled over questioned if he did not belong in the car country or earth a foreign being (inaudible) confused i sat in the back of the car as any 6 year old would (inaudible) sfpd tormented (inaudible) just listen to everything they say puts your hands comply or you will die. the word my father and (inaudible) this is a dire consequence of pretext stops. as a 16 year
5:34 am
old learning how to drive (inaudible) who imagine sat at the scene powerless confused and (inaudible) last time they will see their loved one. 6 year old relieved i got to go home with my dad (inaudible) could have happen to me. no one should face death for a broken taillight. (inaudible) driving while black. pretext stops increase my community chances of death more then they alleviate crime. (inaudible) insure we have comprehensive public safety the police commission should adopt a dgo focused on public safety not fishing expositions by implementing a policy to eliminate pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2
5:35 am
minutes. >> good evening. my name is javier and live in excelsior and urge you to adopt a comprehensive policy to end pretext stops. (inaudible) do little to improve public safety. too long officers have been incentivized by (inaudible) pretext stops provide to investigate those who officers deem suspicious based on subjective fears or biases. there are deep institutional problems. it isn't a matter which training curriculum sfpd implements or new officers they hire we must move bias discretion from the point of harm. to the police commission should adopt the dgo that focus on public safety. racial profiling and generationling harms caused by bias policing need to be
5:36 am
confronted with this policy. i'm urging you to adopt this policy and end pretext stops in san francisco for the good of our community. thank you very much. >> go ahead, sir. >> hi. my name is frank (inaudible) speaking on behalf of stop crime sf. i think some callers and maybe commissioners are conflating pretext stops with traffic stops. i must say i also disagree with the chair's characterization of several items. first, i think there is a lack of relevant fact based evidence. some of the facts have been cherry picked. i am also shocked that we are using as good
5:37 am
knmps oakland,er seattle, portland, places that have seen a huge rise in crime in the last 3 or 4 years. i don't think most residents of oakland would agree they are going in the right direction. we oppose the general order. we think that means more accidents more crime and less public safety. on a couple items it looks like some commissioners didn't read it. we talked about--others have talked about the pedestrians on the sidewalk. i would like to say that racial discrimination should never be allowed. that is a important goal. driving while black is a real think but there are poor things in this order. a few
5:38 am
examples, the failure to signal caused too 2 million accidents a year for left turns and changing lanes. bikes could drive in the middle of the street under this, and i also dispute that good traffic enforcement is a good use of time. failure to signal-thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) the director of (inaudible) here to request you adopt comprehensive policy to prohibit racially bias traffic stops in san francisco. racial disparities have not changed in traffic stops and san francisco (inaudible) communities of color with pretextual
5:39 am
stops. since 2018sfpd stopped [people 6 times the rate of white people (inaudible) 12 times more likely to use force on black people then white people. as a black man stopped by the police many times for pretextual reasons the harmss of the stops are real and (inaudible) result in my death because a cop does not like it if i (inaudible) ask questions why i was stopped in the first place. i cannot overstate the danger of these stops. the danger present to my life and lives of many black people killed by the police with interactions that began with the stops like (inaudible) this is why the police commission should ban pretext stops. the police commission should adopt this policy the most comprehensive version of it that is focused on
5:40 am
public safety and not fishing expeditions. racial profiling and generational harms caused by bias policing (inaudible) research shows enforcing pretextual infractions has little impact on reducing crime and (inaudible) profiling of communities of color and waste of taxpayer resources. (inaudible) like myself and many other people part of our coalition testified before you tonight support this policy in a very strong policy-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) public defender office. many comments earlier tonight were focused on harms and (inaudible)
5:41 am
commissioners carter oberstone and benedicto mentioned we dont need to deal in hypothetical (inaudible) passed a similar law in 2020 and the (inaudible) were down or the same the year before it passed. des discussing harms (inaudible) reduce the real harms we heard so many callers discussing tonight and the calls (inaudible) her dad was pulled over is still with me and i (inaudible) are listening to these stories. i know you have responsibility tomorrow but appreciate the time you are giving this and hope you adopt policy (inaudible) already existing harm. thank
5:42 am
you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. good evening commissioners, my name is (inaudible) i am with the organization san francisco rising and i please urge you to adopt a comprehensive policy that both requires more data and transparency and ends pretext stops in san francisco. june 2021 my partner and i was targeted in a pretext stop. we were stop under the context of tinted windows but what happened after we were stopped made it obvious (inaudible) from the moment we were stopped and pulled over the officers questioned both. they shouldn't questioning a passenger. asking where we are going where we live and why the license on the id was so far where i was. if we
5:43 am
have prior convictions and felonys and gun (inaudible) in the vehicle. we were both afraid knowing the harsh realty what could happen if we answer in a (inaudible) my partner asked to exit the vehicle and did and (inaudible) my mind began going a million places and in deep fear about what was going to happen somebody who experienced losing a loved one to police violence. i sat in the passenger seat and (inaudible) the moment my partner (inaudible) heard the police got a radio call about another incident going on. (inaudible) weapon against black and brown communities to instill fear because they (inaudible) ending pretext stops help insure
5:44 am
public safety and limit the way black and brown communities are targeted by law enforcement. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is lena young, long time san franciscans and traumatized from a lot of the laws that have been going on. (inaudible) no longer prosecuted, because i always had my (inaudible) because of theft they are closed and i have to drive to go to walgreens. i used to walk to a neighborhood one. same thing for these seamingly small crimes or infractions. they
5:45 am
could create big problems just like the $950 thing. (inaudible) once you stop doing it people will think it okay so becomes a big problem. i'm personally traumatized from having seen the problems with the laws. so, as a parent i always-i have to expectation for my kids. very small things i try to correct them so they don't go to big problems. same thing, i think everyone is capable of having good expectations for good behavior, and small things if you stop it they will learn. any person that should be a good criteria to follow. with these pretext stops i can see the problems
5:46 am
once you start it. it is not (inaudible) it creates havoc, so i don't have any comments-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> i don't have any written down statement but a lot of callers called in. i don't work for glide or non profit or public defender, just a every day san franciscans that jumped on the call late. i urge you commissioner yanez to reject this general order or this opposition that is put forth to ban these pretextual stops. howmany pretextual stops take guns off the streets? drugs off the streets? i think this is a shame and waste of everyone's time. san franciscans was more policing, they want more
5:47 am
enforcement. (inaudible) everyone is run on this to take (inaudible) commissioner yanez urge you to reject this proposal. this is ridiculous. all you non profits calling in probably half don't live in san francisco. i'm born and raised here. i like to mention you should look up san francisco sfpd majority are people of color so all you accusing them of being bias and racist-- [audio cut out] >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello. my name is susan huffman and live in district 6 and a member of wealth and disparities in the black community. we heard public comment from many people tonight who believe this dgo will lead to
5:48 am
lawlessness and (inaudible) they all seem to have been given the same incorrect information about the dgo. it makes me believe there is (inaudible) [audio cutting in and out] they are being used but can't (inaudible) what they don't understand is they haven't been told by the people is that for certain people the city is already a dangerous and frightening place. that is a fact. not a hypothetical or what if. ending pretext stops for these people black and brown citizens our neighbors safer. safety for not (inaudible) please adault the policy eliminating pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2
5:49 am
minutes. >> good evening commissioners. brian (inaudible) speaking on behalf of (inaudible) civil liberty group that works mostly in the bay area and california to oppose the state of [audio cut out] no citations issued in a larjs number of these cases. there was no crimes and (inaudible) for making new stops. like san francisco, the oakland police department says they are short staffed and (inaudible) 94 percent of opd time is
5:50 am
presently spent responding to non threatening non violent situations. (inaudible) is not help the people of san francisco nor address the violent crimes happening in the city of scarce resources (inaudible) the chronicle cites the san francisco bay area is the second most dangerous place in the country for black folks to interact with police. only the dallas fort forth metro area. (inaudible) which frequency of officer involved shootings, racist text message and racial profile (inaudible) san francisco is getting worse as the attorney general annual report shows not better. please support ending such harmful practices. thank you for listening. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is julie (inaudible) district 8 resident and calling on behalf of the bar
5:51 am
association and think as many know we have been working hand in hand with the police department prior to the time the department of justice became involved. we worked hard to reduce racial disparities. we have one of had best general orders on bias. i attended 3 full days in bias training with the police department. we worked hard and yet it isn't enough. this is the logical next step and i appreciate and respect the commission for working with the center for policing equity, the department of justice, the mta and human rights commission to bring us good evidence based policy. ment i think there is a lot of misinformation and confusion and perhaps want to consider a faq. it is clear to commissioner yee's questions and commissioner byrne, question if a officer believes a driver committed a crime there is nothing that is going
5:52 am
to stop the officer from stopping that vehicle. we are simply using evidence based data to eliminate certain (inaudible) for stopping vehicles for low level infractions that are not producing evidence. so, i really appreciate the hard work that has gone into this. it is long coming. perhaps we should have done it earlier and thank you for getting blessing of department of justice and other organizations dedicated to doing this work and hope this (inaudible) pay attention to the data as it comes in and tweak it as we go. thank you very much. >> caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2
5:53 am
minutes. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> hi. my name is barbara atard. i worked in the sober site for 40 years. (inaudible) for 15 years, city berkeley and city san jose. i urge you to adopt dgo9.1. there are serious reasons many callers discussed for cutting down on racial disparities in san francisco. this will free officers to deal with more serious issues. there are serious wreckless driving in san francisco. drivers are blowing red lights and stop signs. officers should deal with these kinds of driving issues. one section of the order that i think should be
5:54 am
clarified is regarding bicycles and moterized vehicles on sidewalks. i nearly been hit walking down the sidewalk. officers should deal with these issues as well. hopefully you will pass this order and hopefully you will be able to help the board of supervisors deal with the policy on killer robots. thank you for your attention. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) resident of district 1 and lived in san francisco 30 years. for the callers and commissioner concern with impacting public safety. the dgo has no impact on police able to protect seniors from violence or stopping attack. it is not a slippery slope to lawlessness. read the policy and don't read on e-mail campaign
5:55 am
making (inaudible) after reading the latest draft it seems the voice of sfpd had more influence on the policy then community input (inaudible) working group meetings. significantly watered down. i like to see many elements from the initial draft reinserted. community input is necessary and police commission (inaudible) the community engagement and outreach is meaningless if the communities most impacted are ignored. what is the explanation not adopted vast majority of recommendation provided by various community groups? speaking specifically about recommendation from wealth and disparities thin [community. there is no representation to vast majority of recommendations by the group a work working on policing justice and (inaudible) past 7 years. this includes recommendation that exist in other cities. the elimination of bias in policing
5:56 am
significantly (inaudible) in the draft the reason the purpose of the dgo is first sentence, it goal of the general order is reduce racial bias enforcement of the traffic laws and curtail pretext stops. that sentence is removed. it is the reason (inaudible) was to reduce race disparities. why don't have to courage to say up front and make it clear to the police force? thank you. >> that is the end of public comment. >> that's all? okay. thank you sergeant. we will take item 9 off tonight. it was put on at ms. brown's request and she's not here tonight so we
5:57 am
will call item number 11. >> presentation of dpa key issue report. officer misconduct and discipline. discussion. >> mr. flaherty, thank you for your patience.
5:58 am
>> i can find it, but it isn't letting me access it.
5:59 am
>> good evening. my name is steve ferity director of audit for department of police accountability. here to present on key issue
6:00 am
report on the san francisco police department public reporting on officer misconduct. issued the report on november 21 this year. prior to the report issuance we presented findings on october 26 and draft of the report on november 10 and asked them to bring to the attention any errors with the report content. before discussing the key iges as the next two slides will go over high level why we did the report and scope and objectives. city charter requires audit the san francisco police (inaudible) key issue report is interim deliverable as overall audit. the intent is bring to the attention of the police commission and sfpd issues needing actions so both parties can take action before the full report is issued. the requirement we evaluated exist to help the police commission
6:01 am
insure sfpd cooperating with dpa to prevent dismissing sustained cases and provide public with transparency on officer bias. we identified public reporting requirements and compared to publicly available reports on misconduct and discipline for period of 2019-2021. the image oon the secrete is fromthexective summary page 1. for the purpose of presentation we will focus on the administrative code and police commission resolution reporting requirements. the reporting requirements for sfpd electronic community found internal affairs unit order 18-02 will be discussed in greater detail in the next key issue report. high level there for 4 issues in the reporting requirement. and 4 key issue
6:02 am
discussing alignment with best practice for reporting data. with key issue 1, compliance with reporting requirements, the image oen the screen is exhibit win in the report on page 2. first code 96 passed october 2003 is titled coordination between the police department and department of police accountability. this code chapter required sfpd provide monthly reports on status of dpa sustained cases sent for discipline determination. we found did not publish any information required by code chapter 96. november 2004 the police commission adopted resolution 97-04. there were no provisions to report sustained cases investigated and responsibility of the police commission to oversee and maintain public confidence in
6:03 am
sfpd accountability system. this resolution requires quourtly and monthly reporting. did not produce the quarterly reports which is also supposed to send to the bord of supervisors. also found published reports for cases with discipline determinations but not pending the chief discipline decision. these do not have the level of detail. lastly internal affairs 18-02 is policy establishing protocols for monitoring member communications like text messages and e-mails for derogatory words. this policy requires sfpd to produce quarterly and year end report. while published quarterly reports these reports did not include required information on outcomes and investigation resulting from the monitoring and did not issue year end report as required by the policy. for issue 2 this goes into the reporting
6:04 am
requirements of code chapter 96. the code requires sfpd publish monthly reports for discipline decision and police commission to discuss cases with the chief of police if not decided on discipline within 45 days. this requires the police commission to hold quarterly public hearings [speaker speaking very fast] on this slide we analyzed 83dpa sustained cases sent for discipline determination. these cases reported between january 2019 and july 2021 and sent between december 2021. of the 83 cases, made a discipline determination on time for 27 or
6:05 am
33 percent. remaining 56 cases sfpd was late in determining discipline. the visual screen is in exhibit 2 of the report and show the age of cases not decided in 45 days. the time it took to make a decision for the 83 cases was 59 days and the overall range is 7-288 days. because did not provide the reports the commission did not have the information necessary (inaudible) issue 3 discussing compliance with police commission resolution 97-04. we found sfpd issued reports internal affair division cases but not in (inaudible) showed
6:06 am
sustained internal affairs cases, did not publish the reports monthly and did not include (inaudible) which is required by the resolution. also these reports did not have the required level of detail of the misconduct and use broad categories. this image is from exhibit 3 in the report which is page 4 and it contrast how the police department is supposed to summarize complaint allegations required in the resolution with the descriptions used in the reports. more detailed descriptions of the alleged misconduct (inaudible) benefit the command staff and personnel. example we found was guidance published by the united states department of justice in a publication put out about the virginia beach police department. the virginia beach police department distribute monthly report to police
6:07 am
personnel (inaudible) protecting identity of the involved members. the goal of this practice is to provide transparency to the department members and prioritize the opportunity for observational learning over absolute protections on the information. the last issue the report discusses is over alignment of misconduct information with best practice for reporting data. this image is exhibit 4 in the report page 5 and evaluate reports (inaudible) improve the information it does provide by aligning with best (inaudible) public and members of the department understand key issues key trends and identify relationships between data points. on the next 2 slides i slow examples what this looks like in practice in other jurisdictions. on
6:08 am
this slide we found examples from other jurisdictions that find ways to present data so readers can more easily understand the information and are drawings. as shown on the slide we have examples from the los angeles police department which organize the monthly misconduct reports by allegation type and penalties. organize information like this can help users identify consistency of discipline determinations. also on the slide we have example from the albuquerque police department to provide definitions of categories so the information can be easily understood by user without a background in law enforcement. two more examples. las vegas police department. (inaudible) new york police department which present data visually to show trends over time and compare misconduct and discipline across different groups of employees.
6:09 am
so, there are challenges and opportunities we like to go over. we recognize that police misconduct is a issue about which is especially important to inform the public and (inaudible) significant challenges. however we believe addressing the issues in the report present the police commission and police department with opportunities to streamline reporting requirements, better response of police misconduct and build community trust. in terms of needs the police commission and police department identify reporting misconduct and discipline meet the needs of the commission for considering policy changes and overseeing sfpd and dpa as well as needs of city leaders considering changes to local law and needs of the public for transparency. lastly, the police commission and police department can work together to understand resolve barriers to reporting this information so sfpd can report quality information required by the reporting requirements to stakeholders timely.
6:10 am
just last slide here go over what you expect coming forward. going forward. just next steps for the audit. we plan to continue to release information developed during the audit in interim reports so the police commission and police department can take immediate action on these issues. the next report is on electronic communication for bias which we anticipate released in january 2023. as for the full report, it will combine all the information we presents in the reports and provide recommendations for the police department and police commission and anticipate this report released spring next year. with that, thank you for your time and happy to answer questions you have about the report. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you very much vice president. thank you very much to there flaherty and audit team for the
6:11 am
presentation. as the commissioners know i was asked to be the (inaudible) privilege working and meeting with (inaudible) we met earlier this week to discuss this so try to avoid repeating too much here. i think-i want to thank the dpa team for structuring (inaudible) i think under the prior structure woo eare waiting a long period of time and too many issues to be digestible this is a significant improvement so thank you director henderson and your team on that. this interim report is troubling. when you look at the graphic there is a legend for 3 different color keys but it was (inaudible) i don't there was a single one green. you could have done partially not complied. i think when speaking with dpa earlier this week we talked importance
6:12 am
making sure the data is out there. first because it is required by police commission resolution and by city law. p it is important to inform the public and these reports are not meeting those requirements. it is important to inform us as policy makers. we spent the last long number hours talking about our evidence and data driven approach and when the data is insufficient that effects our ability to clearly make policy. another additional benefit that was discussed on the call is that especially when it comes to discipline cases, doj report on virginia beach showed good data also helped dispel rumor mills among the department about discipline instead of it being i heard so and so got this you have regular flows of data so critically important that these issues be remedied and the fact there isn't a fully
6:13 am
complies in this report is really concerning. i don't think it would be-i'll open to chief to (inaudible) what i like to ask the chief, i love the department could itself schedule some time after the holidays both a written response to each of the 4 issues and (inaudible) for the commission that is addressing the steps the department plans to take to approach compliance on each of the 4 issues that were noted in the report so i ask that of the chief and the chair and that's all i like to say. >> thank you commissioner benedicto. thank you. this audit is very concerning and troubleling. one thing that we have already done is we have to
6:14 am
put full attention on this full time people and that will accept one of that is made. we have assigned a captain to be in charge of this issue to number one dig into it and two offer a plan to fix it. there are things in this report that reference for instance lapd and that is something i know a little about being i was there 27 years and what we have to do to fix the issue is administrative infrastructure in the internal affairs unit like lapd. they have a unit that is all they do. they are not operational investigators, they are not lieutenants reading discipline reports all they do is administrative auditing functions like what is mentioned in the report so our first step is we
6:15 am
assigned a captain not the regular captain but a captain just last month to be the spearhead of fixing these issues. it is is a serious issue and we take it seriously and commit the people to-we need look at resolutions from decades ago to see if we are in compliance. sure there are resolutions out there we may not be in compliance on and that has to be a part of the process following our units orders and our policies, if is part system and part having the ability and making a commitment to audit on a regular basis when we have not done. there is work to be done. i offer no excuses. this is my responsibility as a chief of this department and will put the measures in place. step 1 was put in (inaudible) into that position and that will get the ball rolling on addressing some of the issues.
6:16 am
>> director henderson. >> thank you. thank you so much steve. this is fantastic. i wanted to point out when i first came to this commission 5 years ago one of the biggest priorities for the agency from occ transitioning into dpa was clarifying expanding and professionalizing the reporting practices of the agency. i have said since day 1 the based issue there needs to be a parody for the organization in terms of how the information is shared collected made transparent and analyzed and i always said it is very difficult to do that in a vacuum for dpa individually without a comparison or without the parody from the department as well. as those
6:17 am
obligations increased, i don't think the has been a reporting period from the annual report to the quarterly report that there is any aspect of the reporting that is going on from dpa that has not been expanded over that time period and it is really been challenging and frustrating that there has not been a parody in the same thing and again these are not obligations that are new obligations. these are administrative codes and resolutions that go back nearly 20 years. it is not-these are obligations that have gone on that preceded chief scott but have continued and obviously i think the audit is very clear still haven't been met. i'm glad the information is out. i appreciate the attention everybody has given to
6:18 am
wait this long especially tonight given the volume on the agenda to get and address these very important issues. i am asking in light of the news from the audit, and in light of the seriousness of what needs to get done in order to have more transparency in terms of what information needs to be revealed not just to the commission and dpa but the public as well. we can't fix what we dont talk about and we can't talk about what we don't know. we can't begin to move forward on these important issues unless we are addressing information that has to be given to everyone. my ask is that a commissioner be assigned to the responsive action. we have someone assigned within dpa on the audit process and that is ongoing and there are audits and more reports coming
6:19 am
that will be regulatory in the future but i am asking for a commissioner to be assigned to these requirements or these suggestions as obligations for what needs to be done in terms of moving into compliance for the reporting obligations. did that make sense? did i say it too long? make sense? that's it. >> thank you. commissioner walker. >> thank you. thank you dpa staff for this-it is troubleling for sure and one thing i remember having a conversation in the beginning when i was starting to look at the data that we are talking about around these-all these discipline cases is how many things were being put into one
6:20 am
category and that i really want to see the specifics of these cases so we can really understand what they are.
6:21 am
sometimes people need to look at all of it. making sure we have all of it. in talking about the pretext stop issue, i don't think we have nearly enough data of the consequences of things and we need them going forward. we need to be able to have it quickly so we can make adjustments if we need. if our goal is eliminating racial inequity and how we deliver our law enforcement, we need to know if what we are doing is achieving that and if we are doing several things which ones work best. so this is a important part and appreciate chief that you are assigning people because i think this is how i make decisions ultimately. we can have ideals and all that, but i want data on
6:22 am
what we are doing, so i appreciate this. i support assigning somebody to it. not my call. >> i don't get to vote, but--i would if i could. >> maybe that is our absent resident. that happened before when people are appointed to things. [multiple speakers] >> wanted to say thank you to dpa thank you steve for this outstanding report. and chief, i appreciate you owning this and frankness of your response. i think this is kind of a piece with dpa's presentation on the languishing dgo where it
6:23 am
was important to shine a light on a issue that wasn't getting the attention it deserved and we can certainly say the department needs to do better but it is the commission responsibility to insure the department is complying with the obligations and we all as commissioners need to do better as well. because it ultimately falls on us. i don't want to ask too many questions because i know you will give a presentation next year based on commissioner benedicto's request. i just wanted to ask how much of this was a surprise to the department? i know you mentioned there is maybe old resolutions that were not complied with but some of this is 96a and so wondering-imagine the department was aware of this before the report. >> some was definitely
6:24 am
a surprise and not offering again an excuse because a resolution is resolution. we have to go back and make sure that we know what resolutions are active, what policies are still active and need to comply. as far as 96a, little surprising some of the data pieces in terms of the recommendation of the fullness of the data. not surprising because that is a issue we are aware of and issue that there is structural issues with that in the way we enter our dispositions in the systems we have to recall that data. for instance, since la was mentioned, la allegations are not compounded. the allegations are very different from the way we enter allegations in the system so we have to fix the system in order to have more data or have to do it by hand. right now the way we pull data based on
6:25 am
the fields entered in the system it makes data more complicated then meets the eye. that is a fix that will take time and thought and perhaps as we fix our systems and we get benchmark on board it isn't in the scope of work but i think they understand what our challenges are and believe they will help that contract will help us get to a better place with that very issue. other things- >> can i ask one specific thing and this is is my last question because i know the hour is late. just like slide 7 issue 2. delays in deciding discipline. this isn't about dusting off a old resolution nobody looked at in a long time t. is 96a. i imagine the department knows that 2/3 of
6:26 am
the cases-this is a question-not decided on time and imagine there is a reporting obligation under 96a. the pieces i find troubleling is the department is aware this is ongoing basis it is non compliance. it isn't alerting the commission it isn't in compliance. i'm particularly disturbed about that. i understand how folks there is a lot of things the department has to comply with and maybe a old resolution falls through the cracks. i understand that might happen, but 96a it is little bit hard to understand how something like that could happen. it seems someone to make a decision that we are not going to compliant and also not go toog raise our hand and inform the public we are not in compliance. >> are you talking about slide 7 ? >> yeah. >> the delays on reporting discipline we find
6:27 am
ourselves in a position to be focused on making sure we make the statute date. the 33 of 4 date and there is lot of things that factor in into that. the goal is to get these complaints done within a timely manner whether dpa complaint or department complaint. we try to do that within 6 months. often times we are a month or 2 away from statute in terms of getting the cases signed off. the first priority and make sure we don't lose cases due to statute issues. i can just honesty i will say this, sometimes when you are behind the curve on these cases that becomes priority. even though we have statutory requirements to report by certain timelines when you are not meeting the timelines and haven't met them for years the priority becomes surviving and making sure we dont lose cases on statute issues which is discussion in this
6:28 am
commission hearings before. it doesn't negate, it doesn't make excuse but we have to rethink that issue in terms how me meet this with the people we have available. i will be frank, a lot of cases we are not getting done within that done but making the statute date and there probably isn't a week-every briefing i get with internal affairs the first thing on the case is when is the 3304 date or statute date to make sure we make that. we are not going to lose a case and not saying this isn't important but we are not go ing to lose a case for not reporting 45 days. we will lose a case for not making the statute date. some of staffing is and some we need to put into place better system jz
6:29 am
people on those issues. operational lieutenant and captains and investigators do have a responsibility in terms of tracking when the cases are due but we have to improve the systems and improve internal oversight which is my responsibility and that's what captain (inaudible) is tasked with doing. >> thanks chief. i'll leave it at that and say we assign a commissioner to this is well taken because i think we need to do a better job ourselves in holding up our end of the bargain. thank you so much. appreciate steve. thanks for doing this at the late hour. >> thank you for putting this all together. thank you commissioners for your time and attention on this. >> public comment. >> public comment approach the podium or press star
6:30 am
3. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> david aronson here. thank you to the dpa for this report and for presenting it. i just got to say this is really important information and to have it presented at 11:30 p.m. on wednesday to me does not present transparency to the public. i'm still on but just about to get off. we have been at this 6 hours. we are 5 and a half hours whatever it is. i heard executive director henderson state maybe we need to take a look at the agenda to do a reasonable amount of information during the time we have because this is really important and alarming information. i was shocked there were many members of the public that are still on. the fact the 96a report is one of the things in non compliance, the public and some groups i work with that look at
6:31 am
the data is alarming. we do analysis on the data, we take it commissioner walker talked about the fact that needs to be presented in a way humans can read it. we do a lot of that work on our own and alarming the data may be incorrect or incomplete. also just like the descriptions describing in slide 9, (inaudible) watered down and if we want to continue to establish trust with our public we have to be more transparent. when you make a mistake it has to be called out what it is, not watered down to something that doesn't look serious. dpa, thank you for raising this, thank you for bringing it up. sorry it is late and not get to focus on it it deserves. thank you. >> we can add it again to the next commission and do it again
6:32 am
too. that is end of public comment. >> can we have item 12, please. >> discussion and possible action to approve department general order 2.01. general rule of conduct for department to use meeting conferring with san francisco police officer association required by law. discussion and possible action. >> from the department standpoint i can provide comments on this. dgo2.01 is basically for the public is basically our conduct of officers dgo. it covers a lot of the rules of conduct. general rules of conduct that
6:33 am
aren't covered under other specific dgo. many of our--it isn't a value based dgo but many values of the organization are rooted in general order 2.o1. a lot of work went into this. there was great amount of input from department of police accountability and subject matter experts and many of the members of our department. what we wanted to do and hadn't been revised in a while is really address this dgo and make it relevant what we are facing today so there are significant changes from the last dgo. i think 2.o1 over the years had become somewhat a catch all the miscellaneous things that officers can find themselves being investigated for as far as general rule of conduct but we want to dial in on
6:34 am
contemporary issues on the dgo so it is the extent of the rewrite. i urge and recommend this commission adopt this dgo to meet and confer because this is a very important dgo. >> there are no questions for the chief or comments. is there a motion? >> i'll make a motion. this has come before us before. i make a motion to adopt revised department general order 2.01. >> second. >> this is on the agenda for meet and confer. >> to send to the poa. >> to approve the version to meet and confer. >> members who like to
6:35 am
make public comment regarding line item 12 approach the podium or press star 3. there is no public comment. on the motion- [roll call] you have 6 yeses. line item 13 public comment on all matters pertaining to 15 below closed session. public comment on 14 whether to hold 15 in closed session. if you like to make public comment regarding closed session approach the podium or press star 3. >> i'll try to keep it
6:36 am
brief. (inaudible) i believe i am from district 2. worked in san francisco my entire life. done business in san francisco my whole life. i notice one of the cases recognize number from last year when you had a series of cases for the vaccination policy to make it clear i'm not anti-vax but if that is in fact one of the matters you will be discussing i think we are at a stage in this whole pandemic where i don't think the vaccine is that mandatory. i don't know the facts of what is discussed, but if it is something vaccine related my request is let it go. we are short police officer in the city. i don't feel safe here. my family doesn't feel safe here. i try not to go
6:37 am
to my own house. i haven't been there in days and request you make the right moves to retain the police officers especially those veteran police officers that have been here years. i appreciate it. thank you. >> that is end of public comment. line item 14 vote on whether to hold item 15 in closed session. >> can i get a motion ? >> move to go into closed session. >> second. >> can we modify the motion to make it clear is to invoke attorney client privilege, please? attorney client privilege. >> so added. >> second. >> on the motion-
6:38 am
[roll call] you have 6 yeses. we are going into
6:39 am
6:40 am
good afternoon everyone this meeting will come to order welcome to the regular meeting of the lands use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors i'm supervisor melgar chair joined by supervisor dean preston and aaron peskin. the committee clerk is erika major. i would like to also acknowledge james at sfgovtv for staffing us. >> the board of supervisors and committees are convening hybrid meetingace,llow in person and public comment and providing remote access and comment via phone. board recognizing equitable access is essential and take comment as follows:first taken on each item on the agenda those in person will speak first. and then we will trache those on
6:41 am
the phone line. for those watching channel 26, 28, 78. 99 and sfgov.org the number is streaming. the call in number is 415-655-0001. again that number is 415-655-0001. and i ends 2496 118 4005 ## when connected you will hear the discussions but in mute and listening mode only. when your item come up and public comment called those in person should lineup to speak on the right notoriety curtains and the phone dial star 3 to be added to the queue. if you on your phone turn down your television and listening devices. will we'll be taking public comment from those in person first and then the call in line. >> alternateively you may submit to neil the land ruse clerk
6:42 am
erica. major sfgov.org if tell be made part of the special file. written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service at city hall 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place room 244, san francisco, california, 94102. items acted on today will appear on the december 13th agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, madam clerk. to add to madam's clerk announcements. please, member chiou keep your face covers on in the chamber offer spacing to those around you or when you lineup to speak during public comment. madam clerk call item 1. >> item swon organs amending the
6:43 am
park code to restrict private vehicles on the upper great highway on a pilot on weekends and holidays until december 31 issue 2025 and members who wish to provide comment call 415-655-0001, 2496 118 4005 ## and press star 3 to enter the queue.comment call 415-655-0001 118 4005 ## and press star 3 to enter the queue. >> thank you, madam clerk, to explain to the public why this item is on the agenda, last week, when we heard this, we duplicated the file and then in error our error, we failed to dispose of the file it was created and did not say when we would do it is back on the agenda so i can make a motion to condition this to the call of the chair. so, if you want to provide comment on the item it is only
6:44 am
about the continuance. we are not doing anything else with it. >> are there members who would like to speak on item one. you need to approach. move to the call n line we are 11 listeners with 3 in the queue. first caller, please. >> hi. i'm charles perkins i don't completely understand procedural what is happening here but i know that supervisor melgar explained it i don't know what that means exactly. what i do know is that this matter is supposed to be before the board of supervisors tomorrow. and a bunch people put in public comment and what not in the extent this is an ends run around that democratic process i think your committee today needs to reject this effort and let things play out as they were had
6:45 am
been planned. i mean, i saw this as an end run by supervisor mar who got voted out to push through his agenda and i wholehearted low object if this is going on. put it off and not allow him to flirt democracy. >> next speaker, please. hello i'm matt i'm [inaudible] outer sunset safer street association. i echo charles perkins comments on this. it is typical to understand what is happening. we have been trying to work with supervisor mar for what is now going on 3 years. and this is mr. perkin's said an ends run around process.
6:46 am
in coming supervisor should be involved with the process and a matter taken without his input is trying to influence public policy which has been affected by the election. and the defeat of a supervisor. for the first time. clearly, this issue should not be resolved without due process. thank you. >> i want to clarify madam clerk. public commenters are confuse when we are doing. we do duplicated the file. it it is a duplicate file behalf is going to the board. tomorrow. and that is precisely so if the in coming supervisor wants to amend it or do anything they comprehend they have the vehicle to do it without introducing something. that is what we are doing it is not an end run around democracy nor are we trying to reopen the
6:47 am
hearing about this. so, if you are going it provide comment it is only about the continuing of the file. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. next speaker, please. >> eileen in support of the continuance. statements were made proposal why we accepted the district 4 it is not. statements were made it is a compromise that is questionable we there are win and ares losers the usual suspects who received further funding from the city. this section was not on the list under is the west side trust and the puc will do what is needed to [inaudible] the proposal designed to meet a nonpolitical purpose in need or an exercise in political tunism by the usual
6:48 am
suspects. this proposal was partly driving forces for change in district 4. and it has spill over in other districtd now that we are in i support continuance. thank you. >> thank you very much for your comment. next speaker, please. >> hello i'm judi. i'm in district 4. and i support the comments that were just made by the other 3 callers. and certainly support the continuance and appreciate the extra explanation from supervisor melgar. but absolutely i agree that this highway really should not be in the state that it is in for another 3 years as mar is trying to do especially without an environmental report. thank you for considering it further. those are my comments.
6:49 am
>> thank you. >> let's take the next caller. >> hello, and this is patricia i'm the leader of the sunset. this is a bit like [inaudible] on the supreme court a week before the election. we need to put this whole thing off until joel and guard >> has been admitted to the board of supervisors. as i understand it, this is going to the board and there will be time when he is entered in the board of supervisors whoa will be able to weigh in but it should not it should not be considered tomorrow. you know we got a supervisor who was voted out because of the
6:50 am
very same issue. you should not reward him as he is going out the door. are you should give him had deserved no vote until the new supervisor is voted in. thank you y. thank you. >> no other callers this completes the queue. >> public comment is closed. >> i made a motion madam clerk. on this motion supervisor peskin. >> ayech >> supervisor preston. >> absent. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have 2 aye's. >> that motion passes. thank you. that item some now continued to the call the chair >> call item 2 >> the ordinance amending the planning doed increase density with autouses with housing is permitted except for residential mixd and commercial and historic
6:51 am
districts do not have residential use or legacy business and remove the cu >> reporter: to change the use of automobile service station or autouse to another use. members who wish to provide comment on item 2 call the number on the screen, 415-655-00012496 118 4005 ## then press star 3 to enter the queue. madam chair? >> thank you very much, madam clerk. hello. welcome. >> good afternoon sprierdzs aaron starr for planning department. you asked for this on july 11 and continued to the call the chair asking plan to come back
6:52 am
with an analysis. since it hen a few monthses since you heard i will give you a brief over view that is in the ordinance prior to the amended in july. the ordinance primarily provides a density exception for properties with autouses defines a use with accessory parking let or gage or any autouse in the planning code. rh zone the density exception allow up to 4 units and all other zoning districts upon except rm and c density form based the number of units determined by applicable height and bulk setback, open space and requirements of the district. to be eligible for the program properties must not contain an existing residential use and not a legacy business on the property within a certain period this would remove the cu requirement when converting automobile service station to another use.
6:53 am
the planning commission heard this on december ninth of 21. and recommended approval with modifications. since then the mayor has incorporated most of the recommendations. that concludes my res and will pass this over to josh who will give the financials since last heard. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i will pull update slides. joof joshua with planning staff. so at the last hearing at the committee the committee members asked for feasibility analysis specifically asking the question of whether the changes in the ordinance would create feasibility to increase public benefits or actions such as higher inclusionary housing rate
6:54 am
that is the primary question sought to answered by the analysis. so, the department engaged with century urban, which is a local financial real estate economics firm the city uses regular low through a contract with the controller's office. and did analysis in august of september of this year. and the resulters in the memo that was forwarded to the board. a couple weeks ago. map on the screen is a man from analysis from left year when the ordinance was first proposed. shows site the planning departmented eligible for the ordinance. i want to recognize the ordinance was narrowed and the scope with the cites may not beom the table. we use this the set of cites to identify a set of -- typical prototypes how the feesability analysis is done.
6:55 am
consultances planning works to identify a range of prototypical site configurations to do an analysis on the feesability development. so the development with the consultants settled on 2. one a small are lot sick,000 square feet the other is 20,000 the small height limit of 40 and the large are 65 feet and we estimated over 80% of the lots affected by the the ordinance. within that the consultants looked at rent and for sale prototypes and submarkets there is rent and sale price variability. looked at the existing zoning. as well as the proposed rezoning and looked at both before and after with the use of state
6:56 am
density bonus and in terms of the assumptions prevailing wages for construction costs. and the ultimate size ranged from 10 units to 104 units you multiply them they analyze 32 prototypes from 2 different site conditions. so you have a look at the results including century urban's memo. the table which is in 58ed on the slide. the top line finding the results showed across the city no matter which neighborhood you are in under existing zoning and proposed ordinance is feasibility is very challenging and 91 showed a positive feasibility per unit near any neighborhood for the prototypes i apologize the text is repeated
6:57 am
twice. does improve the fees abltd of each of the prototypes from the existing zoning. while they stay negative they all do improve such that in the future when and if construction the relationship with construction costs and rent. if prices change construction costs go down or rents go up they would be feasible soon are than if it would not be in place. in terms of quest board asked which is, is there additional feasibility as a result of this ordinance to increase inclusionary rates or other public benefit, the answer is, no. none is feasible on its own. therefore there is no additional value created as of this time during the economic condition in
6:58 am
2022. to increase any exactionses based on this ordinance. in terms of the other assumptions vacant to the model has an optimistic set. and required there is in assumptions costs or vacant for segregation they are autocites some may have more requirements than others if there was an autobody shop versus just a surface parking lot. and it does assume the existing program section 415 we reuse the inclusionary rates as they are programmed to be in 2025 or program does ramp up another few years it made sense not to use the 22 rate when is this takes
6:59 am
affects projects will be advanced and most projects will be subject to higher rate than exists today. and the last note that you know the chromer's office is work with the technical committee on dook their analysis of the existing inclusionary program and feasibility and so -- those results will be forth coming in i believe in january but this if probably let's you know what the key findings will be under the current rules the existing zone suggest challenging. i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you. supervisor? you requested this. >> sure, thank you. thanks for the become ground temperature strange in this as
7:00 am
you said we were ordinary care at the analysis to figure out if there were additional affordable housing or community benefits tied to theup zoning and the feasibility studies are where we have significant increase in potential initial unitos a site are accompanied with a feasibility study at start. so. i will say that this is an item that was strange in how much time and energy went in to -- a lot of publicity of hearings about this. without the benefit of a study i'm glad we have that. which is proposed here is not going to get built.
7:01 am
i word if our time would have been spent on this and the mayor office time. i will say that this is i will not rehash all the prior hearing os this but it just i think this ordinance before us upon epitomized the problem with our approach on housing. it is like made for press releases and coverage and not for actual housing policy. i. curious forecast mayor's office or planning why we are even moving forward with what is i think optimistically speak when you go look it's the study a complete nothing in terms of. ability of the house thanksgiving is in the going to
7:02 am
result in any housing i find it strange there are things we could focus on that would result in more housing especially more affordable. and based on the feedsability analysis it does in the seem like this legislation is it. that is optimistic i think we talked about something will have no private housing development. i'm correspond the up zoning of the cites one potential unintend const. kwenls will be the increase in the value of the site. then the worse of both. and driving update stuff that is feasibility which is affordable how doing we are increasing the
7:03 am
process on these lots. i it -- i'm in terms of when we do i don't have a strong opinion and looking forward to what the public and colleagues have to say if measured by press and media this legislation has been a smashing success and measured by moving us forward housing policy. it hen a complete failure. i'm like looking forward to comments and how you want to approach it. strange to have this before us this changes the rules but fees ablts study saying nothing will come of the changes. thank you. i'm ready -- go ahead >> i had the same observations when i was looking at this for the second time because the first time in the mayor's office forwarded the wrong file i reread and read the one over of
7:04 am
the weekend and came to the same conclusion much to do about not namuch and landed in a similar thought, we were conferring with -- potential speck welltive value on the property and the only thing i say expressed. is all things equal. i brafrng 100% affordable as i could as a low are value. but -- at the end of the day it is 6-1 almost helpful a dozen of another. whatever. thshg. supervisor. i'm ready to move this it today. i do share the centiments of my
7:05 am
colleagues we could have got tone this sooner when we grappled withup zoning and density, of course we have an inclusionary requirement. of course we want to see what other stuff that we example fit in when we -- negotiateed development agreements for projects. it is always part of the conversation i hope that because we have a heavy lift we do after the housing element that is the expectation we will dot analysis before we move legislation forward. this said, any rates are variables although they have gone up sxuchl know labor costs. supply chain issues there is a bunch of stuff this is changing. i think that you know upon this
7:06 am
does make for less impediments and i like that. you know00 oop looking at the map, there is a whole over mile section of district 7 that now is religious use and the parking lots are huge and and i am eager to make things easier in terms of repurposing and the ends of the day for policy had we want to do is incent sunrise when we want to see. i think this we want to incentivize moving off of autouses and into other uses and housing being our you know most pressing issue in the city. is this going on create thing this is we want to see now? only not. but i think that whether it
7:07 am
drives update cost i don't see evidence of that. i don't see evidence that that in the report i remain open minded but i have in the seen temperature i'm ready to move this forward today. thank you for the presentation. and if there is no other comments or questions take public comment on this item. >> we have a line here. let's take the first speaker we have 2 minutes for public comment those remote if you like to speak press star 3. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm jessica polar a local real estate agent for the city and support this legislation. with the idea of converting spaces [inaudible] the will primary space with a private use to housing. and dense housing i believe it is that because we should focus
7:08 am
on building as much housing as possible and not building housing more housing in the city of san francisco. but accomplices that will peep can live in dense parks. we want to replace mriek environmental hazards like cars with housing. that's what we should focus on. removing barriers to have better use lands use. and that's what i think. thank you very much. next speaker, please. hello i'm jacob a resident born here. and i am spaek nothing favor of the legislation i agree with what supervisor melgar said the necessity transitioning, way from automobile use and more
7:09 am
housing. and i agree it is important to move toward fees abltd and even though the law alone would not cause 100% affordable house to spring up, which we would like t is still useful it moves us toward more housing. supervisor preston said something important how testimony reveals negative attributes of san francisco's house pregnant left-hand side use policy. i don't think i agree with him in the way he meant. frank low, i think what this study shoes like others before it, san francisco's patchwork of zoning density laws.
7:10 am
laws make it impossible to build. and affordable needs to think about changing the regulations to make it easier to build housing. sgro good afternoon will tom. executive director of liveable city. i'm here to speak in favorite legislation. i think for a few reasons one we need to create housing in the city and market rate and below market rate the best places where we don't have to demo existing housing and this is scarce the current code creates an impedament to a service station use.
7:11 am
we have a floon go to 1 huh percent electric fleet we'll not need service station easying thing conversion is a mart potts. the single walled tifrpgs you change them by 2025. giving the option of convert to another use rather than adding product weep don't want and am not thank us for is a smart thing to dom let people do this lastly from pedestrian bicycle safety and transit accessibility the service stations create conflicts in the city. many are on important transit and walking and cycling corridors. a lot of movement with cars allowing folks to convert to ones that don't create the conflicts and comply with the requirements about where you locate driveways on walking and
7:12 am
psyche cycling streets. even though it is limit in the scope may not result in a lot of housing. community developers may buy these but would have the cu >> reporter: t. is taking it away from what use could go in there. issue there other members who would like to speak on this item? >> we will move to the remote line we have 10 listeners with 2 in the queue. will good afternoon. jake price on behalf of the housing action coalition. we see it as a common sense proenvironmental legislation. that will simultaneously reduce cars and increasing the capacity for building needed housing by
7:13 am
rugs the time of the approval time line and the limits off number of homes allowed this legislation is a critical step toward allowing for more housing and more affordable to be built in place of alternate infrastructure. we know that it is difficult to build house nothing san francisco as evidenced by urban feasibility study even am though this legislation does not -- necessarily change the realities of housing projects pencil it is important to think of this legislation as a first step for forward. it helps lay a foundation for prohousing progress moving forward and we urge you all to move this forward. thank you very much. the left call notoriety queue. >> i'm calling to say i'm
7:14 am
completely against building houses and apartments where there is service stations using the land. we gotta buy gas and the cars will in the go, way we will buy them out of town approximate lose revenue by going out of town it it is like a pipedream temperature reduce e missions have uv charges all over and promote electric vehicles. and the addition i object mar's legislation about the great highway. another plan i wanted to say completely againstful anyway, you guys gotta figure out ways on housing and everything. we are choking and you are throwing the families out of san francisco. you know i was born and raised here had a house and garage and had a yard. now you want to take that away. that's why schools are shrinking and people are leaving the city.
7:15 am
thank you very much for your comments that completes the queue. of >> thank you. madam clerk public comment is now closed. i would like to make a motion that we move this forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> as a committee report. >> is this what they asked for, yes y. on this motion supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> thank you that motion passes. go to item 3, now madam clerk i would like to just give everyone i intend to move up the fire department item ahead of the hearing on bike racks, thank you for joining us supervisor dorsey because supervisor peskin has a hard stop he has to go to.
7:16 am
>> item 3 a resolution approving the third amendment for maintenance of highways between the city and california d. transportation, cal-trans. to include city maintenance and operation of traffic control devices within cal-trans jurisdiction on state route 2ate. al meny at san bruno avenue and approving appropriate findings. members withhold like to speak on item 3 call 415-655-0001, 2496 118 4005 ## and press star 3 to enter the queue. >> thank you. welcome. of onof the project manages with
7:17 am
public w i'm providing a brief over view of the resolution that is regarding ma'am number 3 to the delegated maintenance agreement or the dma with the city and the state. so as you know, the delegating agreement is to document maintenance responsibilities we have on different street segments. traffic signal equipment and utility trenches that are in the right-of-way and fall under cal-trans jurisdiction. so for this number 3 it is specific low prepared to cover and document the car share with the city and the state for traffic maintenance at one intersection this is san browno and almeny near the on and off ramps 280101 and the farmer's market. i want to highlight that with mta public work system delivering safety improve am
7:18 am
project there now. we are building traffic significant untils new signals. new lighting, new curb ramps and a new multiuse pass that will connect san bruno to al meny area. this is important to us and the teams have been wing hard on get thanksgiving and forward. i'm here to answer questions if you have any. thank you. >> thank you. i do have a question about this because you know i have several of spots along district 7 that touch cal-trans property and well is always the multijurisdictional little nightmare between cal-trans, dpw, mta and rec park. i'm around everwondering do we have to go through this much work? to maintain pedestrian bridge and right-of-way?
7:19 am
can't we just negotiate like a global agreement? this question may be better suited to be answered by my boss. it is a lot of work, i agree. i think there are blanket agreements that are negotiated like i know for the original delegation agreement for the in 2009 we have one that covers public works helping to cover or helping to go tout to 19th and state your name segment for pothole its is quicktory get it done without the process every time. however i don't believe it it is a big feet there is a sdukz now that is going on for the traffic signal maintenance as well. >> thank you. i appreciate that honest answer. >> thank you. >> any other questions or comments, clothes? >> with that go to public comment on this item. >> thank you. are there members of public had would like to speak.
7:20 am
approach the podium. seeing none there issue zero callers in the queue >> public comment is closed. i'veed like to make a motion we sends this forward with a positive recommendation. >> and on that motion supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have 3 aye's >> that motion passes. thank you. >> let's go to item number 6. ordinance to repealing the existing san francisco fire code and entirety and enacting a new fire code consisting of the 2022 california fire code portions of the 2018 international fire code together with amendments specific to san francisco including prosecute visions for fees, permits, inspections and city services with a date of
7:21 am
january first of 23 and adopting findings. members who wish to provide comment on this item call 415-655-0001, 2496 118 4005 ## and press star 3 to enter the speaker queue. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> thank you chair melgar this it is a routine piece of legislation like the other code updates that we did last month. come before the board of supervisors. and i usual low don't cosponsor them but i want to thank and acknowledge fire department staff the fire commission and the mayor insofar as this does include a specific san francisco
7:22 am
amendment that guess beyond the interinitial fire code to the affect of incorporating after well over a year of discussion, a fire sprinkler retrofit provision for certain mid rise buildings that were not fully sprinklered and the result of a number of fires. and i introduced stand alone legislation that has been modified with longer time frames for implementation that is a part of that. i want to thank the firefighter for this and the many parties that parties that were advising my initial piece of legislation i will abandon fire marshall cover listen incoreerated it in the time thank you mr. fire
7:23 am
marshall and there is one slight amendment to further e longate the time frame to be specific it a total time through permitting to 90 completion of one dozen in appendix m on page 77 and 78 and approved as to form by executive city attorney. >> thank you. supervisor peskin we have tim here. welcome y. thank you. i will do a quick presentation history on the fire code.
7:24 am
it come up every 3 years. some ask where does the fire code come from? it come from the from the board of supervisors. the idea today we will repole and get rid of the 19 code and adopt the 22 code. you all so the fwent 19 code concysteded the 2018 international fire code now becomes the 2019 california code and we make amendments to it. you see there is what is the san francisco fire code. starts out as an international fire code. the state takes it and decide what is it wants to adopt. and send its to the cities and counties to go ahead and become more restrictive as they choose
7:25 am
to. as a city we adopt the international fire code unless we delete sections television it becomes part of our code. we cannot get rid of what the state has adopted. but we got become more restrictive. the fire code incorporates the california code title 24 california code of regulations express low deleted or amended. in addition the san francisco fire code adopts the 2021 and includes provisions specific to san francisco. and like i said we can be more resfriktive just not less. >> highlights about the code. very few changes were made from last code cycle. supervisor peskin stated the biggest of being the sprinklers
7:26 am
for residential high rise. we added permits and safety requirements for food vendors we have seen and legislation over the past year or 2. and some requirements for certification. radio emergency communication systems. typically in large are high rise. the 3 permits were going to be trying to regulate the food carts making sure they are operated safely. they are a more tourist destinations. fuelling locations and emergency upon responded communication those other radio systems used by sheriff, police, fire and ems on scene. some of the big are changes, there are some having -- coat that addresses the desire for some owners to look the
7:27 am
penthouse door going to the officer on 4 stories or more. there are the additional >> reporter:s how the doors unlook and other alarms and push of i button to a communication, et cetera. um -- this year enacting u well certification of the radio communication system to ensure the systems are always working and that the person putting it in is a listed condition transactor. again. as supervisor peskin mentioned adopted what was in the previous legislation. and this guess over what is requiring a building over 120 feet between 75 and 125 feet you may not have to go ahead and sprinkler the buildings. >> this ordinance worked with the building owners. because it does not have to come up to what a new system is. but it is a robust system that
7:28 am
will help the firefighters and first responders. the impelementation period updated to 12 years previously it was 10. and the left thing enacting is temp refer wireless notification system the buildings under construction will have a type of fire alarm for early notification we lost a few buildings over the years because of it. i'm here for questions. >> i have no questions but i want to thank you for everything you do to keep us safe and thank you supervisor peskin for a very long over due safety issue. you know. supporting tenants in our city. since there is no other comments, colleagues go to public comment. >> thank you, are there member of the public who would like to
7:29 am
speak on item 6? seeing none we will move to the remote line we have 9 listeners with 3 in the queue. next speaker, please. you have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon. supervisors i'm jeff and i'm the coo of [inaudible] investments thank you for your time. sprinkler in high rise buildings seems like a good idea it deserves time for planning than it is given. there are vast changes to implementing this change of this magnitude and deserves a thought leader ship to ensure the legislation is feasible. chief is [inaudible] initial consultations indicate this work will have to occur at once instead of phases. the whole buildings need to be relocated perhaps for as long as
7:30 am
a year or more. driven by need to abate asbestos and lead will likely require ocpantses relocated at once and the presence of the work throughout the city at the same time may make it hard to find accommodations while the work is complete third degree could mean displacing 160 attentives all in district 3 that is a lot of disruption but nowhere cloves to what could ensue if parkmerced and other large are buildings. i ask you don't pass this today at land use to allow for feedback especially regarding tenant displace am. thank you for your time. >> thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please. hello i'm rod smith a senior director of engineering and have
7:31 am
one building in the that would be subject to the retroactive fire sprinkler. my occurrence are like the first, call are indicated that the tenant relocation, certainly. but -- in our case, the build thanksgiving we have is built in 1960. we have lead and asbestos in that building. the it it is a traditional low reenforced concrete structure the work that would take place from the streets to the water, to have the fire pump and a pump room will trig are an electrical emergency generator. the distribution throughout the apartments the core drilling. that will occur through the slabs to get the piping through. it is all just special circumstances that would require time and accel ritted permitting
7:32 am
on the city's part and understanding with that. at this point our estimate is north of 10 million dollars. for this upgrade. it is a high rise 11 story building. there are 250 apartments in the building. and -- with the cost such as that without incentives or tax breaks and that and meanwhile the desire is to provide affordable housing and i forgot to mention this is the rent controlled building i, soup there would be a pass through for this? but with all of that, approximate time is not on our side for doing such a renovation. thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. hi.
7:33 am
i'm charlie goss i'm with the san francisco apartment association. first we want to thank you for extending the dead line boy 2 years we're grateful for that. but remiss if we did not say that we do believe a retrofit of this magnitude deserves your time and focus. a few of the other call ers mentioned we expect the work to be very cost low and expect tenant relocation to be cost low but a better than on the residents. i wanted mention a couple occurrence swn we are worried the city and dbi might not have staffing capacity to check and approve the plans and permits timely. we are worry thered are not enough condition transactors in the area to complete this work by the dead lines and we think this work will require more than general contractors for steel and concrete buildings. we are work width city as part of the concrete building
7:34 am
retrofits for seismic safety and there will be over lap with the 2 programs. makes sense for i building owner to do this work at the same time we like to see those deadlines alined if possible. again. i wanted thank you for extending the dead listen by 2 years it is appreciated. we love to see considerations for incentives or relear like a billioned measure or tax credit. thank you for your consideration over all we understand you generally approve a fire code upgrade as a matter of procedure but we love of the ability to have more time to discuss a retrofit with you all. thank you. >> thank you very much. thap concludes the queue. >> thank you, public comments is closed. >> supervisor peskin. du want to make a motion. gi want to say, i mean obviously
7:35 am
decisions like this come at costs to am approximate building owners and the point on relocation the abatement of existing lead or asbestos. contaminated property system real. and we have been through this many times over the years off story retrofits. previous iterations of sprinkler retrofits. and -- on this one i think we collectedively stuck to the practice relative to maintaining the dynamic that exists. the congress the relocation assistance requirements that exist. this is legislation i voted on earlierity rigz of this that actually had a lop hole that did in the include this group of
7:36 am
over 100 buildings that was then the primary experience was my seat mate who sat or supervisor preston sitting now. our governor. when he was a supervisor. but at the end of the day this it is about life safety and there is plenty of time for folks to plan. this is -- you got 4 years to come forward with plan. a total of 12 years before it has to be done. and i think that is a generous running head story consistent with when we have done in the past this . is life safety. i was there the night that one of two fires at the golden gateway went outside of the unit approximate burned ump i number of floors. the amount of fortunately, nobody was injured or severely injured.
7:37 am
nobody was killed but the amount of displacement was huge. the amount of costs to refurbish and relocate the people was huge. so this is an appropriate investment and with this i would like to move the amendments that have been circulated and upon their passage sends this item as amended with a positive recommendation as a committee report. >> thank you. supervisor peskin take roll on that. >> on this motion would you like to take them together. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have 3 aye's. >> okay that's it. right. legalities thank you. supervisor peskin. >> let's go back to item number
7:38 am
4. >> item 4 the hearing to discuss existing and future option for secured bike park nothing san francisco municipal transportation agency parking garages and transit stations including but not limed bart. cal-trans and request the sfmta, bart. transbay authority and the san francisco count emtransportation authority to report. members who wish to provide comment on item 4 should call the number 415-655-0001, 2496 118 4005 ## then press star 3 to enter the queue. buffer call that i should have dhn we need to excuse supervisor
7:39 am
peskin who has a hard stop and we now have a presidential memo from president walton appointing supervisor dorsey. in his stead. >> okay. let's take the motion to excuse supervisor peskin. on this motion supervisor dorsey? >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have 3 aye's >> thank you. >> so welcome supervisor dorsey. thank you for introducing the item you know this guess to my heart.
7:40 am
mta parking garage and transit stations there were reasons i'm invest in the the topic one is primarily my personal experience as someone who for a couple years commuting from mid market to mission bay and found that my use of what i felt was a temporary thing until i figured out a quicker option was bike share. that was the quickest option everyone on my legislative staff our secret weapon getting around district 6 quickly is bike and bike share. one of the things i have seen play out in san francisco government during my time here is how bicycle politics sometimes can used to put
7:41 am
bicyclists at odds with motorists. if there was a benefit to the add vent of bike share it was to change the math of bicycle politics. something that invested more people in the safety of bike lanes approximate protected bike lanes and bicycle infrastructure. it was i was always in favor of getting people out of cars and on to transit or bikes anything other than private vehicles baudz it is the good of the planet and our city. i think bicycle infrastructure is something that has done a lot to encourage that. i know that -- to keep people interested in perhaps buying their own investment everinvest nothing bikes at a time when we are seeing increased up tick in e bikes electronic bikes which
7:42 am
are more expensive, you know, we have to consider that bike theft is a role problem. and it men a disincentive to people make the investment to get an e bike that would be a great commuting option if they are out you know -- several thousand dollars for the loss of that. so i think there is a strong case that our city as we get dense and you know -- make sure we do more for secure bike is timely as the board of supervisors will take update housz housing leadership a plan for how we will build or build 82,000 units of housing over 8 years we'll get more dense. we need tong about when we can do to have more people get out of car and on to bikes. there is also a fast growing
7:43 am
population of families getting out of cars and on to bikes the bikes families use are large and bulkier than bike share bikes. what in may use and i cargo bike. my district has 2 resources leveraged more the transit station and estate parkings garages. i want to thank the youth commission for interests in this and their support around this topic. my office had a meeting with commissioner nguyen the chair of youth commission committee. representatives from bart and cal-trans are here we can hear about the bike parking options at their stations. providing good options at the hubs is vital to increasing the share of folks instead of getting to the stele in the occur can take a bicycle to a
7:44 am
bart or cal station. hop on train and hop back on the bike for the last mile there are great options at the stations i look forward to hearing from them when we already have and how we make it better and more secure in the future and join bide representatives from mta there are options at the facilities the garages have housed bike lookers. this is a good start there is much this needs to be done to ensure parking options are keeping up with bike use and the trends. we will have from joanne urban environmentist about solutions in residential areas and i than supervisor megovern approximate preston are interested in this topic. and appreciative we have time to discuss this and assume here pond are policy changes that may come out of this hearing so this
7:45 am
we can fulfill the objective of making bicycle use and adoption a more attractive option than automobiles. first i like to invite heath maddox from bart to present and heath is joining virtually. >> are you with us? can you hear me? >> great. thanks. so. sorry. >> pleasure to be here i'm heath maddox and i am the bicycle
7:46 am
manager of bicycle access at bart. and i'm in the customer access department. pleasure to be here today. some of you mirecognize me i worked for the sfmta for 11 years. left 4 years ago and managed bike sharing and bike parking for most of this time for the america ta. nice to be working on san francisco again. talking to san francisco again. i'm going to give a brief over view i will keep it quick. we try to focus san francisco as much as possible. thinking of bicycle parking and secure bicycle park at bart we provide in the form of racks, lookers and bike stations. we do consider some of the regular ridiculouses to are secured by parking because they are inside of stations. and most of the 360 racks at
7:47 am
bart stations in san francisco are in the stations and many of them are in the [inaudible] area approximate racks at all the stations except for powell and montgomery stations. we don't have many bike lookers in san francisco. the lookers they are not in the stations theyor bart mradza and parking lots and they don't have much in the way of plazas and space. we have 12 keyed spaces at glen park and at glen park and balboa 12 electronic spaces and lockers than i are local company [inaudible] technology and employ the bike lane system. we'll get into this later the bike station in san francisco we have 6 self p bike stations.
7:48 am
throughout the district, and 3 of them of the bike stations in the district are vallet and in san francisco 2 of the 6 self park stations for a total of 250 spaces, are embarcadero and civic center. the embarcadero station is the oldest bike station in the district. open happening near low 20 years ago. both the embarcadero and civic center bike stations were modernized. updated, expanded and brightened and modifications to acompidate large are bikes were made. and there is another secure bike park nothing san francisco at 16th and 24th and it it is a come in extended trial of the new stifle bike park upon bike keep the name of the company
7:49 am
makes the racks for us. and it is looks like a bike share station. a picture here on the middle left inside the concourse in the pay area of 16th mission. could have it wrong. and looks like a bike station or a bike sharing station and there is a swing arm that xhg come down and grabs the fronts wheel of the bike and you use your electric to look the rear wheel. i have a lot of data and i will not to put too much i have good charts here. basically we are tracking bike park close low at our stations that's how we monitor demand and
7:50 am
supply. this is basically this lot here the pink bars in the back is bart ride areship the access on the right. you see prepandemic on the right in 2019 ride areship at 10 million rides per day. per month. and the left in the orange and blue line these are lines for bike lane locker district wide and bike stations district wide. you see the bhand everoccupancy of the lookers and the bike stations mirror close low they are different scales. you see early 2020. they have been crawling back with up's and downs mirroring that of bart ridership district wide. this one is more of a mess.
7:51 am
the bars in the backgrounds so bart ridership among low and the same relationship between bike parking, occupancy and ride areship. each line represents an occupancy at a bike station and the top line for berkeley. well is a self park at beshg low the tom grouping of the orange and red and the warmer colors those are our v, llet stations they are see higher use they are put at high use location and offer a higher degree of service. so people will flock to them the lower grouping those are self park bike stations and -- you see berkeley is recovering the most. and i thank you is learning low do you to the fact the beshg low bike station is across from the
7:52 am
beshg low city college and down the street from the high school. more use by the local community and the other bike stations. on san francisco, these 2 lines represent this is the bike lane and bike station occupancy at the embarcadero and civic stations. you see it is more of the same thing. you see that the bart ridership is 4 million i month. 40% of 3 pandemic levels and you know the occupancy of the stations is similarly low compared to prepandemic. and this -- so -- we know i will say that the last 3 chart this is is data bart ridership we have a data it is reported by bike station parities month low. this next chart is different this shows occupancy at bike
7:53 am
link look are district wide and i highlighted on the left the san francisco location. and this data come to us from the lockers they are electronic on demand and there is a willing but we have did thea on the occupancy and other conditions. we have few of the lookers in san francisco stations we have them in glen p and balboa. will and this contrast 2021, 22 data gathered in october and i'm sorry i can't share itted temperature tell be a little better but similar. comper seed 2019, they are sorted by -- by00 autonumber of the occupancy for 2019. and -- various levels are varying for 2021. but makes sense to sort them by
7:54 am
2019 levels. we were even in mc arthur, 140 rentals per day now seeing 12 per day. san francisco is no exception we have now, a surplus bicycle parkings the bart ridership is depressed. this is specific low the very fine grain detail data on the bike lookers at glen park and balboa. you see that the prepandemic over on the left you know glen park seeing 10 per day tops. baldoea higher peeks but still in the range of 6-10 rentals per day. prepan dem and i can got off a cliff inspect 2020. you see peek in balboa but more
7:55 am
usage at glen park. payment methods, society bike link system, bart does not get the monfrebike link it is owned by e look technologies operates and a vendor for the bike lookers and the bike link kiosks. the money the people have operate the lookers and the self p bike stations using a bike lane prepaid card and the money goes to bike link and uses the funding from the system to support the 24 hour customer service centers. it is similar to the clip are card. i'm excited to report this
7:56 am
literally by next week we'll have completed the conversion of all e lockers in the bart system to work by mobile app. upon people will no long are required to have a card. are you can approach the station and get the information. the lookers and download the app there and you can steb an on line ash count, leverage it to your credit card and able to pay and open the door of a locker at bart station using the app. that's payment for the lookers and self park bike stations, vallet stations are free. nobodiments to make money off lookers we would make them all free if we could the payment is to discourage people from monomizing look and using
7:57 am
private storage we charge enough they will be available for the next person. i will say that obviously use of racks is free butt bike keep system is bike share devices, is free. and but it is electronic and so when we do for that is people use the clip are card to open and register on line. no charge but in the using clip are bucks just the clipper card as a key. there is a lot in this slide i will not try to go into tiwant to conscious of time. i was asked we can go back if we need to talk about bike clip are integration. weave have integrated clip are as key a simple partial integration with bike keep racks. we have done a pilot of with our
7:58 am
lookers at a few station in 2017 and did not move forward there was a lot of expense. but in short we should be able to do clip are key as we have done previously and might be able to integrate with a mobile wallet as well. see. i think i have one more slide cargo bike and larger bikes. we are doing a lot at bart on
7:59 am
this front both at bike stations and elevators. and we are plan to roll out new lookers in north berkeley to start. all of our bike stations are being planned or retrofitted already to accommodate larger bikesut putting in u ridiculouses further apart. here are pictures here. new elevators are typically large enough to hold cargo bikes the older were not may be supposed to accommodate people or possessions. small -- service elevators. we have published the dimensions of elvirtin thes bike system on the website so people that have i large bike can know approximate plan their trip. and -- that's all i have.
8:00 am
i will stop there. there will be questions and othersment to talk. thank you very much. >> thank you. keith i wanted there is i question this came from the youth commission buffer go i want today ask. how much it costs to install a bike locker and the on going costs are. i don't know if this is [inaudible] can you just address that? l yes and no temperature is a complicated question. because were i can't tell you from my memory off the top of my head what one locker costs. but it is bart pays all costs. i don't have 2 large contracts. we are related bike parking one with e look technologies and
8:01 am
bike hub and bike hub operates the roadway stations and e look the bike lookers and have bike link opening the bike stations and at the locker. i want to say on the order of may be dan bought them more dan cal-trans bought them i think the order of 5 thousand dollars for 4 lockers? that might be low. i really probably should not speak i should follow up with cost. it is aedz for me to get information i don't have it. sorry. >> fine. >> colleagues are questions for mr. maddox? okay. thank you. next we are joined virtual by dan from cal-trans. hello board of supervisors i'm
8:02 am
dan province i'm with cal-trans and wing on secured bicycle park. this is caltrain not cal-trans. some get us confused we are a line operating between san francisco and san jose. just a bit of background by caltrain and bikes. prepandemic we carried a lot of bikes. there would be more than sick,000 bicycle on a regular weekday service. historically caltrain was they would respond it people's request to have i bike with them by removing more seats. i think tran train got to the point we have more bikes allowed on board then and there any train system we know of in the country world.
8:03 am
even then, we were at capacity and would be leaving paying customers on the platform because we did not have enough capacity to carry them with their bike. at that time, there were limited security bike parking options available. we did have key lockers available at several stations but long waiting lists for those and we were not able to servefect who ismented leave a bike at a station in many cases. currently we still have i strong bike riding group of customers. our recent customer satisfaction survey from the past summer found this 20% of customers use a bike as part of their trip. that is a higher percentage than we have seen before. we are electrifying our service. coming i think the plan start
8:04 am
for electric services is late 2024. but at that point, we will have new electric trains and we capped the train sets at 72 bike space per train set. as we look for growth and people accessing the station, we are encouraging people to leave them at the stations when they don't leave for the trip and provide them with good options. at this point. there is still space available board for people to bring bikes. we are seeing those spaces filling up more and more. but since the during the pandemic, we have been able to provide more secure bike parking up and down the corridor we have secure parking options at most stations at this point. >> we have 3 station in san
8:05 am
francisco. the first is our busiest of corridor which is fourth and king. at that station, this is one of the spots where we did have i good bike parking facility that has been around for 15 years now. we provide free bike vallet between 7 and 7 monday-friday. there is spitz for 230 bikes there. and currently this is about 10% used. this picture is prepandemic. they also have a repair shop there ping accessories for sale, toochlt service for people if you want to park and get a tune up it it is a great option. we did have key lockers in the past but probably i guess 8 years ago the lockers were removed. they are further down towns ends
8:06 am
in an area that was not well trafficd and, lot of 3s coming in with power tools cut nothing lockers. because of security concerns they were removed and the focus has been on the vallet since. this facility prosecute voids other amenities that help people using devices to get to and from the station they rebalanced and recharged the shared scooter available in san francisco. sublose an area to the scooter will company there. i want to point out that with the down town extension coming, this -- project would or this if sillity would be affected by the construction project long townsend. so any major changes i think we are holding off while we
8:07 am
coordinate with the transbay joint power's association to figure out the best way to cervical train customers by bike during construction. here is a quick just graph showing similar patterns that heath showed. you know upon prepandemic ping a lot at that facility. we just closed for i bit but now we just hit 500 bikes in i month for the first time since the pandemic came on. and then 22nd street is another station we have limited station space at that station. so the bike the main secure bike park options are actually they are we work with the sfmta to put 20 e lockers in on the city
8:08 am
street up at the top of one of the entrances to the station. so currently this is enough of the e lockers. and these other same heath discussed the bike link on demand lockers. we were interested in making sure that we were giving transit customers similar experiences and similar access methoded this we were work to put the e lookers in. we are later to the game than bart and sfmta. so we to being a good lead from them because we thought it was important that transit customers saw consistency when they were trying to park their bike. yea. there it is the prepaid bike cards heath was talking about on sale at a cafe around the corner you want today beone of those it
8:09 am
is straightforward. bayshore is the last station in san francisco. not a high low used station. we have 4 e lockers and room to expand but currently those for you spaces meet demand. and with regards to secure bike parking growth coming up, we will be releasing a request for proposals for the bike park vendor roll at fourth and king. and we hope to have a new contract next year. with that, we want to maintain the fourth and king vallet. people like that facility the one request we got is for extended hours. we'll look to expand or provide a self serve option with extended hour and, lot of detailers being to be determined. like i said we don't want to
8:10 am
make huge jment investments at that station it will be affected with the downtown extension project and look to add options for additional bike stations along the corridor. there was a question about funding and we have funding from the bay air quality management district and tircp a state funding large capitol projects. there is a question about accommodating large bikes and we noted that in our presentation. in our request for proposals. to provide amenities for people with the large are bikes. and we are look nothing modifying our existing e lookers. there is a new e locker model coming out in 2023 includes an option for a cargo bike you see
8:11 am
the sketch on the left. you take down a wall you lose parking numbers but provide space for the large are bikes. you might allows you to gun we use a vertical space. there is a lift assist feature coming out i tried lifted a bike with one be hand it is easy. and then to note we may want to charge a bit more for the large bike spaces. mainly to keep them open and available for people with the large bikes. we want to discourage somebody from showing up with i regular bike and using that space and folks with large are bikes without a parking space. and as far as payments -- we are doing we got the same 5 cent an
8:12 am
hour pricing bart and sfmta use. we have been trying to promote things this say picture of a promo we did on twitter we did a bike quiz. and people got free hours. we have been giving folks 100 free hours when they first use a caltrain locker and trying to get the word out and use up. we got the same bike link cards are available for use. and our models are newer than bart's. we do have the ability to use that clip are as key feature that health was talking about this works for their smart racks. we have that ability and i think we will be looking forward to switching off of that to the system this heath was discussing and we have on going costs to run that program. and then the app is available.
8:13 am
so that is a great thing for people to sign up on the spot, straightforward. there is a qr code that is installed on lookers in our system. just of a quick use data from the past summer of the different e locker use long our corridor -- 22nd street is probably around middle of the pack. bayshore is lower. we don't have e lockers in fourth and king. and this is rentals the previous was customer and it shows middle of the peculiar for 22nd street and low are for bayshore. and then this is the over all trendses of e locker use. this is graph shows the
8:14 am
experience importance of storying pins we started rolling them out in 2021 we don't have prepandemic numbers we have an upward trends since we rolled lookers out. and with that that wraps up my presentation. >> thank you. clothes are there questions for mr. province before we move on. i do have a question about the fourth and king station. and the plans for eventual low having some kind of bike [inaudible]. this is all a new conversation and i don't have, let to update you with and promise you but everybody involved with this project is, wear of the facility. they are aware we will need to provide folks with secure bike parking during construction and once construction is complete.
8:15 am
so, yes, that is we are workoth details i don't have more to report on that. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. province and our next speaker is matt from sfmta and i appreciate the speakerers keeping it to about 10 minutes in the interest of time. thank you. thank you. supervisors. of i'm matt a bicycle program manager with sfmta. it is fwrit to have the conversation about long-term bike park nothing city hall. it hen a language time in the making and great to be here. my colleagues and i at the other
8:16 am
agencies talk about long-term bike parking for i long time. i will be brief here. i will give i brief survey about what we are up to with bike parking in terms of long-term and then identify the trendses i think we are here to talk about and challenges and solutions we have in minds for the future. so. the bicycle parking program we split up bike p nothing short term and -- long-term bike parking. short term is typically less than 2 hours of bike p and this is -- a bike rack on the sidewalk or in the parking lane. where we have a series of bike racks. and we install these proactive low and by request and the sign shop does installation.
8:17 am
typically a bike rack takes 3-4 minutes from request to installation. long-term bike park suggest parking for long are than 2 hours. and we heard a lot about bicycle lockers from the other agencies in san francisco we have 68 bicycle lockers with 48 within our mt agarages and 20 at the 22nd and caltrain station. our future is a lot about what we are calling bike hangers, mobile hubs and opportunity for bike vallet as well. we have done a lot of stenographed of long-term bike parking 5-10 years ago 2 studies reviewed locations for i deal long-term bicycle parking locations highlighting downtown
8:18 am
transit center and also out at west perral. and trying to implement this work we have done in the past. so as we heard, the trends are more expensive, learning are bikes, e bikes all 4 as an agency we support people replacing a car and using the e bikes and also cargo bikes. they are longer. they are expensive. and so we understand the fear of leaving them out on the sidewalk. over night or say in your walk up apartment or one bedroom apartment we need to find solutions that are creative this can accommodate people parking bikes. and i mean, this is not new information.
8:19 am
i feel like our colleagues in europe have been dealing with this for a long time it is a matter of us catching up. we have spatial constraints. sfmta works with public works a lot in the public right-of-way to come up with solutions and areas for parking. we also have partnerships with the port approximate rec p and we have in with them but we want to create and have better relationships because they have -- areas or -- property where you know these solutions really make sense. people are switching modes or commuting and going from bicycle to transit. lockers we have a number of them you heard about the technology the payment manageds it is similar to when you heard the
8:20 am
same. not similar. and -- however there are challenges. we had -- had them in garages for years but sometimes they are heard to find or they are you continue is in the the most bright environment may be people feeling comfortable with security and safety. so this -- is tech untiling we like and will use and people use more locations over others but there is also a [inaudible] evolves from this. we have a pilot in the works. we are implementing 4 hangers, 2 each of the locations in yerba buena benefit's district. and you see a picture of when a hang are looks like. these store 6 bike in each. and 2 per on street parking space. and we will be putting those on
8:21 am
the street in yerba buena in the first quarter of next year. and so we are using bike lane technologies the same as the lockers. people have the app or clip are card or bike lane card and access a bike hang and try them out. you use your card or app to access the unit and you want to then you look your bike within the unit it is another added level of security. so these are more in commercial areas and will be 3-5 cents per hour. and this is a pilot and want to take this to a residential your and that's where we want to w with supervisors and commune groups to figure out where woeful can puff hangers in a neighborhood and so a person can't walk up a flight of stairs
8:22 am
with their bike may be there is a hang are out front. coordinating with a property or community group thshg is another pilot we want to take on. last low mobility hubs. we truly have approximately 400 thousand dollars from mtc it impelement a mobility hub. and mobile hub is not just long-term bike parking but considered like e bike charging or scooter charging. way finding signs. transit information and that -- so we want to we are looking at finding a place to have a mobility hub and look to transbay tower, talking to tgpa and they have concerns about vandalism and safety.
8:23 am
also east cut the east cut community benefit's district downtown. and then i think tht future there are other opportunity like the ferry building. and potential leave west perral a down size small are version. i think the future we heard about bike valletal can train approximate bart dun town oak land has a bike station there is a person haacceptings your bike and check in your bike and releases it when you arrive or chase center or the baseball stadium. and see that there is an opportunity here as well. identifying location is important both where there their is high density and -- many cyclists coming in and leaving. so i think this is another area we have potential.
8:24 am
thank you. happy to take questions. grit to share the floor with my colleagues and thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i got a question about the hangers. how capable are those of accommodating the over sized bikes >> good question as they are designed now they are not. i will remove the parking out of them because as you can see in the picture, yes, thank you. the bike is the width it is 6 feet wide and the space is 7 to 8 feet wide it is on an anxiety they'll is something we can look to in the future. but it would remove some parking from inside. >> okay. i think the only other thing, i guess when we consider the choice the best choices for mobility hubs, and i then and
8:25 am
there is we are probably noticing blind we don't know when and how downtown is coming back. there are questions out of the pandemic. do you have thoughts on had would being if you wave the wand and get funds and everything to best serve the people using bikes what will you say among the choices would be the best mobility hub locations? >> um -- definitely downtown where the commuters are. i think trans bay term until. and which is within close proximity. i have lots of questions go ahead supervisor preston. >> thank you. and thanks for your presentation and thank you supervisor dorsey for calling for the hashing interesting and important and i know, legality of focus of hearing was more on the bike
8:26 am
garages and transit stations. since the presentation included the hang are pilot i wanted just ask you about that. and let me say at the out set would love to pilot some of these the hangers in district 5. and not just at the stations and around stations. i'm wondering if you e will beerate youer your colleagues the process for someone when may want to try a hanger in a residential neighborhood in terms of siding and the time frame as well as available funding. how do we get these as you suggested in other residential neighborhoods? >> so, i think, great question. that is something we need to develop and talk to and you know we are happy to talk to the various supervisors where it makes sense.
8:27 am
i think you know a high level a medium density neighborhood with supporting community groups that are supporting the commuting by bike would be great. and we currently don't have capitol fund in hundred to do a purchase of additional hangers though than i are not expensive. they are a magnitude of 10 thousand dollars per hanger. the question come to operation and maintenance we are good at buying but strug weloperation and maintenance. i think identified funding whethering it is through the ta or a great source i think force force it is achievable. >> and what statute process? if there are some level of communal interest and getting in
8:28 am
piloting a hang are in i location and 10 circumstance or whatever is identified in the budget or done through budget process or add backs whatever it is, what is there, the pilot i don't know subject to the notification, hearing all that or does it what it is the process for doing it if the funding. >> we have not map today out when we think about it we think about it as bike parking and at the mt aboard engineer hearing we legislate as bike parking. i think may be a call like fwheed to define t. men a call out to commune groups or specific residential buildings are you interested in this. give. sends i letter and application press. to be determined. >> okay. looking forward to learning more and working with you i want it say again appreciate the hearing looking forward to the conversation on this and i think
8:29 am
it is really is match the the reality of the fact what was hundreds are now thousand in most when, lot of people are riding when people move to electric bikes and other. and so. -- you know the the -- theft issue and concerns i think are a real deterrent for, lot of people from using bikes more often as the main form of transportation and i think piloting and experimenting with these more protected ways of storing bicycle system essential. thank you, again. for your work on this. >> thank you. thank you. and thank you supervisor dorsey. for this. i have lots of question and of course comments. your clothes. for the mta heard me say kin low, i don't think that we prioritize bikes in the town.
8:30 am
we don't. i think if we did we valid a plan with a time line. and you know funding mandate and we don't. so i think we can say yea this is all noise but when you say you know this could be a pilot if neighbors wanted it they could call and we will put together a program this is in the acceptable to me. we should have a program and should have you know a form and something this is 'where neighbors can apply online. you know and we should have it mapped out in the city of where the things would be the most fortunate. people who live up in the hills who don't have modes of transportation i feel like somebody at mta should put plan forward. buff, side from my editorializing i want to go to the map you had in the presentation where the bike facilities are. you had a map.
8:31 am
>> and i want to point out. that there is nothing in my district. like not a single facility. and i have the largest district in the city. it bums mow out. we have several you know transportation hubs. you mentioned wept perral. i know of there is nothing in westportal nor have i heard about plans there is nothing in forest hit despite it cross from laguna honda hospital employs i bunch offect in which will see an expansion of dp heart attack personnel with parking lots across the street from a muni station and no bike parking. there it is no short term bike parking on west perral or laguna honda or on dewy at all. will i'm like wondering what is the plan? i really want it. i am a bike rider but i think that we have a climate action
8:32 am
plan with very time you have been specific goals. and it seems like this does not match that. nor the bike lanes but if we are talking about bike parking let's talk about this. when like what is the time line. which will it be role? >> westportal come to our attention in the past. and forest hill y. and forest hill. and i think upon we have a mobile up grid now to cans trait to dun town looking forward the mt c guarantee tell come up and look to. >> how does this make senseful you know you know district 7 and 4 are the most car department areas. and to get to public transportation you need somehow get there so i'm questioning why the emphasis on downtown if we than the real problem is people driveway to west perral parking
8:33 am
for free without having bike facilities or another way to have alternative transportation why is emphasis on downtown? >> i think the rate of commuter coming in from the east bay. >> right. and various places i think in the money time we can look at more immediate bicycle chorals and biking opportunity near the hospital and westportal. and that's manage we did to right away and in the meantime we can also yea. look to i can look at our sxaejs say what other funding opportunity do we have. >> you could ownership present us with a plan. and may be all of us together you have been could make it happen. >> i foal like supervisor preston exit have been asking for since we have been on the board together.
8:34 am
you know, like i don't understand why this is like such. >> we will bring you a plan in your district >> all right. >> as well as you supervisor preston. joy want to fully second that. and success chair megovern for the clarity. and i think this i'm happy to work and mta is responsive when we approach you on districts specific issues like this and my district is overwhelmingly in favor of anything we can do whether bike lanes or improving a bicycle storage. but i do think that a citied with scompln almost you know i understanding there may be districts supervisors or residents who may have issues with a location or how bold to be on a time line and so forth. i recognize i think we all
8:35 am
recognize there may be differences. by district but that does not mean that should not prethroughed there being a -- a more bolder plan around this is where we are trying to get to. across the city and then coming to our various offices with you know feed become on that plan. that will be my opinion a better way for us to move forward but we are happy to continue working with you on when we can pilot in your district. i had one more question that is around security parking for caring over bicycles and also for nonstandard bikes and you know so -- like i have a lot of hill in my district and know a
8:36 am
lot of folk who is made the transition to e bikes and folk who is have the victorians i have a coworker who does not have a way to park an electric bike. and i think it would be great if we had you know those options piloted. not just the standard bike locker and i'm not sure if this is just secure parking but a way to incentivize what you want to see. i often wonder why we are not pursuing more like trisickles for folks who have mobile impair am or the alternatives. bicycles or tricycle in the markets this will help folks and there is lit irrelevant nowhere to leave them or p them. short term or long-term
8:37 am
wonder if we could explore some of those as limp kills mow we have free parking for occurs but little for bikes. and so in whatever you guys have in terms of a plan or study i would like to include those other mobility devices. and also try to figure out what of the universe is of need. because i know this you know going around town with my bike i pay 7 times out of 10 the short term parking this is available on sidewalks is used up by scooters or a private you know -- and there is no place to look my bike. and i support this we should have alternative mobility devices since they are use
8:38 am
whatting little is available where does this leave us. what plan come forward i like us to quantify the full need. this world is moving fast. you know. thank goodness it wered having transportation this are less car department and want people to do it i would like that. thank you. >> thank you. chair melgar and voice chair preston exit will add i will be asking for that joining you in making sure we do pursue this as a plan also. i'm aware the it came up to climate action plan by 2030, 80% of trips have to be low carbon trip this is is not lost on me that not to be presumptious this is the end of my second term. this would be something that
8:39 am
would be during my time here hopefulful leave this will be a prior for me as well as my colleagues. thank you very much for your presentation. one more you are i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> i just want to invite final speaker remote joannea from urban environmentalit teeing off the forward looking urbannist view of this i love for joannea if you are available? >> i am. >> hello. and thank you for having me remote i'm recovering [inaudible] [inaudible] so i'm joannea i'm the executive director of urban environmentalist i mom that is a bicyclist i had my bike stolen off the street in front of my
8:40 am
house. thank you for the opportunity to speak and appreciate the passion you have shown on the issue. of i will be standing on several brought up i will need residential on street. secure parking for all bicycle types. and then other options the city should consider or pilot in the near term. first i will mention those key goals that help address thez this have come up city wide net zero missions by 20 for you and the number one is transportation. 80 percent sustainable 2030. vision zero by 2024.
8:41 am
over 20 pr more e bicycles sold over car making e bikes the most popular vehicle type by far. not just walingy folks even families e bike. cost an order of magnitude les then and there a new car. they are venting e bikes long-term it cut costs and be more anymore scombel cross all types of bikes the demographic like low to bicycle in the suz in the the white man in span decks it is latinose. supporting bicycling is in the
8:42 am
just about the climate and [inaudible] those are hugely important it is economic and racial justice issue. however, residential on street secure parking for all bicycle types is an important issue and it is essential to enabling the widespread bicycling that we [inaudible] destinations are important everybody brings their vehicle home at night. and unless you work the night shift if you own a vehicle it is unavoidable. i'm right the car if you don't have a safe place to store your bike over night tell get stolen. they are too few people to deter crimes if you dent have a safe spout will probably not get a bike. it is so overwhelmingly risky that near low all bike insurance
8:43 am
plans refuse to cover a bike on the street over night t. is a nonstarter for those insurance companies and a nonstarter for residents. too. unfortunately, a lot of san francisco don'ts have secure bike storage at home. i live inn a 1907 vicktoryian upstairs no garage. as a woman i can't carry a bike heavier then and there a road bike. my family e bike is 80 pounds. my family partner folding bike is 26 pounds but bulky i cannot carry either one. them. my solution is to disgoiz my e bike as a motorcycle cover it with motorcycle cover approximate hope for the get takes nenlts to unelectric it
8:44 am
when i want to use it. we cannot expect this of the general public. my wagz is typical about 60% of san francisco households are in large are buildings. that density is great for bicycle and the plan and he need more. but a high percentage of the existing multifamily residents are unlikely to have secure bike park and of course, low are income residents least like low to have garage access and tragic when i low income person invest in i e bike to have it stole 47 an apartment lobby. according to the e bike shop [inaudible] the number one reason people walk nothing stores not buying a bike because occurrence about storage and theft at home. and yes. we have [inaudible] as annual
8:45 am
alternative but does not work for families with kids or appeal on [inaudible] or folks who don't questions of law foil for the discount but can't afford the regular fee to pay them. luck low, there are venders offering secure on street bicycle park with business models. some focus on commercial seths many have rential [inaudible]. for this portion i would like to ask erika to share my one slide with pictures of a few commercially available models. you see on the bottom left many models do not accommodate e bikes cargo or [inaudible] bikes which are large are than traditional bikes. you see in this design. earlier they were on angles that this one here on the bottom left is one of the longest bikes
8:46 am
there is. there are options. and while san francisco may not be used to seeing bike storage on the street it is less intrusives a car. the structures are shorter then and there most cars and much small are then and there an suv or truck. there are different designs some have payment options or apps or turn key business models otherers low tech men go on the pavement. smallest cost 2 thousand dollar and large are cover more. some companies include uni~ bake barn, cycle hoop and [inaudible] there are options they have been around for decades and it it is in the rocket science.
8:47 am
thanks erika. so, yea. policy wide this could be really simple. here are a few ways we can make this happen in the near term. the simplest option is expand the shared spaces to allow residents structure on the street in front of the house or at the nearest intersection. help with the maintenance issues brought up earlier. alternateively the public works code section 726 moving crates on the street and have something similar [inaudible]. you can preapprove projects or providers [inaudible]. more complex but also equitable
8:48 am
a city run program to install residential bike storage lockers. the programs existed for decade in europe. user may be charged 10 dollars a month. we should start with a pilot. residence denials could rent spots or first come first serves long there is enough. the city could explore pilot lookers across the city or hangers or pilot link nothing one neighborhood to simulate a [inaudible]. but no matter how we move forward it is important to consider how this will be affordable and accessible. and a permit for a car is 165 dollars a year. asking residence dens to pay 1500 for a permit and 2500 for a
8:49 am
storage structure is not fit with the city goals and inhibit adoption on low and middle income people in san francisco. our shared fais spaces program [inaudible] and will start [inaudible]. perhaps this program could be phase in the. received [inaudible] after all kinks have been worked out. process needs to be simple and quick. . getting a permit require a long review. hearings or support and approval for from your neighbor and secure bike park suggest smaller than a car and better for the environment. a bicycle park permit should be at least as easy and automatic a process. supervisor melgar online form sounds great to me. i personal low have been waiting since spring for an out door bike rack on my street if we
8:50 am
want to meet vision zer over and mode share coming up stoon soon we need our residential secure bike parking programs to be faster and designed to scale. i close by saying we have options to roll out secure residential on street bike park negligent near term and it it is important to enable widespread bicycling boy all of san francisco [inaudible] for the state of our community and planet i hope you move quickly and i'm ready to answer questions. thank you. i don't have requesty. i appreciate that was a great emphasis to what we were talking
8:51 am
about and this it is yell we need to do this i think you made a glat point and want to thank you and mr. maddox and others for taking per in this. and also my colleagues vice chair preston and chair melgar and peskin public comment >> thank you. go to public comment. >> thank you. are there members who would like to speak approach the podium and line up to the right. those online you need to press star 3. if you have not done so you have 2 minutes. thank you. luke here. first thank you to supervisor dorsey for work on this hearing. as well as staff for their work. as you know bike parking is lacking. and it lacks and using bike for transportation worsens the
8:52 am
climate crisis and traffic safety crisis and make our city less liveable. there are solutions we can pilot immediately. get more people riding backs and improve traffic safety am install daylighting space throughout the city. especially with high rates of bike usage. injuries of people walking or people park p. it will increase bike parking near people's home and businesses and ensure this people don't park cars in the space meant to be clear to increase safe walking. give people logical place to park scooters. we should pilot secure bike park for example family cargo and electronic bike in residential neighborhoods. joannea eludeed park of family
8:53 am
cargo or e bike is owning or reasoning a garage or storing on the street and hoping for the bechlt making it environmentally friends low choice less accessible for people who can't afford the additional expense. this is an issue our city should address i'm ready to help the city create that pilot. organize pilot anticipate and provide feedback. i unencourage to you you and sfmta to work with community members to impelement solutions immediately. thank you. >> thank you. are there other member this is would like to speak. approach the podium. seeing none we move to the remote line we have 4 listeners request 2 in the queue. the first caller you have 2 minutes. hello i'm dave calling on behalf
8:54 am
of kid face. thank you to supervisor dorse. it is important top highlight the secure bike park needed for all bikes cargo and e bikes kids at school, et cetera. the major hurdle for people consider shifting trips to cars and encourage to invest newscast infrastructure. it looks like the hearing focused on sfmta garageless we encourage to broaden focus on street, secure bike park. which was a soma pilot scrapped before the pandemic. thank you. >> thank you firefighter your comment ones. the last caller. the next caller. >> hi. this is patricia [inaudible] resident of the sunset this anything an interesting discussion and see there is a need for more bike parking.
8:55 am
but i am deeply concerned about san francisco government. and the bike coalition. monopolizing the climate change the climb action plan make its clear that remember as a strategy, biking is worth 1% of reducing green house gases. getting drivers in to electric vehicles is 81% effective but i have yet to hear any agency saying anything about funding charging stations. or creating incentives to get people in electric vehicles. you will never achieve 80% e
8:56 am
mission free transit. modes of transportation. until you start considering electric vehicle support. them is a fool's error thinking that everybody am ride a bike. that is not going to happen. but we have to lower green house gas e missions and you are not doing it. please start being reasonable any climate change and doing what needs to be done. it is in the bikes. beaks are not the answer. that is a 1 raindrop in the pacific ocean in terms of effectiveness. i would really hope you start reading the climate action plan. look at page 77. >> thank you for sharing your comments, next speaker, please.
8:57 am
>> hi. i'm jake i'm rich monresident and i am a bike roadwayer with my family and a driver. i believe that charging stations deploy am would be part of a separate hearing and separate program or project. which i think is valid. as for secure bike storage i ask in the future that planning done looking piloting it in the concourse garage, alcohol be managed in the future. and implement thanks bike park thering is in the secure and unsafe and asking that the program managers of this possible programs also look at community space like kennedy center, school and other city
8:58 am
locations. thank you. i'm done speaking >> thank you. we have one more caller. take that caller you have 2 minutes. >> i'm trish i'm a resident in district 1. i really want to thank the supervisor for raise thanksgiving personal issue. so i am a mom of 2 boys who community to and from sdool school every day on bikes. i have shifted commuting on my bike since we had to [inaudible] and i want to add that i think that bike parking is extremely important as a family we had about 5 bikes stolen. and -- it is critical for us to feel safe when we are biking and running short err ends and want to be able to feel we and bike
8:59 am
and store our bikes. when we park. and in addition to the public garages i would love for the xhugz to be expanded other locations around the city of san francisco including skew, community centers and grocery stores and other places where we visit for daily activities. thank you very much. thank you supervisor dorsey. i uponed talk a bilt if you could give me a moment about the public comments i thank you is a misconception what ouriment climb action plan says it does in the sigh move to electric car skws approximate 81% more effective than riding bikes. what is say system that is what the staff are projecting.
9:00 am
you know it will happen for us to get to the numbers we need. it is a nuance i want to make sure that we all understand wham we are talking about. riding bikes of course is not for everyone. but a lot more being be riding than currently are and would if they had a safe accomplice it store and i have to add it is awe some. for this alone it would be great if it were safer and be great if people could be assured their investments will not get stolen. thank you supervisor dorsey. if i could have one small question before i turn it over for to you close up. to -- and they take the head off
9:01 am
the meters. and you know i see in other places they are turned to bike parking by putting the t or circle is there a program to do this as we replace those meters? next for the question we have looked at that. what we have seen in other ecstasy the bike parking that goos top of the poles is not good bike is not as secure and hart hard to park. when we are doing is working with parking matter team to go through the areas where they remove and prioritizing those for standard stap will racks we feel a better bike parking solution we want to take vaj of the space open with the switched from sing toll multispace meters
9:02 am
>> is it really happening. >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. go ahead and close it out. >> thank you so much. clothes and i want to thank everyone for the great w and i like to make a motion to file a hearing. >> on that motion supervisor dorsey? >> aye yoochl supervisor preston. >> aye >> supervisor melgar. >> aye >> you have 3 aye's >> thank you that motion passes. and then please if you could call the last item. item 5 amending the planning code to sez iing nay st. james presbyterian church as a lan mark and affirming promote
9:03 am
findings. member who is would like it speak call 415-655-0001, 2496 118 4005 ## and press star 3 to enter the queue. i am in receipt of remarks by the president. >> okay. du should we are that first in i believe this was his opening remarks for the matter. the item buffer an ordinance to landmark for the st. james presbyterian church in visitacion valley through a commune process. visitacion valley has no land mark and this will be the first. the resolution on this was heard in committee and passed by the full board the past july. president walton like to thank the visitacion history project sf heritage, planning the
9:04 am
historic preservation commission and community member when is worked on this. requesting this to be recommended as a mittee report tomorrow's full board meeting and thank you for your time >> thank you. i see the pastor here from st. james before we hear frulet's hear from valley at city planning who i think is joining online. >> i'm remote and have a coup of slides to share if i get that ability. i will elevate you in a second. good afternoon. planning staff.
9:05 am
thank you supervisor walton and chair melgar to present on this designation the board's resolution initiating designation heard by the historic preservation commission on november second of 22. vein james presbyterian church established 1908 one of the oldest in visitacion valley. the mission revivalal building replaced first chapel construct in the 1922, 23 based on the design by architect julian morgan. the board resolution was heard by historic preservation at this hearing the historic projection
9:06 am
heard public comment in support and voted unanimously to approve recommending designation of the st. james presbyterian church retains integrity and he historically significant for association with early development of visitacion neighborhood and excellent example of the work of architect of merit julian morgan. thank you. i will take questions. >> thank you, thank you for your w on this item. if my clothes don't have questions let's go to public comment we have the pedestrianor here >> thank you, madam chair we have one present. approach for opinion comment you have 2 minutes those online, press star 3. of >> thank you supervisors. i must say i had enough education this afternoon about from gas stations, bike racks, storage and other things.
9:07 am
maintenance. you are not you are moving a report to the full board not just of a static be landmark. but what you are going to vote is part of a process of the community of recouping the legacy of this building. but this is in the just an is the people behind the build and gone through generations of different groups. caucasian groups. pacific island irs, asians lately but it is moving that legacy of faith and community. as the pastor of this church, i reallimented come here and i'm enjoy my time here i live in the east bay i rare low am in the city. but it is just the joy of participating in the commune process. you know, we talk about gas
9:08 am
stations and bike racks but you are talking about people, real peep and relationships in the community. seeing this building to be landmark for us we are the small congregation is a good thing for us to say we are part of visitacion valley. and would like to provide a mraz a good place for wellness in the community. for peace in the community. and so at the moment we have started working with community groups how to do this and move this forward. as -- for will be a growing community. i was told this there will be housing developments. thank you for your comments. >> thank you >> thank you. we move it remote call in line we have one in the queue.
9:09 am
>> hello i'm carrie young from preservation organization san (heritage. we are so prud to support the designateination will hopeful low be visitacion valley first land mark with the introduction of the pacific islander cultural district by walton's office landmarking st. james is an important first step in recognizing visitacion valley over looked historic resources. communities, history and the neighborhood's contributions to san francisco as a whole. and we want to thank the visitacion valley history project. congregation of st. james the pastor hernandez and nat low and supervisor walton for working with sf heritage on this nomination this process has been
9:10 am
a true community effort and encourage the committee to approve this item for the full board and i wanted to echo pastor hernandez on the church really growing in the role as a center for the community identity and again we are moued proud football a part of this nomination. thank you. and it looks like we have one more caller. that completes the queue. >> thank you. public comment is closed. madam clerk like to make a mowing we move in item forward with a positive recommendation as a committee report. >> on that motion supervisor dorsey. why aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> that motion pass thank you.
9:11 am
madam clerk do we other items on the agenda. why that completes the accident. >> for sure >> thank you, we are adjourned. clear clear
9:12 am
9:13 am
9:14 am
9:15 am
9:16 am
9:17 am
9:18 am
9:19 am
9:20 am
9:21 am
9:22 am
9:23 am
9:24 am
9:25 am
9:26 am
9:27 am
9:28 am
9:29 am
9:30 am
9:31 am
9:32 am
9:33 am
9:34 am
9:35 am
9:36 am
9:37 am
9:38 am
9:39 am
9:40 am
9:41 am
9:42 am
9:43 am
9:44 am
9:45 am
9:46 am
9:47 am
9:48 am
9:49 am
9:50 am
9:51 am
9:52 am
9:53 am
9:54 am
9:55 am
9:56 am
9:57 am
9:58 am
9:59 am
10:00 am