elevated over the year we scaled become in the square we have a footprint there but scaled back. we have to address all of that. we have to reflect on the conversation because it is very tough questions are asked. we will reflect and make adjustments. . and any part of the city. so it is more involved then and there just shopping. i -- but echo or agree with my

colleague supervisor safai. i think the investment in downtown are important. i represent district 8. and i want to see a boat officer on 24th strept and i want to see folks walking a boat boat in the castro and i believe that san francisco earned a national and international reputation that is detrimental to our having tourists visitors and coming in our downtown and we have retailers closing doors and leaving. i think that. potential low threatens our budget to the hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars. trying to chink that perception

and give people a feeling of safety upon around visits it san francisco will. it is important. the balance is in the right and may be i should demand more in district 8. but i think that spending this over time to try to change that perception of whether san francisco is safer, and whether it it is i safe place to visit is important. why supervisor, if i can add to what the chief and you have said. there are many individual this is conduct retail theft. many are retail robberies by force or fear the property is taking. they are oceaned. come throughout the bay area and they come to san francisco. when than i see officers we prevent it. make can is its a burglar unit we address temperature when we let our guard down it sends i

message to those involved through the the bay that san francisco is the accomplice to come we are not organizes or prepared or. this is a fact. i'm here to advocate for the sunset had want and need more popular the station serving the sunset lost half of officers since 2020. only 7 officers are patrolling an area population of 130,000. those 7 officers confer i huge area from twin peeks to the ocean, golden gate to daily city. 7 is not enough when you consider the sunset station is number 2 in priority b call. and up there with the tenderloin in priority acalless. this is in the a quiet and

slopey sunset. 7 officer system not enough when i seat sunset stipulation is number 3 in over time back fill. officers are sick orred others work moreover time and can't go a night without officer its is essential until we hire enough permanent officers. we are short more then and there 500 officers. 500 more officers are eligible to retoire in youn and many will. the last academy graduated 12 the current, cad mow has 8 cadets this will not cut t. more money is in the the only solution. we need this funding. we can tuck about the reason we have i police staffing crisis because too few people want to be a police officer anymore.

that is where we have to change the narrative. we remember we are talking about people. our police officers are people. they are diverse and serving the highest standard, our police department praised by the california d. justice for implementing 90% of needed reforms we need to let people finish is honorable to be a police officer in san francisco we value and support our police officers thoodz how we want to make people be a police officer in san francisco and avoid the over time problem. i have a question for you chief scott. i hear that -- compared 5 and 10

years ago we have command staff the command staff has grown, ballooned. are we too top heavy? do we need to look at that? >> when the board approved prop e and that process that brought matrix consulting a very, very well regarded consulting firm they look at our command staff, staffing we are where we should be and other diameters look at percentages and we look at this. when you look at %s from rink and file we are -- probably the lower end honest low. the thing is this one of the

issues when it come to command staff. . of course, informly people gravitate to the streets that's had they see and feel and driveways what we are talking about. but a well run police department also adds to efficiency and adds to everything we talk about recruitment. and with reform there are their responsibilities on this staff we never had before review process and the policy development and the police commission star in 3 millions we have 2 orders funding the police commission we got the more general orders then and there we did instead prior 20 years

combined. those things each has an executive sponsor the command staff who will shepherd that through the process. i can't begin it tell you how many meetings we have to mic make ourselves more efficient general orders and collaborative reform in addition to the crime meetings the chief holds. that is when administration is. we have add administrators and upper level approximate figure am. had you have lapses in over sty and add stragdz and a command staff that is too small that happens. we seen it over and over. our members on the lower end to departments our size and birth.

we are about where we need to be that's what the consulting firm confirmed for us. president peskin e louded to the burn out factor when people work so much over time the report hes tw 41 sworn officers not available for full duty. should is 17% higher. what is driving that the burn out fact over or anything else. why in is medical. disciplinary. military leave. we have family leave. this city is a family friends low city. in termless of accommodating work schedules for family wagzs and the like and right of employees to have a baby and you are able to take leave much that is factor in we are in the 30 for 30 this is had i will tell you is -- part of my calculation

had i got in and going and talking to different people. mark for identification our women in the department. you was told the reason i don't want to promote is because i want to raise a family and raise my kids. this should not happen. you know. we -- have the work environment. of using there rights to take our time to -- take care of families that is encouraged. i tell you in my travels in this procession fegz there of a time where it wasn't. if we want to be that city we understand this may cause increase in the rates we are

talking b. i think it is worth the effort it is the right thing to do. >> thank you. birch go to supervisor ronen. i wanted start to wrap up this presentation. and i just want to reiterate what the director had talked about. before we sort of go on this question back and forth and conversation, which i appreciate. i think this for better or worse i say thank you chief scott for being here. thank you assistant cho for being here and answering the questions, it is necessary to have this conversation. i agree nano matter how we express on ourselves i think this i have to say collectively what you have here from my clothes on the west side and the east side and the southeast sector of the city, when we are saying we want police officers

in our district. we hear from our constituents we demand safety that is when i started the conversation and we shared the values of public safety. and i think this is there are few thing this is line up to say you know we understand we want to understand you know -- what does your strategy for the fact you have higher than 17% higher than usual of officer on leave. how do you address that? we want to hear from you. what is your moving forward. how are you meeting recruitment goal. we see that you have a 10 year goals and steps and how are you making those targeted goals and whether you do or do not. that you will is will will leading what supervisor ronen is about to do. and we have seen according to the budget and legislative analyst report saying most of these when we are see nothing terms of over time they are new

program. and that we want to understand the cause effectiveness and whether it is the delivering the result this is we think it statute delivering. when i'm seeing what you are seeing the way you highlight it was there is a differents with patrolling and police presence. and i think my clothes mentioned the businesses the reason why supervisor safai has the 10a program he legislated and established with the sheriff's d. i think there are other ways we can tackle the retail theft and we have been trying. make sure we keep track with the strategy and wills those we look forward to seeing the result and i wanted really again have direct, thank you, for working with us. and me my office and the board president peskin and along with

police departments and figuring out that today the cost saving we understand how critical tell is to dip in general fund reserves. let's scale back and given the budget deficit crisis we are facing now. what can we do to even the few opinion will help to go a long way i appreciate the effort to figure out not take away from police officers.

i will,000 it prierz ronen. moving forward you having having conversation with. um -- so i think this it is only right that -- we continue this conversation. it is not just about spending but issue counselability and moving forward and making progress. and then on a side note i want to say my colleagues talk the mandates and demands of constituent and districts which

i share, i say that i'm so grill to the richmond police station. if you electric at over time and the police officers, richmond station has the least resources. truly. it does. you look at the graph i want to give a shout out to the captain and his team for holding down the fortfor the richmond and giving this we have 3 critical neighboring/commercial corridors clement street. balboa and geary it is not like we don't have the issues that all of us face. and downtown -- we face issues like downtown. we have issue like break in burglars. we in fact we had a cadillacic converter theft this turned shooting. and the suspects went in institute of aging.

i'm grateful for the officers involved. no shooting involved. at all. no one was injured i'm grateful and that is the w we want to see that delivering safety without jeopardizing anyone else safety and everybody walked, way without injuries. this is the police work we want to see. with this i will turn it over to -- i want to say, the 20. 5 we are to 25.3 i will turn this over to prierz ronen but i'm going to acknowledge this supervisor safai and walton have remarks but with this i would life to prierz walton to close out on this item and move forward to the public works and

we have the public waiting for public comment. why i will be quick. thank you for saying you will relook at redeplayment exit wanted make an amendment to item 2, this for fiscal 22-23 the police department report on a biweekly basis to the board on full duty staffing level and over time use by neighborhood. >> thank you. >> a second? >> i think we will hold a motion. and go to public comment and come become and dot motion together. why put it on record. >> the motion to amend and this is including i will make. yes we will come become with the megz. >> sorry. cho. >> i'm going to police. >> i want to say thank you, and i ask the commission up stirs if there are no further questions i'm upstairs.

assist an choefr president tome is here i can stick around the questioning is over i think if i could -- okay. >> i never got my request answered it is quick. chair are talked about saving 2-1/2 million we were appropriateed make a motion to increase the allocation to the districts. that is when we got from our c footwork o3 million dollars. we are almost there will if allocated if this money were allocated,ed your department you'd lois this money to fill. the question is -- are there -- have you reached capacity on over time. if you had a bit more and able to double the amount of allocation to the district.

station. from 53 to over a hundred could you mote that demand. >> yes , sir. we work with the major's budget office and -- to determine wham the scheduled be based on when we needed and we were thought about this process. that's what we believe we needed. i said there is a difference with surviving and thriving and yes if we had additional funding the board went this way. absolutely we can use that is equal of 20 officers per day. we can did a lot with this. 00 i wanted to be clear i think there is difference opinion you motorbike at the capacity of over time. and if you had moreover time not for other pers of the city but if you could folk us and get this money for the district stations think you fill it. sounds like, yes. why thank you. >> thank you.

supervisor walton. >> thank you chair chan. chief thank you for coming in and reporting today. appreciate youeen though we don't always agree. you know i'm glad we have the conversations for the public. why absolutely. appreciate the tough questions thank you. why thank you, chief. >> thank you, and now we will go to now to public works for item on the is up elemental and today we have director carla short. i think we will just directly go to director short for your presentation. >> good afternoon. thank you, chair chan the board. carla hor for know front public works. i will go fair leave quickly through the very brief presentation today. we were asked to pull together costs for a potential

supplemental appropriation. we have put together a budget for 25 million dollars supplemental appropriation include an additional 42 general labelerors allows us to add for every supervisor district as well as to improve our bag and tag processing. in addition, we are proposing 5 general labor supervisor 1's. these will supervisor initial new staff as well as the bag and tag process and one supervisor 2. to over see this new staff. we are proposing sick truck drivers. like to increase the number of packer trucks the big garbage like trucks we have. we would add a packer truck to each district would allow our

crews to transfer their leds in the peculiarer truck rather then and there taking them to ricology we would have our manual cleaners on the streets more of the day. we are proposing 2 street imspect ares to catch up on existing challenges we face graffiti. we saw an increase in graffiti the city paused enforcement due to the pandemic. if we add 2 inspectors and you will see we are proposeings to add funding for our contract. we feel we can regain control and moving forward expect our existing staff able it maintain that program. and then important low we are proposing 39 what we call 9916's an entry level position. the block cleaners we have that

are effective and this would allow us to increase 3 block cleaners per supervisorial district. and then an additional block cleaners for district 10, district 9 and district 5 where we need an enhandled project. we had some nonlabor items come funding for a graffiti contract that would help us to manage graffiti trying to get people to opt in we will abate the graffiti for businesses and property owners and so that contract allow us to do that. we are proposing to rent steam cleaners. i should emphasize this every district get their own steam cleaner. this is the biggest requests we get for service we have them localized rather than responded city wide and then we are

proposing 20 additional illegal dumping cam ares. they are license place reader intended get the bad actors coming from other accomplice in the bay your and dumping in san francisco. so we would have an additional 20 illegal dumping cameras part of this and we are planning rent the steam trucks initial low and procure them to have them for the future to have that increased steamer presence in the districtless. that's the sum row, next slide. this is showing our 311 service orders for cloning. they have been going up. we do see had a record number and fy22. seeing the small reductions we think that has to do with more proactive cloning because the tonnage numbers continued to increase. our 311 requests gone down.

we thank you is i reflection of the proactive cloning we have been doing and the next slide will show it is the boots on the ground cleaners picking up the debris. so this is i think a good slide the gray columns are mechanical sweepers the big trucks. rain bow columnless the manual cleaning crews they pick up more deborder patrol. debris the streets don't always stay clean but than i are clone and seeing the increase in tonnage if the board gives us resources we are confident we could put them it good use and thank you for the opportunity and available for questions. >> thank you, i think president peskin.

in dam chair, i want it thank yourself supervisors ronen, preston and safai for cosponsorship. i know there are many people waiting to testify on this i will say not another word. >> thank you i appreciate it and supervisor ronen. gi will be quick and say i'm excited i want to scream and jumpum and down one who i don't know i never been a patrol officer i have no idea what it is like to be a popular i spend time picking up trash in my district and it is heard work. it is in the surprising the amount i collect in a short time is e normous i'm not surprised you are seeing the tonnage. i want to say, thank you i love this and cannot wit to get this in district 9 and the packing

truck, it is exciting. thank you. you have my enthusiastic support. >> thank you supervisor ronen. supervisor walton. thank you, a couple of quick questions when i would going to ask is huthis will help it curtail illegal dumping. i'm excited about the cameras. realliment to narrow down a time line we have been working on this for a long time. >> thank you you really -- fund the the initial 5 cameras and we would add additional city wide. you know we found a vendor after an initial vender who deposit bout out.

we are entering an agreement with the vend and have them on board in a couple mons.

actual flee make good progress. we gotten the vacancy rate in the street bureau services, it's about 21 plt 2 percent right now. because we're in the process of on boarding these classes, we can bring in those additional people. >> thank you, thank you *, thank you for the presentation. we have bla report, my apologies. >> thank you, chair. quickly, items 3 and 4 are two ordinances one which would provide 25 million dollars from the genre serve to public works and fund. that means if this money is not spent into this year, it rolls back to next fiscal year.

also also adding 56 positions and we detail the changes on page 14 of our report. which shows that this is about a 24% increase on staffing for street clean anding graffiti abatement. there is a about 25% vacancy rate. it's for those reasons that these positions be time limited. or the board can make a change in the process. we do consider approval from the board. >> thank you, i just want to reiterate, we should definitely consider the recommendation from the bla report limiting, amending the position to

three-year limit daouration, with that i just wanted quickly go to item 5 and 6 and reminding everybody that we heard the items last week, we had a city department's presentation. i do know that there are actually here and thank you so much for being here for this whole time and ready to answer any questions that we may have. that we have a conversation with with the mayor's office about these two contracts, it's about the urgency for us to really streamline all the ambassador programs that we have in the city. >> thank you, chair. so these items were continued from last week because of the amendment to extend these contracts through december 31 through the end of the calendar year in order to not to interrupt services on july 1,

2023, three days after we negotiate the budget. we also discussed and committed that the on going level of funding for these two contracts will be determined in the budget process and we will be collaborating in with supervisors and other supervisors and multiple department which to look what way to deploy. i want to reiterate one the commitment to have that conversation and two, suggest another amendment which would change the contract daouration to october 15, 2023 from december in order to reflect the fact that these departments would come back, to right size the contract. so that october timeline, that means they're coming back immediately after the budget, the board recesses, the board's august recess to make that change. and we look forward to on going

discussions with you all and again to figure out, the on going and next year's budget amount through the budget process. >> thank you, so much. with that we appreciate everyone and your presentation, we will discuss motion in details but i think we have some ideas what is before us today. i just want to reiterate the motion before open to public comment, in case if the public wants to make comment buzz the motion that we have put on the floor that you can as well. so there is the motion, that, supervisor ro nen made for the police to come back to report back overtime spending we have a motion for 25 million dollars and we have the motion from

ambassador contract to scale back to october 15, 2023 of this, you know. so those are the things that we will be making decisions on and then some. so here we are and mr. clerk, please open to public comment. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. members of the public who wish to speak should now be lining up to speak along the curtain for those listening remotely. once connected you'll have to speak 13 to begin your comments on the items, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on today's agenda so. if you begin speaking, i will start your time.

>> speaker: it's showing now, merchant's pads and we're just fed up. i support the money for both departments. one of my, two of my areas have surprised two highways two axillary highways and a bridge. the majority of middle of our neighborhood contrary to comment is middle class. we're dealing with, asian hate right now, we had a stabbing last night. we had the similar break in at the end of last month at our small business photo shop. we had our bags stolen, we have one person who is coming down

the street and terrorizing the young women that are under 5-2. we have a couple that have terrorized the whole neighborhood that for the first time in 30 years, we're puting a restraining from walgreens and putting 30 more after that and i've never done that in my life before. we're in a bind right now, not just us, but all the neighbors. people that i they can afford security after covid, they cannot even get help and they don't have enough, enough workers even to work the shops half the time. people do not understand how hard some of these business right side holding on throughout the city. i think that we need to work city wide on having issues, solving these issues and i started a program right now and i think we've got some solutions for you. thank you. have a nice, end of the week.

>> thanks so much for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: hello i'm barbara bella and i am a resident at the san francisco for 43 years in russian hill. can i, i would like hold on my time there seems to be. i would like to start my time again. okay, i'm barbara bella, i live in russian hill for years, i was a business owner for most of that and i'm a very active member of the community. chair of the neighborhood enhancement of russian health and neighbors and we organize monthly clean up. i've gotten to know our trash very well. and i happen to live in a neighborhood with beautiful trees. but those trees give off leafs year-round and with no mechanical sweeping, they turn to decompose into mud and muck and that is comprised with all

the filthy mus when i loved here 40 years ago, this city which is a world class city was pristine, it really was. and so to see where this happened is heart breaking, but it reflects the change in time. there is a take out carton, there seems seems to be that we have also were a community that showed more care and more pride in our environment. and i really feel like all of us, collectively should be ashamed about what we are allowed to happen in this world class, one of the most beautiful cities in the world. now we have lots of problems, wefb here all day, lots of nrablz are really hard to solve. this is not one of them. put the money and make it happen. because with the money, you get the resources and we can clean our city and when you do that, what you will do is is, you will show us in this city that

we can have hope that we can possibly solve the harder problems. because without solving, it's easy to solve. where you cannot even know that you you're going to get the roi, you're going to get the roi on this one. >> clerk: your time is up. >> speaker: thanks. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. thank you so much. thank you so much, next speaker please. >> speaker: if there is anyway that i can have this on so i can show you the images. >> clerk: sf tv? do we have the overhead available? go ahead and please the image down.

>> speaker: i just put it down. unfortunately, we can't, there we go. do we see it now? all right. >> speaker: would i like to introduce two of our members who are speaking in support of the supplemental and the reason we want to show you the images, abdul from our staff is going to be translating for these two members. you just saw something on the corner, our members have been waiting 5 and a half hours to speak, they have to go to speak, they want today make sure that they were haired. i want to introduce to you our members, mohamed. >> speaker: [speaking native language] >> translator: on may 22, there was a walk in from work to my house and i was attacked by this guy.

and the police was not there. >> speaker: [speaking native language] >> translator: and i've been using medication since then and i need the city to be safe. we need help, we are asking the city to help support this. please help save the city. >> thank you. and i have also. >> speaker: my name is mohamed, i'm going to say to the mask and the dog and go straight to bite her and his hand. so, the police he take the dog

and he take the man or the women, i'm not sure. but after that, i don't know what the police he do. lock up almost six months, we waiting for the report and after six months, he send me the report. but i don't know what he do for the dog in the woman, the owner dog. so both our members, they leave in the tl district in district 6 and our members also go home at 1:00 am in the morning. and for our community, muslim community, we have three mosques and two and one on fourth street and next week is ramadan and they're going to be late, all of prayers are late and most of the family walk after 10:00 p.m. and we're supporting the supplement please.

we're asking for more police support. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, very much for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: hi my name is marina roach and i'm a resident of district 4 and member of sun, sunset united neighbors. we just voted on an incumbent for the first time in history for a supervisor who campaigned on safety. safety is very important to us. and we need we need more offers and i totally, agree with supervisor ronen when she said we need to get to the root cause and the root cause is we need to support our police officers. they've been demeaned and as a result we lost officers and as a result of that, we've had more crime and we wouldn't be

having this budget looking for more funding if we take care of the root cause which is the police need our support. i get up set when i hear about the hand bags, it's not about the hand bags, it's about the shops, without the money, we will not have funding for the police or for our other family service that's we need. i'm in support for the extra funding, please support the police and support the supplemental money, thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> speaker: my name is jenny long i'm the director of asian center. i appreciate the board's efforts in putting our community and health and safety in this package but i also want

to advocate about things missing. that are from a community base services. and i want to communicate with arts that is not included in our discussions around safety and health. our arts and culture are cut from the budget, so much so that the artist are leaving our community especially in communities of color, we want to show what difference the arts and culture make in our cities, bringing visitors to our neighborhoods, and providing sfaises and dog a sensible longing. wanted to share a statement with you today.

this program has given me an incredible opportunity to curate the arts that spreads in china town. tlt hard to draefm our careers until we see ourselves in creative spaces like this. we can continue to put band-aided on the wounds where our society hurts, but i hope rather than act out of fear and give resources to help young people dream and imagine a more equitable space and free world for all of us. i urge you to please include arts and culture in our city budget. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> speaker: good morning i'm director of galleries and programs in khien use culture center. would i like to read a letter from artist to show impacts of

art. this artist like so many of the other artist of color will work with will be cut off and face barriers from opportunities. i'm artist and photographer working in san francisco. art funding has been very impactful for me. i left my 9 to 5 job at the middle of our pan demic it was affecting my mental health. i wanted to do restaurant--monthly guaranteed income helped me feel at ease to pursue my art because i knew i could at least pay rent. this allowed me to energy to creating.

is have had many first from exhibiting work to getting hired and commission and work withing community organization in the capacity. please do include critical funding for art. art need to be funded for art. you have i have been dealing with health issues and able to still stay on art path due to having a guaranteed income. it shifs shifts hearts and mind and promotes healing, this leads to public safety and mental health. so please keep investing in art, i would hope that they would not turn their back. thank you for the time to listen to the community. >> clerk: before i start the time on the next speaker,

generally speaking as this committee, we can only maintain public comment on items on today's agenda. so if you are speaking on anything else, other than what is currently called which is items 2 through 6, then this is not the forum for you. would you have to go to on during the bull board meetings on tuesday to provide public comment other than what is on our agenda today. so, with that, please. >> speaker: good afternoon, jennifer freedom lock of the coalition on homelessness. every decision you make tonight is a choice. for far too long, we have relied on police to respond on economic issues. to housing affordability issues, this is expensive, this blows up the call responses for police. this is inappropriate, it's

inaffective, this has lead to mass incarcerations of black people and jailing of people for the crime, this is the case today. yes, today in san francisco, look only as far as the jail to see the concentration of racial disability and economic inaoek alt and guess what, folks get out and they're more poor, still unhoused and if they struggle with mental illnesses, they are worse off. this is not an o tack, they don't want a police poverty, they have been stuck with it due to systems. what about we fix the system and lighten the load. you can step up and change course. for 13 million dollars you can buy another insecure to push people homeless people from block to block or have of that, you can fund cart at tph and

take 90,000 off their docket and free up massive amount of police. or you can provide a food cart relief until the end of the year. every dollar is a choice. you can find 27 million dollars out of the reserve or use that money to house almost a thousand people for a year. we know you have to pay the overtime already, you don't have to use the reserve. in some, you can pay millions and millions to push homeless people from block to block or spend millions and millions to put them in-housing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> speaker: hi, good afternoon, supervisors my name is miguel carrera, i work in the coalition homelessness for many years. so today, when i seen when i

seen organized start thinking about to promote more money to the police officers when we have hundreds and thousands of people without housing, we need to move these people to permanent housing. before we thinking about to do provide more money to the police officers, we have to provide money for housing to house homeless people. i don't have no problem, i don't have nothing about the police but priorities is priorities. we have so many homeless families, black and brown families, you guys don't give you anything.

these family suffer so much, the children suffer so much. we need to support these childrens, we need to take care of the childrens and put them in permanent housing. it's what we need to do using this money. i understand there is a lot of problem in the city and a lot of city a lot of problems, but i think the main thing is, is priority is housing for homeless people. and i don't want to say anything else about the police. i have ptsd, and when the police, it's really hard for me when these guys are right here. but i don't have no problem. i come here, so don't spend that money. >> next speaker please. >> good evening, supervisors.

i think a lot of good points, it's where we're spending our money in the city. it's overtime that is already spent, you're filling a whole that the police did spend overtime. it has to be paid. i think what president peske did, the majority is going to the safe shopper program, it's going to protect tourist, people who are buying luxury good in union good, is that the priority for our city. what will are the needs for the residents in san francisco? i think the fact that there is a crisis within the police department that they cannot be recruit people to become police officer, i think it's a problem that nationally, people are facing because there is a problem with the police department on the way that they run and train their officers so they're not trusted by community members, even people who call the police and want

them to come, don't want them to come in time. as a nonprofit, we moved into office space in sono, we've been burglarized. do i think this is going to stop? no, the police arrive after the crime happens. do i think, they're going to catch the person who did it, no i don't think so. the reality is, what we need is not to just throw more money at the problem at the whole of the police sfpd and overtime, overtime is not the solution. right. we need to as president peskin, we need to civilian the police force. they're too expensive to do the work, responding on homelessness, somebody else

needs to be doing that job, majority of the time it's not necessary. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker. >> speaker: it's an honor to be here. i think a lot of people don't realize that the public works staff has been through a lot. and i'm proud to represent them, i was down at the yard today. some of the best people you'll ever met, global pandemic, they're at work, storms, they're at work. there is nothing that prevents them from being at work. but a lot of people don't realize that they work side by side with law enforcement, 4:00 o'clock in the morning, they're out with police. and i think it needs to be said because you can't picture. we support the appropriation for the police. the guys and gals that we represent, hundreds of them have been through a lot.

so putting wind in their sales, supervisors, putting wind in their sails is like the calvary for them. carla is doing a great job, deja da is doing a great job. when you look at the jobs, consider this, not only are these folks going to make our streets cleaner and make it safer but they're going to bring people out from under served and under represented communities, they're going to have opportunities to skill up and learn a trade, clean our city and move up and have like a head of household position, they're a little bit low on the pay grade but we're going to have to do it right with carol, the mayor supporting these career pathways. what excites me is the stuff that you will not see but the stuff that changes life for the people that you call

constituents, thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> speaker: good morning i'm first generation student and a resident in district 7. as we know, police response between 70,000 and 90,000 low level non criminal homeless related calls each month. it's time to shift our spending priority away from police and provide further training and resource to see caseworkrs, shelters and shelter workers. additionally, just last week, dl jenkins dropped the first-ever prosecution of the san francisco police department for nanls, like wise the case around the officer has lingered

for months since jenkins took office. why are we continue to go --continuing. sfpd does not create public safety. accountability and the lack of proper budget management. the approximately, approximately 25 million supplemental fund sfpd should come out of vacancies from their department. i asked the board of supervisor to see choose needs over the needs of san francisco police department. make the right investment and do not fund the supplemental, thank you. >> clerk: thank you, ruby for your comments. next speaker. >> speaker: thank you, good afternoon, supervisors my name isabela hutchinson and i'm a resident of san francisco district 4. san francisco should practice good governorance. the san francisco police

department needs to live within its means. every other department does this and the police department is no exception. the overtime should be paid with existing police budget and not taken from funds that could be used to fund critical needs such as housing services and expanding resources for education, and better access to healthcare. increasing sf budget to pay for police mismanagement is not the solution. we must address the root causes of these issues by continue to go fund programs that builds stronger communities rather than tearing them by draining from the general funds. last night, there was a hearing in the same room on reparations in the same community. every supervisor said they're supported reparations.

i urge you to use these funds over the supplemental. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening members of the board of supervisors, i'm stefani romero and i'm here to say that san francisco has needs that hurts people of color which includes me, low income community members struggling to survive. i was born and raised in the mission district and i'm a student at san francisco state university. my community has constantly suffered from a lack of resources and many individuals strug toll pay bill with just one source of income. taking funds away from these needs to pay for police mismanagement is unacceptable. if sfpd were run like a business, they would have gone bankrupt.

despite scandal that results in inability to recruit new police officers, sfpd keeps coming to ask for more resources, putting funds in a department with a horrible track record of human rights is unacceptable and very irresponsible. thank you for your time jao. thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> speaker: good evening, board, also a sf native and dcf resident. i'm also a fire fighter in the bay district, a community which unfortunately has where shootings and stabbing and violence has become all too common. seconds and minutes matter in emergencies like that. we depend on the police to secure the scene for us so we can provide that life saving

medical care as soon as possible. as a first responder, we depend on the police department to provide security we were not sure if it was safe from the shooter or not. the ability to do my job depends on adequately staffed and funded police department. by not funding police department, you're not only putting first responders like myself at-risk but you're put ing the public at-risk and in danger. i hope you approve the funding for the police department. >> clerk: thank you, steven for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: hello good evening, my name is jeremiah smith. me, my wife, my six-year-old in the gallery just relocated from south florida to san francisco, we now live in district 6.

we left our home town of florida because it's becoming ever growing police state. and of course prior to moving here, as any reasonable person would do, we did our research, we looked into the crime and crime rates and what we saw was frightening, because much of the media particularly right-wing media which seems to have you believe that san francisco is, you know, one of the most dangerous worse places in the country or even the world. however, when you look at the data and look at the statistics and even from where i come from, west palm beach our crime rates are far higher and far exceed what you see here in san francisco. this is the fact for red states all over the country. especially with violent crime. this is been an experiment that

has been going on for decades and the conclusions are in and they are clear. increation the police state does not decrease crime. it causes more tension and causes citizens that they're at the whim and allowed to exist at the grace of the police. i say let's not take a page out of a losing play work, let's not hand over our liberty and freedom, let's reject this irresponsible and wrong headed police budget increase. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: hi there, sally with sf rising, happy to still be here. i'm speaking because san francisco should practice good

governorance, sfpd needs to live within its means. it should be paid by the existing budget, that could be used for much more critical needs. i organized college students at university of san francisco and city college. and the how's of students right now, are working multiple jobs, struggling to pay rent with many of them minding themselves studying to get their degree while living in their cars. stipulating meals and sleeping in libraries. and this has too many young people, people of block, disabled, gender non conforming, trans, i want to ask is their academic experience, their graduation, does that matter? what if we invest in affirming life that can address the root causes of poverty.

investing in the services and institutions the actual difference between en curing young people get to participate and whether they end up in situations where the police encroach on their means of survival. if you're allocate to go police overtime and training, you need to invest in cal fresh, mental health service sxz reentry support. it's a smarter to address root causes than rely on failed punitive responses. thank you. >> thank you, sally for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, that was a fucken hearing of having police officers and talk. last friday night, a gangsters assault me. i suffered a concussion and i

saw colors and i still oppose police. you're taking life from housing, food and arts and put iting more towards police that harass people, and window know that black and brown people will get the brunt of it. cops don't protect us, we do. and don't cry us a river. miss me with your committee policing, we need to stop cop city in atlanta and here in sf, rest in peace to my non binary, who was murdered by police. defund the police, decriminalize graffiti, be supplemental to our disgrace, as they say in los angeles, i yield my time, fuck you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, my

name is nety lozano i'm a resident of district 5. as it's been said many times, nothing speakers louder than a city's values and the budget. if this supplemental is approved, the city will make it clear that the city rewards budget mismanagement and scare tactics. this supplemental systems from overtime pay, it's been clear. the data is now clear, more policing as we have seen, does not mean safer streets in san francisco. the sfpd will likely over spend their budget by 81 million by the end of miss cal year. but somehow the sfpd wants to cover this 6 million from that with taken away funds that can be used for snap programs,

childcare addressing housing, the police are over spending, this is a way to save costs rather than draining money that could be paid from what they already have. this supplemental will not add one police member in the streets. and the spin doctors are out there putting in the time. the city has to pay for it. but, it does not have to take it from the mouths of san franciscans more than of whom have seen a huge drop in their food stamps. i want to point out that earlier when they were showing the graphs, at the bottom, we had the tenderloin who we had the lowest amount of overtime hours, but yet it has, over 20% proportionately the most arrest. so how can you have the most arrest and most delayed hours. that means that they're putting their resources in the wrong places.

and supervisor ronen is completely correct, we are making sure. these--. >> clerk: sorry, to cut anybody off but we're timing each speaker at two minutes. next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, supervisors, joseph district 1, formerly lived in the tenderloin. a lot of good points made this evening about the fact that police have to deal with the symptoms and not the causes of the challenges that are in san francisco. we spent about 147 million dollars in department of homelessness, about 3 and a half billion in department of public health. we're spending far more into these areas that we're in police and we're not seeing the outcomes that we want. so i'm speaking at the support supplemental because at the end of the day, my wife is a small

business owner and commutes every single day, that's 70% of our gep, if we don't have the tax revenue and base that comes from that area, and the workers that come from all the neighborhoods, to go to work to and from each and every day, we cannot fund the other programs. and i really hope that in the coming months, we have as rigorous as a month how they're spending their resource sxz what effectiveness we're getting with those dollars, because at the end of the day, the folks behind me, the folks are dealing with those symptoms and repercussions of other cities. thank you very much. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> clerk: hi, everybody this is my first time so please give me some grace.

i'm karen chen i grew nup san francisco born and raised in district 2 and currently living in district 1. i work in youth development with high-risk teens for over 5 years and i currently work in justice reinvestment. i want to reiterate a really great statement that san francisco should practice good governorance and sfpd should practice, and with all due respect, i understand the challenges that the police department go through and that's a difficult job, i was raised by a cop that worked for the district attorney and i will say that my experience in these systems that adjacent to law enforcement have not been kind whether personal or professional. so law enforcement are essentially trained and conditioned with a racist discriminatory system and training program. and it's unfortunate but for our community and law

enforcement that that is the case. i don't think we need additional fund to go go to law enforcement, they need to figure out their budget and hold themselves accountable if they really want to think about their employees, that is what needs to be prioritized. this funding can go towards other programs again, to address root causes, education, poverty, right, needs of food and housing, that needs to be the priority of where we put our money into our community, is that my halfway point. >> clerk: 30 seconds. >> speaker: thank you, and i also want to really emphasize the need for reducing resid vifmsid--vism, if you keep sending people back to prisons, it's not working, we need to intervene and really ensure

that our probation is sending folks to the appropriate. >> clerk: next speaker. >> speaker: good evening, i'm representing the tenderloin benefit district. and our executive is already put in a letter to the board but i came here to elevate some of the key points that were covered in that letter. tlcbd has an interest in streets and open spaces being clean, safe and positively activated, particularly for our seniors, for our youth and their families, and for small businesses. to that end, we support the 27 million dollars supplemental. we urge the supervisors to ensure that we maintain the

adequate funding levels to provide no less than the same level of service in the tl and our neighboring communities. we see the difference that operations disruption has made. however, we need to figure out how to sustain this effort, as we figure out how to deal with the midnight to 8:00 am gap that still exist. as fpd has said, they intend to follow the drug dealers where ever they go, i suggest they need to suggest they follow them whenever they go. until the sfpd has the necessary officers that means using overtime. san francisco is attempting to make a comeback. we have been trying to bring visitors back to our city and

safe downtown is only possible with the tenderloin. these issues are difficult, my comment right side coming to an end and in the words of our former governor, i'll be back. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: hello i'm lea i reside in d6 and i'm against this budget for overtime. i second the comments from our younger commenters earlier, really spot on. so i would like to remind you that the obama administration, invested 75 million dollars in buying body cameras to supposedly stop killing our people, did it work? some grew a conscious and don't want to be police anymore. they grew up with cops executing black men and women.

until 2020, a professor of history at the university of pittsburg at harvard university said this. i think the fundamental is structural racism. this is something that we have not dealt with so we keep having conversation buzz how we may tweak this and that that is anti chock hold and that sounds wonderful. but if you don't get to the root of the problem, you'll find yourself at the same place over and over again. even if you don't pass policies, don't put your knee in a person's neck, at the end of the policy has to change. so what message are you giving sfpd27 million dollars when d.a. jenkins has no plan. stop this anti black and trance and this institution.

if you invested in more money in sfpd, when we have data telling how horrible, you're in vesting in data impression of us. the police are not inherently anti black to control the movement of the population at conception. >> clerk: thank you, ms. mcgaoefr for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, i'm mayra sanchez, this is my colleague, we're part of the local 87 janitors union here in the tenderloin district. we just, we just want to let you know that we're in support of the supplemental fund, but we need to be able to see more police presence not just in our district but all districts in san francisco. we should feel safe leaving our homes and coming back from work.

so all day, all day, there are a lot of drug deals going on outside of our offices and never see the presence of our police. so we don't have to walk in groups or with pepper spray or keys in between the knuckles. so doubling the presence of police would be great appreciated, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your commented. >> speaker: hi there, i echo those comment that's were before me. and thanks to the chief and to the assistant. i made some notes about what they brought up. one thing is response times are going on. they said business owners fear for their safety. i don't see any business owners

to advocate for, saying no to this budget request. the retail employees are being threatened as you just heard. tourist are being robbed in broad daylight. i support this budget supplemental and let's move it on to the full board. >> clerk: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> speaker: hola. chief, supervisor mannedleman, my name is carina va lasquez. stop crime representing more than 3000 members city wide, we have mission to stand up for victims right and crime reduction. we received numerous emails from the public almost daily, about how unsafe, san francisco citizens feel with the rampant

crimes that affect their daily lives. please support this budget's request and pass it on the full board of supervisors. we cannot let san francisco become even less safe than it also is. we continue to track many criminal cases in involving violent crimes and gangs against our senior citizens, many of whom are asian. by approving this, you will send a message to those who say san francisco is in decline and we're able to cope with this open air market and crime generally. letting crime worsen by failing to approve this budget supplement is unacceptable. in addition to its negative impact on police time, ignoring the request will impact the san francisco pd, because it says

the board of supervisors, does not care about police on their staffing. no one believes the overtime increases solution. it's not good for affective policing and reform to have assaulted officers. in the long run, what is needed is improved recruiting to avoid under staffing. and police community relations not just locally but nationwide. >> clerk: your time has elapses. >> speaker: thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> speaker: good evening i'm olga and here in support of the supplement that is being requested. if i was given the authority, i would say double it, just because what i've seen.

i represent shoppers who don't shop at gucci, i don't represent those stores, i represent the workers that go in and clean them. and those are jobs and it's, it's absolutely important that all of you understand that the role that our workers play is they want to see safe going to work and going out of work at 1:00 or 2:00 o'clock in the morning. we cannot stay at the fancy hotels but my local co-workers clean them. while we may all live within our means and we have to, you can get a dollar out of a god damn wok, but pd needs to be able to have this. and when you've gotten your car broken into and your seeing a film on the news of a grandmother being beaten or a

assaulted or a supervisor is being robbed, nobody gives a shit about good governorance. what everybody wants is that pd will show up and take a report and feel validated that somebody came. that's what it comes down to. i want to make sure that people understand that the good governorance comes from all of you, the board of supervisors, you have to make them accountable i showed you the pictures of the members. that's one member. i ask everyone one of to please support this and double it, if you can. thank you. >> clerk: thank you miranda for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: hello i'm tomas i'm a 12-year of the rich man district i'm from st. louis missouri, a city that has experienced tremendous

population loss even in my life loss. 50,000 fewer office workers and that's just according to controllers. i imagine there are fewer police calls with the mass exodus people of our community. so i don't think the graph showing fewer full-time officer is a really a sign of a crisis requiring further budget appropriations. i mention st. louis because it's a combined city and county, it no longer operates hospitals. and i think when the budget pi is shinking and we're choose to go pay more for one service. one of our city's strength is maoun', i was disappointed when our mayor shut down the cable car for 116 months inex

mrikity, for those who believe eyes on the streets i can assure you, associated with the fact that as our government were trenches and stops providing public services, like a capable car, like a public health system, we're going to start seeing more disorder and chaos. so i'm on the side of using general fund dollars sparingly. put it into public health and please, don't don't waste it on the police. thanks. >> clerk: thanks for your comments. next speaker, please. before i start your time. just calling last call from anybody in the chambers who has not provide. now is your time to line up

before we get to the telefonic line. >> speaker: i'm tes, associated with sf rising. and well, do police keep us safe? let's ask ourselves that question? they show up after somebody has happened and they have one of the lowest close rates in big departments. the doj, some 200 recommendations made, they avoided filling out completing most of them. there have been police strikes over the last two years when they didn't like the district attorney. and they just didn't go. and they would tell people, oh what's the point of doing anything, because they will just get off.

now, if those people were working for me, they would not be working for me very long. i understand have to pay this fund but don't pay it out what we have to use for the public benefits and the things that do keep us safe. they should be shedding the task that others do. we also have to charge the department. you know, almost 20 million, right over the last few years. and several of our citizen deaths and injuries, not to mention just the routine harassment of people of color et cetera.

so, if you have to pay it, you have to but how are you going to stop it? how are you going to stop the money leaked there? thank you. >> clerk: thank you tes for your comments. and seeing no other speakers here in the chamber, mr. lam, can you get our first caller. so far, we have 32 public listens with 19 in the queue. so mr. lam, first caller please. >> speaker: good evening, supervisors. i'm 30-year resident of san francisco i was actually born here. and i live in the middle of a auto hotspot and i'm calling in support of the supplemental for sfpd. my neighborhood the only strategy that has worked is a parked police car and police

presence. bottom line more residents want more police officers and we need to funded. highs pro ca see of some of the statement south side truly stuning. please, politicians, stop the grandstanding and playing politics with our safety. please approve this additional funding so we can maintain basic services across our city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments, mr. lam, next speaker. >> speaker: good evening, the board helped a constitution about supporting reparation you cannot turn around and further fund a massively racist system

of oppression. san francisco ranks the force in the state for hospital and black san franciscans are over helped with sfpd. the city should prioritize critical needs such as overdose, food access, cart,ing healthcare affordable housing. this is what true community safety looks like. instead more on tactics, subsidize, real treatment on demand and compassionate care for people who use drugs. the city should be marching all possible resources to address the hunger quest, instead shs food providers have been told that they should be told to face general food cuts. until san francisco, over 100,000 individuals, adults losing cal fresh allotment to

be clear the local nutrition safety net which is chronickly funded, is facing further cuts. and today you're deciding if the city should fund a police department in exchange for letting people starve. given the vas majority of challenges that this city faces, we should be prioritizing spending that addresses root causes of a systemic failure that helps cause generational harm. so i respectfully request a no vote on this. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: hello can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can please begin. >> speaker: okay, hello. we must stop demonizing the police.

have a good day and try and work, choice. also, your black nation, please money and police and stop playing games and stop paying people to walk the streets to call the homeless people. thank you very much, have a good day. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. mr. lam next speaker please. >> speaker: thank you so much for your time today, end of discussion today. my name is amy and on behalf of the chamber of commerce i offer support for approval of overtime. it's critical to approve safety if they have a necessary. which has required an increase

in overtime to commemorate for our staffing levels. everyone deserves to feel safe in our city. we cannot have efforts like this that we know will help contribute to the community. thank you all again for your time. >> clerk: thanks so much for your comments. mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: hi i organize with dsf, i'm calling in opposition, we have under funded lack of housing for unhoused people, people are going hungry with cal fresh being cut. this is a result of people who refuse to invest in people's

needs and refuse them. we turn that into violence against poor people, black, and trans people. violence against youth. this is pushing the problem to somebody else and enforce ing the order at the barrel of a gun. for true safety, we need to take money and invest on things that will meet people's needs. when we know that sfpd did not solve problem, is malpractice. how can we justify giving more money to a police department that is one of the highest paid in the state and one of the lowest clearance rates. we pay more in policing. what will do we have for it? it's a great convenient rhetorical environment that let's give more money. no other city department works this way. rather than giving more money to the police, we need to be

funding our social services and investing in actual community ties and trust and giving people to engage with each other. just listening to the, the small business owners that want a police on their, on their door every so often, is exploiting the workers and when it's committed towards them. we have no need for more police. we need more social services, thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, supervisors i'm jan, i live in san francisco and i'm with stof crime action. our organization supports the supplemental to the sfpd, it would provide 27 million dollars of immediate funding to the police department, not to hire more police officers but

to maintain overtime. if this does not pass before march, the police will have to cut 10 to 15 percent of hours. last december, a friend of mine was being harassed by somebody who was completely hung up on drugs. when my friend wend, he continued to harass him through the night. my friend called the police over and over and it took five hours to respond while they were being hounded in their own home. the sfpd needs to shore on overtime, then for the safety of people like my son and for the safety of all san franciscan, please support the mayor's supplemental, thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments.

mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: hello. >> clerk: yes, please begin. >> speaker: hi, yeah, this is minah young i'm in district 1 resident. and i can tell you that our neighborhood has lost a walgreens and we see sheft every day, walgreens has back to back daily. i saw one and my relatives saw another the following day. and all the homeless are making it, normal home on gary and like in front of trader joes, so these are the things that we never saw before.

and my neighborhood, the, garage has been broken into a couple of times within six months. so these are all within the last couple of years. so, don't tell me that there is no problem in our neighborhood. i know supervisors have said that and they need more police in their neighborhoods. so definitely, we need the funding for the police, it's a social problem that the police are just responding to. ttsz up to us as the people to hold ourselves more responsible to teach our kids on self responsibility and not coddle them. because right now education is not doing their job. and so, it's really sad to see young people to be on the streets and doing drugs.

and the drugs is flooding our streets from open borders, this is not right. police have no way but they can only respond. it's up to us to address the root cause, i do agree for the funding, we need to address the root causes, how do we reduce those, the root of the problem. >> speaker: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes we can. i'm calling to support the supplemental and other public services. i want to say a word of

gratitude to say that we need to change the narrative. it's honor able, the people wearing the uniform, they actually want to work and help people. i've been a volunteer patrol group and let me tell you, we work with them to keep the residents and the small business owner safe. and the residents they really appreciate it, they appreciate it us, they appreciate law enforcement officers. i myself have been a victim of crimes several times, i had my cadalic converter, i'm renting. my car was broken into in front of my home.

the crime is rampant, we need to pass the supplemental, we need to have more policing. the people are worried about police, then they should not commit crime. i don't go mugging them, and i don't steal caddilic converter. each person needs to look at themselves and take accountability, if we want a peaceful sew side, we need to start with ourselves. >> clerk: mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, members of the board of supervisors san francisco travel association. we believe that each of these measures before you are

essential for public safety. we hear from visitors each day, whether it's local, domestic international or business visitation and many say the same thing, love your city. however, we just didn't feel safe when we were there. we'll take a partnership for all of us to do so. we're fight to go a track visitation as industry. an industry that covered 800 million and over 10 million in economic impact to our city in 2019 alone, our last reliable year of data. we cannot afford--a global reputation, small business sxz workforce all depend on it, thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments.

mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to speak. this is marie, i represent 4g1 in the district. i want you to strongly urge you to support the supplemental motion. police force is a very important part of that. along with fire and sheriff but we cannot function in this society without some boundaries and guard rails and the police need to support that. the police can't, prevent crimes frequently as some people have talked about as they want them to prevent the crime, it only shows after. what they're missing is a key element, which is if you have

robust police force and all the rules, you're not 600 police down and relying on overtime, you have enough people out in the community to create relationships and undering and support within the community that frequently acts to defer crime. --deter crime, if people know that they can come to san francisco and commit a crime and getaway, they will keep on doing that. we need to have a robust and active police force in order to have a more calm and safe society overall. i urge you to fund this supplemental budget, it's unfortunate that we have this

police. it's bet tore have a full staffed force. but that's not the case right now. and we can talk about the reasons for that. >> clerk: your time is up. mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: good evening, hi there, this is tabitha born and raised in the district, i would like to thank my new supervisors for supporting this budget supplemental. my apartment building has been broken into two times since december, despite changing locks and adding gates. and several patrol is unacceptable and it's costing small business who are still trying to recover from this pandemic, money that they don't have and it's not fair. it's time to turn the tide and

stop villainizing the police department. they need to feel important and after some comments, it's no wonder why nobody wants to join the police force. police dense does make a difference. i saw a market difference in downtown san francisco and this helps san francisco business. it matters, please pass the supplemental, thank you very much. >> city attorney: thank you --. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. lam next speaker please. >> speaker: supervisors i have a different take. this city talk of san francisco has no standard. our controller should establish some standards. there are no standards. stayed of housing the pao, the most vul ner ab, the

legislative branch, and the mayor, that executive branch, down the street. i've been watching this budget in financial p bunch of crap. don't stand this. billion dollars and no standard, what the hell are you all doing? they're suppose to have 2000 officers, they only have 1,000. how are they going to maintain the standard? what are the tourist going to see? i'm sick of you all.

we have a board of supervisor that talk to you know, this is what they do, all the time. have side bars, supervisors cannot represent the people because they have no standards, they cannot do what needs assessments. they're not educated on the issues. they're acting like clowns. sufficient said. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. lam, next speaker, please. >> speaker: hi i'm mimi and i lived in san francisco since 1965, maybe it's down to 29 million for the police department, is you've got to be kidding me. how can you prioritize funds for a department that is so

miss imagined, why are they authorizing so much overtime? it's bogus because they have hiring problem they have a budget and should maintain it. and now this 27 million dollars is on top of the 20 million that city taxpayers have paid out to settle abuse police cases since 2019, i know you know about them, because you approved the settlement. if they focused on systematic review and cops that murder black and brown people and mental ill, they can save the people a lot of people. --money. affects the family who loved loved one as well as the community. and if you tell me that these

are two separate types of funding, you would be missing my point. having more cops out on the street does not make the city safer. and i do think that this is discussion we should be having. cops respond after it's been committed. i would feel safer if the city implemented the cart program as design. i would feel safer if there were adequate treatment programs for the many people facing their demon and i don't mean to imply that houseless or mentally ill people commit more crimes than others. a black person is ten times more likely to be pulled over on a pretext job than a white person. >> clerk: sorry to cut off anybody off, thank you for your comments. mr. lam, next speaker please.

>> speaker: hi my name is nicki and i'm hiefb here for almost two decades, and public safety is a public human right and should be the number one priority for ninnie given public official. this has been the worse i've seen san francisco, it's filthy. and first of all, it's not why we need more police officers, the real question is why do we have so much more. let's fund the police. demoralize our officers. the criminals are scared to race in the middle of broad daylight. i no longer go to san francisco to spend money. i know i will not get robbed. and i know that my car will not

get broken into. if you want to get money, clean up the city on crime itself. and don't be exclusive that we have no budget. why am i paying top of the taxes for this? and no the marginized community who has flooded the phone lines do not get the final say on how the taxes we pay should be spent especially when we have subsidize. their entitlement is incredible. the housing and the unhoused. they don't need housing, they need mental dug rehab facilities. all the mess that you see outside, that is going to bring the child to housing beinger it's a waste of taxes.

thank you for sharing your comments with the committee can we have the next speaker, please. >> speaker: my name is phil i'm the president of association and commissioner for san francisco retired military 30 years. i say on the tv the whole day, my wife calls me at 6:00 o'clock to pick her up. i pick her up, and i'm supporting the supplement that the past several years, i've been hosting the academy classes. and last and five years ago, i had pictures we were averaging 55 recruits during the academy

classes, bring you up-to-date, 2022 october of last year and april last year we hosted only 12 recruits. and what i say, this is a new class of training and they would go on neighborhood and true n a and my merchants to the middle eastern food, that they never had. so it's good bonding. when it was time of graduation out of that 12, we have three that will flunk out, and now we have 9. and now we have ft a training, so we now have 7 and 7 new police officers in the department. however we have to keep in mind that? june, we lose officers to retimer. we have people on disability and we have people resigning. so now back to a minus deficit

because the academy classes are so so small. there is not a cure al but, it's that we support the cops to augment the police officers and i think it's exceptional program. thank you can we have the next speaker. >> speaker: i'm melody and i'm calling on the melissa who was present with you all today including the council but had to leave. to thed's issue is a city wide issue. we're all in this together. we want to thank sfpd for all they're doing. has a highest concentration of

employment for people's color and 30% vacancy rate. the current circumstances are negatively impacting the employees and visitors of the district. we must bring them back to the city and businesses. but that's a police presence we're in trouble. a community has shown their commitment and support with their own letters of support that you have received. we must continue to fund and economic recovery. also important to support the ambassadors, these retired officers are essential to continue to patrol areas like union square and sunset and beyond. they are trained to community policing and understand the nuance of the community they serve and provide an invaluable service at this crucial moment. we urge you to consider passing

this budget so san francisco can continue its path to recovery and ensure that we're doing all we can to support a safe san francisco. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments, can we have the next speaker, please. >> speaker: this is franco, i urge you to vote for the police supplemental, this is not a nice to have. for us in the community, it's a must have. critical for the community. supplemental will ensure the police officers are able to continue to respond to the basic needs and priority concerns in san francisco. overtime, in the last year, the stabbing shortages as well as priority initiative to protect our jobs and tenderloin anti drug dealing and violence reduction work.

ensures that work with the ambassadors will continue. without it, the controller will be required to impose a hiring and overtime freeze through the end of june. which will reduce policing levels across the city. between 2021 and 2022, police department saw 120 percent overtime increase by critically shortages. while the goal is to have a fully staffed police force, we must fund the force that we have now to the best of our ability. some speakers say we should eliminate poverty and i agree, but not all crime is committed by the poor when. police vote for this. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your sharing the comments to the committee. ^ we have the next speaker, please. >> speaker: hello, i'm erika from the coalition of homelessness and i'll be providing my comment. first comment i'm rowenda from the daily program collective dolores community services. i ask you not tho authorize the 27 million use the money on people that are in need for example, cal fresh and now i'm going to say my comment. i just want to make a comment of how police have like six hours and six police over there. why should there be a police present during the speak, they should be doing other stuff. they don't have any resources to officer, why should they be

there to terrorize the homeless people. sfaed we should have housing and food and shelter and many other things that can help and more needed. so i'm just saying first think about it, it's a huge position to make but i think police deserve that much money. >> clerk: thank you jessica for sharing your updates. we have 31 listens and of them are 9 who have indicated to give public comment. can we have the next speaker please. >> speaker: this is greg johnson, i'm a member land use center cola ra tiff, i'm a

resident of the tenderloin, i'm a active member through partnership. i have a steak in the entire state of san francisco. our city, our revenue comes from convention and business. , many conclude that public safety is the reason, others say is because we're recovering from covid. regardless, i blame on the rank and file. and sfpd did not lose 500 police officers overnight. those same officers know how many will be available. supervisors, there is enough to go around. we applaud your commitment.

and responsible for making our streets unsafe. they're useless to this effort. they carry no firearms and collective residents which were harded to the members of this committee this morning. you have sworn duty to protect the residents of san francisco. anyone who is con tem nraiting spending your vacations here has confirmed that anywhere else is better. national guard on speed dial, we--no department in san francisco is held to acceptable accountability standard but this is for another hearing. i'm a special project organizer. >> clerk: thank you your time is concluded. can we have the next speaker, please.

>> speaker: hi, good evening, everybody. my name is maria and i'm in district 7, actually. i'm calling in to oppose the overtime for police because i live out here by lakewood apartments, close to the sfpd gun range and i hear like the guns all the time, all day but my spouse to get followed from our home over to you know over to be held up at the chevron with an uzi so if they cannot have a safe place what is going to happen? what is the overtime going to do? i don't know, other than burn out cops.

and do we really want cops that are tired. i don't know how this is going to fix the problem? my spouse was followed because of his watch, i don't know who it was, talked about luxury get watches gotten stolen, this happens weeks ago and there was no response. i oppose this, we should move resources somewhere else. you cannot have cops overtime on sunset. i don't know how that is logical for the general fund. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. lam, next speaker please.

>> speaker: good evening, this is, it's been 7 hours since you began deliberations. i want to thank you for your patience. i just want everybody to argument that have been presented, i understand the concern about the violence and the community. and i understand the funding, the needs that are met with more violence. and i have one comment to make about the use of the supplemental funding for the police. from our general fund, and, i

i struggle that the police purchases and uses military weapons and as long as they do that, i would not want them to continue to be funded. out of our general fund. and i think the general fund should be reserved for useful purposes. so thanks for listening and good evening. >> clerk: thanks so much. mr. lam next speaker please. >> speaker: hello, i want to say that all the crime you want to stop would be best stopped through housing and harm reduction.

i heard, the chief say at one point that you're trying to survive, we're trying to survive, the community is trying to survive. we need harm reductions, you have killed 15 people since index. oscar, jahad, jesus delgado, keeta o'neil, damian, nicholas bux sean more, jessica williams, ruiz, mario woods, xavier yvonne lopez garcia, herbert, benitez, brown, matthew hoffman, o shane everyones, jiovani sandoval.

del wilkerson, aaron shower, i cannot fin pish before my time ends. but i beg y'all to take a look around and be real. policing does not stop homelessness. it does not even hide it, we need real support. this 25 million dollars for the police is an absolute joke. to the people who actually need support. be better. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: i think the public safety should be a priority and i can't believe this is even a question, of course we need police, of course police deter crime, criminal items if there

is more police or less police, we have a d.a. who will hopefully is prosecuting and absolutely fund the police. they need a funding, it's a shame that we have gotten to this point that it has to be overtime but we have to do what we have to do, we need our cops. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comes. next speaker please. >> speaker: so i hope san francisco, this is from district 1. i hope that san francisco understand this is not about adding more police, this is overtime, which will lead to burn out and less police on the street. one of the things that the sheriff what's been paid at stating that basically they're mismanaging their budget. that they're in areas that they should not be. we all want to be safe and we

want to go home and go home and shop. but the police is how we feel about the police is where they get us. this did not come out of nowhere, a lack of trust, a lack of competence, lack of truth and honesty. that did not come from anywhere, it came to us. and we ask that they show up on time and respect. and some do manage that and some don't. and this is where we're at today. i know you're going to approve their budget, because you always approve their budget. but the issue is is that our city is not going to get better. you are not doing your job of oversight and understanding. why so many are out on leave?

why so many keep quitting? why so many have a lack of respect for just working in our city. if you talk to them personally, they tell you they don't really like san francisco. how is that fair to us? and people who move here? i feel like it's an utter mess, you're going to give them the money. at the end of the day, i'm tired of hearing other san franciscans. >> clerk: speaker's time has expired. mr. lam, next speaker please. >> speaker: good afternoon, i'm alejandro garcia district 9, and i'm calling to oppose the 27 million dollars that the mayor is suggesting that we give sfpd. sfpd has blood on their hand,

we cannot erase that. and to give police more money who has mismanaged their bloated budget is having san francisco policing and criminalization over community safety who will not be able to arrest more cops do not bring more safety for a community, if anything, they bring more pain and harm to the community. i cannot believe that in the city that claims to be, as it claims that this is even public, how are we going to give more money to a department that does not know how to do anything but create harm in the city? i urge all of to you oppose you additional money that will again will cause more harm in the community and thank you for the previous caller for naming all of the names and all the other names that were not named. in 2023, we have to consider

whether the police department brings safety. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, for your comments. mr. lam next speaker please. >> speaker: hi my name is amy i call to support the budget. besides of that yeah, we need a more police, you know, in our street because we feel unsafe. i hope that in the future you can support the police more, because because police could not do their job.

and you guys otherwise, the criminals, can go yeah, kind of can do anything. i heard you feel unsafe, how come every time, the court is ruling for kind of support of criminals instead of properties which make more criminal walk free in san francisco. to the person kevin in your district and the person just walk free. >> please direct your comment to the body and not single out supervisor. >> speaker: okay, i finish, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> speaker: hello i'm a resident and i work downtown near the tender loin. execution of two unhoused people who are laying down, i was also officers still out responding to the call. and a single officer faced blt ability and cops could getaway with murder. what does accountability look for the city. does it look like a budget shortfall where other departments are asked to cut 5 to 10 percent of their budget. the data is absolutely not true. they sent three more on the

occupation which is estimated at about 10 5k overtime, a holiday giveaway, if you will. prioritizing, luxury retail store. lastly, sfpd has a clearance rate, we care more about appearances than communities that actually work. so if you're here, another asset giveaway, this time of 27 million. this is more than half of the total budget and worth noting that they got 50 million which is more than public defender's office. i urge you to vote no against another sfpd giveaway and care and not cages. >> clerk: thank you, eric hernandez for your comments. and mr. lam next speaker,

please. >> speaker: hi supervisors, kind sad although i understand you're hearing from many of your constituents that they want more police present, i want to remind what many of you said during the uprising of 2020 and i'm sad because really sad to see how we regressed the conversation to now we're here talking about 27 million from the general fund to pay for police overtime. just to see that timeline is sad. sxwh the police budget is keeps going on, it keeps going up and it does not seem like there is anyway to stop it. i encourage you all to remember

what you all said and do defund the police. and put it in healthcare that things that keep us safe. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you mr. clerk, seeing no more public comment. public comment has now closed. thank you, colleagues and thank you first of all i want to thank all the public commenters for both coming in-person as well as online. especially after good hours of robust discussion on all items on agenda today. if i see no colleagues name on the roster, i just want to make a concluding comment but i do see now that president peskin and next supervisor walton.

>> thank you for humoring and i realize it's another late night in this chambers. but the budget season which we're not in is an opportunity and it takes a lot of time it's a time of year where we ask about performance metrics and ask questions around practitioners and goals and what have you and try to figure out whether the ultimate thing that we're doing are meeting the goals and, objectives of the department. i thought that maybe just a little bit more indulge me across these lines and i think

we're all living through is, a change in the nature of urban policing in san francisco and we're again not unique although we may be doing things differently than other jurisdictions. i know when i first became a supervisor, we're all being told there are all these jobs that cops are doing that should be done by civilian and resistance institutional in the police culture, i was like why is there c.f.o. cop who you know, isn't this a civilian thing, being members of those days and now, overtime we've seen a lot of those jobs that should be done by civilian, we should have our sworn officers do police work, that's happened and just looking at the numbers, i was happy to see the

graphs about civilianization being at time high. that would tell me or i would think that that would tell me, that that would free up full sworn officers to be available. and the other thing that occurs to me as the policing is changing, there are a bunch of jobs that quite frankly maybe police should not be doing. that quite frankly the police were happy not to do and the poa, i was there with, the mayor's chief of staff couple of years ago, as the po a and they're then had montoya and their attorney rocky a actually

agree to not protest the change in the kind of work that they did. they're more than happy not to respond to noise calls that are better done by the entertainment commission that can go out and measure sound. the kind of things that we're all investing in skiter and having the fire department deal with homeless people. they say, that should free up cops. and chief because i cannot find it on the internet that change, the base line year versus 22 and you know, 23 jekted for calls in service. 60,000 calls. >> 16, 1-6,000.

>> so that is 16,000 not going to pd, what i'm trying to do is what does the a call b call volume been? what i'm trying to get at is, we're all experiencing the same thing. and you're hearing from all of these supervisor that's we want more cops and we, we, mission is off the hook and what have you. but i'm trying to figure out how these other things are or aren't working. if all are going in the right direction, i don't know if our call volume has changed, that's the one missing link. you think, we have, some stabilization but, am i making any sense to you chief?

>> i think 40% calls of calls being diverted but i will let assistant chief answer that question, directly. sorry. >> madam chair. >> speaker: -- ~>> thank you supervisor ronen, here are the numbers, priority a calls have gone down more than 10% from 91,000, 80,000. overall calls have gone down

from just a hair of under 700,000, a priority calls combined from 69 3000 to 428,000 last year. so, i understand that we've got, a few hundred we're light a few hundred cops but more civilians, which are not shown when you see that little graph, shows us going from 18040, it does not deal with the fact that those work is being done by civilian. it does not show that the numbers have down per siptous. chief, can you help me make sense. even though you're less cops, you have less workers available to do cop work and less calls. help me.

>> yes, in this late hour just to make sure that i'm clear about what you're saying. yes our professional staff has grown, but our sworn staff has drop dramatically, our calls for service have dropped but so has the sworn staff for all the reasons, we talked about that and what we need to do there. and our thankfully our professional staff has grown because there are things that we are doing that we, should not be doing for example. why are full duty officers doing crime scene investigation when you can have a professional staff person do that? why is that a police captain should not be a c.f.o. somebody who went to school for that, and that's what we're doing. and the other part is, with all the reform we've done has come a tremendous amount of administrative work to make sure that there is

accountability and all the things that come with that. i know you're asking the question, i'm probably not answer it. there is been a drop in officers and drop in calls for service and we're still super busy all the time and the public has commented on we don't want get there on time and we don't handle those calls. we're mission the mark in terms of our staffing numbers automobile. >> and supervisor i can add a little bit more context. so our property e staffing report is based on 2019 data. so per proposition e, every two years we need to repeat the process. so right now for 2023, we're in the process of updating that analysis and that will take into account current workload. so i think that we expect that the base line number of 2182 will shift just a little more

context on what that plan is based on that is data that is several years old and now we're going to update and to have a idea on what the current need is. >> to my friends on the budget and appropriations committee, i hope you drill down into these and you don't have to wait until the mayor drops the budget on july 1. if you go to the 2019 of cops available, this is the bottom blue line, this is net,-net, remember you had 300 more cops than that. but blue was available for work, 1840, supervisors do the math, take 69 3000 you get 376. if you fast forward to last

year, where you have 1514 for 2022 which is your most resent number and you do 428 that number is almost 100 less per employee, it's 270 something. please work with the budget and legislative analyst and the cop shop and this does not pan out. and in the same number of time, you have more civilian that do cops that cops never want to do. but i think this really deserves more analysis, it does not make sense. >> if i can add one additional thing. two additional things, in terms of calls for service, i understand the math in terms the way policing has changed. in terms of reform and the work we've done, use of force crisis, intervention, deescalation, we're taking way more time on each call for service, cause no longer, when which was hired, you just ran in there and put on hands-on

something and took them into custody and we're doing things much smarter and we're a model for this country in slowing down. if somebody is in crisis, we'll wait it out and we will use minimum force, no force, bringing officer shooting involved, our cops are doing great work and better at it than they've ever been. that's why people will say it took a long time for to* get police down. that's a big accomplishment for our city not to mention all the admin work that we put into that. >> can i and maybe psa's have a roll. a big roll and how we actually independent quantify and verify that, it feels good and i'm willing to pay for that, less people that get hurt time and

distance and maybe that's the answer i would like to have some kind of independent, independently verifiable metric there. with that, thank you for indulge me colleagues. >> thank you, president peskin. >> thank you, i just the budget and analyst want to quickly summarize, i think you already said it but i think if you want to summarize quickly, sort of answering what president peskin's question. >> sure. nick from the b and finance. the priority a calls, have gone down by 10%. the self initialed work. if a patrol officer. all and those numbers have gone

through. is that, there is a stickiness to the patrol staffing that we learned about in our staffing audit. which is that, there is a minimum to keep the response times on target which is why there is back fill. now, is it the right numbers? we're making our audit plan for next year. so perhaps, it's time to go back in >> the chief was going to say something. >> briefly, one additional thing for president peskin is

yes we're looking at the list. supervisor ronen really started that and we're getting better at distancing ourselves from that. but there is a lot of other things, so we're work withing the mayor's office now on trying to define that and switch us out from some of these rolls, i think you were heading to that question. >> before i relin quish, did you read that article from acrena*rsi. this is going to be a long week. did you read that. >> i did read it. i was struck by also as policing is changing, to what extent, qeii rank and file cops

are being told about how things are changing and what the, what the evolving goals were. there was one quote by an old time veteran cop, hey in old days, our jobs were very quantifiable, make arrests and now the world got more complicated there some mission drift here. conversation for another day. the thing that disappointed me most, i'll be very straightforward, the mayor's behavior in this supplemental was that it did not open up a space for this kind of conversation which is the kind of conversation at the board of supervisors should be having the kind of questions that should be asking rather than being put in this corner if you're asking questions about the nature of policing and increase civilianization.

you can continue to ask over the next several months, san francisco will be a better place, thank you madam chair. >> thank you, president peskin, i think we intend to do that. and supervisor walton. >> thank you, assistant chief scott and entire team. in regards to item 2, supplemental, you truly just from kindergarten math, this is not going add any officers. they will keep coming back to the well. if i was successful in continuing to get extra, i would keep coming back.

that's just the way life is. but they're not staying within budget. police department does have millions in cost savings. i would like to move for revised total sources of 18 million and reducing the total appropriation for overtime uses on page 7 line 16 and 21 by 8 million, 980,000 for a total of and 811, and total expenditure in order to fund setting up an office of reparations.

i would love to have a second. >> supervisor safai. >> i think it's fair in this context to look at the to look at the data, i think at the end of the day it's pretty clear that over the last five years, the number of police officers and police department have gone down and they have gone down significantly. also can see that it was only until 2021, and that's even based on the numbers and reflective of why in 2019 overtime hours in every station, in fact back in 2019, the mission had the most

overtime hours in 2019 and why it started to grow and it's grown exponentially and i think the chief did a good job of explaining that. and i can say, i don't spend as much time but i'm there often and i see more officers in that part of town. >> that's because you come to the banquets that you come to. >> and i'm not talking about the banquets, you definitely see more presence. it's justified. i do appreciate the conversation around, calls for service, i think that tells one

piece of the story, certainly we want to and we have had this conversation over the last few years about shifting responsibility to free up more officer time. what do we do with that time? i still think that it's evidence that with the drop, we're not getting to the own response, you call 9-1-1 depending on what classification of call. the only ways that we can deal with that. our having them filet slot that

would not otherwise be filled. we can have an honest conversation if you want more police presence right now in san francisco, you have to be supportive of overtime. now how that overtime is allocated is what i have a problem with. i want it to be more acquitably shared and i think just based on the numbers, if we were to do what some of the savings, madam chair have you made the motion to do the reduction? i'm not going to move that motion. i don't want to get in front of your motion. ask the police department one more time.

and join the budget committee. and again, just for the record, clearly. the dollars today on top of what. allocate, will you be able to fill additional staffing in hours equivalent hours in the district station. yes. yes. >> there is a point where you can do too much overtime. >> the swr is yes. there will still be met needs.

in terms of just the, so yeah, we could use it absolutely. >> and it would free up ability to do more foot patrol. i'm supportive of what supervisor was. i was one of the leading authorizes of the street vending license with her and know that, it can't be effectively implementing without the presence of the police department among many other things that is happening in her district. but my district, supervisor chan and mandelman and peskin and walton, everyone wants more police presence on the streets. i think that's a pretty unanimous thing. and with this current allocation that you have in front of us, if you don't get additional resources are you

able to spread more foot patrols, unless we give you more over time money? i guess that's what i'm trying to get to. >> if i understand your question, we can do more with more, absolutely. at least part of our calculating the ask, we can do more with more. i mean, i said earlier that if we are fortunate enough to have in favor of this supplemental, it still does not touch every single thing that we would like to touch. so the answer is yes. >> thank you, chief. i'm sorry, i think i'm going to put my foot down to to speak. it's 8:18 we've beener having this conversation, it's been on going. if you ask my city department any city department if you're giving them more, of course they can do more.

so precisely why we're in agreement with the supplemental with department of public works. now i would say, supervisor safai, if you want to make your motion, please go ahead and do whatever it is, that you think you that would like to make your statement. i'm not here to stop you. however if you want me to make mine, i'll make mine. >> go right ahead. >> so here we are, i just want to make sure that we're okay and get our feelings out and whatever statement. let's wrap up it up. let's say this that this, i think what we can agree with today, seeing what is happening here, the frustration that has expressed clearly and loudly in this chamber is that we're in agreement no matter, it's mismanagement, not just the police if they were to come in

here for a mid-year supplemental that must be emergency nature, we know we had a budget that we all agreed on and vetted, the controllers has agreed and certified it, and here we are, the a-city department it does not matter matter how you spend it. on the other hand we're asking for supplemental for the public works because we recognize there is additional need to keep our streets cleaned and that resources is needed. we're also here to discuss two contracts ambassador one more mid-market and downtown. those are the items before us today. it's a reminder for all the

department that came before us, we know that public safety police and ambassador, are not the only solutions. they're only part of the solution. now from i have to say, we have talked about this and i know that my colleagues said this and i want to say that i'm in agreement with supervisor ronen that there seems to be according to the data there were for the administration, from the mayor directing her police department to protect designer bags more than even my asian elders that has been under attack. that is clear to me. we just came off the

conversation yesterday about reparation for the black community. let's not forget what we all committed and said yesterday. where is the money going to come from from the commitment that we made. at the beginning of the committee hearing, also has committed, in fact, supervisor safai and our vice chair, mandelman in agreement. we know na as your budget chair that we have to make investments to student services. that's one of the things that voters wanted last year.

where they talk about h.i.v. positive support, those are needed. but through today's conversation, we know that safety concerns are also needed. so if our budget is a statement of our value, based on the information, the item before us is a poor delivery for clean and safe streets. we need to do better and the mismanagement of our public dollars by the mayor and her administration has let us no choice but to make sure that our police officers and city and nonprofit workers are paid for the work that they have done because we're here to take care of the workers. again, be reminded the supplemental majority of that are really going to the workers. so i'm here to demand better management and competent and

leadership. this is why i'm going to ask for a series of motions and ask for your support. and i'm going to list them out right now. the motion is to amend this police supplemental specifically for the 27, for the general fund reserve to a specific dollar amount and can you help me with the dollar amount? it would reduce and instead appropriate funds from the budget. i can read those areas. so it's a portion of unfunding for 430,000, and equipment debt and payment that is not needed

in the fiscal for $300,000. projected year-end saving from their body camera contract for 113,436. other appropriationed, project fund balances. so altogether you'll be reappropriating those funds from within the department towards overtime and reduce the appropriation from the genre serve for resulting general appropriation of 25,371.63. >> thank you. 25,--million, 25 million.

to summarize, they total, so that reduces what we are appropriating from the general reserve. >> thank you. so that's one motion before us. and i'm trying to figure out if we should take the motion. and the second part so the if i can have a second. second by supervisor mandelman and let's do a roll call on that. >> clerk: a little bit of housekeeping. >> vice mayor mandelman. >> i was putting my name to second your motion but also just to say, i think the chair and i come from slightly different perspective and have different views about what the overtime signifies. but i do want to thank our chair and our president for

working with the mayor's office to find some funds to save, you know, these are millions of dollars, millions of dollars makes all the difference in the world, for example the department of environment which was here earlier. so i think insofar, as we were able when we're over spending at the level that we are over spending beinger i think there is a tendency to lose track and let it all go and i think that's not a good thing. so i think making sure that everybody is looking under the pillow and getting all the extra dollars is a good thing and i appreciate you doing that. so i was happy to second that. >> it just occured me, we make the motion to also amend to require a biweekly reporting, supervisor ronen would you like to do that. and we can do the two amendments on the one the police supplement.

>> sure the language is for fiscal year 2022-23, the police should report on biweekly basis on overtime use by neighborhood. >> i second that. so let's call the roll to amend on the dollar amount as indicated and then let's call the roll. >> clerk: okay. so with the both motions to mend, speaking to the biweekly reporting and also the, the reduce the supplemental is read into the record by the budget director, moved by member ronen and seconded by chair shannon that motion. mandelman. >> aye. >> safai. >> aye. >> ronen. >> aye. >> walton. >> no.

>> chair chan. >> aye. >> we have four aye wz member walton no. >> the motion passes, did we just dot two motions together. >> clerk: yes, we are amended with both the reduction and the biweekly reporting. >> okay, i'm going also move, i'm going to make the motion to amend item number 5 and 6 which is the contract for mid-market as well as the downtown as we have indicated and had that conversation with director donen as well as well as the department management that we're going to amend the contract date from december 31, to october 15, 2023, i make the motion and may i have a second. thank you, second by supervisor walton. mr. clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on that motion to

amend the resolutions and item 5 and 6, to change the end date on both the amended end date through the contract to october 15, 2023 vice chairman delman. sorry, moved by chair chan seconded by member walton. member safai. >> aye >> ronn. >> aye. >> walton. >> aye. >> chan. >> aye. >> thank you, this passes. i see that safai and pes kin are in the roster my intention is i will make the motion for all the items to be voted to full board without recommendation. my logic it does not seem that we can come to consensus whether we want more money less

money and out of the respect and understanding that we do not have a consensus on all of these items that i will vote them out together, collectively out to full board without recommendation. however it is, i will be speaking on these items at full board when they come to us next tuesday. i will urge all our colleagues collectively to support all the items even though, it's my suggestion to be voted out of this committee without recommendation, it's because i understand we're not in consensus on this. with that, supervisor safai? >> thank you, so just wanted finish my remarks from earlier but also make my motion. i appreciate your motion, but as i said, i agree that this

situation has been mismanaged by the mayor's office has been mismanaged consistently. we sat through a 23-hour hearing last year about a tenderloin emergency, i feel that was a whole lot of money with not a lot of direction. now we have a new direction. not sure that's a well thought out plan, we had a lot of whack and forth about the ambassador program, i support these things. but i believe there needs to be managed better. and when i see a budget that is now 27 million, now 25,371.65 and only still about 50 officers are going to the stations, hearing from the chief and department, doubling that would make a difference. now that we found the savings

with 3.1 million dollars we can double the amount of officers to the district station. would i like to make a motion that it could come from the general fund reserve, to put 3.1 back and make the total amount of it would be, 28, 400,263. is there a second? looks like there is not. okay, thank you. >> peskin. >> madam chair, colleagues, it's getting late. couple of words about politics, package is not perfect. i do appreciate at a high level the message that the combination of safe and clean sends at this particular moment

in recovery and policing and public safety and wanting to do right by our residents and by our visitors be they be workers or tourist. so i appreciate that. i also want to and i understand that there is a collective has been negotiated with vair us parties and my word is my bond but in the face of this conversation that we're having about policing, ambassadors have become the convenient temporary surrogate. so we are throwing ambassadors and i'm not putting a value judgment, as a matter of fact i will put a valley judgment in many instances to the good because it gives people the safety of perception and perception can become the

reality of sorts. and i think there is a recognition that that the way this evolved was pal mal and disorganized and lots of different cooks and lots of different ambassadors and i think what we're hearing and part of this, moment today and as we move towards the june budget that there is a recognition that there has to be a little more command and control and we have to make sense of this thing. having said that, this supervisor who happens to have the luck of representing the northeast corner of this city that includes fisherman's and tele graph hill and russian hill, disproportionately benefits from not only as assistant chief knows my line, all district station right side

created equal, company a is more equal and i'm lucky as compared to many of you, for the most part, i've got one police district that covers almost the entire district where many of you have three and four different captains that have you to deal with. so i'm lucky that way. but i will tell you i'm also blessed with more than my share of ambassadors. and i will tell you that, while supervisor mandelman told me and it was just a lovely story to hear that the downtown sf travel ambassador, he witnessed a very positive constructive interaction, that has not been this supervisor experience. that has not been my staff's experience. that has not been constituents experience, not that they need direction, they live there for decades. but the way that that program

evolve in this supervisor opinion, not many well spent, not value added, i believe it's in the tourism. i love, but it is not the best use of our money. having said that, it's part of a larger package but come june, i hope that we come october 15, i hope you all give it the one over and ask the questions and see the metrics and every time you see one of those folks, go ask and ask them if they can point your way to a nearest bart station or how to get to the t-line. >> thank you, president peskin. >> one more time, it's noted by this supervisor that with all respect to oawd, supervisor walton, i watched you last wiebesinger you nailed it.

act completely not together, not ready for primetime, i'm calling it like i see t i'm not trying to be mean or gratituous but when you come in here asking for money and and you're off by ten million dollars and off by a factor of 100% on another contract, don't be come here, that is not professional, it is noted. >> thank you president peskin. i'm going to make the motion to move item 2 to 6 to full board with recommendation. may i have a second. second by mr. mandelman, mr. clerk call the roll. >> clerk: on that motion, to forward the items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to full board without a recommendation, 25 and 6 as amended. vice chair >> aye.

>> safai. >> aye. >> ronen. >> aye. >> chan. >> aye. >> we have five ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes and do we have any business. >> clerk: madam chair, that concludes our business. >> meeting is adjourned.

>> we are right now in outer richmond in the last business area of this city. this area of merchants is in the most western part of san francisco, continue blocks down the street they're going to fall into the pacific ocean. two blocks over you're going to have golden gate park. there is japanese, chinese, hamburgers, italian, you don't have to cook. you can just walk up and down the street and you can get your cheese. i love it. but the a very multicultural place with people from everywhere. it's just a wonderful environment. i love the richmond district. >> and my wife and i own a café

we have specialty coffee drinks, your typical lattes and mochas and cappuccinos, and for lunches, sandwiches and soup and salad. made fresh to order. we have something for everybody >> my shop is in a very cool part of the city but that's one of the reasons why we provide such warm and generous treats, both physically and emotionally (♪♪) >> it's an old-fashioned general store. they have coffee. other than that what we sell is fishing equipment. go out and have a good time. >> one of my customers that has been coming here for years has always said this is my favorite store. when i get married i'm coming in your store. and then he in his wedding outfit and she in a beautiful dress came in here in between

getting married at lands end and to the reception, unbelievable. (♪♪) >> the new public health order that we're announcing will require san franciscans to remain at home with exceptions only for essential outings. >> when the pandemic first hit we kind of saw the writing on the walls that potentially the city is going to shut all businesses down. >> it was scary because it was such an unknown of how things were going to pan out. i honestly thought that this might be the end of our business. we're just a small business and

we still need daily customers. >> i think that everybody was on edge. nobody was untouched. it was very silent. >> as a business owner, you know, things don't just stop, right? you've still got your rent, and all of the overhead, it's still there. >> there's this underlying constant sense of dread and anxiety. it doesn't prevent you from going to work and doing your job, it doesn't stop you from doing your normal routine. what it does is just make you feel extra exhausted. >> so we began to reopen one year later, and we will emerge stronger, we will emerge better as a city, because we are still here and we stand in solidarity

with one another. >> this place has definitely been an anchor for us, it's home for us, and, again, we are part of this community and the community is part of us. >> one of the things that we strived for is making everyone in the community feel welcome and we have a sign that says "you're welcome." no matter who you are, no matter what your political views are, you're welcome here. and it's sort of the classic san francisco thing is that you work with folks. >> it is your duty to help everybody in san francisco. >> my name is tiffany cobb and i work for the san francisco fire

department. i was raised by a single parent. i grew up with a very strong work ethic mental ity. i would like to compare it to a bar back and anticipated the needs and the call. you will provide the needs and complete the call. >> the favorite part of the job is when i can actually connect with a patient and utilize your

people skills as a human being. sometimes it's not a medical need. they just want someone to talk to, someone to listen to and want to be seen as a person and want to be recognized and see them as they are. those are my important calls. i remember being a seven or nine year old girl and never seen anyone like me in a fire engine and that gave me hope that i can do that. there are people like me that can do that job. sometimes people need to feel nurtured and feel safe. i feel like i can bring that to my patients. >> you maybe feel afraid. just try it out. that's what i did.

just never give up. i was told no. i failed the fire academy. i'm still here and i never quit. just learn from your mistakes and never give up on yourself. i'm in station 49. eventually i would like to utilize my skills as a fire paramedic and hopefully become an officer some day. >> for san francisco, i said this in my interview, it's like the new york of the west coast. it has everything i wanted to be a part of. it has ems and has a rich history and blue collar history which i absolutely love. i want to be a part of that.

>> for us, we wish we had our queue and we created spaces that are active. >> food and drinks. there is a lot for a lot of folks and community. for us, it started back in 1966 and it was a diner and where our ancestors gathered to connect. i think coffee and food is the very fabric of our community as well as we take care of each

other. to have a pop-up in the tenderloin gives it so much meaning. >> we are always creating impactful meaning of the lives of the people, and once we create a space and focus on the most marginalized, you really include a space for everyone. coffee is so cultural for many communities and we have coffee of maria inspired by my grandmother from mexico. i have many many memories of sharing coffee with her late at night. so we carry that into everything we do. currently we are on a journey that is going to open up the

first brick and mortar in san francisco specifically in the tenderloin. we want to stay true to our ancestors in the tenderloin. so we are getting ready for that and getting ready for celebrating our anniversary. >> it has been well supported and well talked about in our community. that's why we are pushing it so much because that's how we started. very active community members. they give back to the community. support trends and give back and give a safe space for all. >> we also want to let folks know that if they want to be in a safe space, we have a pay it forward program that allows 20% to get some funds for someone in need can come and get a cup of coffee, pastry and feel welcomed

in our community. to be among our community, you are always welcome here. you don't have to buy anything or get anything, just be here and express yourself and be your authentic self and we will always take care of you.

>> today

preezentation is a overview how to file a compliant about the dpa. any questions can be e-maileded at sfdpa at sfgov.org. independent of the san francisco police department. investigating allegations of police misconducting recommending disciplineitary action to the chief police and police commission and suggesting policy provisions when not meeting 21 century policing practice. if you speens or witness police misconduct we have several ways to submit a complaint. file with dpa online asfgov.org/dpa or (indiscernible) in person at the office located at 1 south van ness on the 8 floor or any district

police station. there are key pieces of information that anyone filing complaints should provide, including your contact information, so we can ask for follow-up questions, the location, time and date of incident. officer name and star number, and specific details including words and actions by all involved parties. it is important to remember anyone can file a complaint and you do not have to be a witness or victim to initiate a complaint. this next slide provides a overview of dpa mediation division. mediation is alternative to dpa investigationing a complaint. the goal of mediation are improve the relationship between the community and sfpd. mediation allows both parties toprint perspectives that resulted in a complaint. may request mediation when you file a complaint or referred to the mediation team. mediation is

voluntary for the person making the complaint and officer. both must agree to resolve through mediation. unpaid volunteers not dpa employees trained and experiences in helping people resolve differences in a conductive manner. because mediation is voluntary, there is a greater chance of parties want to resolve the problem mutually agreeable fashion. not every complaint is eligible for mediation. cases can go to mediation include those involvingcocts and not (indiscernible) that concludes today's

>> good morning. today is wednesday march 15, 2023. this is regular meeting of building inspection commission. i like to remind everyone please mute yourself if you are not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

>> we have quorum. next is our land acknowledgment. >> the building inspection commission we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. >> thank you. next, any

members of the public listening, the public comment in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is 24848096303. to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item press star 3 when prompted by the meeting moderator. next is item 2, president's opening remarks. >> good morning to my fellow commissioners, leadership at dbi and public at large present and also listening on the meeting. we have a lot on our plate today. one of which is nominating and voting for the president and vice president along with our other subcommittee members who served on those committees as well. i still consider myself a new commissioner when i compare to others who have committed decades to public or civic service and i'm still learning. that said, i hope during this

past year i served this commission well. my priority serving the architecture seat is understanding how dbi can serve development design and community at large. my focus during the past two years as commissioner and president is understanding dbi permitting process and how the commission can serve the community interest best. we have a joint commission meeting with planning and bic on may 18 and looking forward to a focus meetings on streamlining the site permit process, by which bifurcating planning and building create a path forward for applicants. that concludes the president comments for today. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on president's opening remarks? seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters not part of

this agenda. >> i need the computer, please. >> go ahead. >> pay roll and benefits for the-excuse me. permit

plan check revenue is down $20 million from 2018. $14 million of the decrease is lower plan check and premium plan check review. there are about 326 full-time equivalent employee. total payroll and are benefit is $52 million or $160 thousand per employee. 45 percent of dbi employees are inspection service. how do we justify 93 employees in permit services with lower plan check revenue? 45 percent of dbi employees generate (indiscernible) revenue. total payroll benefits for 146

employees and inspection services which is about $23 million. this ignores the cost of the transportation and other direct expenses. they generate 5 to $7 million in fees. permit and plan check fees would need to $5 to $7 million in fees. permit and plan check fees would need to increase over 20million to cover this short-fall. (indiscernible) close the $30 million revenue gap? only plan check over the counter plans. reduce permit services by outsourcing the non-otc plans to licensed professionals, loss eliminate the permit back-log. charge inspections to building permits. that inspections-why should inspections cost be buried in plan check and permit fees. project that

require reinspection should pay for reinspection or missed appointments. we deuce charges from other city departments. which fee lines do you see increased $20 million? a 10 percent fee hike would only raise $4 million. raising fees is not going to fix the problem and dbi and enterprise department will have spent all of prior year-reserves by the end of 2024. thank you for the time. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, next we have item 4 election of the bic president and vice president. we'll take nominations for the election of bic president first, but before we do, is there any public comment on this item?

none in person and none remote. are there any nominations for the position of bic president? >> are we going in-- >> we can accept as many nominations as come forward and vote on them in that order. >> i guess- (indiscernible) >> commissioner sommer put her hand up to speak first. >> okay, go ahead. >> hello. i would like to nominate raquel bito. >> thank you. is there another nomination? it will require a second. >> commissioner tam is second on the roster to speak.

>> right. i too like to nominate commissioner bito to continue the traction we are on as commission president. >> commissioner shaddix is next. >> also going to nominate president bito to continue. >> i think you are moderating madam secretary, but that is all on the speaker roster. >> okay. are there any other comments or nominations? one at a time, yes. there is a motion-if someone would like to state the motion for electing commissions bito. >> a motion to elect commissioner bito for president of the commission. >> and second? >> second. >> okay. thank you. i'll do a roll call vote.

[roll call] >> motion carries 5-1, congratulations. >> thank you. >> next we have the item of election of vice president. any nominations? >> i would like to speak first and nominate commissioner tam for vice president. next on the speaker roster is commissioner sommer. >> i had the same nomination. >> okay. next on the speaker roster is commissioner tut. >> i have a question about process. if we have a

speaker list are we supposed to go by the speaker list or can somebody cut in front of the speaker list? >> i believe you are supposed to go by the speaker list like press the button to speak. >> just curious about the process. i also support commissioner tam for vice president. >> commissioner shaddix is next. >> same, i like to support vice president tam. >> thank you. are there any other nominations? seeing none, we will do a motion. >> motion to elect commissioner tam for vice president. >> is there a second? we have a motion and second to elect commissioner tam as vice president. we'll do a roll call vote. [roll call]

>> thank you. congratulations to you both. >> thank you. >> next we have discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the litigation committee. >> i would like to nominate commissioner tam to be president of the-is this- >> litigation. >> are we just- >> we are just doing the-so, we currently have two members on the litigation committee and we need a second member. currently the members of the litigation committee are your is self and commissioner tut and there is is a vacancy for a person. anybody can nominate

themselves. >> i would like to nominate myself on the litigation committee. >> okay. >> that is the only nomination i can make? >> yeah. you can ask if someone else wants to join, but they have to accept. >> okay. i would like to ask commissioner tam to join the litigation committee then. >> i'll accept the nomination. >> does anyone else--? >> i would like commissioner tut to stay on as well on the litigation committee. >> okay. are you interested in remaining? okay. thanks. then there would be a motion to nominate commissioners bito, alexander tut and tam as members of the litigation committee. that is motion. is there a second?

>> second. >> is there public comment on this item? any remote? seeing none, i'll do a roll call vote on that item. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. congratulations to all the members. next we have item 6, discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the nominations subcommittee. currently the members are commissioner sommer and commissioner tam and commissioner neumann. if all of you are still willing to continue to serve, that could be the nomination- >> i like to nominate all three

again to serve on that subcommittee. i think they have done a great job. >> okay. thank you. you all accept? >> yes. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. we have a motion by president bito and then is there a second? >> second. >> okay. i'll do a roll call vote on the motion. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. thank you. congratulations all of you. next we have item 7, discussion and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance file number 230134. a-minding the police and building code to require owners of certain residential construction projects to maintain a labor compliance bond at the time of issuance of the first

construction document and clarifying that the bonding requirement applies to projects that submitted an application for a building permit in addition to other requirements. >> thank you. good morning president bito. congratulations and commissioners. carl legislative affairs manager here to give a brief introduction on this item which is to review and approval an ordinance to require project sponsor creates 10 or more units of housing to post a wage theft bond prior to issuance of the first construction document as the term is defined rather then the first building permit issued as the law is now. just want to underline the wage theft bond requirement already exists in the san francisco police code not the building code, and this legislation is intended to help dbi and the controller's office and the office of labor standard enforcement implement that requirement. we really appreciate supervisor mandelman for hearing about our concerns

and working with dbi on this legislation, and now i will turn it over to adam who is legislative aid to supervisor mandelman. >> can we change what is on the screen if you don't mind? >> i'm sorry. just a moment. sorry, i was going on the agenda. i forgot. >> great. good morning president bito and members of the commission. adam legislative aid to supervisor mandelman. here to present a piece of legislation for your consideration and ask you make a recommendation to land use transportation committee for further action. the proposed ordinance amend the police building code to requirement owners of residential construction projectss to create 10 or more units of housing to maintain a labor compliance bond at the time of issuance of the first

construction document. as background, as of may 2022 the board of supervisors passed legislation requiring labor compliance bond for certain projects. this proposed ordinance amends that requirement by adding the definition of first construction document in the first permit issued for a project or in the case of a site permit the first building permit addendum issued. this reduces the time the developers must carry the bond which can be a significant while protecting workers for wage theft. the project sponsors can secure the bond when they are issued a permit to begin construction rather then at the site permit stage when no construction is underway. i think that is really important part of our proposed amendment. the proposed ordinance also clarifies that all projects with a completed application submitted by june 6 of

2022 are exempt from the bond requirement. this is to comply with sb330, which prohibits a local agency adding requirements that project sponsors must comply with after submitting completed applications. as carl mentioned, this ordinance is intended to resolve operational challenges for dbi for the controller's office, for the office of labor standard enforcement and implementing this current labor compliance requirement. i ask for your recommendation to land use committee, and carl and i are happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, is there commissioner discussion? >> do you have a question? >> yes, thank you. has san francisco labor counsel or building trades counsel weighed

in? >> they have. we have engaged rudey gonzalez with labor counsel, local 6 throughout the process. we wanted to make sure that the changes in this ordinance were acceptable and made sure that they again protected workers at all phases of construction and made sure they were a partner in this legislation. >> and are they supportive of the legislation? >> yes. >> thank you. wanted to clarify. >> commissioner neumann. >> i don't have a question, i have a comment. it isn't a question, it is more a comment. i think it is great we are aligning these various policies, so thank you for taking that action, and it is-i just want to say it is something that is a cost savings for developers not to have to hold that for longer period of time. >> correct. >> it really does make a difference and i'm

speaking as affordable housing developer. they chunk of time can really impact projects. >> thank you commissioner neumann. i appreciate that. >> i have one question about terminology, because you put in quotations first construction document. what you are delaying is first issuance of building permit but that is any building permit, right? >> so, maybe i can provide a little background as i understand it. dbi is not my department of expertise and i will differ to carl and the director, but my understanding is, there are two main routes. when someone tries to build a residential construction project, there are two main routes, the site permit route, which is conceptual where no construction is happening or two, the full permit route which a project sponsor can come forward and are provide all construction documents and have that reviewed at

the same time. my understanding is the vast majority, all most hundred percent of project sponsors go to site permit route, but the challenge is, because the way the ordinance is currently written as of last year, those project sponsors have to carry the expensive labor bond whenio construction is happening so we are saying, let's have the labor bond go into compliance when there is actual construction happening. >> i'm not debating that- >> got it. i misunderstood the question. >> i debate the term first construction document and to me that is building permit. the building permit could-pat you can probably weigh in on this. sometimes-this is in some developers, they have-they look at building permits as a demolition permit. is a permit a grading permit-i understand

you don't want to hold that in a-a developer doesn't want to hold that bond in advance for a time period they are not building, so the question is, when you say first issuance, is it-what issuance of which building permit are you specifically speaking to? any building permit? pat, if you could clarify that. >> yeah, as with these things, the devil is in the details so just looking at the legislation here. to what was just spoken to, obviously the site permit doesn't allow for work-physical work to take place, so at the issuance of the first construction document, which would be the first addendum, that is when the bond needs to be in place. i'm just looking at the legislation here. what it says, first construction document means the first building permit issued for a project in the case of a site permit. the first building

permit addendum issued or other documents that authorize construction of the project. construction documents shall include, permits or addenda for demolition, grading and site preparation work. >> okay. then even like perhaps (indiscernible) would be part of that too if they are doing utility work (indiscernible) >> i think the intent is to make sure that the workers are covered under bond. >> that's not my-not what i'm debating. i just want to be clear people are not confused at what point they are required to-when this is initiated because a building permit is a lot of different things. >> well, the document does state site preparation work. in my opinion, that includes utilities and infrastructure. >> okay, great.

>> deputy city attorney rob, the construction document does not include permits or addenda for demolition grading shoring or site preparation so believe you would not get the bond before site preparation, just to be clear. >> you are agreeing with director- >> i thought i heard-there was confusion whether it includes and-it includes language that says it does not include the permits for need of a bond. >> okay. it is also on page 2 of the document if you have your -i also pass it down, but it is in the definition on page 2 of the proposed legislation. >> is there any other commissioner comments or you are reviewing it?

>> shall not include, okay. so it does not. okay. thank you. that's good clarification. >> thank you. no further commissioner comments, is there a motion to approve file number 230134? >> motion to move this to land use. >> second. >> there is a motion and second. i'll do roll call vote. [roll call] thank you. the motion carries unanimously. next we have item

8, update on unpermitted awning complaints and community outreach. >> good morning commissioners. sonia, i believe we have a presentation. >> yes, it is loading. >> great. next slide. patrick hanen communication director for department of building inspection. since november 1, department of building inspection received 182 anonymous complaints about illegally installed awnings in san francisco. these have been spread throughout the entire city but concentrated in four naerbd said. the richmond.

the tenderloin, the haight and china town. of those 182 complaints, 61 notice of violations had been issued. by comparison, during the same period last year we received just 5 awning complaints, so the number we received this year is extraordinarily high. next slide, please. installing a awning frame on a building requires a construction drawings with permit application. awning construction drawings could be drafted by a contractor, oner installer, architect or engineer. the cost vary but usually run 2 to $3 thousand. on the left here we have kind of a layout with different requirement. if you are just replacing the fabric you only need a sign permit. if you are installing a awning or replacing the frame and sign, the fabric then you need the building permit and a sign permit and if you are just installing a frame which doesn't happen but you would

only need a building permit. next slide, please. given the volume of complaints received, we also heard from the community concerns about the complaints and concerns about some of the awnings have been in place a long time. so, we work with the mayor office, work with supervisor peskin office and planning department and office of small business to hold a community meeting in china town march 6 attended by more then a hundred people which we shared what the process was and received feedback from the community what they feld was a difficult process spurred by these complaints. next slide, please. we also been working on this and at the meeting articulated 7 things we were doing to make the process work better and work with them. the first thing is, deprioritize the enforcement of the awnings. the initial notice of

violations we found not one of them had found there was a unsafe building condition and actually on the nov there is a box you check if the inspector finds and says wow, this is unsafe condition related to the building and that simply hadn't been found. what we had found is there were a number of these that hadn't had permits, about my own review found at least a dozen did have permits and some didn't have awnings so the complainant who ever they were didn't necessarily always find a property that had an awning when they filed complaints. another thing we were doing is extending the deadlines. usually we give 60 days to resolve the issue and in this case extended to 180 days to give everybody enough time to work through this. also supporting legislation to wave the nov fee penalties for these awning complaints. also supported legislation you will hear about in a minute to extend may awning fee

waver month, which sure is on all your calendars to allow a greater number of people to participate. working to develop a self-certification for the awning instillations, by which a awning installer can come out and confirm it was installed properly. finally, we clarified on our website the process the step by step guide how you get a awning and sign permit to make it as easy and clear as possible. next slide. it is hard to read, but that is the update to the website we made. as with all the sfgov website is translated into chinese, spanish and filipino and here is the chinese translation. next slide, please. so, there are a number potential scenarios, but we want to highlight a couple so you understand what some of the

options were. under the first scenario, if a oner company hired but permit not obtained can have the awning installer come out and certify it was done to code, apply for building code and get the awning inspected and complete the process. another scenario is if just the awning fabric relaced on unpermitted awning instillation they can hire to prepare drawings, apply for building permit and get the awning inspected to make sure it is safely attach today the side of the building. we continue with work with the mayor office and city attorney to identify and figure how to balance these two needs. the code requirement, which is a safety requirement, which says if you fix something to the side of the building the code requires there is documentation shows it is affixed safely while balancing the community needs. some of the awnings have been in place a long time and we don't have a

great-long history seeing the awnings blow off. we are trying to balance the community needs and wanting to make sure we support small businesses while making sure that code compliance is achieved so everybody remains safe. we wanted to give the update because a, we engaged with the community and we are in-working with them in order to find that right balance, and also this isn't over. we continue to work on this and will continue to work on it until we find the right resolution. with that, i want to say thank you for the opportunity and let me know if you have any questions. >> commissioner tam. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation. just a couple questions. >> i'll call public comment. any public comment on this item? >> good morning, my name is jerry dratler. why not have

awning input? why is dbi using 30 year old business processes? business process reengineering at dbi is the solution to a $30 million operating budget problem. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none go ahead vice president tam. >> thank you and thank you for the presentation. a few questions. with the community outreach, majority of the feedback, what was said? >> i think people are mostly surprised. most cases the awnings have been in place a long time and there was uncertainly why this was a issue and 182 anonymous complaints, comparison to 5 the previous year, it was a substantially larger scope. we are required to respond to complaints but we want to find the right balance so as soon as

we understood this is happening at scale we move to start to manage the situation so can achieve the right balance. >> i do applaud. i know that applaud dbi for working with the nov recipients and giving them time. is there talk about extending the 180 days because there is a language barriers, small businesses is a part of the lifeline of san francisco and they have been through a lot with the pandemic and financial-suffered financial losses throughout the pandemic and with this, definitely is huge on the small business community and so, have there been talks extending the 180 days? there is legislation in place and they are working on that and i applaud peskin's office and the mayor's office for working on that, but is there additional timeframe that they are given? >> i think of things are still oen the table but we want to provide immediate relief so people don't have to worry if they don't get something done in the first 60 days

to resolve this that there would be enforcement action. took action to extend that out to give people sense of mind that this wasn't something that is enforced upon right away but as we go through the process if we need to make adjustments we women. >> thank you. thank you. >> commissioner neumann. >> thank you for the presentation. as you were going through, it seemed obvious in the solutions put forward that a self-certification makes a lot of sense for this issue. how far out do you think you are from able to implement something like that? >> i would say we continue to have discussions and talking about it later on this week. the real question, you have to bear in mind that when you put-when you affix something to the side of the building that is a structural element and if it reaches out over the right of way you don't want it to fall on someone's head. what is the requirement for the code making sure that is safely affixed and what we

are trying to figure out. i don't have a exact answer, but i tell you we are working on it actively. >> are you considering maybe having certified installers or something to that effect? >> awning installers are licensed installers so to get this permit you can be a owner but if you are a contractor now need this type of license because it is a structural element that is affixed to the outside of the building and we all want to make sure that is safe. >> thank you. >> commissioner tut. >> yes, i are have a few questions. thank you for the presentation. it is really great to hear how proactive the department has been reaching outto the community and language access so i want to recognize and thank you for that. i have two questions that are somewhat related, and one is, in scenario one, if the original awning company perhaps

wasn't licensed or they can't find them, does that mean they have to-what is the scenario then? and, is there a alternative? can anybody who has a license inspect it and then self--certify? and then somewhat related in scenario 2 is, is there any guidance around who is qualified to do these kinds of drawings? what is the qualification so people dont pay for something, get down the road and realize i have to go start over and already paid a couple thousand dollars for these drawings? >> those are great questions and let me note that we did research. how long have you been required to get a building permit for a awning and we know since 1919 this has been a requirement of the building code. it is long been in place. but those two questions you are asking are the exact questions we are trying to figure out. what level of self-certification is appropriate. who can

actually do that. on the one hand you want to make as easy as possible and say this is safe is qualified to make that determination and so that is exactly the line we are trying to figure out now. >> great. is office of small business engaged at all? >> they are. they were the first people we engaged and have been wonderful partners and very supportive and leading efforts with the legislation. >> great. i would just emphasize that this making sure the business owners know who they are supposed to hire and qualifications they should look for that is not universally known and i know we are in a position to recommend anybody, but just to make sure they have the information of who is qualified to help them get to the next position. >> absolutely. that was a reason we wanted to update the step by step to make it crystal clear who can do this and how you go each step of the way. >> commissioner shaddix. >> thank you. thank you patrick and thank you all for

being super proactive. shocking once again to see 150nov out of no where. the four neighborhoods, what about the other four? are they included in the fee wavers or permit assistance or just the four neighborhoods? >> those 4 neighborhoods are where the complains are concentrated. it was (indiscernible) this applies to awning complaints filed within a period of time regardless of the sunset or haight or china town. >> fantastic. last question, you are a new business and had a awning. i have seen many times where a awning is spray painted over and the sign is stenciled on. do you self-report? what if you are not sure if your awning was permitted and took

over a store front that has been there 20 year jz a awning as long as we have been around, do you ask-come down to dbi and ask is my awning permitted or do you just stay silent until somebody notices or how do you suggest that work? >> you can always take a look online going back to 1986 we have the permit tracking system will identify and have online the permits in place. you make a great point, if a new building is constructed you wouldn't have gotten a permit because that was have been part of the overall structure. they can always contact us and ask and we are happy to help them figure if they have a legally permitted awning and if not how they can go back bringing it into compliance. >> commissioner tam. >> i dont think you might not have the answer. i know the office of economic development small business grants,

is this something that would qualify for the grant? >> we are exploring opportunities and also in a conversation with them around the issue and looking to figure out-everything is on the table as we try to thread the needle and find the balance between public safety and supporting small businesses. >> thank you so much. >> i don't have any questions, but i think the rest of the commission, i think dbi has been addressing this very proactively so don't have a lot of concerns. i think the outreach they prioritize is circumspect why you have 182 complaints and only 5 the previous year. i don'ts think it is hard to look at a silver lining when 2 to $3 thousand is a lot for a small business and even things commissioner shaddix brought up like, spray painting a logo or signage is just a added cost they didn't intend to occur so i

applaud dbi reaction and proactive approach to this issue. i have been following it, but i think i have less concerns about it because dbi has been so on top of this issue. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. >> next we have item 9, disscugz and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance number 230212 amending the planning building code to codify the waver of awning replacement fees and awning sign fees applied for during the month of may to annually wave fees for new awning instillations applied for during the month of may in addition to other requirements. >> thank you very much. just a couple slides. here to give a brief introduction to the item to review and approve an ordinance to amend the building

code to add permit fee waver for new awning instillations each may during small business month. essentially expanding the existing fee waver which currently applies only to awning replacements. my only note about this ordinance is that it is different then the one that mayor london breed and board of supervisors president aaron peskin announced that vice president tam also just mentioned, that is expected to create an amnesty program for existing but not non compliant awnings. that ordinance is drafted and not introduced yet at the board of supervisors and we'll keep you updated on the progress of that ordinance. with that, happy to turn it over to (indiscernible) chief of staff to supervisor engardio and supervisor engardio is the sponsor of the awning fee waver ordinance. >> good morning

commissioners. he is the sponsor of this legislation. the proposed ordinance relates to the awning fee waver program that is in place since 2014. it is part of small business and building safety month. the current program allows small businesses to apply for a waver during the month of may for any replacement awnings, signs on replacement awnings and any instillations of pedestrian level lighting. the proposed ordinance is amendsing the planning and building code to do two things. first, it expands the program to cover new instillation of awnings and second, clarifies thee wavers are tie today the time applications are submitted, versus the time permits are issued. there was

ambiguity in the existing law. specifically, the building code provision being amended is section 110a. there is a table of various fees and the rules around them, and as you can see, if you are looking at the language,er it is basically in section f clarifying that it is the time of application that is relevant. there is some language that also says if there is a any conflict in the language this provision trumps any conflicting provision. and yes, it also states that we are hoping to cover new instillations. so, as you know, awnings have been on the news and a cause of concern for a lot of small businesses and we are hoping this is one step

that business owners can take to come within compliance and provide relief for them at the same time. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answer them but i believe the proposed ordinance is fairly straight forward. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners. >> i don't have any questions. do other commissioners have any questions? >> i do. what is the fiscal impact and then what has an analysis been done on impact of staffing because i imagine that means there is much more focus on this area during may? >> i am not aware of any analysis being done. i would differ to director orearden, since we have been encouraged by the office of small

business to advance this. it is an existing program, but whether-what the impact will be if we expand this to new instillations, i believe it would be difficult to predict, because it depends how many people take advantage of the program and of course, what the size of their project is, because the fees are keyed to the project amount. >> just to add to that, the permits do not require much review from the dbi perspective, but they will be routed through planning and public works, so these permits over the years have gone through over the e counter permits. they are fairly straight forward. the resource impact on staff should be fairly limited. >> thank you. >> i also wanted to mention, there is a retroactivity clause in the proposed ordinance because it is unlikely this ordinance will be passed and

signed into law before may 1, but the intention is to have this ordinance be in effect starting may 1 this year. >> i don't have further questions and i don't see other commissioners that do, so- >> do we need a motion? >> yes, we need a motion to approve file number 230212. >> i like to make a motion to prove. -approve. >> there is a motion and second and i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] >> thank you, the motion carries unanimously. item 10, discussion and possible action regarding updated administrative bulletin 093 implementation of green

building regulations. >> good morning. director orearden, i have a very brief presentation. (indiscernible) environment department. if you can move to the next slide, please. administrative bulletin 93 summarizes green building requirements in san francisco and as the commission is aware, the green building code was updated to incorporate california 2022 standards. next slide, please. included modficonditions to electric vehicle charges and better support in the energy code for electrification which is mandatory in new construction in san francisco. next slide. therefore, the administrative bulletin summarizing

those regulations for implementing those requirements are straight forward updates. they included updating dates in reference to the relevant codes, some type graphical improvalment and clarifications and no changes to requirements or the meaning or procedures of the department of building inspection. i would be happy to answer questions about it, but seeking your support for these updates to the bulletin. >> thank you. any public comment on item 10? any remote? seeing none, is there commissioner discussion or questions? >> i just have a question on the ev parking spaces. install e rks have charges in 5 percent of the spaces. is that additional 5 percent? >> that is one of the biggest changes, so previously the state did not require actual

chargers to be installed, it just required various types of wiring for spaces in san francisco also had requirements that expanded on that. for the first time there is additional 5 percent of spaces that need chargers installed. >> ifia you have hundred spaces you add 5 percent on top to meet ev charging or 5 percent of the hundred? >> the latter. the number of parking spaces to be constructed is a determination made by the planning process and entitlement process and just once that output of what is approved of the number of parking spaces to be constructed, then the math of what ev charging infrastructure applies. >> that would be not in addition or in addition? >> i think i misunderstood your question at first, so it is not in addition to what is entitled by the planning department, just a change from the prior code. >> okay. >> proportion changed. >> the only experience i had with that is the reach code and other jurisdictions where in the past and that had changed,

but it was fairly onerous the first time i think it was adopted but the ev parking was in addition to the required and that blew up your garage, especially if you are dealing with something that has 300 or 500 parking spaces and you got a garage below grade, so it was relief to see it was a pro rata of the required, meaning it was not in addition but a part of your required parking. >> sorry, misunderstood your question. >> that is okay. that is just a clarification. i don't have other questions about the green code. fellow commissioners, i just wanted to-- >> if no further questions or discussion, is there a motion to approve the administrative bulletin 093? >> so moved. >> second. >> there is a motion is and second. eel polk -i'll do a roll call vote.

[roll call] >> thank you. the motion carries unanimously. next we have item 11. update regarding the nomination subcommittee. a. code advisory committee (cac) seats that are vacant: • code advisory committee “member-at-large” • code advisory committee “a person qualified in the area of historical preservation” b. board of examiners (boe) seat that is vacant: • tenant licensed or registered as an architect, civil or structural engineer seat. commissioners sommer. >> yes, through the chair. >> yes. >> this subcommittee has not met since the last building inspection commission meeting, however we have posted a updated advertisement

for the vacant position sonia just read. it is posted on the website and since the agenda for this meeting was released, another seat for the board of examiners opened up and that is a person licensed as a general contractor, so that was included in the advertisement-not included in the advertisement but we will update to include this. we will do some outreach to fill these four vacant positions, and i think that is the update. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner sommer. is there any other comments on this item? seeing none, we will move to item 12, update regarding the cleent service subcommittee. >> good morning president bito, members of the

commission. i'm neval deputy director for permit services division in dbi. if we can get that--so, i will be updating you on the client service committee meeting we had last week or the week before and this was primarily related to the site permit reform process. go to the next slide. we will present a overview of slides you are probably familiar with. you will remember it from the last big meeting. we will talk about process policy and fees in relation to the planning and building and the technical review technology comparison between planning and building. i want to add a note that all of the changes we are talking

about today or potential changes, they are currently in draft form and so they are not final recommendations. next slide, please. on the top you will see that process flow diagram that you saw the previous bic meeting which essentially looks at the proposed process that is different from what we currently have. what it does-what it takes the planning process and extricates out of the building permit process where it is currently embedded in and makes it a separate process that is identified there by the gap between the two. throughout the presentation today i'm going to be comparing the planning process and the building process side by side so you can see the differences there. the next slide. sorry, go back to that previous one. there we go. okay, as far as

process and policy goes, the difference between planning and building and planning process is entirely discretionary. it is open to subjective review, input from the public, whereas the building permit process is essentially what it is today, ministerial process where if you comply with the regulations put borf before you in the building code, you essentially get approval for your permit. going down on the planning side, this will be entirely a planning department process. it will include a limited scope referral from other departments during its review so that when the project is going through discretionary review they have the input of the departments on a limited basis as opposed to a full scale review. the plans during the process are usually rudimentary. they

develop primarily the architectural elements, the scale, the massing, architecture details of the building, high level review and historical and environmental concerns are looked at there, so we don't get into it building too much from a building perspective or any other department. the building side of things, once you file for the building permit application, you will have full construction drawings ready. architectural, structural as well as mechanical and green building standards will be establishing clear timelines for the reviews here whereas discretionary process on the planning side may involve multiple reviews historical review planning commission meeting and so on and so forth. establish clear timelines on the building side of things as well as hopefully reduce the number of review cycles as we currently

have today. moving to fees, the only change from the planning perspective is that the planning department will now be able to recoup hundred percent of fees up front, whereas with the current process the site permit process, they collect 25 percent of their fees at the beginning of the process and depending on whether the permit goes through fruition with construction or not, may or may not get their fees back. some projects decide not to forward after planning review eve n after the site permit so the planning department is usually out of their fees to recoup their cost so that will be the change on the planning side. on the building side, because wecurrently allow for site permits and what we call full permits, the full building permit submitted at once, there is no change in the

fee structure on building side, however we will have to create a way to recoup our review during the planning process. that may be on a time and material basis or maybe just a flat fee, depending on how we figure that out. next slide. as far as technical review, i'm going to call it a planning permit for now for-that is still up for discussion. the planning permit is exclusively a planning review. depending on the scope of the project, they may or may not invite the building department, fire department or public works department in to comment on. it may be small scale review for a relatively small project. obviously on the larger or mid-size projects, they will ask for referral, conditions of approval from other

departments. during this process, if the department if the building department gets invited to comment on the project, our review during the planning process will be very limited. currently, we not only look at the site evaluation of the project, we also get into the building and look at exiting and detailed as well as accessibility in the detailed fashion. so, want to be clear that during the planning process, it will be limited to these items that are itemized here. the location of the building and fire separation distance, the allowable height and area of the building including the type of construction exterior wall and openings on the exterior walls, site accessibility only opposed to what it is currently, interior accessibility review and just

gross egressing, making sure every floor has exit path all the way down to the ground and to disperse out to the public way. during the building permit process, there will be no changes to the current detail review of construction documents. next slide. from a technology perspective, there is going to be some changes there. currently there exists two permit tracking systems. one in the planning department and one in the building department. the planning department uses (indiscernible) on a limited basis, so when they take on this review and the planning permit process they actually will be enhancing the project-the system pretty substantially to allow for workflow and being able to take fees in and be able to

track the various reviews through the planning permit process. and they will also need to create a entitlement certificate, whatever the report is created at the end of the process to essentially let the applicant know that they have gone through the review, paid the fees and they have approvals. on the building side of things, the permit tracking system requires no change. we are ready for this change, again because we have already built in the ability to track workflows, collect fee s as well as create reports for full permits. whereas, the planning department will be tracking projects by what they call the prj number. we will be tracking by building permit application number with now a reference if there was any change in the permit tracking system, we would just have the reference number now to the

planning project. the last three items are bullet items on the slide actually are meant to be shared between two systems and both the systems will-the first bullet item shows the plan review comments will be issued in unison for the planning process. when it comes to building permit application, we'll continue to do it the way we currently do. the automatic notifications will now be included in both systems, whereas we don't have the ability to automatically notify the applicant today to let them know that their application is expiring and don't have the ability to auto expire. we will be turning that on in both systems and of course allow for website access so the applicant knows where the process is in the system.

and with that, that concludes my presentation. >> thank you deputy director. is there any public comment on this item? >> good morning, my name is jerry dratler. which plans require the seal of license professional? how do the proposed changes compare to best practices in other similar size cities? are there any proposed changes weaken existing earthquake standards? will the proposed planning department changes or enhancements to accela allow dbi finally to get on the accela system? thank you. >> any additional

public comment? any remotely? seeing none, is there commissioner discussion or questions? >> do we have questions from the commission? oh, commissioner sommer. >> thank you. my question was, this is just a update, what we are discussing in further detail at the may meeting, right? okay. because, is there or will there be legislation tied to these changes? is that how that will go, or is this a internal process discussion? or both? >> so, currently it is internal process discussion. they will

likely be some changes needed legislatively to amend the planning code and building code, just because the site permit process itself is embedded in both codes and we need to make those amendments. >> commissioner sommer any ort questions? commissioner neumann. >> i would just say this seems like a step in the right direction, especially speaking as a developer and i know president bito has commented on this before. most places, the planning process is separate from the permitting process and those are very clear lines and i think this will do a lot to clarify processes. much more difficult and murky in san francisco then it is in other municipalities surrounding us. >> commissioner tut.

>> the reform revision of this is pretty monumental to san francisco because the site permit process is part of the dbi process and planning permit process for i don't know how many years, decades but don't know how many, 5 decades? pat if you can speak to that? >> it pre-dates me. that goes back a ways, so probably 40 years i say at least mpts >> those are the rumors i heard. this is a pretty monumental change and the mayorsent out a press release to this effect that we will have a may 18 joint commission meeting with planning on this, and president tanner and i have you know, have tracked the status of this in terms of where dbi and planning are respectively on their processes just to understand

like, some of our questions about the site permit reform process and the questions i have about it are the big questions i think coming from the community are the fees. some fees like on your slides that might appear to be duplicates are really not. planning has to be paid their fee to do their work and i think being paid up front makes sense because if you are getting a entitlement whether you actually build on the entitlement or put it on hold, you still have the project reviewed. having some-especially for even for single family home, but from a single family home all the way to high-rise, the planning process allows them to have some cursory or preliminary review of the building department and gives them some indication what is at risk when they move into the building permit. so, what you outlined there if you can bring up your slide was a baseline of some of

those items, and those baseline items are just sort of the minimum, but it also allows for- >> slide 4. >> allows an applicant to also work with building on some issues that are coming up so they anticipate might be issues that they could address or questions they may have, so i think that you know, the fees that building needs-the building department needs for that is commensurate with the level of effort, but i think the concern i heard from the community is that they are paying double the fees. i don't think that is the case. the review at the building permit level is very different then what you are doing at a planning level. >> that's correct. yes. and limiting to these items from a global massing and exterior fire review as far as height and area is really i believe what the original site

permit was inteneded to be back 40 years or whatever, it just morphed into something. >> the other slide i wanted to speak to was on your first slide. i'm bringing that up. sorry. the first slide when you talked about the review cycle. in the review cycle, we do review cycles for all permitting departments. that is aspirational statement to make. it is objective but aspirational and it is really in the details so the question is that continued to be a sequential process or going to be a parallel review? but not just parallel review in the building department where you are looking at the technical for mep, structural and-did i capture all that? i think you also have housing. i think-but it is also looking at fire, public works and other departments that you

would review this in parallel with. >> correct. we are actually making end roads today prior to the whole process being completed to insure that not only we internally, but the public as well move towards electronic plan review. that is the standard out there for many years. this department or the city continues to work in paper and the paper process is a sequential review, so we will be moving to the strictly electronic plan review, hopefully sooner rather then later, and once that is the case, we are working in unison with other departments, primarily through the permit center to make sure that we establish the requirements up front for the applicants to make sure that they have

examples of ideal submittals, the required documentation that is required to be submitted with the application package, as well as check lists that we are internally looking at. the comments-the generic check list we are looking at, those will be published and once we equip the public with this information, hopefully we'll get a quality set and complete set of plans in. you heard before dbi is working this angle today with our pre-plan check process. we won't allow people to submit until we is a complete and quality set of plans. we just have to make sure the other departments are rolled into that as well so hopefully we'll be able to get a complete quality set of plans that we'll be able to do a quality complete set of first round comments and not have-reduce the number of

cycles that way. >> did you have a question? i have more questions, but i didn't want to- >> (indiscernible) [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker] starting points. >> absolutely. >> i would echo commissioner neumann's points. this is not to suggest that other municipalities are doing it perfectly, because you go to another municipality and their constituents or applicants complain how long it is taking

stow it is subjective, but san francisco does have its own issues and reputation, but to commissioner neumann's point, my only question and i think it would be a concern with the design community or development community is that, when you talk about receiving a quality set of plans, that can be very subjective, but i would say that the things that commissioner neumann is speaking to that a set of plans that complete with requisite information and sheets and drawings that is in the check list should be at the very minimum included as part of the submittal and presume that would be part of your pre-plan check. that is sort of the first gate. everything on the check list is included in the drawing set. >> correct. >> well, there are two different things, because this is the building department. the thing you are talking about is the planning department, but the deem complete now

is more of a i believe more a planning decision that you want towards the end of the cycle. with the building permit, the same thing should still apply that you are asking for certain plans and that list gets longer and more complicated the bigger project gets and more complex. i think being clear what you expect from a applicant for any given type of project and you have different project types you outlined in prior meetings, whether a subcommittee meeting or here, where you had different categories of what is over the counter and those things that we are speaking to are in-house permits that require much more in depth review. i note that was category 2, 3 or 4 but between category-2-4 those are all intake projects correct? >> that is correct. >> those are ones

that-from what i have seen and heard and through dbi initiatives to start a pre-plan check process, but over the counter doesn't have the same issues as these intake reviews that we are really focusing on. would that be a correct thing to say? >> well, the over the counter process has plan check comments and that stuff, but it is generally on a smaller scale. >> mouch more immediate too? >> yeah. >> and you can work those in real time. i feel that has become less a issue because that was a big issue during the pandemic and less so now. >> director orearden. >> what is important about the over the counter process that you have the in person engagement and things can be dealt with right there and then as opposed to in-house where you have the separation from

the customer. that is my understanding. >> okay. my next question is to city attorney rob capla on legislation and appeal because the other big question the community has is, having a bifurcated process would potentially lead to two permit exposures, where somebody who was dissatisfied with-that is more common at the discretionary level, but less so at the building permit, which is hopefully moving towards ministerial. what is it going to take to change that so that we only limit an applicant exposure to appeals to one permit? >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. the currents structure we use for site permit is the applicant comes in and receive the site permit and that is the

chance to have your appeal and the construction documents as discussed in the other item, they are usually issued addenda and not appealable because they are alterations to a permit that is already pulled. we are looking to mirror if not keep that same structure in this case where the initial planning entitlement will also be issued by or cosign gned by the department of building inspection, such that we have done internal review to say the permit at least has access issues resolved. the building shell is ready for construction document review. it would be essentially the first document that planning permit that neval is discussing, would also be the first building permit. it is also a site permit would not allow construction. it comes back in for addenda or building permit issued pursuant and those do not have appeal period and that is what we are working under the

current structure which is parent permit and then addenda or alterations for construction. the chance to appeal is that parent permit. the development permit, entitlement, site permit, whatever we want to call it but the full planning review by the planning department and then issuance by planning with the stamp or a approval of readiness for construction document review by the building department and that would be the only appeal point. >> so, i guess the question to you when you describe that, it sounds similar to the system we have now. that is the only thing. you have a parent permit which is what the site permit is doing, are we still looking at a bifurcated system? >> it is bifurcated system in we put the entitlement review up front as clearly as possible and minimizing the building department's back and forth and fire and other departments until we get to the construction document phase. that review should be more ministerial and objective and

not as-qualitative or subjective as planning review can be so we are putting that up front and making the planning department the driver of the entitlement process after which we certify or building official certifies this is ready and live permit. the permit is pulled and you can pull the construction documents pursuant to that permit. that relationship is the way in which we do not have multiple appeals on the construction documents post entitlement. >> so, the parent permit that is going to be issued is going to be a permit? it is still a site permit, right? is that a planning permit or still a building permit? >> it would be a building permit that incapsulates the entitlement process. with you pull a permit for most projects it is authorization to do the work. in this case, when we pull that initial planning permit whether we call it planning permit, development permit, site permit, it would also say the building department reviewed

this and ready for construction document review. it is a additional building permit, it just does not allow construction. similar to a site permit in terms of nomenclature. >> that doesn't feel like it is changing a whole lot though. >> it is not--specifically not changing that so we don't have serial appeals. if you change everything is another permit it can be appealed. that's why we want one permit issuance and then revise it with further review by the departments. >> so, to call something a planning permit versus building permit, what changes would require-would be required of that-it is planning permit-in other jurisdictions and commissioner neumann you can weigh in if you want to-a planning permit or approval gives you by right to build

that-to build to that design envelope, whatever it is, right? so, you is a planning permit, which most developers rely on, they have gone through the appeals through ceqa, done the full review, done the community outreach, which is what the planning department requires them to do as part of that, so at that point when they get planning approval and planning permit it isn't a building permit, it is a planning permit. the developers have some sense of reliability and speak to me as a developer, when you get a planning permit you are good to go to a building permit. >> but this seems more like semantics to me then anything, because it-you typically get your entitlement and your entitlement would enable you to take that next step and do design development and get to your construction documents that you would then submit to the planning department. in this case rather then calling it is a planning

entitlement, they are calling it a permit and then the permit, which cannot be appealed, it is just amended if i understand correctly,ic to get you to the ddcd-to the cd phase. >> deputy city attorney, we are using a lot of- >> construction documents. >> using a lot of acronyms and discussions here. the key is we want to set up the appeal point for whether or not a project should proceed at the entitlement stage. >> there is no more appeal after- >> after that, no. currently with the current process once the site permit is issued that is the chance to appeal the site permit. currently the site permit mostly incapsulates planning department entitlement with initial building department review. after that the addenda, the specific construction documents issued pursuant to the site permit, they are not appealable. and that is the process-we want to insure we are not

setting up a new process where every time a new construction document issued there is another appeal as to the public interest of that project because it is already weighed in on the initial permit stage so we want to keep the relationship between once you are entitleed that is the chance for appeal period. the subs quent reviews are more ministerial and not appealable at each stage. when you ask what would it take to call it a planning permit and issue building permit pursuant to the planning permit, that is our charter essentially allows each new permit to have an appeal and that's the concern would be each time we issue something that is a new permit that is a new appeal point. >> it requires changing the charter? >> yes. 2/3 vote. >> could you provide the commission the language of the charter that would have to be changed in order for this

to-provide us the language so we can review it and what would have to change for this to be a two part process and then a process that could only be appealable at one stage which would be at the planning. >> depy city attorney, the process we are proposing would be a single appeal point. if we are worried about the semantics of calling these permits each subsequent permit or keeping a parent permit unappealable nesting permits to the initial permit, if-there are couple ways in which we get around the charter provisions and one of which and seeing it now are state laws that would essentially mandate permits become ministerial. they have to make findings to override the provisions. if the city were to do it, i can discuss and provide guidance how the charter changed and what a proposal would look like.

>> i appreciate that. i don't have time to go to the city charter myself to look for it. that one and then the appeals process, the language that allows somebody to just you know, so we focus on that and i apologize i haven't been able to do that myself, but that is something that is on my-reading through that to understand the steps to that. i don't necessarily-i guess it is a question with commissioner neumann on the semantics, because i think semantics in this particular case are important, because what you stated early on is something that is very wildly known around the bay area. you understand this is a planning permit or planning process and this is a building permit, building process. you submit for a building permit. i still-i'm not trying to talk us out of or talk into anything, but the thing that is always confusing to me is that a planning permit is still a building permit here

in san francisco. a planning permit should be a planning permit that stands alone that gives by right to build that project or at least submit documents to build that project, right? that-i guess my question to ddi is, what kind of feedback have you gotten from-i know we are still doing outreach, but i think that would be a important part is creating clarity in the process. i know issues we heard like the appeals, the fees, those are some big things, but director orearden. >> i think we haven't gotten to a point where we have had enough conversations with the stakeholders to really get meaningful feedback as yet. there is a lot of uncertainty about what this is and i think it is probably reflected in the conversations we are

having here today. >> yeah. >> there is just-we need to have a more vetted process in place before we can go to the community with it i think. there are too many unknowns right now. >> i guess this is just-it is in the news all the time, because the mayor has an objective. she just adopted the 82 thousand unit housing element and how are we going to build that so it a big question mark for all of us, so--commissioner neumann. or commissioner tut, sorry. >> yes, i think these questions are fantastic and think the appeals process and understanding the appeals process and how this changes and how this doesn't. i do want to make sure everyone is aware, when you-there is one stakeholder group perhaps for the changes we are

suggesting, there is a much bigger and broader community that is going to be involved in a much longer process. i suspect if we are talking about changing opportunities for appeal, and i just want us to be cautious if we have short term goals in may that those could-there could be a lot of confusion that is created if we are not very specific about what it is we are requesting in the appeals process. because we have seen how there are certain buzz words in san francisco that you know, will make these chairs very very full and possibly on a misunderstanding so i want to make sure we are very very cautious in any kind of-one of those is limiting appeals, so i want to make sure that

we don't get side-tracked from what we are trying to do. but maybe those are two problems we are trying to solve and maybe they have different timelines. >> thank you commissioner tut, but i don't agree that this is-i think the appeals is linked to the process and i dont think what we will talk about in may is short order discussion, i think it is long-term discussion. this is a huge change for dbi and nobody is taking it lightly, so-but it requires more then three slides on the screen to really understand the issue. >> deputy city attorney, i should clarify because it does sound we are changing structures. the goal is to not eliminate or create a new appeal point, it is keep the current structure where you have a chance to appeal a permit for a project. that is the way the current site permit prosworks and building

works. we don't want to create a new structure that add or remove an appeal opponent -point that is granted to anyone that has issue with a permit. >> to clarify my point, i think that if we are clear about what we are doing and what you just said deputy city attorney makes a lot of sense, but these are i just caution us not being intentional when we talk about changing the appeals or looking at the charter for appeals. these are great things to do and look forward reviewing the language myself, but there is-i think the question of who the stakeholders become just expands so i wanted the commission to be cautious of that. >> if i may underscore what deputy city attorney just said, we are not changing anything from the existing

process, even though we issue subsequent ministerial permits, those permits are still appealable under the codes that they promulgate. >> if i may, i think the effort is in streamlining and creating efficiencies and in eliminating duplication and cycles of review. >> yeah, that's the objective is streamlining. commissioner neumann, you have been patiently waiting. >> i think this is first step in the right direction to getting to a much more clearly bifurcated process, without making a charter amendment or anything like that. we are using the process we have to sort of bifurcate those things and make it a much more clear and distinct process for builders so i really commend and appreciate the thought that has gone into this so far and i look forward seeing it

evolve further. >> any other commissioners? thank you deputy director for your presentation. i know you put a lot of thought into this. there is still much work to do. i think we have gone beyond the first step, but there is still many many steps ahead of us. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next we are on item 13, commissioner's questions and matters. 13a inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. b. future meetings/agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take

action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. the next regular meeting is scheduled for april 19. do commissioners have any inquiries or comments? >> commissioner tut. >> i read both so you can do either one. >> yes, thank you. i would like to see the secretary staff review or performance review be on a future agenda item, and i also like-could we-i have one question, because we discussed that was a closed session. >> it would be closed session but i ask for the item to be on the agenda. >> i was going to request it as well because we had a follow-up. we were supposed to have a follow-up but it wasn't scheduled. >> that's all. thank you. >> commissioner neumann. >> i would like to make a suggestion that for future reports regarding

programmatic changes that we include the fiscal impact and the staffing and resources impact. >> commissioner tam. >> that is a good one. i just wanted-assuming we will get continued updates on the awning issue as it progresss so next meeting if there is a progress or development we like to have that on the agenda as well. >> yes, vice president tam, that is correct. we will provide ongoing update said. >> thank you. >> i like to suggest an agenda item also for april that we in preparation for the joint meeting start preparing what that meeting might look like and not sure if that should be done in this meeting or in another meeting, but i feel like we need to do preparation for the joint meeting. whether

it is a update to the site permit or to the joint meeting. >> thank you. are there any other items? seeing none, is there public comment on item 13a or b? seeing none, item 14. director's report. 14a, director update. >> thank you president and members of the building inspection commission. patrick oriordan director of dbi. i like to apologize for misspeak relating to item 7 regarding the labor bond. thank you deputy city attorney rob kapla keeping me straight. i appreciate it. and the topic of the day i guess is site permit improvement process. as we know, yesterday dbi along

with mayor breed and city administrator carmen chu and planning department announced the plan to make significant improvements to -we call site permit process for now. at the core of the plan is the bifurcation of the site permit process. with planning completely overseeing the entitlement phase and dbi focusing on the building permit review and issuance. we believe this plan can substantially reduce the timeline for developing new housing, and in some cases potentially by as much as two years and that is looking from a dbi lens. this is really a big deal. it is a good conversation that we are having,ering i very much believe it will improve our permitting system in the city, especially in relation to

providing housing. we are starting to work on legislation to codify the changes and we have a community and stakeholder meeting scheduled for april 19 before bringing a plan for your consideration to a joint meeting with the planning commission on may 18. so, we look forward to sharing more details about this important proposal in the coming weeks and months. and just moving on, last week i attended a california building officials meeting in san diego where i gave a presentation on how dbi managed the transition to remote work beginning of covid crisis through today. i spoke to the challenges presented to us. the principles and details behind dbi remote work operations, and the value we use to guide this and in deed all our

work. it sparked great dialogue. i was presenting along with the director of building and safety from san diego as well as the building official from los angeles. i mean, personally what i realized is we had a lot more in common then we had in relation to differences. we were all dealing with the same issues with staff and everything else, so--and at the end of the day, what we realized is the technology that we had we were able to start using and where we landed today is that now we have the advantage of using that technology every day and streamlining our work and creating efficiencies. fewer people have to come into dbi and try to find parking when you have to drive down there, because we have a lot

of our services available online to the customers. that's where we landed and it is one good thing that came out of all of the misery we went through over the past few years. so, also i like to add, assistant director christine-also attendeded a meeting and she was recognized for her participation in a building official leadership academy. she graduated at the meeting in san diego from attending that course, so great work, christine. and just moving on then to-this was presented earlier. today is the roll-out of the new program for the residential building projects in relation to construction waste

management requirements. it involves submitting a plan through a piece of software known as green halo, and it relates to residential additions and alterations that increase the condition the areas within a building. to insure compliance a final inspection cannot be scheduled until the department of environment approves the project-what we call mmrp, which means material reduction and recovery plans. that starts today with anything that is submitted as of now. and that's all i have for you in my report. >> thank you. item b, update on major projects. do

we have a slide deck? good morning again commissioners. the following slides are intended to highlight the volm i and valuation of projects with vallation of $5 million or more that are filed issued or completed as well as profile for new projects that bring essentially high value in terms of the construction-contributi on to housing community assets. so, in february of 2023, two permit applications with a estimated valuation of $5

million or more were filed with dbi. one application was for a $30 million renovation of a office building into a life sciences building at 550 terry a francois boulevard. the other is new manufacturing and retail building 2330 lane street in bayview and that valuation came in at $5.5 million. last month we issued two high value permits with collective valuation of $19.5 million. one of these permits was for renovation and expansion of the mission library. the other was for an office tenant improvement at 345 spear street. next slide, please.

and lastly, dbi finaled three high valued projects with a construction valuation over $37 million and added 37 new housing units. one project was a renovation and expansion of a building at the hamlen school which is located at 2120 broadway. another was for 37 unit condo building at 1663 mission street that has 4 below market rate units. thank you. available for any questions. >> no questions for commissioners. go to item c, update on dbi finances. >> hello commissioners. alex deputy director

administration. i have the regular monthly update. it should be pretty standard. next month we will have an update for our 9 month projections and depending on timing, possibly a update on the results of the fee study as well, but it will likely be too early for that so that will come in may, but we'll see. so, for the revenue update, we are 67 percent through the year, and we have received 58 percent of our revenue so far. the rate of revenue collection in february was slower then the prior year and slower then earlier in this year. hoping it was due to weather and delays and all that. from what i heard, the beginning of march has been a bit better, but we will continue to monitor that. hope foal hopefully

that does not continue. next month, we will update our projections, but so far to remeend you the projections from the 6 month update was-that we would recover 6 percent lower then budget at year end. and we have yet to receive our interest and our interest income is posted by controller year end. here are the amounts that reflect the narrative from the previous page. next month we'll see updates to the right most two columns. we will revise our year end projections and that will be more significant update. next slide, please. on the expenditure side, we continue to spend below budget. we are very conscious about saving what we can and delaying what we can. our salaries

and fringes are about the same as last month. slightly above budget, but we are expecting separation, so we'll review and update next month. next slide, please. so, again here are the numbers not too much different from the prior month. the only update is the 2023 year to date actuals column that will be slightly greater then next month, but the right most two columns will be updated next month when we update our year end projections. next slide. so, on the permit side, the number of permits year to date has been pretty steady throughout the year. year to date compared it last year's year to date. it is 10 percent lower all year, however the valuation last year valuation has caught up to this year's, so again february did

not see a lot of revenue come in, and the permit valuations were lower then year to date last year. next slide, please. and so again, the main story here is really the largest category, the 100 to $200 million. those two large projects are really what is carrying us this year and keeping things comparable to last year. every other category is less in both number of permits and valuation. so, we'll continue to monitor and to address some of the public comment, i think a lot of those questions and issues will definitely be addressed when the results of the fee study are in and when we start looking into the specifics of which fees we update

by how much, how much things cost, and are there operational changes we can make to save even more money. that concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner tut. >> i just have clarifications in the report. we are 67 percent through the year, that's correct? okay. so, when we say year to date salary and fringe are trending at 64 percent so above budget. does that mean 67 percent? can you tell what that means? >> salary benefits are unique in that they are posted every 2 weeks so all other revenue and actuals are through the end of february, but labor is only through the middle of february, because the last-2-28-the last pay period or last half of february has not

posted yet so the actuals are not reflected here, so it would be fair to say that 63, 62 percent of the year has elapsed from a labor perspective, because there is the timing issue with payroll posting. >> okay. and then in the year to date for fiscal year, fiscal year 21-22 and 22-23, is that what this means or the first two quarters of 22-23 and first- >> the first two are fiscal year 21-22 and the next two are 22-23. >> that is what i thought but wanted to clarify. thank you. >> i have a question. with respect to all the discussions we had about the site permit and some things that

deputy director neval proposed, if the lion share of-i guess i want to understand from a operational and financial standpoint, if dbi will spend less time when something is coming in, like how that effects, like your efficiencies, fees that are coming in with respect to that. that sort-i am not-probably not characterizing this very clearly, but how does that change in the permit process effect our financial outlook? the other thing that crossed my mind when you were talking about projections and the biggest outlay is labor for dbi, some of that is constant and doesn't change either way, but things like you know, epr. does that help efficiency of

dbi operations and-i think it is more then fees then labor because labor is pretty much constant i would presume. >> my thought is that when ever you create efficiencies, especially in relation to enabling concurrent review through epr, that is obviously that should lead to less staff resources in relation to- >> exactly. >> review. >> yeah, and i don't think that-it is not on the table, but when your-when the actuals fall below the projected fee and revenue as the prior year, people's concerns are going to be at some point that has to be balanced at every-for every budget and the concern will be people's jobs. i

think some of the efficiencies has a positive silver lining on it. i don't know how to characterize that from a data perspective, a financial perspective, but there should be some analysis on how the permit process will effect-it will effect dbi operational but how will it effect financially and how will it effect how you need to hire less perhaps to your point. i think that needs--speaking for myself, i would want to understand the impact of that on the finances of dbi. >> certainly. i'm sure it would be our hope we could increase efficiency to a point where we could increase our attrition and save on labor costs. >> it isn't attrition, it is more like the people that are doing-currently have

their jobs can do them more efficiency and requiring fewer people you need to bring on so less about letting go of people. that might lead to that discussion if the budget doesn't get resolved in some way, but it is more about the efficiency-giving dbi staff more feeling more resolute that being more efficient gives them job security, but also does it mean you have to keep hiring to keep up the promises dbi makes to offer better services? >> sure. when i say attrition, i mean the technical budget term. it would be-we wouldn't want to give up our hiring authority because it is so difficult to get. it just means we would leave positions unfilled, so as people naturally retire and promote and leave the department, then we back-fill less or back-fillmore slowly. >> i didn't ask the

question clearly but-it is a change how the change in permit process effects dbi financially. >> sure. >> if no further discussion? >> commissioner tut. >> so, i think somewhat parallel and a little different is, when we are ready to institute the changes that we-that the process is leading to, i actually like to also look at a organizational chart and see perhaps if there needs to be-because of changes, maybe there needs to be a change in the structure, maybe staff needs to be moved around that maybe there are-as we create efficiencies we also need people in different places and so, i think an org chart discussion may be warranted at that point. >> sure. there is a pretty good org chart on the website. it doesn't reflect some of the

changes we are making in the budget, but we can get started on working-showing what that will look like next year. >> i think my question is more about when the permit comes in and i think that currently the review of a site permit is much greater then it might be or will be when we adopt a new process that planning is going to do a full review and paid to do that, thusly, building will only have a cursory review and that cursory review means less time on each of those projects or applications coming in. hopefully that is part of the efficiency built in as part of the overall review of any one project. it will take less time. >> with what you are asking, but it seems like with

the updated process there will be a delay in when dbi is collecting more of its fee, and so i think we need to understand what that fee impact is going to be in that delayed collection, and then additionally, what that means in the shift to staffing. how much staffing are we using now up front during that process that will be also delayed to the latter part of that process, or what will the savings in that staff timing be? >> i don't think the will be delayed. if a planning-application is coming in it going to planning and presumably if parallel review coming to building too. it is just their purview isn't as in depth it would be if it was a building permit so the building permit is coming later anyway,

but i think now-correct if i'm wrong director orearden, but with you review a permit, i think sometimes the review is higher then the depth of review-or intensity of the review is higher then it needs to be for a planning permit going forward. >> yeah, i think that is right. i also think that in regards to creating efficiencies, what that means to me is we have to be nimble and we have to be able to reassign resources based on any new process we would have, and if a new process means that we have less duplication and review cycles, then you know, we can reassign the resources based on where we are with that. >> okay. i don't have any other questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. next

14d, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> carl legislative affairs with update on state and local legislation effecting the department. get the next slide. we can go through this quickly. this is the ordinance you heard this morning to amend the police and building codes for the labor compliance bond requirement. thank you for advancing to the land use committee. we expect that to be at land use committee monday may 20 so i'll update you at the next meeting on this ordinance. next slide, please. this is the other ordinance that you heard this morning regarding the awning fee waver program. thank you also for your consideration of this one. next slide. this ordinance would amend the planning building code to increase fines and penalties for violation of theen plaing building

code. you heard about this since summer last year i believe and this was approved by the board of supervisors first reading at yesterday's meeting. there will be another vote next week. next slide. this is ordinance-i don't believe i covered in the last update last month. it is ordinance to amend the campaign and government code to create a permit prioritization task force with dbi, public works, and dpw, and that task force would be charged with creating permit prioritization guidelines for these departments and the ordinance would require those guidelines for dbi have to be approved by the bic. and that ordinance is still on 30 day hold and would be referred to the rules committee. next slide. there was a resolution urging the planning department to locate potential candidates for office conversions in the downtown core and are urging planning and dbi to make some

public facing critearier for stakeholders to know what to expect with those projects. that resolution passed by the board of supervisors last month. next slide. and there is a pending hearing to discuss the budget and legislative analyst report on commercial real estate to residential conversions. that hearing still has not been scheduled and know president bito you have interest in that one so we'll keep you updated when that is scheduled. next slide. actually, sorry i was--go back. i was ahead of the slides. now i'll turn to state legislation. very active time at the state legislature. bills were due to be proposed by february 17. believe the amount of bills that were proposed on february 16 doubled by february 17, so on this

slide cover ab1114 proposed by matt haney from san francisco. this is relevant to your conversation about site permitting earlier. this bill would modify the definition of post entitlement permits to include permits without regard whether they are non discretionary so remove the discretionary aspect for post entitlement permits including building permits and make those a ministerial duty of the local agency, in this case dbi. it would also apply time limits for the review times dbi would have for the permit applications. a1352 also from assembly member haney would make office to supportive housing conversions by right, regardless of zoning and define use by right to mean that city or county could not or review of office conversions could not require a conditional

permit or other discretionary review. again, building permits would be ministerial. next slide. ab932 proposed my assembly member ting from san francisco would amend an existing requirement for junior adu, the slide doesn't say junior adu but junior adu to redice review time local agencies from 60 days to 45 days. the last one on the slide, ab1505 would appropriate $250 million to from the general fund to the california residential mitigation program for implementing the seismic retrofitting program for soft story multifamily housing. the governor proposed budget there was $250 million allocated but then defunded, so this assembly bill would allocate

again $250 million from the general fund for this program. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> i have a question. for the two bills that haney is supporting, the post entitlement of the permit-of the phase permits, these are really targeted for housing development. >> exactly right. exactly right. and it is fairly san francisco specific bill. there was ab2234 approved by the legislator last year that san francisco did not apply to san francisco and this would expand that to apply to san francisco. >> the question on this that it would regardless of whether-this is for housing and

wondering for other projects like the impact-i think once you do this even though it is specific for housing it would have a impact for other projects that are non residential too, which is--i think part of the city's focus on recovering from the pandemic, but do you want to speak to that director? >> the way i see it, it would mean that all permits along with housing would be impacted the same way by this legislation. it would make those permits ministerial in nature. >> okay. and then on 1532, the conversion-the housing conversion project, has the city-i know that some firms are really focused on this, like

office to residential conversion. there is some design firms very focused on this. how many of those are in san francisco? because there is sort of a unique condition that a commercial building is really suited for residential. have you identified how many of the high-rises would be a candidate (indiscernible) the poster child of that, but what other sites has the city looked at this for this that would benefit from this bill? >> the planning department is reviewing potential candidates. there was a ginsler report that identified in the downtown core 30 buildings that could be potential candidates and ginsler determined a third of those were actually qualified for potential conversions. i believe the planning department list is similar to ginsler list. perhaps a letal

bigger and they are continuing to work on that and we are working hand in hand with the planning department on legislation to address both in the planning and building code office conversions. >> i reviewed it on a cursory level, but it would be interesting to know what are the-what qualified the 30 buildings, the conditions that widdled the list down and haven't had a chance to read that in full but if that is something you can present next time that is good information to know. >> sure. >> just in terms of san francisco landscape for office to residential and what are some of the-there is a lot of-it is looking at the building itself if it is a candidate for that, but also looking at contextually. what

are the conditions that make more or less ideal is good to know. >> okay. yeah. >> no, i didn't. >> (indiscernible) >> there was a times article this weekday and they had 25 set building footpresent -footprint types and how they do or do not work for conversion for housing. it was very interesting piece. >> i have fallowed more on the business platforms. the blogs that have come through that, but if you want to send that to me, i would love to read it. yeah. maybe send to (indiscernible) so we don't get in trouble. [laughter] thank you for that. alright. i don't have any other questions. commissioner tut. >> i just want to clarify, the use by right is for ab1532, is limited to supportive housing or it's for the

conversion to housing? >> that would be limited to supportive housing. >> okay. thank you. >> any further questions? thank you. >> nob (indiscernible) >> next is 14e update on inspection services. >> yfs i was going to get slapped for that question. she is probably going to hit me over the head with that one. >> joe duffy, deputy director of inspection service. pleased to provide update on activities and performance of inspection service division. the next slide, please. in february the building and are plumbing divisions conducted over 9800 inspections. 97 percent of those inspections were conducted within 2 business days of the date requested by our customers. meeting the target of 90 percent. next

slide. the housing inspection service conducted 1075 inspections with 189 routine of multifamily housing. building electrical and plumbing division received 483 complaints and responded to 99 percent within 3 business days. well exceeding the target of 85 percent. housing inspection services received 86 safety and heat complaints and responded to 85 percent of them within one business day. they received 370 other complaints and responded to over 90 percent of them within 3 business days. on the housing inspection services also abated 427 cases with notice of violation and sent 41 cases to a director hearing. that concludes my report and available for any questions follow-up questions.

thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the director's report item 14 a-e? seeing none, next we have item 15, review and approval of the minutes of special meeting of january 30, 2023. >> like to make a motion to approve the minutes. january 30, 2023. >> second. >> there is a motion and second to approve the minutes. is there any public comment? seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you. the minutes are approved. next we have item 16, review and approval of the minutes of special meeting of february 14, 2023. >> motion to approve the minutes february 14, 2023. >> second. >> there is motion and

second. is there any public comment regarding this item? seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you for those minutes are approved as well. next is item 17, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> before we adjourn i want to wish everybody a happy saint patty's day and motion to adjourn. >> okay. >> seconded. >> thank you. we are now adjourned. it is 11:25 a.m. [meeting adjourned]

>> what we're trying to approach is bringing more diversity to our food. it's not just the old european style food. we are seeing a lot of influences, and all of this is because of our students. all we ask is make it flavorful. [♪♪♪] >> we are the first two-year culinary hospitality school in the united states. the first year was 1936, and it was started by two graduates

from cornell. i'm a graduate of this program, and very proud of that. so students can expect to learn under the three degrees. culinary arts management degree, food service management degree, and hotel management degree. we're not a cooking school. even though we're not teaching you how to cook, we're teaching you how to manage, how to supervise employees, how to manage a hotel, and plus you're getting an associate of science degree. >> my name is vince, and i'm a faculty member of the hospitality arts and culinary school here in san francisco. this is my 11th year. the program is very, very rich in what this industry demands. cooking, health, safety, and sanitation issues are included in it.

it's quite a complete program to prepare them for what's happening out in the real world. >> the first time i heard about this program, i was working in a restaurant, and the sous chef had graduated from this program. he was very young to be a sous chef, and i want to be like him, basically, in the future. this program, it's awesome. >> it's another world when you're here. it's another world. you get to be who you are, a person get to be who they are. you get to explore different things, and then, you get to explore and they encourage you to bring your background to the kitchen, too. >> i've been in the program for about a year. two-year program, and i'm about halfway through. before, i was studying behavioral genetics and dance.

i had few injuries, and i couldn't pursue the things that i needed to to dance, so i pursued my other passion, cooking. when i stopped dance, i was deprived of my creative outlet, and cooking has been that for me, specifically pastry. >> the good thing is we have students everywhere from places like the ritz to -- >> we have kids from every area. >> facebook and google. >> kids from everywhere. >> they are all over the bay area, and they're thriving. >> my name is jeff, and i'm a coowner of nopa restaurant, nopalito restaurant in san francisco. i attended city college of san francisco, the culinary arts

program, where it was called hotel and restaurant back then in the early 90's. nopalito on broderick street, it's based on no specific region in mexico. all our masa is hand made. we cook our own corn in house. everything is pretty much hand made on a daily basis, so day and night, we're making hand made tortillas, carnitas, salsas. a lot of love put into this. [♪♪♪] >> used to be very easy to define casual dining, fine dining, quick service. now, it's shades of gray, and we're trying to define that

experience through that spectrum of service. fine dining calls into white table cloths. the cafeteria is large production kitchen, understanding vast production kitchens, the googles and the facebooksf thworld that have those types of kitchens. and the ideas that change every year, again, it's the notion and the venue. >> one of the things i love about vince is one of our outlets is a concept restaurant, and he changes the concept every year to show students how to do a startup restaurant. it's been a pizzeria, a taco bar. it's been a mediterranean bar, it's been a noodle bar. people choose ccsf over other

hospitality programs because the industry recognizes that we instill the work ethic. we, again, serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner. other culinary hospitality programs may open two days a week for breakfast service. we're open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner five days a week. >> the menu's always interesting. they change it every semester, maybe more. there's always a good variety of foods. the preparation is always beautiful. the students are really sincere, and they work so hard here, and they're so proud of their work. >> i've had people coming in to town, and i, like, bring them here for a special treat, so it's more, like, not so much every day, but as often as i can for a special treat. >> when i have my interns in their final semester of the

program go out in the industry, 80 to 90% of the students get hired in the industry, well above the industry average in the culinary program. >> we do have internals continually coming into our restaurants from city college of san francisco, and most of the time that people doing internships with us realize this is what they want to do for a living. we hired many interns into employees from our restaurants. my partner is also a graduate of city college. >> so my goal is actually to travel and try to do some pastry in maybe italy or france, along those lines. i actually have developed a few connections through this program in italy, which i am excited to support. >> i'm thinking about going to

go work on a cruise ship for about two, three year so i can save some money and then hopefully venture out on my own. >> yeah, i want to go back to china. i want to bring something that i learned here, the french cooking, the western system, back to china. >> so we want them to have a full toolkit. we're trying to make them ready for the world out there.

[♪♪♪]

>> my family's starts in mexico in a small town. my parents are from a very, very small town. so small, that my dad's brother is married to one of my mom's sisters. it's that small. a lot of folks from that town are here in the city. like most immigrant families, my parents wanted a better life for us. my dad came out here first. i think i was almost two-years-old when he sent for us. my mom and myself came out here. we moved to san francisco early on. in the mission district and moved out to daily city and bounced back to san francisco. we lived across the street from the ups building. for me, when my earliest memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the

street keeping us awake at night. when i was seven-years-old and i'm in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. i have to make sure that we do our homework. it's a lot of responsibility for a kid. the weekends were always for family. we used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new mission theater and then afterwards going to kentucky fried chicken. that was big for us. we get kentucky fried chicken on sunday. whoa! go crazy! so for me, home is having something where you are all together. whether it's just together for dinner or whether it's together for breakfast or sharing a special moment at the holidays. whether it's thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. that is home. being so close to berkley and oakland and san francisco,

there's a line. here you don't see a line. even though you see someone that's different from you, they're equal. you've always seen that. a rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. when you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. they have dreams. they have aspirations. they have goals. and you are take that away from them. right now, the price is a hard fight. they're determined. i mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. their heart is in the right place. there's hope. i mean, out here with the things changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right. right now there's a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. the only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who can't speak. >> dy mind motion. >> even though we have a lot of

fighters, there's a lot of voice less folks and their voiceless because they're scared. >> well, thank you for your patience. usually i'm always most low on time. so i appreciate you waiting. i'm san francisco mir london breed and welcome the brown bombers to city hall today! thank you to the