internet serbs is public assistance does not look at income. if someone is on cal fresh or medicaid. school lunch program and many others are all eligible. this slide showing the 9.99 amount has in the changed since we started the program 12 years ago. we know the cost other services, goods and items have increase said. i want to tuck about our impact over more then and there a decade with 10 admissible low income folks connect since 2011. 1 publicity 7 million in california. want to quickly talk about home internet adoption makes a difference in lives. research shows for you % reduction income based for households with school aged

children. and increase in income for customers. >> in addition to meeting the 3 main needs of quality internet connection, a computer as well as lit res we found in a group study this there were these barriers to adoption. gap in aware ness and motivation to apply. gap in information on eligibility. how to apply installation. trust and instruction gaps. china town is an example work with lead torse identify high priority locations, surveying when we get permission and proactive in engaged with china town meeting and complete a mile stone last fall to visit the primary locations to survey, explore options and greater connectiveivity to serve residents and small businesses. and we had a walk in tour to the

locations when in the boiler rooms of wiring. how to bring in lines and talking to residentses and staff in the build to see first hand. so i want to quick low say what it is the human prop we found most successful in reaching folks. users report i per inship helped them in over coming adoption barriers. strengthening skills and comfort and confident. in using the technology. and community partners, we basically have heard that working with folks and trained volunteers is a key way to have designated staff trind and work with folks. also to be able to help new users and to have this one on one contact the consistency of contact and personalized attention that builds trust and

helps folks have faith in coming to a community partner knowing they can get help and knowing than i will get individual personal attention. and an example i wanted bring up with self help for elder low comcast indicated generational program learning heard ware and software and tech support for seniors. [speak fast]. jan woen staff where i said a few words and all of us self help for elder low walk-a-thon. >> i worked with community based organizations. we have 34 location in san francisco. during the start of opinion dig partnered with the city and the community based organizations and faith based organizations to install free internet. which is still running now the center's continue to evolve beyond the hub.

and district 5, we have tenderloin neighborhood development centerful collective impact. success centers and the y where we installed no cost equipment and will internet service to support the organizations. and district 2, my technician team and i worked with the presidio y to install and provide the same no cost equipment and internet and district one the richmond y with the service as well proud to sigh last fall 100 community leaders and stake holders to share best practices in closing the digital divide and creating equity last year at the summit. so, let me stop there. thank you for this opportunity and i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you for your presentation. next we will hear from mayor's office of housing and community

development. i know we have a number of folks i will let who is presenting introduce themselves, welcome. we are trying to stick it 5 minutes. >> absolutely. good morning. chair preston and supervisor steph no and chan. i'm ray i'm the digital equity manager for mayor's office of housing. thank you for allowing us to present and the digital equity

plan update. >> so, just want to start off and describe the relationship between -- the department of technology and ocd. we work on the fiber housing program to bring reduce the digital divide bring free internet to resident in fordable housing. in addition, to talk about our impact, we have brought this service to over 9 thbld housing units and upon supplied the service to over 75 affordable housing complex the navigation centers. i will cap it off and say yes, we do have i dedicated team. of technical professional who is helped expand this service. described to no different from

ecwilt efforts a 3 legged stoochl cornerstone of high quality internet connection. the housing program and -- really credit a pipe line for folks to get internet connection. another effort you see here to the right is the picture of the sunnydale boys and girls or j and j resources adjacent to the boys and girls club where we redistribute computers that meet the specks of today's standards so folks can participate fully in the digital realm. in addition, we launched a number of equity programs such as the denialing tality skills

play book. and supports businesses who want to transition from the time, place and space brick setting. >> lastly i want to talk about our coalition building at the moment. i know the pandemic taught us a lot of lessons and in the process of am developing a scorecard and training programs that can support cbo's and nonprofits across san francisco to understand how to protect themselves and how to fully participate in the digital realm. we touchod the acp program in the beginning this is when the acp program was proceeded by the emergency broadband b. condition tacted office and ask they sympathy us through the civic bridge program with a fellow

from the school of public policy for policy analysis on the program. and when we did that. we asked the fellow to -- interview isp's. national and local and state part norse help us build proficiency in terms of lunching a campaign that included everyone and the large impact. so with this, afternoon the report was delivered, we endeavoured to forge partnerships with scc and educating super highway, developed to thes to eliminate informational barriers. psychological barriers with uptake and sign up. >> all of the things we really had to come out of pandemic with

an adjusted approach to engage in folks since the lasting affects of covid. ocd provides support, which i will shorten. provide on boarding, tier 1 customer service with reuter support or questions. i want to pass this over to my colleague bryan from the d. technology. >> thank you. one clarification before you do. what how many households have benefited from the fiber to housing program? >> over 9,000. >> thank you. >> thanks and i'm brian roberts policy analyst with department of technology. good morning, supervisors.

just to continue we have a strong partnership with mohcd x. they provide a lot of services to the housing program. so we concentrate on expanding the network and doing technical support for this. we upon developed a now templet based on fire network rings this

will better manage capacity and provide greater resilience for folks. and these are graphically cluster today is the way footballer is laid out in the city. the way the program worked uses fiber routes the city deploy in the serving city buildings. because we have libraries, fire station, police stations we have an expansive net w we can use to reach affordable housing. in the next this is looking forward. and -- the next few months we hope to -- reach another 5,000 units. in 65 different developments and again these are lid out by ring and shown in different coloros that map.

and one -- in addition to our standards affordable housing out reach supervisor peskin putting add back in the budget a couple years ago to engage in a pilot of reaching china town sro's. and we -- reached 5 through this program. and this is important because the families had -- were cut off. than i did not have high speed internet service and the lack internet service ment they were cut you have from remote learning, work and telemedicine during the pandemic. there were challenges. the sro's had primitive wiring to individual units. also we were had to negotiate individually with small scale patriot landlords for affordable

housing there will be groups that manage a variety of buildings. they are easy to deal with. once i not the program. we can move forward to all of their buildings. let's see. we have been asked to under take a study for serving additional sro's in china town. and let's see and in terms of the funding. as i mentioned the project is now fully staffd and adopted in network design that allows you to move forward quickly. we requested 5 million through the budget which how the program has been funded in the pedestrian for the next 2 fiscal years. and this will allow you to continue it plan 5100 units the end of next fiscal and 45 in

24-25. and state and federal broad band funding programs to funds the program that way. and i think i will conclude my talk now. and i will be available for questions. thank you. >> thank you so much mr. roberts. thanks to both mr. lashop approximate roberts and d. technology and major's office of housing and xhounl development. i am interested how we ramp things up but want to rescue noise in many ways the work that you all have been doing is a national model through the efforts. and i think i will be asking about ramping those up in a minute. what it would take exit want to increase awareness of the efforts.

a lot of what you have been doing in roaching thousands of low income house holds does in the get public attention. appreciate you were presentations and work on that. i department to had some questions i will try to keep them target thered is a let of grounds here and issues in our resolution. i think so one concern special number of speakers talked about this. we have a federal program under acp this is for extremely low households. we have only 25% of eligible households that are signed up. we talked about the strategies to dress this. we also have we have to huge gaps. we have the the 75% of people hor eligible and don't sign up and another in san francisco we

know that to00% of federal poverty has an eligibility criteria. does not reach the many people who are living in poverty in san francisco upon given our high costs. i think when i wanted to start with is in is part of the demands and part what is reflect in the our resolution was to to the will 3 providers here, whether there is an open tons providing free or discounted rates to those who are very low income in sudden front by san francisco's standards. in religion to our ami's. but may not qualify so low income than i qualify for the federal programful linking a

discount or free program to other criteria that would roach folks above 200% of the federal poverty line but still very low income in san francisco. i would love to hear from each of the 3 providers on that question. i knowledge the program is amaze and we are really proud of w we are dog to expand the reach so this everyone in san francisco that is eligible is get it. as a residence den for 42 dwloers is i place for the city to step in and help the phoning this is don't make the criteria but have that need. just i will say, i don't know of anyium that guess by federal guidelines to make that

adjustment for just san francisco. i can't think of one. but i'm open to hearing it. from my leadership this is the decision we are at now. >> and just i understand targeting something for a national or international company based on standards that would not precloud. we are the only people who questions of law fifor the federal program for a single person is 29 thousand dollars. a year or less. so -- there could be other program this is tart difference under 50 thousand dollars a year you quality foil. i guess when i'm -- like a tiered structure. or anything and -- anything taylored it local conscience. i will say to thissen, right now at&t is in the doing that. i can bring that idea back but i will say that for instance i'm a

single mother t had 2 kids in college and i was wing at a different job and my kids could not questions of law foil for a pel grant even though i was poor here. every where that federal guideline affects everything not just internet. >> absolutely. hear from the others. thank you for your response. same question for verizon and comcast your openness to having it expanded discount or free program that roach folks above 200% of federal poverty. why thank you for the record dylan, comcast director of government affairs. appreciate the question in terms of the high cost live nothing san francisco. we would like to focus based on that you said in working with the digital equity folks here on really getting to the other households that questions of law foil for acp that don't

currently know about it. and are currently knowing this they are eligible for it. our focus is how do we if i can the information in trust gaps with these folks buzz there is so much opportunity and theup take has been low. an example is at the beginning of the pandemic we made internet essentials fro for a few mons. no contract. and we noticed that the uptake supported boy boston consulting is thisseen with that, there is something else going to people are not connecting to the fact they are eligible, there are trust issues and like to say at the time in the federal government there was also fear about providing information fromim grant communities what that information would be used for. that's why we finds it is effective to partner with community based organizations.

partner with the city. before the pandemic we would go to life line events we have tables and as people would come through and anyhow the folks were eligible target populations we wanted meet they would come out after the public assistance programs and -- go to and come to us as we would be there. i think there are a number of ways to partner talking to peter, i love their idea, we were implementing a sign up party. we noticed that irrelevant helps withup take. the california technology fund as the get connected california upon events to bring people together and comcast has been a participate. we have lived experience in terms of we need one, a community partner that roaches out and gets folks who are going to come to make sure they have the right documents. the second is the sign upline takes 45 millions because of the

verifier progress. >> sorry to go on. >> let mow if you mean. we are on the same page we need to ramp up efforts to roach the 75% of eligible people. i think wla i would love to get clarity from you on is, you know your position around giving discounts or free wi wifi to folk who don't qualify. is it a hard, no. we are going to focus on increasing the participation? is it a we are open to talking about it and toy it to a

criteria? or, yes, let's do temperature i think the frustrations has been the demands has been out there and i understand they don't upon neatly fit for a national company. but would love to get clarity on your view of that. >> absolutely. our focus is on increasing participation. and we have been a program based program base internet essentials program. woad like to continue to focus this and not adjusting based on anything on income we don't do anything. what we can do and have done is increase eligible based on public assistance programs that work with under served. >> right. approximate this takes people over the 200. i understand no provider wants to be in the business of doing income verifications but well are mull pull programs within san francisco that you could tie

discounted wifi plans to. you could say anyone who qualityifies for below market rate housing unit if than i show gets 50% off the rate that reach a broader segment of the san francisco population than the folks for the federal program. you could say anyone who questions of law foils for a discounts muni pass and shows proof of that. questions of law foils -- so, we can hold off on had you would tie it to to i'm asking this are you open to trying to identify those criteria and expand eligibility for some of the programs or are you just focussed on expanding the participation in the existing program? >> thank you. [no audio]

>> look at federal programs and different assistance programs. so under that may be an opportunity to have exploration i can bring back inform terms of income we don't do income based. under programs and different public assistance there is precedent we expanded the continuing lives folks based on that for internet e seshls. >> thank you. look forward to continuing the conversation of behalf might be available to in terms of public benefits to tie that to. >> thank you. >> and last up miss garcia. bh many of my clothes have said. at verizon we don't provide

specific service based off income. we did agree and we rolled out our verizon forward program it is truly free for anybody who qualifies for acp. upon again. we are also w to ensure that all san franciscans have access to affordable internet and you know say that closing the digital divide requires action by the city of sacramento, right but by our elected official in sacramento. and those in our federal government, toochlt working collective low to figure out when we might do together. it is critical. and you know to truly close the digital dii haved and get shovels in the grundz to expand internet access, we need to continue to work what we have

begun to do as a city and stroll line and expel digitizer tablet requirements eye toward ensure nerve san francisco has access to high speed broad bandful verizon is 100% committed to making sure that all americans have access to reliable and affordable high speed broad band how we get there may look different. >> thank you. on the specific question of is verizon open to offering discounted or free plans to folks who don't current qualify urn the guidelines to additional folks who questions of law foil for other benefit programs or income level system this open for consideration. yes or no? >> i will say we are committed

to working with the city in our state and federal government. not a yes or no, answer, unfortunately. open it it. approximate terrible low? >> we are open to having continued conversations. why okay. >> can i ask a question on that chair preston. >> i don't want it make it electric like she is being evasive when but i mean i continuing it is that was a set up. in terms of are we asking them to go back and figure out whether or not they can dot program different low than the federal standards and are they willing to ask this question of people higher up in the company i want to make sure i understand the question you are asking because i mean i think -- we are talk about thises acp the in this federal qualifications and

requirements. i want to make sure we are asking the question in a way we get answers that so had we work with people. that are you asking them to go become to their company and determine whether they can do something local low different from the federal standards. why right. i think and thank you for the comments, so i think the long standing upon demand of others organized for access has been a recognition that there are men people this don't questions of law foil in the federal standards. there may be efforts to expand the federal crip teariat reality of so men in san francisco who are very low income questions of law foil for public benefit and affordable housing but cannot access this federal program to which date all 3 of the companies buffers the learningest provider in san

francisco have said, not shown a wellingness to expand those programs on a more local basis. they said there is a federal program folks go through this and we will adjust our offerings to make it fro. first comcan have the and verizon then after the launch of the campaign at&t did that as well. so with the federal subsidy tecome out to free for those folk who is participate in that. and so i think the question and i think the so far the answer has been, at least no commitment and not really from i don't want to peek for sd a. i think there has not been a wellingness expressed boy any of the companies to look at have offerings this reach folk who is

don't qualify for the federal program but do for other local benefits. if i'm misstating. why i understand. i was trying to get clarification on the question you were asking i did not understand. >> okay. i think them is accurate and all there are a lot of paths forward here. advocacy at congressional level to expand the eligibility being be something the companies could commit to. >> thank you. >> one other question i and thank you for i believe it was miss blackstone the visitation valley hub. any plans to -- or openness from at&t or the other provider around similar hubble where? >> yes. thank you. we are getting red to go to phase 2 of that program.

i am not pritow what the locations are but nltdzing than i are per inning tw a national organization that has locations in areas that are difficult to serve. in san francisco buzz we have it here they may look elsewhere i can get you this list when available. >> thank you very much. >> and the next question i have is for either most of you or dt, i think probably for dt mr. roberts, and thank you for the background on the china town sro pilot. is this scaleable. had it would take to expand, obviously for my district, there are a number of sro's and others in the tenderloin.

so what is the it seems like it has been successful you expressed some limitations and challenges. if you could talk about whether it is scaleable and what it would take. >> i we think that it would be skaip scaleable and within china town and other neighborhoods with sro's. challenges i mentioned, there werive couple. one, they often have the poorest existing infrastructure and are not necessary low connected already. there is no fiber going by in the street in the public right of way. so there are technical challenges. but -- i the other challenge was -- negotiating with individual land lords. i think if it were a program we

could if it is the very select program i think the land alreadies would not seat benefit but i think if it were to become a largey scale approximate collective movement to participate that would be helpful. i believe that could be surmounted. yes. one other thing i like to mention state and federal programs. this state does have a program for inside networks in -- affordable housing. right now this is limited to publicly funded housing. but they are looking at patriot low ownd and moved into the area pharmerica americaer housing for

the first time and looking at mobile home parks and sro's. to include in this group of patriot low owned classes of housing in the state. thank you. >> look forward to working with you on expanding and scaling up. supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair preston this is for service providers all 3 and kinds of -- i can understand if you don't have this information. it is in the irrelevant part of the presentation requested today. the question i have is for each service provider if you have an estimate of subscribers under your plan, of course not

inclusive of and i don't mean the business with the city. we just passed a couple contracts with including verizon and no comcast am not on the top of my head. but just private users not with the city private users. do you have a number. listed for san francisco? a mate? >> if not i would love this information. why i can get become i don't have this today. >> great. happy to. i want to be very specific i'm looking for a number of subscriber -- so not just being be a household or individuals. subscribe torse your service. in san francisco. sf specific low the mobile service. >> okay. >> thank you thank you. i will get become to you.

>> thank you. i don't know if you want to hear from the other. i see folks wuking do you have a response to supervisor chan's question? >> to supervisor chan, thank you, i would be glad to follow up t. is 1.upon seven million in california. but understand you are asking about san francisco. >> only san francisco boundary and san francisco city boundary not city and county. >> thank you. >> thank you. i will have to get become to you >> i will will sprit local follow. . >> thank you, mr. chair are there members hold like to comment for item 2. line up to your right long the curtain wall. for those waiting on the line

dial star 3 to be added to the queue. for those of you on hold wait until you have been unmuted. each speaker will be limited to 2 minutes. first speefrng will welcome. state your name and begin. why good morning. i'm calvin channel a program manager at asian pacific community center u. saw us up there with at&t present aches we are a community learning centerful we have a relationship with the low income communities. families, seniors issue monolingual immigrants and [inaudible]. at&t out fitted our community center at 66 fiber level internet and no cost to anyone who come in. >> multiple issues that provide

services to low income community members ask access fro internet. having access in the communities is vital to all community member and those who seek assistance in resources. without high speed seatbelt organization would not help our members, ploy for housing, cal fresh, assistness with unemployment, seniors with internet essentials program. everything is transificationed to on line and our clients come to us for assist analysis. at&t understood that and community members seek assistance from our organization regardless of connections at home so many need more then and there an internet connection they need help from people. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everybody i'm jordan she, her, they, them. imagine when my life was in

march of 2020 the word shut down and everything on line i come disabled person had to take on an added 55 dollars a month to function. and pay the price to advocate getting rents down to 30% for supportive housing you see how expensive it was when comcast discorrespond the hot spot around 2021 it became harder. in october. 2020 had we are wearing [inaudible] and everything shut down in person meetings out of the question i wrote an article calling on sites to have keep wifi i'm q.ed they decided to spearhead this. the fact remains where were you have when we need today. during a time of crisis had we are not able to meet in person. the city as well the ngo's that got city funding and provideers footwork-absent with the low income tenants.

where was central city collaborative? where was the stele in this moment? where were the providers in waiving the costs for their hot spots and the calls for digital equity necessary for the psh tenants as the pandemic windses down and i am speaking without a mask in initial is a righteous victim. i feel and others feel this way as limp we were left out in the darkest days. pandemic to those who didn't prioritize during the darkest days i yield my time of f-you.

i'm here with the senior and disability action member its urge to you pass the resolution. large internet companies to do their part on make the internet accessible to all of us. upon seniors and people with disabilities. communication and good and reliable internet it is important tlorn community using social media facebook and messenger. using our cell phones and laptops. to [inaudible] many of us hereim guarantees to this country and live, way from families aquaintance. i'm anim guarantee if the philippines the way i get in

touch with my relative and friends from home is through using cell phone, facebook and messenger. of course using the internet. this impacts everyone using social media given the peace of mind, happiness and healthy life. [inaudible] now there is men of the seniors can bir low ford to pay our phone bill and internet after rent, food and medical bills. this company make them hell us to pay for this. bridge dii haved and put a stop to the red lining. and -- can do a lot they need to

>> thank you. your time is up. we have same 2 minutes for everybody. thank you. next speaker, please. [speak spanish] good morning i'm maria guadalupe and a member of senior and disability action.

here to petition for internet. i question myself. the pandemic made it worse improve our life and we have more people on the street. there was a door this got open -- we were forced to learn

how to use the internet and navigate spaces with tablets. approximate laptops. and so -- and if we don't have the -- how do you say. the income to pifor this, then we are communicated.

>> so, now we have the space where we share and many things and i feel like you know -- we still have to learn more and stay connected and -- last sunday i turned 78. and i still feel like i have many more years to give to the community and also learn.

typeset some not enough for you to pay for everything that we need. >> thank you very much. next speaker, pleaseim be next since i'm here. good morning almost afternoon. and with senior disability action. i want to first thank you for making the space for this conversation. and -- also i wanted to -- thank you for purke a little more there is big koepgzs because i know that they are doing a little bit of you know when the community is asking for but we need a little more not a little

more we need to really close the digital gentleman. i think that this is the opportunity this we have been waiting for and you know covid med it clear. this we need to change the way this we communicate. and so -- thank you again and i hope that this will lead to really a better and more equal internet access. thank you. next speaker, please. good morning supervisors i'm stephen minor. senior program manager with communicate tech net w my agent around for 15 years providing digital litary support and huto get on line and support in doing so. now, one main issues that our the -- people participating in

our program see is the pricing up celling and limited application language optionless. for the isp's. the 3 this we help people apply on would be verizon, at&t and comcast. to assist specific low there were issues as far as at&t language options on their website. which is relates to me and my staff. i believe that one issue handled help us get people online and they can connect with friend and supported community. thank you.

i'm a member of voice of al mode county a net w of do nestic violence and human trafficking survivor. i'm going to speak as someone fled domestic roins in professional 21 during the pandemic, of living on 290 dollars a week or 15, 080 a year as a disabled wheel chair user. and a half gath the domestic violence system in the bay your. i used to live in oak land

temperature took me over sick weeks to find a wheel chair accessible bed and able to stay out of home will knows due to a grass-roots organizer and having support. being able to access internet via hot spots and domestic violence shelter where i was was critical i was navigating for heing and safety and surverify of myself and school aged child. and -- i just want to have you than during the pandemic the incidents of report do nestic violence and trafficking gone up over 300%. those of us navigating prosecute longed home willness due to violence need access to wifi to

survive and get housed and access service. san francisco he's ahead of the curve national low and international low. as a queer bhrn got married in san francisco city hall, thank you for leading the way. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm kerry gray a colleague of steph line are the commune tech network. thank you for bringing this very important subject you have. and supervisor preston you missed an important question. 2, one was -- when you were asking about whether the isp's could expand eligible and responded, they don't determine it by income level and the

follow up question did they determine it by zip code or neighborhood? that would close the gap in san francisco if they consider this. the next question to me is would they consider expanding the subsidy when and if the federal benefit runs out? because the federal benefit is a loss leader for the isp's. people to enroll witness this expires are they willing to continue to subdied the low cost rate. the answer is, yes, they can. there is an example in the state of california one program this is community tech network administrates the california department of aging distributed i pads through our community partners in san francisco. and the state of california has been subsidizing internet access on those.

and the scheduled to expire in may of 23. and at&t offer today extend it to december of 23. so we continue is possible. and we continue is possible in this city and in this state. so. those other things you motive want to consider had you are creating guidelines for this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i'm a housing organizer at senior and disability action. >> i have a couple of experience working with seniors and and digital access continues to be an issue. upon connect it family, education, heck and entertainment. as we continue to be a more digitized san francisco and world, we mode to make sure to include seniors, people with disabilities and limited income in our expanding digital

community. expand happening internet access for all of san franciscans allows more independence and access to job opportunity. community connections and necessary services for living in increaseingly digital and global city. thank you. next speaker, please. i'm a new organizer with senior sdpaeblt action. i'm not now to the wifi campaign. thank you to the community of seniors and disabled organizers who collective power pushed the issue to get accountability to the issue of digital equity. we demand free wif for health care, stay connected. connection to spiritual community. take care of finance. enengages and develop careers special educated with community to stay informed of concern eventses and expand our horizons.

there is more that being connected brings and this is compound for seniors and people of disabilities. not enough to say we provide a path way to free access it needs to be no barrier and equal for people with disabilities. existing customers need information about acp. these other pieces that put equity together. let's do the right thing. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

because of the free internet we draw the center and among different things we used opportunity on line to draught workshop at home known can assist us to navigate the

internet. at the community center there are knowledgeable people and staff of organization that can help.

i'm a senior at visitation valley neighborhood association. thank you for at&t for providing free internet to the center and seniors had we come we can see other seniors face-to-face and use the internet chair our social media share technology the free internet is according to us without our internet we

can't [inaudible] the center open on line and because of the internet we can learn new knowledges and help ocoh lives. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> hi. i'm lewis. and i'm with the senior -- disability action member, too. and my comment is this you know confusing like talking to none a person when i call i pay $140 a month. and -- i like to talk to a

person. because i call in machine. like to talk to machine. to explain it to me. >> thank you. >> any additional speakers before we go to online callers. >> no other speakers we have 15 caller with 11 in the queue to speak. can i have the first speaker?

i'm here to urge to you pass this resolution. i'm a retired sfusd teacher. we have pan dig in 2020 all teaching moved online. many of my students from china town [inaudible] limited access. growing coverage to what the [inaudible] companies were doing. it was the principal at high school spent her time trying to procure wifi for students. look carefully at renters who might feel they near housing shaky housing dependsos good reps with property owners. and might not want to rock the boat with asking for internet access. please pass this resolution and have the press coverage match reality of internet coverage.

thank you very much. thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please. hello? hi. [inaudible]. a member of the sd a or seniors with disability action. and i had started doing this since august 2015. my experience as a senior has been one of those who advocated the free muni. good morning, board of supervisors. i am with the [inaudible] to ask you to please, paddle the

resolution to call on learning internet companies to do their part in making the internet accessible. to all of us. especially seniors. and people with disabilities. add vo indicating this, may i thank you some. that many people for this. access to families, irrelevant if i haves and friends for and near. upgrade ourselves through education, training, seminars through w ifi. and online. collaboration and different organization and [inaudible] in doing social activities. and -- to remain and keep our

physical and mental so reactive and healthy to avoid healing issues. in this connection. board of supervisors, please reiterate and [inaudible] ask you again. >> speaker time expired. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. i'm a proud supporter of the resolution. thank you for your interest i urge to you unanimously support this resolution. you heard president companies in the city you are doing. this is agreement service providers are troog to improve

seniors in the disabled still don't have it and or not eligible for support under the acp program and can't afford it is service. this is unacceptable unless we remedy this the digital divide must be bridged. red lining e eliminate said and inclusion apply to all inference france temperature is doable. big umps can at&t, verizon and comcast made billion and passed profits to share holders, executives and stock buy become its is time for the proffers to be passod where it is a necessity not an electric. the companies can change the landscape. what we ask for is simple and based on the unmet needs of san francisco under served.

ip urge to you support this resolution and w with providers, agencies and your clotheos the board of supervisors to make sure all inference france have the internet service than i need and deserve. thank you. >> good new york it ben mock on behalf of community youth center. what i want to say is to show how comcast has been helping the community the cheeseburgera town community. in the pandemic opened up [inaudible] play ground and he not only operate the play ground and the play ground club house

and to operate programs as well. outside out of [inaudible] and comcast came in and solved the package and out fitted the club house with intrechlt not only we were able to operate the club house during the pandemic we also went in established the hub. which was something that the mayor had approximate as an initiative. we were able to have in person sxejz academics and servers to students in china town. at most at risk. and not only this, we were able to have our youth volunteers teach seniors on the weekend how they used mart phones and tablets we could not do that without internet this is key in order for seniors to be connected and learn to use apps

and social media. we runner major, youth and employment out of the club house and have weekly workshops where youth tlorn look for jobs. speaker time elapsed. we have 19 caller on the line with 10 in the queue. if you are tindz to comment dial star 3 now to be added to the queue. may we have the next caller. >> yes. hello? i'm john with [inaudible] a

staff and instructor for the generational youth leadership. support by comcast the last 12 year, this is a needed program for our community. we have created 100 youth and every graduate with seniors to teach them the knowledge. heart warm up to see our seniors and youth work together. and have friendships which would not happened. comcast is a strong partner and instrumental in providing affordable internet. fund 50 xourt classes i year for seniors who want to learn to make medical can appointments. apply for public benefit and jobs. connect with fell and friends and other service. machineo knowling wal, chinese

and vietnamese speaking seniors. comcast 39 our neateds and provide us resources to make it ham. thank you for hole holding this hearing for us. equal access it wifi regardless of income. hardly any wifi significant

untils above 3 bars on mission street. you go up to gerrero and it is better. so i take my phone and stand in front of each sro to see if there is a signal and 3 embarrass except i couple who could afford you know to have a 5 signal. so, the tv signals are weak in the sro's. they prosecute mote corporate interests. so. if you grew up on corporate interests you are in the promoted you have to be aware of

this. the pan dem sick a threat to our live and to be isolated it is adds to it. the ice ligz and a lot of upon disable the folks experience isolation and so that is something one thing this keeps them connected to the world especially if than i can't [inaudible]. and -- so i like to see this implemented. by the board. san francisco [inaudible]. time elapsed. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. thank you. good afternoon i'm tracie. i'm the executive director of

the media alliance which is a democratic nonprofit in 1976 in the district and we still internet is a necessity for modern life temperature is a utility and the pandemic shown us that. what the goal for broadband deployment, adoption and use needs to be. the internet is not consistently affordable not and companies can and should do more than they are doing. this is not just about the business plans.

acp is a great start but not the end all of everything. that we can do. thank you. may we have the next caller. >> this is rebecca -- sorry. um -- i'm rebecca and i am a member of sd a.

i have been active in the importance of free wifi. not just disabled i have been -- working for awhile to help those in multiple communities and -- to i tried advocate for -- less fortunate than i am to get them the wifi. the past week with people who need assistance or in need who have lower income. and i think that it is a problem that we need to work on as a

community not just our organization but that other organizations as well as the [inaudible] work together. so -- i just -- would like to see more people come together to work on it if we find ways. not just i think during the pandemic the need has been emphasized but it is not just during the pandemic that -- we need to focus on it. because -- this shows the important time but there are other important times that we see that are more important. so. something i want to point out to everybody. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

hello? >> proceed >> i'm kathy and i'm a member of senior and disability action. i am a group as you hear on the sideline very much for a language time in support of this resolution. so i thome is passed unanimously. big companies like at&t, comcast and verizon are responsible for providing equal access to the internet for seniors and disabled people. internet access is essential today. a strong internet connection is so important the world is moving online. and our people in san francisco poor people, people on low income should not be left out. and different neighborhoods should not be left out.

you need the internet especially seniors to get health care and stay connected to families and friends. to take care of finance. to be sievically engaged. so -- the internet and pandemic continues to pose a threat to our lives when you have a low quality internet connection we lose our connections. so thank you very much for having the hearing and i'm glsz to be doing this remote. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please good upon afternoon i'm with san francisco council a multisector collaborative digital [inaudible] for older adull and with disability. and as the collaborative also

represent leaders of 25 organizations from government nonprofits, actemic and industry. and i working together to bridge the divide. we can agree how the internet transformed our lives and importance as a basic necessity. and not everyone has the same ability to access a b. men are excluded by poverty, language, disability. and cost of digital solution is great with employment, health care, education, social intrusion. and in the city where one in 4 older residence are older or people with disabilities. and many of those less secure. affordable internet service is a requirement and need to help them be able to live inspect low and live comfortableablely. and when we look at research

conducting in san francisco affordability services and devices is the most common law challenge for those less connected. and you know available of high quality, reliable internet infrastructure and affordable services other foundations in the hierarchy of digital needs. if we don't have internet access it is a barrier to learning and reenforcing the [inaudible] that people have. i wanted to speak favorabley of the partnerships. and we believe the most effective way is to work cross sectors and form collaborations to reach the most in need.

>> hemo~ supervisor this is is jessica layman executive desk senior and disability action. i had intended be there in person today and i rely on home attendance to get me up in the morning and get dressed i had an attendant crisis, no one showed up this is why easy remote public comment is important and i want to start there. i'm able to call in. san francisco years ago tried to provide free wifi and the private internet service provider that spent hundreds fighting it. if we will have the necessary service where -- shareholders will enrich off us the companies must spend some profits providing free wifi. we need them to share information about acp with new

customers and existing customers struggling to afford temperature we need them to expand to more people as supervisor preston clearly stated. we need them to have infrastructure and the speed so we can all be connect. thank you so much for your attention this this issue. >> thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is evelyn, and i'm a member with senior and disability action. thank you for hold thanksgiving meeting. i urge you to support this path breaking resolution buffer today. broad band today is when electricity was a hundred years ago. were it not for access for broadband during the look down.

this has to happen. fdr reacted the add upon vents of electricity by saying, we all have to be wired in this country which lead of course to the rule of electrification act of 19 tlivenlgs governor newsome said delivering broadband to all is essential to california's success.

access to high speed internet mean the difference with launching a successful career and being without work. so, we have to do this. and in the discussion of the poverty guidelines, whether we are using the federal poverty guidelines -- in the city's at the city's website, at the scorecards for safety net poverty guidelines are -- described using the federal poverty. >> thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please. >> can you hear me? yes. i'm carla and i'm codirector of the [inaudible] without affordable high speed internet skeerns approximate people with disabilities are left behind

every day and are even further risk of poor healing, socialized lonely ness and lack of access to the lives of san francisco. we are concern the red lining where many especially those low income live. the digital red lining areas reflect the economic and real red lining of decades. we are advocating for deep are cross sector collaborations to tackle afford annual high speed access devices appreciate the relationships we have across the city with the organizations here today.

i'm francis james. and i'm 8 a years old and number of sva. i want to thank the supervisors for presenting this initiative today. and the resolution. and want to remind you the air waves are belong to the public. in the corporations that use them to provide a service are licensed by the state to do this. it is within the purview of the public to -- urge and to provide adequate service for us. this is sour property and it is the moral thing to do and it it is politically correct. thank you very much. and i urge you to vote, yes.

hello i'm executive director for which nontechnology trin nothing fordable housing and tech support to low insm come families i'm here to share i have been a recipient of the comcast, at&t for all program when i was growing up. with comcast. verizon. at&t digital equity and he many nonprofit this is need access to help with clezing the digital

divide. i urge everybody to have a collective approach because the internet helped mow to get where i am today and i have seen the impact of training more than the thouz anldz young people for career in tech and connected 5,000 low income fells to access to the internet and distribute it over 3,000 xurths. with nonprofit work for the past 25 years. i urge everyone to make this happen it is time to make the internet a public utility. minor and low income communities should not pay for high priced access when the city has so many resources like the fiber to house program and all the high speeds here are making the effort to make connectivity accessible. acp program will take us there let's make it happen. let's do this!

thank you for sharing your comments. we are checking to see if there are other callers in the queue. there are no other callers chair preston. thank you, public comment is closed. approximate supervisor chan. >> i don't know if you have other questions but i do have one remaining questions for the major's office issue housing and communal development about the fiber to housing program. thank you. >> i thank you is specific low about funding i appreciate the fiber to housing program and understand this i can see supervisor peskin allocated additional funding in order for you to do some of the work. has there been conversation with

like director brian strong at the capitol planning and when we been you know moving affordable house happening bond forwardoir you know critical reper se for the stele that we could think about taxling some of these continuing to advance fiber to housing program. not just for future affordable housing but for the existing concern development like the sro's we provide both either critical repair if they are under the city jurisdiction. or those that i think that we have done seismic upgrade for property ownership by nonprofit have we had those conversations. yes. the project to date has been funded through the capitol

budget and there is a certificate of participation this we will be ewe likewising for a piece that 2.5 million of we do coordinate with the capitol planning group and we have not discussed the sro the private property projects, just the public low funds affordable housing. >> yea. i would love to some point perhaps have a coordinated conversation. i think with the advocates here and then to perhaps also work collaboratively with the budget analyst do some sort of animate a scope of when that could look like. you know and bricking down a category of sro that is owned by privately owned nonprofit house and i think this 2.five is a modest funding allocation. could there be manage this is

either more substantial or comp hencive over all? and help us move this forward. i want to say i concur with so much and thank the public commenters this came out today and thank you for organizing the effort. i concur with a lot about cull roll competency and challenges when it come to having the access and for me that is affordable housing, sro residence denials and including those in sro in the richmond. i appreciate you keeping the fiber to housing program and we are here along with supervisor preston we are here to provide that support and help you up that dollar amount. >> okay. great. thank you. i will mention in the previous fiscal year received 10 million for the program and prior to this small are amounts it hen an

on going support. >> of course we see you have 75 cites they did not come magically we love to see how do we consistently keep pace of the things you already done and build momentum and don't fall behind. thank you. >> thank you. why thank you, vice chair stefani. >> thank you, and i want to add that i agree with supervisor chan in terms of the city investigate more in the punish. i absolutely believe that internet service should be like water and electricity like i felt had way for a language time. it is nobody should be without temperature i them hen an on going issue, i look back 20 years ago when supervisor ammiano and daly created paid for 300 thousand dollars for a study on city controlled internet. failed to put together a plan and then the mir when i came in 2007 there was all that

discussion with earth link and that fell apart. and my former boss supervisor mayor farrel we were trying to basically provide attempted to bring low cost high speed internet to all. it was something this he championed. we worked hard and failed at the board because of the cost. it is something i absolutely believe in. do i think i think there has to be like surprise chan was saying the fiber to housing program. has to be more than just this resolution to dealing with this. more than just dealing with the isp's on this. has to be a city wide approach and involving everyone in it. and -- thank supervisor preston for this. and you have been i think there

ever different funding source the city can advocate for puc and the federal fwment to address the gaps. thereupon is a multipronged approach. and i would loch to sit down with sd a and talked to you don't think you reached out to me but i would love a conversation about temperature i think it is approximate am so important. and i think just relying on the isp's is in the the way to go about it. i think we don'tsment to misdiagnose the problem in a way cernel productive to solving if when you say digital red lining a ward that makes you think this is racial low motivated practice. i don't know if we proved that today and i want to say that because i think there is a lot of good diagonal more can be done as supervisor preston mentioned men going back to the companies and seeing whether or not we do something in a local

level upon acknowledging there are the federal guidelines they are under. i think this we need to have a birth focus on how we really get to this problem and not just rely on the internet service providers. i continuing is encum banlt on san francisco to do it and the fact we have been talking about it for 20 scombroers have in the solved this problem on our own and brought this to everybody in san francisco, i think is on us. piwant to have further conversation busy that and figure out when we can do more as a city to solve this problem. i will support this today with my comments i don't think we prove red lining in the hearing today and it is a comment and a thought process i want to talk about. because if this is trowel what is going on. again a large are conversation but -- obviously everyone should have internet access this is

something we should solve senior rather than later. thank you. >> thank you vice chair stefani and i want to emphasize i think a lot of the callers said and others on the committee, this is one piece of a broader issue. and -- i think that as -- you know some of the folks call in the and talked about temperature supervisor stefani pointed out there is a bit of history around ambitious goals around the city coming in and controlling the infrastructure more and developing out more public infrastructure like other broadband and fiber like much more as other utilities. there are policies that can get us there and investments. some of these programs like fiber to housing are take small

bites toward this. but are in the the broader move toward the city as public infrastructure. you know in fairness i note that the private companies have been partners in trying to utilize the follow program. than i have in the been. amenable to the idea of shift to a more public control. of upon the infrastructure. there is attention there i want to identify which is as a city when we look at doing big things like the ballot on things former mayor farrel and others have talked about, right, to really move toward city owned fiber net works city wide.

universal wiring. things like that. thereof is often attention and push back from the private sector. settled on the private sector having most of this space now. i do believe there is a broader discussion we need it have and appreciate the comments from my colleagues around what the future looks livening the am but in the meantime we have a mostly private system with innovative public efforts we heard about and within that system, a life line for some of the most vulnerable folks that is overwhelmingly under utilized. scope of the resolution and the priority within the free wifi campaign is dealing went confine and saying, right now the program we have. we want to max the collaboration and out reach and ejsz

education, language and cull roll comp tense in out reach and supportful many of the things providers talked about they are doing to some extentful i think that there is irrelevant a focus on the resolution and the campaign to ramp up the efforts. i'm also looking forward to continue with the provide and ideas around how the city with be a better partner, too in ramping up those efforts. just want to close by thanking everyone who presented. all the advocates and folks when call immediate and acknowledge and recognize the comment i agree with this is an attempt to take the system this we got now. and make it work a lot better

and for more low income san franciscans than it is currently serving. so, thank you all for the extended discussion on this and for all the public comment. with this if there are no comments from clothes i would like to move this resolution forward to the full board with recommendation. >> on that motion chair stefani >> aye >> member chan. >> aye >> chair preston. >> aye. >> you have 3 aye's. >> thank you that motion passes. and madam clerk call items 3-14 together the closed session items. >> thank you today's litigation items 3-14 include various ordinances and resolutions regarding settlements for lawsuits and unlitigated claims. member when is wish to speak to

3 through 14 call 415-655-0001, access code: 2485 401 2082 ## then press star 3 to enter the line. will indicate you raised your hand. wait until you have been unmute exclude begin your comments. are there members in the which i am ber withhold like to comment for items 3-14, line up along the curtain wall to the right. remote call in press star 3. >> thank you. seeing no mfbt public in the cham bore we'll go to the call in line 8 with zero to speak. there are wherevero callers. >> thank you. public comment on the closed

session items is closed. and -- let's i move to convene in closed session. >> on the motion to go to closed session. vice chair steph no scombrochl aye >> member chan. >> aye >> chair preston. >> aye. >> thank you, we'll convene in closed session.

of those overerages are due to any bad planning, they were the consequences of markets that are now being normalized. so, again, all of the allocations are within range with the exception of those two and reasonably close to long-term targets. page 20 reports on cash-flow for the portfolio. on the one year period, that minus 1 percent return for the year was a negative $3.7 billion in investment returns, and your net payout contributions, less benefits or benefits minus contributions was all most $800 million for the period. if you look at the three years, this is what you

normally expect as a mature plan. you expect to see a negative cash-flow, contributions will be less then benefits paid. that averaged about $600 million a year, and then your asset return over the last three years including the last period was a positive all most $7 billion. the one thing i wanted to highlight because it influences the asset allocation planning is, the success of this program had lead you as you know, to be one of the few public funds that were over-funded. that is good news, but the consequence of being over-funded is your actuarially projections no call for reduction in contributions going forward. that is always welcome to the people that sponsor that, but the contribution levels are the distribution level stay high, so the negative cash-flow we will experience going forward will be bigger then

what you see here,ing and that suggests that liquidity will become a issue as we look at the asset allocation process and we'll rely more on investment returns going forward because the negative cash-flow will increase. wanted to point that out and we'll discuss that further. the good news, you can never relax, you have dund extraordinary well and good for the contributors but also means going forward we have to generate those higher returns and more consistently. with, the next few pages are risk and return charts. let me just do two of them. if we turn to page 21, on the left you see the difficult one year period we talked about. each of those points is the risk or the return and volatility of a public fund greater then a billion. the return is plotted on the vertical or horizontal-the

vertical axis, the volatility on the horizontal. you are the dark blue circle lower left. we did better then the median fund in terms of return and the volatility as we talked earlier, significantly less. in one way this is different from the next three charts is our policy index for that period actually had a higher return, but a higher volatility as well. the next few charts are more typical of the longer term and if we go to page 22, you see the 5 and 10 year results, so for 5 years the total fund return of 7.94 percent, you are the highest dot on that chart, meaning the best performing fund in this universe. not saying there are not other funds outside the universe that did better but you were the top performing fund. one of it the least volatile as you can see, and the return of your

actual portfolio relative to the light blue circle is both higher in return and lower in volatility. that is a highly desirable characteristics. it says the actions taken by staff and approved by you in terms of manager selection and portfolio positioning have both added return and reduced volatility to the total results. the chart version of that is on page 25. these are the same statistics, so i wont go over them in detail. we already discussed the return of 7.94 was the highest in your peer group. hold on one second. the highest in the peer group. the volatility or standard deviation was in the 5th percentile of the peer group. you want to be low thin measure and the sharp and sortino ratios are discussed further on. what we want to

do now is look at the atbution. why did we do better then our policy in any one period and that would start on page 30 for the one year result. for the one year result, if you recall 10.37 negative. the policy index was down 9.18 which means we under-performed policy by 1.15 percent. this chart attributes that either to positioning or allocation, meaning where we over-allocated asset classes that did well and under-allocated the asset classes that did poorly, or-and or, did we have managers that out-performed their bench marks within the asset class? the allocation effect minus 14 basis points is very small. that is what you hope. we are not taking a lot of risk how we position the portfolio relative

to the targets. it is negative in this case, but small. that leads the selection effect of negative 1 percent as the result of manager selection. this looks at a year. if you were to go down that excess return column, you'll see the major contributors to under-performance were public equity. those were the classs that didn't do well and china which continues to be a challenge. large est economy in the world but all kinds of political risk around investing in china. you see absolute return trailed the benchmark. we talked about the benchmark is (indiscernible) plus 5 which is aggressive benchmark. 1.04 percent trailed that and you say liquid credit did not do as well. again, positioned

against a neutral portfolio, detractor. the flip side is private credit. earned 5.6 percent in the market core fixed income was down 5 percent and private equity continues to do well. the cash number is a large negative and that has do with mechanics of a small part of the portfolio being in cash and leverage and equiatized product. we are still working with the custodian to appropriately model that, so that has not been a contributor in this period. i think that is largely due to the fact that the equiatized cash position when you equiatize cash in a market where equities go down, you have negative effects, but it is small as we'll see. in terms of atribution on 5 year

basis, page 32, here is longer term, more stable and more representative of the whole portfolio over the period. 7.92 percent was the actual return we reported earlier. the benchmark policy did 5.85 percent. again, you see that allocation, in this caiz it is positive, but it is also small, which is what you would desire to have. you'll also note that the selection effect is now 2 percent positive, and that's net of fees to remind everyone. it is alpha type number. the primary drivers of that success are again, private equity and private credit, both of which substantially out-performed the benchmarks. the detractors, if we did this a quarter ago, the public equity would have been a strong positive contributor. in this period over

the 5 years, public equity was a detractor to performance and so, the very strong returns we generated from a active strategy and public equity investing over the last 5 years were significantly challenged by the very down quarter that we have. the results over the long-term are fine. the near term has been a reversal. i also suggest that your staff did not go out and sell these securities, you still hold them by in large, but is being revisited in terms of the validity of the underlying assumptions going forward. thrats that's something that will come up as we go forward for asset class and asset liability study. that was the atribution. the

remaining pages add a lot of detail. i are was going to try to summarize them for you, and if we want to look at the more granular results, happy to do that. the following pages get into asset class returns versus competition and look at a more granular view of the components. we still have difficulty as i mentioned separating returns from leverage, i can tell you over the period since we report with and without leverage, the impact on cash equiization and leverage on returns at the total portfolio level is very small. for the one year it was negative 14 basis points, which i suggest is probably mostly due to cash equitiization. anna would have the more detailed breakdown in terms how much is leveraged and how much is cash, but it wasn't a significant impact ck that is good because this is not a period where either of those had been a

particularly strong performer, but important to do that going forward in the long-term. most segments of public equity unperformed by local equity and small cap held up. it want uniform, by the major strategic bets on technology helths care and bio tech were eroded by the 4th quarter result. private credit where you have 8 percent of your portfolio, generated 5.6 percent in the year, which i mentioned if that was left in core bonds you would have lost 8.2 percent of your money. that is a extremely important contributor to overall performance. public markets under performed by in large, the managers in the asset class did welt in the benchmark so under performance isn't you picked managers that did poorly relative to the strategy, but the over-weight to the segments was a negative

contributor. the detail of the managers is available to the board and happy to take detailed questions but i wanted to stop there with that summary. >> commissioner driscoll. >> let's go back to page 14. want to understand something. the policy index numbers are listed. going to 10, 15 and 20 year numbers, do those numbers reflect what the policy infect at the time or using the current policy using- >> no, it is the former joe. it is the policy that existed at that time times those returns compounded through time as the policy index changed. >> so it captures how we changed policy? >> it does. >> how we decided to

be more liquid and (indiscernible) staff recommended? >> yep. >> okay. >> the performance there as you note is quite competitive. your combination of policy over time was good. your results have done even better then that, so yes. >> that part is fine. i guess the thing i want to perhaps illustrate or tell you which you already know, but there has been certain amount of speakers against what we have done in the asset return. maybe the asset return has not quite hit the target we hoped it shall return, but the addition of absolute return had a positive effect. not that we know fixed income would not do-fixed income has been doing the last couple years. but it actually didn't simply reduce our volatility, but actually has contributed to the total return. >> yes. >> not getting volatility down.

>> not as high as expected, but that is indeed true. >> looking for a reason to stay staff well done, but our members are listening and watching what we are doing. we have been with absolute return over 5 years we are not satisfied yet but it achieved a major reason for doing it. thank you. >> that is correct. thank you jeff. >> commissioners. is there a motion? sorry. is there any members of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> thank you. item 9,

discussion item. chief investment officer's report. >> thank you. i'll hit a couple standard items. discuss sbe since sure it is on everybody's meend and provide a update on some of the strategic initiatives within investments. the first as of the end of february, the estimated plan value is $32.9 billion. since we last met, one deal has closed. it is not in your materials because it closed after the materials were sent out, so i'm reading it into the record. at the board meeting on february 16,ing the retirement board approved in closed session up to 100 million to (indiscernible) spurs investment in global investment close on march 1, 2023. this investment

is classified as global macro investment within the absolute return portfolio class b safari 2. turning to silicon valley bank, which is very much been in both the financial news in the local news and just about every new source available. wanted to touch on that and assure our stakeholders and assure this board that the team here has been very very active in monitoring the situation, and the impact on the assets of this fund this far has been minimal, and let me tell you what i mean by that. we have exposure to through equity investments, and we have exposure to sbb by partnering in the private markets with funds who (indiscernible) or portfolio companies

in those funds bank. the public market side, our investment was minimal, less then a million dollars at 0.003 percent of the total fund. so, not a significant impact. with respect to our private market partners and the funds they hold, with the action of the fdic over the course of the weekday and past weekday and by monday where they back-stopped all depositors that mitigated risk in the market place and those partners were able to continue to operate. at the same time, in talking to many of our partners they were taking risk-measures to evaluate the situation, determine various partnerships and act-should the fda not stepped in. the good news here is with respect to those investments, there has been no

significant issue on cash-flow. this team will very closely continue to monitor any impact on individual stock holdings, impact on regional banks and what is going on in the broader market, because it is times like these where volatility is introduced into the broader market and that means there are some managers with certain strategies that can benefit and are some managers with strategies that may face pressure, for instance the 2 year yuld on monday was 13 standard deviation event move, so managers that had exposure the wrong way to that thinking that rates were going to continue to rise, we may start to see effect of that and there are other managers that may have taken opportunity of this location to step in. time-we'll see how this all flushes out over time. the good news here is the diversified approach to

investing is one that is designed to manage through volatile market environments. are there any questions before i turn to the strategic initiatives? >> i saw the information you provided about the direct investment, but you said you are in conversations with related managers looking for exposure in terms of the relationship they might have had investment from, or relationship to silicon valley bank. have you done a deep analysis on the impact? >> so, we looked and have spoken with our private market managers that they themselves who have banked with svb or those with portfolio

companies there is not significant impact on cash-flows or the operations of those businesses. they all went to infull court press mode as the situation was evolving to mitigate the risk, but at this time the fdic stepping in, there isn't a significant impact for private market managers. >> commissioner driscoll. >> because i think--this report is the graph that shows the market value versus actuarially value. last month a few people misunderstood our funding ratio. we were below hundred percent last month but it moved a little bit, but overall our ability to deliver every pension check is still just as great as it ever was. >> absolutely. thank you for asking the question. i will reiterate we manage liquidity

and total assets closely and will continue to without a doubt continue to meet our pension obligations. >> so the liability we are still in the 99 percent range, something like that? i know the numbers will change in a couple months but anyway, thank you. >> other questions? >> i can turn to the slides that are in the materials. wanted to take the opportunity today since allen went through the detail performance to focus my remarks more closely and provide you a update on the strategic initiatives that i talked to you in the past about and give you a update of things we discussed in december. to go through that, first i highlighted we are focused on better utilizing technology and our team has done a funomnaul job started to on-board a new investment management software platform. made a lot of progress there and think it will help the team

manage workflows, manage information and make robust decisions. we talked about enhancing portfolio construction. thank you for the support that was a big step in the process and to give a example of where that might impact a big macro issue going on, i think the question came up earlier how we are positioned relative to macro issues. if we take global equity as a example, we put in guardrails to make sure when we take risk in that asset class only so much comes from country effect and so much from sector effect and so much coming from stock selection effect so that is precisely one tool we have at our disposal to manage ringe in a environment where macro risk increased. we will be coming back to you on the absolute return

guidelines. we had good comments today about the role of that asset class and we have been having detailed discussions and debates how we can most effectively structure that asset class to put it in oo position to continue to succeed and deliver what we want it to deliver for the total fund. again, a little tie today the question on macro issue, the team continues to evaluate themes where we are invested. we have been having extensive conversations, particularly on china with not only our managers that invest in china with geo political experts and macro advisors to understand the dynamics in that market place. we will have further discussions on that over time. we made progress in terms of recruiting talent

where we hired private credit and asset allocation and have a positionope in in private equity we are active ly looking to fill. also continued to evolve the investment process. we are making progress as talked earlier in terms of external consultant and really incorporating operational due diligence into our platform and if we were to take silicon valley bank as a example, we are making sure we understand how our managers manage cash and have compliance and systems set up. you can see why doing the appropriate diligence up front is important. and then finally, on portfolio construction as allen mentioned earlier, we are actively working with nepc and the team here internally on the updated asset liability study and making sure we have robust process to include the traditional asset liability approach and really

incorporating the needs we will have in coming years for liquidity given the dynamics allen outlined. a lot to cover but i wanted to convey over the course of really only handfull months we made a lot of progress on a lot of these initiatives. >> because how it worked out successfully and in the last months isn't a huge indicator, however the tilt towards china worked out rather well for us, particularly how it is done regionally. now they are forecasting growth rate of 5 to 5 and a half we were assuming 9 and lowered to 6. i assume you and your team are factoring all those issues when you figure which way to tilt and how you are able to move money between managers and subasset classes? >> absolutely. the discussions we are having

generally say is how much exposure do you want in china and if you are in china what are the possibilities of opportunity and this market environment given the trends of our government, of the chinese government, there are certain areas that we want to avoid and certain areas we want to stress and that is where partnering with knowledgeable managers in the space is critical. >> great. thank you. >> any other questions, commissioners? nope. any members of the public that wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> thank you. item 10, discussion item. differs compensation committee report. >> that's going to be presented by-- >> by the chair.

>> yes. you have your mic on? thanks. >> thank you mr. president. differed compensation committee met on february 22, 2023. my report is as stated here. we approved the minutes. we also had great discussion on the preliminary target date funds and glide path recommendations and asset allocation. (indiscernible) give a complete detail on the discussion points listed in the report and the approved proposal for target date funds reenrollment which is key and crucial. it is something we must get done and that will be discussed in detail. additionally, we finished our meeting with approval to begin the manager search for the process underlying the

target date fund investment and that is important as well. you have a few items coming before the board in the next few months as we finalize a lot of the important details. at this time, i'll move forward in the next item that comes up on the differed compensation committee to go into detail and all the items outlined in my committee report. thank you mr. president. >> thank you. anything else? perfect. any questions from commissioners? okay. great. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you, commissioner. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> thank you. item 11, discussion item. sfdcp monthly report. >> i think your mic is

off. >> can you hear me okay? okay, thank you so much. good afternoon commissioners and thank you president for the item and to commissioner chair bridges for the report. as you recall, i provided a full quarterly report last month, which captures much of the activity of the sfdcp. attached to the icem is the most recent monthly activity report for reference. that includes plan asset, demographic and investment information, money in and out and loan information. please let me know if you have any questions, otherwise i have a few small updates for the board. congratulations to chair, leowna bridges on her reappointment. we are fortunate to have hur leadership and guidance from commissioner driscoll and thomas and look forward continuing working with you for another 5 years. on

to business, we have been working with the record keeper on the mandatory provisions as a result of secure 2.0 act. these were provided in last months for your reference. due to the requirement of catch up contributions being raw, and identify participants less then $145 thousand, we are opening dialogue with the controller pay roll office on the business requirements needed to create a project for this additional coding in the pay roll files that goes back and forth between voya and the city. there is a lot of work at the moment. there are also optional provisions as a result of secure 2.0 such as emergency savings account. those options are being reviewed by staff. we are focusing on the mandatory ones first before bringing any recommendations on the optional provisions we should recommend enacting. the target date fund

transition that commissioner bridges had referred to is on track. we have a meeting on april 12 to bring the final glide path recommendation to the dcc hoping they forward with recommendation to the full board at the april meeting, so next month we will bring or final recommendation on the glide path. that meeting at the dcc will also include a cyber security update, which covers how it is protected and the barriers put in place to protect our participants. so, next month we will definitely have more information for you and we look forward to you blessing our recommendation. we also have our newest sfdcp counselor, his name is michael wade who will serve the police department. you can find his bio on sfdcp.org. we have been working directly with police to get the word out valle

internal department e-mails and journal. michael wade has a military background and believe he is a great fit for police. you can find a listing of all the departments dedicated to each counselor on sfdcp.org. the q2 stable value credit rate is not yet available. should be closer to the end of the month. that can be found on sfdcp.org. it should be interesting to see how it impacts our investments, and ben taylor from calen should be able to cover that shortly in the next item as part of the semi-annual update. that is all i have for my monthly activity report. happy to take any questions. >> any xhegzs

commissioners? nope? okay. great. any members of public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. presentation, right? >> yes. that was my presentation. i'm done with this item. >> okay, great. okay. so, thank you. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> item 12, discussion item. review of sfdcp inest havement performance for second half of 2022. >> thank you. this is the semi-annual performance report. calen is our investment consultant and ben taylor from calen is here to provide a report on the investment performance. ben is starting to share his screen. ben,

please proceed. >> thank you, can you hear me okay? >> yes. thank you. >> great. so, i'll just go through the brief highlights here and be happy to answer questions with regard to specific managers or (indiscernible) it is certainly the [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] fundamentally there are a few things to update. defered compensation plan is valued $4.3 billion down the prior year $700 odd million and broader decline then seen in the overall market. with respect to the targeted finds the performance is 0.41 down to plus 1.65 over the 6 month period of time. prior 6 months reporting on. the shorter longer term results both remain strong (indiscernible)

across the board. still performing quite well mostly driven by the selection throughout the glide path. with respect to the watch list there are a handful of items we need to discuss with respect to managers. lsv (indiscernible) 3 and 5 year performance. this isn't a ongoing concern, this is mostly related to first quarter 2020. (indiscernible) strong and significant ahead of benchmark. growth fund does rank in the third quaur tile and behind the index. significant portion is driven by the t row price fund and in particular performances (indiscernible) mostly driven by the tech holdings and security selections within tech. that's one that would qualify

for watch list. we wanted to explore action with respect to these funds in the future in addition to looking at a (indiscernible) growth index fund over time. we'll be coming back to you with potential action on that in the future, but in the meantime just a watch list criteria to report on for the investment policy. (indiscernible) bond fund is one of the component funds. utilized within the target funds. not directly offered as investment option. it did change to (indiscernible) with respect to wells fargo and (indiscernible) over 37 overall the difference is difference in duration. rates have been rising so under-performed. that will have benefit as well down the line once the rate increases stop and can benefit from the longer duration. (indiscernible) any questions initially with respect to the watch

list before i proceed with (indiscernible) ? hearing none--i won't rehash our versions of them, but fundamentally call your attention to the bullet point on the left hand side. there are 38 quarters in hundred years or 10 (indiscernible) stocks and bond together. (indiscernible) bad year for diversification and what we have seen with respect to stocks and securities being significantly effected by central bank policy inflation in a way that is fairly unique in history that undermined the diversification (indiscernible) that has been discussed at length earlier in today's meeting. another visual representation to

which the returns are or not abnormal with respect to the equity market right here. just pointing out the frequency of which you (indiscernible) you can see on the bottom [audio cutting in and out] moving ahead these have been addressed. i'll move to the [audio cutting out] largest fund with over a billion dollars in assets. (indiscernible) perform well no concerns with respect (indiscernible) significant amount of large cap equities is why we keep pace (indiscernible) noted earlier with respect to (indiscernible) >> ben, you are cutting in and out, so don't know if

your connection- >> i'm sorry. still occurring? >> not now. >> okay. i'm not sure as to why. i should have a stable connection. hope it doesn't occur-let me know. i'll be brief. as noted there is a very very close performance with respect to benchmark for the target date funds as noted earlier. it is mostly a bit of relative out-performance on the target retirement benchmark. fairly close to benchmarks in near term but all performing (indiscernible) the last year similar story, very very close and the further we go out we get persistence (indiscernible) the targeted funds have a lower equity allocation then the current glide path (indiscernible) relative to peers which doesn't impact relative

performance. [audio cut out] on this chart is to help everyone read the chart briefly, green indicates there is no issues that trigger investment policy statement concern. indicate a third quaur tile performance and the goldish color indicate a 4th quartile standard measured. you can see large cap social equity, this is reflective of the (indiscernible) -this means that it is benchmarked against the core but has a bit of growth orientation and are this time period that was not beneficial. this will move around with respect to peer group performance over this timeframe by virtue of construction of the fund and are relative differences relative to core mutual funds (indiscernible)

value equity you see what i noted with respect to near-term performance. large cap value funds doing well over the last year, the last quarter. the three year return being right on and little worse off because of the 2020 (indiscernible) that is something we have been aware of. you can see the last year return performing [audio cut out] again, those trends continuing with respect to the last quarter returns as called out earlier [audio cut out] >> ben, can you make sure you speak into your mic, because you are continuing to cut out a bit? >> i will do my upmost, yes. i will get as close as i can get to my lap top. is

this better? >> yes are. thank you. >> with respect to other funds of-i'll move to those that have an impact with respect to investment policy. international equity, this blue color is indicative of the peer group, and that's not a source of concern for us from performing as expected. performing better then benchmarks in the most recent quarter and over longer term. the equity index, this is a difference with respect to ranking that is causing this. it is an effect of value prices for international equity index. real estate, short term but mostly related to differences in the compensation of holdings relative to the benchmark and this will move around over time but not a major concern from our perspective with relative performance. just note for the longer term performance, for

the real estate fund, this is blend of morgan stanley and principle so the principle real estate return is listed below which is the (indiscernible) 24.9 versus 24.5 so in line with benchmark over the last year. different then last quarter, but a wash-out over time. with respect to the targeted fund component returns, just couple notes. wells fargo (indiscernible) short duration bond fund as noted this is principally duration difference relative to the benchmark and peers. not a source of concern long-term. the high yield fund, just the general note, this will move around a bit, but when you see the benchmark performing in the top percentile, that is consistently interested of performance pattern and this does move around as well. the three year return that was the

99 percentile. moving glonel infrastructure, there will be differences in the benchmark. there is a significant amount of securities here. in particular things like, infrastructure related to data center and technology and as those are in and out of favor you see these move up and down compared to the benchmark. no concern there either, even though it hits the 3 year and not 5 year. same story for the principle global real estate security cip for relative performance. significant difference with respect to (indiscernible) and valuation cycles. no concerns as well with respect to this investment. i'll pause and see if there are questions i can address or if you like me to cover anything with silicon valley bank, signature bank or (indiscernible) >> any questions, commissioners?

>> commissioner driscoll. >> the other parts of this portfolio. question about one particular manager. >> what manager would you like to discuss? >> i want to cut off if you are going to continue talking. >> i'll done. >> you are done, okay. >> you are muted. hit the button again. >> thank you. i assume new work with t rowe price with glide path design is going well? >> yes. >> regarding t rowe price and the growth manager mutual fund, how is that going? >> less well. [laughter] there is significant security selection issues, predominantly in the tech sector in that fund for some time. >> are you recommending that this commission or the

board should continue to be patient with them? >> our discussions at this point have not gotten to the point we recommend a search, but we are preparing to recommend a search if it does not recover and potentially worsen, we will likely come back with recommendation for a replacement search, but at this time- >> i would prepare it now. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i had asked mr. taylor to cover this page because we are in the middle of our targeted fund design, and calen is ultimately responsible for the manager selection, so this is where we see the performance of the underlying managers, and the t rowe price as investment manager they recommend the asset classes. i want to make sure we go over that and aware of that prior to our meeting next month where we bring the final recommendation to the board. >> please understand, the board is ultimately

responsible for anyone who manages money in the defered comp plan, not just a consultant. >> understood. thank you. >> any other questions? any other questions? do we need to take action on that? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, thank you for your presentation. >> thank you. >> commissioner bridges- >>b mr. president, i like to thank mr. taylor and calen group and (indiscernible) her team. they put a lot of time into this entire process and working together and trying to get us prepared to bring recommendations back to the board, so just wanted to acknowledge their work and the time they put into it. >> thank you. thank you for saying that. we really appreciate it. >> i appreciate that as well. >> thank you.

>> thank you. okay. please call the next item madam secretary. >> thank you. item 13, action item. review and approve s fers travel reimbursement policy. >> commissioners, with this item i want to highlight what we are reviewing seek your approval and explain why we are reviewing it today. our travel expense policy which had been a scheduled-part of a broader policy, hasn't been reviewed since 2010. since 2010 we have ride sharing and other areas so it was prudent from just a governance perspective, evolution of travel to update this policy. we also wanted to make sure that it provided guidance on areas that maybe it been silent on in the

past where perhaps if i looked at the controller's office policy, and may had language that is-that makes sense and clarifies things that we went ahead and incorporated concepts like that into our policy. and i wanted to insure that for our travel as we have had in the past, but we continue to be focused on appropriate documentation, we need to spend these dollars prudently and make sure we are documenting they are prudent and reasonable when we spend the money. why are we bringing this to you today? number one, travel certainly has picked up post-covid and as we discussed in the past, central to our fiduciary deuta duty is meet managers conduct dill diligence and conduct education seminars and take that seriously and travel

expense reimbursement is part of the broader process of fiduciary responsibility. since i have been on-board, there have been increasing obstacles for our team to get their travel reimbursement expenses approved, and it has taken significant staff time and growing staff time to get this addressed. we have individuals that on their personal credit cards are sitting on travel dollars, which is for board business, and importantly, we fund these travel expenses out of our fund, and so why i wanted to bring this to you today is to make sure the board is in full agreement in terms of what our policy is, understand why we are spending these dollars and provide support going to forward so we can move forward and get expenses approved per our policy, and have our

team travel as we need to do for our mission and fiduciary duty. any questions on the changes that we recommended? >> what are the changes you recommended? >> they are red-lined. >> mr. president-- >> commissioner bridges. >> yes. to our ceo, cio, you hear me okay? when you say delay and processing is that delayed because of going through controller's office and all the points of processing? is that part of the bottleneck you are experiencing? >> correct, and making sure that our policy is the one that is fallowed. >> right. so, the policy that you are recommending here

today,eme polk trying to see if it will make it easier and seemless for star and spers going through the same process or going to complicate. i know the process is not the best for the city overall, i know that for sure. >> so, the logistical and technical aspects of it-part of the challenge is that there is a spers policy and controller's policy. >> exactly. >> we have gotten to the point where anything that is different in our policy from the controller's policy has not been approved. i want to make current our policy and have the board acknowledge this is the spers current policy. >> to our president who is probably more familiar with the controller's policy more sewn then i am, do most departments have their policy the same as controller? >> all the city and county of san francisco travel reimbursement goes through the controller. so the

issue here is, there is the policy hasn't been updated in a long time, so the ceo, came to me, called the controller and controller said he is committed working to get this right. one thing they asked for was, can you please update your policy. >> right. >> and look for areas of overlap. just highlight something. for example, they have a certain rate for hotel reimbursement. if there is not an easily accessible hotel within a certain area, if there is food not easily accessible then they have flexibility to go above the rate that they-they are probably less inclined people ask for first class-that's not going to happen. i just-let's be honest. that is very very- >> (indiscernible) >> to be clear, first class travel isn't allowed according to this policy and what we- >> just wanted to say that for

the record, because that is one thing he highlighted with me and i i said under no circumstances-anyway, we just making sure our policy lines up with the policy and if there is areas of difference there is reason and it is clearly spelled out. >> and if it is helpful for the commissioners, as part of this process i did reach out to other plans in the state to understand their policy. not again that their policy is right but they are subject to similar conditions, situations, legislation et cetera and some of the language that i did add in regarding hotel reimbursement is similar in that it is a individual staying at a hotel that is greater then the gsa rate. we required additional documentation to explain why that is necessary. >> and i would most conference hotels are above the rate because the conference hotel

rates where they want to stay where the conference is, the rate (indiscernible) i know about that from the local state and federal level. the federal government says the gsa rate. if you look at the comparison, it is always going to be different. at that point you have to make a decision to stay at the conference hotel or find a hotel within the rate. >> our policy has two buckets. if it is a conference with a conference designated hotel, we will pay for that conference hotel at the conference rate. >> at the conference rate, that is what i mean. >> then we have a set of criteria if it isn't a conference related event. >> that makes sense. i know the gsa rate. it changes every rate. the federal government changes the rate every single month and it is based on occupancy rate in that particular city. for example, in dc during spring it

rate is higher so something to keep in mind to monitor and not sure who monitors that. it is an interesting scenario. i have gone (indiscernible) that's why i know it. >> any other questions, commissioners? okay. thank you. i think that was for-wait. we actually have to make a motion. any members--you do have a question? >> (indiscernible) >> okay, go ahead. >> to approve the reimbursement policy (indiscernible) >> good job. is there a second? >> second. >> seconded by commissioner bridges. any members of the public that wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion made by commissioner thomas, seconded by commissioner bridges. any additional discussion folks? nope. okay. all in favor? >> aye. >> those opposed? no. the

ayes have it. madam secretary, please call item 14. >> thank you. item 14, discussion item. review of audited financial statements and supplemental schedules for years ended june 30, 2022 and 2021 and communications to the retirement board for the year ended june 30, 2022. >> commissioners. i would like to introduce you to christine lee, she is our finance manager. christine became finance manager when jim borel retired in 2021. this is her first appearance before you but i wanted to give you some highlights as to what she does for us. she oversees all the trust fund accounting not just for spers but sfdcp and retiree healthcare trust fund which you don't oversee but spurs is responsible

administers. instrumental prepares the budget you approved last month and liaison in the controller office with respect to that. she is also the point person and principle liaison for the department when the controller accountant prepared the financial statement jz that is before you today. christine, i'll turn it over to you. >> thank you. good afternoon. every year spers conduct financial audit and issue financial statement and mgo is the auditor that performs fiscal year 22 audit. today we have (indiscernible) the audit director and (indiscernible) yang, the assurance supervisor to make a presentation to the board and answer any questions that you may have. >> great. >> thank you. i want to take a moment to thank the

board of retirement giving us the opportunity to come in and present the results of our audit. i also want to take a moment to thank staff and management, everyone for all their assistance provided to us during the audit. an audit we ask a lot of questions, we do a lot of testing, ask for a lot of documentation to support all the amounts and conclusions that management has reached in creating the financial statements. as mentioned we performed audit ending june 30, 2022. as a result of our audit we issued three reports. the first report is in the financial statements themselves in the second two reports are in a separate document addressed to the board of retirement. so, as

far as the audit results, the first report is in the very first section of the financial statements themselves and this report is the main reason why we do the audit. it is where we provide our opinion on the financial statements and we are happy to report we issued a unmodified opinion on the financial statements for year ending june 30, 2022 and unmodified opinion is the highest level of assurance that a independent auditor can give a organization regarding the fair presentation of the financial's. we issued our report february 3, 2023. there are a couple additional items in the report we want to highlight. the financial statements themselves are prepared by management in accordance with generally acceptsed accounting principles and we audit the financial statements in accordance and also with government

auditing standards and government auditing standards there is a little more work we have to do which i'll explain in the next report. lastly, on the opinion on the financial statements in our independent auditor report we included a emphasis of matter, paragraph. it is something we want to highlight or we put in the report to highlight for the board direct somewhere else in the financial statement and this being that the financial statements dont proport to report the financial position of the city and county of san francisco as a whole. the emphasis of matter doesn't change our opinion, has no effect, we just have to put that in and bring it up in this instance. any questions in the financial statements or independent auditor report before i move on to the next report? >> any questions? no. thank you. >> the next report

that we issue, has to do with internal control and compliance. when we perform a audit with the government auditing standards we are required to consider and report on internal control for financial reporting. we dont provide assurance, but as part of our audit if we become aware of deficiencies that rise to a level of define as material weakness or significant deficiency thin controls, we have to report those to the board in this report. we are happy to report that for the year end june 30, 2022, we didn'ted and offered

effectively. the second part of the report has to do with compliance with laws and regulations, contracts or agreements. part of the audit with government auditing standard we have to review laws, regulations, city code, plan provisions for items that could have a material effect or material-directly effect the financial statements and make sure there is no non-compliance and happy to report there again that there were no such matters of non-compliance. again, we dont provide assurance on the controllers or compliance but had there been any material we are required to report that here. our last report we have is known as the required communications. what our required communication report is, at the end of or conclusion of every audit we are required to proport certain matters and items to those charged

with governance and overseeing the entity in this case the board of retirement. i broke it out into three different groups. the first has to do with qualitative accounting. accounting we think that quantitatively we have numbers, we are balances and there is a lot of qualitative items. the first being accounting policy manage chooses or uses to record the transactions into the general ledger and report in the financial statements. the significant accounting policy management uses are identified or discussed in note 2 to the financial statements in the note of disclosures. for the year end june 30, 2022 there were no new accounting policies, no significant changes to the existing policies and more importantly, none of the policies that management uses lacks authoritative guidance or consensus, so nothing out of left field that they are using

trying to justify a transaction. the next item under the qualitative aspects have to do with accounting estimates- >> for note 2, can you point to a page number? >> yes. >> sorry, got spun around flipping through the pages. >> sure. it is on page 20 of the financial statement report. >> thank you. >> yes. going back to the qualitative asset for the county and there is under u.s. gap and accrual basis of accounting there are balances in item in the financial statements and note

disclosures that where management has to make estimates. we are required to point out the significant estimates in the financial statements. the first one being in the note disclosures themselves. it has to do with the what is called in the accountsing world the total pension liability and net pension liability. it translates to the accrued and unfunded liability. this is significant because it is based on actuarially calculations and what the city and county of san francisco have to report as a net pension liability in their financial statements. the significant estimates are the determination of the determined contributions which are done by actuarially studies and complex calculations and finally the fair value of investments, specifically relating to the what i call the turn of investment or real assets, private credit and equity and

absolute return. what we do to audit the significant estimates is in the case of-anything actuarially related so calculations of that determined contributions or the total pension and net pension liabilities, we actually have a consulting actuary. they go through the assumptions and calculations and review sample data to make sure the information that is disclosed in the financial statements is reasonably as it relates to standards of practice and also u.s. gap. fair value of investment, what we do to get comfortable with management estimate is select samples, do testing of our own for publicly traded or equities or bonds or fixed income and then for the alternative investments we go and are obtain

quarterly information for net asset values and look at audit ed financial statementss of the investment funds themselves and make sure they received unmodified opinions rchlt look to see who the auditor is, make sure it is reputable firm. look through the valuation policy and procedures to make sure they follow the required accounting standards and the funds are not reporting concern issues that could effect the ultimate valuation. moving to other matters, we are happy to report we didn't have significant difficulties during our audit. we didn't have disagreement with management and as far as we know management wasn't consulting with any other accounting firm looking for second opinions on transactions. lastly, there were not any uncorrected financial statement misstatements and management signed our representation which

is the last item we need, last piece of audit information we need to issue our reports. with that, that concludes our presentation on the financial statements. happy to take any questions. >> seeing no questions, thank you so much for the presentation. appreciate it. any members of public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> item 15, action item. review and approval of actuarial audit consulting services, request for proposal. >> good afternoon commissioners. the board monitoring the reporting policy specifies a frequency of every 5 years for the actuarial audit. the last audit was 2018 so it is time for a new one. i

provided a updated rfp and happy to answer any questions. i do have one change. in the introduction section, the rfp drafted in february, early march we updated our website, so there is a reference that says the very last line of the introduction where it says, see about spers and publications. it should read, see resources and publications. i am again happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? commissioner driscoll. >> no, just move adoption of issuing the rfp. >> great. second? seconded by commissioner bridges. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment

is closed. motion made by commissioner driscoll, seconded by commissioner bridges. any additional questions? discussion? seeing none, all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? the ayes have it. motion passes. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> madam secretary, next item. >> item 16, discussion item. review of quarterly retirement services dashboard. >> commissioners, you have before you the quarterly dashboards that we have prepared that really highlights the retirement service operation division. it should be self--explanatory. there are two separate reports. one is for the end of the year and there is one for the quarter and i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> i got one question. it is productively related. looking at--page 4. connecting with members and processing applications. i'm looking at the count of applications going up slightly faster. i know we added a few attorneys. and yust wonder if we will ever get the case load down? >> in disability? specifically respect to disability? >> that is a lot of attorney work. case count--there seems to be more applications coming in then cases settled or closed. >> well, the goal is in hiring the new attorneys to work the cases, that we would in fact catch up and stay even, so it is hard for me to tell you right now. i had noticed that we have a lot of applications coming in and i thought of that as well, but it is too

soon to tell whether that will be the case, because the attorneys that are on-board now are really focused on taking care of the back-log, and we made significant progress with respect to that, the back-log is still there. >> okay, thanks for this page for this data. we'll continue to watch it to see if it really turns down. thank you. >> great. thank you. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment's closed. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> item 17, discussion item. chief executive officer's report. >> handful of items to update the board on. first, reminder, the form 700 filings

are due, so if you haven't completed that, please do so. >> what's it due date? >> april 3. >> april 3. one says- >> we'll--april 3. in the ceo report you may have noticed i changed the design of the forward calendar hopefully to make it easier for you all to see what is coming up next. it will make us easier for you. we have a lot of activity for the month of april with respect to committee meetings.

and then finally, just wanted to share, i have gotten a few questions about committee meetings and in person attendedance, versus remote attendance and can get into all the details as necessary, but too clear for committee meetings, participation is in person. there are very narrow exceptions and those exceptions are limited and limited to only two times per year, so for all intensive purposes, the committee members and board members should plan to attend those meetings in person. are there any other questions?

>> any additional questions? i think earlier there was a comment, public comment about cim. what is-just-i dont know if you know off the top of your head, but what's our investment with them and can you describe that a little further? >> sure. if tonia you want to describe some of the details you have in terms of the investment. i do want to share and will turn it over to tonia, we looked extensively at this matter, we take our partnerships seriously and want to understand how our managers invest. we had multiple conversations with cim to understand this particular property. their approach to incorporating esg in the process and approach to mitigating risk and importantly , their approach to following the law and we are comfortable

based on all the conversations that the manager-comfortable with our investment and the approach they have taken in managing a property and taking these into consideration and i'll turn it over to tonia. >> before- >> if we are going-it sounds like we are getting more into the weeds here of a inquiry that isn't on the agenda, so it might be a good idea instead of hearing from tonia today, unless that was part of your ceo report and didn't look like it from the materials. >> we are not allowed to ask about anything that comes up the meeting related to public comment? we have the ability to inquire about previous investment. >> if there is something on the agenda to suggest to the public that is the item that

would be discussed but don't believe there is a an item that would have put the public on notice. if weant to get into something more in depth we put that on the calendar for future meeting. >> mr. president, if i have may make a request for the next board meeting we hear from staff from cim investment and my concern also is this investment, you heard from tenants not just on the east coast but this started in los angeles and beyond so it moved much further. we heard from unions so i really want to have a complete breakdown and understanding because we have a constituency that is very concerned and since we are fiduciaries i'm concerned as a fiduciary that we made the right decisions and investment choices for this investment. i like to hear more about it at the next board

meeting. >> that's fair. i just say in general, it would be good to know the extent of our investments with them and some of their practices in terms of property management. it is one thing to say they are following the law and another to say there is concrete data. if we can know what the specific number of evictions and other related entities and if there is losses so we can get a full report on the next agenda,ing that would be helpful. >> (indiscernible) >> any other commissioners? >> just on the subject, in terms of the manager who manages this has a significant amount of capital with us, or we have with them to manage, does anybody foresee problems we should act between now and the next board meeting, besides gathering information and having discussion with

them? >> we have been looking into the matter and can address these questions in detail in the private market investments we have to think about that, and two, there's no need for a special meeting. >> we can wait a month. thank you. >> great. just to add on to it, we heard numerous comments and allegations of union busting on behalf of some of their companies that are owned by cim as well. it is my understanding we have limited exposure or no exposure but what i like included in the report a component that deals with their engagement with these other companies that they own that engage in union busting. >> okay. >> i think we have given enough direction and if there is additional direction maybe you can contact ceo to ask her to shape the agenda item

through me. any other comments or questions for the ceo's report? just because it is in the news this week and i know the banks are working with credit swish and [audio cutting in and out] >> not in addition to what i shared earlier. we are monitoring it closely and sometimes the financial market, things move quickly, but as of 2:30 this afternoon, i think the comments i shared earlier reflect where we stand with respect to our assets and business. >> thank you. seeing no other comments, any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 18. madam secretary. >> item 18, discussion item. retirement board member good of the order. >> any comments or

concerns from commissioners? anything they want to announce? >> i just wanted to thank you for the ceo for reformatting the calendar. it is so much more reasonable now. i appreciate that. >> great. >> you're welcome. >> anything else? okay. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 19. >> item 19, adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you. [meeting adjourned]

the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe, clean streets for everyone and good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great. the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people.

so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there. >> 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] te

>> in 1948 swensen's ice cream used to make ice cream in the navy and decided to open up an ice cream shop it it takes time for the parent to put money down

and diane one of the managers at zen citizen in arena hills open and serve old-fashioned ice cream. >> over 20 years. >> yeah. >> had my own business i was a firefighter and came in- in 1969 her dad had ice cream and left here still the owner but shortly after um, in here became the inc. maker the manager and lead and branded the store from day to day and in the late 90s- was obvious choice he sold it to him and he called us up one

night and said i'm going to sell the ice cream store what you you talking about diane came and looked at the store and something we want to do and had a history of her dad here and growing up here at the ice cream store we decided to take that business on. >> and have it in the family i didn't want to sell it. >> to keep it here in san francisco. >> and (unintelligible). >> share worked there and worked with all the people and a lot of customers come in. >> a round hill in the adjoining areas loved neither ice cream shop in this area and support russia hills and have clean up day and give them free ice cream because that is those are the people that keep us the

opportunity to stick around here four so many years next generations have been coming her 20 er thirty or 40 years and we have the ingredients something it sold and, you know, her dad said to treat the customers right and people will keep on coming back and 75 or 74 years, you know, that is quite an accomplishment i think of it as our first 75 years and like to see that, you know, going into the future um, that ice cream shop will be around used to be 4 hundred in the united states and all gone equipment for that one that is the first and last we're proud of that we're still

standing and people people are you tell people it's been around in 50 years and don't plan on [music] >> san francisco is known as yerba buena, good herb after a

mint that used to grow here. at this time there were 3 settlements one was mission delores. one the presidio and one was yerba buena which was urban center. there were 800 people in 1848 it was small. a lot of historic buildings were here including pony express headquarters. wells fargo. hudson bay trading company and famous early settlers one of whom william leaderdorph who lived blocks from here a successful business person. african-american decent and the first million airin california. >> wilwoman was the founders of san francisco. here during the gold rush came in the early 1840s. he spent time stake himself as a merchant seaman and a business

person. his father and brother in new orleans. we know him for san francisco's history. establishing himself here arnold 18 twoochl he did one of many things the first to do in yerba buena. was not california yet and was not fully san francisco yet. >> because he was an american citizen but spoke spanish he was able to during the time when america was taking over california from mexico, there was annexations that happened and conflict emerging and war, of course. he was part of the peek deliberations and am bas doorship to create the state of california a vice council to mexico. mexico granted him citizenship. he loaned the government of san francisco money. to funds some of the war efforts

to establish the city itself and the state, of course. he established the first hotel here the person people turned to often to receive dignitaries or hold large gatherings established the first public school here and helped start the public school system. he piloted the first steam ship on the bay. a big event for san francisco and depict instead state seal the ship was the sitk a. there is a small 4 block long length of street, owned much of that runs essentially where the transamerica building is to it ends at california. i walk today before am a cute side street. at this point t is the center what was all his property. he was the person entrusted to be the city's first treasurer.

that is i big deal of itself to have that legacy part of an african-american the city's first banker. he was not only a forefather of the establishment of san francisco and california as a state but a leader in industry. he had a direct hahn in so many things that we look at in san francisco. part of our dna. you know you don't hear his anymore in the context of those. representation matters. you need to uplift this so people know him but people like him like me. like you. like anyone who looks like him to be, i can do this, too. to have the city's first banker and a street in the middle of financial district. that alone is powerful. [music]

if the soul of the nation is to be saved. i believe that you must become its soul. those were the words of one of america's greatest xiros, coretta scott king. and today still recovering from the impacts of a deadly and devastating global pandemic. and on the other side of roe v. wade. no truer words have ever been spoken. ladies if the soul of this nation is to