Good morning.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the March 19th, 2026 regular meeting of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Sauter, Vice Chair of the Committee, joined by Supervisor Cheryl and Supervisor Melgar, who I'd like to thank for sitting in for Chair Fielder today.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements to begin?

Yes, public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to me, the government audit and oversight committee clerk at M-O-N-I-Q-U-E.

C-R-A-Y-T-O-N at SFGOV dot or G.

If you submit public comment via email will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you have documents you would like to be included as part of the official file, please submit them to me before the end of the meeting.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent any interruptions to today's proceedings.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of April 7th, 2020 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And first I would like to make a motion to excuse Chair Fielder from today's meeting.

Yes, and on the motion to excuse Chair Fielder, Member Melgar.

Member Melgar I.

Member Cheryl, Member Sheryl I, Vice Chair Sauter.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sauter, I have three eyes.

What's Chair Fielder excused?

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Due to some constraints from our presenters, I would like us to begin with item two first.

So Madam Clerk, could you please call item number two?

Yes, item number two is a resolution authorizing the director and the deputy deputy director of the mayor's office for victim rights to solicit donations to benefit survivors, victims of crime from individuals, nonprofits, private organizations, and foundations for six months, notwithstanding the behestid payment ordinance.

Thank you.

And we have Ivy Lee, Director of Mayor's Office for Victim Rights, to begin and present today.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you so much and good morning, um committee members.

Um I I really want to just start by um saying, you know, we're here with uh on an agenda with a really important um item that's coming up, um, especially in light of revelations about someone that I think a lot of us held up as a hero.

Um and it's really I have to admit, like it is very um it really shook me this week.

And it made it all the more important, I think, um, for us to do this work.

Um so I really want to thank you, um, all three of you for your support since our office was created a year and a half ago.

Um the three of you have really shown us um unfailing support.

Um Supervisor Cheryl, you sit on the Family Violence Council, and I really want to appreciate that.

Um thank you.

Um and Supervisor Melgar, the work that we've done around special victims unit and really bolstering that work and making sure there's a bridge between SFPD and victim services organizations was really strengthened by that hearing that you called um last year.

So just a lot of appreciation for um what this board does um to really uplift um the population that we serve.

Um the mayor's office for victims' rights um is an office that was designed to be independent and to be a source of um a safe haven, really, and an ombuds office for um crime victims and survivors.

Um we are open to all because crime victimization is not your identity.

It is something that you experience.

Um we'll be speaking more as part of the um women's agenda um item later.

But really for this item, um, what we want to uplift is the fact that we have limited resources and we have three very clear needs that we are trying to uh find private public partnerships to really bolster.

Umelessness prevention and trying to make sure that we have housing resources, urgent accommodations uh for folks that are really in need because of imminent harm that they are at risk of.

Um, where safety um and having safe housing actually means um that they get to live.

Um stay alive, you know.

So that is one thing that we really want to uh try and uplift.

Um another uh issue that we really want to try and fundraise for privately is the right to counsel, because without that legal access to assistance, um, we can prevent so much harm if someone is connected with an attorney.

So that is really what we are also trying to do.

But we are trying to do it very thoughtfully and very intentionally, which is why we are also outreaching to um groups like Stout Financial to do a return on investment analysis to bolster um that ask, right, of private funders.

And I'll talk more about that later as well.

Um and the last is really just very practically things that I believe that DOSW and HRC have really um spearheaded in the past and are doing now, um, which are things like UBI, right, for folks um for mothers for for children.

Um that is something that we also would like to try and uplift.

Um I want to be very clear that um as a office that does not um currently provide grants or contracting.

Um this behested um payment uh waiver is actually us being very, very cautious.

We want to be a thousand percent transparent.

Um we are willing to accept uh Supervisor Fielder's amendment, um, but we wanted to actually um adjust it a little bit because I believe what she would like us to do is to uh um report back on the actual donations that might happen with third parties because we will be primarily fundraising, not for ourselves, not for our office, but for the service providers and for the city as a whole.

Um so uh the only adjustment we would like to add is that we want to make sure that it's if known.

Because if we don't know about it, I do not want to commit to something that I can't meet.

Um I hope that that makes sense.

Um and I will stop there if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Please uh uh supervisor show.

Um first of all, thank you for being here.

Uh second of all, um I have an enormous amount of faith and trust in you, so please don't take this question to be anything other than just I don't understand.

When you say if known, can you just clarify like what that I just don't know what that means?

Sure.

So I I imagine a scenario where we actually approach a funder and they show some interest.

And we, you know, kind of like when you pitch, right?

Like you are trying to throw um as many ideas out there and you're trying to read the room to see what is um taking hold, right?

What is what is attracting that funder?

Um it's very possible that months from now that funder may reach out to you know the women's building or you know, La Casa de las Madres, or any of the community service providers that do this amazing work.

Um, and they may uh grow a relationship, make a donation, and we won't know about it.

Yeah.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Okay.

If not, uh Madam Clerk, let's please take public comment.

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on this item should line up along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Vice Chair, it appears we have no do we have public comment for this item?

Okay.

You can be in.

Sorry, you can be in.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Brielle, and I am a San Francisco resident, a mother, and a survivor of domestic violence.

Three years ago, I almost lost my life.

I was with an abusive partner who once presented himself as charming, supportive, and loving.

Unfortunately, all of that changed the moment we moved in together.

On October 8th, 2023, the person I thought loved me became someone unrecognizable.

After I told him I was leaving, he put me in a chokehold.

He slammed my head on the ground, dragged me back into the kitchen, and lifted me off my feet as I fought to breathe.

I bit his arm to escape and ran out of my home.

But the danger didn't end there.

He had a rifle and placed this in our bedroom.

He threatened me every single day, telling me if I left, he would find me and my sons.

When police arrived, they saw the bite marks and assumed that I was the aggressor.

I was the victim, and I was arrested.

I spent three nights in jail, not knowing if I would see my sons.

You are cutting a lifeline.

Fee waivers help, but they are not enough.

Survivors need real access to legal support to escape abuse and protect their families.

I am asking you to fully fund legal services for survivors.

If you truly care about the safety of women and children in the city, improve it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brielle.

Next speaker, please.

A behested payments waiver is great, but it's not enough to address the public safety crisis we face.

According to the December CompSTAT report, human trafficking and domestic violence are the only crimes that are increasing year over year in San Francisco.

There are 3,000 incidents of domestic violence reported to the police each year, 15,000 likely total.

And to provide legal assistance to all these survivors, including restraining orders, child custody, visitation, child support, divorce, immigration, consumer protection, and more.

The wealthiest city in the country has collectively allocated about $1 million per year.

Yet peer-reviewed research shows that when legal services are provided to survivors, the rate of domestic violence in a county will decrease.

In fact, uh research shows it's the only intervention that works to decrease the rate at the county level.

What Brielle wasn't able to mention is that she went to 15 orgs trying to get legal help in her matter, and they were all booked or unable to serve.

And that's a consequence of the total lack of funding for this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

According to the city's own data, around 43% of families entering homelessness and 29% of adults entering homelessness are fleeing violence.

Domestic violence is the cause of homeless homelessness for almost 80% of women.

And the face of this reality, we don't have a strong prevention strategy.

The city spends around $18 million per year to provide legal assistance for tenants facing eviction, which is wonderful and commendable.

Yet about twice as many people are homeless or homeless due to domestic violence as they are due to eviction.

We need to make an investment in that prevention strategy as well.

It's an estimate that each person experiencing homelessness homelessness costs the city about $30,000 in police and security, $50,000 in public health services, and $62,000 per year in shelter-related services.

Not to mention that for an individual affected, trauma lasts a lifetime.

Just from a fiscal perspective, why wouldn't we do everything we can to prevent that?

Thank you for your time.

Please think of the victims that need the support in the city.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, good morning.

My name's Diana Derry, and thank you for the opportunity to share about this important issue that's facing women in San Francisco.

Um I'm a survivor of sex trafficking and domestic violence here in San Francisco.

Human trafficking and domestic violence is directly causing 43% of family homelessness.

When a woman and a child want to get away from a trafficker or abuser, they are forced to leave their home to find safety.

What if instead of pushing a mother and a child into the street to be even more vulnerable and further victimized?

What if we provide every survivor access to an attorney for a restraining order and wraparound services such as immediate counseling and case management?

We're discussing these issues next week, 325 from 6 to 8 p.m.

at the Coleman Advocates at 459 Vienna Street, and we invite you to join us.

Join us in ensuring survivors, youth, and families are safe in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, um supervisors and chair Sauter.

Um my name is Carol Ito.

Uh most of you know that I was um appointed back in 1989 to the Commission on the Status of Women when it was removed from uh under HRC and became an independent commission.

Now I fully support Ivy's efforts, and she was able to implement the victim services program.

But what she's suffering from, the lack of adequate funds, because she actually got money about the a little bit more than what we started with over 35 years ago.

Just under million dollars for us, she got a about 1.1 million or something, maybe a little bit more.

But anyway, my point is the situation with the Commission on the Status of Women being merged with HRC has reduced the ability for unified voice for the women, particularly for domestic violence and sexual harassment, human trafficking, you name it, because the funds, part of it, the bulk of the funds, 9.9 million under the mayor's office, under the mayor's office of housing and community development, who lacks the expertise to try to advocate for the people in this room this morning to help increase funds, whether from private or public.

Now we're we're being realistic.

Um we know you're under a budget crisis.

So I just ask you to look at the structural deficits by splitting up the department and the commission under HRC without lacking advocacy to get adequate private or public funds.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to share about this important issue facing women, children, and families in San Francisco.

My name is Robin Jeesman, and I'm the CEO of Turntable, and I'm also a survivor of domestic violence.

We serve and support youth and young adults, 12 to 28 in San Francisco impacted by human trafficking, gang violence, foster care, and homelessness.

As you've been made aware this morning, human trafficking and domestic violence contributes to 43 percent of homelessness within families.

And when a woman and child or a father and child want to get away from a trafficker or abuser, they are commonly forced to leave their home to find safety.

I would like to propose that you're strongly consider alternative options to integrate our services with immediate access to our victims and survivors with an attorney for restraining orders, wraparound services such as the counseling and case management, integrated services to victims and families, considering the big picture of infrastructure to see these issues resolved.

Healed hearts bring a healthy community.

We at Turntable are joining Love Never Fails with their discussions next week on these issues at the Coleman Advocates on the March the 25th on Vienna Street.

I also invite you to consider joining.

And again, thank you for your time to consider this issue.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Vice Chair, that completes public comment.

You, Madam Chair, and without public comment is closed.

Uh Supervisor Sherrow.

Um Thank you, uh Vice Chair Sauter.

Uh first of all, thank you for everybody who who is here today, especially the survivors, um, your bravery in stepping forward.

Um, thank you.

I'll just say that.

Thank you.

Um look, I think this fee waiver is is obvious.

I think it's a no-brainer here.

I think we probably the three of us all agree with that.

I would assume our other colleagues also agree.

Um I think the amendment makes a lot of sense.

If you don't know, you don't know, so that doesn't but I think the more important point that most of you touched on is like, yes, of course we get the the waiver, but um we really do need to fund these services.

I cannot wait for that ROI study.

I think that's incredibly, incredibly important because when we look at public safety and solving problems, I think it's important for us to diagnose where the problems come from and address those causes.

And you know, uh Adrian's done a lot of good work um with understanding the ROI of of legal services, and I think we need to keep pushing on that.

So anything that we can do to help that ROI study come faster would be great as we look at this budget crunch to actually move the needle on keeping people safe.

I think we gotta address the real problems, and that's not to say that other problems are not also real, but like let's put money at the real problems with solutions that are proven to work.

Um so that's actually I think the more important part of the testimony today.

Thank you all very much for being here.

I'm in support of all these things and at budget time too.

And Supervisor Milgar.

Thank you, Chair.

Um first I'd like to uh add my name as a co-sponsor to this item.

Um I uh want to thank you, Ivy, for everything you do.

Um, everything you've done since we got PrEP D passed.

Um I'm sorry, I'm just very emotional today, like you.

Um I want to say for the past few years in our city, we have been talking about public safety.

You know, uh, after the pandemic, people were feeling unsafe.

There was an increase in uh attacks against our Asian neighbors, there was an increase in all kinds of things, including attacks against women.

Um and you know, I uh keep saying public safety looks different for different people, and it looks different for women and children.

And we cannot talk about public safety without addressing the fact that for women victims of uh domestic violence or crimes against their bodies.

Um this both the prevention and the um taking care of the trauma looks different.

Someone who uh, you know, we had one of the public commenters who shared this grueling story.

Her issue is also an issue of what she does with her sons and housing and how everything in her life is affected by this aggression that is born out of a disequal uh you know uh uh standing in our society between men and women.

And so I um thank you again.

Uh and uh of course I will support this.

Um, and I wish we were sourcing this like other aspects of public safety, um, and not just uh thinking that we're gonna privately fund for it, which is great.

I mean, I think that we should everybody should contribute to uh address this issue.

Um, but uh like everything else, you know, what affects women affects them differently than everyone else, uh whether it's a trans woman, it's a girl, or a woman in her 60s, you know.

Uh so thank you for this.

Of course, I will support it, and I wish we were doing more.

Thank you.

Umbers, uh, really appreciate your support again.

Um and um I do want to just I I know I started on such like a uh somber note, but um I do really want to uplift, you know.

I think the things that you all do um sometimes are not appreciated.

And you know, like supervisor solder last week when we did when you know you held the street renaming for um Tian Lu in Chinatown to highlight the fact that there was a Chinese woman who was helping to rescue and provide a safe haven for trafficked women and girls, like hundred literally over a hundred years ago.

Um and we no one had known about it.

And so that is just very, very important.

Um I just want to say that like we have a lot of gratitude.

We are a team of five, but we're very, very dedicated to this issue.

Um, and it's there is a lot of joy in it because every person that comes to our office is expressing the fact that they believe in government because they are actually reaching out to a government office for help.

So they have hope that we will actually respond.

Um they are saying that you know there's a part of them that tells them that they have value and that they deserve better than what they have already received.

Um and I think that is what government you know should be doing, is is like telling folks, right?

And that is something that I think we see you all do every day, which is trying to tell folks in San Francisco and beyond.

You matter, and this is why we are serving you because we want to improve the quality of your life.

Um but I will on to end on the note that we may definitely come back and say we could not get anywhere, guys, and now we really need your help.

So, you know, this is this is hopefully we won't do that.

We'll come back and be like, look, you know, look what we were able to generate.

But if if there's always that possibility as well.

So thank you again.

Thank you, Director Lee.

And thank you for the the reminder of why we do this work every day.

Um before we get this passed, we do have um some amendments to take care of.

Um and those amendments have been circulated in my colleagues.

Um the amendments uh to this item today are on behalf of Supervisor Fielder uh and in agreement um with the director as well.

Um they bring the legislation in line with other behested payment waivers that are heard by this committee, uh, which specify reporting requirements to the Board of Supervisors 60 days after the expiration of this waiver uh and narrow and specify the recipients of this waiver.

Um and in particular the amendments on page three line 17 add and to the extent known any third party.

And then on line 18, add the party that received their donation.

Uh again, these have been circulated and confirmed that they're non-substantive.

Um with that, I would now move to amend this item as presented.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the rule?

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as presented.

Member Melgar, Member Melgar, I.

Member Cheryl, Member Sheryl, I.

Vicher Sauter.

If Fleischer Sauder, I have three ayes which Cheryl Field are excused.

Thank you.

And that motion passes.

Um and now let's um get this out of committee.

I now move to send item number two to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the rule.

Yes, and on the motion to forward item two to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended.

Member Melgar.

Member Melgar, I, Member Sheryl, Member Sheryl, I, Fisher Soder.

Aye.

Fleischer Solder, I have three eyes, which share field or excuse.

Thank you.

And that motion passes.

Madam Clerk, let's please now go back to item number one.

Could you please call that item?

Yes, item number one is a resolution urging the mayor to issue an executive directive establishing a citywide women's advance advancement and gender equity action plan led and coordinated by the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women with full cross-departmental participation and dedicated budgetary support to ensure effective implementation.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This item will be led by Supervisor Melgar.

We will hear presentations from the Department of the Status of Women in the Mayor's Office for Victim Rights.

Supervisor Melgar, would you like to please uh begin?

And thank you.

Thank you, Chair Sauter.

Um when I first uh discussed introducing this resolution back in December, um I wanted to share what was what I felt was uh missing in our policy discussions uh in the discussions that we were having about uh the city's economic recovery, about public safety, about health, about workforce.

Um it was a way to call out what I felt uh was missing as part of our narrative, especially during a time when it feels that women and non-binary people's agency was being actively undermined by our federal government.

We are being erased.

Um we can't fix that from here uh so much.

Um if you can't see it, you know, you can't fix it, you can't name it, you can't solve the problem.

The phase for poverty, the face of poverty in California is a woman.

Um it is usually a Latina woman with kids in poverty.

78 cents for every dollar a man make is what is made by a woman.

And in San Francisco, we're not that much better.

We have the worst racial birth disparities in California, right here in San Francisco between black women and everyone else.

Funding for health care, food, and basic services is being slashed at the federal and state level, which disproportionately affects women and their families.

We have an unfulfilled promise to provide civil defense for the victims of domestic violence, as we just heard when we passed Prop D, and we still haven't delivered.

Resources to prevent gender-based violence and harassment of girls and women and non-binary people continue to be underfunded and diminished.

We cannot, with a straight face, say that we care about poverty or social justice or public safety without addressing the specific issues of poverty, safety, and economic success for women.

Since my first announcement announcement, this resolution evolved beyond uh a resolution affirming our commitment to values, but transformed into a call for action.

And I want to thank all of the women and all the advocates who have engaged in this very robust discussion at the movement is propelled by women.

Um here in San Francisco, women, girls, non-binary people still face really challenging setbacks.

Uh we saw what happened this past week with one of our most revered uh leaders in the labor movement.

Um and I can tell you, having been in the labor movement, um, that this stuff still happens today in all of our movements.

We really need to address these barriers.

We need to address what lies as a perverse pervasive culture that allows some of the most heinous inhumane acts against women to happen, and sometimes with no accountability, sometimes within our organizations, our agencies, our systems.

This call for a policy plan or a women's agenda is about empowerment.

It's about resilience.

It's about forging a future where women uh not only belong but have agency, that we are empowered to lead multifaceted full lives, where we're treated as more than just victims, where we have agency.

The purpose of this hearing in this item in this committee, you know, usually resolutions go just to the full board without being heard is to have this discussion.

We want to hear about the Department of the Status of Women's Take on all of this, on what their agenda is, what they have planned, and what they are going to roll out, which will serve as a blueprint.

But we also need to hear from our partner agencies and from every department because the work of every department in our city touches women differently.

Moreover, to identify ways that we could be approaching things differently from a systems perspective, in view if all the systems are aligned through a lens of gender equity.

I want to appreciate the dedicated staff who are here today for supporting and elevating some of these issues and working day in and day out to uplift women, girls, and non-binary people in our communities.

Today I am very grateful to the departments and their staff to join this discussion, especially the Department of the Status of Women, who, under the new executive director, Dr.

Diana Aroche saw alignment in what I was hoping to achieve through this resolution and what her team has been tirelessly working on through their women's agenda, which was just made public last night.

In discussion with the mayor's team, there is an openness to support a citywide plan that is action-oriented.

It has the backing of the executive office to remove barriers and identify clear solutions that we keep track of so that we can be holding each other accountable.

So through the chair, I would like to invite Dr.

Aroche to come up and jointly present with the partners' agencies.

Welcome, Dr.

Aroche.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Melgar.

Good morning to you, Supervisor Melgar, to chair Supervisor Sauter who's stepping in for Supervisor Jackie Fielder and Supervisor Cheryl.

Thank you again.

It is an honor to be in front of you to talk about the work that we're doing in collaboration with multiple city departments.

Personally, I just want to say and take a quick moment to also acknowledge the very difficult time that we heard from a director announce, you know, just what we're going through in terms of the Latino leadership community and what one of the most incredible, most strongest and courageous heroines that we have in our nation have endured as of yesterday publicly, Dolores Huerta.

So because of that, I think that it's really critical to not only uplift and support the work that we're doing, but it makes the women's agenda in a more very clear way, a very important tool for us to move forward.

And I will share publicly that uh we are very appreciative of you, Supervisor Melgar, for this resolution.

We're very appreciative of all the co-sponsors, and we uh look forward to working, of course, with the executive branch and the mayor's office to make sure that we continue moving forward this work, not only for the victims that are coming forward, but also to continue advancing women here in San Francisco.

So with that, I also just want to acknowledge the community that's here, the long history that it's taken in order to build this women's agenda.

I was appointed on October 7th of 2025, and we hit the ground running.

However, I will always say that we build the work that we have in the Department on the Status of Women on the backs and on the movement of decades of work since 1974 and beyond.

We can even say from the beginning of the foundation of this nation, our indigenous people here, right?

Women have really been the stronghold of setting up this country.

And so I just want to acknowledge that we come from a long line of history to be able to build what we have today.

Today I'd also like to just thank the city departments and the multiple city departments that we'll be presenting.

And so, as I call out the departments, if we can get them closer as we transition to various slides.

So we have the Department of Early Childhood represented, the Department of Public Health, the Human Rights Commission, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and the Mayor's Office of Victim Rights.

To my left is one of our amazing staff, Dominique Blinkley, who will be helping us with this presentation.

The presentation that you have in front of you, as Supervisor Melgar stated, gives you a summary of a lot of detail related to the women's agenda intentionally.

You also have a copy of our community listening sessions report, a summary, and a full description, an executive summary of the women's agenda, which was announced by Supervisor Melgar that was published last night.

We have a full detail listed on our website for the public if anyone would like to access it.

And so with that, again, I'd like to say that even though we have a lot of information that we've given you, we will try to stick within the 15 minutes that we've been given to provide you this overview.

So once again, um I would like to just acknowledge that the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women was a foundation that actually created many different plans in the past, and really uh what we've done here is we've actually built on that legacy since 1975.

What we'll do today is give you a quick overview of the department, what the purpose is, what the mandate is, and then we'll walk into the different areas of our roles so that you understand why the Department on the Status of Women is taking on this leadership.

We will share with you some of the findings that we've had from our community listening sessions and our community needs assessments that elevate the voices that we have here in the audience today and what we've heard throughout the years around the needs of women and girls in non-binary communities, and then we'll walk into the various pillars and some of the action steps where we'll transition to departments to talk to you more of examples of how they're committing to various policy pillars under the women's agenda.

Next slide.

So once again, um we get this question often.

How exactly is the department on the status of women organized?

And what we are here to remind the public is that before I came into the department, um, there was a decision that was made through the budget process to actually organize the Department on the Status of Women under the Agency of Human Rights alongside the Human Rights Commission.

The Department on the Status of Women continues to be a standalone city department that's overseen by the Commission on the Status of Women and the Mayor's Office.

We provide policy leadership and guidance to the city and county of San Francisco based on the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against violence against women, international human rights framework, so CEDA.

We still look at that foundation as a critical component on how we move forward government policies and practices.

Next slide.

We shape policy, we collaborate with city systems to hold accountability through the mayor's office, and we are anchored in community to make sure that we develop pathways that end up addressing safety, dignity, health, and economic security for women and girls and non-barbinary people in San Francisco.

Next slide.

We have three roles, and the mayor's office has directed us to work really closely with collaborating with city agencies to number one be a women's advancement steward, where we ensure that the city and county of San Francisco has policies, programs, systems to advance gender equity and comply with the human rights obligations and local legislation, including the CEDA ordinance.

We have an advocacy role where we work closely on gender responsive policies at the local level, and we elevate to the state and federal level to make sure that we continue defending the rights of women.

We also have a role to convene and to continue bridging some of the silos that often end up fragmenting some of this work and progress in advancing the women's agenda.

Next slide.

Next slide.

The very first highlight we'd like to give in terms of the women's agenda is a strategic planning timeline so you can understand how what a rapid timeline we had in order to be able to develop the women's agenda.

So again, I was appointed on October 7th.

We moved forward really quickly with the directive from the mayor and the president of the commission on the status of women to elevate and to continue looking at various areas of reports, census data, some of the dynamics that are going on.

We ended up conducting key stakeholder meetings and community listening sessions all the way up until December.

In December, we worked with the team to collate some of the findings, move forward with our commission.

We have our commissioner here in the audience, Vice President Ani Rivera, who's here, and we actually just want to highlight her leadership and her support alongside with the entire commission who supported us through the strategic planning process.

They vetted our actual plans.

We had discussions with the mayor's office very closely to make sure we were aligning with the mayor's 2026 priorities, and of course, as Supervisor Melgar mentioned, we've also had a lot of conversations with Supervisor Melgar's office and other supervisors to talk about priorities that need to move forward.

We then move forward with the drafting process in January, presented to the commission in February, and last night you saw the publication of the agenda for women here for the city and county of San Francisco.

Next slide.

What I would say is that the framework again is building on, just to emphasize on the various components of data you see here in a diagram towards your right that has all the different elements that end up encompassing what we considered in order to develop the strategic framework.

We did consult the charter, the city attorney's office to make sure that we were looking at how do we balance in light of the federal context and what has gone on right with some of the federal choices that exist under this administration, under the presidential administration.

We wanted to make sure that what was going to be published was not only balanced, but it was very clear in our institutional expertise and in the community voice that we authentically brought that up within the discussion and in the narrative.

Next slide.

And so with that, once again, what we heard from community was you need to continue moving forward with defending the rights of community.

There is one summary page that you have and a document in front of you that gives you a snapshot of all the different needs that we heard from women and girls and non-binary communities in San Francisco.

What we also heard is city and county of San Francisco, you need to continue working on health, safety, civic leadership and community engagement, and economic mobility and security.

We cannot move forward as a city if we do not look at these four areas.

And what you see is a Venn diagram that basically creates a blend because for a lot of the community residents that we heard from key stakeholders, it was very clear that there was a lot of work done, there's a lot of services, but if we are not defending the health, the safety, the economic mobility, and security of women and girls in non-binary communities and offering opportunities for leadership for engagement, then we are not progressing for women in San Francisco.

And so with that, we took that very seriously in the work that we ended up creating, crafting.

And the next slide, we'll start off with talking more about the intimate details related to the first pillar.

So the first pillar is health.

One of the areas that we heard is yes, definitely health needed to be addressed, but there were more specifics in the community discussions.

We heard that there were structural barriers and there were fears about the reproductive well-being and women of women and girls and non-binary communities in San Francisco.

And so the women's agenda under the health pillar calls out the first area of focus, which is to basically move forward and ensure that we defend and remove all structural barriers related to physical, mental, and reproductive well-being, and that we promote policies in San Francisco that are very clear about protecting that landscape.

We also heard a lot about concerns related to maternal and child health and the fact that as Supervisor Melgar mentioned, there had not been progress, and we should do better when it comes to looking at not only African American mothers, black mothers, but also Native American and Pacific Islander communities and mothers specifically during their birth out during their birthing process and their birth outcomes.

So with that, our next slide gives us a couple of examples.

Again, these pillars are very robust.

We have a plan in front of you that has all the objectives.

What we did today was invite the various departments to speak a little bit about their contribution and to highlight some of the major areas.

And so with that, I'll start off with our Department of Public Health to speak a bit more about that contribution.

Director Sach.

Thank you, Dr.

Roger.

I just want to emphasize how important this topic is as the department.

We're very, very pleased to be a part of this structure.

And I think it's much, much needed.

For brevity, I'm just going to highlight three things that are really core to what the department is doing as a part of this overall effort.

The first is making sure that here in San Francisco, we're able to not only verbally affirm but deliver on continued reproductive and sexual health for women and a whole range of individuals that specifically includes our role from a health care delivery standpoint, where we, from a DPH standpoint, both in our community clinics at San Francisco General Hospital are continuing to provide very critical services, and we have a range of contracts with community-based organizations in the community to be able to extend that access as well.

Those continue to need to be strengthened, especially in the face of federal attacks, loss of funding for reproductive health and related services.

Those continue to need to be strengthened, especially in the face of federal attacks, loss of funding for reproductive health and related services, that is going to be a really continued core pillar of what the department does and maintains funding for as well.

The second piece I want to note is and with thanks to uh Supervisor Melgar and also Supervisor Walton we uh we have done done a lot in San Francisco on maternal child adolescent health and the outcomes indicate that we have far more to do.

When you look at preterm birth rates in the city we San Francisco are high in black African American communities for example are at a multiple of uh the preterm birth rate as other populations and those numbers are trending in the wrong direction despite us spending about 20 million dollars a year between different programs to address those and I support our staff and CBOs doing this and we have much more that we need to and can do if you look at maternal mortality and morbidity disproportionate impact on mortality especially for women of color.

That should not be acceptable in this day and age in this country and especially here in San Francisco and their range of things we're partnering on including with various supervisor offices to really advance that the final piece is making sure that healthcare we are able to help support for um pregnant people at the moment of when they're engaging with care.

So at San Francisco General Hospital we have programs like Project Lily or very specific addiction care team resources now oriented when we're engaging with care uh people with care uh during pregnancy to help support and reduce barriers to care.

So that and many more pieces uh DPH is very pleased and proud to be a part of this and we will put the resources against us.

Thank you.

Back to Dr.

Roach Yeah hold on just a second you know I I was going to reserve all questions uh in with through the chair to the end but since we're losing you uh in a c a few minutes I wanted to have the opportunity to ask you a couple things that are more structural in nature nature so um you know uh Dr.

Aroche talked about um the structure of the department as it is now and uh we the Commission on the status of women thank you to uh our our fearless leader of the commission who is here joining us today um thank you Annie for being here um but I'm wondering in terms of that structure the Department of Public Health also has a health commission uh you are the director of the department uh I'm wondering what is that communication and relationship between the Commission on the status of women and the commission of health so in terms of like policies going forward uh you guys have great programs both on the clinical side and also on the population health and prevention side but in terms of the focus on gender equity the um you know keeping track of outcomes the accountability the reporting um through you know the the focus on women's equity what is that relationship does the commission look at outcomes in that way do they have any kind of communication with the Department of the Status of Women or now that we have you know an agenda can we say that we will have one going forward?

How do you see that structural relationship?

I appreciate that I think um I would dare to say I think there's great alignment across the commissions and across the departments and with Dr.

Roche's leadership around this and I actually think um we should have you come to Health Commission and go through uh the same presentation and also describe how we DPH have been presenting to our commission um the priorities for the department of which tackling the tremendous disparities that are solvable in San Francisco around preterm birth and also other maternal mortality morbidity and other outcomes that is on our priority priority list we've discussed that many times with the commission my the health commission and how we need to make progress on outcomes for that and so there's um very great alignment and support but I actually think explicitly having the Department of the Status of Women and the Commission be able to come together and agree on those and say that out loud and check in together I think would be really important.

So I can commit to making sure we make that happen.

Thank you, Director Sai.

And you know sort of going forward aside from the presentation I would hope that we track outcomes and have a role for the department because you know like everything evolves our um you know our approach to gender equity and to using the tools to solve discrimination have evolved over time.

And we've had programs that have been going for a very long time.

And you know, we know when things are working or not when you look at the outcomes, right?

And so um, if uh the department that's charged on seeing best practices of seeing, you know, uh what success looks like could have a role, um I think that would be ideal.

So not just that one presentation, but you know, ongoing.

Yes, and I agree with that, and I can commit to that.

We can work together to make sure that we formalize some of that very specific engagement and looking at the outcomes data and deciding what we need to pivot on as well.

Okay, thank you, Director.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I will pivot to the next slide and next pillar.

Um, the next slide is around safety.

So what I would like to say is that what we heard again from residents is that safety emerges in different forms and facets.

And what we heard is that there are a lot of concerns related to harassment in parks, on public safety, nightlife safety, institutional harm.

There is a new era around digital violence, and that there is a fear of moving freely in the city and county of San Francisco by young women, by girls, and also mothers.

And so having said that, we ended up moving forward with a goal that would once again elevate these concerns that we heard from the community.

And we ended up centering one of our major goals on actually working on both the real and perceived perception of safety and trying to work on various preventative oriented strategies, survivor-centered strategies, like working closely with the mayor's office of victim rights and many other different partners to continue making sure that we advance on providing a safer community or safer city for all residents.

We also heard separately, and I have to highlight this that community members also felt a very um a very strong distance if they were undocumented or if they were dealing with in-custody settings.

A lot of the participation coming in shared that there needs to be a stronger focus on building institutional safety.

And so, with that, I'd like to turn it over to our next department that will highlight some of their work.

We actually have two departments, the Human Rights Commission and the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, to actually present the next slides.

Good afternoon, uh Supervisor Melgar, members of the committee.

My name is Mawli Toubenio, Executive Director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

I'm joined today by my colleagues, Director Brittany Chakwata, and uh civil rights manager Ana Maraga Achia.

Um as you know, and as Dr.

Aroche already highlighted, the Human Rights Commission and the Department on the Status of Women are now working together as the agency for human rights.

Under the agency, the city has already begun to see some of the benefits of our partnership.

The strong starts initiative that Director Sai just mentioned.

But another example is our joint interagency task force focused on conditions and access to programming at County Jail No.

Through this collaboration, we are bringing together accountability and civil rights assessments to better understand uh and address experiences of incarcerated women.

Uh I want to thank this committee for holding a hearing on these issues last week.

It reinforces the city's commitment to accountability and improving conditions for vulnerable populations.

Um the Human Rights Commission uh is under its chartered authority.

Uh we are charged with investigating discrimination uh based on protective protected characteristics and ensuring equal access to public services and accommodations.

The civil rights division of the human rights commission already investigates claims of discrimination based on gender and sex.

However, through this strengthened partnership with the Department on the Status of Women and under the women's agenda, we'll be working more intentionally to surface analyze and address patterns of gender-based inequities across the city.

This includes not only responding to individual complaints, but our goal is to also identify systemic issues allowing us to improve uh policies and practices.

Uh we're working to align policy effort, uh enforcement and advocacy to ensure that the rights of uh women and all San Franciscans are protected, um particularly those who are most marginalized or underserved.

So we're looking forward to continuing to partner with the Department on the Status of Women, the Mayor's Office, the Board of Supervisors, and City Agencies and the Community, of course, to further this agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And if I could just call again the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, if I could call Ms.

Julia Sabori.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Julia Sabori.

I'm the deputy director at the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

I oversee the community development division.

MOHCD is honored to be a part of the women's agenda by addressing both immediate survivor needs and the structural drivers of vulnerability.

Housing instability, trauma, and a lack of culturally responsive services.

For brevity, I have included three examples that are sprinkled throughout this PowerPoint on Mo CD's broad scope of work.

First, the slide you see before you is an overview of our gender-based violence grant portfolio that was shifted over to MOHCD from the Department of Status of Women year and a half ago.

This is our first fiscal year managing those grants.

And we have a staff person, Elizabeth Avalos, who has an extensive background in gender-based violence, and she's been stewarding those those grants during this tenure.

We have 39 gender-based violence grants, uh totaling 9.37 million, supporting survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking.

Services include crisis lines, emergency shelter, transitional housing, legal services, and advocacy, as well as education, intervention and prevention programs.

Thank you, Deputy Director.

Our next slide, we're going to move on to the next pillar, the third pillar, which is civic leadership and community engagement.

So once again, um, another topic that emerged in our discussions and a strategy that is now elevated to advance equity relates to civic leadership and community engagement.

What we heard from participants and community members that participated in our process is that there needs to be a lot more opportunities that end up creating pipelines for leadership in various disproportionately disenfranchised communities.

There was a sentiment that many programs have actually been cut, have been removed or no longer exist for a variety of reasons.

And so what we heard from residents is that it's very critical to continue looking really closely at number one, organizing a very clear public education process to elevate where those opportunities are available in San Francisco, and that we continue moving forward with making sure that we create those opportunities to invest in a new generation.

We also heard that there needs to continue being ongoing support for the reports and the work that the Department on the Status of Women and the Commission on the Status of Women have done traditionally throughout decades that elevate and highlight the different conditions that exist around the representation of commissions, boards, the representation of street names and other areas that are iconic where uh someone is actually represented or highlighted.

So we will continue moving forward with that commitment.

We also heard that uh it's very critical to ensure that there is increased representation in the election voting process for San Francisco, and so we'll continue making sure that we move forward with working with the Department of Elections on that process.

The next pillar and the final pillar, next slide, is economic mobility and security.

And once again, um all the pillars ended up creating a real an opportunity to have a dialogue on how we could become not only a better city, but how we could have more uh frank and transparent conversations around the conditions that exist that impact uh women, girls and nonbinary communities.

So economic insecurity was one area that was definitely talked about across our segments and across our work.

One of the areas that were lifted was uh wage inequities, the lack of affordability, um, the fact that there is very limited child care access and the and that there are many workforce barriers that disproportionately impact not only women as a whole, but specifically caregivers, justice impacted individuals, undocumented communities, and individuals with low and fixed income working class families.

Therefore, one of our major goals is to continue working specifically on economic pathways and finding ways to be able to move forward where we can provide stronger economic mobility for women and girls in non-binary communities.

And with that, um I'd like to invite the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, who's here today, represented by Director Ayolina Pena.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Melgar and members of the committee.

Um appreciate your time today.

So the Office of Economic and Workforce Development through its workforce division is advancing, currently advancing a lot of the priorities that you see here today through our what was formerly known as the citywide workforce uh committee on alignment and now will be formally addressed as the council on citywide workforce alignment, where we bring together city agencies and our community partners across our workforce network and systems.

The goal of this group is to bring together the program staff, the providers, and those partners to identify the disparities in access retention and outcomes, some of those which have been named like uh caregiving responsibilities, which disproportionately impact women.

Um, and so through that, we're working to promote supportive services such as child care access, flexible training schedules, as well as stipends, so we can provide equitable access to high growth, high wage sectors, and that includes non-traditional fields where we see women have been historically underrepresented.

Um, we will continue to do this work through that through that body and invite the Department of Status of Women to the working group that's dedicated to discussions around vulnerable populations, which we identify this population to be.

Our next meeting is going to be July 9th.

It is at our office in one South Van Ness.

We'll share the details of that information with the department and invite them to join us there to support the work that they're that they are leading.

Thank you, Director.

Um, if I can invite again MOHCD's deputy director, Julia Sabori to just add more on the housing aspects and how it connects to economic mobility.

Good morning.

It was important for me and for our department to make sure that we're touching upon housing-based services.

Um the community development role is to support the human side of affordable housing and making sure that on-site services are available.

Um, so I include we looked at the data and we realized uh looking at the clients served 71% of this particular portfolio of 20 grants serves uh females.

Uh it's about a 4.8 million dollar annual investment citywide, providing trauma-informed place-based services across Hope SF, Hope 6, RAD, and SRO programs that help families remain safely housed and connected to opportunity.

We do there's a range of grants that do services across housing stabilization, tenant education, community leadership, and health and wellness and economic mobility activities to ensure that that the families can stay stably housed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Director.

So once again, you see some of those highlights that were just mentioned specifically and some of the housing opportunities that are located on this slide.

The next department I'd like to introduce is represented by Jenny Lamb, the Department of Early Childhood.

Good morning, supervisors, and thank you to Supervisor Mongar for your just tireless leadership on behalf of women, children, and families in San Francisco, and we are very grateful to you and your leadership since the early days, not only when you came into the office of the Board of Supervisors, but before in working in community.

The women's agenda asks how San Francisco reduces wage inequities, strengthens the child care infrastructure, and expands pathways to the economic mobility for women.

At the Department of Early Childhood, we see that as two inseparable tracks.

The first is our early education workforce.

Overwhelmingly female, the vast majority women of color, many of them immigrants, and many of them single income household heads.

For decades, these women were among the most lowest paid workers in San Francisco.

And that's not a coincidence.

It's the result of the historical undervaluation of early education as a profession compounded by race, gender, and immigration status.

The second is working families and working mothers specifically, for whom affordable early learning isn't a convenience.

It's what makes it possible to stay employed.

And when that's unavailable, women are the ones who have to cut hours, leave their jobs, or step back from career advancement to fill the gap.

And both tracks are women's economic policy.

This year, over 10,000 children enrolled in the city-funded early learning and transitional kindergarten, a record high.

And even as San Francisco's zero through five population declined 18%.

San Francisco now enrolls 72% of three and four-year-olds in preschool comparative to 44% statewide.

And under Mayor Lori's family opportunity agenda, more families than ever will receive unprecedented support.

Families earning up to 150% area media income, approximately $230,000 annually, depending on household size, now receive full tuition support.

And this fall, families earning up to 200% area media income, which approximates 310,000 annually, depending on household size, will receive 50% of tuition support through the Early Learning for All Network.

And these thresholds are updated annually.

For a city where child care costs is over 30,000 a year, this reaches working families who've earned too much to qualify or to help for help, but too little to absorb those costs on their own.

DEC's partnership in the women's agenda also extends to the health pillar through strong starts alongside DPH and HRC.

Our contribution is Little Lift, the Department of Early Childhood's first program dedicated to the earliest time of life where the primary care provider is mom.

Little Lyft provides will provide dual support, postpartum care management, income support stipends, lactation consultation, child care referrals, and developmental screening.

And we're in the initial design phase now.

And it's designed to address the systemic barriers that put newborns at a disadvantage before they've been even born.

And supporting mothers through birth and early infancy isn't separate from women's economic security.

We know it's foundational to it.

Now the workforce, because none of this works without early educators who are fairly compensated and supported to grow.

This year, over 3,000 early educators received higher compensation and have done so over the past two years since the launch of the Department of Early Childhood.

Salaries have rose an average of 47% of the city's highest need programs.

Stipends average about $13,306 annually.

And that's what investment is producing.

Retention improved and turnover declined.

And what we just heard in Sacramento yesterday, as early educators were leaving the field, child care programs were closing throughout the state in San Francisco.

We were able to stabilize this both during the pandemic and post-pandemic recovery.

Compensation is stabilizing that San Francisco's workforce.

But we're not just raising wages, we're building careers.

And we recognize that that takes the entire supportive services for an early educator to even think about coming into the workforce and most importantly, staying in the early educator sector.

78% of quality instructional improvement coaching was offered in Spanish, Mandarin, and Cantonese, because a pathway isn't accessible to the actual workforce if the languages that they work in isn't a pathway at all.

And that is something that I know the department and Director Mosquita is committed to even growing.

The vast majority of San Francisco's workforce, or as I mentioned earlier, women of color and investing in these wages is the career and workforce equity completely.

And I know the three of you have been strong champions around the importance around program quality, how it produces kindergarten readiness and kindergarten readiness produces that long-term economic mobility.

69% of children entered kindergarten ready to learn in 2025.

And sadly, that is a four-year high.

We know that this work must continue and that progress has to grow.

And when we invest in early educators, the entire system moves and grows.

And in closing, and I have not been in brevity, but I just really felt that it was important for us to highlight the work that is has happened, is happening now, and will continue.

And that San Francisco is one of the first cities in the country to extend those publicly funded workforce compensation and career investments to early educators across its mixed delivery system from family child care providers, community-based centers, as well as San Francisco Unified Public School sites.

And that's a systemic choice, policy choice that has ensured that workforce equity policy that functions simultaneously as we're ensuring that the women's economic security policy is a true model for cities that are now being considered.

I also just want to highlight that just yesterday, San Francisco has been recognized at the state level.

Executive Director Ingrid Musquita represented the city and county of San Francisco in a legislative briefing in Sacramento on California's universal pre-kindergarten implementation.

She presented along with the City of Long Beach, Lindsay Unified School District, and the state of Colorado as an example of what effective and growing mixed delivery early learning infrastructure looks like and the progress cities can make when they invest in the full system.

We recognize that this is just the beginning of our work.

The Department of Early Childhood is fully committed to the women's agenda as a living framework and to being measured with against the city as its tracks its progress and economic security for women and girls and non-binary individuals year after year.

And that we recognize that raising the floor is just the baseline and the beginning, and that full equity for our early educators, for working families, and for mothers and infants from the first days of their life is the goal.

So thank you again for having this very important hearing and discussion.

Thank you again to policy director Jenny Lamb and to Director Ingrid Mesquita, who's working really tirelessly with us on this women's agenda.

The next slide that I would like to highlight is our policy work.

So I'm going to pivot away from the city department slightly and conclude with sharing a bit more of our advocacy that's happening either with some of the local ordinances, the state level, or the federal level.

So we are going to continue working with various departments to continue advocating on monitoring the progress of various topics that relate to health, economic security.

As we just shared, there are departments and policy director Lamb just emphasized there are specific items and topics that we are advocating for at the state level, specific to child care and support and supportive pathways at a younger age.

We will continue doing that work.

We will follow that work and work collectively with city departments on making sure that we're protecting the reproductive rights, the health care of women and non-binary communities here in San Francisco, and continue making sure that we pave forward with any new legislation that needs to be present presented through the mayor's office at the state and federal level.

The next slide.

It's been a tremendous amount of work and public engagement.

There are a couple of individuals in the audience.

Um I'm looking at Beverly Upton from the Domestic Violence Consortium.

I see Morningstar from Indigenous Justice, I see Joana Hernandez from Freedom Breeders.

I also saw the women's building represented, um, and many other agencies that are watching.

I just want to be able to thank you because this launch wouldn't have been possible without your input.

So, in terms of the next step, today is the public launch of that framework.

We will move forward with implementation planning.

We're receiving other recommendations in terms of what else we need to do to execute stronger meetings, coordination, how we end up strengthening some of the pillars, and we will be moving forward with more granular action plans to make sure that it is clear how we're achieving the objectives and what are we doing when it comes to data collection.

We'll be leaning on the mayor's office to be able to support us with that stakeholder coordination with city departments, and of course, work with the Board of Supervisors to include you in any advice that you might have.

Finally, um I just want to thank you again and say that the women's agenda represents a collective commitment.

It will not be successful unless everyone takes it.

This is not the Department on the Status of Women's Women's Agenda.

This is the city and county of San Francisco's women's agenda.

And it needs to speak to community and needs to speak to the city.

And I would just encourage you as members of this committee, you've already demonstrated that committee, that commitment, Supervisor Melgar, and my hope as the new director of DOSW is that all the entire Board of Supervisors and the City and County really embrace this as their agenda.

If we can get someone to speak about the pillars and speak in their own ways about their commitment, that is true success.

And if we see the impact in communities through the data and the progress, and we deal with these disparities, then that is true success.

So with that, uh I'll pass it over to my last colleague for the mayor's office of victim rights to share their presentation, and then we'll be open for questions right after that.

Thank you.

Um I know that you all have been here for a bit, um, so I will try to uh make this very brief.

Um I think that it, you know, part of the reason that we are not integrated into the PowerPoint itself is because of something that I said earlier, which is that you know being a victim of a crime or a survivor of a crime, that's not your identity.

It's something that you experience.

And definitely what we the what we do not want to communicate is that women are victims, you know, that women are survivors.

We are survivors, but we're not victims.

So that is part of the reason that we wanted to make sure that this was independent and to share a little bit about what we're doing about the challenges that we've identified through the direct casework that we do through the Family Violence Council uh landscape analysis that we do every year, um, as well as working with other departments, including hopefully DOSW, MOHCD, SFPD in particular, is very important with us.

Um I want you to flip to the very last slide.

I'm gonna just kind of skip over um the different slides that I had.

There's the last slide that just says, what are we doing about the challenges?

Um I think we all recognize that there is a dearth of resources when it comes to the uh safe housing uh for victims and survivors.

Um there is a need for more um legal representation uh for crime victims and survivors, and um there is definitely um there are trends in this area that I think you heard from uh public commenters as well as the data that SFPD has provided on a weekly basis to the city leadership, which is that intimate partner violence, sexual assault, um, human trafficking, these are some of the only violent crime categories that has increased over time.

Um so uh that is not something that San Francisco wants to be a leader on.

Um, what are we doing to address the challenges?

Because our office does both direct case casework as well as um keeping a big picture view.

We have a really unique way of being able to test and verify what departments and what CBOs, service providers are actually telling us, and most importantly, we're able to verify directly with crime victims and survivors themselves, like what's happening, what's happening on the ground, and what are the barriers preventing you from either not being re-traumatized or getting the help that you are seeking.

Um survivors, as I said before, regardless of race, gender, orientation, any of that.

Because if you have experienced a crime, then we want to make sure that government is in a position to help you recover, whatever that looks like.

I think how the mayor presents it is like not more with less, but just do more, right?

Keep doing more.

And I think we have really taken that on as a challenge gladly, and we've come up with some ways to do that.

Um, first, uh we are trying to do as much as we can that is cost neutral.

So, as I said before, we sought out the services of uh Stout Financial, which is a global financial consulting firm to run a return on investment analysis of what it would mean to the city in cost savings if we actually implemented the right to counsel for DV survivors.

What are all the costs associated with that?

What's the best kind of program potentially that could fit with San Francisco needs?

And really, let's get the numbers on what we will save the city if we actually have this program in place.

Um that is something that they agreed to do for free.

Um the reason that I went to them is because and pitched this project is because they are the ones that actually conducted the analysis on the return on investment that helped establish nationally the right to counsel for tenants.

So our right to uh counsel for tenants in San Francisco is based on their return on investment analysis.

So I am very hopeful that what they will come out with will be something that um we can bring back to you that will help the implementation of that right to counsel for DV survivors as well.

Um but let's see.

Let's see what they find out.

Um the other thing that we do is we do the policy and legislative um advocacy at both the local and the state level.

So right now, with the leadership of Mayor Lurie and uh assembly member Catherine Stephanie, we uh proposed by working and listening to the clients and to the service providers on the ground as well as SFPD, legislation that would strengthen criminal protective orders.

So that right now, if there is a violation of a criminal protective order, and the underlying reason for that is a serious and violent, for example, domestic violence situation.

Prosecutors right now can only charge that violation as a misdemeanor.

It doesn't matter how many times there's been a violation, it doesn't matter what the underlying uh conditions are.

So we that our legislation that we're proposing on a state level is to say, actually, can we give prosecutors the discretion to actually charge a felony?

Because if someone is being charged, for example, with sexual assault, and then we they get a criminal criminal protective order that restricts their harassment and continued harm against a victim.

Why would they obey an order where violating it only is treated as a slap on the wrist, less than a slap on a wrist.

So that is legislation that, thanks to Mayor Lurie is proceeding at the state level.

Um that is something that we see as a systemic impact.

So with a small office, we can do a lot.

It doesn't have to be new programming, it has to be creative.

It has to be things like uh pivoting to human trafficking trainings, right, during December, January, and February, where we trained over 750 frontline city staff as well as uh our nonprofit partners, like our street outreach teams, um, to be able to identify what trafficking looks like, to know how to assist a survivor if you see one, and also what not to do, right, to keep themselves safe.

Um let me close there and um just say that we look forward to working with DOSW and with the entire city's women's agenda, because I think the director says very rightly, this doesn't work unless everyone is invested.

We are definitely invested in making sure that we are uplifting women because disproportionate numbers of of women and are our clients from our office.

So this definitely impacts them.

Um thank you, and um I'll close there.

Thank you.

Thank you, supervisors, and we really appreciate you bearing with us.

Um we're open to any questions we did think it was really important for you as quick as possible to hear the commitment and happy to open it up.

Thank you, and Supervisor Mogher.

Thank you.

And I know my colleagues also have questions, but I do have a few questions for you and also at some of the other presenters.

Um I really appreciate the framework and uh the robust public process that you had in creating that framework.

I know a lot of people participated, and I heard about the robust discussions that happened, so thank you for doing that so quickly.

Um and there's things that are sort of you know lacking or or not, you know, uh in those pillars that are at least not called out in your presentation, and I did want to ask you, and then also ask you about implementation specifically.

Um one of the things that I deeply care about is public transportation as a chair of land use and transportation, and one of the things that I hear about often is uh public safety for women in our public transportation systems, uh harassment, um physical assault, uh things that you know prevent now, especially that we have free meeting for kids, um, you know, that is a barrier to not just getting on the bus, but to getting to school, to getting to those educational opportunities, to being able to have enough time to pick up your kid from child care, all of those things are affected.

So I'm wondering um what um if that was included in the conversations and if it's something that you know uh you are um thinking about in terms of the work with that department.

Another thing that it you know uh I also care about very deeply is um safety on our streets, because as you know, I'm an avid biker.

Um, and we know that women ride bikes less in the city because they feel unsafe.

And also we have usually um the task of you know having the kids picking up the kids from child care from school, um, and that doesn't feel safe.

And so again, in terms of the you know, public safety pillar, if we were talking about the ways we get around and safety for women specifically in that pillar.

So I thank you, Supervisor Melgar, for the questions.

I think in terms of transit safety, obviously heard it called out by the constituents that participated in our process.

Um I will share that we are in discussions with the mayor's office on reaching out to SFMTA and specifically to Vision Zero to see the integration of the women's agenda and the work that they do together, right?

And so it's very similar to the Department of Public Health.

We are trying to have discussions to sit down and really see can we end up looking at an action plan that's gonna end up really integrating and isolating specific strategies for women and girls in non-binary communities.

And so SFMTA is one of those agencies.

I'm hoping we can come back and share, you know, at some point an update and express to you, you know, what progress and milestones have been met.

It hasn't been um, I will share that it wasn't uh it wasn't missed by us that this is a framework that happened fairly quickly.

We wanted to make sure to get it out there because there's a call out by the community to really understand like how we were moving forward.

And so with that time constraints, right, and um sort of the rapidness of being able to produce the report.

I have to be transparent that that was a reality, right?

Um, but it doesn't mean that the opportunity isn't there to continue strengthening it.

So that's our hope.

Yeah, that was only my question.

If we're gonna include it, because it does fit within your framework.

Uh another thing that does fit your within your framework, but that I didn't hear specifically called out is um educational opportunities, which you know, of course, touch economic mobility and and access.

And I don't know if this is you know something you can answer, or perhaps um Ms.

Pena, but um, you know, uh three years ago we had a uh it touches both public safety and access, but three years ago we had hearings at this board about um sexual harassment and assault uh in our public schools.

We had girls from high schools all over San Francisco and some boys, mostly gay boys, who came and talked to us about safety protocols, about services uh for victims, all kinds of things that you know should be better integrated in terms of us offering the services and able to be able to keep track of our success.

Did you engage with our educational institutions?

You know, I'm thinking mostly about SFUSE and also City College because that's who we heard from the most.

But you know, that is a barrier that you know is present for girls more than for you know boys in our system, and that it keeps you from accessing those opportunities.

So within your framework, did did we also talk about that?

We did.

Um to answer that question, what we are the way we've looked at this framework is that we're relying on the city department, right?

And so if other city departments would like to comment that I would welcome to join me at the podium, but I would just tell you just speak in the interest of time.

There are specific pathways with City College right now to be able to make sure that we're developing some of the workforce strategies, not only through OEWD but also HRC.

There are also discussions about the district conditions, right?

And just how, of course, one of our major populations, right, like sit in that institution, right?

Young women, and we want to be able to make sure that we're having ongoing dialogue.

So we are relying on the city departments to be able to bring forward the discussions and to talk about those strategies.

But again, very similarly, like how I said with SFMTA, we're trying to actually use the next three months to look deeper into how we end up creating some commitments.

Okay, thank you.

So I just have two more questions, uh, one for Miss Pena and one for Miss Sabori.

Um Ms.

Pena, um, you know, you and I have worked together uh on a whole host of things, but you know, uh very importantly on access to uh jobs that pay a living wage.

Um it is really important to note that construction jobs uh pay a significantly higher wage than jobs that have been sort of gendered like childcare or um others, although we're working on that.

Um but so we did famously, you know, a few years ago start this like initiative that was funded for one year, and then we just kind of stopped, you know, following the outcome.

So I am wondering if um at OEWD there's any um talk about bringing back a women's initiative as it pertains to workforce specifically.

Uh thank you for that question.

Uh so I believe that initiative was something that was started through the mayor's office.

What I can say our office is currently in procurement for our full portfolio of programs, and we've really taken this opportunity to also discuss with our labor partners where we can strengthen uh some of the things that you're speaking to, like parameters around safety and making sites like more welcoming for a diverse population of folks with that.

I think in the once we are done with this RFP process and are having those conversations with the awarded partners, it's something that will definitely be part of the discussion.

And I would also just add you'd asked about the education institutions in the previous uh question.

Um those folks also have seats in our work, our working alignment groups, and so these are the conversations that we're having with our ed partners and training partners alike.

Thank you.

Uh, will the um Department of the Status of Women have uh any input on the RS uh Q process or RFP process at all?

Absolutely.

I would say that we've made rounds with our city agencies to talk to folks about what um some of the populations that they serve and some of the uh concerns that you know have come up in their listening sessions.

I will say we also, O DBD hosted our own budget town halls and received similar feedback, and so we're able to include a lot of that information in the procurement that we wrote and posted.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um and lastly, Miss Sabori, uh thank you so much for that overview of um you know the uh money spent uh in your portfolio on the housing-based services.

I am more interested in the outcomes from the other side, from the housing that serves everyone, um, and uh how it specifically performs for women.

So, you know, I am wondering if we apply that lens of equity, how your CD lens affects the MOH, you know, portfolio.

So I know for example, that the policies and procedures for BMRs, uh, if you have a woman and her partner who have a two-bedroom apartment and there's a domestic violence situation and she has to or needs to abandon that relationship, how does that affect her keeping her BMR program for for her um unit, for example, or uh what kind of preferences uh we can implement for pregnant women who are fleeing a domestic violence situation also, for example.

I know that that is the number one thing that I have heard from Beverly and her uh providers is that the lack of housing is dire, and that goes beyond shelter, right?

Because if you have a stable housing situation, you have a rent-controlled unit, you have a BMR unit, or even a home, you know, that you own, um, going into shelter is a temporary thing.

And so why would you give up?

You know, that is a thing that you know, women who are in situations at where they are at risk.

Think about first and foremost, especially if they have children.

So the question is, you know, uh the robust portfolio of services that you have, how do those outcomes, you know, um color the much larger pot of money that is invested in housing and affect those policies?

And then going forward, now that we will have a women's agenda, how will that those pillars be incorporated into what you do?

Well, I would be happy to work with your office and uh the Department of Status of Women to further uh partner to deep dive into those outcomes and the services and how those are being integrated into our housing portfolio and the program, the BMR program.

Um we are also integrating the knowledge and policies around VAWA into our housing um portfolios, and we are developing um partnerships across those gender-based violence strategies and to our affordable housing sites and working with developers in partnership.

So I'd like to explore that further and get the information for you.

Um of the slides that I think we removed due to time was to highlight that we are right now with the mayor's leadership expanding transitional housing for survivors of gender-based violence.

Uh we have two new developments coming on board, so 30 million dollars from proposition A bond.

Uh most CD awarded funding to expand uh transitional housing and supportive services for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.

And the two awardees from that uh procurement process or that uh RFP process is San Francisco Safe House.

Uh it will be a conversion of former residential facility, 23 units, 53 beds for survivors of trafficking and sexual exploitation, and they'll have on-site services such as case management, mental health care, safety planning, legal advocacy.

And the second award went to Friendship House, also known as the Village Project.

And it will be a new development with 36 transitional housing units, including 72 beds, culturally grounded services supporting native women, families, and underserved communities with behavioral health, recovery services, cultural healing and workforce development.

So I with my position at community development, I'm looking forward to marrying our community development efforts with the housing sides and circling back with you to um articulate the impact of both building but also serving the people within those buildings.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

Um and Dr.

Roche, um, one question for you back to the safety pillar, and thank you for sharing that.

I think it's very illustrative to show all the different ways that public safety shows up moving about our city.

Um one question in particular on safety online and digital safety and just how complex that has become these days, particularly for um for younger um younger people and younger women.

Where do you think that uh uh goes?

How does it manifest itself in terms of um what we can do here locally and um what have your conversations or what will your conversations be with our school district on this topic?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um thank you for the question, Supervisor.

One thing I will share is that we've had initial conversations with our city attorney, David Chu, who's actually taking the lead as a city department on addressing this issue from a piece from an area of policy, but also um to be able to make sure that it's clear that there are consequences for perpetrators of uh the incorrect use of digital uh software, right?

Or any interaction with the web.

And so what I will say is that um it's a very complex conversation.

I do think that there are different aspects and conversations have begun.

The city attorney is the one that's by far probably um just addressing it in a more intentional way.

But similarly, like I've shared before, this is the beginning of opening up these discussions where we can look at coordination.

The DAA's office has also expressed their support for the women's agenda.

They'll be at the event tonight, um, and they want to be able to figure out how we could continue looking at this from a human trafficking lens because there is a lot of work around that needs to happen to be able to prevent human trafficking through the digital space.

And so there is that aspect as well.

So it is very complicated, supervisor, but I would say that with the city attorney's office, the district attorney's office, and of course, with our local law enforcement, we've at least started those conversations to look at um what interventions need to be made, both at the legal and the penal code level, and then how we need to make sure that we hold accountability.

Uh on the prevention side with the school district, again, that's part of conversations that we'll still have ongoing.

Thank you, and I'm so glad to hear that the city attorney and district attorney has bought in and working with you on this.

Thank you.

Um, I think at this point um we should go to public comment.

So, Madam Clerk, could you please call public comment?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

First speaker.

Good morning.

Um my name is Chelsea Leonard and I'm with San Francisco Safe House.

Um every day we work with women, many with children who are fleeing violence and trying to survive homelessness in this city.

Um what I can tell you is this is for them the system's not just failing, um, it's causing extra harm.

I'm here in strong support because this is about whether San Francisco is willing to take women's safety seriously.

Women are the fastest growing population experiencing homelessness, yet receive less than five percent of the funding.

At the same time, we are weakening the very structures designed to respond to their needs.

Through the women's housing coalition, we asked over 400 women what they need to be safe, and their answers were not complicated.

It's privacy, it's trauma-informed care, and it's spaces where they and their children are not re-traumatized.

And too often what they are offered instead are systems that mirror the harm they are trying to escape.

So what we ask ourselves is when will women's stories be enough.

For me, it was when a client told us she would rather sleep on the street than enter a co-ed shelter because of the risk of sexual assault.

For me, it was another when they shared her fear of losing her tent because even that flimsy thin layer felt like protection.

And are those stories not enough to prioritize their safety even in a difficult budget year?

Because when we all go home tonight, when we take a private shower, when we get into our clean beds, and we're able to close our eyes without fear, what does it say about us if their reality still isn't enough for us to act?

We hear a lot about San Francisco's recovery, about who we are beyond what people see in the news.

But does that do we mean that for everyone or just for some?

Because for the women and children that we serve at San Francisco Safe House, this isn't their narrative, it's their reality, and it's not going away.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Gillian Hughes.

I'm also with San Francisco Safe House.

Um what Tulsi just described is what we see every day at Safe House.

The design of our system is itself a safety issue for women.

We constantly encounter women telling us that they would rather sleep in their car on the street than in a shelter.

And we think about what it takes to make that choice and to look at four walls in a bed and decide that the street is safer.

When a woman makes that calculation, the problem, it's the system.

Um so many of the women we serve have lost autonomy over their bodies, their choices for their families, their belongings, and their lives because of the dangers that come from being unhoused as a woman.

Removing the autonomy of the commission of the status of women is just another version of that same loss.

Chelsea called on us to act, but what does that mean?

It looks like expanding non-congregate privacy focused housing models and investing in women-specific and survivor-centered shelter and services.

Every day we see how cycles of homelessness are broken when we interrupt are interrupted with these models.

It means strengthening the commission on the status of women rather than weakening it so that these policies have the possibility of becoming reality.

And it means reinforcing coalition leadership who has already done the work of listening.

The San Francisco Women's Housing Coalition stands ready to partner with the city on solutions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Olivia Hoffman, and I'm here representing Community Forward San Francisco.

We operate the only 24-hour women's drop-in shelter in the city, which my colleagues will speak a little bit more about, but also as co-chairs of the San Francisco Women's Housing Coalition, and we stewarded a first of its kind citywide survey that I think they mentioned that sampled over 400 women across the city experiencing homelessness environment and violence.

And I want to highlight that this data that we collected is not abstract data.

It reflects a lived reality of women and gender-expansive people that are living in San Francisco on the street right now.

And the key takeaway that we saw is simple.

Homelessness is experienced differently and more dangerously because of gender.

Homelessness is not just instability, it is sustained exposure to violence for women.

And our system currently in this city is not designed to respond to that reality.

This is all why we need this citywide women's advancement in gender equity plan and why we do need a plan to address this intersection of violence and homelessness.

74% of women reported experiencing violence while they were unhoused.

This is a myriad of violence types often intersecting.

We also saw that domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness in this city.

And when we heard an open response is that violence for women is expected and constant.

It is not episodic, that women and trans individuals are targeted as easier to exploit, that women are seen as irresponsible or morally flawed and are viewed as problems rather than people in crisis while they're unhoused.

If we are serious about safety in San Francisco, we need to protect our most vulnerable populations, and we must design policy and systems that uplift these communities and reduce exposure to violence, and we cannot continue to concentrate it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, um, I'm Danielle Threadgill, I'm a director over at Born with Community Forward, and I'm I'm a director over at a women's place drop-in centers specifically, and I just want to give a little example.

You would just share with you my experience.

Uh I've been with Community Forward for about 13 years.

For my experience, working directly with the women who are both survivors of violence and experience in homelessness, I can tell you that a one-size-fits-all shelter system does not work.

In many cases, it causes harm.

The majority of women I serve are not just unhoused, they are fleeing domestic violence.

They come into our spaces already carrying trauma, fear, and deep uh need for safety.

When we place them into mixed gender, congregate shelter settings, we are often recreating the very environments they are trying to escape.

I've seen women become withdrawn, hypervigilant, or leave shelter all together because they do not feel safe and take to the streets.

When we ask women what they need, they are very clear.

They want separation, women only, or survivor-centered spaces.

They want real physical safety, private or single rooms, lockable doors, and separate bathrooms.

And they all want quality care staff who treat them with dignity, consistency, and accountability with when harm occurs.

These are not unreasonable requests, they are basic needs.

Women are not asking for luxury.

They are asking for baseline safety.

And right now, our system is not consistently providing that.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Stevana Talburn.

I'm a case manager over at Community Forward.

All right.

What I see, what I see every day is a system that deeply that is deeply misaligned with what women actually need to feel safe and stable.

The data tells us that 61% of women prefer women-centered or survivor-specific shelter spaces that reflects exactly what I hear from the women I work with.

But when only a small fraction of shelter beds are designed specifically for women, we are not giving them real options.

We are giving them limited choices.

Some stay with partners for protection, with partners for protection.

Others endure unsafe conditions because at least it's a roof over their heads.

So when we talk about choices, we have to be honest about what really what that really means in this system.

And my closing point, we should not confuse survival strategies with true choices.

Women are adapting to a system that does not meet their needs, and it's our responsibility to change that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Kristen Nelson.

I'm the vice president of philanthropy at Community Forward.

I wanted to start by thanking you so much for your leadership on this issue.

This matters tremendously, and not just this month, not just this week.

It matters every single day, 24-7.

At Community Forward, we are working to expand our housing programs and through that to extend hope and possibility for unhoused women.

But we can all do that together.

We can do that in partnership with one another as we build systemic solutions together.

If you have the political will and the willingness to invest, we can change women's lives and support their stability and transformation.

We urge the city and specifically the mayor to invest in women's specific and survivor-specific shelter capacity, to expand non-congregant privacy-centered models, to set clear safety and staffing standards across all shelters, and to treat gender-responsive shelter as a core public safety infrastructure.

Community forward is ready to partner.

We are ready and we are here to do that work with the city on these systemic solutions together and on these issues that we are seeing every single day.

The question is not whether women need different solutions.

The data that we all just talked about, it's very, very clear.

The question is whether we're willing to build the systems that reflect that reality.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, again, supervisors.

Uh, once more, my name is Sierra Sparks, and I'm with Open Door Legal, legal aid nonprofit here in the city providing general civil legal services.

Two-thirds of our clients are women.

So when we talk about workers' rights, consumer rights, family rights, we're really talking about women's rights.

Women are overwhelmingly the ones suffering discrimination at work, having their wages stolen, targeted by consumer scams, and subject to domestic violence.

Right now, the city is proposing to end support uh for general civil legal services, which would eliminate legal assistance to survivors by 50%.

This would mean ending support for workers, consumers, and homeowners.

If we value women, why are we ending funding for legal aid to help them to enforce their civil rights?

And if we let them do that, then the safety assets and income of women, your constituents will be stolen.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Yeah, it's good afternoon.

My name's Carol Ito, and I want to thank Supervisor Melgar for our leadership on this resolution and the commitment that you've made for an action plan for women for our city and county.

I also want to thank Supervisor Souter and Cheryl for being supportive through this process and the many people in the audience here, both men and women that have been working with us for over a year and a half now, probably particularly with the charter reform impacts on this commission to be removed from the charter.

And as you all know, many know, this week there was a bright light where the supervisors supported, did not support the massive package of reform, and essentially felt a lot of the feedback, particularly from women and human rights individuals, supported the Commission on Status of Women to remain in the charter.

So I hope that that follows through with the sentiment of the public that was expressed for over a year.

Nothing is legally binding if we really look at the impact of a resolution.

I'm not negating the impact and the importance because the attention was needed and timely.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, my name is Dr.

Catherine Kenley Johnson.

But the most important thing about me is I'm a second-wave feminist, and I fought for the commissions when they didn't exist.

And I'm angry and threatened by the fact that they might be taken away.

So I'm here to underscore the importance of what Carol Ito just said, which is that it's an I want to thank you for your work because I'm so impressed with the scope and depth of the analysis and that you provide a platform on which these groups can argue and advocate their cost, uh, their their causes.

So that's what I'm here to say.

And you know, I think you see what the department and the commission can do by the partnerships that they demonstrated by the presentations that happen.

If if the commission and the department does not retain its authority as being part of the charter, uh and it doesn't retain its oversight.

You won't have these partnerships and the authority to make things happen.

So I urge you that this to take this first step and go forward with what's needed to make it a reality.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Joanna Hernandez, and I'm with San Francisco Pre-Trial representing Freedom Raiders.

I am also a product of what gender-specific services look like.

So shout out to Mission Girls.

I stand before you as a program leader who works every day with women still inside our cement walls.

We support this resolution because gender equality cannot just be something we talk about.

It has to be something we invest in, something we build and something we hold ourselves accountable to.

At Freedom Braiders, we go into the jails and work with incarcerated women, and I need you to understand these women are not just sitting there.

They are being forgotten.

They are mothers, daughters, sisters, leaders who are simply have been given the same opportunity who haven't been given the same opportunities.

As we teach braiding, it's not just about hair, it's about healing, it's about confidence.

It's about giving women something that she can hold on to and say, I build something for myself.

And we work, and our work cannot wait until they are released.

It has to start while they're still inside.

This resolution matters because it calls for real accountability, real coordination, and real resources.

And that's what women deserve.

Freedom Braider stands in solidarity with all women, especially those often forgotten and unseen and unheard.

I too was unseen and unheard.

But with community programs like this, I am here today.

So shout out to all the freedom braiders that are inside and still here in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Oh, yeah, we good afternoon, Supervisor.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Melgar.

Uh, my name is April McGill.

I am the executive director of the American Indian Cultural Center here in San Francisco and one of the co-founders of the American Indian Cultural District.

Um AACC has had the pleasure to work with the Department of Justice, the DOC, the Department of Justice, the DOS, and on MMIP actions in San Francisco and departments here in the city.

Also with the San Francisco DV Consortium.

I'm a family member of an MMIP.

My niece was murdered in 2019 and was labeled a drowning.

My brother was also murdered by gun violence in 2021.

I've led several projects in domestic violence and MMIP, missing murdered indigenous people, bringing attention to the crisis, meeting with survivors and collecting data to provide insight into leading causes of domestic violence, MMIP, also advocacy for traditional healing practices for survival healing.

AICC has supported and given testimony on several bills, such as AB 1314, our feather alert, and AB 1936, which was the removal of the name of Hastings Law School.

Today I'm here as an advocate for indigenous women and girls, where I work with survivors in San Francisco and the Greater Bay Area.

We work with young girls and women creating safe spaces of healing each week at the cultural center, providing programming.

We need more resources and more programming for our women and survivors.

AICC, we need a healing center.

We're asking for a healing center, a cultural center that provides a safe space for our young women and girls.

So we just ask for your support.

Oh, Yahweh.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I want to start by thanking Supervisor Melgar for her ongoing leadership and her support over the years.

You've made a huge difference in your time at City Hall and beyond.

And we thank you for that.

Thank you so much.

My name is Beverly Upton.

I'm so honored to be the executive director of the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium.

We directly represent 17 service providing agencies in seven in San Francisco, and we have probably 50 sibling organizations as well that we're close with.

Everyone in this room has helped reduce San Francisco's homicide rate for domestic violence by over 95%.

That is no accident.

That just doesn't happen.

That's not just a data point.

It's all hands on deck in every language that we can possibly speak 24 hours a day.

And the people in this room, of course, the Department on the Status of Women and now MOHCD, the Mayor's Office of Victims' Rights, the Department on Public Health, the Police Department, and the Family Violence Council stand together to help keep people safe every day in San Francisco, and it is working.

Having a women's agenda, an agenda that addresses our most vulnerable residents is important.

But these services, I will say, struggle every year to stay afloat.

These are not data points.

These services are not ponds from one department to the other.

They are the life-saving lifeline to families in San Francisco.

So we will continue to stay at the table.

It will take all of our 110% commitment 24-7, not just when it's uh advantageous.

So I want to thank all of you.

I want to thank uh Supervisor Melgar, certainly new director Alive Arroche, who we have tremendous respect and affection for.

But Julia and her team at MOHCD, Bobby and Ivy and the Commerce Office of Victims' Rights, and everyone else who does this work every day.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Jimmy Senwee, good afternoon.

My name is Morning Stargalley, and I am a member of the Pitt River tribe and serve as executive director of Indigenous Justice.

I've been working and organizing in San Francisco for nearly three decades now.

I'm speaking in strong support of this resolution and our partnership with the Department on the Status of Women to address the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples.

We have been working to address the MMIP crisis since 2019, following the death of our sister Jessica Alva.

It was through the support of DOSW that we have created programming that has proved effective for intertribal community members for the past two years now.

Indigenous women, girls, and two spirit relatives are going missing and experiencing violence and are falling through the cracks of existing systems that are invisible in this data.

The invisibility and erasure is part of the crisis, especially for California Indian women such as myself.

Through our partnership with DOSW, we are working to change this.

Together, we are building culturally grounded survivor-centered approaches that recognize the realities indigenous peoples face in urban settings like SF, where many of our relatives are disconnected from tribal services, navigating housing instability, and at increased risk of violence.

This work includes direct support survivors, community-based responses, and coordination with systems that have historically and currently failed our peoples, not just in acknowledging MMIP, but investing in solutions that are indigenous-led, data informed, and rooted in accountability.

DOSW has shown leadership in supporting this work, and this cannot be short-term or symbolic.

It requires sustained funding, deeper coordination, and a long-term commitment to indigenous communities in the city.

IJ stands ready to continue to ensure our relatives are not invisible, not forgotten, and not left behind.

Thank you for supporting investment in culturally led solutions to address the MMIP crisis in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Mina Fardin.

I am a San Francisco resident.

I am also with Indigenous Justice.

I wanted to thank you for your leadership on this issue and also express my strong support of this resolution and the continued efforts to strengthen pathways that advance the status of women and articulate the strategy more towards a system-oriented lens.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good evening, Supervisor Melgar and members of the committee.

My name is Tania Estrada, and I uh I'm honored to be the executive director of the women's building, where I have been there for over 13 years.

I am speaking today also from that perspective of the women's building, which is a trusted community space grounded in equity and the lived experiences of women and gender diverse individuals across our city.

Every day, survivors and women come through our doors with hope, seeking information, resources, and the opportunity to build a different path forward.

One free from violence, one that prevents homelessness, and one that creates stability for themselves and their families.

At the women's building, we impact the lives of 5,000 clients every year, and many more through our partner in-house organizations, where over 90% are women or non-binary folks.

Advancing gender equity is not a siloed issue.

It is a citywide responsibility.

No single department organization or effort can solve them alone.

The challenges facing women today, economic insecurity, housing instability, health disparities, and safety are deeply interconnected and affect women and their families with more challenges every year.

And because these are interconnected, our response must be as well.

For too long, efforts to address these issues have been fragmented.

Programs exist.

Um investments are made, but without coordination, we lose impact.

We duplicate efforts in some areas while leaving critical gaps in others.

What that this resolution goes for, a coordinator citywide action plan led with intention and accountability is exactly what we need to move forward.

At the women's building, we see every day how this can deeply change.

We have trust in our community.

Women see a path that they can be proud to share if we touch their lives with that transformation.

This resolution recognizes that collaboration is not optional, it is essential.

I really thank you for the resolution that you wrote.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm the vice president and the department on the commission on the status of women.

I think the moment that we're living in, we can respond in various ways and try to change names of buildings.

You all know how to do that.

This is a real investment on changing society and leading as a city and what needs to happen to make sure that women's you know visibility, liberty, and autonomy and joy above all joy is the blueprint that we subscribe to.

So thank you so much for doing that.

Um I also want to talk about my day job hat, director of Galeria La Rasa, um, and the role that women play in creating and shaping culture.

And this is what we've been asking for.

I'm so thankful for the departments that came and presented and um showed case how they're supporting the women's agenda.

I think that women have something to say in the creative field.

I think that it's been an example that we've been trying to lead.

We created the raises, reimagining art and community education spaces.

Eight of those jobs went to um we created eight jobs, seven of those jobs went to women that actually invested in their communities to transform them and create safety and pathways for autonomy and accountability.

So I want to just there's so many examples that we can look at as a community, and I really want to uplift this.

Um, where San Francisco goes, the country follows, and this isn't just the timing.

We should not be remembered for the lowest point that our community is living right now.

It's how we respond and how we transform our society.

So in honor of the Lores, si se puede, we can do this.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Vice Chair, that completes public comment.

Thank you.

And with that, public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, I just wanted to uh thank uh Dr.

Aroche um and uh uh Director Lee and uh Julia Sabore and Iowana Pena and uh Director Sai, all of the presenters, thank you so much uh for the robust engagement uh with the community and with this process.

Um I'm very grateful.

Uh and thank you to my colleagues uh for the focus on these issues and your attention.

I would ask for your support and uh if you have it in you, co-sponsorship of this resolution.

Um my interest uh of course is on the issues and how it affects women.

But you know, from where I sit right now and for the next 33 months, uh my strong interest is in our structure and how what you are presenting guides the work of all the departments because every single department, even like DPW and the PUC, their work affects women differently.

And you know, I do believe that we need a strong charter commission that has the standing to focus the work of all departments on a women-centered agenda.

Um I remain open to seeing you know what ideas come forward, but what I would like with this resolution is for us to focus on the structure.

I want to make sure that housing is looked at through a women's lens, that when we talk about public safety, we are centering what public safety looks like for women, that when we talk about uh our economic recovery as a city, we are talking about what that looks like for women who already earn less than men who already have less access to capital for their businesses.

All of these things are important when we talk about where we're going as a vision uh for our city.

And so again, thank you, colleagues, for this.

Uh, thank you to uh all of the public commenters who came to talk about all of the wonderful work that you do, advancing and centering women's lives and how we can all be successful by supporting each other.

I'm really grateful to be a San Franciscan today and remain committed to this work.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you for your relentless and continued work on this.

And I believe we asked to be co-sponsors yesterday, but if not, um, Madam Chair, if you wouldn't mind, uh, Madam Clerk, if you wouldn't mind adding me as well.

Umgar, would you like to make a motion on this item?

Uh yes, I would like that we uh move this item uh to the full board with a positive recommendation, please.

Absolutely.

Uh Madam Clerk, could you please call the role on that?

Yes, and on the motion to forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Melgar, Member Melgar, I.

Member Sheryl, Member Sheryl I.

Fleischer Sauder.

I.

Fleischer Sauter, I have three eyes, which are filled or excused.

And the motion passes.

Madam Clerk, could you please call item number three now?

Yes, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Item number three is an ordinance approving the airport surveillance technology policy governing the use of transportation network company virtual queue technology.

Thank you.

And I believe that we have Guy Clark from uh Airport Cybersecurity and Compliance Manager from SFO to present.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Sauter and committee members, Cheryl and Melgar.

Good afternoon.

Um after those uh impressive presentations, we're going to switch it up a little bit, talk about some cool technology here.

Um the uh virtual vehicle queue uh technology actually um was patented by the airport on behalf of the City County of San Francisco last fall.

So we have a patent on that piece of it.

Um the primary function for this is being used by the um transportation network companies virtual queue, which is for like Ubers and Lyfts.

Um we set up a um software that allows with a driver registration portal, which is what brings it into Chapter 19B pieces, um, that helps us address a couple of key issues if you see on the first slide.

And I know we we have a lot of information slides, I'm just gonna summarize them going through this to keep keep it brief since we've had a long morning already.

Um the primary objectives really are to reduce roadway congestion.

We've had um some issues over the past year with the congestion South Air For Airport Boulevard, Millbrae, all of that, because we have a couple of TNC lots where the drivers meet and you know wait, wait for rides to come up, and there's and then there's a third lot as well.

Um so in addition to streamlining the operations, the the big factor which you guys can bring on to the full board as well as to the mayor is the fact that this technology is going to allow us to free up one of the lots, 150 spaces.

If you do the revenue on that, right, that's a million to two million dollars a year that the airport brings in.

And obviously, as you know, that the airport um provides a um annual payment to the city as well as that.

So per good percentage of that will go there as well.

So this is both a uh good civic duty congestion piece as well as a revenue generation piece for us.

Um the way the system works is there's a driver registration portal that the drivers have to provide their information, including a selfie picture, which is really where it brought it into the PII and the need for chapter 19 B to just be full disclosure from this from that perspective.

And then um we're also acquiring some software that helps us do this this queuing piece.

Um and the information they present, you know, their legal name, right, the selfie photo as I mentioned, their picture, their profile from their TNC driving piece.

Um it also allows us to identify that they are active drivers, right?

We want to keep the public safe and protected, make sure that uh if a driver has been suspended or no longer allowed to drive with the TNCs, that we don't include them in in this piece as well.

Um there's no passing information, it's just that the driver's information from that perspective.

Um this allows us to also monitor the dwell time.

So drivers don't have to sit in the parking lots waiting.

They can get pulled within 60 minutes and notified there's a ride available at the airport.

They can be out there doing another ride, doing other driving, make you know, writing other fares and then coming back to the airport, not having to sit in the lots, taking up space and queuing up and and um parking on the sides of the roads and causing congestion from that perspective.

So talking about our authorized use cases.

Um this is from the um surveillance technology policy itself, right?

Talks about the primary function which I just described to you about the tech space virtual queuing system, um, improves the safety and traffic flow, allows us to monitor their activity, um, collect and process that data so we can get um analytics on that from that perspective and that authorized and only um authorize and approved drivers are allowed to pick up and service our passengers and the public around that from that perspective.

Um, from uh as I alluded to the data collected, right?

This is where it puts in the chapter 19B.

It's level three sensitive data rights, got their full legal name from the driver's license, self a self-photograph, um, a screenshot of their uh profile at the TNC, as I mentioned.

This is where it puts in the chapter 19B, it's level three sensitive data rights, got their full legal name from the driver's license, self a self-photograph, um screenshot of their uh profile at the TNC, as I mentioned, and as I described the you know, for planning purposes, enforcement purposes, and the regulation of the programs and ensuring that there's the drivers of X equitable access to the airport from that perspective.

Um then one key item that we added as we developed this technology was um the data deletion and retention.

We do retain the date retain all the data while the drivers are active.

When they're not, they're allowed to go in and delete.

So if for some reason they decide to no longer um provide that service and drive for the TNCs, they can go in and delete their data and we won't have that anymore.

Um the uh data that we're really keeping is for analytical purposes, so we can keep a tracking of that um going forward from that perspective.

Um that is about it.

We'll access Yeah.

Um questions for us, please.

Yeah.

I'll start with a few questions.

Um is this um this vendor that you're proposing to use?

Do we use them for anything else in the city?

I'm thinking of the the permit center and you know, having gone through like that notification process and waiting process.

Uh yeah, and just my colleague um Deshaun Singh.

Oh, sorry.

Um my name is Rashon.

I'm one of the project manager managing this product.

Uh in terms of the other users within the city, we have two.

I believe one of them is rent board uh or and the and the other is assessor office.

So we use so the product they were using is the company called Q-Track.

Um and we are their use case number three, uh, which will be SMS-based uh virtual queue for these drivers.

What we're really developing here is the driver portal where we want to be able to take the inventory of all these drivers and airport be able to control if they are allowed to operate or suspend them.

Um so that's really where we're capturing a lot of PII data.

And will to access these lots at the airport, will drivers be required to use this, or is this just something that is kind of a nice to have for the will be required.

So just to talk a little bit more about congestion, what's really happening right now is we have three lots at the airport, right?

Lot one, two, and three.

These drivers are constantly trying to enter these lots because you have to be in one of these lots to get a lot uh to get a ride.

So whether you work for Uber or Lyft, they're not gonna give you the ride unless you are in these lots.

Uber and Lyft, they know your location of the drivers, right?

And they go they'll give their right out based on first and first out.

So if they see the driver has entered lot one and he was the first one, he or she, they will get that right.

Um what we're really controlling is their entrance to the lot because that's what really creating the congestion around the airport.

They're constantly going inside, looping and exiting because if the lots are full, they get turned away.

But they're constantly trying to enter.

With this new process, you will only be try allowed to enter when airport calls you from the queue, saying now it's your turn, head down to the airport, meaning we have some spots available.

So it's virtual-based queue.

And once they do reach that lot, how are they being verified?

Are they scanning something or is it a license plate reader?

Yeah, great question.

So we're gonna have a lot attendant that has the uh virtual queue activity.

They can see who have joined the queue, they show up, they can put the license plate, and they could see that's the car in front of them, and then they can verify driver's identity and make sure that is the same driver who airport has approved.

Because what's currently happening is these drivers are sharing accounts.

And we've unless SFPD looks at it, stops them, airport has no visibility into it.

With this, we are able to make sure they're vetted out and they are the people that say are operating at SFO.

Okay.

Um thank you.

And Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you.

Uh so you answered part of the question that I had, but I still wanted to um dive into the system that you're proposing versus the system that we have now.

Uh so we do have attendance at the um, you know, lots now.

Um they are represented by the team SERS.

Uh, I'm wondering how their jobs will change and if this will um reduce the need for attendance.

I can speak from technical side.

Uh we do have our business here, but unfortunately she has lost her voice uh just today.

But I'll try to sort of capture from uh technical side, right?

Uh there's really not anything that's impacting the I would say the lot attendance because their duty is still to remain.

In the current time, they're standing there and they don't have any tablet to sort of manage the operations.

And this new process, they will pretty much verify individuals entering in the lot.

Right now, they're just standing looking at the lot if it's visually if it's open or not, and then turning them away.

In the new process, they have a tablet.

So I don't think it's gonna take any of these positions away.

And you can't.

It's actually gonna add position.

Okay.

It'll just give them a new tool to be able to do the data.

It will make their actually it will make their operations much more efficient.

Because in the current process, they're walking around with the walkie-talkie looking at the lots uh and then calling from the queue or you know, letting people in from the queue.

Whereas in the current process in the new process, it's all tablet based.

Yeah.

Okay.

The other question I had just from you know, sort of a uh worker um, you know, many perspective.

I know that for these um drivers, Uber Lyft drivers, these lots also, you know, like they they take a break, they walk away from the car, they go to the bathroom, they you know, eat.

Um is this gonna limit the time that they're gonna spend in the lot?

Um I can speak to this, and yes.

So right now in the lots we do have a dual time policy, uh, which is 30 minutes.

When you enter the lot, 60, sorry, 60.

When you enter the lot, you have 60 minutes to take the ride.

What that means is Uber and Lyft will constantly give you rights.

These driver will probably pick the one that pays them the most, or they will just keep on denying until they're ready to leave.

That is really not being enforced right now fully, the enforcement for a dual time.

It's being enforced.

But in the new process, we will it's everything's gonna be an application-based, meaning the application will tell you this driver entered at twelve o'clock.

Now it's one o'clock, and they still haven't left the uh uh uh staging lot.

And then you can cite them, you can suspend them, you can warn them.

So we do want to limit that because we wanted them to be able to come in, take the ride and go.

So we keep the operation very efficient.

Right.

That's what I'm worried about.

So because people these are human beings, and so they also need to go to the bathroom and eat and you know do these things.

So uh I understand that there's a limit now and it's not being enforced, but you know, I'm worried uh that the efficiency that you're seeking and keeping it may have a human cost to like you know, just worker safety and uh comfort uh in terms of you know also cutting into like biological human needs to go to the bathroom to eat, to just take a rest.

And so does that is is that also meant to reduce like our contribution of space and time uh to folks, you know, when they're performing these like very needed services at our airport.

Yeah, go ahead.

Excuse my voice.

I'm sorry to make you talk about it.

I just know it's important to um yeah, so I I understand your concern.

Um the lots are really meant for them to gather and enable for them to get a rye.

What I'm saying is the lots are what not really meant for them to take a break.

We have restroom there for them for access.

Um, but we we looked at data and that the average um time it requires for a driver to actually get a ride, like yay, I have a pickup, I'm gonna go pick up someone, is actually around 30 minutes.

But our dual time rule is 60 minutes.

So we are allowing them to stay till the 60 minute if they choose to.

Um but driver who are eager to earn more money can be turned around in 30 minutes or less.

So with this virtual queue, the 60 minutes stays.

Nothing the the dual time is not changing.

So the driver can still choose to stay till it's the 60 minutes.

Does that answer your question?

It answers my question.

I don't like it, but I it answers my question.

Thank you.

Understood.

We we as employees of the city though get an hour.

No, I understand that we we're not their employer.

But you know, the airport has always been sort of like a really good employer.

We have one of the highest unionization rates, you know, of of you know, airports, you know, that includes even our contractors.

So just I I understand what you're saying, and it's not our problem is what you're saying.

But you know, it for shows of like on on principle, it it I understand it's making it more efficient.

Actually, I want to address that.

It's not about the efficiency parts per se, is when so that we have an oversupply of TNC driver coming to the lot constantly.

And the lot closes at some point because it's at capacity.

And driver still comes because they wouldn't know that the lots are closed, right?

So they will come and they will see the lots are closed and they will keep circling around the airport roadway, hoping that in the next five minutes it opens up.

And that creates not only congestion but public safety issues.

Um we have regular airport passenger that uses the same roadway.

Um South Airport Boulevard is shared.

Uh United employees uses that lot, long-term parking customer uses that lot.

So it creates a lot of conflict, so it's actually a huge public safety issue.

So not so much just like, oh, we're trying to increase the efficiency.

If the lot actually doesn't get full, we actually don't really need this tool.

I hope that uh provides another perspective.

Thank you.

Did I did I hear correctly?

It's your expectation that this could allow you to turn over one of the lots to a different use over time.

Correct.

Yeah, it's going to return it back to revenue generating lot.

Okay.

Which will allow us to uh yeah.

Okay.

Very interesting.

Um thank you for the presentation and taking our questions.

Um let's go to public comment, please.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now.

Along the side by the windows, all speakers will have two minutes.

It appears we have no public comment.

Okay, and with that, public comment is now closed.

Um colleagues, I would like to make a motion to send item number three to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation, please.

Yes, and on that motion to forward item three to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Member Melgar.

Aye.

Member Melgar, I.

Member Sheryl, Member Sheryl, I, Vice Chair Sauter.

Aye.

Vice Sheriff Sauter, I have three eyes, which here filled or excused.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much for your time.

Madam Clerk, could you please call item number four?

Yes, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Um item number four is a hearing on the city's administration of American with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements, exploring how the current permit review processes are structured within the Department of Public Works, comparing other localities permit per processes to San Francisco's, and analyzing how the city can streamline these permit processes to support our small business community.

Thank you.

And my colleague Supervisor Sherrill will be leading this hearing, so I will turn it over to him.

Great.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Um, and thank you all for being here.

Um I'm really quite looking forward to be able to learn from you and discuss with you.

Um, you know, specifically Deborah Leskey, um, Kevin Jensen from DPW, thank you very, very much for being here.

Um the reason I'm calling this hearing about um the disability access permitting process is is really twofold.

Um I've had a lot of conversations with small businesses about some of the challenges they face.

And of the permitting process, getting their access permitting is the one that just comes up the most.

Are they right?

Are they wrong?

I don't know.

We're here because they just say it the most, and I think when overwhelmingly that's the thing that comes up, it's worth looking at.

At the same time, I've been talking with a lot of people in a very unrelated context about disability and senior access.

This started where a constituent now friend, a woman named Helen Pelsman, who's in a motorized wheelchair, talked about curb cut access in the marina.

They're just weren't curb cuts.

She has to drive out in the middle of the street.

You might think this makes no sense, but it does.

I'll get there.

And then moving from that and talking about the fact that we're the fastest aging city and third oldest city in America, looking at the resources that the disabled and senior communities have here in San Francisco, the fact is we have a lack of them.

And so this combination of businesses struggling with one permitting process, a lack of services for let's just call it the disability and aging community, these things kind of come in my mind, and my question is like, all right, what's happening here?

Are these things related?

Are they not?

I don't know.

And so this is why I wanted to have this hearing.

This is why I wanted to dig into this.

And I just want to thank you both very, very much for the hard work you do every day in making sure that people can access businesses appropriately and making sure that businesses can open.

So with that, um, you know, especially look forward to digging in deeper on what permits require review by the disability access review team.

Um, how how your permit processes have changed following Prop Ape's implementation, following kind of the onset of the permit SF initiative from the mayor, um, and and what we here at the board can do to work with you to help applicants navigate this process, help you get the resources you need, and really make sure that at the end of the day, the way that I think about this is the goal is to help businesses open accessibly as quickly as possible.

So um with that, Deborah Kevin, I really appreciate you being here.

I'll kind of hand the mic over to you.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, committee members, acting chair Sauter, Supervisor Cheryl, uh, Supervisor Mel Melgar, and clerks of the board.

Um my name's Deborah Letsky, and I'm the development permits manager for San Francisco Public Works.

I'm joined by Kevin Jensen, who is the disability access coordinator for public works.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to present on public works permitting and accessibility compliance.

Today we want to share an overview of how accessibility compliance fits into permitting, how public works and building permits intersect, key challenges and improvements made to streamline processes and support businesses.

So the age-old question, when is a permit required?

Development permits in many new businesses require permits.

A building permit in particular is for the use and building on private property, such as change in use and tenant improvements.

And a public works permit is needed for right-of-way work resulting from building permit and building permit improvements such as utility work, alterations to the sidewalk, the curb, or street, which may include accessibility compliance, pardon me.

When a business submits a building permit to the building department, the permit may be routed to public works if right-of-way work is shown.

Public works determines required permits and notifies the applicant.

As you can see on the graphic on the screen in orange, we have the building permit jurisdiction and in green the public works permit jurisdiction.

The orange is showing the private property side.

There's a property line dividing both, and then the green below is the public works right-of-way, which includes that sidewalk street area.

And it's important to note that a building permit does not authorize work in the public right-of-way.

So public works does encourage applicants to submit a permit to perform right-of-way work upon being made aware through the building permit process of the need for a public works permit.

This slide is just showing the nexus between the building permit process and the public works permit process, which does include accessibility review.

Accessibility review does begin with the building department as part of the building permit.

As part of the building permit process, the business will need to complete and submit the access disability access checklist to the building department to ensure compliance with California and San Francisco building codes.

Applicants are provided resources at that point by the building department prior to and during the building permit review process, such as informational cheats and checklists, such as the disabled access upgrade compliance checklist page and package.

If proposed accessibility improvements do impact the sidewalk, that is when a public works permit would be required.

As you can see on the graphic here on the left is the building permit process side as it goes through the building department process.

Public works engages at that point that a public works permit is needed, which is showing work in the right-of-way.

And at that point, we will notify applicants they need a building permit, and that's when the public works permit process would begin.

And as you can see on the right, that's where disability access would get involved.

So we do again encourage applicants to apply as early as they're aware, and we share that information through DBI's PTS system through the building permit process.

Public Works is responsible for the safety and compliance of the public right-of-way, and we issue permits for any work or occupancy of the public right-of-way.

There are four major categories as you can see on the screen: commercial permits, urban forestry permits, building permit review, and construction permits.

Annually we review about 2,900 building permits, and we review about 30,000 permits annually.

So there's two major types of permits that require disability access review, and they're broken into construction permits and occupancy permits.

So in the construction realm, we issue construction permits for the activity to install.

Those encroachment permits could be level landings, transformer vaults.

Those are all encroachment facilities that would remain in place after construction is completed.

So I wanted to just show a high level of the current permitting process for right-of-way permits that include construction occupancy.

We significantly overhauled the process in 2024 to provide clear standards at the beginning to support applicants and submitting more complete plans and getting through the public works permitting process much more quickly.

And in 2025, we made more improvements to enhance and streamline these permitting processes, which I'll talk about in a bit, but I did want to note this.

These improvements all include a disability access.

So just at a high level, the way that the permitting process works is when an applicant does submit to the department, we will perform a completeness review.

We have a lot of guidance material published to help applicants know what to submit and have more complete plans at the outset to going through less review cycles.

We do that in a 30-day cadence.

Obviously, it's iterative, so if it's an incomplete plan set, we would let the applicant know and they would resubmit.

Once that plan set's deemed complete, we would move them into compliance review.

This compliance review that we do actually includes 12 different reviewing departments within about eight different agencies.

So it's a very complex process, but we have actually improved the process significantly, and now these reviews are occurring concurrently.

So it's a really big change.

And I'll talk more about those improvements because we're really excited about them.

Once the plans are deemed compliant, we approve them.

We get the contractor ready with a construction readiness checklist, and then we'll issue the permit for construction.

So at this point, I'd like to introduce Kevin Jensen, the disability access coordinator, and have him talk more about accessibility.

Thank you, Deborah.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kevin Jensen, a disability access coordinator with Public Works.

I've worked for the city for 30 years, and prior to that worked 15 years in the private architecture firms.

The reason I bring that up is back then I was the person that had to be tasked with not only completing the project design for our clients, which included sometimes small business owners or owners that had projects of modest scope.

And it was my job to also apply for and pull the permits and do whatever it took to get the permit approved.

So I get it.

I sympathize and have always sympathized with that process.

Having done it myself, I have vivid recollections of the frustration and pain that one feels going through that sometimes.

So I get it and I hear it.

And uh we've taken measures in the past and continue to improve our processes to help it help that process along to help applicants become more aware of what we need and uh the tools to get them to help themselves become more prepared when they're submitting for permits.

Um the fundamental issue um at hand is the you know the basic compliance sidewalk is follow street grade, six-inch high curb, cross slope doesn't exceed 1.67.

Easy.

The problem is that we oftentimes don't have existing sidewalks that meet that at all.

Um it's hard enough, even in new construction to achieve that.

Once you insert a building or other facility into the right of way, then the issues of different utilities come in and utility boxes and transformer vaults, subside basements, entrances, level landings, and so forth.

How to do that is in the building code is and in public works code, also is not a prescriptive problem.

It's a performance-based problem to solve because there's so many encroachments and different issues involved in the solution for a given location.

To that end, though, we've developed standards and checklists that help define how to approach that issue and how to uh break the problem down in concert with our SF Better Streets plan, which zones the sidewalk out in certain ways.

We overlay that planning document with accessibility requirements, building code and federal ADA requirements.

And we've come up with a methodology that really works that actually, if you look at some of the older buildings in San Francisco, they knew this.

They knew how to cite buildings properly.

The more memorial building is an example of that, cited that building perfectly as if they used our modern standards today on that building, fully accessible design for World War One veterans who are oftentimes disabled.

So this is a city that knows how and still knows how, and we know better, and now we're trying to try and do it faster.

So uh the um the slide that we're looking at next uh is uh bear with me for a second.

So the the the codes that were required to um you know uh we and the applicants are required to meet our the federal ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, of course.

Um we also have as a public entity our number one um obligation in terms of the general public and persons with disabilities under the ADA is the circulation in the public realm, the public right-of-way, the connectivity and accessibility envisioned in the ADA is fundamental to the goals of this the ADA for inclusion and equality for personal disabilities into civic life, to find jobs, places of commerce, to go shopping, to get to and from their homes and so forth.

So it's a very fundamental thing, and so our overarching obligation as a city is that we have accessible routes down the length of the sidewalk.

And then also now in this kind of context, connecting that accessible route into accessible entrances at businesses, and the number one obligation that businesses have or any other place of public accommodation is an accessible entrance.

And that's true when they're doing alterations.

The most important, the number one important highest priority for removing existing barriers to access is the entrance.

That's also where most lawsuits that for lack of compliance begin, and that's why the ABE program was created to help it help businesses address that and to uh stem the lawsuits that they were experiencing as a result.

Um the uh the the way that we've developed uh methodologies to do that is illustrated in uh the next slide, I believe.

So this is an example of a very typical scenario with a business where in that portal on the right side of the photograph, it's kind of a dark portal as an entrance there.

You see there's a pylon next to that entrance that has a power actuator to open that door.

But it's because the landing is actually a ramp, and this is an exception that is often used in existing uh businesses uh that are going undergoing alterations to mitigate where the sidewalk needs to be for accessibility versus where the floor of the building actually was constructed, and sometimes over a hundred years ago.

And so this uh is an exception that DBI developed years ago that we oftentimes rely on to provide a uh a fairly cost-effective and straightforward and technically feasible solution to get the entrance accessible while still doing the best we can for maintaining and providing an accessible route down the middle of the sidewalk.

And then according to the nomenclature that's in the Better Streets plan, the area that would incorporate uh street trees and utility poles and so forth is considered the furnishing zone.

And in some cases, we can relax the requirement for the cross slope there.

We can manipulate the curb height uh and and uh try to mitigate the cross section of the sidewalk and the running slope of the sidewalk so that we get the best of both worlds and compromising on both, but getting getting it to a point where it's readily and easily usable by persons with disabilities and not creating a problem for pedestrians in general.

Um and the solution for each of those locations is unique to the set of circumstances at each at each building.

And so um the next slide illustrates uh one of the key uh b aspects of our accessible business entrance standard, that is to uh overlay a grid onto the sidewalk that we then need a specific type of survey with spot elevations and slopes, and we can start to manipulate this grid, this mesh, to create uh a surface that provides the accessible route down the length of the sidewalk, an accessible entrance into the into the business, and then the peripheral areas and and features also addressed.

Uh, for example, you might have an existing large transformer var.

That's a large planar object that needs to remain in a single plane that can't be on a folded surface.

So that is about something that we have to modify and work around with as well quite often.

It's just the reality of trying to fit accessibility into sidewalks and buildings that are sometimes over a hundred years old, right?

Um so uh we have uh developed this as a way to break down the problem so that engineers and architects and uh development teams can understand how to present the issues, present the existing surfaces, and then we can start to work on uh how to get uh to a solution.

Honestly, the fastest way to do that is with a pre-application meeting where we can have a multidisciplinary multi-agency conversation and they can ask their what if questions in a very quick rapid-fire way and hone in on a solution or a small subset of possible solutions that then they can proceed with and uh come in much more prepared when they are ready for a permit or get essentially pre-approval, so by the time they do come in for the actual permit, it's really a rubber stamp at that point, it's all been worked out.

And there's been many examples where we've helped people over the finish line in this permit process in that very way.

Um more experienced practitioners have developed a skill where they can just do this and submit it straight out, and it gets approved uh just last week I looked at one like that that took me all of 20 minutes to approve, and it was one and done that fast.

So that's that is possible.

Um this is that sidewalk grid that I was mentioning.

And then the issues that uh arise when the accessibility is not uh done correctly is is illustrated in these slides where you know the the uh design and con and ultimately the construction it was caught during construction that had to be corrected, but um uh the uh designers, architects, engineers had uh put things in the drawings that were didn't prevent it from building permit to be issued, but by the time they then later applied for a public works permit, the building had already been constructed.

So then we're uh in a position of trying to make the sidewalk work where the building had already been permitted and and almost completely constructed.

So we ended up having to a subset of possible solutions in the right-of-way that were less than optimal, but we still could find a way to make it work oftentimes.

But the outcome could have been far better.

Um just an overview then of in terms of uh what it's uh takes to do this work in San Francisco, it being an older city with older buildings, dense uh topographical constraints sometimes.

Um makes it particularly challenging to bring such older infrastructure uh into compliance with modern codes in a variety of ways, and not least of which is accessibility.

Um comparable jurisdictions to San Francisco in terms of that kind of complexity and older infrastructure include the Seattle, LA, Sacramento, Chicago, Boston, New York.

Uh some of those jurisdictions have had to enter into long-term settlement agreements, paying damages and attorneys fees and uh having a stipulated uh amount of money that they have to spend over a period of say uh 20 or 30 years, sometimes in the billions of dollars.

Um public works has thus far been successful in defending the city under such a uh a class action lawsuit that's been ongoing now for over 15 years.

But so far public works has been found to be in compliance by the federal courts on that one based on our doing the right thing and doing good work for years uh ahead of time.

Um as an aside to that, New York City um revamped their compliance entirely and looked around the city for uh looked around the country for uh jurisdictions that were doing things that they liked, and they landed on San Francisco as something that they appreciated, and other jurisdictions have done the same.

In fact, they even flew me out there and we had a presentation and met with them and uh reviewed things with them to see in their effort to uh upgrade what they're doing.

So San Francisco has a reputation, a well-earned reputation as being a leader and innovator in access compliance over our work in the last 30, 35 years uh to meet our obligations under federal and state uh statutes and regulations.

So uh thanks.

And with that, I'll turn it back to Deborah.

So thank you, Kevin.

Um wanted to talk a little bit about Prop H as that had come up as a question.

Um Prop H is the Save Our Small Business Initiative.

It applies to both public works permits and building permits.

And I just wanted to talk a little bit about the data and the reviews that our department performs to ensure that those projects are supported.

So in the top left corner, as you can see, this is data regarding our building permit review, as I mentioned.

We review about 2,900 building permits a year of those, some are Prop H permits, and we have target days for review for those Prop H building permits.

During completeness check, there is a 21-day um target review.

We review within that target with 100% of the time.

Um for first plan review, which is the next phase, we review within the target of 30 days 96% of the time.

And then in the resubmission review, which is a 14-day target, we review um Prop H projects 97% of the time within that 14-day window.

So as you can see, we're nearly at 100% compliance for reviewing within that window.

Um additionally, during the building permit review, as I mentioned, public works may see features in the right-of-way, which will necessitate the applicant and get a public works permit.

Um, and we are now moving to 30-day reviews for all of the public works permit.

We have some really exciting new um software deployments and technologies that we're using and process improvements across all of our city agencies that are really supporting that.

And so I'm excited to talk about that more and jump into those details.

Um but on the bottom, as you can see, we have piloted this initiative, and the average review time is 29 days for our overarching construction permits.

So pardon me.

Since mid-2023, PublicWorks has undertaken a comprehensive overhaul of its permitting framework in response to concerns raised by staff, applicants, and partner agencies with the intention of improving bottlenecks, resolving inconsistent processes, and fixing fragmented systems for much needed transparency.

Rather than implementing incremental fixes, the department redesigned the permitting process end-to-end from intake through issuance.

So I just wanted to highlight a couple of the improvements.

We've made many, but these are really significant ones.

In 2025, PublicWorks started the transition to electronic plan review, which allows for concurrent interagency review.

We are currently using Bluebeam, and this allows for real-time collaboration amongst those 12 different agency reviews I was talking about earlier.

In 2024, PublicWorks implemented a 30-day interagency review service level, and we're rolling that out agency-wide and with all the agency partners that we have.

It takes a lot to move all city departments onto the same review cadence, and so we've made monumental efforts to do so and gotten great support and feedback from the department agencies as we have piloted and rolled out further through completeness check and compliance checks.

In 2023 and 2024, PublicWorks published resources, guides, and checklists to enable applicants to get building and public work permits sooner, making sure it was transparent and clear what the requirements were in order to submit and get an approved permit from the department.

And in 2025, we also partnered with the Permit Center, which is now the planning department to pilot the creation of a permit tracker for visibility and accountability, and we really hope to publish this tracker for the public very soon.

I'll show you a screenshot of it.

It's quite wonderful.

And then as part of the permit SF initiative, PublicWorks worked with multiple departments, including Katie Tang, who's behind me on important legislative changes to reduce unnecessary and redundant permits.

The outcome of these improvements have been faster and more predictable permitting, improved transparency and coordination across the departments, and an improved applicant experience.

And I'll dive a little deeper into each of these.

We also updated our website and published resources and guides, including the pre-application checklist, as Kevin mentioned.

The pre-application meeting is a critical stop point before you submit your permit to make sure your design is going to be compliant with all of the rules and regulations and to get feedback from the departments ahead of submittal.

We also have prepared and published minimum standards for building permit releases and checklists, which allow the building permit to be released sooner by the department and allow private construction to continue ahead of the right-of-way work, and minimum completeness standards and checklists for the public works permits to help applicants submit better plans and designs to the department, which includes DAC.

We worked with all of the city agencies to make sure that all of the minimum standards for all agencies that would review were in one comprehensive document to really support applicants.

We also prepared the construction readiness checklist and the CurbRAMP design submittal checklist was also included in that to really help applicants who needed to modify or put in new curb ramps.

These are the resources that I was just talking about.

The purpose of these resources is really to help applicants have a better engagement with the department, understand sooner what they need to do, and really achieve those results, which is getting into construction and accelerate those timelines to get into construction.

So as I mentioned, in 2023, we published the early releases for improvements for building permits, which enables projects to get into construction, allowing the public works permits to kind of follow in tandem so long as they're within compliance thresholds, so we don't create any safety hazards in the right-of-way.

We also introduced a single front door intake system, which established standardized checklists and submission requirements, faster response times to the applicant.

So that was when we first implemented the 30-day response cycle.

So applicants were getting feeder feedback sooner from the department and understood more clearly what they were supposed to do.

We're using the same tools to require submit as we communicate with them so there's no lost in translation what the expectations are.

The results have been more complete applications at submission, faster and more efficient reviews, fewer delays and submittals, and projects are able to actually start construction sooner than ever before.

In 2025, we made more improvements.

These are possibly the most exciting.

We transitioned to electronic plan review, which allows concurrent interagency review via Bluebeam.

Reviews are performed.

Historically, reviews were performed in silos.

So we would send out the plans, all the agencies review, and send back PDF copies.

So we were managing and collating up to 12 different copies.

Now all the reviewing agencies can evaluate applications simultaneously and concurrent to one another, helping raise design conflicts sooner and allowing collaboration in real time to bring about faster resolution.

And as part of this implementation, agencies are now reviewing on a 30-day interagency review service level, and they're consistently returning comments or approvals within that 30-day SLA.

So what was really great about this and some of the data that we've seen is that originally before the implementations, we were seeing three to nine months for review cycles.

Now we're down to 30 days.

Completeness reviews were up at 102 days.

Now they're down to 20 days.

Resubmittals have been reduced by 50% from the applicants, then that's a significant change for them.

And first pass completeness increased from only 1% complete to 37% complete at first submittal and 60% complete after just one revision.

And this is our development permits tracker.

As I mentioned, we partner with the permit center to develop this.

In 2025, we published this, which gives real-time visibility into permit statuses, visibility and prioritization of workloads in queue for the plan checkers who are actually performing the reviews, knowing what is due and when, accountability and tracking to meet those deadlines.

And DAC is actually integrated in this as well as all the other city departments.

So this is a really comprehensive way to help and support the departments understand what's in their workflows and be responsive to those 30-day timelines.

I called out a couple of interesting pieces here.

As you can see, you can see the compliance phase is what this project is in, the review round.

This integrates with Bluebeam as well.

It's a really cool tool where you can click the button as a reviewer and jump into the Bluebeam session so you don't need to go and find the email you got months ago where the plan set is, or 30 days ago, actually.

Um and then when it's due, so you can prioritize your review.

So it helps the staff level, the supervisory level, and the management leadership level really stay on top of all of the projects we have in queue.

We're planning on rolling this out further.

It was a pilot for all development projects, so city and capital projects, housing projects.

Um now that we know that's successful, we want to roll it out department and citywide.

And then lastly, I want to talk about the permit SF reforms.

PublicWorks worked with permit SF to advance legislation to streamline permitting processes by eliminating duplicative permits for minor encroachments.

Now work is actually authorized under the building permit.

So permits are no longer required by public works for certain minor elements attached to buildings extending four inches or less into the public right-of-way.

These features may be needed for accessibility.

Examples would be utility for non-accessibility features would be utility connections, water spouts, standpipes, outswinging doors, and security gates that extend no more than four inches into the right-of-way.

And from an accessibility perspective, this would mean door actuators, wheelchair lefts when authorized by a building permit, no longer require those public works permit in tandem.

This has had a really significant uh reduction in processing time.

It's removed redundant reviews, and it's made it easier for property owners to complete minor improvements, especially those important accessibility upgrades.

So again, this is just a recap of many of the improvements that we've put into play over the last three years.

Pre-application meetings are really a significant stop point for projects, and we have uh implemented them across the board.

We have established new technical design standards for building permits to allow for earlier permit releases, created checklists and tools to help for a more comprehensive review and quicker agency responses.

We've moved and to Bluebeam and we have 30-day uh review cycles.

So the next step, we are looking at software that we can use to help further improve all of these tools and resources that we have, um, continued interagency coordination, and additional support for accessibility compliance.

Um as I mentioned, PublicWorks has made significant improvements, modernizing permitting to address historical challenges with the goal of streamlining and providing much needed transparency.

And we're proud to share these improvements that are they're already delivering the results that we intended.

Thank you again for your time, and we are happy to take any questions.

Thank you and Supervisor Sherrow.

Great.

Thank you, uh Vice Chair Sauter and Deborah Kevin, thank you very much.

Uh so a couple quick just clarifying uh questions.

Um, who does in-building disability access permitting, not DPW, right?

Say that again, pardon me.

Like inside the building.

Inside the building is building department.

Building department, great.

Thank you.

Um who tells the applicant that a DPW?

And I think for the purposes of this, I'm gonna focus mostly on street improvement permits, right?

So who tells the applicant that hey, based on your plans you've submitted DBI, you're gonna need a DPW permit?

Yeah, that's a great question.

We actually have a team that's dedicated to reviewing building permits, and as part of that process, notifying the applicant of exactly which permits they need and the resources they can to get those permits.

So we have folks who sit on the second floor in-person services.

And also as we review the electronic plan review, which is the completeness on base and the Blue Beam compliance review, we we review all phases and provide that feedback to the applicants through PTS and obviously any other mechanisms or uh emails and otherwise.

And do applicants ever like pre-apply for the DPW street improvement permits because they like know that it's a thing?

They do some do.

There are some you know folks out there who do understand what they're gonna need for their whole scope of project and they will go ahead and submit like vault permits early, knowing that getting a vault placed in the sidewalk is challenging, um, not because of public works, but because of engagement with PG ⁇ Es, some other challenges that are going on right now, that if they have to design it into their building, they don't want to be too far in the building design process and then be without a power source.

And is there a way for us to maybe help inform like every DBI applicant, like FYI, if your project has XYZ, you're gonna need a street improvement permit?

Yeah, yes, and we uh we absolutely do that now.

And so it's those are the notes that we would make to them in PTS and in real time, they can go into the building department's system and see what permits are required upon our review.

Yeah, I just mean like it seems like it requires work for you to do those notes.

Is there a way to get ahead of that and just tell people like right up front, they log into the I I don't, you know, like they log into DBI and they're like, thank you for your thing.

By the way, does you have this?

Because DPW is gonna want to weigh in here.

Absolutely.

We have some tools and resources, and we're exploring other AI tools in the future to help applicants define their scope of work and actually get that feedback.

We're in the process right now of figuring out what tools are out there.

Um permits the uh permit S staff apologies is leading that effort right now.

Yeah, and I'll talk about staffing in a second because I just it it's a lot of work to have to go through everyone and then tell people, oh, hey, FYI you have a door on a street.

You need to fix this.

Um I I think one of the things that I struggled with personally in looking at the the response to the letter of inquiry was going through the resources that exist for a project owner, manager, whatever, to understand what criteria the end project needs to meet and how to make sure they get there.

There are a variety of checklists in terms of things to submit.

There were directions on like make sure your plans reference to the you know rounded to the nearest one one hundredth of a foot, et cetera.

But I struggled with one, accessing all those in one place, and two, where was it clear like like what is it was hard to understand when am I gonna actually need this permit and what is my project actually have to meet in terms of standards?

Having those all in one place was really honestly hard.

Absolutely.

How are you thinking about that going forward?

So the permit software technology that we're looking towards is something that can incorporate all of the standards into one place and help the applicants get that.

We do know as a city we have a lot of different reviewing agencies.

We have PUC, MTA, Public Works, and there are a lot of different compliance standards out there, and we do need to put those in a central place so applicants can get those more easily.

Um we are working towards that right now.

We started with the completeness phase.

What are the minimum features we need to show on plan sets?

And now that is part of our next effort is to have some sort of repository because there are too many locations and it's not extremely accessible.

Um great.

I mean, I I think one of the things I'm obviously like the lowest common denominator.

I am not a builder, obviously.

Okay so it wasn't obvious.

Um but I think at the same time, when I look at the statistics you presented, and then I think about the commentary that's happened.

One, it looks like you're you're meeting goals.

I don't understand how the median time for completeness review is zero days.

That's one question.

Is that mean like the the median is is replied to within a couple hours, basically?

Yeah, we're doing it same day.

Same day.

We've prioritized it.

Um but basically those stats, which are great, and like I'm not saying those are wrong.

I'm sure they I'm sure they are.

They're they're right.

Um but those stats plus the some of the kind of comments we've heard from specifically small businesses and larger projects don't quite align.

And I think I'm curious as to whether the let's call it complaints are really driven by outliers.

And if they are driven by outliers, like what is happening there and how do we bridge that gap for the 20 percent who are causing 80 percent of the complaints or whatever?

Yeah, absolutely.

It's a great question.

So I think in the past there is true, we we had challenges in getting to projects, as I mentioned, it could take you know three to nine months to get responses back from departments.

And that was the 12 different agencies that we're working with to get feedback and comments.

We were not compiling them in the past as well, so unfortunately we were having to piecemeal these comments back to applicants.

We have overhauled that process and piloted that with the capital projects, the city projects, the housing projects.

I think there is a strong interest and hope to kind of ensure that gets rolled out very quickly and we want to do that.

Um there was a delay in getting to projects.

We have been part of a first come, first serve review cycle.

So it would be assigned to plan trackers based on what came in.

High volumes, obviously, and we've had staffing challenges over the years.

Would we would get to projects as we were able, you know, as they were in queue, which can cause delays there?

Um there's also elements of accessibility compliance, which I can have Kevin talk to of as it's part and embedded into the process.

When an applicant wants to work directly with you know Kevin's team, they usually want to sit down and review the design with um accessibility, the the accessibility compliance team.

Um so as part of the process as it comes into the pipeline, it's getting those meetings set up, understanding and making sure the scope of work is agreeable too.

Um Kevin, maybe you would like to speak to that a little more.

What i as you're about to come up here, Kevin, let me add another question.

It my assumption is the people who want to sit with you are the people for whom there isn't a simple answer.

And there's some situation that they want to make sure that they deal with you directly.

Is that a fair assumption or does kind of everybody want to sit down?

Yes.

And how do you balance the like realities of real life on the street to try to get them to a yes, if you will.

How does that process work?

Everybody comes at it with their experience at that point, and um some teams are very experienced, some not as much.

Um so we kind of find out, you know, what's their project goals, we get a sense of where they're at in terms of how much engagement they're gonna need from us, and then we can start to, you know, let them know that here's this critical information that we need to see so that we can start to help them evaluate it.

Here's the techniques that we've developed of the framework of how you can break down and grasp the the nature of the of the problem and how to solve it and uh the variables involved.

And so we can also then with our involvement and also in real-time involvement with other key agencies for for example might be fire department or PUC or MTA Color Curb program, we can bring them into the conversation in real time and and get solutions that are jointly acceptable to all departments as well as to the applicant.

So in this situation, you have to get an OK from the fire department and the MTA and the PUC and then give your own OK for this all to happen together.

It can happen, yeah, where they all have their standards and there's like what I call force fields around every single thing that's in the right-of-way, every utility pole, every hydrant.

There's rules about how much we can or can't change things until they want us to replace it entirely, uh, us or any applicant, which can get into some pretty big money and more time.

So the more we uh can convey those sets of constraints, every every parameter that would govern the design in that case, depending on what kinds of infrastructure is present or lack thereof uh will inform the the design um options that they can um take away from that meeting and then come back to us and say, you know, here's what we came up with based on our discussion.

And what happens if if ADA requirements and let's call it historic preservation requirements are in conflict?

Um the um they they can be.

The the ADA talks about historic preservation and there's allowances for that.

And the historic building code also acknowledges accessibility.

And so there are things you can do for accessibility for architectural historic preservation that you can do for accessibility that you wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise.

For example, you can have narrower doors.

This building has many of examples of this where existing historic protections mean that we can't take that door out.

But if it's at least this wide, and there's ways you can do that and modify the hinges and so forth, you can keep the historic door.

There's not a problem.

So there's a subset of accessibility rules that can apply to historic fabric.

In some cases, it's not technically feasible, and then we can have that finding, right?

It's not technically feasible to do this without destroying the historic significance of the building, um, at least in terms of the main entrance, perhaps, but maybe there's a way to do a site entrance or a back entrance.

In that case, typically site entrances and back entrances are allowed not allowed for accessibility, but in historic preservation context, it might be justified and acceptable.

Got it.

And uh, you know, I'm thinking about you know the Clay Theater is going through a situation right now that I'm sure you're aware of, and it sounds like they might have to do sidewalk improvements to go well beyond the frontage of their building.

Usually it's not beyond the front it is the fronting sidewalk for sure, but at the point where the projected property line goes across the sidewalk and we need compliance there typically to the extent it's technically feasible.

But then from there blending off in front of the adjoining properties might be only one to maybe three flags typically.

And then would what like could so they might have to do improvements to the sidewalk well beyond the front beyond the frontage of their property in the typically in front of the adjoining property maybe just one we call it flag the scores the scored lines in the sidewalk so three to nine feet roughly typically would be the typical limit on that if if at all if it's compliant at that point there's no need to go beyond.

Okay.

So then can we talk about quickly the the 30-day shot clocks um and I don't know Deborah or Kevin who who's better here.

But it it sounds like a lot of the recent updates you've made have moved that three to nine months to 30 days in many cases.

And that's happened since let's call it 2024 set up yes the completeness phase was 2024 yeah.

So one thing I'm struggling with a little a little bit is Prop H seems to indicate that permits should get in the g should get issued within 30 days.

But it sounds like well the DBI permit should get issued within 30 days and then there's 30 days for complete review and then there's 30 days for compliant compliance review.

Like it seems like 30 days is this number but then maybe it's applied multiple times.

Right.

So a business owner might expect one month and then I'm good to go but the reality is it's like no it's four one month period stacked on top of each other.

I'm just struggling I hear 30 days but then like it's like 30 days plus 30 days plus I don't know.

How does that can you kind of work me through how that works absolutely so the building permit process upon submittal of that application there's a 30 day clock associated with it.

So if the plans are noncompliant the city can't approve it and allow someone to build something that's not compliant so feedback is provided to that applicant in written format to let them know what's not compliant and then they can resubmit and there's another 30 days that gets tied to that.

So that's how typically the permit streamlining act works is the 30 day cadence if someone submitted a building permit and a public works permit at the same time we could review them in parallel rather than in tandem as I showed the process works now that some applicants don't know they need a public works permit if they've opted to do accessibility compliance in the right of way.

So if they choose to do all of the accessibility compliance within their building they're not triggering any permit from public works and they can continue within that 30 day review cycle but if they do trigger public works that 30 days does start upon them submitting a completed application or an application to public works we will review on a 30 day cycle for completeness and inform them when their project's deemed complete then it'll move into compliance that may require interagency review.

Right now the completeness phase is an in-house effort because we've worked with all the departments we understand what their requirements are we perform that review for the city and then when it moves into compliance we do circulate those plans to review to their compliance standards got it.

So on average how quickly does a permit get referred to DPW after someone submits an application for a building permit?

Do we have that stat?

We do not have that that's entirely dependent on how quickly the applicant and the design team choose to submit that permit application.

We don't necessarily have any controls in the city over how long an applicant holds the project takes them to redesign the project or submits that initial application.

Okay.

And then I kind of asked this before but I'm going to ask it again slightly different way.

When a business is told to submit an application to DPW for a necessary permit what um what materials are they given like specifically or what direction are they given to clearly outline what documentation et cetera is needed to complete that application.

We have a comprehensive completeness document that we provide them.

There's also a link to the website and we have a QR code at the counter so we can let people know exactly what needs to be submitted when they are submitting their their documents and we use that completeness checklist to actually validate completeness so we're communicating with the same tool so there's no like a lost in translation I didn't know I need this there's some sort of moving goalpost we've eliminated any sort of concerns in that realm.

Okay.

Okay.

Is there any world where we think we can get the city to a point where we can fulfill the 30-day shot clock for all permits like in one 30-day segment not just like 30 days DBI, 30 days DPW, et cetera, et cetera.

To approve a permit it must come in compliant within 30 days.

So that that would be the first challenge is making sure the applicant understands exactly what it takes to have a compliant plan set.

I will be honest I've been in this role for 10 years and I've never got a perfectly compliant plan set on day one.

It does take some engagement with the department to really understand what is needed.

It may not just be the public works requirements, it may be PUC, MTA, or others, or the coordination, as Kevin was mentioning earlier of those assets in the field.

You know, if you change the sidewalk rate, it could impact a streetlight foundation, it could impact an AWSS system.

So those are things that have to be considered that process.

So it would potentially be challenging if it was all one in-house.

I mean, I don't want to speak to how what changes would need to be made in the city, but it would have to be one permit process to be a 30-day review for all agencies, public works and DDI.

So one way to do that would be to add more staff.

It sounds like you used to have eight and now you're down to four.

Is that right?

Sorry, for for disability access coordinating team.

Sounds like you used to have eight, now you're down to four.

How has this affected the average review process?

I assuming that those numbers are correct.

I had four licensed uh engineers working for me, I'm down to two.

Um we've got one person who came in on a rotation for a six-month period from our streets and highways groups.

Got it, got it.

Okay.

Excellent.

So I've got one space to fill, but I just this morning got a notice that we got approval to hire replacement for that.

So thank you.

So you're back up to four or three plus you.

So that gets up to four, but we were trying to get a fifth.

So how is the lack of staff affected this process?

Oh, it doesn't help.

Yeah, for sure.

Okay.

We're overstretched and straining to keep up with the shot clocks and so forth.

Got it.

Um I've been told that there's a reimbursement to staff members who want to get CASP certified.

Um do we promote this reimbursement program?

We do.

And in fact, uh two of the people that I have on the staff now, engineers are in involved in and studying to get their CASP certification.

Oh, interesting.

That's it.

I I was involved years ago when when the state architect's office was tasked with creating the CAS program as a subject matter expert.

I and some other people around the state.

The CASP program was not created for public right-of-way stuff.

It was created for buildings specifically.

And so the training and the certification for CASP folks is very building-centric.

So they'll know a lot about bathroom accessibility and so forth, but right-of-way stuff, not so much.

And that said, any knowledge about accessibility is a good thing in terms of Is there an opportunity to have additional engineers and inspectors within DPW CAS certified to be able to kind of jump in and help?

Yeah.

In as much as just having the sensitivity and awareness of accessibility issues per se, I think is a good thing, even though what they get out of the CAS program isn't necessarily directly translatable into the right-of-way always.

And maybe this this next one is for Deborah.

It seems like there was there was maybe a reorganization of permitting teams in DPW recently, and kind of because of that, it sounds like DAC is maybe not under the same org chart lines as the other permitting teams.

But how do they work together?

DSC and the other permitting teams?

DAC historically has actually been part of the engineering teams, not part of the collective permits teams.

There was a re-org um November 2025, 2024, pardon me, um, of the permits teams.

The teams still work directly with Kevin and we refer projects over to them.

As I mentioned, we are now using Bluebeam.

So when Kevin's team, the DAC team receives it, so are all the other 11 different reviewing departments.

They're getting it at the exact same moment and are within that same review cycle.

So we're using technology to help improve communication.

When are we going to get all of these permits on the electronic system?

Because I know you are using technology and that's great, but it's not for everything right now.

Right.

Well, now that we know that it's effective, we are we have pilot it and we know that it's working for all those capital projects and housing projects that I mentioned earlier.

Um we are looking to roll that out as part of our new software deployment.

Um you probably have heard that we are we have a software system and we're looking at how we can do that probably within the next year.

And do you see a gap in time or efficiency or processing between the permits on the electronic system and the ones not yet on there?

Yes, there are some challenges.

As I mentioned, when you don't have concurrent reviews occurring, um, it does create a challenge to ensure that we're dealing with conflicts properly as they can come up regularly in the right of way.

Um also when folks are dealing with email and PDFs, emails can be lost.

It's really challenging.

We need to have a central source, a source of truth for everyone to be able to utilize and go into to pull the same plan set um and have it prioritize for them.

And the technology tools are doing that.

The departments are very supportive of it, and they are also interested in rolling it out further.

So it's just about making sure that we can do that.

There are some challenges with the software.

It is very manual software, there's no integrations, and we're looking to work with the software technology companies so they could build integrations so you're not manually typing comments in in three different places and having to pull that data in.

The software can do a lot of that automation work that humans are doing now and takes a lot of administrative time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Can I just switch a little here?

So permit SF.

There's a directive that each permit has a max of three rounds of review, if I have that correct.

How are you all thinking about this directive and ensuring that after the second round, folks are really getting to that third round is that last round of review?

It sounds to me that might be the building department escalation rule where if a project has gone through more than three rounds of review, you have to get a supervisor involved to ensure that the project is still on track.

We are seeing with the electronic plan review for the public works permits that we're not having many rounds of review as I mentioned.

We've reduced rounds of review by about 50 percent.

Um the worst I've ever seen is 12 on a really complex site on a very big hill in San Francisco, um trying to make the entire site work for a large home.

But we are seeing three or four rounds of review happening now because of the electronic plan review, because of the concurrent reviews, because we can do this coordination in real time.

Um we are really on track for that.

So I don't see that as a challenge.

And for the permits that don't have the electronic review, are are we seeing three or four rounds of reviews or is it still longer or I would say it's probably a little bit longer, and I can get some data and come back to you if that would be helpful?

Okay.

So the the mayor's recent permit permit ass act directives on no more than three rounds of review, that's not something that's really and and maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I have it wrong.

I would love to take a look.

Yeah, I'd love to take a look into that.

I am aware of it for the building department reviews, and we have those escalations built in for our plan checkers who review building permits.

Um but I would like to get some more information and make sure if this is something that we need to find a solution to, we can go ahead and do that.

Yeah, I think you know, when I look at all this, it it basically my bet here is that again, 20 percent of the applicants are driving 80 percent of the struggles, let's call it.

Um I think the question would be how do we as a city really kind of meet this 30-day expectation that we have set fairly or unfairly?

But how do we meet that to get all the plans all the all the permits across the line?

And how do we address the fact that a lot of small business owners, whether they are you know new to the country, new to the city, new to the process, really don't necessarily know and understand what it takes?

And so I think that's one of the challenges is like how do we meet the the goals and the statement of Prop H with these procedures?

Um we've all been here for a long time.

Uh I we've got one more question.

Sorry, supervisor, thank you, and thank you all for being here.

So self-certification.

Um are there any other jurisdictions that have self-certification and is that possible in San Francisco?

Can we, you know, maybe structure this in a way that has inspections after the construction is done and you know really put a lot of the I I know there's a there's an onus, a financial onus, uh a legal onus on the city to make sure that things are compliant, but is there a way for us to leverage elements of self-certification to put that financial onus on the businesses and the contractors?

May I ask a question about in self-certification?

Are you talking about how designers can uh or the building department can approve and say must comply with this regulation and the designer of records certifies that?

Yeah, okay.

Um what I will say, and I will turn it over to Kevin for the accessibility compliance portion, is that the private homeowner, the private property maintains the liability and responsibility if something goes awry.

Um for the right-of-way, the city maintains responsibility.

So we have to maintain a level of scrutiny to ensure that the sidewalk is safe and compliant for everyone to use, and if it is not, the liability is the cities.

And so the level of scrutiny and the self-certification element of saying must comply with sidewalk grade is much more challenging to actually ensure.

Um we don't want to turn into an enforcement-based department where we go out and we're double checking everybody, seeing that their sidewalk is is wrong and built wrong, and we have to have them rip it out and double triple their costs to get it right.

We want to get it right in the design review phase rather than getting it right in the field phase.

In theory, could we adjust it so that the liability was on the contractor, property owner, whatever?

Like if you decide to self-certify, and you better be good at this, because this could really backfire on you, then you're liable.

Like, is that something we could pursue?

It's an interesting question.

We have to do that.

Obviously, a very high bar because of everything you just said.

I I would love to talk to city attorneys further about that.

That is not something that we've talked about in the past.

Okay.

All right.

Um thank you.

Thank you all for being here for so long.

I know it's late.

It's already Friday, it turns out.

I'm hungry, you're hungry.

Vice Chair Sauter, I'd like to make a motion to continue this file to the call of the chair.

Kevin Deborah, thank you very much.

Director Tang, thank you.

I also just want to thank a few other people.

I want to thank Helen Pelsman, I want to thank Harry Brough.

Also Fiona Hines was incredibly helpful through all of this.

The Senior Disability Action Organizing Team, Elijah Lord and Kelly Dearman, just a lot of folks put a lot of work into this.

Sorry, sorry.

Monique's also really hungry.

Thank you.

I'm I'm hopeful in particular.

It was really nice to see the I know it's not perfect, but to see the blue beam uh software and to to hear that you're having success with that.

I think there's a lot of um I mean there's there's certainly a lot of instances already where I've seen um projects or approvals, and not in your department, but but in others um be held up by simply the fact that someone hasn't um you know responded to one email or someone is um trying to get a hold of another person, so there's a lot uh of that that I think can be improved, not solved but improved by technology.

So good to hear.

Um okay.

Uh I think it's time to now go to public comment, please.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on item four should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

It appears we have no public comment.

Thank you.

And with that, public comment is now closed.

Um we do have a motion on the floor.

So Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that?

Yes, and on the motion to continue this item to the call of the chair.

Member Sherl.

Member Sheryl, aye.

Vice Chair Sauter?

Aye.

Fly Share Sauter aye.

I have two ayes, which chair filter excused.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Okay, Madam Clerk, could you please call items five through thirteen?

Yes, items five through thirteen are six ordinances and three resolutions authorizing and approving and approving settlement of lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city.

Um thank you.

And um, do we have any questions or remarks on these settlements?

Seeing none, uh, Madam Clerk, could you please open public comment up?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on items five through thirteen should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

It appears we have no public comment.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

I'd like to send items five through thirteen to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation, please, and a roll call.

Yes, and on a motion to forward items five through thirteen to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation.

Member Sherl.

Member Sherl, I.

Vice Chair Sauter?

I.

Vice Chair Sauter, I have two ayes, which Chair filled or excused.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Uh any other business before us, Madam Clerk.

Uh that completes our meeting agenda.

Very well.

We adjourned.

Thank you.