Good morning.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the June 18th, 2026 regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Steven Sherrill, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Bilal Mahmood, and today by Board President Raphael Mandelman.

Committee clerk is Monique Creighton, our thanks to James Kwana of SFGov TV.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

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 IQE.

C-R-A-Y-T-O-N at SFGOV.org.

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, be good lit 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 June 30th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, can you please call item number one?

Yes, item number one is an ordinance submitting the administrative environment, health, labor, and employment park planning, police, public work, subdivision, transportation, and building inspection commission codes to modify numerous reporting requirements and procedures removing obsolete programs and requirements and other code cleanup.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I think we're represented, we're joined here today by representatives from Supervisor Chen's office and also by Board President Mandelman.

Welcome.

Board President Mandelman, you are the lead sponsor on this item.

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

Chair Sherrill and thank you for uh and thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud, Vice Vice Chair Mahmoud, for uh making time on your calendar in a busy month to consider this piece of legislation.

Although my name is on it and I strongly uh believe in it and support it.

Um I want to be clear that the credit for this legislation goes to our city attorney and his staff who worked uh diligently to try and um put this together.

The reason I support this uh legislation, this exercise of trying to find uh reporting requirements that are outdated or uh duplicative or no longer make sense is my observation over the time that I've been on the board of supervisors that it is the natural tendency of legislators to legislate and to add requirements, and that as that happens over time, over years and decades, uh we make it harder and harder and harder uh for government to actually deliver services because people are spending more and more time reporting on the things that government is doing and relatively uh leaving less time to actually do the work of government.

So having regular uh uh exercises in going through the things that have accreted and figuring out what is uh what is out lasted its useful life is um I think very worthwhile.

And I think that it is something that this board of supervisors should be encouraging.

Um there this legislation has been kicking around for a very long time.

Uh it was introduced by the city attorney uh just about a year ago.

Um I know they had been working on this, I assume, for many, many months before because I assume a piece of legislation like this is a big chunk of work.

Um, and uh, you know, part of that last year I think has been uh time well spent, perhaps, in that you know, we took some time to go carefully through each of the changes and figure out if there were um any of these reports that uh maybe should be salvaged.

We found one.

Um I know other offices uh have found uh some that they want to try to preserve.

I believe that uh Supervisor Chen has uh some amendments.

I have uh, you know, amendments, a few amendments as well.

Um, but on balance, and the reason I wanted to insist that this board consider this, discuss it in a committee, and ideally forward this to the full board, is I think when people take on this kind of work, we we want to encourage that and uh more of this, please.

Um the city attorney's office reviewed, I think it's something more than 500 of these reports.

Um, most of these reports will stick around even after this legislation.

I think it's 336 or some number, something like that.

Uh those reports will continue to be required and delivered, and perhaps someone will review will read them or find them useful at some point.

Um, but uh uh the if the board acts on legislation reasonably in the form of what's been introduced uh north of a hundred of these reporting requirements will go away.

And I think that will be a positive thing uh for the city and county of San Francisco.

So the amendments that I have have been circulated, just to quickly run through what uh isn't in my amendments.

Um, we did uh determine that we thought it made sense to keep the Department of Human Resources reporting requirements about filed sexual harassment claims, and so uh on pages 238 to 240.

Uh the restoration of that reporting requirement is what's in there.

Um page 34, um, there's an update to a reference of uh what uh what body receives a report because uh the um the interagency planning and implementation committee uh is one of the bodies that was eliminated in the committee streamlining ordinance.

So we have streamlining overlapping with streamlining.

Um pages 25 and then 198 through 99.

We have some cross-reference corrections on page 348.

Uh we have an update to the ordinance's effective date on page uh 349.

Um, uh there's a new section 15 explaining that the amendments incorporate changes from two ordinances the board previously passed that are shown as existing code text, um, and then there's some corrections to the long title and list of sections on the first page.

That's what's in my amendments, um, which I hope this by uh I hope uh the members of the committee will make before forwarding this to the full board.

Um I believe there is a presentation from the city attorney's office.

Um I think Andrea Bress is up.

Thank you.

I know this was a lot of your work.

Certainly not all of mine, the work of incredible number of DCAs in our office, and frankly, the staff of the many city departments that actually reviewed each and every single one of these and made the respective policy decisions that they did.

So um Andrea Brass with the Office of the City Attorney, I'm gonna give you a brief ordinance of what's in the a brief overview of what's in the ordinance, and then I know Dan Sider and some other folks from the planning department are here, and we can do our best to answer any specific questions you have.

So, as you mentioned, President Manelman, this process began well over a year ago, actually.

We received a number of requests from city departments to look at various reporting requirements that they had that they believed were either outdated or no longer necessary, and at the same time, other departments such as the planning department were going through their own exercises of looking at their respective codes, cleanup and identifying um, you know, opportunities to modify or eliminate reports to better align their staff resources, as well as reflect the transition that many departments were moving towards, which is providing more real-time data information and sharing with members of the public rather than annuals or other cadence of static reporting requirements.

Um the result was this ordinance.

We did play a role in helping to identify uh the various reporting requirements and supported departments in analyzing what they wanted to do with them and provided um the drafting support for this ordinance, which reflects the decisions of many, many, many departments across many, many, many codes.

Um while the ordinance is long, um, in addition to providing the uh legislative digest, we did provide the summary of provisions, which you mentioned that it's been in the board file for some time that goes through each and every single one by page number, by department, with a summary of what is being changed.

While long, I think it's helpful to think about this ordinance in five distinct categories.

The first category, and the largest category represented here, give or take 180 pages of this ordinance, is the deletion of obsolete programs, funds, and code sections.

So this includes things like the deletion of chapters 12D and 14A, which are no longer used by the city.

These are our old MBE DBE and WBE requirements, which were replaced many years ago with the city's LBE program, which remains untouched by this ordinance.

Other obsolete programs that are proposed for deletion include, these are just a few examples, the rent assistance program for persons disqualified from federal rent subsidy programs operated under a federal 1998 law that is no longer administered by HSA, a pilot program, which has ended regarding real estate loan counseling, reports related to state proposition 1B funds, which the city has fully expended, and 11 funds that were identified by city departments that are no longer in use, and the controller confirmed have no balances in them.

The next category of reporting requirements are those that were one time or limited in time and have passed.

These span various departments, various codes, but just a few examples include a 1981 report on signage in the upper market street area, a one-time evaluation of the home SF program, and one time reports related to the habitat restoration for the red-legged tree frog, the airport's progress on the naming of the Harvey Milk Terminal, and reports related to cannabis use.

The third category of reporting requirements, which are being deleted.

Departments have a variety of reasons for why they chose to do that.

Some of them are very old and haven't been done in a long time.

For example, there's a 1939 requirement for the redevelopment agency to report quarterly expenditures.

This is not done, and the current successor agency to the redevelopment agency, OCII, submits regular budgets as well as complies with various state financial reporting obligations.

Additionally, the real estate division provides regular reports regarding the status of city property, but does not report on parcel level value analysis, which is required by a different section of the code.

For some departments, they chose to delete requirements because they're no longer aligned with a departmental focus, or for others, they have largely been replaced by more recently enacted reports on similar topics.

This is particularly relevant for the planning department on their various housing reporting obligations that have increased over time.

The third category are modifications to various reporting requirements, with changes to things like the frequency of a report, how it is prepared, or how it is submitted.

In large part, departments took the opportunity to align current departmental practices or consolidate their many existing reporting, many existing reporting requirements.

For example, Public Works is proposing to consolidate a report on the Adopt a Tree Fund with their annual report regarding street trees to provide a more comprehensive report on trees.

The film commission is proposing to consolidate their annual report on the film production fund with their department's annual report.

Some are just changing the frequency.

For example, the Department on the Status of Women will report annually on their require on their activities rather than every six months.

And some departments have reports that are tied to activity that does not occur regularly.

So for example, MOCD and Reckon Park have to report annually on the 706 mission fund, but no funds have been expended yet.

So what they are proposing is to change the reporting obligation to apply when activity is occurring in that fund.

And the last category are changes that are other small cleanup items, such as removing references to library fines that no longer exist, removing outdated references to entities like the parking authority, and removing HRC as the body that reviews rental history for condo conversions, which is currently done by the rent board.

So we're happy to answer any questions you have.

And thank you, President Mandelman, for summarizing those amendments, and we will be here.

Thanks.

Thank you.

President Mandelman, any further comments?

I do want to thank uh Maeve Skelly in my office and then uh previously Melanie Matthewson, who um uh Melanie did in depth go through each of the items summarized by the city attorney, and we, and there is a lot in here.

Um, but uh, you know, it was a lot of work on on our end as well, and I know for some of the offices that look to this, and I want to thank everybody who's done all their all their work on it, especially the departments in the city attorney's office.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Um, we uh I also want to make sure we hear from Supervisor Chen's office, represented uh by Charlie Sciamas.

Charlie, would you please come up to the podium?

Thank you for being here today.

Good morning, Chair Cheryl, Supervisor Maboo and President Mandelman, uh Charlie Shamus with Supervisor Chen's office.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee.

In reviewing this legislation, Supervisor Chen was concerned about the elimination of several long-standing and vital reporting requirements that are foundational to inform policy making around land use and housing.

These reports and indicators serve a critical public purpose for providing policymakers, the media, members of the public with accurate contextualized data on development trends and their consequences.

They include indicators to better understand progress towards meeting affordable housing goals and how they're impacted by the loss of rent-controlled units through hundreds of no fault evictions each year.

A jobs housing fit analysis to better document how housing produced matches the wage levels of new workers, so that we may track our ability to house our local workforce.

Reports and indicators related to tenant impacts around short-term rentals, accessory dwelling units, and fourplexes, and the affordable housing production and preservation fund that has supported the development of deeply affordable housing, the preservation of existing rent controlled units, and the prevention of displacement.

These reports and indicators are more vital now than ever, given that the city is beset with deepening inequality and many displacement pressures.

I want to appreciate uh Supervisor Cheryl and your staff and President Mendelman and your staff for working collaboratively with Supervisor Chen to carry and craft these amendments.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Charlie, thank you.

Um any questions from my colleagues?

No, see no questions.

Um I know we're also joined by the clerk of the board, Angela Calvio, who has a few comments as well.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, Supervisor Michael, Chair Sheryl, thank you for the floor for a moment.

Um I'm here in my capacity as the legislative administrator pursuant to Charter Section 2.117.

Not here to talk about the merits of modifying any of the reporting requirements, specifically here to talk about the vehicle that's before you.

What we're noticing in the Office of the Clerk of the Board is that there is a deviation from the norm, the standard legislation that is provided to the legislative process.

In this particular case that's before you, I put a copy of the legislative digest on your desks.

Uh uh, under the name of efficiency and streamlining.

I think there is a detriment to the public when so many items are combined into such a document such as this one, which is I think a 357-page document with 195 moving pieces, uh, amending multiple parts of the municipal code and the administrative code.

Again, not to the merits of which should stay and which should be modified, but specifically to uh the standard of an average intelligence of an individual to be able to review a 357-page legal text, compare it to the legislative digest that's on your desk.

You heard Deputy City Attorney Andrea Bress mentioned there were perhaps five sections that this that buckets that this information falls into.

The legislative digest, I think mentions four the modification of numerous reporting requirements, the removal of numerous reporting requirements, the elimination of numerous defunct funds, agencies, plans, and programs, and four other numerous streamlining and updating changes.

I personally, as well as our clerk Victor Young, separately, tried to map the legislative digest 195 items to where they rested in the legal text.

Could find the majority of them, but honestly there were some that were written differently or the title was slightly different in either the legal text or the legislative digest.

I have to give great credit to John Givner and uh DCA Brad Russian and probably to Andrea Bruss, who actually created the matrix of items that you have in the file, which tried to specifically delineate out these reports.

But still, if someone of average intelligence is, I would like to say I'm probably average, could not truly map the legislative digest 195 items to the legal text, then perhaps part of the public would have a problem doing that as well.

And so I just ask that going forward that we're very cognizant that uh I will just add first that the the city attorney will say that there is no legal issue here, and I'm not claiming that there is.

I am concerned about a consumers' rights issue, where the public is able to in smaller chunks really look at what is before the committee or the board.

I think ideally, as I requested before and as the rules chair requested before, that the items as delineated in the legislative digest, that is how this ordinance be broken up.

But Mr.

Chair, I'm not asking you for amendments, and I've already let that train go.

But I think for future ordinances that are going to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors, I think it is imperative that we not allow documents such as this to be placed into the legislative process that we are we minimize the chunks in years past.

We've always used companion legislative ordinances, and in each of the files, they are all related to each other, and that's that's how I learned to write legislation in Tom Amiano's office with the great Ted Lakey, who was the general counsel of the board at that time, and I think that is how we should continue to write these ordinances where you have relating ordinances together.

I have other comments to say, but I'm going to leave it there.

I think that those comments were concise enough.

There is one more point I'd like to make, and that is for the legislation introduced document, we are now going to create a section of that document.

Typically, we work hand in hand with our good partners in the Office of the City Attorney.

But going forward, when there is an item such as this that I or a chair of one of these committees requests to be broken up into significant sections, I'm going to place them in a section called, it's a holding tank essentially.

Either they, the city attorney's office will continue to do what we've always been able to do together, is put these into bite-sized ordinances and move it into the committee very quickly, or they're going to be in a holding section on the legislation introduced section, not ready for uh the legislative process.

And I'm doing this because Charter Section 2.117 places the records in the committee structure into the hands of the custodianship of the clerk.

And we have a board rule.

I think it's 2.8.

I don't have it right in front of me, but it states that the clerk of the board needs to be sure that every single item is ready for board action before vote is taken on that item.

So in order to do our job from introduction on a Tuesday to release of the legislation introduced on a Thursday, we have two days to unwrap all of these items and make sure they are complete.

We are going to be placing them not on a pending list, but in an area until the city attorney and I come to some kind of agreement on the legislative format of these items.

We are getting complaints from the public on items that have already been approved, Mr.

President, that there are hidden items in these document documents, not on purpose, but inadvertent, and that is not how I would like our legislative process to be uh well to be seen as.

I'm available for questions.

Uh President Mandelman.

Sorry, it's not.

I don't get a I don't get a thing.

I don't get a I don't have a do-head key.

Oh, well, in that case, never mind.

Then I don't get to speak.

Um I want to I want to thank the clerk uh for those comments and uh certainly interested in in discussing the the new um proposal and hearing from the city attorney um their view of that.

Uh the only thing I would say is that um the I talked about the accretion of requirements over time.

They do get added one by one, and they are simple and easy to understand as they get added and usually do something that sounds desirable or good or positive, but they get added to a stack, and the stack grows every year, decade after decade, and real human beings who are asked to deliver for San Franciscans are confronted with those stacks and find themselves mired in systems that are impossible to make, or not impossible we hope not impossible, but very, very hard.

So I don't want to discourage the kind of activity that the city attorney's office has taken on here, and I do think that even with the stream, you know, what feels like big streamlining coming out of this board of supervisors, we're leaving so much complexity in place, so many requirements that go well and beyond what your average jurisdiction or even your above average jurisdiction would do.

Um I think it's a challenge.

And I think the likelihood that people would take on the sort of one by one repealing of requirements in the way that they were added over time is pretty unlikely.

So I do think there has to be some kind of batching mechanism, and you know, maybe there's some middle ground here where we figure out a way to batch in a way and and if that could be worked out on the front end.

I know the city attorney's office, you know, for this might have thought of this legislation in a different way, but I don't want to discourage the activity of asking departments and asking the city attorney's office to look for all the things that don't make sense, come up with those lists, give them back to us as legislation, and have the board take action to try to make the city more governable and the operation of city government more efficient.

So thank you.

In many ways, the pure size of this ordinance is reflective of the complications in the code, and I think to your point this is especially after the amendments we're gonna consider, basically getting rid of things that are not used by anybody.

Um so I think it's worth us discussing all that going forward.

I think it is important the public understands, but um we also have to be able to move forward in having you know several hundred individual pieces of legislation, unless you're trying to win a contest for most pieces of legislation passed, which based on your your landmarking, you might be.

No, anyway, uh President Mandelman, thank you.

Um before we get into to more of the policy discussion, I want to make sure we hear from the public.

Um, unless any of my colleagues objects, I'd like to um open to public comment and colleagues.

All right, madam clerk, can we open public comment, please?

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on this item should line up now.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Sure, it appears we have no public comment.

Thank you, madam clerk.

Seeing no one else making public comment, public comment is now closed.

Um I strongly believe in the merits of this ordinance.

Um President Mandelman, thank you for leading on the key policies um kind of represented here, not only in this legislation, but also um to a larger extent across a lot of the cleanup uh that you've been leading on.

Um but I especially want to thank our city attorney, David Shu, um, and definitely Andrea Bruss, who has worked so hard um on this.

Um, you know, much like some of the commission streamlining, we're looking at um this isn't about efficiency for speaking's sake, this is about public trust, public transparency.

If the public can't trust us to stop doing things that nobody needs, how can they trust us to start doing the important things?

So I think this is wildly important to take on.

And I think it's a good reminder that we shouldn't wait until we have to do a hundred and I'm gonna forget the number here.

119 of these all at once, and maybe we can kind of take a crack at these more often.

The other group who I hope benefits highly from this is our city staff, who, you know, we're hearing a lot about budget deficits and the like, but at the end of the day, we rely on our city staff to provide services, and when we ask them to do things that do not actually provide real services, we're wasting taxpayer dollars, and we're putting a huge burden on the fantastic employees that we are lucky to have here in the city.

And so I think even if it's just saying to the people who work here, hey, we respect your time, we respect your mental health.

I think that's incredibly important as well.

So I'm frankly very excited that this large, large, large ordinance is gonna move forward today.

Um, you know, we need to deliver on the promise of good government.

Um before moving this on to the full board, uh, I want to look at the amendments.

Um, first I want to make sure President Mandelman, your amendments are sufficiently read into the record.

I think you did a good job earlier.

Do you want anything to uh clarify on any of those before we make a motion?

No, okay, great.

Um, so let's make sure we take those amendments, which I believe you have and add them to the file.

Um any other colleagues from any other comments rather from colleagues before I make a motion?

Great.

I'd like to uh move to amend the legislation as detailed by President Mandelman.

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as detailed by President Mandelman.

Vice Chairman Mood.

Vice Chairman Mood I.

Chair Sherrill?

I.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Um great.

I now want to discuss amendments that Charlie Shamas from Supervisor Chen's office referenced earlier.

I've circulated these amendments with committee members with the clerk.

Um, these are focused on reinstating three reporting requirements from the planning department.

Um, jobs housing fit report, short-term rentals report, and the housing inventory report.

These are about retaining transparency around important information about our true housing supply and not just production.

Um specifically, these amendments create a new administrative code section 10E as an Edward with subject with subsection, excuse me, 10 E.1 annual housing reporting requirements starting on page 69 of the legislation.

Um section will have four subsections, A through D is in DOG, that encompasses a purpose section, a finding section, a section that reinstates the three aforementioned reports and a hearing process for the board to dive deeper into the reports.

Um additionally, these amendments also incorporate the affordable housing production and preservation fund report on page 29 line 17.

Um, we're in a housing crisis, and these amendments acknowledge that.

So we need to push for bold policies that really actually address the cost of living, and hopefully these reports will ensure that our policy discussions are informed by by real metrics.

Um, so I definitely want to thank Supervisor Chen, Charlie, also thank you for being here today and for your hard work on this.

I want to thank my legislative aid, Lorenzo Rosis.

Um, and I also want to thank uh the planning department, especially Dan Sider, um, for working really hard to get to the right solution, one that balances costs.

Um there will be no additional FTEs necessary for these and balance is getting the right uh information out to the public and frankly to policymakers.

Um with that, um I'm gonna make a motion to add these circulated amendments to the file.

But before I do so, Charlie Dan, did I miss anything here you'd like to add for the record?

Great, thank you.

Comments from colleagues?

Great, thank you.

Seeing no further comments, I'd like to move uh to the amend the legislation as circulated by me.

Um reinstating these three reports to be conducted by the planning department.

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as circulated as circulated, excuse me, by um Chair Sheryl.

Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Uh now that we've incorporated both sense of amendments, um, I'd like to move to send this ordinance to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Yes, and on the motion to forward this uh ordinance as amended to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Vice Chairman Mood.

Vice Chairman Mood I, Chair Sheryl.

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Um, thank you.

Uh thank you to all of you here for that as well.

And Madam Clerk, can you please call item number two?

Yes, item number two is an ordinance amending the police code to modify provisions of the fair chance ordinance that regulate the use of criminal history in certain employment and housing decisions, specifically by providing that employers and affordable housing providers may not use out of state criminal convictions or arrests for conduct that is lawful in California related to abortion related health care, drag performances, gender affirming care, and spontaneous abortion as defined in making certain employment or housing related decisions, increasing administrative penalties for violations, and increasing liquidated damages available in a lawsuit.

Thank you.

Um before we get into the details here, um, Vice Chair McMood, I want to just especially thank you for introducing um this item.

Often San Francisco decides to lead on things that maybe we shouldn't.

This is absolutely something we should.

And so I know we're uh joined here by Willi Tobeno, uh, executive director of the Human Rights Commission to present.

Um I see Honey Mahogany here as well.

I see Diana Roche, a lot of great folks here on this item.

Um, but Vice Chair Mahmood, I'd like to turn this over to you.

Um, thank you, Chair Sheryl.

Um, I should just hand it over to uh Director Tobino first.

Great.

Uh Director Subeno, floor is yours, uh good morning, Chair, uh Supervisor Mahmood.

Um my name is Mowgli Tibeno, executive director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the proposed amendments to the fair chance ordinance.

For more than 60 years, the Human Rights Commission has protected civil and human rights of San Franciscans through enforcement of cities uh the city's anti-discrimination laws.

And that includes the fair chance ordinance as one of those critical protections.

Um the amendments have been quite long in the making.

Um they are uh were presented to my commission in unanimously supported.

Um the original ordinance reflects a simple but important principle that people should be evaluated based on their qualifications, their conduct, and their ability to contribute, not permanently excluded because of past involvement with the justice system.

When the ordinance was first adopted, uh I remember um hearing concerns from every corner of the city uh about what it means for what it could mean for employers, for landlords, and other housing providers for um and what it meant for public safety for the city.

And for more than a decade, um, and after a decade of um uh evidence, we have seen that those concerns have not come to fruition.

Instead, the fair chance ordinance um has expanded um access to opportunity, uh supported successful re-entry and reduced recidivism, and helped reduce barriers for folks generally.

They have demonstrated that public safety and fairness are not competing values, they reinforce one another.

The amendments before you build upon the successful foundation that we created uh all those years ago, and specifically they clarify that out-of-state convictions and unresolved arrest related to conduct that is lawful in California, including reproductive health care, miscarriage related care, gender affirming care, and drag performance cannot be treated as directly related to housing or employment decisions under the fair chance ordinance.

These re amendments respond to a rapidly changing legal landscape across the country.

From our perspective, this proposal is fundamentally about ensuring that our civil rights protections remain meaningfully accessible and responsive to current realities.

The human rights mandate, human rights commission mandate under the charter is to advance civil rights and make recommendations that protect San Franciscans from discrimination.

These amendments are consistent with that responsibility.

They reinforce San Francisco's long-standing commitment to ensuring that women, transgender and gender expansive people, and all residents are not denied access to employment or housing because of conduct that is lawful and prohibited in the state.

The amendments also provide clarity for employers and housing providers by maintaining the ordinance's focus on convictions that are genuinely related to health and safety concerns.

I would also like to thank his staff, the HRC team that worked on this.

Jude Dybold is here for support and the audience right behind me and worked for all those years to advance this legislation.

Honey Mahogany, director of the Office of Transgender Initiatives, and Brittany Chikwata and others.

I would also especially like to thank the advocating organizations who helped push this forward originally and have come together again to improve the law today.

Thank you so much, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Director Tugbinho.

Vice Chair McMoon.

Thank you, Chair Cheryl, and thank you again, Director Topino, for sharing those remarks.

This Pride Month, we are watching, unfortunately, politicians across the country turn health care, identity, and self-expression into grounds for punishment.

Earlier this morning, I was joined by controller Malia Cohen, Planned Parenthood and President and CEO, Dr.

Nicole Barnett, HRC Director, Office of Transgender Direct Initiatives, Director Mahoney Mahogany, Department of the Status of Woman Director, Dr.

Diana Oroche, Transgender District Coexecutive Director, Brianna McCree, the Transgender Law Center, Policy Attorney Andrew Ortiz, and the SF Pride Director Suzanne Ford, as we heard so many facts about what is happening across the country today.

The facts of those is that in at least 13 states, abortion is now banned entirely and enforced with criminal penalties.

Across the country, people are being investigated, prosecuted, and criminalized for seeking reproductive health care, experiencing miscarriage, or helping someone access that care.

At the same time, nearly 30 anti-trans bills have already been passed in 2025 to 26 alone.

Targeting gender-affirming care, drag performance, and LGBTQIA plus expression.

And when people are criminalized under these discriminatory laws, those convictions can follow them long after they leave those states.

They can follow someone into a job interview, into affordable housing application, and to every attempt to rebuild their life safely and with dignity.

San Francisco has long been a refuge for people seeking freedom, safety, and opportunity.

And now we must ensure that discriminatory laws from other states do not continue harming people once they arrive here.

The current fair chance ordinance limits how employers and affordable housing providers can use quote unquote criminal history in employment and housing decisions.

This legislation updates that framework to respond to the changing legal landscape across the country.

Specifically, this legislation makes clear that employers and affordable housing providers in San Francisco cannot use out of state convictions related to reproductive health care, gender affirming care, drag performance, or gender expression, as a basis to deny someone employment or affordable housing when the conduct is lawful in California.

This legislation strengthens due process protections for applicants, clarifies timelines for reconsideration when background checks are inaccurate or improperly used, and strengthens penalties for violations.

We are already seeing more transgender people, LGBTQIA plus people, and women relocate to cities like San Francisco because of escalating attacks on their rights in other states.

A recent national survey estimated that more than 400,000 transgender Americans have relocated since the 2024 election due to anti-trans laws and policies in their home states.

I was talking to Dr.

Nicole Barnett from Planned Parenthood this morning as well, who noted that she and their San Francisco clinics for Planned Parenthood have treated individuals who have come from other states still with their luggage in hand.

That discrimination should not follow people here in San Francisco.

This ordinance is about making sure that people are not permanently punished for who they are, for how they identify, for the health care they gave or they sought, or the way they express themselves.

This legislation was developed accordingly in close partnership with the Human Rights Commission and the Office of Transgender Initiatives.

I want to especially thank my friend Director Mahogany for her leadership in bringing this to my attention initially and all her advocacy and continued work in fighting for transgender San Franciscans and the broader LGBTQI Plus community during this incredibly difficult moment nationally.

I also want to thank Director Mauly Tobino, who has been working on this apparently for over 12, 14 years, since he was in uh then Supervisor Malia Cohen's office, but has continued that work at the Human Rights Commission for their collaboration in shaping this legislation and for their continued commitment to advancing civil rights protections in San Francisco, as well as to our drafting deputy city attorney, Brianna Voss.

I want to give a very special thank you to Jude Diebold uh for being the primary drafter of this legislation.

As I understand it, she they have been fighting for this legislation for years and continued to push it forward despite obstacles, despite blockers, and your tremendous amount of legal work and policy work and dedication is what led us to today.

Thank you as well to all the community partners and advocates who helped inform this effort, including Planned Parenthood, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, the Trans Law Center, and the Transgender District.

I also want to acknowledge the Department on the Status of Women and all the organizers, advocates, legal experts, and impacted community members who have pushed the city to modernize and strengthen the fair chance ordinance.

Thank you as well to Director Pat Mulligan of the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement for their collaboration on the enforcement provisions.

I want to again also recognize Supervisor Malia Cohen, then Supervisor Millie Cohen and now State Controller Cohen, and her office, as well as former Supervisor Jane Kim and her office for their leadership in establishing the original Fair Chance Ordinance Framework years ago.

We noted this morning how back then it was a tough fight to get this passed initially, but it is an important moment to recognize in our city's history that that same fight did not occur this time, because we have moved the goalpost and shifted this to be simply uh common sense in San Francisco that we should be defending basic human rights.

Thank you again to my colleagues, Supervisor Dorsey and President Mandelman for your early co-sponsorship, and finally, I want to thank my staff, Will Mack Vee and Sam Logan from my office for their work on this legislation.

Because in the end, San Francisco should be a place where people can rebuild their lives with dignity and opportunity, not continue to face discrimination because of extremist laws elsewhere in our country.

Today I urge for your support in moving this legislation forward to the full board as a whole, because this Pride Month, it is vital to ensure San Francisco remains a city where everyone can live openly, safely, and free from discrimination.

Thank you, Supervisor McMood.

Um, Madam Clerk, let's take public comment.

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

All speakers will have two minutes.

Hi, supervisors.

Thank you for taking public comment on this issue, and I want to thank everyone involved.

Uh, my name is Carla Gomez Artiaga, I'm the co-director of the transgender district.

My colleague gave testimony this morning at the press conference.

I just want to register our official uh um support for this ordinance and to recognize the reality of our trans community as one in three suffer from employment discrimination already.

One in three experience unhoused um situations.

We want to reiterate the importance of these types of ordinances that give people a fair chance to have a livelihood, especially at this time when we're being criminalized for access to health care, access to even relieving ourselves in bathrooms, with felonies and other uh fees being charged.

So thank you so much for this proposal and for moving these through.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public comments?

Public speaker, excuse me.

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Great.

Uh seeing no one else being public comment.

Public comments now closed.

Um Madam Clerk, I'd like to add myself as a co-sponsor of this item, please.

Um, well, do you want to make a motion?

Uh move to make a motion to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Yes, and then the motion by uh Vice Chairman Mood to forward this ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Vice Chairman Mood.

Victor Mood I, Chair Sheryl.

Hi.

Chair Sheryl, I have two eyes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Um item three.

Thank you all for being here on this item.

Um Madam Clerk, can you please call item number three?

Yes, item number three is a resolution approving the San Francisco Police Department's use of equipment policy 2025 annual report consistent with the criteria set forth in state law.

Thank you.

Um today, I believe we have Captain Matt Mason and Carl Nasita government affairs manager with San Francisco Police Department to present on item number three.

Carl, welcome.

Good morning, Chair Sheryl.

Thank you.

Good morning, Supervisor Mahmood.

As you said, I'm Carl Nasida, government affairs manager for the police department.

I'm joined by Captain Matt Mason as well as Sergeant Eric Batchelder.

I'll give a very brief process overview about Assembly Bill 481 and then turn it over to Captain Mason to walk you through the details of our 2025 annual report.

Assembly Bill 481 was enacted in 2021, and it requires California law enforcement agencies to obtain their governing body approval before acquiring funding or using defined categories of military equipment.

Covered items include armored vehicles, robots, specialized firearms, ammunition, tactical gear, as well as drones.

An agency's government governing body must pass an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy before the department can acquire or deploy covered equipment.

And then agencies must prepare and publicly post an annual report summarizing use, compliance with the policy, any complaints as well as cost, including acquisition, training, and maintenance.

The department must also announce any intention to acquire additional equipment subject to the provisions of AB 41, as well as hold at least one well-publicized community engagement meeting within 30 days of releasing the annual report before requesting approval of the annual report by the governing body as well as approval to continue using the equipment described therein.

So the San Francisco Police Department publicly released its AB 481 2025 annual report on January 22nd, 2026.

The department announced via press release as well as an Instagram and ex post two community engagement meetings to present the findings of the report.

That first community engagement meeting was held virtually on Monday, February 9th via Microsoft Teams.

And then the second meeting was held in person at the Southern Station Captain's community meeting on Wednesday, February 18th.

Finally, the department also presented the annual report to the police commission on March 4th, which was just another opportunity for public engagement.

So today we are requesting this committee forward a resolution to approve the annual report with recommendation to the full board of supervisors.

The board's approval will authorize the department to continue to use the equipment described within the report as well as our approved policy.

Now I'll turn it over to Captain Mason.

Good morning.

I'm just gonna basically go with the through the equipment we use, and I think you can follow along on the uh screen.

So Section A, unmanned remotely piloted powered ground vehicles.

So that's kind of a fancy name here for we have throbots.

Um there are many robots.

You can see a picture on the screen.

Um they've been utilized um seven times throughout the year, and they're usually used in high-risk tactical operations, search warrant service.

I'm the captain of the tactical company, so basically our SWAT teams would use these before he was doing an entry.

We'd try to throw them in the door and they show a picture back so before entering we can look at them.

Um other robots listed under this section were used for training purposes.

There were no complaints of injuries or violations reported discovered.

The total annual cost of the equipment in this section uh was four, and forty-five dollars, and we don't intend to acquire any more in 2026.

Um section B.

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs or armored personnel carriers.

Um we currently have one vehicle that would match this description.

It's a Lenko bear cart armored vehicle pictured below.

Um it has a Liberator 3 ramp system.

So the one picture doesn't have a ramp system.

Think like metal ramp.

Uh basically uh in San Francisco, obviously, we have flats, we have store high story buildings.

You can use the ramp to get into those buildings, bring personnel in there, not just for SWAT entries, you could use them for any type of mental health or Hoshes negotiation situation.

Also for the airport, the ramp specifically works with going up to wings to get people in and out of the airplane.

Um it's quite large.

You can see 10 to 12 people in there.

It's used for high risk tackle operations and high-risk search warrant service in 2025, 42 times it was deployed, no injuries, complaints, or violations were reported discovered.

It costed $1,500 to use in 2025.

In 2026, the department's looking to find a new Lenko Bearcat, and should it be determined financially possible.

And all this information also covers what's in section C of the report.

Uh moving on to Section D, command and control vehicles.

We have five command and control vehicles.

They were deployed in 2025 for safe shopper, crime prevention, public safety operations, pre-planned city events, and DUI checkpoints.

Think like large motorhomes at uh Union Square, that'd be one of them.

Um you go out to Carnival, kind of like a mobile office.

That's what these are used for.

No injuries, complaints, or violations are uh discovered.

Uh they cost just over $100,000 in 2025, and then we're looking to add in one more in 2026.

Battery ramp slugs, breaching apparatus that are explosive in nature.

Uh we currently have 14 breaching tools, they're utilized during train exercises, high-risk tactical operations, high-risk search warrants to breach doors.

So, basically, we're talking about uh equipment to get in through the door.

Uh no one was injured, no complaints or violations reported discovered.

It cost $13,252.22 cents in 2025, and we intend to maintain our stock of that in 2026.

Flashbangs, tear gas, explosive breaching tools, and pepper balls.

Uh, the department currently has flashbangs and pepper balls, not just a tactical company.

Um currently the department has rolled out pepper balls for the station personnel.

Um flashbangs utilized 31 times.

Um I can comment on what flashbangs are if you have any questions later.

They're used during high-risk tactical operations and pepperball was used one time for the same purpose.

No life-threatening injuries were sustained by suspects during deployment, and there's one pen investigation regarding the use of pepper balls, and that was a uh utilized uh per department policy in a demonstration where uh marketing and fell during the year.

In 2026, the department intends to maintain our stock levels, and it cost $15,292.67 last year.

Taser, shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons.

Uh we don't have any of those, but we do have long-range acoustic device.

Think uh megaphone, like on steroids, huge thing.

You go out to a big public event, you plug it in to your police car, and it's just a massive megaphone.

We don't use it for any shock waves, it's not used for that.

It's called an LRAD long-range accusative device.

Think 4th of July, need people to disperse, have to hear many blocks away.

We use that massive megaphone.

Um it was used 52 times in 2025, only as a public address system.

During high risk warrant service tactical operations and for crowd control, and I kind of described the crowd control.

No injuries or complaints were reported.

And $59,666 was the annual cost, and we don't attend to acquire any more in the new year.

Specialized firearms, ammunition classifies assault weapons, but less than 50 caliber, excluding our standard issue weapons.

We currently have 16 submachine guns and 80 fully automatic short barrel rifles.

The 16 submachine guns are specifically used in our weapons and mass destruction trailers.

They're set aside for that in case uh an event like that happens where they can't be used again, they'd be thrown away.

They're specifically set aside for that.

They're not on the street or deployed.

The 80 fully automatic short barrel rifles are utilized by the SWAT team.

Um there was one incident we had an officer involved shooting where the short build rifle was used and uh result in the death of the suspect.

Anytime an officer involved shooting happens, it's a multi-agency investigation that is not led by the police department, it's led by the district attorney's office, and that's what's happened in this and it's an ongoing investigation.

All uses were in line with the department's use of force policy, no complaints or use violations reported.

And in 2025, all those weapons cost us uh 17,831 dollars and eighty-eight cents.

In 2026, we intend to acquire additional full R short barrel rifles for newly assigned officers to the tactical unit SWAT team, especially specialist teams.

Uh projectile launch platforms and associated munitions, 40 mm beam bangs, rotor bullets, and specially impact munitions.

So what we're talking about here is less lethal munitions are used in patrol and on tactical operations.

The department currently has 40 millimeter launchers and six not and six non-lethal ammunition types.

So the 40 million launcher is like one, so it's just one projectile at a time.

Um they're utilized 38 times in 2025 during critical incidents, high-risk tactical operations, service of search warrants and incidents involving armed or dangerous subjects.

Non-life threatening injuries were sustained by suspects during these incidents, but no other injuries to civilians or officers were noted.

There's one pain investigation regarding the misuse of a 40 millimeter foamaton.

That's the same uh investigation that the pepper ball is being investigated by.

The total annual cost of the equipment was 562,513.30 cents.

In 2026, the department intends to acquire additional 40 million launchers to maintain our stock levels.

Unmanned remotely powered drones.

Uh we have 98 aerial drones.

They were deployed approximately uh 1,122 times for patrol, training, criminal investigations, critical incidents, and planned operation.

Flight logs are available public in the department's website.

Uh no complaint injuries or use violations reported or discovered.

The total annual cost for the equipment of this section was $5, uh $277,107 funded through a donation approved by the Commission of the Board of Soups.

And in 2026, the department intends to explore acquiring additional drones.

Drones in our tactical world here are really the flown in, look for suspects, contain the perimeter.

Um they kind of replaced the throwbots.

That's why you'd see that number coming down.

Equipment not included in the department's report.

It's not included because it's not in inventory, and we're not going to inquire them.

Any tracked or armored vehicles.

Uh, this legislation really came out of uh cities and municipalities taking uh military equipment from the military to get it donated to them so they would donate tract armor vehicles, which we've never had, and we don't intend to get them.

Weaponized aircraft, we don't have anything with guns on it, we don't have any aircraft except for drones, but and this thing's talking about planes or boats or vessels of any kind.

Uh we have no firearms or ammunition over 50 caliber, and we have no like firearm or firearm accessories designed to launch an explosive projectile.

So that'd be like in your movies.

You have your machine gun and your Arnold terminator, and there's like a there's like a uh shoots a like a grenade below it.

We don't have any of those.

They're not even like in stock at the police range.

Um that's about it.

If we have any questions, uh sure.

I have um I I just have a couple questions around the costs, and this is not like uh why are we spending so much?

It's more like I just don't understand what the costs mean.

Okay, so like the throbots cost $1,445 a year.

What is that cost?

Is that because we bought a new one, or is that like, so they're gonna be repairs on those?

Those things don't work too good.

We really like the drones.

The throwbots are really basically used in the tactical world, or if we were called like a patrol scene and you're just gonna be able to do that.

So that would be that cost would be like a repair.

Repair, right, yeah.

They like they break, and then also you have to send them back.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, and then because then drones then had a cost of 562,513.

That's a huge like so.

What is that?

So that's gonna be buying the drone.

So we didn't buy the drones, yeah.

So we're kind of mixing a little bit of operating and capital expenses here.

Yeah, that's why we're not intending to buy an AMO throwbots.

Okay, great.

Um, and then similarly, the bear cat cost fifteen hundred dollars to use.

Right.

How does like what's the cost of the gas?

Yes, gas or like repair at central shops.

It's also fifteen years old.

It's kind of I mean it's pretty cheap to operate.

That's a UWASI, which uh now has been defunded, but you always use a regional asset, so it's purchased through that originally.

Great.

And then it looked like the command and control costs were a lot higher.

Is that because we just use them more in gas or like yeah, and there's also repairs.

So those those motorhome type things you see at UN Plaza.

There's one we call the MIOC, which would be like the new fancy one.

The other ones are quite old.

Okay.

You know, I've worked one in personally where it was covered with mold, and that all needs to be clean.

Got it.

What is a new one cost?

Uh I don't I think we have about $800,000 that we got from our organized retail theft grant to purchase a new command gun.

We think it'll cost about less than a million, but less than a million.

Okay, great.

Uh great.

Thank you.

Um, great.

Um Madam Clerk, let's take public comment and general speaking.

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

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment for this item.

Comment uh public comments now closed.

Um, I'd like to move to send this board to uh this item to the full board with positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

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

Vice Chair Mahmood.

Vice Chairman Mood I.

Chair Sheryl.

I Chair Sheryl, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Madam Clerk, can you please call item number four?

Yes, item number four is a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee to cast an assessment ballot in the affirmative for the proposed renewal and expansion of a property and business improvement district known as the downtown community benefit district, where with respect to certain parcels of real property owned by the city that would be subject to assessment in set district.

Thank you.

Today we have Jackie Hazelwood, community benefit district program director from the Office of Economic Workforce Development to present on item number four.

Jackie, thank you for being here.

Um, thank you, and good morning, Chair Cheryl and Vice Chair Mahmood uh Jackie Hazelwood, community benefit district program director with the office of economic and workforce development.

I'm here today to present on a resolution authorizing the mayor or his design to cast an assessment ballot in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco as the owner of 16 parcels of real property over which the Board of Supervisors has jurisdiction that would be subject to assessment in the renewal and expansion of the property and business improvement district named the commute downtown community benefit district on May 19th, 2026, the Board of Supervisors passed the resolution declaring the intention to renew and expand the downtown community benefit district and thereby initiating the balloting process.

On June 5th, 2026, the Department of Elections mailed ballots to all property owners in the proposed district, with 16 ballots being sent to the city and county of San Francisco.

The mayor could vote on these ballots if the board of supervisors were to approve this resolution.

A list of the parcels is included within the resolution and as an attachment to this item.

As shown in the attachment, the 16 parcels carry a total annual assessment of $63,985.

Representing approximately 0.58% of the total assessments to be levied in the proposed district.

I'm here to answer any questions that you may have, and I also want to just acknowledge that we have Robbie Silver, the executive director of the organization here in chambers with us today.

Excellent.

Uh thank you, Jackie.

Robbie, good to see you.

Thank you for being here today.

Um Vice Chair McMoon, any questions?

Marks?

No?

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, can we take public comment, please?

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on item four should line up now.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment.

We got one, we got one.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm I didn't see you.

I'm sorry.

It's okay.

Go ahead.

You can start.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Cheryl and uh Supervisor Mahmood.

Um we started this process to renew and expand the downtown community benefit district, also known as the Downtown SA partnership a year and a half ago.

Um we are actually um eight years ahead of our renewal schedule because we know that downtown needs to accelerate its economic recovery, and stakeholders are asking for more cleaning, more safety, as well as placemaking services, um, economic development.

We also have this uh great opportunity you might have seen in the news.

Uh it's also at the park commission right now to approve the concept design for embark at era park.

That area is currently outside of our district boundaries, which this would be included.

Um what makes this process very unique and not has not been done before is we are applying a special um assessment to ensure um financial sustainability of programming activation as well as some supplemental clean and safe services to the park once it's completed.

I'm also really happy to say that um we passed our petition drive with about 43 percent of the needed 30 percent.

That is a huge confidence from our property owners who are obviously willing to pay more for these services.

Um, last week we also presented um to the full port commission and received unanimous approval for the port joining uh the CBD for the first time.

So we are very, very excited about this opportunity.

Ballots um will be presented to the full board of supervisors on July 21st, and this is one step further in our legislative process, and we encourage you to send this to the full board today.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public speakers?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else making public comment.

Public comment is now closed.

Um, and I'd like to move to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and then that motion to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Victor Mahmood.

Vicher Mahmood aye.

Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, can you please call item number five?

Yes, item number five is a hearing to consider the city and county's compliance with assembly bill number two five six one and government code section three five zero two point three regarding vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts.

Um, thank you.

Today we have Gigi Whitley, uh Director of Policy and External Affairs at DHR with us, who's going to present on item number five.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Cheryl and Supervisor Makhmood.

I'm Gigi Whitley with the Department of Human Resources.

I'm joined by my colleague Alia Chiste, here to present the annual vacancy recruitment and retention report.

Um I'll be presenting on the citywide vacancy levels and vacancy rates as of May 1st, 2026, including vacancies by employee bargaining unit, as well as updates on recent hiring reforms and ongoing process improvements for recruitment and retention.

You go to the next slide.

Thank you.

Under state law, the city is required to provide an annual report on vacancy levels, recruitment and retention efforts in a public hearing before its governing body.

The law aims to address public sector staffing shortages and turnover coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and improve transparency and workforce management.

If a bargaining unit has a vacancy rate of 20% or higher, unions can request additional information to better understand any issues in hiring, including average number of days to complete the hiring process as well as the number of applicants for vacant positions.

However, DHR's efforts go above and beyond this mandate as we continue to improve each stage of the hiring process, creating a faster, more efficient and effective hiring across the city to secure this talent we need and ensure reliable delivery of public services.

Next slide.

The city calculates position vacancies compared to fill positions to those budgeted to fill.

The annual salary ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors provides the authority to build fill positions in the city's job classifications, including positions excluded from this report, such as temporary positions, commissioners, and elected officials.

However, not every position in the annual salary report ordinance is funded through the budget process and can be filled.

As you know, positions are held vacant to make to meet budgeted attrition savings to account for employee turnover as well as operational needs.

For reporting purposes, the city defines vacancies as those authorized positions minus budgeted attrition levels minus the filled positions as seen on this graphic.

Next slide.

For permanent positions, the city currently has 38,372 FTEs authorized in the ASO in those permanent position categories.

These are funded through the annual budget process and adoption of the annual appropriation ordinance, but also include so-called off-budget positions, which are funded through other sources, supplemental appropriations such as one-time federal grants or general obligation bond positions.

After removing for a calculated attrition rate of 3,998 FTEs and accounting for 32,890 filled positions, we're left with 1,484 vacant positions as of May 1st.

This vacancy level translates to about a 4.3% vacancy rate.

For comparison purposes prior to the pandemic, the city's average vacancy rate was between 7 and 8%.

On the next slide, you'll see a different way to slice the data, really focusing on on-budget positions, which are those permanent positions funded through the annual budget process and considered core operating positions.

We have approximately 35,781 on budget permanent positions, accounting for attrition and filled positions.

We are down to a very low 678 vacant FTEs, equivalent to a 2.1% vacancy rate.

The lower vacancy rate really demonstrates the city's success in efforts to speed up hiring and reduce vacancies, as well as the current fiscal climate, where we have been in a soft hiring freeze for the last 18 months.

As you'll see on the next slide, the trend is shifting downward in terms of our vacancy rates.

It reached a high during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by a slower hiring rate, difficulty filling positions, and a focus on the emergency response.

In October 2022, the vacancy rate reached a high of 14.2%.

Since then, our vacancies have declined more than 60%, reflecting our faster time to hire, and we've reached our lowest level since 200 since 2018.

Through process improvements, improved technology, and many hiring reforms, DHR and our city partners have made substantial changes to the city's hiring and seen significant improvements.

On the next slide, you'll see a breakdown of vacancies and vacancy rates by our bargaining units.

The table shows vacancies from the highest number of total permanent vacancies to the lowest.

You'll notice the city's largest bargaining units have the highest number of total vacancies.

However, vacancy rates vary.

Those rates vary for several reasons.

The differences are mainly due to changes in industry and job market factors, as well as operational needs within the city.

Vacancies are also a factor, as I said, of the citywide hiring freeze, with the exception of public safety and other frontline workers that have been prioritized for hiring.

On the next slide, you'll see the remainder of our 32 employee unions, including some of our smallest unions.

Some of those do have high vacancy rates, just given the few number of positions within that bargaining unit.

However, some bargaining units have no net vacancies and are shown here as a zero.

A vacancy rate count may be actually a negative number, reflecting that the total number of positions that are filled exceed budgeted attrition levels.

For this reason, some of the the sum of total vacancies by bargaining unit don't tie to the summary table.

Next slide, going into just briefly on where we are on some of the hiring forms reforms put into place.

The city has implemented a slew of these over the last several years, including expect expediting the permanent hiring of exempt employees, many who were brought on during the COVID pandemic.

We've added more than a thousand employees to eligible lists and have closed on 207 permanent hires, spanning 72 job classifications.

We've also reduced our time to hire through modernized exam processes, streamlining and reducing medical exams, implementing civil service reforms to reduce unnecessary barriers to city service, and a real focus at DHR on technology, making sure our workforce data can get out quickly and effectively to hiring managers and being able to speed up what were duplicative or manual hiring processes.

And then on the last slide, just a brief uh reminder of where we are in our retention and recruitment efforts.

We have opened and have been very successful with our career center, really focusing with departments on hard-to-fill jobs, especially especially in the trades with programs like apprenticeship SF to expand city jobs and construction and other skilled trades through paid on-the-job training combined with classroom instructions, and given the mayor's focus on rebuilding the ranks, an initiative to really expedite and uh rebuild our police and other sworn officers.

We've accelerated and doubled our police exams, streamline the hiring process and improve the analytics we used to really uh show results, and you're seeing that in the latest academy class, which is at 86% capacity up from 73%.

Happy to answer any questions, appreciate your attention.

I will note we did invite our labor partners if they wanted to present and did not hear back, and but are happy to answer any questions should they have them.

Thank you.

Great.

I have two questions.

Um I keep hearing that we are five to six hundred officers short at the police department, but here I'm seeing the vacancies at 258.9.

Yes.

Give me a little detail around how I should be interpreting.

Sure.

Uh our total vacancies uh in sworn officers at the police department is about 480.

Uh what we've done here is when you account for attrition, which is you know can be applied different ways by a department, it's at that lower number.

So the department does uh have flexibility in how they apply attrition.

I'm I don't understand that.

When I hear, and and I'm gonna like treat me like a fifth grader here.

Sure.

I don't need that.

Uh when I hear that the police department is short 480 sworn officers.

What I hear is that if tomorrow 480 laterals showed up or something, we decided to hire them, boom, we have positions, we can slap them in and start paying them money.

It's obviously more complicated than that, but like that's basically what I hear.

Yes.

Then I hear with attrition and blah blah blah, it's actually 258.

And so I don't, I just I don't understand how attrition applies to that.

Sure.

For you know, this is a citywide report, and the city needs to come up with a standard for how to report these vacancies, right?

It would be overstating on a citywide level if we only reported what is authorized in the annual salary ordinance without attrition.

So that's how the report is framed.

For police officers, um, I believe last year we did report, you know, the the data in several ways, but as you say, Chair Cheryl, they are about 480 FTEs uh vacant in their G2 police officers.

However, for the purposes of the citywide report, we're showing all of the bargaining units with that attrition applied.

And so when you apply a salary savings to each bargaining unit, you come up with that lower number.

Sorry, I I I think I agree with Supervisor Cheryl in our confusion.

If you're accounting for attrition, shouldn't the number be even higher?

No, because the department doesn't have the, you know, when you applied attrition citywide, they would need to make other trade-offs, or the city's general fund would make need to make our other trade-offs to fill those positions, is how you're looking at it on a citywide level.

Are you saying that once those police officers retire, then the position goes away?

No, I'm sorry, I'm not being clear.

I'm happy to provide the data for all vacant positions without attrition.

That is not how the city has determined to do the report.

When you apply attrition by a bargaining unit such as POA, it goes from that 480 number of total vacant uh G2 positions to a lower number.

When the police department is operationalizing their budget, as you say, they are prioritizing as it's the entire city, those uh police officers.

Can you tell me what applying attrition means?

Sure.

And like in like vaguely painstaking detail.

Sure.

So when you adopt the budget, you have uh so many positions in the annual salary ordinance that can be filled.

Attrition, though, is salary savings that is a factor of budgeting to account for things like retirements and turnover.

On a citywide level, it's just a salary savings number that we apply across the board to this report.

So you can imagine that when the police department budget is before you, their attrition rate may look very different than taking that aggregate number and dividing it by all of our bargaining units.

The reason we're doing it this way is because to show it without attrition would overstate what the city can fill across all of its labor units.

So our vacancy rates are not necessarily talking about, and I'm just gonna use the police department here because there seems to be a consensus across the city that we do not have enough police officers.

So I'll just use the police department as an example.

Even though we are 480 sworn officers short, using that number, we couldn't actually hire all those people because we haven't set the money aside, and really thinking about all the money we set aside, et cetera, it's really more like 258 for the number we could hire this year.

How am I?

I guess my real question here is like if we're producing this report, the idea is it's this report is either used for three things.

It's either used for internal staff to do stuff, it's either or policymakers to understand where to focus or to be transparent with the public to tell them what's going on.

Correct.

It's for staff to do stuff that's great.

But it's being presented here, so I assume it's probably for us and for the public to understand.

And I have a hard time seeing like what would the what is the public supposed to do with that information?

What am I supposed to do with that information?

I think the public's supposed to understand that we have 3,998 positions citywide that can that are that are authorized by the board but cannot be filled for budget constraints.

Those departments on an individual level, such as the police department, their budget may look different than an across the board analysis, but I think the goal of presenting the data this way is not to overstate how many positions are vacant and can be filled, because the goal of the report from the state was saying there are too many, you know, vacancies uh in public in the public sector, and cities and counties need to do better, right?

If we were not to report with attrition, the result would be we would have a lot more vacancies that we aren't budgeted to fill.

I think Chair Cheryl and Supervisor Makhmood, you make an excellent point about how when it gets down to the police officer situation or nurses, etc.

Um, that it can be hard to describe.

So I think we can work on that for next time for key job classifications, we can show the data both ways, and that's how excellent feedback.

So just to put a pin on if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that like Supervisor Shell said that we have 480 positions in the police officer department that they are authorized, authorized to fill.

But in Supervisor Cheryl's example, if we magically got a bunch of laterals to come over, we would only able to actually fund 258 of them in a year.

We're not here to speak to the police department's budget.

They may be able with other savings within their department, non-sworn officers, other equipment savings that you heard, be able to meet their salary savings level.

What this report is intended to do on a citywide level is to tell the public and our labor partners, even though you have 38,000 permanent positions approved by the board, you don't have enough money to fill all those.

How that breaks down on a department level is really a part and parcel of their budget.

Um, but again, didn't want to overstate.

Uh, when we look at some of these bargaining units that are above 20%, there may not be resources to fill that or an operational need to fill that.

So then but your point is well taken and happy to revise this.

Would it be fair to say that again we're gonna use the police department?

This calculation says more or less.

The police department has the money next year to fill 258.9 vacant positions.

Maybe they can move some money around from different things to make that number go up or down, but like as we're thinking about what the police department could and is aiming to do.

I just or like what are we trying to?

I just don't understand what we're trying to communicate.

Like I don't get why we have this report.

And if the laws is a stupid state law, I'm okay for that to be the answer.

This is a stupid state law, but like I get why bargaining units are like I I don't understand what we're trying to communicate.

I'm sorry.

I just I don't think.

Yeah, and I I will say, you know, for we have dashboards available to our labor partners that can slice and dice the data differently.

They we do provide the data both with and without this attrition.

Um to your point, um, Chair Cheryl, I think the law was really intended for a different kind of environment and a different um fiscal environment than the city is now.

It's not to take away from the important discussion about um rebuilding our ranks and the need for those 480 plus officers.

I I just look, we're coming up against a very difficult budget environment.

Our partners in labor are going to be seriously advocating for a variety of things, and if we can't understand, like there are like too many vacancies or too much this or not enough that.

Like I just don't I don't know what to do with this.

Sorry, I I just I don't get it.

I don't get it.

Um, I think you've provided a lot of feedback that is very helpful about how we can present the data going forward.

I will say this is how we presented it for the first time last year, and um, you know, I I think the key point here is that the three 38,000 positions that are permanent adopted by the board annually, that the budget doesn't allow all of those to be filled, and trade-offs had have to be made during the budget process.

I'm not gonna continue to harp on this today, but like my next question was looking at page six and by the pages five and six and understanding how those two things differ, but I don't think we need to spend time on that today.

Um I am tempted to continue this hearing to the next.

I'd love to get that more.

Yeah, I'm gonna make a motion to continue this hearing to the next meeting of the government accountability audit.

Uh, government audit and account uh audit, excuse me.

Government audit and oversight committee.

Um, which I believe is July second.

Um yeah, I'd like to make that motion before we call the roll.

Um, I'll try to clarify my questions.

I just I don't feel comfortable.

I will go out on a limb and say that my colleague and I are okay interpreting these things.

We're we're overage intelligence, average intelligence.

Uh, and I think if we're struggling, I'm not sure how the general public is gonna react.

And I feel very strongly that when we're looking at making massive budget cuts, we need to communicate to the public based on the way we talk about agencies and staffing like we we just need to be clear.

And I understand there are a lot of dashboards and slice and dice, but like we spent two years looking at dashboards.

Like they're not all perfect, and sometimes we don't have data, sometimes because we have state laws that are asking us to do things that don't make sense, which could be the answer, and I'm okay with that being the answer.

But for now, like, I yeah.

So I would follow up with more specific questions.

Sure.

You know, maybe we would avoid doing hearing the answers, but uh yeah, I'd like to happy to do that.

Do you want to call for do you want to call for public comment first or do you want to?

Sorry, we didn't we didn't take public comment.

I apologize.

Yes, let's take public comment.

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on this item five, should line up now.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment.

Uh thank you.

Public comments now closed.

Um Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on the motion?

Yes, I'm on the motion to continue this item five to the July second meeting of the government audit and oversight committee.

Victor Mahmood.

I have two ayes.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Um Madam Clerk, can you please call items numbers six through nine?

Yes, item six through nine are three ordinances and one resolution authorizing and approving settlement of lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city.

Um let's open for public comment.

Sure.

Members of the public who wish to speak on items six through nine shall I end up now along the side by the Wendells.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment on items six through nine.

Thank you.

Public comments now closed.

Uh, move to send item six through nine to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Can you please call the roll?

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

Faiser Mahmood.

Chair Sheryl, I have two ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, any other business?

That completes our meeting agenda.