tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 24, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PDT
>> welcome to our land use committee meeting of may 21, 2018. i'm katy tang, to my right, jane kim, to my left supervisor safai and we're joined by supervisor peskin. madame clerk, any announcements before us? >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clark. items acted upon today will appear on the may 29 board of
supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> item number 1 is ordinance amending the planning code to increase the transportation sustainability fee by $5 for projects larger than 99,999 gross feet except in the central south of market area plan. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair and colleagues, and thank you for the chair for scheduling this item and hearing it after the unfortunate scheduling snafu at planning, that was heard by the planning commission, though the 90 days had lapsed and you're all in receipt of a letter dated friday, may 18, which indicates the unanimous recommendation for this legislation by the planning
commission. as a matter of fact if you watch the planning commission hearing, commissioners representing a range of perspectives on the commission actually pushed back on the discussion around whether or not the $2 fee in the central soma should be higher. but we're overall in agreement that the $2 in the central soma plan was probably still too low. but recommended the tsf legislation that is before you today. the new protections put out by the planning department based on what is pepping in the pipeline, shows a significant compromise in the desire. in the desire to accommodate concerns by the planning staff, even though their own study showed that a $5 increase was not only feasible, but actually a drop in the bucket.
we've taken the projected revenue down from 23 million dollars to $12 million with this compromise, but we know that the numbers don't really give us an accurate prediction of the future, which is of course volatile. what is before us is a policy decision that i think we should have made some time ago before for instance, the sales force tower went up and the building that continues to be at a fever pitch throughout the city. today, we have the opportunity to really plan for the future and not make that same mistake again. we have the opportunity to create a transportation fee baseline now that can be reevaluated later and from time to time, and i think we should redo the feasibility study from 2015, because i think we'll find there are other tiers that can be explored in this current hot
market. and the vacancy and rental assumptions made by planning three years ago are out of date. but most importantly the lack of public outcry reinforces what the planning commission knows and said last thursday, these projects are absolutely feasible. that increase to transportation structure benefits these large commercial projects. and again, we heard this two weeks ago, we have a lot of public support, we did not hear any words of opposition. nor did the planning commission and a publicly noticed meeting last thursday, and with that, colleagues, i commend this piece of legislation to you and i would like to thank all of the supporters we heard from at the last meeting. and hope that we can send this to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin.
colleagues, which other further comments, questions? all right. and do any of the department staff want to say anything? >> the san francisco planning department, i want to reiterate on may 17, the planning commission voted unanimously to support the proposed increase in the tsf, $2 in central soma and $5 elsewhere. that concludes the presentation, i'm here for questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. at this time, i'll open it up to public comment then for item number 1. >> my demonstration is not only going to give information pertaining to the topic, but also the 30-day rule where agenda is going to take place pertaining to business and tax of the planning code of south
market. in order for that tax code to be put into effect, i want to highlight this information should be taken under consideration. for the year, 2017, there is a total of $873,923,572 of uncollected taxes from twitter and nine other high-tech companies. this came out in 2017. the year before that, there was a total of $1,357,216,777 of uncollected taxes. that's a total of 2,271,171,143,of uncollected taxes. that is proof how the high tech companies are getting preferential treatment and it's putting a bind on all the
departments and all the people that are economically disadvantaged and vulnerable and have a combination of mental and physical disabilities in our veterans and homeless people. you're wasting money on shelters when the truth of the matter is, this should be spent on low-income families to stop the homeless problem. safai asks how can you finance the homeless problem? i showed him $2 billion that has been wasted not collected from twitter and five other high tech companies. now it's nine high tech companies that is taking advantage of these tax breaks. these multibillion dollars companies don't need a break, the people that are economically -- [bell ringing] -- and homeless on the street need a break. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jeremy polak, speaking on my
lunch break, thank you for considering this. i would like to echo supervisor peskin's comments. i think in general i urge you to support this, at least as proposed here. it's clear to me that the central soma plan could stomach that $5 increase as well. i commend the planning staff on their work on the fiscal feasibility analysis. i think that's really helpful to have those numbers broken down, but that analysis is only as accurate as the data and assumptions that go into it. and seeing analysis based on $74 per square foot price when we saw facebook leasing part towers and that is over $100 square foot, is such a dramatic increase, it shows what incredible demand and profitability there are in the large office towers and we know how much transportation and housing impacts those have. and we need to do a better job of capturing that value.
that uncertainty in the cost and the assumptions in these analysis is what drives a lot of the problems we have in coming to an agreement on issues like this fee and inclusionary housing fee and i urge you to get more certainty and transparency in the numbers. and i think some way to look at the pro forma of the development projects to get a real idea of what the numbers are would go a long way to building trust in these debates we have. [bell ringing] and i think projects that receive public subsidies, you should look at the pro forma to make sure we're all on the same page in debating the fees they pay. i urge you to support this as it's written and reconsider this fee along with the jobs housing fee based on the profitability of office space in the current economic climate. thank you. >> clerk:
next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, so we wrote you a letter supporting this fee increase and it's very good and i would repeat supervisor peskin's words that's it's really just a drop in the bucket, much more is necessary. but i would like to think about feasibility. when i see, when you have these fees, what you're doing is reducing the price of the land under any of those projects. and lord knows, that landowners, including myself have had great windfall over the last 40 years in the price of land under the buildings or vacant land. so when you increase the fees, it's not a really big deal as long as the developer has notice and the owner has notice, you should do them in advance, give everybody notice is going to happen, so they negotiate the price of the land, knowing that these fees are going to be in place. and then the fees can be much higher and we can do a better
job. because none of those projects are feasible without transit. they need the transit as much all the people who ride it do. you're doing the right thing. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 1. >> good afternoon, i'm sharon, we're one of the key development sites in central soma. wanted to say we appreciate the board's consideration as well as the planning department analysis on this. we certainly agree that transportation and infrastructure investment in the neighborhood is very important, which is why the planning process over 16 separate planning commission hearings have created a very comprehensive community benefits package for central soma. $500 million out of the $2 billion anticipated will go toward transportation infrastructure. and we just urge the board to
consider that as you move forward into your tsf recommendations as well as the future central soma plans impact fees on your decision today. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public, please come on up. >> matt field, tmg partners, thank you again for your work. i'm a resident and native and appreciate focusing on transit sustainability and acknowledge the $5 and $2 in central soma, we appreciate that in respect to project feasibility. and would echo sharon's comments, in the context when you take the greater central soma plan, if you can consider all these fees in context, we would greatly appreciate it, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mike russo from kill roy
corporation. i wanted to give the message we're in support of transportation in the region. would like to respectfully ask you when you consider central soma to consider the total fee package, including the context of this transportation sustainability fee. if you do adopt it. central soma plan as mentioned already has a very robust fee package. it's been many years in the making and as was also mentioned is generating $500 million for transportation improvements. so we're certainly in agreement that is important funding and would like to keep that context in mind when the central soma plan comes in front of you, thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: any other comments? seeing no other members of the public who wish to comment, i'm going to close public comment
for item 1. supervisor kim, i think you want to speak after public comment. >> supervisor kim: yes, thank you, chair tang, i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing back the transportation sustainable fee for large nonresidential projects. this was a debate when we were -- when supervisor john okay lis reintroduced the iteration of our impact fees and how the large commercial developers pay into the fee, understanding as we create jobs, there is burden on sfmta and we need to make sure we have a transportation system is able to absorb new workers and residents in our growing city. i just want to say that then i did support a larger increase to our transportation sustainability fee for large nonresidential projects. and support the fee increase outside of the central soma plan
area. actually, a few weeks ago, when i talked to supervisor peskin, i asked to hold back the central soma fees as we are currently looking at all the fees as a whole in the central soma plan in late june. however, the planning commission has now heard the central soma plan and has heard the tsf increase and they have recommended the $2 increase for the central soma plan. so understanding that this is now been supported by the planning commission, i'm happy to support this today. we will have an overall conversation on all of the fees as the central soma plan moves forward to the full board through june and the beginning of july. i'm certainly happy to continue this conversation, but i think given the strong recommendation from the planning commission, i'm ready to support this today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just had a couple of questions for maybe staff?
you can come back up. can you just reiterate, i know supervisor peskin was telling us, but how does this generate inside central soma and outside. >> the $2 is about $12 million. let me get that. >> supervisor safai: either one of you is fine, maybe ms. jones from sfmta. >> yeah, the $2 increase in central soma and the $5 elsewhere would generate under our estimates $11.4 million. >> supervisor safai: how much inside of central soma? >> 8.2. >> and then 3 outside of central soma. >> supervisor safai: is that attached to the actual feasibility. i know the last time the feasibility said it did not compute for central soma.
>> the department analysis was that it did not compute, however the planning commission is feeling strong, it probably could. >> supervisor safai: what was some of the reasoning behind that? >> they didn't hear anybody via e-mail, via public testimony -- >> supervisor safai: there was no financial analysis, it was based on the response from the community? >> yeah. >> supervisor safai: is there a component in here that talks about redoing the feasibility. >> supervisor peskin: the answer is yes and i spoke to that in my remarks and planning is intending to do that in the coming year. but i also wanted to hark back to something i said a couple of weeks ago, which is that in our other incarnation as the san francisco county transportation authority and saying this remembering that the sales tax tanked and that we have the
collective responsibility as part of the transportation task force, 2045 endeavor to find $100 million a year. and as i was clear in the last meeting, this $10-12 million would actually come out of whatever instrument we bring forward, hopefully in november, in order to do our collective part. i also wanted to say that -- >> supervisor safai: i had another -- >> supervisor peskin: sure i just want to add one thing. there are six major sites in the central soma. you have representatives from half of them here today who have stated what they've stated for the record. but i have to say this. which is every single one of these six property owners and developers or companies under contract to buy property, are
extremely sophisticated. each and every one of them pay lobbyists and consultants to read our agendas, week in and week out. this tsf is not a secret. in fact, it was written about publicly, you didn't need a lobbyist or someone who reads the board agenda or legislation introduced, it was the subject of a hearing at this committee. it was the subject of a planning commission hearing. and i do want to state, because i'm mildly annoyed by it, that were it not for an unsolicited e-mail communication from a city official who was actually defying what the planning commission, the oversight body appointed four members by the mayor and three members by the president of the board of supervisors, acted upon last thursday, had that e-mail not gone out on friday, they would
not be here. but i am certain that their lobbyists and consultants knew this legislation is pending. so this is a mildly manufactured thing and i had to get that off my chest because the individual who did that knows i'm less than pleased about it. >> supervisor safai: so back to my question, through the chair, it was about the feasibility. and i appreciate that, supervisor, i'm not trying to mine myself that. what i want to -- minimize that. can we put into the legislation that we have a process for the review? >> supervisor peskin: we do. you can see mr. sanchez is nodding his head. we have that, we are the board of supervisors, we take anything up, simple answer i'm not comfortable inserting that. >> supervisor safai: not for central soma, for the
transportation sustainability fee so we can see how this plays out. i'm fine with what you're proposing today, but what i mean is have the opportunity to look at the fee itself and what impact it has on nonresidential overall, so we can have a report back and see how the impact is. >> supervisor tang: if i can jump in, and correct me if i'm wrong, department staff, but the controller's office is supposed to do analysis of the impact fees every five year and the next time they would do it is next year. this feeds into my comments from the last committee meeting, but i would have liked us to be considering increases to any fees, whether in central soma or elsewhere after the analysis or future analysis would have been done. that would have been my preference. i also shared for about $12 million, you know, it's a small
amount, for a lot of the pains they're going through, but i also understand the responsibility that supervisor peskin has and feels with his role as the t.a. and the chair there. in any case -- ok -- those are my thoughts. but to answer your question, the controller office will have analysis on the impact fees next year. >> supervisor safai: on the tsf? >> supervisor tang: these are impact fees in general. maybe the staff can answer that. >> supervisor safai: i was referring to the idea of this new fee that is going be added to nonresidential. and then having the opportunity to come back and look at the feasibility and what impact that has on incentivizing or disincentivizing. i think it's going to be a positive report based on the passionate feelings of the planning commission.
>> supervisor tang: why don't we turn it over to ms. jones? >> yes, sfmta planning director, sarah jones. there is a review of all city-wide fees every five years, but the board of supervisors also included analysis on a three-year cycle of economic feasibility. >> supervisor safai: is that currently in this ordinance or is that company wide policy? >> yes, we've incorporated into our budget supporting the planning department in conducting that feasibility study. >> supervisor safai: if we pass this today, how much time will pass before we have understanding of the fiscal impact and feasibility of this, three years? >> no. for this upcoming year, the study is going to be undertaken in the next few months.
>> supervisor safai: so a year from now, this will be studied? >> within the upcoming year. >> supervisor safai: got it. ok. that sounds good. thank you, madame chair. >> supervisor tang: ok, so hearing that, i could have gone both ways, right? i would have again preferred that regardless if it was a controller analysis of the city-wide impact fees or the tsf feasibility analysis coming up in the upcoming year, i would have loved the increase to be associated with those studies, but you know, i will defer to our district supervisor where much of the impact is, as well as the planning commission that supported it. so it is what it is today. supervisor safai, still comments? >> supervisor safai: one more through the chair to supervisor peskin, when i heard the comments, i think we talked about this for a second, the idea that there is $500 million in fees that are being generated by central soma.
there is a lot of conversation about transportation and overall fees. we're going to be taking that up in the next two months. so the idea of taking this and putting it into the consideration of that and potentially having that -- >> supervisor peskin: why don't we have ms. jones attempt to address that who will be more articulate than i ever will be. >> this is just scratching the surface of the issue, but there is a distinction between what the fees that come off of development projects pay related specifically to an area plan, or to a community benefit district, and what we are able to spend our transportation sustainability fees on. the money that is levied onto development projects in the context of an area plan, some of it goes to that invisible stuff
that nobody really wants to think about or pay for. but most of it does go to something that is clearly tied to and supporting a development project like a complete streets project right there. or you know, transit. or transportation infrastructure that is within the area and enhancing the area and the development projects overall. in contrast, transportation sustainability fee is a funding source that helps us put money into the transportation system in ways that improves it in sort of a more invisible basic kind of way, so for example, you can use transportation sustainability fee to pay for a new engine for a bus that extends the life of that bus, deals with state of good repair, that kind of thing. so it's not a directly
comparable funding source that you can just swap out indiscriminately. so there is a certain value to mta of tsf that doesn't come from the projects. which are also very important improvements as well. >> supervisor safai: i get that. that makes sense. thank you for the explains. through the chair, i would say that in the context of all the fees considered in this larger package coming up at central soma, there is a point by which we cannot go past, otherwise some of the projects become unsustainable. so i it's important to consider that in the larger context since we're to the end of the road on that debate. we want to consider this fee as part of the larger package that is coming in front of us, but thank you for the distinction, one seems to be more local to the area and one can have impact on the area, but impact in other areas of the city as well. i appreciate that distinction.
thank you, madame dam char x. >> supervisor kim: we are currently working with our key site developers and other soma developers and the community on developing a cohesive plan with all of the fees. it's not to discourage what is happening today, but i feel very confident that when we make a final vote, it will be a comprehensive look at everything together. i feel comfortable supporting the $2 fee and it will be known to everyone that transportation is important. we're not try to prevent development in central soma. we want ta thank to happen. -- we want that to happen.
i do feel comfortable moving forward with this today. it's not that we get another bite at the apple, but again, the whole plan is coming before the land use committee on june 25th. >> supervisor tang: thank you. appreciate your comments. with that, colleagues, do we want to have a motion? any further debate? >> supervisor kim: i'll move for recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. any other items today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor tang: thank you, we are adjourned.
tom from sfgov-tv for staffing this meeting. >> silence your cell phones and speaker cards should be mitt -- submitted to the clerk. items acted on will be on the june 25, 2018, agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> today's meeting public comment will be one minute and item number 3 will be called out of order. also, a motion to excuse supervisor peskin and supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer is not part of the meeting. but supervisor peskin. >> so moved. >> ok. i've spoken with supervisor
fewer and their office would like a continuance -- sorry. mr. clerk, would you please call item number 3. >> clerk: 3, resolution urging the sheriff's department and department of public health to conduct a baseline assessment of existing food vendors and evaluate vendor alignment with the good food purchasing standards. supervisor fewer would like a continuance to the june meeting. any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? thank you. public comment is closed. motion to continue to june 13th? >> supervisor ronen: so moved. >> supervisor sheehy: motion without agenda, motion passes. please call item number 1. >> clerk: hearing on domestic violence and child abuse with review of the family violence
council's findings and recommendations. >> supervisor sheehy: san francisco is the only council with a family violence council, looking at child abuse, domestic violence and elder abuse. only county to publish the family violence data annually. proud to be the board of supervisors representative on the council. one in 12 violent crime calls to 911 involve family violence. it's crucial to give survivors of family violence options, and the number of agencies participating in our family violence council shows diversity of agencies addressing family violence. prevention programming at the san francisco unified school district, to screening for partner violence, to batterer intervention programs at the jails. the report helps us see the critical partnership we have with our community-based agency, who in the areas of child abuse and violence respond to many more families than the city
age agencies. i would like to call lenosh candell, and also katy albright, and then i don't see beverly. >> beverly is stuck in traffic. hopefully she'll be here. >> supervisor sheehy: also on the list, shauna reeves. >> good morning, supervisor sheehy and ronen, thank you for scheduling the hearing and supervisor sheehy. honored to be the department that staffs the family violence council and honored to work with our tri chairs, and the family violence council is an example of a really successful interagency work group here in san francisco that's been able to identify system gaps and
sometimes failures and improve the city's response to child abuse, domestic violence, and elder abuse. we'll be able to talked to about some of the achievements we have had in the past year and then just to echo your comments, supervisor sheehy about the diversity of our representation, i think we are one of the few councils to include our director karen roy is here, and really innovative programming happening at department of child support services to work with families experiencing domestic violence. so, example of how when you reach out to all city departments impacted you can do really innovative family programming. i would be remiss if i did not thank the staff, maggy, hired by the victim services, and lise. the report is data from fiscal
year 2015-2016. always a little behind because it takes us a while to put the report together. and so we'll be presenting on highlights on the data and then as well some of the recommendations that the family violence council has put together based on some of what we have seen with the data. so, we are going to go in order of child abuse, domestic violence and elder abuse, and start with katy albright will present the child abuse data. >> thank you so much, supervisors, for having us here todayism from safe and sound and will be presenting the child abuse highlights, menush will present highlights unless bev gets here on time, and shauna with elder abuse. and ending violence in the community, in so many ways and so many forum, thank you so
much. and equally want to thank the department and the status of women and the leadership of dr. emmy morasi for really moving this effort forward. every good movement needs a backbone organization in the department and the status of women does that. what you read in this report before you get into the child abuse prevention findings, is that this report unlike any other jurisdiction in california is truly connecting the dots between child abuse, domestic violence, and elder abuse. and we know there are generational cycles, we know these types of violences are connected, and so the fact we are looking at it holistically is a great public policy improvement in the direction for our county, and that we can share with other counties throughout california. in addition, this report uniquely is focussed on prevention. how can we move upstream in our work to end violence before it ever happens. and finally, what you'll see in this report as she said, is it's
truly a public-private partnership, that's what makes this so exciting where we can go in the future. we truly all do have a role to play in ending violence. let me turn to the child abuse statistics. a great deal of positive momentum, both on the response side after abuse happens, as well as the prevention side. let me first talk about the response side. there is a general trend that law enforcement is increasing its response to child abuse, investigations from the police department have increased 37% over the prior year, and cases filed by the district attorney's office have increased by 47%. this is mostly due to sexual abuse and child pornography cases. equally good news is that we are seeing as a city not only a decrease in the overall rate of child abuse, actually, if you look at the past 15 years, 67 decrease in the rate of substantiated cases of child
abuse, impacting all of us, great news. and decrease number of children in foster care, low of 738, decrease over the prior fiscal year. san francisco is being, leading a way in the area throughout the state and huge testament goes to the amazing work of the human service agency for being incredibly intentional how to decrease the number of kids in the foster care system. of concerning news, we are seeing a decrease in the number of reports that have been made by school mandated reporters. safe and sound where i work, however, has been providing significant training over the last few years, training last year in this report over 2,000 mandated reporters, and we are seeing 92% of our child serving professionals or saying this they are increasing likelihood to report after having one of these trainings. so, that is good news in terms of raising awareness and
ensuring we are identifying who are the kids hurt in the community. let me turn to some more details about where these reports are coming in. as menush said, the community is providing a significant amount of outreach to people who are in crisis, families in crisis. and playing a key role of being in that front end of the work. the top line which is a 24/7 phone support line run by safe and sound provides, and we have been operating for more than 40 years, we provide that sort of first response to families who are in crisis. whether or not they are seeking child care or housing or diapers or any other kind of support, we get suicide calls, calls where we are helping families get through the crisis of the moments so they don't hurt their child, and similar to domestic violence as you'll see, we are seeing three times more calls to the talk line than we are to our
child abuse prevention response line, which is very good news. we are stopping cases from getting there in the first place. the other prevention component really that has been incredibly supported by the board of supervisors and the leadership of supervisor sheehy in particular, thinking about how we are moving forward on the family resource centers. as you know, there are 26 family resource centers in every community in san francisco. and we are on the front lines providing needed services to improve family's protective factors. parenting classes, diapers, counseling, family dinners, crisis support, case management. whatever families need to keep their kids safe. it's an incredible system. i was just in san diego and in phoenix presenting on it. we are unusual in our impact on providing prevention, primary prevention support to families in crisis, and it is happening because of your leadership and because of the leadership of
dcyf, first five, and human service agency for blending their funding. so, we are thrilled in that, and it's showing significant improvement. now turn to who are the victims of abuse. and here we know that most children are victims of abuse by people that they know. it's not the stranger. 86% of those who are abused knew who their perpetrator, potential perpetrator was, and overwhelmingly there is a disproportionality, latin, and other people of color. seeing that in the numbers coming to the district attorney office, and those coming into the child protection system. it's important to note these are reported cases, these are people who are getting access to services, may already be
involved in the system. and that disproportionality is concerning to us. we also know and this relates to national trends as well that more girls are victims of violence than boys. but when we dig deeper into the data, we see that more boys are victims, particularly older boys, are victims of physical abuse, as opposed to sexual abuse and you see that reflected in this graph. next year we'll be doing a deeper analysis of who are the victims of abuse and who are the families that need extra support to ensure that we are preventing abuse from happening in the first place. finally, let me focus on a few major achievements in this area, and from 2016, 2017, again, the board was wonderful in its leadership to approve $250,000
to support child abuse prevention funding. that has been extremely helpful, in particular providing legal support to children and families who are in crisis. so, thank you very much for that funding. in addition, several years ago as you know, we have created the children's advocacy center in san francisco, and this is really a wonderful multidisciplinary partnership to provide children at risk who are coming in and telling their story to do it in the most trauma-informed way, and we are very pleased to be doing that work and in addition, not just the forensic interview piece of it, but providing the mental health services so that children can heal. not just get justice, but heal from the abuse that they may have endured. and finally, i want to highlight and thank the department of emergency management, it's all about data, we can only do our work if we have data, and the department of emergency management is doing a terrific job in collecting data and also being responsive to the other city departments in terms of
getting the resources and that first response that they need. so, i'll turn it now over to menush to provide an update on domestic violence. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. >> i know beverly wanted to be here to present this part, i will try to fill in, but nobody can match beverly. so, just in terms of some highlights of the data on intimate partner violence for this fiscal year, one of the most concerning data points, increase in domestic violence calls to 911 that involved a deadly weapon. so, 87% increase in calls involving a knife and 53% increase in calls involving a gun. and this directly relates to one of our recommendations which is to create a program at the sheriff's department to actively go after firearms in the hands of domestic violence offenders,
want to flag that for now. and stalking calls increase to 911, partly may be, it could be there is an actual increase in stalking or just better awareness about coding the cases properly because when we look back at 2008, 0911 calls about stalking, and we know it was happening then. a lot of work to educate law enforcement and d.e.m. properly identifying the cases. one really positive note, work done by the public health clinics to screen for intimate partner violence. a lot of domestic violence survivors may seek health in the public health system, may not actively disclose, so, screening and asking everybody about intimate partner violence should be part of routine practice and we saw significant in skreess at department of public health clinics, female patients had, an increase in 80% of people being asked about intimate partner violence, and for male patients,
increase of 201% in the number of people asked. these are not people identified as experiencing, but screened, the first step. as with child abuse, we see that black and latinx residents are disproportionately victimized, and lesbian, gay, bisexual high school students are 2 to 3 times more at risk of physical or sexual dating violence. this is the chart that shows the general san francisco population, race, ethnicity, and then the people who are accessing the victim services at the district attorney's office. just in time. i'll finish this slide and then you can take over. and then seeking services in the community, and you can see that african american and latinax residents are disproportionately represented at victim services. when you look at the asian
survivors of domestic violence, you'll see they are actually accessing community-based agencies at a greater rate, not at the d.a. it's interesting when you look at the data, you can see where are people of different groups accessing services, and again, this highlights the crucial role that the community-based organizations play in providing services to some communities that may not feel comfortable accessing law enforcement. >> thank you, and thanks for doing this. oh, two hours -- >> i was stuck in traffic, too, we started late. >> so, anyway. we have drawn this little pyramid for folks 1,000 times at different venues, right?
so, if you really want to look at where the community is calling where they are reaching out, where they speak their language, where they trust us, look at community calls, 21,000. this is 2016, so it will even be more in 2017 and probably way more in 2018 as people feel less and less safe. missing number is 911, about 7,000. but looking at 3,000 going to the police department, look at about half of that actually going up to s.v.u. right? then that's investigated fully at s.v.u. and moves up to the district attorney's office. so, when we really look at the pattern, people are really seeking their services unless their lives are really at risk in the community. so we want to bring that forward.
also i think you would see the very same trends in child abuse and elder abuse as well. but certainly child abuse with 441 kids hotline, many more calls there than start at law enforcement. p ush pu-- >> so here is some of the highlights. some of the achievements and highlights in the domestic violence response for the city. in 2016-2017, the full list can be found on page 15 of the report. so, hopefully you have a full report. if you don't, i did manage to bring one with me. so, you know, they created and helped disseminate a policy and supplemental form to assist medical providers in complying with the d.v. reporting laws. oh, let me just -- ok. so, health care professionals have to report all individuals
who are showing up at a hospital with an injury that looks like domestic violence. that's somewhat controversial, right? could it have a chilling effect? could it save somebody's life? the answer is yes to both. so i think menush and the community of people around the table, that means law enforcement and the s.f. general came together and revamped that form to be the best it could be for san francisco under the current law. ok. you can read between the lines there. worked with police department, the district attorney's office and the probation department to create new protocols for special victims units when investigators are called out to a domestic violence incident. that's pretty self-explanatory. worked with the superior work and the police department to improve timely entry of d.v. retraining orders and so this was really brought, and you are familiar with the issue, brought
from the community. our attorneys, community-based attorneys came to us and said we are having a very hard time getting, you know, people are walking around with a piece of paper they think is protecting them, and it's not in the system yet. so, i am so pleased that the family violence council, perfect for us, right? brought all the stakeholders and problem solved it. meetings with the judges, records department at the police department, set up a whole new protocol and a new email address, those get filed and sent in to the courts and they are logged in at the end of every day. so, that is a lifesaving accomplishment of the family violence council. sheriff's department enacted an officer involved domestic violence policy to ensure that employees of the sheriff's department who commit domestic violence are properly investigated. so the year before that, we went through the san francisco police department. this 16-17, we got one through
the sheriff's department. so, it's -- it's not, it does not take people totally off the job but limits their access to information about the victim, third parties cannot look into the commuter on their behalf. it changes the pass codes so they don't have access through the computers, as safe as we can make it. looked at about eight promising practices from around the country. >> i want to highlight one of the strengths of the family violence council, you can have a great law, or some cases a bad law, but how the rubber meets the road where it makes the difference, so the family violence council, policies and protocols not necessarily a new law, but make sure the laws on the books are implemented the best way they can be. >> my colleague from elder abuse is up next. thank you so much.
>> supervisor ronen, supervisor sheehy, thanks for having us. i'm very tall, so, honored to be here, presenting with my tri chairs on the family voinz council about elder abuse. i've said it before and say it again. san francisco is so unique in considering elder abuse as part of a spectrum of violence. it is absolutely the truth, but i've not worked in the county yet that has looked at it that way until now, it's my honor to work with both katy and bev and menusha, and the deputy director of the aging adult services here today, i'll be talking about one of her departments. so, generally we are seeing an increase in the cases investigated at adult protective services. cases received by a.p.s. have risen steadily, 23% since 2012. and you can see the number there is quite high.
so, there is about 7,303 elder abuse cases reported. when it comes to substantiated cases, means there is some evidence to support the report, elder physical abuse cases have increased by 21% since the previous year and also d.a. victim services has increased their load by 44% for elder abuse. the top three types of elder abuse, and defined in california are those 65 and above, self-neglect cases, where the person is unable to care for their own needs, food, water, shelter, clothing, medication and california, elder abuse does not have to be committed by another person necessarily, you can also commit against yourself. so, in san francisco those are the highest number of cases. psychological, otherwise known as emotional neglect, or abuse is also quite high in the cases and then financial, and that's the type of elder abuse you are seeing every day now. when it comes to dependent adult
abuse, definition is between the age of 18 and 64, with a mental or physical limitation that makes it hard for them to protect their rights or, or carry out their day-to-day activities, self-neglect is also the top type of abuse reported, followed by psychological, and then physical. and yeah, so we are drawing an important distinction between abuse inflicted by others and self-neglect cases. self-neglect are by far the largest category. and when that is occurring, there are over other types of abuse happening as well. again we see people of color disproportionately affected by elder abuse, particularly the black and asian communities. so, looking at cases served by d.a. victim services, you will see over a presentation by those two ethnicities. there is a much more even gender
distribution for elder abuse than for child abuse. intimate partner violence, it's an issue that affects everyone. however, for the 2017 report, we'll seek to look at the gender of victims across different forms of elder abuse. sexual, physical, financial, this chart includes all abuses toward people over the age of 65, including stranger violence. i want to look a little bit different pyramid, and that cases are first reported to adult protective services in the city as people who work with elders independent adults in the city are required to report, mandated reporters, mandated to report any suspicion of elder abuse, independent abuse in the county. so, again, the number is a lot of cases, 7,303 were reported. substantiated cases, 3,302. police department cases, 608,
and then cases investigated by s.v.u., 114. we've also had some pretty big achievements. institute on aging, which i am a part, was the co-chair of the family violence council elder subcommittee with the d.a.s office and we accomplished creating a supplemental form used by police officers responding to elder abuse case, modeled on the form by domestic violence case, still in the final stages being approved by the d.a.'s office, we are pleased with it. and d.e.m., prioritized calls from adult protective services and child protective services to reduce wait times for city employees that report. so, cases, historically, that have been reported by adult protective services workers have been classified as the priority case, they could be waiting for
quite some time to have police officers respond and now they have been prioritized as a, and those were some of our achievements. some other highlights, the full list found on page 15. menusha will talk about the recommendations. >> so, just to conclude, i'm going to talk about some of the recommendations in our report. a lot of them have to do with improving some of the policies or protocols the police department and special victims unit but i am going to focus on the top one, implementing a firearm surrender program, to remove guns from persons with domestic violence restraining orders issued against them. so, we have a great law in california that provides when a domestic violence order is issued against someone, including in family court and civil cases, they are required to surrender guns they have and cannot purchase guns or ammunition, but it's not self-executing. it says on restraining order