Skip to main content

tv   Aging and Adult Services Commission  SFGTV  February 6, 2021 10:30am-12:51pm PST

10:30 am
that we have. a few named projects and then many categories of investments, whether it's transit and bike and pedestrian and signals and the like. some of them have -- they do have special taxes, so one of the half-pennies in sainta clara, two i believe are for a project, whether on the capital or the operating side. so sometimes counties have proposed and gotten approvals on taxes for a specific project. i think that l.a. metro may have a couple of those operating type taxes as well. but the big one l.a. metro is recently a few years ago was like a huge program, you know. they call it 28-by-28, or 28 projects by 2028. so quite large and ambitious in some cases. but many of the ones around the region are similar to ours i would say. with the exception of the bart
10:31 am
dos san jose one. >> director hinze: how flexible is your plan? if there's a need (indiscernible) and the expenditure plans, if you have to change it and what would we have to do -- what projects do you have to do to basically change the expenditure plan? >> that's a great question. these are meant to be quite durable. so it's important to be as thoughtful as we can upfront. there's some flexibility. for example, within categories, if we had, you know, certain -- certain categories expending faster than others, and the needs were really, really high.
10:32 am
you know, our board could potentially move some funds between categories, given up to the revenue estimate that is outlined in the plan. we have three revenue estimates in the plan called priority one, two and three. so we're still administering at the party one level. and so, again, it's up to priority one level, there could be some opportunity if the board felt that it was necessary or desirable to shift some money back and forth. it's more like a programming action. but it's really not possible really to change -- to do really big changes after the voters approved it. that's the idea is that we're really securing a 30-year commitment and so the way that we have managed that flexibly is to have 20 categories of -- of investments that are kind of more flexible within each of them. such as the transit and the facilities and the guideways and the vehicles, the road resurfacing and the bikes and the pedestrians and the signals.
10:33 am
so that's how we handle it. in a big project, if one were to fall out of the program, for example, there could be some reprogramming of a big project. but so far between two generations of these expenditure plans we have been able to deliv >> director heminger: and this >> director hinze: you mentioned that you're funding at the level one level. when do you move to other priority one, what would that take? >> thanks. in terms of clarifying that, strictly an assumption of the level of revenues coming in. so, if the economy were to boom again and get up to 120 level per year, we would be perhaps to program up to the next level. >> director hinze: so if we added another half cent you could program up to the next level perhaps?
10:34 am
>> oh, right. so -- right. if we did another half cent, the expenditure plan would be able to fund more, and even in that scenario we would probably want to set different priority levels in case. because no one has a crystal ball. that's how we manage the risk of not really knowing if the revenues will come through as we even estimated it at, say, a one cent level. >> director hinze: okay, thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. director heminger. >> director heminger: hello, tilley, how are you? >> hello, dr. heminger. >> director heminger: were you here for last segment? >> i was. >> director heminger: so we have about $700 million of a year, so how much of that can we get from you? [laughter]. in all seriousness, about $260 million of that is a transit operating need. what do you think that our chances are of carving out some
10:35 am
room in your new sales tax, whether it's the same old one or doubling it for operating purposes? >> yeah, that is a fair question. it's certainly a source that can be used for operations. i'd say traditionally -- and this has served us well -- we have sort of made this decision as a city that the sales tax is for mostly capital. again, with 9% for para-transit. and that has served us well. because we do need a stable source for capital maintenance, you know, to match funding opportunities. however, in an emergency, i certainly can see the idea that we would perhaps design the first five years or so eligible for, you know, for economic recovery and sort of meeting the needs of restoring all of these lines. and maybe bumping that up in the first five or so years. that's just an idea. our board is certainly asking us for those options as well.
10:36 am
so working with m.t.a. staff, i tang we want to do this in coordination, knowing that you have all of the other revenue sources that you were looking at as well and perhaps bundling these together. and not to meet all of the different needs, but also to ensure the equitable profile, you know, for the full package of options. >> director heminger: i would encourage you to consider it. as you know, my direct experience with funding measures is through the three bridge toll measures that we passed. and the first one back in the te late 1980s had zero, zippo, for operating purposes. and the other two have allowed more flexibility. and i really do think that that would serve you well and serve us well. we're going to have a hard time finding $700 million bucks in one place, so we need all of the help that we can get. >> thank you for the input. yep. >> chair borden: director eaken.
10:37 am
>> vice-chair eaken: thank you, thank you for being here, tilley, it's nice to see you. just to follow-up on that really quick so everybody understands -- would that decision about programming the first five years for operating, would that have to be made before the sales tax measure is put on the ballot? or is that a decision that your team can make on an ongoing basis? >> no, that would need to be right upfront and built into the measure and written in and adopted by the board and put before the voters. so that's an important decision to make in the measure itself. thanks. >> chair borden: great. any other questions? i want to thank you so much for your time, tilley, and, obviously, the sales tax has a special place in my heart. >> it's a great initiative. i acknowledge that. thank you so much, chair borden. >> chair borden: i think what we should do, and staff, i am imagining that you're planning to look at this process as we go through it to make sure that when that committee is convened that our priorities are at the
10:38 am
table. i remember last time, it was the first time that bart was included and everybody was kind of at the table and making sure they got their piece of the pie. so i think that if one of our to-dos in the next segment is thinking about these things and thinking how to carve things out from that potential sales tax and looking at whatever the projections are in the future. i guess that the decision, tilley, is it a decision -- when is this decision about whether or not we'll have basically two at the same time or when are we making that decision? >> yes. i think that we would need to make that decision by the end of the year, really, on a practical basis, in order to ensure that we have certainty about our direction by winter. and then we would, you know, basically go back out to the voters and educate folks and get final input. the measure itself needs to go on the ballot in the march time frame for voter consideration in june. >> chair borden: great. and then i see director eaken has another comment.
10:39 am
no, okay, never mind. all right, any other questions or comments before we move to our next segment? since this is not something that our agency is not doing and they're proposing it, we're going to take this section and then the last section together as a final public comment. but i want to thank you so much, tilley, for being here and providing feedback and we'll talk to the team about what we want to advocate for in terms of how this will look based on the picture of what we're putting together for our revenue holes. thank you. take care. so then our last portion, jeff, is it back to you? >> it is back to me. and we're running about an hour behind. so i'm going to move through this very quickly. we have covered a lot of this material already throughout the discussion that we've had today. so for those of you who are listening at home, a reminder that yesterday evening we sent
10:40 am
out a budget to our board members that is available for download on the website, which you can find a link to on the agenda item on our board calendar. and next slide, please. this is a reminder that this exercise is -- oh, this is in a different order. this is not the correct presentation. let me share my screen. can you take that off and i will share mine. thank you. can you all see my screen now? >> yep. >> great. so the budget that we sent out was not an attempt at making you to make decisions about allocating our limited budget. its intention was really about framing the hard choices that we're going to need to make over the next 18 months, rooted in your values and our values as a
10:41 am
city and as an agency. whether we'll have to make cuts and whether we can expand services, we need to make choices based on our values. i want to emphasize just how uncertain our future is and the difficult choices that we're going to need to make. and that those choices, once again, need to be rooted in our values. so what i'm going to present this afternoon in our last session is the results of the feedback that we have received in the spreadsheets which is trying to provide some framing for those decisions at the highest level, interspersed with specific questions for all of you that represent some of the street level difficult choices that we're going to need to make. and one point of advice they would like from the chair is for
10:42 am
the questions like this one that is now up on the screen, would you like to pause and to do a quick poll using the chat feature in microsoft teams? or would you like to have a more integrated discussion at the end of each subsection? any thoughts on that? >> chair borden: i think at the sub-section. >> we can go back to each of these questions. so let me tee one of them up. which is -- so one of the key questions that we're facing do, we prioritize rapid implementation of the new temporary emergency transit lanes? or do we take the time to legistate permanence for the lanes that we already have? so if we were to prioritize our values of inclusivity or transparency, we would slow down progress on expanding the
10:43 am
transit lane network in order to do additional engagement in each of the affected neighborhoods. if we were to prioritize the delivery of our program, we would focus on longer-lasting materials like therma plastic and other longer-lasting materials that we can better afford to maintain that would also have us slow down implementation. finally, if we were prioritizing climate or economic vitality, we would accelerate implementation of the entire temporary emergency transit lane program while traffic volumes are still low. and before gridlock returns. so these are some of the -- the decisions that we're struggling to make and we need help in -- we need help from you, depending upon how you want to frame these issues for us. so let's talk a bit about values. we reviewed these values with you yesterday.
10:44 am
don't need to go into them. and the spreadsheet tool that we handed to you had about 50 different potential projects. each scored by all of those values. we then looked at the cost of implementing those programs and did a cost benefit assessment and allowed you to weight values against each other. and then score projects accordingly. so another key question that we're needing to face which we already talked about earlier today is, do we use more of our rainy day reserve now in order to accelerate projects and risk laying off workforce in the future? or do we wait on federal relief in the short term, reduce risk, and pursue a revenue measure in the long term? so prioritizing economic vitality in community now would have us commit to spending our reserve faster to preserve the
10:45 am
services and to jumpstart the san francisco economy, but at the risk of sfmta workforce. prioritizing the delivery and resiliency would have us to move more deliberately to see if new revenues materialize before committing to retain services. so it's a core question on how much we risk now to deliver on the services and programs, not knowing our federal financial future. another example is the -- to what degree do we invest in deferred maintenance versus increased output of quick build projects. so, again, prioritizing delivery and resiliency would have the staff to focus on the state of good repair, making sure that everything is in good shape and using more expensive but resilient materials. while, on the other hand, prioritizing with climate action and safety would have us to
10:46 am
focus on rapid expansion of protected bike lanes and other vision zero projects, using cheap materials that do not last a long time and increase our deferred maintenance burden in the long run. so as i said earlier, we first asked you to weight each of these 10 values against each other. one of the questions now that you've had a chance to play with this tool is -- are these the right values? so this was staff's attempt at values. you have not adopted these values. this is our translation of adopted values from various documents over the last decade. so are these the right values? are there things that are missing and values that need reframing? how did you weight each of these values against each other? what did you rate higher and
10:47 am
why? so in the -- here we go -- so we took the spread sheets that you gave to us see what y'all said and there was a fair amount of consistency across what you have reported to us. none of you weighted anything excessively high or down to zero. things were pretty consistent across the board but there were two items that rose higher than others -- one was safety, unsurprisingly, and the other was equity. and at the same time you tended to rate community and interestingly transparency relatively low. what this suggests to me is board interest in having us to accelerate the delivery of our work even if that means doing less of the kind of intensive community engagement that we've historically done on san francisco projects. this is sort of consistent with the way that we've been working over the last year during the
10:48 am
emergency. so another question and one that you have reflected upon earlier, do we take a street-by-street approach with legistating slow streets, or do we take them all on at once? do city-wide outreach and have the board to adopt comprehensive set of bikeways and slow streets all at once, all across the city? and, again, focus on inclusivity and transparency, to slow down and to do the block-by-block look at communities and to have us move quickly and to do programmatic city-wide adoption all at the same time. so with that, let me pause and ask the chair and the board how would you like to provide us with feedback on this? we've got a similar set of -- we have three sections about this same length where we're looking for your engagement and we
10:49 am
could, again, use the chat feature, using emojis to take on these questions or take comments which the staff can record as we go along. however you would like to proceed. >> chair borden: director tumlin -- >> madam chair, you can't use the chat feature because it's not accessible to the public. >> okay. >> chair borden: so, board members, what are your thoughts about how you'd like to proceed? there's a number of points. i know that people kind of like the either/or question positioning, but that was presented yesterday. directors, how would you like to -- pursue the rest of this? do we want to go point by point? give general feedback? >> in light of the time i kind
10:50 am
of want to get a sense, director tumlin, for all of the conversations that you want to tee up for us to know how much more we have to cover. and then to get into a discussion. >> i can run through the entire presentation and we can come back to the topics that are of greatest interest to all of you. >> chair borden: perfect. why don't we do that. i think that makes sense. >> yeah. i understand the desire for that. i guess that maybe, chair, i don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe for me at least, i guess, can you just architect for us, director, kind of what your full presentation looks like so that we know kind of -- like, what do you want the decision matrix and what was your vision for this, i guess? >> so the presentation is structured around the
10:51 am
spreadsheet that we sent out. it's in three parts. one focuses on here's how values work and influence decisions one way or another. and the next set reviews how you becomeally weighted projects and what the results of that was. and the final is on the exercise of how you spent the $100 to show what projects rose to the tops and which ones went to the bottom. throughout our more framing questions, should we do things more this way or that way. and the objective of this wohl e exercise is to get a sense from the board, for example, one of the things that i think that is becoming clear is you're interested in an acceleration of our work even at the expense of an additional engagement and inclusivity. similarly, you're very interested in safety and, for example, vision zero. even if there's a political risk
10:52 am
in moving forward rapidly in such projects. so that is exactly the sort of feedback that we're trying to synthesize as a staff and there's more kind of framing questions that we've got for you. >> with that in mind, it makes sense to just show the results of each section and then have a discussion afterwards about what that looks like. >> chair borden: sorry about that. okay, great. now we have comments from director lai. director lai. >> director lai: yes, thank you. before we keep going forward, i want to maybe make a little bit of a point about the values at least, because that's what justf started off with. and i appreciate you stating out there that these are just the first attempt, you know, thinking about what the values look like. and i actually really did find it a very interesting exercise to see the correlation between
10:53 am
values versus the dollar assignment. that was certainly an interesting experience. i really struggled with this exercise. i know that i have shared, but i want to make sure that the public understands that this is -- to me at least -- it was a hard challenge because i did take it seriously. i spent hours on it, actually, and modeled it numerous times to try to understand the behavior of the model. what kept tripping me up initially on the values is that i do think that the 10 that you have listed out overlap, but also are not equal size values. again, for the public, this is not the board stating that these are the values. but i want to just share that that did kind of make it difficult for me to proceed with the task, right, and then i'm told that these are the values. and under the projects there's also pre-determined scoring of
10:54 am
the projects under each of these values. which, you know, so i basically had an issue of not quite being aligned with the input or the assumptions and the model, and, therefore, i don't know how much i align with the outcome. and so, you know, i want to make clear that when had you had stated earlier, director tumlin, that the board has seemingly prioritized certain values over transparency or communication, i don't know that we can rely on this output, just to be clear. because i think that the weighted scores that was predetermined again within the model, kind of drives or skews some of the output. it sort of predestins some of these projects. i don't think that is a fact. i think that is as a result of
10:55 am
this exercise that it came out of it, which has a lot of room for us to continue to iterate on. having said that, you know, following up on yesterday's conversation, i'm probably one of the few in the minority, but probably some of the and/or -- not really and/or -- but this or that -- set up, is also somewhat challenging to me because i feel like a lot -- some of the options were quite clear and quite binary. but some of them is more so a question of range. like, in the scale of this or this option, how much are we ranging on this versus ranging on that. so i guess that i want to state before we continue the discussion, because i feel like it's going to continue to be an issue for me to, like, to really be clear about some of my answers. i don't know how my colleagues feel about this. i would love to hear other people's feelings and opinion
10:56 am
about this exercise. thank you, chair. >> if i may, chair, so director lai, your frustration is certainly understandable. all models are wrong. some models are interesting. this model, again, was not designed as a decision-making tool, but, rather, a decision framing tool. in order to help us to frame the hard choices that we're going to need to make. and your responses, in fact, were extremely useful to staff for those purposes. and there was another point that i was going to make and it's now gone and it will come back later. >> chair borden: no worry, director hinze has something to say. >> director hinze: really quickly, i wanted to second director lai's experience with the exercise.
10:57 am
and say to the public that i also had trouble with just weighing it. i thought that some of the -- based on how i personally arranged the values, i thought that some of the projects -- the weight side of things kind of surprised me. so i don't know how i spent the $100 would be in align with how i weight my values. because, again, i played with the model a lot and spent hours on it -- yeah. but i appreciate the thought.
10:58 am
going forward with that's the rest of today's time, i would say that perhaps we should lay out all of the questions that we have and then perhaps we could guide them to like the rest of the content of these presentations so that my colleagues and i have, like, a framing of the presentation with the questions that you want us to keep in mind, in mind, and then we can have a conversation. just a thought. >> chair borden: thank you, director hinze. i think that both you and director lai have expressed what is challenging is that as humans we're all kind of hypocrites, when it comes down to it.
10:59 am
we have values that are one way and we behave in another way. and i think sometimes you would make a choice between the different projects and your values might be one thing but the way that you rank the project would be another way. i have had this conversation with you, director tumlin. i'm not sure that our value ranking really tells you what our values are. i think that the choices we make ultimately with the money and the projects will say what our values are. i think that sometimes it's want an either/or and it's an and/but and that's the challenge, right. we want good public engagement and presentation and people to feel included in the process and not feel to be included, but we want to also move faster. so sometimes those are at conflict. and we need the public's permission to keep moving fast. and it's a cycle. but if you could go through all of the things that we're going to be considering and then we can come back to those things if
11:00 am
we want to drill down on it, it might be easiest. >> okay, ready to go? okay. go back to my screen. okay. so another core question as we try to bring transit back, do we bring transit back with parallel lines running every two blocks, or do we enhance transit frequency? do we hold on to the extraordinarily high level of frequency that we've had to invest in in our core corridors in order to maintain social distance in prioritizing transparency would have us to preserve as much of the network as possible, including routes that run on parallel streets a
11:01 am
couple blocks apart. and prioritizing vitality, and frequency, would have us to add more frequent service and new routes like the 29 rapid to connect communities quickly and to bridge gaps and to provide the kind of extra service to equity neighborhoods that we have provided during covid. director lai, to your point, the second comment that i had for you -- yes, none of these questions are not binary. it's not either/or, but, rather, on a scale of 1-10, to what degree do we focus on transit coverage or transit frequency. it's a tension. we cannot do both. we need to fall somewhere on that spectrum. and making a decision about that is a policy decision, not a technical decision. another core question that we will need to face as we look for new funding measures is -- do we explore free muni for everyone? it makes a great and powerful
11:02 am
political slogan. or do we focus on targeting fare discounts for those who struggle to pay? prioritizing transparency would have to explore simplifying the fare structure so all riders got free service, regardless of income, but resiliency would expand the discount services, and focusing instead on service improvements rather than providing free muni for affluent populations. this is going to be a really, really difficult tradeoff to deal with, given the political popularity of things that are free. and the difficulty of expressing the upside of free against the tradeoff of less service. so in your spreadsheets we had you to look at how to weight thinking about how the scoring
11:03 am
of your values rltsed to the scoring of individual projects and what degree did you want to have orientation around values and around cost and more importantly your orientation around cost benefit? and so we were curious to see, you know, which of these factors that you weighted the most. and unsurprisingly, the cost benefit received the highest average percentage around 40%. and note the cost score independently was the thing that you cared least about. you wanted to see what are you getting for the invested dollar. so this relates to other questions that we're struggling with, like, how quickly should we restore f line service and cable car? we know that we want to bring back f line and cable car, but when? and focusing on economic vitality would have us
11:04 am
accelerate service restoration in advance of tourism's return, even at the expense of restoring neighborhood services. because the cable car and f line are big drivers of san francisco's tourist economy and the sfmta has a responsibility to support the larger economy, even if the ridership isn't there yet in order to justify it. prioritizing either delivery or resilience would have us instead spend this time when tourism is low to invest in deferred maintenance work on our cable car tracks and rail lines. prioritizing equity would say push off f line and cable car service until after we have fully restored service in our neighborhoods and particularly our equity neighborhoods. so we have some ideas about how we're going to frame up when we restore f line and cable car service, but we'd also like advice from you about how we
11:05 am
should frame that restoration in terms of our values. another example is around sunday evening parking meter enforcement. do we expand sunday and evening parking meter enforcement with deep engagement with business associations, one district by the next? or do we simply inform businesses that we're just rolling out of this out city-wide without a lot of detailed engagement? again, prioritizing inclusivity and community and transparency would have us to do a lot of community and neighborhood district consultation and prioritizing the delivery and safety and livability would have us to move quickly. we know that the right answer is in between and we'd like, you know, some guidance on that. skip ahead a little bit. so the last section was about how do we prioritize resources.
11:06 am
again, another question that we're struggling with is around projects delivery. particularly for major projects. we have struggled. at least in the major projects that we started in the last decade. we struggled with delivering those projects on time and on budget. one way of improving deliverability is focused -- is shifting some of the risk to contractors for delivering those projects on time or on budget. but that would be at the expense of maintaining our ability to rescope those projects as they move along in order to achieve the specific community objectives like mitigating some of the negative impacts of construction work that were unanticipated. so, again, focusing on the delivery and vitality and transparency would have us to focus on more design build work, but focusing on the community and inclusivity would have us to do projects more like we've done
11:07 am
them in the past. so, again, we had to allocate a limited budget to projects. so first we ranked projects based upon your values and then we gave the opportunity to say this tool is a little crude, which project would you fund now that you see the big picture. and where would you ignore our funny little tool and allocate money differently in order to achieve a different objectives that were not reflected in the model. and, unsurprisingly, you know, the projects that rose to the top were some of our most productive projects, like the temporary transit only lanes, like congestion pricing, that solves problems and brings in revenue. permanent slow streets. our equity framework implementation. and, you know, some of the projects that went to the bottom are programs that are really
11:08 am
expensive, like our red light cameras and illegal turn camera program. but also at the same time, expanding muni service. you all prioritized making the current service resilient before committing to long-term program expenses. and you allocated your funding similarly focused on, you know, the things that you have told us about. the ways in which you recall indicated funding is pushing -- reallocated funding is pushing vision zero higher in the mathematical formula. and -- and you gave a little bit more money to things like e-bus transition and some of the deferred maintenance projects that scored for lower and our crude tool.
11:09 am
again, others that we are struggling with do we really push our partnerships at the san francisco police department to increase their enforcement of focus on the five traffic citations? or do we first study to what degree the focus on the five results in racial disparities. prioritizing safety says, you know, we need cops out there enforcing traffic violations. we're focusing on equity, and it says to put a pause on this and to collect the data in order to be able to deliver on traffic safety in a way that does not result in putting the burden of the citations on communities of color. similarly, do we continue to invest in the essential trip card? only if the additional outside funds are found? or as we restore muni service,
11:10 am
do we maintain the essential trip card, even if that increases our costs? so economic vitality and delivery would say, you know, don't fund it unless we can find non-sfmta sources. but inclusivity and community would say that we keep the program, even as we restore muni service. in addition, one of the questions that was raised in the newspapers today is should the m.t.a. subsidize expansion of micro-mobility? or continue to delegate it to the private sector? prioritizing livability would have us invest our limited resources in either subsidizing micro-mobility or taking it on as an agency. and prioritizing economic vitality and delivery would say that the private sector is going to be able to do this in a more
11:11 am
cost-effective way. other questions are about red light camera coverage. do we expand that? or spend our limited money on other visions or tools that are less costly? similarly, questions about expanding shared spaces. do we continue saying yes to as many shared spaces as possible? or do we look for tools in the more intensive neighborhood commercial districts in order to better manage conflicts between shared spaces and commercial parking. so, i mean, there's a long list of these and we don't have time to get into all of them. instead, let me just pause and to turn it back over to the board to seek your pleasure of how you would like to proceed. >> chair borden: i'm going to just say that one of the things that i am struggling with is that i don't know that sometimes the way that you define the value are the way that i would
11:12 am
define the value. so i think that is harder to talk about. but i'll let the directors kind of weigh in. i guess that, like, what i want to know from you given that we were supposed to stop at 5:00, and we have a limited amount of time and this is a beginning of a process that is to bititive, what are you looking from us today to take away from this session that would be most valuable? because, obviously, you posed a lot of different things with values and tradeoffs. values to various tradeoffs that we may not have realized or thought of as direct tradeoffs. so maybe you could tell us what is the best for you after today walking out the door, what you need from us? >> so ultimately what we need from you is as we make these decisions in the coming 18 months, to frame the decision rooted in tradeoffs around values.
11:13 am
so i don't necessarily need you to make a decision today. what i do need is for all of you as we're making these hard choices in the future to understand the tradeoffs and to give us guidance in the form of how do we -- where exactly on the spectrum do we strike that balancing point on some of these binary or trinary tradeoff questions. the other thing that i think that we need from you today is if you have guidance on some of the bigger questions, questions about risk, specifically how much should we accelerate restoration of service and programs, even at the risk of running into a financial cliff in 2022 or 2023, that is a really, really big one. similarly, how much should we
11:14 am
accelerate programs and services that are controversial, even at political risk? so, for example, city-wide transit only lanes or city-wide slow street -- awesome, bike, skateboard, scooter network. we can -- we can build that, but it comes at a huge political risk. and the same is true, for example, on the funding side. and i think that is related to a question of how much -- how much leadership do y'all want to take on as a board in helping to address some of those political risks. does that make sense? >> chair borden: i think that is a lot. but we'll do our best. starting with director heminger. >> director heminger: well, i guess that first of all we spent an awful lot of time talking about how we're going to talk about something. and maybe that was necessary.
11:15 am
i found the spreadsheet pretty awkward myself as well. you know, jeff, you've said several times that these aren't binary, but the presentation was binary. so i think that one good first step would be to put these things on a scale of one to 10 and let people pick, you know, two or a 7 instead of yes or no. and i hope that we don't let this go to waste because i think that there are a lot of meaty and juicy subjects in there. so, look, i'd be happy to participate in an exercise if you can convert all of the questions that you want to ask us to a one through 10 scale. and we could all fill it out and see how close we are to each other. >> i think that if we were -- most of the sort of facilitation and consensus building tools
11:16 am
that we could have used together in person, we would have set that up. we got frustrated with the limitations of doing this online and having the online contribution be publicly accessible, it became very frustrating to us. so we can develop some tools that i think that can bridge that and it may take us a bit of time but thank you. >> director heminger: and that raises one other thought, whether you might want to bring in a facilitator so you're not trying to run the thing as well as interact with us. i mean, we could force you to vote too. >> i'd be happy to. >> chair borden: director yekutiel, i know that you have to leave at 5:00 so i want to make sure that you have to say what you want to say. >> director yekutiel: thank you very much, chair borden. maybe i'm the only one who didn't hate the exercise on this board of directors. i thought that it was -- what i
11:17 am
liked about it is that i thought that it modeled the very probable extremely uncomfortable choices that the agency has to make. and showing that these -- maybe these are binary in a lot of ways and you're weighing a bunch of things to do. and i got a sense for how hot that hot seat is for these folks who are asked to do more with less. but i liked it, though i thought that the values part was probably the most awkward because it was -- i feel like that san franciscans can hold all values in our hearts and our hands. but i got the point of it. and i do have to leave at 5:00, so -- i apologize for that. i guess if you're looking for clear larger kind of sensibilities from folks based on these last two days, for me i just have -- i have three that
11:18 am
were kind of encapsulated in this exercise that you made us go in. one is easy wins. for me the equating cost versus cost value, versus values was the most illusttive for me, because for me it was cost value all the way. you can get a lot done very valuably right now in a situation that we're in, honey, go for it. like, that to me -- i was like let's prioritize that. because there's both a functional and also a psycho-spiritual component to all of this, which is our city is in deep distress. and so if we can get things done at a value -- and, by the way, we seem to have been able to model that excellently over the last 10 months, and then i say full steam ahead on those measures. the second i think that you have heard from this board a lot which is to give us large things that the public can rally around. you know, give us the opportunity to show once again
11:19 am
that san francisco and san franciscans are willing to make hard choices around something that is truly going to get them to be proud of their city. what does a full city-wide slow streets program look like? what does an entire city-wide protected bikes program look like? what does a completely new definition of how you get around the city, what would it look and feel like and how much would it cost? because i think that it's going to be hard to get those across the finish line is my guess. and the last is to protect the core. which was a lot of what jonathan, you know, his presentation was about earlier and really getting a sense of because we are a board in this particular time of both economic and of public health danger, like, what do we need to do to protect the very core functions of this agency? and how to make sure as a board that we're stewarding the agency to do just that?
11:20 am
those are the three pieces. give us something that the public can rally around, protect the core, and what to do with that. >> that's exactly the advice that we're looking for. so if all of you could frame things in those terms that gives the staff a really, really strong direction. including where you may have a different view. because we have established a very diverse board for specific reasons. so we expect you all to disagree sometimes. >> chair borden: thank you for that framework. that's great. director lai is next. you're on mute, director lai. >> director lai: unmuted. i did not unmute the other side. thank you, chair. i actually agree with a lot of what the director yekutiel already shared.
11:21 am
i wanted to start by saying that i do find this exercise illustruive, and i think that before we continue to provide feedback based on this framework we will have to work to make sure that we have a common understanding of these values and making sure that they are distinguishable. and i see that where we engage more broadly beyond just the seven of us. but, you know, i also understand that this is critical. we have to -- we're continuing to make decisions along the way very rapidly and i completely appreciate director tumlin your point that we have to ground our decisions on some sort of consistent value-based
11:22 am
evaluation. which i would say that for me, it will evolve as we come out of the current pandemic situation. in fact, it might be a situation where i'm going to realign my own values every three months or whatever it is to respond to the situation. maybe going along the lines of, like, just the very high 20,000-foot level feedback on the budget, i am at this point open to looking at leaning a little bit into our reserves if it means giving us a bit more flexibility in the next 16 months before we can get to some structural solutions. partly that consideration stems from the fact that i think if we continue at the pace of service that we currently have or perhaps even less so into fiscal year 2022, i don't know that we can have the confidence of the
11:23 am
public to survive as an agency. and at that point i don't know how we can ask them to vote for more debt. so, you know, having said that, the other piece of my consideration is that i don't think the current levels of service is going to suffice as we get out of hopefully what is a city-wide vaccination which right now sounds like the goal is this summer. which means by the fall when kids hopefully will have the schools reopen and people are perhaps to working, we're going to be in this really painful growth spot where we have still largely reduced service based on just a number of lines. but also we have less capacity within this, and even if we reach herd immunity, i am sure that people still want more space within the vehicles. so just considering that, i think that going to have to have
11:24 am
to provide more service to keep up with the return to work. and that goes to your values around economic vitality, which i had placed quite a bit of importance on. so i don't know if that's helpful or not, but that is maybe one of my -- the most important bits out of this exercise. i'll stop there and i look forward to hearing what the public has to say about this too. >> also very helpful. >> chair borden: director eaken. >> vice-chair eaken: okay, i didn't hate this at all. i thought that it was -- i recruited my family to participate in the meeting and my 12-year-old weighed in on some of the scoring. so i thought that it was really dynamic and i appreciate that the staff put this forward and sparked a discussion.
11:25 am
i have to be honest, i wish that we were at 1:00 p.m. and you had just finished your presentation and i wish that we had the four hours to discuss this because you have fascinating question, and maybe more important than anything else that we have covered. so i don't know if we need to set this agenda for our next board meeting or something. but there's so much more that we could discuss than we have time. i was trying to scribble down notes based on your slides and i would love to give you feedback on all of them. i think that director heminger's thought is really great, and to do another board poll and i would love to weigh in on a sliding bar and then to give i notes on why we made those marks in those areas. i think that you have put three specific prioritized questions forward for us just now verbally. so i want to be responsive to those really quick and say that on the risk -- how much are we risking financially right now, i err on the side of being more
11:26 am
cautious right now, and doing that contingency planners if we get a big bit from the federal government, and if we get half of that, then we'll do that, and look at the thoughtful contingency plans. but hearing how you ask the question, that you're thinking along the same lines. in terms of the transit lanes and how bold are we now -- i think that you're hearing from this board that we want you to be bold. that we want to you go big. and, especially seeing that some of the opportunities that are in front of us right now to make the system work more effectively and to save us money according to the financial mandate. so if there's one on only transit lanes i'd go with getting those on the ground now rather than going through the legislative process. which it feels that we can do later. that one seems really clear. and you asked about our leadership and how much we want to lead on helping to you
11:27 am
address and to shoulder some of the political challenges that these are going to create. i for one would love to be more engaged and involved and to help to support staff. so you're not all out there taking the arrows, that we can step in and take some of the arrows for you on the big bold moves. i imagine that my colleagues would be there as well. but i wanted to answer that question clearly as well. >> if i may respond. staff could create a sort of slider exercise around all of these questions, and have that ready for our next board workshop on february 16th. if that is something that you would like to have us do, please just do let us know. >> chair borden: i think something more on the lines of what director heminger described would be ideal. director brinkman. >> we will consider that as a direction. >> chair borden: thank you.
11:28 am
>> director brinkman: it was not an easy exercise but it made you think when push came to shove, what did you want to find and how much did you want to find? so i gave myself four values at the end to apportion that money and one for me was revenue generation. the things that will generate revenue for this agency really need to be prioritized to me. and the second was safety. and we talk about vision zero and safety. a person losing a life is priceless. that impact that it had has on the family is horrible. and number three is something that chair nolan used to talk about a lot, we need to serve those who need us most. so that is a really important thing that i bring to any of these decisions. fourth, for me, was efficient service, because that helps us to achieve all of those other things by allowing us to spend less money and to move more people and to do it more efficiently. when it comes to the risk -- yes. i know that we are a
11:29 am
conservative agency. we've been pretty conservative the whole time that i've been on the board. we haven't gone in for a risky board and a risky direction. it's easy for me to say that, i'm in my third and final term. i have two years left. so we have lost colleagues because they have taken risks. we have colleagues who did not get reappointed because people didn't agree with the direction that we were taking. so i'll just throw that out there as a caveat. i'm not going to pay for the risk that i'm encouraging all of us to take. but other people might. then also, i think that director lai said it, that this is an exercise that we would realign as our situation changes, as our financial situation changes or as our recovery from the pandemic changes. and i'm happy to go through this again at some other sort of level or questions.
11:30 am
thank you, chair. >> chair borden: director hinze. >> director hinze: i did enjoy the exercise but i wanted to state publicly that it was in sort of a bubble. we're all sort of human. so that was that, but i did enjoy it in terms of getting a sense of what it was like to sort of being on the hot seat and make those tradeoffs. i tend to agree with director brinkman and i'll be really quick on the values. my top value will still be anything that generates revenue for this agency at this time. when i think that it rises to the top if i'm being honest.
11:31 am
and also easy wins. and then really when i was doing this i was trying to remember that we were asked to really think about -- asked to what we think about funding within the next 18 months to two years. and not just the economic recovery but the recovery us as a city and the role that the sfmta could play in that recovery. while also thinking about safety, so things like vision zero and people wanting to be outside again and not fearing for their lives.
11:32 am
and i agree that we should serve the people who need us most. so thinking that everything that we do from equity and accessibility lens. and with regard to the budget and using reserves or taking a conservative approach, i do think that at the current time -- we talked earlier about certain scenarios based on federal relief, so in the near-term, i do think that we should wait and look at those scenarios and see what plays out at the federal level. but then i do agree with director lai that up to 2022
11:33 am
when we consider some of the rev revenue generating measures that could be in our control, if these ballot measures were considered, then i think that in order to make the pitch to the voters, that we need to look at how we may distribute this better. and we need to -- to look at the image as it relates to p.r. and public engagement. so that's something to keep in the back of our minds. so whatever that takes before 2022 would be also i think
11:34 am
something to consider. then on -- i agree with director eaken that i wish that it were four hours earlier. and i think that an efficient way to handle the specific questions that you asked of director tumlin, is something like what director heminger has suggested where we do some sort of poll and then -- yeah. >> chair borden: great. thank you so much, director hinze. i would say pretty much everything that has been said is exactly how i feel. i think that one thing to point out going back to the whole notion of values, we made -- the issue that i had with the value definition and going forward that we need to think about that and how we deal with that in the public. we had vision zero at the top but the red light cameras at the bottom. so but we said vision zero is number one but in our ranking we made the red light camera and the right turns at the bottom. so this is the issue that i had
11:35 am
with the model that we looked at and what we have to think about going forward if we are -- if that's really how we decide that we're going to make our decisions. to make sure that there's alinement. and so the exercise of looking at the projects individually will give us guidelines. and then we have to figure out from staff, like, how when we are making decisions, like, how we -- how we put that in there and the language, to show priorities and these project does need priorities or whatever it is. but the biggest thing that i think that other than our input is really i do want us to engage the public around these values and how we say these values and what they are. because it would would be terrible if we adopted a set of values that the general public wasn't directly opposed to. because going back to what director lai said at the end of the day we need the public to have faith in this agency and to vote on large measures for us. so that's why quick wins are
11:36 am
personality and advancing on bold moves that make a difference. if there's not an agreement on values with the larger public and with the employees who have to implement and to make these things happen, then we'll be in trouble. so i hope that you guys, the staff, can spend some time really kind of drilling down with, you know, going out to our officers and our operators and all of the people that are involved in living these decisions, to see also how they feel, because i think that part of the issue that we have had in delivering projects is the morale and the people talking to each other internal to the agency. i tang part of the success really is, i mean, all of the success really is a buy-in, of course, of the staff and the team internally and then also the support of the public and seeing that we're making strides. even if we fail at times if we're all in alignment there's permission to go forward. so director lai had one more question and then opening up to public comment. >> director lai: i have a quick
11:37 am
request. so director tumlin, one of the feetires that i really like body the model that you provided is that under the priority funding section you provided a place for notations. when you come back with a version that is more similar to director heminger's suggestion, if you can still keep that that would be really be helpful for me. you're basically trying to get us to provide some pretty simple disstilled feed back for you inanced and complex issues and i would appreciate the opportunity to qualify our responses. thanks. >> chair borden: thank you. so with that we will open it up to public comments. moderators, are there callers on the line? >> you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: speaker, please get started. >> caller: yes, this is sterling
11:38 am
hayward. yes, can you hear me? >> chair borden: we can. >> caller: okay. this is sterling hayward, parking control officer. 1021. so a few things that you guys brought up, you know, as far as all of these projects go -- actually talking about the -- i guess the thing that you guys did as far as that -- i didn't even look at it. and the reason that i didn't look at it is because if you have hundred dollars to your name and you live if a house you're not thinking of remodeling and you're making sure that people are taken care of. and all of these things that we're doing is pretty much useless. and the reason that i say that is because we look at things like safer market and the thing like the red carpet and none is enforced. absolutely none of it. there's no police officers that
11:39 am
are enforcing the restrictions. it's pretty much just a waste of money. it's money that could be used to help the -- to help the people that are on the ground. and that's what i'm going to keep on telling you guys. the connection should be you take care of the people on the ground, they're going to take care of the citizens and the citizens take care of us. it's a domino effect but we keep missing that. and i just feel that you guys got to look at the big picture. the big picture is that you've got to take care of the people that are doing the work. i'm going to just keep on emphasizing that. because we tried that before in 2008, and, you know, everybody took all of these, you know, all of these things so that we couldn't get raises and we couldn't hire people and the department suffered. and looking at what's going on, it looks like it's going to be the same thing for the years to come. so like i said i do behoove you guys to take your time again
11:40 am
before you guys say, oh, let's put a camera here. hold on a second, let's talk to them and see what they think and do this for the buses. let's talk to a bus driver. >> chair borden: time. >> to really interact and talk to the people. thank you. you guys be safe. >> chair borden: thank you very much for your comments. moderator, are there additional callers on the line? >> you have six questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, edward mason. in 1989, prop b, the precursor to the current prop k, the voter handbook was endorsed by the board of supervisors and the mayor and they cited transportation projects, several listed directly related to transportation and other programs. when you went to the fine print in the back of the voter handbook, you read that it was to replace the property tax that
11:41 am
would have been devoted to transportation. and in there was an expenditure plan. listing the transit related expenditures. and then there was $12 million for street tree planting. proposition e recently allocated $20 million as a set aside in the budget. d.p.w. basically drains the current prop k funds for tree plants. now is the time for discussion on muni or street trees. d.p.t. -- d.p.w. could initiate its own tax for its own project in accordance with the planning departments street trees for tomorrow. the designation of the essential taxes is a priority. >> chair borden: 30 seconds.
11:42 am
>> caller: allocated among the citys and right now everything has been allocated for bart to san jose to the dismay of the cities and the opportunitiy and there's a big uproar now over that expenditure plan versus what was promised the residents in santa clara county for the half percent sales tax. so clarity and transparency is utmost in any future propositions for funding requests from the taxpayers. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. mason. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> caller: hi, board. i'm a (indiscernible) i'm also a supervisor for the parking control officers. so i need to address a couple issues. first, they brought up the covid-19 issue and it was misled
11:43 am
what they said yesterday. so as of january 1st, we have had at least two employees test positive every week. currently we have several shifts that have been quarantined because of the safety issues that we keep asking. trevor and sterling cope a keepg about the safety issue and nothing seems to happen. next you guys should offer an early retirement? that could help your budget. and also the bike lane. years ago they used to charge for bikes and they used to have to register. look at something like that to register bicycles that could be a fee for you guys. and you guys are losing money on street cleaning because you're not allowing overtime. midnight shifts, we don't have enough employees that get in or they are off for covid, they
11:44 am
don't allow people to come in and to work overtime to cover those shifts that cost you guys money in street cleaning. you prominently make money in street cleaning. it doesn't make sense to hire more a bunch more p.c.o.s to cover the sunday streets or extended hours because it's going to cost you more to hire -- >> chair borden: 30 seconds. >> caller: that's it from me, thank you for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, hayden miller. i wanted to comment. first, to say that i hope that you guys are listening to all of the employees that have called in for the past two days. i think that it's really important to hear their perspectives, especially around covid safety and other issues. that i have been talking about
11:45 am
for a long time. and maybe hearing it from them will make you care. and the second thing just in terms of the questions that were posed, first around, like, community service versus, like big frequent lines. i think that both have their role. but the real question is the lines that are in between. the lines like the 12, the 10, 27, 2, 3, who are not serving an area like the 36 -- that is going to really depend on the service. there's other alternatives. so i think that the key for those lines are choosing the ones that are most important. maybe you don't bring back the two and the three or maybe just one. maybe not 10 and 12, so maybe one. and other stuff in terms of risk, like i said yesterday, you only have one chance to get it right. so if the people come back to transit, or they're trying to come back after they get their vaccination and the buses are packed or their route is not running, they're going to just
11:46 am
give up and they're not going to come back to transit. but if you're too aggressive and they're waiting at their stop for 15 minutes when the bus should be coming every five, that's also not going to work. and they're not going to take transit. so i think that all of these questions, it's very nuanced and it's not either/or as a lot of the directors said. and on the little exercise, i think that a lot of the directors mentioned it and i tried to mess with it, it was frustrating. i didn't really enjoy it. and it was hard to use. so i think more simple survey, especially if you're going out to the public. i think that the public outreach on this is very important. >> chair borden: time. thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker. your audio is compromised,
11:47 am
speaker. >> caller: try this, can you hear me? sorry. this is kat with the san francisco transit riders. i wanted to say thank you so much for all of the hard work that you are putting into this. and we are facing a really difficult and unknown future. where, we're, of course, very interested in championing robust funding for transit and for the national level for funding, including changing funding formulas away from highway funding and for public transit funding. we appreciate the careful process that you're going through to be careful with resources. to that end i can't emphasize enough the importance of rolling out transit lanes to provide more money for bus money and to get ahead of that curve. we hope to work with you on these and other challenging political discussions, and to
11:48 am
champion world-class transportation for all san trannians on equity and reliability and sustainability. thank you for your efforts. >> chair borden: thank you, miss carter. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hello, good afternoon, sfmta board. thank you for spending this afternoon sharing your workshop with us. i am hector nchts, and i'm a union rep and a resident of san francisco out in the richmond district. so i get to participate here in san francisco in a very unique way. i commend the board for requesting and considering various budget possibilities as safeguards while we very obviously wait for the direction that's going to be coming federally and locally with a much larger discussion that's actually happening about completely revamping our transportation infrastructure in
11:49 am
the u.s. and so forth. that is a discussion that we cannot ignore or pretend that it's not happening at a time that we're having these discussions. so i urge the board to continue to listen to the community and the frontline essential labor that you have to make your decisions. jeff, to take direction with the board. and with that combination we can work to keep s.f. moving safety without service interruptions and without the talk of layoffs and some of this nonsense that has come up in the minutes. and a much larger discussion that we're having -- we're starting to have federally that is not so much a matter of if, anymore, but when and how. thank you. i'm done, thank you. >> chair borden: thank you so
11:50 am
much. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: thank you, chair. i'm going to backtrack a bit to the beginning of this section, i found the presentation to be most informative. i have been going to t.a. meetings over the past few years, both in person and then online. and i think that certainly we have to push for re-authorization, but i realize that our transit tax is only one half percent. i thought that it was a full percent. chicago i think has a whole percent. and seattle is 1.4%. so i think that we have to have a more intense review of how
11:51 am
this community and city of san francisco funds transportation which will call for a higher tax. i wouldn't call san francisco a conservative place, last i checked san francisco showed up blue on the election map. if you want to see a conservative just look for the red that you find on a man of the united states. -- map of the united states. so i would like to say that san francisco is a city on the bluer side of the spectrum would be supportive of a transit tax of 1% to 1.5%. >> chair borden: 30 seconds. >> caller: they haven't had any trouble in chicago and seattle. so structurally, i think that what it's going to take is to invest, not tax and spend. but to tax and invest and to build infrastructure that will last us the next hundred years.
11:52 am
thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. bree. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. next speaker. >> caller: this is nicole. i wanted to weigh in on this exercise because honestly if this agency truly believed in -- are you guys getting feedback? >> chair borden: we are. >> caller: so if this agency believes in equity and then community and resiliency are top priorities. they're not the only priorities but they are the top priorities. and trying to force this board to make a decision between them is really a non-starter.
11:53 am
it doesn't make sense. it's destructive. it is not moving us forward. we need to find a way to generate new revenue which many of the employees who have called in today have given you those ideas. and we also need to have a way to build up the community. many of the unions in this city have been very, very vocal with him about the ideas for increasing revenue because we are frontline workers and we are on the street with this city, with the customers, with the public. and we can tell you what does and doesn't work. all you have to do is ask us. we have not had any substantial conversations regarding revenue, except the doom and gloom presentation that jonathan rewers gave earlier. please listen to us. we're not on this call because we have nothing better to do. we are on this call because we
11:54 am
know from our checkbook to our children's school to our gas tank to our work site, we know what is at risk. you have a resource. utilize it. please, for the last time, utilize the workforce that you have. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi, this is barry toronto again. i want to say that i commend all of you for sticking it out these two days. it used to be a one-day affair. i believe that the m.t.a. even bought you a lunch to go along with it. unfortunately, you're going to have to make your own meals or provide your own water during these meetings. at least they broke it up into
11:55 am
two days so you had time to go have dinner, rather than to miss out on it or to eat with your family. so i wanted to point out they think that excluding community engagement is a huge mistake. or balancing out the issue of safety or expediency over community engagement is -- it should go hand-in-hand. for example, if a street wants to do r.p.p. parking or put in a speed hump, that is different than blocking an entire street, or eliminating parking completely without the feedback of the city departments or agencies that would be impacted by that, as well as the services that need to have access to the street or access to the neighborhood. so i think that -- i think that there's a huge difference there. and i hope that you would take a look at that as well. and also i'm very pleased to hear from the union representatives as well.
11:56 am
i feel that different departments and different employees and different employees in different departments need to be more cooperative with each other and work together because they have common interests and common goals. if you look at staffing for p.c.o.s, they could use more in the off hours. you would get more compliance and more income from violators if you responded more quickly to customer complaints in the off-hours. >> time. >> so i urge you to look at those issues and to speak outside of the box. it wasn't fair years ago when one former -- >> chair borden: your time is up. >> she thought that market street should be without cars. thank you. >> chair borden, you're on mute, i think. >> chair borden: thank you,
11:57 am
mr. toronto. next speaker, please. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: with that we will close the public comment. jeff, do you want to say a quick comment to wrap up the day in terms of next steps and what the public can expect for their participation and staff who is also called in and what the steps are for us and our process. >> thank you for your very hard work and not just the sessions here in the last few days but for the homework that you have done with playing with our spreadsheet tool. i'm not surprised that it made some of you very uncomfortable making these hard tradeoff decisions is very uncomfortable for staff who have to make the decisions. and i hope that you have found some ways of using the sample tool that we gave you to frame your future decision-making. i think that we are very happy
11:58 am
as staff to take your feedback and to have simple crude spreadsheet tools to understand for many of the fundamental questions that we'll face as an agency on a scale of 1-10 or 1 to 100, where do you each fall. so that we can see where there's clear alignment that can help us to understand how to best prepare analyses for you. but also where there's diversions on the board. i'm hoping to see some diversions because that is also helpful for us to understand the types of analysis that's necessary in order to frame up that divergence and to help to bring diversional sides of the board together towards consensus. so we'll prepare additional materials for our next meeting in february. in the meantime, for the public, all of these materials are available on the board budget
11:59 am
workshop website, including the spreadsheet tool for you all to play around with. we'll upload whatever additional tools we develop to the website as well. i would like to point out that we spent a lot of time listening to our workforce, and we have developed a massive database of all of the cost saving measures that we have heard from our workforce -- hundreds of suggestions that we have analyzed, all of them. and we have provided information back to our workforce on where to find that spreadsheet and which ones are super helpful that we have actually folded into our budgeting and which ones have unintended consequences. there are some things that seem like savings but, in fact, they end up producing more expense than actually results from those savings. some of the analysis that we have done that is necessary in order to actually evaluate what seems like a good idea isn't always a good idea.
12:00 pm
that's the lesson that i hope that you have learned in the spreadsheet exercise focused on the hard choices that we need to make. so with that i'm happy to close. we're only half an hour late. it's 5:30, perhaps one of our earlier closing times, particularly considering the intensity of the issues that we have discussed today. so thank you for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. and this two-day workshop is adjourned and thank you staff for your hard work and preparation for this. it was a lion's share of work that people had to put together and thank you for your patience with questions and inquiries and thank you to working to make this a very meaningful and impactful two days and we look forward to, you know, rolling up our sleeves and continuing to dig in as we have many comments to do in the next few months. >> great stuff. everybody. >> hopefully back together in person for next year's workshop. >> bye, everyone, have a good evening. thank you all.
12:01 pm
>> welcome to the tuesday, february 2, 2021 virtual meeting of the san francisco entertainment commissioner. i am the commission's vice-president. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect entertainment commission members, city employees and the public, the meeting room is closed. however, members and the employees will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the various local state and federal orders,
12:02 pm
declarations and directives. commission members and employees will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. the number is being streamed across the screen. opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via zoom using meeting id86793738048 or calling 1-669-900-6833. if you are using the zoom platform to speak, select raise hand option when it's time for public comment. if calling by phone, dial *9 to be added to the speaker line when your item of interest comes up. you'll be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. please call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your
12:03 pm
television or radio. alternatively, while we recommend that you use the zoom audio or a telephone for public comment, you may submit a written public comment through the chat function on zoom. thank you to sf gov tv and media services for sharing this meeting with the public. we can start with the roll call. [role call]. >> don't forget me! >> i'm sorry, commissioner. >> here. >> okay, first order of business is public comment. is there any public comment for items not listed on the agenda? >> vice-president, i am checking the audience, and there are no
12:04 pm
hands raised and there are no comments in the chat. >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. the next item on the agenda is item 2, approval of our minutes for the january 19, 2021 meeting. we have a motion on the approval of the minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> commissioner thomas? >> aye. >> commissioner lee? >> aye. >> commissioner -- >> aye. >> commissioner perez? >> aye. >> commissioner wang? >> aye. >> commissioner binen? >> aye. did i just miss it? did we do public comment on the minutes? >> no, we didn't. so -- >> i think we should probably do public comment and then redo the vote just so everything's official. >> yeah. >> okay. is there any public comment on the minutes? >> i'm checking, and there are no hands raised in the audience,
12:05 pm
and there's no chat comments. >> okay. seeing none, public comment is now closed. [roll call]. >> the meeting minutes have been approved. the next item on the agenda is item no. 3, report from the executive director presented by the executive director. >> thank you so much, vice-president camino. it's nice to have you running the meeting. it's a breath of fresh air,
12:06 pm
although missing your [indiscernible]. this evening i want to share space for some updates relative to the shuddered venue operators program, so there will be a monthly update later in this evening's agenda, and the only other legislative item that i can update you on this evening is in regard to supervisor hainey's proposed venue fund. the commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the board of supervisors to support during our last hearing on january 19. so this item going to be at the board's budget and finance committee tomorrow. i'll go ahead and keep you all posted as we track this and any other relevant legislation. in regard to our standing item regarding the public health order and our role in implementing the jam program to support the mayor's shared spaces program, as you are all likely very aware, last
12:07 pm
wednesday, january 27, san francisco's health officer issued an updated version of the main health order, along with updates to a large number of directives, all related to the city being removed from the state's regional stay-at-home order and returning to the purple tier. of greatest note for our group in this reopening update is the reopening of outdoor dining and the reopening of gym activation permit at outdoor locations. there are currently 126 approved permits for jam that are eligible for use, as well as 17 applications that are under staff review right now. so if you have any specific questions regarding the health order update, there were quite a few updates to it. feel free to ask at the end of my update to you all this evening and either the deputy director or i will answer to the
12:08 pm
best of our ability. i wanted to thank you for a super-informative meeting when we last met at the end of january. overall we heard a call for our office and our commission to really prioritize what we want to work on and prepare for the rebuilding of san francisco's night life and entertainment industry after covid-19. so i spoke with both the president and the vice-president, and essentially our plan right now for the next few months is to monitor the rollout of both the second round of p.p.e. runs as well as the shuddered venue operators program funding to our live music venues. from there we're going to conduct another one of those surveys that we did last year that's been used many times over, but at this point is really outdated. it was in may, so we're going to do another survey to essentially capture more data that's hopefully informed around, you know, the funding that folks got
12:09 pm
relevant to the status of where all of our permitholders are right now. and then we're hoping that that data and information can then better inform our commission's priorities, goals and next steps. so that brings me to say that that's going to tie nicely into another retreat for us. we're going to do it this time virtually on zoom. as you all know now, i sent out an email earlier, that's confirmed for friday march 26 from 1 to 4 p.m., and we'll go ahead and formalize that with a calendar invite soon dylan's going to be sending, and then we're going to start working on a draft agenda that i'll be sharing with the proom so that -- group so we can engage on what we want to work on at that retreat. so that's what i have for this evening. let me know if you have any questions and happy groundhog
12:10 pm
day. >> no questions for me. >> okay, since there's no commission questions or comments, thank you, director weiland. is there any public comment on the report from the executive director? >> i am checking, and there are no hands raised in the participant's list and there are no chat comments. >> thank you. seeing none, public comment is now closed. the next item on the agenda is item no. 4, the presentation on office of the city administrator's racial equity action plan, which will be presented by office of cannabis protector marissa rodriguez, deputy director eugene hillsman and associate director nakesh patel. thank you all for joining us. >> they should all be coming in
12:11 pm
shortly. i think we've got everyone there. >> good evening. >> i see a lot of familiar faces on tonight's call. how are you doing doing? >> better now that you are here. >> great to see that, and great to see that our industry folks are busy and on their way up to wherever they are on their way up to. happy to see that. >> director of the office of cannabis. happy to be here this evening and thank you very much for having us. we are here today to share with you a little bit about the work that we've been doing around racial equity and advancing that work throughout the adm, and when i say adm, i'm saying the city administrator family. it's over 25 divisions, programs, and you departments,
12:12 pm
and you are one of them, and so are we, the office of cannabis. and it used to be that pre-covid we would -- our offices were really close to each other, so it was nice to see director weiland most days, and her staff most days. nice to see you, crystal. nice to see you, dylan. it's been a while. it is nice to be here. i'm joined today by my colleagues, the deputy director and associate director for oversight. we thought we would make this more interesting and present together so you could not just hear my voice the entire time but hear others as well. there's a lot of information. this report is very long, and very detailed, and we took a lot of time to get to where we are. if you were wondering, well, i -- this was the first time i'm hearing about this, i'm really curious about racial equity and what we're doing as a large department, today we're going to share with you where we've been, where we're going to give you a
12:13 pm
little context the report was completed the end of december, december 30 to be exact is when we submitted our report to the office of racial equity. in 2019 mayor breed mandated that all city departments create a racial equity action plan. this is ours, and so today because we don't have several hours, it would take that for us to get into all the nuances of this report and to share all the initiatives as well as all the goals, we run through eventually all of the goals in each section of this report, and we're going to spend a little bit more time sharing the section on boards and commissions, because this is a board and commission. the office of cannabis also has one as well, and boards and commissions under adm are going to engage a little bit differently around racial equity. so we will spend more time on that. just to help frame this a little bit more, there are so far, as far as we know, two phases of this work. the first phase is phase one, which we just did, and that's
12:14 pm
what this report is about. it's covering phase one. phase one is really internal facing. it's hr heavy, looking at what we can do around hiring, around recruiting, around promotion. you'll see all the sections in just a bit, and that was sort of a deep dive, which is why it felt a little internal and focused, the work was focused primarily with department heads, managers, the central office for city administrator as well as the budget and planning team. so that's what this work is focused on the rest of this year will be focused on implementing much of this, as well as featured years. phase two we hope will roll this out as well and be more outward facing. all of the staff of adm, community that we impact and the work that we do in that way. so just wanted to give that -- a bit of context so you understand sort of what we're looking at and what we mean when we talk about our racial equity plan phase one.
12:15 pm
so with that, let's get started. so brief agenda, we're gonna do -- i already did the intro, so you know who you're hearing from today and a little bit of background. where have we come from and where we're going, you're gonna see what work went into developing this action plan. and then finally we're going to touch on basically every section of the racial equity action plan and their goals. so one of the exercises that we did with the city administrator's team is we brought together what we call our thought leaders working group, and it's comprised of all of the department heads from all of the 25 departments, divisions and programs that make up the city administrator family. every time we met we'd have individuals from all the different departments share out and share with us what their goals were, what they -- what their values were.
12:16 pm
there was a lot of similarities between departments, but there were some differences as well. this crowd, this work crowd prepared by none other than samantha allen, who i believe is on this call today, really talks to all of these different values, and so you can see that what matters to us as a department in this word cloud, transparency, compassion, culture, diversity, workforce, sharing out, mentorship, our overall mission is that the city administrator's office is strongly committed to ensuring efficient and effective government services, increasing the city's safety and resiliency, strengthening the local economy, and supporting equity and inclusion and optimizing the city's capital planning and infrastructure. so all of that really embedded in what we are as departments and how we help -- we try to impact the community we serve.
12:17 pm
so one thing i'd also like to let folks know on this call, there's -- like i said, there's a lot of information that you're gonna hear today. don't worry. you can easily navigate to the city administrator's website and go to our racial equity landing page. you just kind of navigate to the page, and there you're gonna find the report, the full report. you'll find some other resources. in the first few pages of the report, you'll find a process page and an executive summary. that alone really grounds you in the work and will provide you with additional information. if we cross a section today that you find really interesting, i really, really recommend going to that section in the report and reading up on it. you'll see most of your questions will be answered because we really tried to be very detailed and thorough in the report. the report is about 125 pages, including a couple appendixes, so it is a lot of reading, but very interesting, and i encourage everyone to take a
12:18 pm
look. am i really echoey? navigate our slides. >> just one moment, everyone. director rodriguez, there is a good point here in which when these materials are made available to everyone, the top two buttons are links which i accidentally clicked, so give me one moment to readjust. >> okay. that's great, yeah. so everybody on this call will have access to these materials and you'll be able to link pretty easily. >> there we go. >> so a little bit about where we come from. it took about three months to get the report where it is today, and in that time, a very short time, we came together. we were, you know, probably wondering, the office of cannabis leading this conversation today, why is that, well, the work that we do day-to-day with the office of cannabis is really grounded in equity and equity work.
12:19 pm
we're very passionate about that work. it's a really, really important part of what we do every day, so it made sense that we would lead this initial effort for phase one, and now that it's completed, you'll see kind of what the plan is moving forward. but we had in that time seven thought leaders working group meetings. those were the department heads that came together to share what we thought was important for this work. we broke up into different sub-working groups and talked about each of the sub-seven sections, and we split up based on what kind of made sense depending on the work that we do. we had over 15 executive leaders leadings, and who was the executive committee? the executive committee is comprised of the members on this call as well as the hr department, members from the hr department, as well as adm central and members from the dock. so that group met a number of times and continues to meet to keep this moving and the momentum moving forward.
12:20 pm
we met with the immigrants rights commission as well. the immigrants rights commission has created a working group around equity, so it made sense that we would align our efforts with them. one of the mandates is that we would present this before the commission, so the first time we did was in front of the immigrants rights commission, and given the work that they do, it seemed like a natural alignment. then we had individual meetings with office of racial equity, about six -- over six of those to make sure that we were on the right track and we were getting the work done and we had the right idea as far as how to approach this work. and we attended four of their monthly convenings, all rolling up into this plan, which also went into informing this plan was a survey that was prepared by our budget and planning team. that survey went out to all of the employees of adms, that's over a thousand individuals. we had a very good participation rate and feel very confident in the results, and we used that -- those results to inform our
12:21 pm
report. so here are the sections of the plan, and as you can see, it's very hr focused. we have hiring and recruitment, retention and promotion, discipline and separation, diverse and equitable leadership and management, mobility and professional development, organizational -- inclusion and belonging, boards and commissions, and then finally the report also talks about the narrative and the process, and it's those two that i highly recommend taking a look at at the end. so director patel will kick off hiring and recruitment. >> thank you, director rodriguez, and in the interests of time, i will be moving through these fairly quickly. we want to make sure that we leave time for questions at the very end, so if you have any questions, just hold on to them and we'll address them at the end. all right, so with that being said, the first goal for hiring and recruitment that adm identified was to commit to hiring more bipoc employees,
12:22 pm
especially those new to city government to achieve greater representation within its workforce. this goal was very much born out of our analysis of the data, and the data for adm's hiring patterns over the last five years suggested two things to us. one, that of the new hires to adm, the majority were new applicants to city government. so they were not transferring in from another department. they were new applicants, and so that's why we wanted to focus on that particular group because it makes up the large share of hiring classes been adm. and then the second fact that the data told us is that over the last five years adm has been moving in the right direction in terms of increasing racial representation within its workforce. when we dug a little bit deeper, we saw that the distribution of hires across race were not necessarily even across the board, and so what we'd like to continue to do is keep focusing on increasing racial diversity within adm's workforce, especially within its city
12:23 pm
workforce. the second goal is to commit to working with the san francisco department of human resources to increase the representation of black and hispanic employees to permanent civil service positions. again, looking at the data, what we realized is that over the last five years the majority -- more black and hispanic employees have been hired into temporary exempt positions whereas more asian employees have been hired into permanent civil service positions. what we'd like to see is greater racial diversity across hiring. two more goals that came out, the first was to bring speed and transparency to adm hiring timelines and opaque processes. many of the conversations we had were around this notion that hiring timelines take too long and not transparent, and in an effort to prevent us from losing employees, we want to bring greater speed and transparency to the hiring process, and the
12:24 pm
fourth goal we identified was to develop more targeted recruitment strategies of bipoc employees to better facilitate professional advancement. this is an initiative that -- it's a goal and an initiative that we're very excited about, and it really is to ensure that when somebody applies to adm, they are applying with support and there are opportunities for advancement as an incentive to bring them into the adm family. >> here the primary idea is to improve communication to attract and retain employees. essentially to ensure that a diverse pipeline of employees really come to adm, so that's the first goal in thinking about retention, and for most in a lot of the things outlined here really complements some of the efforts in the first section.
12:25 pm
the second idea is through data analysis, adm will actively seek to identify barriers through employee retention and promotion. the idea is once employees find themselves in adm that the department works very hard to keep them here. the third is to identify additional pathways to promotion, to essentially ensure in addition to providing professional development opportunities that employees have the skills necessary to access leadership positions once they become available, and as director rodriguez mentioned, if you have specific questions about any of the goals or initiatives in this section, we encourage you to read the report as we go into much greater detail. with that, i'll transition into the next section, which is discipline and separation. so in thinking about discipline and separation, sometimes a controversial topic, the core component of this work is really to implement clearer communication strategies in thinking about disciplinary
12:26 pm
actions and corrective behaviors, right, for all levels, and really focus on the following goal. the first is to educate and engage employees to help resolve issues at the lowest level possible, right, without escalating to disciplinary action, right? the idea is to identify potential problems, take action before they actually become serious problems. the -- you can see that discipline here is broken out by race, and with that we'll transition to the next slide. so here some of the content that you see in this particular slide came from the survey that director rodriguez mentioned, so we asked all adm staff essentially questions about kind of opportunities within adm, but one of the questions that we asked specifically were around kind of expectations for disciplinary standards. one of the things that you can see in this data is that there is some room for improvement in thinking about employees' views
12:27 pm
on whether supervisors essentially hold all employees to the same standard. there are kind of specific differences, particularly among our hispanic and black employees as they are least likely to strongly agree with the standard to suggest that supervisors are essentially implementing the same standard across races. so that's an area, and based on some of the survey results, we feel like there is a lot more that can be done. and then the next goal is essentially to collect better information and understand separation data for all employees, right? so thinking about opportunities like exit interviews to collect that feedback to make sure that we have a kind of thorough and firm understanding of why employees are deciding to separate from adm, it will essentially provide us with kind of additional clarity, and this is especially important for employees in exempt appointments, and with that i'll transition to the next section, which i believe is from director rodriguez.
12:28 pm
>> thank you so much. yeah, so also, you know, when looking at this work, important to kind of think where leadership stands and where leadership reflects and certainly diversity's an important part of that. so the goals in this space is, you know, we really wanted to dive in and see kind of what is reflected, and so you know the good news is over the last five years the city administrator's office has done a really good job at ensuring that our leadership is a reflection of the communities we serve and continues to be diverse. so we want to keep moving in that direction certainly, because there is areas for improvement. we want to increase representation of bipoc, and when i speak about bipoc, i'm talking about black, indigenous people of color in management positions relative to the number of available positions within adm over the next five years. we want to continue to move in the same direction. additionally we want to improve our internal promotional culture to elevate bipoc employees into
12:29 pm
positions of leadership. director patel mentioned briefly in his remarks, you know, this issue, what it means to be able to be advanced, to start in an organization and what opportunities are there to move up. similarly around leadership opportunities and wanting to make sure that we are doing our part to keep a diverse pool of leadership opportunities available. and support individuals. we want to increase equity and inclusion within adm central to work with adm hr to increase the diversity of candidates pool for positions. [please stand by]
12:30 pm
>> can be difficult to ensure that feedback is getting translated and opportunities to grow are available, wanting to look at this and figure out ways to scale this or employees
12:31 pm
really do feel like they can grow and continue to work on anything that they feel they need and have access to training and other resources. this is important part of this session. recommends taking a look at the report to see additional information in this area. thank you. >> here, we have the primary goal thinking about organizational culture of inclusion and belonging, is to really foster organizational culture committed to inclusion and belong. as director rodriguez mentioned, we issued a survey. there were number of responses. we were heartened by the things that came in to evaluate our progress. there's some additional work to be done. according to a.d.m. racial
12:32 pm
equity survey, 77% of employees agree they felt valued as an individual at work. 70% agreed they felt comfortable expressing opinion, 58% supported feeling and thinking about pursuit of their career goals. however, there were some racial differences that emerged in the graph below really demonstrates that racial disparity. this variant in races really held across the questions that we posed to some of our staff. if you have additional question about that, in addition to
12:33 pm
racial equity, the survey is available online. that's the first thing would we're committed to. you heard about some of these topics to create an equity and inclusion lead to improve transparency and sharing information to create additional opportunities for managers and staff. really support the division leaders as they're thinking about creating divisions specific racial equity plan which take into account the core service delivery and responsibility for each division in a.d.m. that will happen in phase 2 of the racial equity plan. that's something we wanted to highlight in this section. >> with this, we move to the final section boards and commissions. here, before we start, we want to take the opportunity to note mention, a.d.m. as numerous
12:34 pm
boards and commissions. there's the human rights commission and cannabis commission, entertainment commission, treasure island development authority board. in preparing this section of the racial equity action plan, we had conversations with members of the advisory groups on many of these committees and what you'll hear next about the goals of the initiative very much informed based on those conversations. the goals for boards and commissions fall into three big buckets. the first is to increase the transparency over the appointment process. i'll speak more about that. transparency is important along two important lines. one to ensure that the interesting represented on the particular board or commission are reflected needs of the community. second part, those who are elected or appointed to those
12:35 pm
positions represent those interests. diversity and representation along both those points is very important. there was a theme that came up during the conversation with the boards and commission subworking group numerous times. second big goal falls under the idea creating support systems within boards and commissions and committees to be able to be peer resources. you'll see little bit more how we're trying to facilitate opportunity business leveraging the resources that exist across the seven boards and commissions that a.d.m. has. the final goal, this is along the line of racial equity output. taking and making an effort to incorporate racial equity into the work that the boards and commissions are doing with their communities as well as internally. it's important here to note with the racial equity equity output,
12:36 pm
much of that comes from the template that was provided by the office of racial equity. one of the measures that a.d.m. identified is addressing the issue of needs. many of the members the subworking groups identified there's a disconnect between identifying what the interests are that need to be represented onen a board commissioner committee and that actually being conveyed to the appointing entity. one of the goals that a.d.m. has is to identify ways to fill this particular need so there is transparency between the advisory group, the individual who support the advisory group, the members and the actual appointing agency. in the conversations we had for the seven different boards, commissions and that a.d.m. houses they have different
12:37 pm
agencies. it's important that these feedback mechanisms between the numbers, the advisory groups and appointment agencies are clear and there's opportunity to have feed back there. second mauve that a.d.m. identified is encouraging advisory groups to appoint a racial equity lead. this was something that was highlighted by the office of racial equity. we've seen from committees and commissions already take this step. as an extension of this step, we would love to support each advisory groups racial equity lead to develop a.d.m. racial equity group, known as the racial equity group. the idea here is for a single group to form across seven different boards and commissions and committees to convene two or three times a year anidous the and discussthe racial equity wo.
12:38 pm
there are hand full other initiative. ly go through -- i'll go through them. another initiative is racial
12:39 pm
equity groups will encourage participation from all advisory group members to participate in implicit bias training. we believe it's really important that members of our boards and commissions have an opportunity to engage in training especially when part of the work will include racial equity. another initiative is that the racial equity group will discuss the role and presence of racial equity within group's work as i mentioned earlier. another initiative racial equity group will organize events across all a.d.m. groups to convene socially. this is really recognizing that across the seven different boards and committees within a.d.m., they themselves are tremendous resources. you all have a wealth of knowledge. one of most effective tools to leverage to ensure that all members whether they are new or more seasoned members, can learn
12:40 pm
from each other. the final initiative the racial equity group will take a survey to better understand their role of racial equity within their work. this is an extension of the racial equity survey that a.d.m. took with its employees. we like to have a similar mechanism where the racial equity group is administering the survey to gauge the temperature of racial equity work within committees themselves. with that, i will believe we are at the end of the presentation. as director rodriguez mentioned, the racial equity work that a.d.m. fall into two phase. phase one is what you saw now. the fuller more, detailed plan is available on the website. we do encourage all of you to
12:41 pm
read it. phase one is internal and i believe -- inward looking. what we tend to do is to identify what the next steps will be to implement some of the steps that have been identified within the racial equity plan. ensuring that we're carrying them through. at the same time, this group and with respect to racial equity work, we're waiting on additional guidance about what phase 2 would look like from office of racial equity. once that becomes available and we have a better sense what that work will look like, we'll tackle that as well. as director rodriguez mentioned that work will involve divisions specifically working to come up with plans as far as we understand to inject and infuse racial equity work into the services they provide with the communities then serve. as we wait for guidance, we'll continue to implement the steps we can now and lot of that work
12:42 pm
will require working with a.d.m. human resources department. with that, we said a lot. we're happy to take questions at this point. >> commissioner perez: thank you for your presentation tonight. i have a quick question. you rendition -- referenced a.d.m. what does it stand for? >> that's the office of the city administrator. which all our departments are under. >> commissioner perez: my second question, the chart that you showed, showing the bipoc within the workforce and you saw different percentages on different ethnic groups.
12:43 pm
is the goal to match that with the current population percentage or is goal to make that equalized? >> really good question. i can say that it's not exactly to make it a representation of the community. it's ever changing. certainly, will be very difficult to sort of reach equilibrium across all sections. i think it's really to make an effort to ensure that we're being mindful of this work. we're being mindful of including more people leadership positions and just giving people an opportunities to advance. making sure people feel included and belong, feel like they belong in the a.d.m. family. all that work i think, put in a good faith effort and we hope that we get a better result. >> commissioner perez: thank
12:44 pm
you. >> thank you for doing all this work and presenting it to us. it's a huge amount to tackle and thank you for all of this. trying to focus on the commission part of it and i think it makes sense in terms of figuring out how to incorporate racial equity into the work we're doing. have you put together either draft language around how we incorporate that? especially for charter commission where some of the language around our work is in the charter and -- what are your recommendations in terms of charter commissions for how to adapt this and incorporate it
12:45 pm
into our work? >> director rodriguez i can take part of this question. thank you for asking this question. it really does show the intention behind incorporating this immediately. we do appreciate that. one of the developments that happened with the racial equity template provided to the different departments was that it also was evolving overtime. one of the key areas was towards november, december with the board in commission section. specifically change around deactive around the racial equity output that commission, committees and boards can engage in. i'm providing that context saying, we are still working with the office of racial equity to better understand what a racial equity resolution might look like. that will be forthcoming.
12:46 pm
what we hope to do is with your advisory groups so that departments that you work with to understand what the mechanisms might be to incorporate that into your charter. there are practical steps that committees can take in general. one of the areas racial equity plan speaks to is incorporating racial equity work into the agenda. if there is or opportunities where you can invite speakers or you can identify work that needs to be done ayou the racial equity framework to advance that work, we would encourage you to work with your advisory groups to better understand how to achieve that. it is relatively new even from the office of racial equity. as we get more clarity some of that information will be providing to your advisory groups so they can work with you. long-term vision is that as more
12:47 pm
material become available and more strategies become available, how to implement racial equity into your work as we learn from other boards, commissions and committee, we can use the racial equity group as a convening mechanism to disseminate that information. the grand vision here is that, each board, commission and committee appointed racial equity lead. that racial equity lead then becomes a member of a larger racial equity group that includes members from all of the different boards, commissions and committees within a.d.m. that group in our ideal world would meet hand full time over the course of the year. that's a really good opportunity for the board, commission and committees to share best practices and provide information. as an example, the three of us here, director rodriguez and myself, we work close well the
12:48 pm
cannabis oversight committee. what we would love to do take what we've learned over the past year about how to incorporate racial equity within our work and share that once it's convened. lot of of this work is forthcoming. the hope is that once we have the racial equity group in place, the information can be assimilated much more efficiently. >> commissioner wang: thank you. i done my part to ensure san francisco have racial equity frame around its cannabis work. i'm not in the cannabis policy space anymore, glad that is under way. i'm also proud that the entertainment commission is majority bipoc commission. which is great. i realized that i don't know
12:49 pm
much about the race ethnicity of permit holders. there are probably ways to look at how places of entertainment. we know how they are distributed around the city geographically. we know a lot, i know a lot less about how they are distributed in terms of the race ethnicity permitholder. if that's something we should be considering or taking into account or creating different types of outreach in terms of particularly like the limited lives permit and so on and change the demographic representation of who is holding these permits.
12:50 pm
it might be useful to at least do some preliminary information gathering to better understand kind of what racial equity looks like in terms of our permitholders. which are sort of our constituency as a regulatory body and what that looks like and do an assessment how that compares to the city as a whole. >> thank you, commissioner thomas. i echo everything that you are saying. i'm glad that you colleagues from office of cannabis has come in to provide the a.d.m. presentation for us to even proceed into phase 2. really important to see how everything is structured within phase 1. i


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on