Please complete the speaker cards that you wish to have included to submit to the clerk. Items today will appear on the july 23, 2019 supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Before the first item i make a motion to excuse vice chair stephanie. I assume we can take that without objection. Great. Mr. Clerk. Please call the first item. A hearing to consider the type21 offsale general beer, wine and Liquor License to Guss Community Market. Located at 1101 fourth street. Alu . Come on up. Good morning. You have before you the report for Guss Community Market applying for a type21 license. This would allow them to sell off sell general. There are zero letters of protest. There is one letter of support submitted this morning. Plot 295 is considered high crime area. A low saturation area. The Southern Police district has no opposition. Alcohol liaison recommends approval. Number one sales and service shallbry permitted 7 00 a. M. To 12 00 a. M. Each day. They shall monitor the area under their control to prevent loitering of any persons on the licensed premises as on the most recently certified abc 253 form. No noise audible at any nearby residence or consideration point. No wine shall be sold in bottles or containers smaller than 375milliliter. The applicant agreed to the above recommended conditions. Thank you. Is the applicant here . Hello. Morning. I am representing the applicant. By way of background, Guss Community Market took over this space and the market in this space in december last year and along with it took over the existing type 20 beer and wine license that was held by the previous market. Gus market has been operating since last december now would like to upgrade the alcohol license to type21 so it can offer customers fullservice alcohol along with its fullservice grocery market. As was indicated, the reason we need a finding of public convenience or necessity is because the district is considered high crime but it is barely over the threshold. It is about as low as the margin can be and still be high crime with 101 crimes triggering the high crime designation and there being in this. There has been no opposition or protest to the license application. Notices of application were mailed pursuant to abc to over 900 are departments within 500 feet of the market and no objections were received. They contacted the chair of the Mission Bay Citizens Advisory Committee and there were no concerns from that application. The Police Organization is supportive. We hope the Committee Makes a positive recommendation. I would be happy to answer any questions. The applicant would like to address you briefly. Bring the applicant on up. Thank you. Good morning. I am the coowner and general manager of gus market. We operated here for almost 7 months. It is a great experience. It is always nice going into a neighborhood that really appreciates the service that we are trying to provide, and having this small component to our store adds that fullservice feel, and it being a Community Market we want to over what the community wants. It is something that is requested we want to offer it to our customers. We offer it at the harrison location in a small designated section. It is focusing on justtic items our customers request. Building off that it is not a large segment of the business, but it is something that helps the fullservice basket. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you. I want to say thank you to the owners of gus for moving to mission bay. That is one of the Biggest Challenges and demands of residents is to have a fullservice Grocery Store and all of the reviews so far from folks in the neighborhood have been very positive. They are excited you are there. We want to make sure you are successful and you are the type of business that we want to have in our community and be able to grow and be sustainable. You know, that is an area of our city that doesnt have many Grocery Stores. Also, doesnt have places for people to get these types of spirits. If they are able to shop in the community to have needs met there. This is something that is absolutely needed. I am in full support of this. As your supervisor, i am excited so far you are successful. I hope that you will be in mission bay for a very long time. I just want to appreciate you. I support this. Supervisor mandelman any members of the public to speak on this . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. With your support, i think we can direct or clerk to prepare a resolution showing this transfer will serve public convenience and necessarity. Would you like to move to forward that to the full board with a positive recommendation . One quick point of housekeeping in case i missed it. Was there a motion to excuse for both supervisors stephanie and walton . We probably should do that. Lets take care of this and we will go back. We will take that motion without objection. I will make a motion to excuse supervisor walton. We can take that without objection. Thank you. Please call the next item. Clerk item 2. Ordinance amending the police code that employers must post employees rights under the fair chance ordinance by changing enforcement from office of labor standards to Human Rights Commission and adding notice and posting requirements to inform applicants of rights and revising the right of action requirements. Good morning, bill barns on behalf of the city administrator. Fair chance, ben the box is a law on the fifth box. It limits how employers and city funded Housing Providers can ask for criminal history information to provide greatest chance every entry. Housing and employment are key factors. Last year there was new legislation to start in august to extend to admission to private colleges and universities. It has been enforced by two different city agencies. Hrc enforces it where there is a public accommodation component. These amendments would do a couple theirs. First cleanup the fair chance ordinance notice requirements to summarize workers rights under the law. Two reasons. First, we posted many different places having it easy is more helpful for employers to put it all on one poster. Second is transfer which both agencies support. Rhc is better able to enforce because the applicant doesnt have an Employment Relationship with the school. These require the colleges to notice the applicants on the applicant and the Admission Office of their rights. Same system used for Affordable Housing applicants. Notice would be required in english, spanish and chinese as well as any language spoken by 5 of the population. It will be translated. Finally hrc enforcement would aplie. Applicant would receive the right of action so the city can notify them before you sue so the City Attorney can decide whether to assist you. I am happy to take any questions you may have. I do not see any questions or comments. Thanthank you, mr. Barnes. We will hear from the public if there are any members of the public to speak. Seeing number. Public comment is now closed. We have amendments to okay. I will move that we forward this to the full board with positive recommendation and we can take that without objection. Thanks very much. Agenda item 3. The 2019 San Francisco city survey to ask about Public Safety and homelessness. Thank you. I want to thank our controller and the office for working with my office to bring this hearing forward since 1996 they implemented the survey of the San Francisco residents to assess use of City Services. The city survey is important to ensure effectiveness and quality of Public Resources from muni to parks to libraries to sidewalks understanding the every day of accessing the City Services is essential to the work that the community and period do. The charter requires the controller monitor the effectiveness of the City Services. I think we hear every day about the weighs in which City Services may be failing. Less frequently we hear from folks praising services. It is valuable to have a tool like this that looks at how different departments and services are doing and can measure that over time and give us useful data for the work that we do. Thank you very much for that work. I think we will start with emilie, the project manager for city performance. Thank you, chairman delman. Good morning. I am an project manager in the Controllers Office here to introduce the findings of the city survey as well as background which you have heard. The senior performance analyst will go into more specific service readings. One objective this year was to increase visibility and accessibility of the survey data. We want to thank chairma thank g this hearing. It was administered from late november 2018 to february 2019. The main portions of the survey ask respondents to rate a, p, c, d or f for City Services. One of the key benefits is to allow us to see how well the city is performing, which is valuable for offering evidence of the work that they do. It can drive additional thank you. Focused engagement and follow up efforts by departments. This was the 17th city survey conducted. It was originally done via mailer. Now it is through the phone with web based option to allow a greater sample we had over 2200 surveys completed. When we look at the entire sample the ratings are weighted to act for major differences between the sample and the population of San Francisco. We do try to minimize weighting. When we look at changes over the time we can see significance for differences between about 2 points. Of course that needs to be larger for district level for 7 to 8 to see those significants. Here we show the overall ratings and trends. Main results in blue and grey is 2017. You can see government has remained b minus. It has been so since 2013. Libraries and parks continue upward. Transportation infrastructure had been on upward trend since early 2010. It peaked in 2017. You will see a half letter grade decline here. You will see 311 ratings increased half a letter. They didnt change significantly. That is a factor of distribution of people responds. With safety, the ratings did increase slightly not enough to change letter grades. Here i want to direct you to the 11 by 17 handout which blows out that image with the actual attribute ratings on the bars. What we show here we love this. The difference in the ratings between 2017 and 2019. The bars in blue on the top represent positive change. The red bars on the bottom represent negative changes. We do see that there is some variation in the magnitude and direction of changes between districts. As you know, it is important to note that we aim to get a survey that objectively measures resident perceptions. These are subjective measures. A couple of key findings here. The districts have generally increased since 2009 most speaked in 2017. 8 and 10 improved this year. 2, 3, 6 have seen larger downward trends. That is a continuation for district 3. We have asked residents what are the top issues. Homelessness and housing in 2017 and 2019. Even more so in 2019 for homelessness. Minimal variation . Responses between districts. Same districts. We see district 2 and 6 say they are more concerned about homelessness and less concerned about housing. 11 and 4 are less concerned about homeless and more concerned about housing. We added a question looking at the three issues in 2017. Are the issues getting better, worse, staying the same . Threequarters of respondents said homelessness has gotten worst and half said street cleanliness is worse and half said Public Safety is worse. By Group Differences those respondents in San Francisco for more than five years are on average more likely to say each issue is getting worse than those who have lived here five years or less. I will pass it over to glennnis to walk through the specific areas. Thank you for having us. I will take you through some of the main service results. One of the main outcomes is the percent that rated a service area a or b. That is what you will see on the graphs. One of the things we ask respondents is just about overall perception of local government. You can see the ratings have increased over the long run. This is first year since approximately 2011 fewer than 50 of respondents rated local government a or b. Muni ratings increased steadily since 2009. They have dropped from b minus to c plus this year. The only increase we saw in the survey was for driver courtesy. One of the interesting things here is there were much smaller decreases in the sub attributes than in muni overall. A couple explanations that we cant really get at. Missing attributes that arent covered or because it is a Perception Survey what you are seeing the overall perception of muni is different than the individual components. The drop we see aligns with the trends in transportation scorecards for the city. Breaking down respondents. Low income respondents rate muni higher than middle and upper income respondents. Within muni ratings the largest differences are in frequency and reliability of services. Districts 4 and 7 with lowest and district 1 has the highest. The survey collects information about usage of different modes of transportation in the city. We can see public transport and that includes bart is second most commonly used. 86 of respondents used it. Low income women are most likely to use it frequently. It is high across the board. You can see the in rightgraph a continuation of the trend in the 2017 city survey, a large increase in the use of tnc. Lyft and uber and decrease in taxi usage. Library usage is climbing. Many of the highest ratings in the survey are from this area. Respondents of children are twice as likely to be users of the Library Monthly or more. Geographic differences are limited for over all library ratingses. There are some differences across the survey. Africanamerican and black and asian islanders rate it is lowest. The largest increases among racial and ethnic groups for africanamerican respondents since 2017. In the sub attributes we see differences in the cleanliness. District five and six lowest and one the highest. In ratings of internet six and 10 lowest and three and eight highest. Park ratings climbed steadily. This year all of the attribute ratings increased or stayed is same. San francisco has high usage. Only 6 said they had not used them. Half reported using parks at least once a week. We see differences by race. Africanamerican and Hispanic Women rate parks lower than women of other races or men of the same race. We also see significant geographic differences in park ratings. District 6, 10, 11 hahistorically and continue to be ratest lowest. From the rightgraph the district 10 has increased ratings the most since the last survey. That is a positive thing we are seeing. These match what we see in the quarterly Park Maintenance which show low increasing scores in the south of the city. On the sub attributes. Cleanliness does particularly well geographically. Looking at safety. Readings of the safety fell in 2017. They increased marginnally last year. If general safety during the day are higher than at night. This is particularly true for women and especially true for women of color. There is another question about safety in the transportation section. We ask people about feelings of safety on muni. We note something that correlates. African and hispanics are four times likely feeling unsafe as white women. It is a 13 to 3 difference. Feelings of the safety rare yesa lot geographically. Twothirds felt safe in the day. South and east continue to rate it lower. District 10 saw the largest increase on the graph on the right. Low but climbing. We see similar patterns in reports of feelings of safe at night. Some districts saw larger drops. Infrastructure had a dip. This is a dichotomy between utility rating water services, Sewer Services that went up or stayed the same. Those Services Rating the conditions or cleanliness of the streets saw larger decreases. We dont calculate the grade average for the two services. It would be approximately a b plus water and sewer and c plus for the streets sidewalk and street measures. Cleanliness decreased the most this year. We can see that is true across the board but we see particularly in the northern and central parts of the city there are very large decreases in respondent ratings of cleanliness of streets and sidewalks. The last service area measures awareness use and respondent use of 311 services. Among those who reported using 311 services in the past year the ratings are identical to those of 2017. The Controllers Office has always put out a report on city survey findings. For the last several we have published the results online as well. Website here is the place to find out more on the city survey and on the first child and Family Survey which was intended to comto compliment the city su. On the city core cards you can find the key government services. We will update the website with more graphics by district and other topic areas. Thank you very much for your time today. Supervisor mandelman thank you. I know it was a pain to pull this together. I asked you to do that and you did so thank you. I have a few thoughts. In some ways, and this is an observation, for me to think how these responses are in some ways as much about the populations in the different districts as the quality of services. Peoples perception of what is good and bad. It may vary by their own situation as much as what is going on in the world that is the thing to j