c-3 district with residential and uses permitted i think there is a discussion to be had around there around what are we encouraging above the ground floor and the c-3 district i think we had that actual discussion before by the go off assessing one project is okay. and another one is not for that reason i'd like to continue the project not necessarily disapprove that they'll not be able to come back for 12 months we don't need 12 months to have that conversation. >> if i may jump in my keying they know is not working properly i'll say several requests from the department negotiable discussion with the

economic development about it issue we recognize the changing nature the retail the issue is - there are as many pointed out many considerations we think we need to devolve into the location within the union square and the size of floor plate and what types of uses that are appropriate on the lower floors as opposed to upper floors there is an analysis to be done i'm holdings media bracket we're going through in work plan that was not part of it (laughter) pursue but work to be done i mean, i - it might be helpful because the year-long project might be helpful to take a year link pause rather than an out right disapproval

i don't know how long to suggest that will probably take a good 4 months but illegal to have that preliminarily but the department's policy up to now has been the discourage conversions below the fourth floor at least we've had several conversations with the property owners our general policy been 3 and below should be - >> i'm happy to have a discussion if it is still right by our informal policy. >> it will be a disgrace to put office on was ground floor it is a fantastically conversation i'll support a continuance rather than a

disapproval you know this is a allowable for formula retail that opens the universe so foot locker and everyone else to find the first floor 0 a second floor and third floor is difficult this particular location i think i'll say we should have a policy or discussion on that but they have to be looked at site by site this location is in the middle of the financial district financial services request charles schwab not far away, union square work kearny street and muni our highly impacted transit routes that could support the upper floors and the office is above on the upper floors with your looking at bringing the office down rather than up and bright text is not

interesting landmark part of the history and for fear of the expending e spending into the other high character direction of mission or chinatown i see the fear of that and this particular address today was a residential building in chinatown one we flipped to opposing he'll not disapprove that but i'll like to continue the discussion yeah. those are my comments. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm - i wouldn't have expected to get a letter from mr. fong chinatown community development center not a sense of alarmness about this i tend to gravitate towards caution i

permanent didn't believe we can seawall workout a trends of how we needed to react to the trends in the 4 months you've mentioned that is part of the vision of the city of the future and envisioning the city changes in the retail and transportation, etc. and the environment we talked about earlier but not something to continue for a timeline i don't think that is quite not a linear process for that reason and couldn't say it could change we need policy and have something by which we can use as a similar argument for everybody office is far more lucrative in terms of when and square footage than upstairs retail i see the same way hat

makers and a pdr of the retail district just being there because they have their customers come upstairs and other elements of interest in retail for that reason i don't personally building that just continuing this prolong at this moment is the right way to explore with the department what the right balance not a district no, but need more time with the research to donor. >> a continuance will get us inside of a year. >> i don't know the departments calendar it is full i can't comment i don't think we want to extend that i know that projects are a sign on the windows asking for the same we

can't - a prolong on the corner of grant and sutter we approved will come back with a deft make up and the same question and projects, etc., etc. we are basically ready for an avalanche for a continuance i believe that we will not be able to have the right answers so for all the circumstances in which this will happen owe personally would like to do that that way but not realistic. >> the precursor is movie theatres and for a great while san francisco think couldn't figure out how to look at them many remained vacant until they put in the gyms i want to avoid that many retail uses that can be converted to office than movie 2450er9s converted into gyms i think we

have a larger problem coming ahead of us commissioner koppel. >> want to make a couple of comments reinforce director rahaim's comments for keeping second floor and third floor because the visible what will i say to any friends when they cook in a year who approved that why there office space it is up to the landlords and the tenants to still take that second floor and third floor and invite people up there i went to in the case i didn't town not only to the second floor and third floor went to the top floor and met my girl and her excess on grant street a sign on the sidewalk you go up there and huge massive footprint this place is i know crazy out of control and energy

and people are parenting and some of the things you can invite people up to and make a second floor or third floor active as the ground floor not to say this can't happen but just want to point out those couples of examples you can do a lot and not be on the ground floor. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yes i think it is interesting he agree with everything is commissioner moore said i come to a different conclude i think a continuance he hope 0 see the commission go for only this reason that a disapproval carries a lot of strength and one of the things if we work to disapprove the project we change our policy and reenvision what we think of the ccr and the other retail districts people

come back and say i disapproved that project i don't want that to be part of our conversation so i would like to make a motion to continue and i'm looking jonas normally we continue. >> there's a motion on the floor to disapprove, however, the motion to continue to supercede that. >> it was safeguard commissioner vice president richards and i want to make a motion to continue and normally we're anti more than, however, many weeks things were renoticed and recalendar don't make sense now. >> if we're going down the line of 4 months theoretically we can december continue this without renotification we required renoticing. >> less go our calendar goes

through march. >> march 9. >> okay. >> is there a second and second and commissioner hillis. >> you know this is a good discussion i think that you know there's an informal policy or maybe a formal policy that we see whether staff denies below the third floor he'll ask that we look at you know we look at how retail is procreating especially on third floors and i mean, he commissioner koppel had a good point we've been to the third floors where hair slogans and things like that not a lot of them but third floor office and the last case the housing that was dooshdz we thought that

that is was a viable we'll get watchmakers and jewelry makers the one the top floors taking our families and going downtown and shopping it is not even throughout the world we live in today, we have to figure out our policy and third floor or more in the core around union square and less than the outskirts there is maybe third floor only but anybody that will look at the policy if c-3 r is not reflective of reality but we have a policy overlay that says we're approving above the third floor by deny it above the tlvr he thought to see that flushed out. >> if i may only the c-3 r i

need a cu at some places it is last week at the ground level and some basement level it varies in all the various c-3 district we were asking that you take a policy stand in the c-3 r with the anticipation there are other projects that the departments will need to act on and bring to you. >> i think we can have to a more detailed discussion on that policy and where the third floor retail has worked emt have there been leases of separated third floor where you get that. >> get facts open this to see if there is a market it is a good discussion to have and hopefully you know there can be an analysis with an intern discussions and go forward. >> commissioner hillis those

are old before the mixed use building with the office use and one way to look at closer to the union square the percentage the building may not be greater than x of officer or less than retail unless formula retail or not - >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i want the pain the project sponsor but the word i have about a continuance the message sent to other people in your situation they maybe anticipating a change in 4 months and all of a sudden not showing their property expect to lease their property that's a danger i want to respect the conversation on the project this morning and the director assessing the public process on

those things takes a while and four months we're javm this in with a public office we're fooling ourselves we you know we struggled probably mr. vice president two years ago on the ncds and the department is getting making changes 4 months is two aggressive i can't support it i on the project sponsor we hope to see you back after we fought that i'll not support a continuance. >> co-sponsor. >> i'd like to make a comment to commissioner hillis i've worked in the financial district since the san jose as well as in the hair dresser to the yoga studio you sell custom

clothes their up and down sutter street and are sorry about that second floor and third floor and fourth floor particularly on the south side all buildings still have pretty much the same owners but the use of hairdresser they're all under i was laughing any husband didn't accompany me heard commissioner koppel having gun there their people another designers or hairdressers and they are last week, a sub culture on the upper floors is all very, very vital and i think that until we have kind of have other message based on what the department studying and advising i still believe we are better off not to just continue it

because that will take more than 4 months. >> commissioner hillis and i mean to set a new code i think that will take locker 4 months but the code assess you can apply for a ccii to her upper floors including i think you wouldn't deny a fifth floor we're arguing with the department the fourth floor they'll ask for the seam ccii those folks are asking for to allow for a non-retail on the fourth floor you'll need a cu to get a fourth floor to be office instead of retail i don't think we're making that nuance for the staff is but were we've not looked at that that is a pool the department may say is a good starting point i'd like to have that informed by what is out in

the market i agree i've been on the third floor and fifth floor our bow technologies and sales person that has a we're not talking with the futurists that's our horizon and we have to look at 20 years we see the spaces happening and many of the buildings their exists office use we see spur in the old space close to say the upper floor in the world council was there the office use at flood building was in on a floor that would require a ccii for that space to be used as office but grandfathered in there were no mixed use in the past we should move forward with a rational and started one on

the this is an informational item above but the reality is the department stores on the upper floors maybe some of them are viable and an opportunity but the amount of space we retailer in upper floors is shiflg in its ability they're our quarterbacking and we need to change the codes but set a different type of policy. >> the differences with the third floor and fist floor built offices whether their art galleries their for the most part small they've been demissed into office whether their doctor's office hence why you

need an architecture office okay. we're beating this thing up (laughter). >> a gay discussion. >> very good commissioners a motion to december approve but a motion to continue will supercede that and the motion to continue to march 9 commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar no commissioner moore you a no schematics no and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes passes 4 to 34 with commissioner melgar, commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards vetting against it places us in the discretionary review calendar please note after hearing that we continues by a vote of 7 to zero.

>> as this is the second hearing generally, we reduce the times for discretionary review and query to 3 minute and one minute for public comment t requester a dr requestwe have id up. >> sir 3 minutes. >> the package handed out please. this packet here. >> yes. >> i throughout that was per her comment. >> thank you for your patience

this afternoon. >> the overhead is not on? >> as you may remember i'm larry lived in noah valley over 19 years 3 girls it was used to park on a daily basis during the peek time in the afternoons i handed materials with pictures of the park a recent petition with members that opposed this project and petition signers for you to review and consider we hope you spent a lot of time to look at that saurm that will create a massive new wall 40 feet hovering over the park blocking views of the

neighboring hills and - >> on this 3 of us we lost our qualm. >> what happened to everybody. >> well. >> we've not taken a break for the entire afternoon. >> we'll have to wait for a moment some are listening in the back but 4 members. >> commissioner melgar is second. >> i'm saying she left. >> commissioner johnson a hero and commissioner koppel is here that's 4 maybe take a 5 minute break. >> that's fine can we take a 5 minute break in the sir. >> as i was saying before the

break in this project is a approved that extends hovering over the park i have pictures to look good the park i'll remind the commission of key factors for the most part no notice posted in the park about the project without such notice and with the park closed with ramps right now few community members know about the project in communities meetings held to give notice and information to the members with the noah valley park community and despite the rain we learned last week that the proponent of the project was not going to mitigate the project but desired to mitigate the project via the park but desired when i believe

a ploy and over petition many noah valley residents signed the petition it oppose the project again, if this project is built it shades the park and blocks at the most active times of the day and also is the overhead working? real quickly when this commission makes a decision it will impact the park if i look at the approved plans by the rec and park that space is where all the tennis courts will be the planning department and it's review the project mark farrell concludes there will be no a negative impact no basis for in conclude it is not surveyed

users not been any reviews of the community of that park i acknowledge not been to the park this commission along with the rec and park commission and reviewing the victorian parks that had a 10 unit building with less shading no blocking of views the commission determined there was more impact to the - that park than this would did he encourage the commission here to protect our park imagine is this if so your chrldz or parents fausht park a small second unit not rented out worth the long term impact to the users of noah valley court i plead but to protect our park. >> speaker in support of dr

requester. >> 24 street receipt i lived steps away a recreational green space well-used trorld playground and basketball courts all san francisco i did not see magnificent violates the residential design guidelines protect the major views the city views and parks by adjusting the massing of proposed development to reduce or eliminate adverse the project forever casts

shadows on courts featured in the renovations underway city funds involved for improvement will go for community devoted years to raise grant money. >> thank you other speakers good afternoon, commissioners i'm the project sponsor immediately adjacent for the building i nishd filed a dr after modifications i'll reiterate that in discussions that went on more more than a year with the owners the idea of a sending second unit was not brought up at any time expeditiousness and didn't exploratorium to the rest of the neighborhood for what is to

worth in my discussions with the owners abused my property is the most scombakdz by the private and light and air and a skylight from my office window impacted by the property they said he recently resonated. >> thank you. >> any additional speakers in support of dr requester seeing none, project sponsor 3 minutes. >> wait for the computer to be triggered. >> commissioners jeremy paul on behalf of the sponsors the my dogs favorable hang out

the amount of shaidz this will take place is very minimal just to be clear that the house behind that that also is adjacent to the park facing elizabeth street at the height we proposed to build to as you can see the line at 833 elizabeth across 43, 24th street that's the height we're building to the shading that took place in the park happens at the trees you'll show you a detailed shading plan okay. this is a good photograph on i'll zoom no on the corner this is where our roofline starts so the roofline shift to the south in the summer should say sunset at 835 the summer soltice there this is

where the shadow is cast the shadow is never cast over the center of the park september 21st this is the shadow at the maximum at 5:00 p.m. the orange portion that is what recently was recommended at the request of mr. robison the adjacent neighbor we made a two foot reduction in the height at he's bequeath this is the winter soltice the shadow you see the trees we're never another any pointed shadowing picnic or especially the children's playground - this is the only window that

will be obstructed by our addition this makes perfect sense for the family that petition is very hurtful and andy anticipate to sarah and their data perry and feedback that see their neighbors cross the street they're telling me the numbers their park will be ruined not true we're trying to create a second unit with the recommendations of the full entryway that is a good access to a usable units that make sense for this location. >> and mural we're prepping to put on the spot. >> your time is up. >> any speakers in support of project sponsor. >> seeing none, dr requester you get a one minute rebuttal. >> no rebuttal. >> okay sorry. >> this portion of the hearing

is closed commissioners. >> commissioner hillis. >> a question to the project sponsor. >> can you put up since our last hearing what has changed is that you've added that unit to the ground floor. >> yes. >> you know better. >> sorry. >> there's the unit. >> how is it assessed as accessed from a door to the east side of the garage where we're critique a breezeway that is

will impact on the parking area we're proposing but it will give us enough room for a small car and second car as well as beacon parking meeting the city retirements the entryway we the recessed well articulated way with the clear windows along the wall the breezeway is not a darker tunnel to a unpleasant entry to a bad unit a quality garden unit that will serve this family as their older daughter is in high school and younger is in high school they'll be able to use this and will serve as an part time o apartment rental. >> a breezeway open to the sky. >> no about it will not be built to we'll put clear story windows along it bringing light.

>> i think this is is a hard one is that i think i sympathize with the shadows in the park, however, we've got to tough case no doubt that will impact the park with some shadow impacts to the park i don't know, there enormous but an impact to the park and prop k that protects that but not applicable bus the height of the building and staying under the height that would trigger our analysis in prop k if we look at this project without the park adjacent to it is well-designed it is fitting in with the neighborhood and contextual we'll for the take dr and make major modifications the question becomes to me is the shadow on the park at a level we should

take dr you know, i just don't think this is we can - i can justify taking dr for the amount of shadows cast on the park with a building that is code compliant underneath the required height and did not prop k does - is not applicable not to say there wouldn't be a small shadow impact to the park i appreciate the second unit it helps in making the justification we're not adding a monster home or a typically large home that is modified modest with a unit that may or may not be used by someone but additional housing stock i have tribun trouble with the deck on the

tape it is not necessary to have that note a condition that is consistent so that's the only they know i'll necessarily change. >> second. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> mr. mccain can you come to the microphone and talk about the tree obviously as trees mature a parks in huntington park trees have shadows and we have an even green rather than a city tree here and commissioner. >> please do so. >> could you turn that so we

can see it it way pull it down a little bit we have a full - >> oh, these trees in the picture cast a shadow; correct? >> yes. >> but a couple of points really quickly. >> i want to stick with the tree if you don't mind i want to talk about the trees want to diversify an equal forum to have something it casts a shadow versus the building casts a shadow i'm concerned about the park if there is indeed - a reason to believe the tree and cast a shadow although the picture shows otherwise the trees cast shadows you look at the case study the park is shadowed significantly by the tree owe and by the unit and the

other units over there the point when the park is 20 percent shadowed if i look at the 1989 with rec and park when the small park under two acres not to have any in any shadows. >> the idea that park was two shadowed the idea of more shade is node acceptable no question interest is shading by the trees but that will in a small park sunlight is at at precious commodity more shadowing is not good the increase in the building will feel hike our or like our blocked in not only the shadowing of the building and the trees will not be close to the 20 percent or over caused by the addition which is important and also. >> thank you you answered my

question we want to direct the question towards staff mr. washington can you explain the shadow and causation on shadow thank you very much i ask mr. washington when a park of r is of a certain size and shoold applies for obstruction over 40 feet in height and potential that it can have requires a shadow study and the property if steady the height limit therefore not part of review for praushgz finding. >> you're saying the shadow that occurs with the building under the height is indeed the shadow we have to anticipate in a reasonable code compliant building that's the urban setting in which it occurs. >> that's correct the planner was the prop k expert by

coinciden coincidence. >> the sun we want to have we'll have it is interesting in huntington park their casting a shadow everyone it sits in the arrangement moves into the sun it is like a sundial on the entire park having said that, if that is what the in front of you us we need to consider that i have emotional on the side of wanting to protect the park but can't do that those rules which any at small park falls under i am torn last week the addition of the second unit the second unit is rendering out to make a good unit the on thing i don't want to use

the unit as a trade for the park from the park is really something that is not really for our consideration a metric to consider so i'm to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> no, i'm in dialogue with any commissioners. >> commissioners and yeah. i'm really challenged by this project i think that was a little bit clear the expansion of a single-family home i think the trade off of the impact on the park and the streetscape and otherwise was wander of the project even though this was code compliant and in this case we actually have an additional unit we often ask for and in this case last week commissioner moore mentioned fully rendering sometimes we ask are for an additional unit and get extra

sequencing in the basement not what we have here a smaller park not under prop k and one of the gray areas i think in this case, i them like this trade off works and anything you do to that building will cast more shadow offender the park even the closing statement project of any sort of will impact that park and so i feel what we have is fair i'm challenged why like the impact of. >> (speaking chinese.) and people not wanting to use the park or programmed properly question he guess i have for -

the size of this park and the amount of shading cast in neither desire to not have additional shading i'd like to found that letter in the packet this is the 40 feet the fact we shouldn't be considering it. >> i'll look into the packet to see if we have in specific letter but again, we're viewing on the prop k finding we do what we can to minimize the shadow on light and air and minimize window blocking in this incidence they have such limitations from the residential design from the top floor back and trying to minimize the height brings if it down to reduce the impacts on the shadowing jeanette to the tense

court as opposed to to the active vaurnt their factored into the evaluation of the project and in this incidence we felt the twraergs to the house to the eavely competitive not any other parcel on the block. >> okay. >> and the addition of the second unit it can justifies adding volume that can be incorporated into this. >> i guess thank you one other question he guess i have mr. king we have a diaphragm on shading i believe you handed ♪ your brief to us it's a project sponsors >> it was - and so this shadow analysis stated for september or december june or december 21st is this representative of what

you shown over the source of many slices. >> not exactly the project has been reduced since that data was create. >> i get it now i think so the differential so mingle from the staffs point of view to reduce those shadows. >> from the roof angling theorized it to two feet i believe. >> the main thing is the height as low as it is simple you know really can't look at that position question want to have a design that is logical and kind of - >> thank you one other thing mr. cain is shadowing the tense court from running around sweating i'll want to be cool that's a disadvantage when our in the sun placing tense you want to comment on that welcome

a comment. >> you look at the long term plan for the park that areas is not going to remain a tense court that will be a multi court and basketball and the main area for the kids to play in this will impact the area forever is that's why you make your decision you're taking this park and i'm not sure what i did with that. >> that would be great. >> the original point is the reason why prop k didn't apply for the 40 c from the front door i don't believe that ceqa will measure feet from that angle and i do think that unusual circumstances here

oh, here it is yes and this is commissioner kim's from the developers and the shape. >> can you all that for us, please. >> can you hear me. >> can be bend the mike. >> this is approved by rec and park didn't have enough money but doing the renovation of the park they're putting in seat terraces here and picnic tables will be shaded and make this a general lawn area and a multi use court with basketball and other activities as i guess back to my original question comment if you're playing tennis in the

sun it makes you hotter and more uncomfortable if we set having a peck in case can you comment. >> this is the afternoon my kids play a lot of soccer and lots of sports in the afternoon people wanted to be in the sun in their cold so we're talking not late everybody by three or four 5 clock i think people would rather sunshine have sun versus shade and to be honest my kids last week the shade and commissioner johnson. >> yeah. i think my comments were about in appreciation if i were under a tense court this programming will be impacted by any potential investment of the

building - less likely this space we'll be used by families in the area. >> commissioner moore. >> i been open a strange pursue one way or another because we are two people short that the large policy discuss and other projects coming up there will be shadows on parks and last week to have the balance in the discussion he feel that with two people messaging it is difficult to see the fuller way of different opinions coming together to make a decision i'm so torn on that i don't know what to do. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. i'm looking at this really as compared to the

projects we saw about 6 weeks ago and i'm seeing the roof that is one thing we're looking for; right? and seeing the changes we asked still under the height limit and code compliant he'll be supportive of commissioner hilliss motion you included or excluding the deck. >> is that a motion. >> i'll make a motion to take dr. >> take dr. >> and approve without the roof-deck. >> front deck or roof deck. >> front deck. >> second. >> one thing i'd like to ask the motion maker to include in the motion a mural i think the

project sponsor offered to have a mural pained to soften the look of a stark white building we can direct him will you accept that. >> yes. >> seconder. >> ? i'm not a huge one i think the white reflective you know can get more light into the space than a mural i leave it up to the neighbors i prefer not included in the motion. >> mr. paul please. thank you thank you thank you for your time commissioner hillis i'd like to go to the overhead and show you what we're proposing to do with this mural i'll suggest that if something that the project sponsor would last week to do this is on private property say a single-family home now that becomes a

single-family with a second unit to make them have the dedication with the dr they provided decorative treatment for the building facing the park the current condition on the same picture we are worked up with this mural it is not tornadic i'm in the park quite often something needs to be done to the call and 2 should be the property owner decision how to do it. >> commissioner moore. >> that's my wife's artwork. >> the idea to soften the impact of a solid at all wall against the park by using landscaping to conceal the part of building that's the precipitate of an idea that is in keeping with what a property owner might be interested in

doing that for one from the east elevation sufficient light to have some form of landscape softening a mural is two severe. >> from the commissioners would say that that wall be treated in some way to mitigated against the harsh impact but lighter colors are more appropriate. >> yes. >> yes. >> the monitor is not working so many someone want to add anything and the monoxide maker and the seconder.

>> yes. >> there's a there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve the project as

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder

so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity

foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help

us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and

they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient

what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things

you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they

have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for - >> good morning welcome and thank you for being

here bright and early on a post halloween morning and i hope everybody had their fill of candy happy to be joined by my chef deputy and city attorney bother working diligently on the case we'll discuss this morning and filed documents this morning as you may know a natural civil rights equal justice under the law filed a federal claishgs illuminate again san francisco amending the state money balances was unconstitutional it unfairly allows the wealthy to go free and the poor remain in jail it was filed two the city and city and sheriff hennessey oversees the city and county of san francisco jails was added and, of course, dismisses the claims against the state and

city my office represents the sheriff's as legal counsel up until now in my office harnt taken a position since this was filed we worked diligently to look at the argument and what they're seeking in the value it of the bail law and hard work to protect the taxpayers from enforcing the law we successfully done those things and now the heart of issue the state failed system is unzuckerberg san francisco general constitutional people andrew's on suspension of a crime are held in jail unless at the pay money as collateral those amounts are a bail schedule and state law requires the supreme court judges in each certificate of occupancy and the sheriff enforce if you can pay you, get out of jail if you

cannot you don't get out of jail that is a reflex to the community whether you can pay for your freedom a two tier stop one with money and one without not right and in keeping with the constitution it is time for it to stop to echo u.s. attorney general loretta relinquish no price tag on justice i believe the states bail system specifically the bail system before arrangement is unconstitutional that's why my office filed papers in supreme court we'll not defend that law we are innovate taking issue with the law but about the existing bail process prior to the point of arrangement at arrangement a judge has the

opportunity to review the circumstances and make an individual bail determination based on all the facts a bail schedule that lists the price of freedom without consideration of the individual circumstances is not serving the interest of the government or the public and unfairly discriminates against the poor government entities in other states tackle the problem in lawsuits like alabama, kansas, missouri and mississippi and louisiana have reformed their action but my action is the first time that a government entity has refused to - dangerous people need to remain incarcerated how much money someone has is not picture measure of the 245e9 right now we have a system that someone can be locked up for days because they can't pay for your

freedom and someone dangerous what about free someone for marijuana for sale can be locked up and not by a bail but someone paying one and 50 thousand can be out for rape that needs to change that's why we're taking this step this is decades in robert f kennedy were attorney general only one factor determines whether a defendant stays in jail not guilt or innocence but the nature of the crime not the character of the defensive that is money in testifying in congress the attorney general told a store 54 days in jail one person couldn't afford a bail for the maximum penalty was 5 days in jail two years later congress passed its

the bail reform act in 1968 that polishes - the federal system uses a model that cantonese those people that are a flight reflex or danger to others maybe condition a dna sample or curfew and bail cannot urban design set in an amount a person couldn't afford in 1987 our society liberty that the norman and detention prior to trial or without trial is the exemption states, however, have not necessarily followed suit as an example report this issue by the nonprofit non-partisan prison found 6 hundred and 36 thousand people locked up and in more than 3 thousand jails in the united states 70 percent are held pretrial meaning not

convicted of a crime or legally presumed innocent in february 2015 did u.s. department of justice arguing a bail that carding people before trial solely because of they're not able to pay for this is violating the fourth amendment the u.s. department of justice said they must not cause people to be incarcerated solely because they can't pay keeping people locked up for no reason they can't post bail has other consequences people loss jobs and family fall apart and taxpayers don't need this in terms of the current bail some h system is not only

unconstitutional but bad public policy the district of columbia has been very pro-active in the area and don't use prearrangement bail it workouts well, in the district of columbia and in fiscal year 2017 the district of columbia were realized 98 percent avoided arrest for violent crimes and 88 percent made all air scheduled court pioneers that is an issue that has gardened national attention and the chief court justice convened a working group to come up with recommendation by december of 2017 to deal with that situation which everybody knows needs to be reformed we're hopeful with our action we'll give impetus u

tuesday and make sure we have a reformation of a bail system no doubt here in california unconstitutional you may note a need for reform for the bail system and the laws governing it we plan on working with the senator to make sure that the today's action has impetus to have reform at the state level to have a bail system here in california it is constitutional and fair and workable and protects the public that is it is intended to protect thank you all for coming i look forward to any questions question. >> bob. >> (inaudible). >> there will be two options number one the states attorney

general can step in and defend the snuflt of the state law or number two already been a motion intervened by and bail bondsman that motion was denied i would anticipate that they'll renew that motion either the attorney general or the interskweern and rogers will make that determination and i think that is likely they'll be someone to step up to defend the uncomfortably. >> (inaudible). >> no i don't think that is

likely their won't be changes tomorrow are today bob alluded it to say likely that something else will make an effort to defend the law we'll have to wait and see how that litigation plays out this is a pretty good big statement the first time the city has stepped up it sends a message allowed there is changes in the future i think that at the lefrs the potentially or the evolve outlet there is a change in the system we have i don't anticipate we won't see anything in the self disease. >> not necessarily a call to action a concrete step it is a further impetus to a movement

growing across the country there are other advocacy groups that have a call to action my job to defend the laws and what i think one is unconstitutional i'll not step out and defend this is what we're doing today. >> (inaudible). >> do you know what the plan say you guys are right. >> well the reformation has to starred in the state allergic i don't have the power assemblyman boca will be the leaders on the reform we'll wait and see there is a state mandate that each court system in each county as 5 bail schedule this is something that has to happen at the state level. >> it is been in - what -

>> decades this is the current system been around for decades and it is the combrefrnd as i alluded to nationally robert kennedy was talking about this in 1964 this is the norman in the united states and it certainly the norm in california that is a certain a very, very good step. >> what happened everything you don't have (inaudible) i guess i'm curious as to the people that have the money they'll basically be required to pay. >> if you look at it - what needs to happen everyone needs to be treated fairly and equally under the law with the current prearrangement bail system a person who has the means just pays the money and walks out the

as a matter of fact everybody should be treated equal in post arrangement bail everyone has their case yielding reviewed by the judge that makes a determination if they're a flight reflex what's the risk to sorority of that yield being out on the streets here in prearrangement bails we don't have that we need fair enforcement of justice to make sure that all cases with yielding reviewed by a judge who makes sure that that person does not pose a flight reflex or minimize the risk to the community and a variety of other ways in which you can assure that yield is make their court appearance and show up for trial i can have all sorts of supervision from check in these with the court to e-mails, to

supervised visits to make sure that yield is supervised and make sure they're returning not based on money and everybody has to have their case adjudicated in a fair even way under the provision of a court officer. >> (inaudible). >> well, they're - >> the same standard or still have to pay. >> we'll have to see every case is jashthd should be adjudicated by a judge certain a bail might not a component but not only the with only way to pay and get out. >> (inaudible). >> the money bail is a bad thing - (inaudible).

>> well, i'll say i'm not going to get into policy but certainly a prearrangement before a case it look at by a judge money in and of itself in our view as the only means unconstitutional what roles the money plays down the road as a component after a judge reviews a case we'll have to see but right now what we are doing to prearranging bail and having money and wealth the only dictator yeah. >> relative to the - a judge adjudicates a case well in a system you know each person

stands out in - (inaudible). >> i don't think so no, no washington, d.c. public school don't does that the federal system does that and you know what i've got to say convenience shouldn't be the dictator of what is just and what sorts of justice people charged with a crime get we're all sdiermentd to equal protection under the law only if it is convenient it does not say or how much money we have that's right. >> you're referring (inaudible) we filed affirming today, we'll nobody be defending the case i'm

saying that is unconstitutional. >> (inaudible). >> correct. >> okay tha

everyone. >> welcome and thank you all for coming this morning here my chief deputy city attorney and evan that has been working diligently on the investigation in this case and thank you for your efforts part of my responsibility as city attorney to protect san francisco residents and taxpayers from unfair or lawful business practices my office filed a law enforcement over the tower the reason for the action is simply because of the facts in the case are so clear but not make them any less my office investigations shows

the developer mission district, llc knew for a year before they began selling condominiums to the 58 story residential building was sinking faster than expected yet they went ahead and solid accumulated without telling the buyers about the situation we were legally required buyer be aware didn't cut it smol someone selling real estate must disclose that when construction of tower was completed in february 2008 it had already settled a lot of 6 inches 6 inches was a a maximum amount of engineering appreciated it would sink it had reached the point a year again, the developer began selling the condominium by february of 2009 just before the condos went on

the market the tower settled 8.3 inches more over the maximum amount predicted by the geotechnical engineer on may the developer had data showings the tower way continuing to settle at different rates in different parts of property that leads to the building tilting now the building has sunk 16 inches and news report say it is sinking at the base before they sold a single condominiums mission street development, llc knew they're building sunk more than it was supposed to and that was still sinking yet doesn't dell the homeowners they're required under the law mission street, llc turned over 19 hundred packages of documents with the disclose information about the

property as a result of the subpoena that my office issued in september these disclosures documents discussed everybody from color and marble to noting the size and types of of the plans in the common area change but they left out of most important detail no where is the city aware of mission street, llc disclose that the building settled faster than it was designed to do that's not just a bit of information perspective homeowners would like to know the information the developer is legally required to provide and at the heart of the case the homeowners have filed define the transportation authority and the city and county of san francisco my office is bringing this lawsuit to a cross complaint against the mission street, llc they filed it today in a case of a number of millennium

homeowners have sued the joint powers authority and the san francisco city center they're building a tower next to the site san francisco is one of the members of the authority the authority is a separate legal entity and our cross complaint we are seeking damages the court feels is appropriate in 2013 when it closed it's for sale millennium brought in what delighted quota massive 78 hundred there are no thousand dollars it was one $.8 million my office has a duty to protect the taxpayers of 70 spot sit by and allow a developer to gunshot themselves by hiding information in their required by law to disclose that gave the developer in this case an unfair advantage

and cheated the homeowners out of the information they needed to make an informed choice that's summarized the information and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> go in order. >> (inaudible). >> no do not. >> was there a choice to file a criminal complaint. >> this is a civil complaint i don't have the power under the law to file a criminal action this is a can i feel complaint we're not seeking reference nor have i made referral to the duo district attorney or any other entities that makes that inquiry yeah. >> is the filing a cross complaint. >> that's correct. >> the homeowners that sued

the transbay joint powers authority and the city and county of san francisco. >> well, it is depend on what the findings is in this case, the damages according to prove and in the event there was a finding against a city an indemnity against the developer since their the party at fault. >> (inaudible). >> monetary damages yeah. >> (inaudible). >> well, i think that that's right what everybody - that should be the primary concern of everybody we're protecting life and safety i know there's a review going on by other city

agencies to make sure that that the building is safe from everything i'm told the building is safe and would perform in an earthquake that's not the focus of my inquiry at this point but i know the city and the mayor and the department of building inspection and everybody has focused on assuring paycheck and safety. >> (inaudible). >> well, i'll disagree as a matter of fact the department of building department dbi didn't have information about the

current settlement until the past july so that's something that will be discussed in litigation. >> (inaudible) you've already said in some litigation the homeowners waited too late to file their filing against the city you said they've known about it since 2015 and should have settled sooner you want the - now your intervening that goes sg against the millennium developer and then he going against the developer and they don't have any money they're out out of luck your public health they're wrongly suing the city and on the other hand, you're saying it is millenniums fault. >> the as a matter of fact jackson i think what you're referring to a lawsuit that was

filed against the city we filed and refiled today but we've been clear the vocal point of this needs to be on the responsible party that's the developer because if you accounted a lot the claim before us and the complaint against the city it is basically for a condemnation and the claim of the value it because what has occurred there was a loss of value not an adequate disclose made to the purchasesers by the developer at the time of the arbitration it was completed that's what cause the loss in value has occurred from my perspective the vocal point is on the responsible party the developer who has known about this all along and not disclose the information

that was required to disclose to their purposeers or pro seismic purchasers. >> i'm sorry. i'll come back to you. >> certainly i do absolutely i think that you know this is every homeowners worst nightmare a lot of people go through this they know what happens when the investment it is to go and purchase a home or condominium sometimes you have people's entire savings they put forward to purchase something that's why this is egregious and the california raw is to district and expensive whaven when it comes you must throwers for the purposeers the reason for the law in this area is to that people don't get ripped off and

they're protected and in our view what makes that egregious when you look at all the disclosures and the marble eloquently goes to the heart of what one considers had making an transaction yet i have compassionate for the folks that's why we're stepping in to make sure the developer that the city is making sure that the responsible party here is paying for their misdeeds. >> you have a question. >> (inaudible). >> it is it is. >> (inaudible). >> okay this gentleman here. >> (inaudible). >> i'm sorry (inaudible). >> we received 19 hundred pages of documents in respond to

a subpoena we issued in september. >> oh, okay. >> (inaudible) 2011. >> yeah. >> do you think that although it is millenniums responsibility aren't you you embarrassed the agencies didn't bother to tell nobody that the city's job for safety obviously they can step in a do the right thing in 2009 including those are by all measures the presented measure of settlement is he watched and the city knows the millennium is not telling you it is readily apparent or the. >> at least be careful with the words the gentleman asked about criminal activity i'm not sure anyone is committing a crime no doubt that dbi knew

about settlement in 2009 but it wasn't until this past july dbi had additional information about the continuing settlement accordance of differential settlement they didn't have all the information number one but number two the second part of our question you - who's the one that is dealing with the purchaser the city is not in a position of knowing what the developer is disclosing to pro seismic purchasers we're not in a contract the city didn't interjefferson county themselves into all transactions we don't know what in their disclosing to the purchasers it was as a result of our subpoena that we preserved the disclose and went to the purchasers and saw what

was and not disclosed if we followed the logic the as a matter of fact of the matter the city being sure on all home purpose in san francisco stepping in and trying to monitor and interjefferson county themselves in that to see in profits are made or not made its simply - >> your city is a aware of the position and let them get away with it and actually nobody recorded a crime so nobody recorded it. >> we didn't release or know that millennium was not living up to its obligations the second we got the information we were not aware they were living up to their obligation we taken steps to address that so i'll say you

know we operate laws are on the book people expect their live up to the obligations we become aware they're not we'll take action and be aggressive about that that's what we're doing today and (inaudible). >> i'm sorry in my office i have a code compliant office division. >> (inaudible). >> somebody from city building look at this and you start talking about you have this building we talk about the fact that may not be seen - a big earthquake was a threat i mean the city just walked away under the table. >> as dbi has gotten information the department of building inspection that's who i presume you're asking about they're involved and making sure that the building is safe and i

don't think that anyone is walking away and trying to say it is not anyone's problem the city is aggressive in the health and safety and the terms of discloses to make sure that millennium their obligation is up and that's what we're talking about today. >> (inaudible). >> i can't speak to that that's something the department of building inspection will be continuously working with the developer as it processes and not anything i can speak to - yes. >> (inaudible) to fix the problem and what you know what is the next step that building is still - >> i can't speak to a criminal inquiry that is something for the district attorney or something else i have - we're

unaware of at this time but if we become aware nushgs we thought darned a criminal inquiry we'll make that referral but i don't have any indication. >> yes. it is about monetary damage; correct. >> no according to prove the courts democrats as we go through the case. >> (inaudible) that are it is urban precedent have you not necessary developer. >> we sue people and entities all the time. >> this is obviously i don't think - this is obviously a very, very serious case and a big case in a high-profile case but you yufgs one case is more important than at a homeowner feels their safety is threatened even though this is not a high

profile this is a big case and a big development this is unprecedented case (inaudible). >> (inaudible). >> i can't will you at this point. >> (inaudible). >> well, we obviously directing your attention of this litigation looking at everything obviously we'll have to in terms of handling this case. >> part of our toufbz about the disclosure (inaudible) part of our objectives we should be more scrutiny and will be scrutinizing this and the developers be wander and i'll not is that actually, i think

that here in california basis there are such robust and protective disclosure laws i'll find in most incidents in purchases of hopes and development there is a lot of disclosure a lot of disclosure because buyers are sophisticated and sellers are they know what the law requires that's what makes this particular egging gregarious you have a very, very sophisticated developer but be assure if someone is not living up to their legal responsibility we'd like investigate and take action where appropriate i'll not say this is sending a message i think that most sophisticated developers and purchasers are aware of their legal responsibility and live up to it.

>> yeah. >> (inaudible) the stores you've done can you talk a little bit about more about the development. >> that's the developer of an affiliate that was wraeshl for the sale of the condos in the beginning of the marketing of that. >> (inaudible). >> an affiliate, an affiliate. >> take two more questions aj has not had a chance. >> (inaudible) we thought that was the best deal for the case and knew we had to file an answer and orderly in a case like this if you going to file an answer you have a cross claim choose to go to this group two more questions.

>> obviously in terms of our case the millennium will be i should - just to be clear mission street development will be served and with the complaint and they'll have an opportunity to respond file an answer and we'll see where that goes. >> (inaudible). >> said an obligation to disclose. >> yep. >> (inaudible) i'm kind of confused those guys profited millions of dollars for failing to disclose a serious problem and walk away with the money that is why isn't this a crime and there - when you file a criminal action i know that makes for a sexy sounds like bidded owl crimes very specific elements and as we reviewed this

to date we are obviously i'm not a criminal lawyer but reviewing this and we see a violation of civil lay in the event we thought this was an element to the crime we referred it but does see any element of criminal activity we filed an action of a lawsuit i don't throw the word out criminal crime willy-nilly without having evidence i don't have any evidence if i did i'll make the information to the appropriate party. >> okay - >> (inaudible). >> no, that's - we're going to have to see where this goes if there is liability we found a

contribution or who is held responsible for the payment of damages - >> we'll have to see where things go in this case at this time it is premature to talk about that. >> but - >> but if you think about damages yeah. i don't know what a mechanism would be because of the early stages of the litigation thank very

>> commissioner president loftus i'd like to call roll is commissioner president loftus commissioner vice president turman commissioner marshall commissioner mazzuco commissioner dejesus commissioner wong commissioner melara ask excused commissioner president loftus we have quorum also with us the intern chief of police toney chaplin and joyce hicks. >> okay. >> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, november 2, 2016, police commission meeting i'm going to make changes to the agenda given the length of the agenda a long closed session handling discipline matters one and 2 to our meeting next week and go ahead and