for a comfortably sized house are really not completely necessary. the second point planning makes is that the vertical addition should only extend to the extending rear wall structure as a maximum. and i agree with that, and there's an ask for decreasing the vertical addition in floor height from ten to 9 feet. 9 feet is still a very comfortable height. the majority that we see are eight, 8.5, so we are still within very comfortable size room heights. the comment i would like to make in addition to what rdt's says, the adu as proposed is not an adu because it is fully accessible from the main house which does not make it a singly identifiable unit, and that under adu definitions meet the

requirements. you can come from the main floor into the unit, and it becomes just an expanded space for a single-family house, so we cannot use that as an argument for giving this very large addition extra benefits of having added second units. that has not occurred within the rules that we normally have to apply. those are my comments. if the project would be modified as proposed by rdt, and there would be proper attention paid to the adu being fully independently accessible from the main circulation of the home, this project would be approved but it needs some additional work. >> president hillis: okay. can i just ask staff, can you put up a-102. it's always hard when we have a staff initiated d.r., and it's hard to view when we can't see

the modifications that you're proposing. can you just -- i mean, i get commissioner moore's comments was on that entry, but can you just walk us through the proposed changes, how they would impact that -- the floor plans there. >> sure. so with respect to the limitation to the depth of the horizontal addition, i'll just draw a dash line of the estimate. so for the first -- for the bottom two floors, it would be about 15 feet back, and the five-foot set back, so one moment. so for the bottom floor, it

will impact what's currently proposed as a living room and we're looking forwardly along both property lines. we only have one side set back currently. and then, for the second floor -- >> president hillis: just go back to the first floor. >> sure. >> president hillis: so how would that -- it seems it would be under where you drew it, difficult to get a one bedroom adu in there. >> so it would have to be reprogrammed. i don't have the specifics on the square footage and what the actual program will be. we would work with a staff -- architect accordingly to make sure we can accommodate the one or two bedrooms, whatever it may be. >> president hillis: just go to the second floor for a minute, and then, we can...so that -- so this floor is fine. i think you can get that bedroom in.

i think you can kind of modify the bathroom size. you've got the side set back is already there on the first floor -- or on the second floor? >> yes. >> president hillis: or it's a deck. all right. and then on the next floor, you eliminate the horizontal and vertical addition altogether. yeah. the only concern i have is the first floor, making -- i like the idea of an adu and just continuing to make that a livable one-bedroom unit. 'cause it's a ten -- i mean, it's a 25-foot lot. 5 foot set backs on either side would get you to a ten-foot wide -- i mean, 15-foot -- yeah. but why the recommendation on this first floor for reduced -- >> so our standard department comment for when we have

adjacent buildings with a similar layout is to, similar to commissioner moore stated, allow a pop out of sorts, but rather than the traditional 12 foot deep pop out, we're recommending a 10 foot deep pop out, so each side, 5 foot each. so that is a standard comment, and we've apply ied it to this property and each side, as well. >> president hillis: okay. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think when you look to see what's here, you really start to resequence what is proposed. there is a living room, there is a large number of bathrooms. there are quite a few nooks and crannies in there.

you can get everything you want in there, just basically rearranging the pieces and coming up with something which is quite workable. i've looked at it for quite a while. we're not here to design it, but i think the department has a very good understanding what pop outs should and shouldn't be in order not to impact other properties. the real issue on the extent of this particular proposal as it is given to us, the incredible issues of privacy with adjoining people, including, basically, creating a stepped section, which really megamansions, the block, which is inappropriate to the setting. >> delvin washington, southwest team leader. i just wanted to reiterate what staff said. the commission may want to consider, too, that we in this case are entertaining an accessory dwelling unit, that

we do want to be livable, as well. there are a lot of options on the upper floors for the project sponsor to tweak and adjust this so that they can comply with our suggestion -- our recommendations and still provide them adequate habitable living space. perhaps the commission -- again, as the commission, you do have the ability to use your discretion. we take a strict approach to this as staff, as we should. you are the commission, so thank you. >> president hillis: you know, and i get that. i just want to make sure there's livable -- the plans are a little bit confusing. as you walk in the ground floor, there's storage and irk iirk -- circulation. there's a bathroom and i think what goes with the upper floors, washer and dryer. i think there's a way to make it livable. there's a lot going on in the

first floor entry. given the amount of excess uses on the floor, it probably can be done with the staff's recommendation. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i actually appreciate and i want to reiterate what mr. washington said. this is about looking at projects of this kind with an equitiable eye, and not just nipping and tucking. this is an rh-1, this is a standard lot, and i appreciate the department's neutral eye in terms of what is too much and how it works. so i think we should move to -- what are we supposed to do? take d.r. -- >> president hillis: take d.r. >> commissioner moore: take d.r. and modify the plan as perstaff's recommendation and miss flores and have the staff continue to work with the applicant so we get this right, including on you the adu is

properly accessible from the outside and independent from the living space. >> president hillis: that's the motion. is there a second? >> commissioner moore: yes. that's a motion. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners. there's a motion to take d.r. with the proposed modifications. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner moore: would you please also read into the record that the adu has to be modified that is in addition to the staff's recommendation. >> clerk: and that the adu be modified to meet staff's -- >> commissioner moore: meet standard requirements. staff did not catch that, the adu's. >> president hillis: yeah. it's to make it independently accessible. >> commissioner moore: yes. >> president hillis: make that adu independently accessible. >> clerk: very good. on that motion, then, commissioners, to take d.r. and approve this matter with staff recommendations as well as making the adu independently accessible --

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 19. neared. >> clerk: commissioners, please be advised that we did receive a request for continuance from the -- or one of the d.r. requesters who first requested a continuance based on the number of commissioners, that there were only four, and then later that he was traveling, already in florida or on his way to florida. it was not entirely clear. so i don't know if you want to take up the matter of continuance or just hear the item. >> president hillis: is he here? are you here? all right. so you're here. so let's take the item and see where we go with the item. >> good afternoon, commissioners. marselle boudreaux for

department staff. the project includes remodelling of an existing two story single-family dwelling with a vertical addition of a third story and a new garage at the street level. the project also includes renovation of the front facade and other interior renovations. the project is located within the rh-2 district. the concerns of the d.r. applications are outlined as follows. under the first d.r., there's too much intrusion into the midblock opening space relative to neighboring properties. a new driveway and curb cut would be dangerous to pedestrians and propose a relocation of the garage to the downhill side? and lastly, under that first d.r., a top floor should be required to lineup with the rear of the adjacent property, the uphill neighbor with a 5 foot set back to protect light and air? second d.r. filed, first point, the facade is too modern and not in keeping with the neighborhood character?

second point, the total building height is too tall and doesn't appropriately step down the hill. the residential design advisory team reviewed the project following a submittal of request for discretionary review and found the project does not demonstrate exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and therefore -- and meets the standards for the residential design guidelines. the department has received from the project sponsor nine form letters signed by neighbors within the vicinity of the project who are in support of the project. the department received a two-page letter from a neighbor who resides at 769 tajaro street supporting the two d.r. requesters stating his concerns that the project presents the issue of noncompliance with the residential design guidelines and it's the legal basis for his concerns. with all of that information, the department finds the project to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends you do not take d.r. and approve the project with the modification that the arkt tekt ral drawing confirm the elevation change for the driveway and the property which will be reconciled on-site.

the project sponsor has provided this additional information. this concludes staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right. so we'll take -- are both d.r. requesters here? [inaudible] >> president hillis: all right. so we'll see if they arrive, but go ahead. >> my name is michael montgomery. i along with my wife and two children reside in the neighboring property. over the past few months i've attempted to work with my neighbor to address the concerns of my family and neighbors. my neighbor was refused to make even a single change to their plans to accommodate to our concerns. i have tried to be flexible in my approach. i've been very clear and

consistent with my concerns which are threefold. first the project will eliminate light and irrelevant a, access to grandfather windows on three sides of my project. third, the curb cut provides danger for pedestrians, and the project design materials are incompatible with building materials in the neighborhood. i will now walking through our proposal. can we get the frengs presentation. first, for the grandfather property line windows, you can see the four grandfather property line windows. these provide the only light and access to my children's bathroom. the project as proposed would require saling all of these windows, there by significantly affecting the light and air

that comes in my windows. the project could easily be modified to minimize the impact of light and air if the second floor plan is redesigned modestly. as you can see from page a-202 of the plans, this is a two story ceiling that can be used to accommodate light or access to a windows via set back or light we wills, again without a reduction in habitable space. second point with regard to the garage, as you can see from page a-301 of the proposed project plans, it will create an unacceptable change in sidewalk grade along the common property line that makes a steep sidewalk even steeper. the project sponsor has refused to discuss this with the bureau of street use and mapping until after the project is approved by the commission. this is a particular concern to me because my wife and i have elderly parents who visit

frequently, as well as a daughter who's two. we use that garage door of our property as our primary entry and exit. the main reason for the steep drop off is due to the decision to place the garage on the steepest part of the sidewalk in front of the project sponsored property. as you can see from page a-120, the project plans, this is noticeably steeper than the downhill side. given the narrow sidewalk on our street, there's only 10 feet between the street and the house frontage, we don't have the space to create a safety wall or railing or anything like that that would create additional safety, so i am proposing the project sponsor relocate the garage to the left side of the property. finally related to the project facade, perpage a-301 of the proposed plans --

[inaudible] >> -- happy to walk you through houses on our block face. although there are multiple styles, nonof them resemble the vertical bans proposed by the project sponsor. [inaudible] >> in summary, i'm requesting that the commission approve the following conditions -- [inaudible] >> thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much.

you have 23 seconds, if you need them, but you don't have to take them. >> i don't need them. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. so the other d.r. requester is not here, so we'll take public comment in -- in opposition of the project, in support. d.r. christopher cole? >> good afternoon, commissioners. first, i join in the comment about the driveway. it is a steep area, and my understanding is that the bureau of street use and mapping does have certain requirements, and i really think that that's something that should be available to the commission and to the -- to the neighborhood, to know whether the driveway can be constructed in such a way that it's safe. it's a -- a steep hill going north, and then, it's also a steep hill going east. so that is a concern that i

have as somebody who walks down that street at least five days a week, just safety there. but i really want to -- twante the balance of my comments to be about the design guidelines because i really do feel those have not been given the weight that they -- they deserve. i attached a copy of the williams case, and i'm sure all of you have probably seen 50 times, the williams case. it says that the residential design guidelines have the force of law. they are as -- as important and must be taken into account as much as the zoning or building codes. and this just has not been done. the short shrift that this has been given, that we took it into account, and we found that there were no exceptional circumstances. well, there are exceptional circumstances. i was part of getting these residential design guidelines

together before they were voted on. so it -- it's sort of a personal -- personal thing with me, as well, that light and air are not something that should be ignored or given short shrift. here we have an example where these side windows can be given light and air by giving a 5 foot proposed set back on the side that it matches the d.r. requesters. the d.r. requester put up a picture of showing how much unused space there is in the project. some of that space can be reconfigured to allow a five-foot set back next to these side windows and allow the 745 property to have light and air. that was one of the whole

purposes of the residential design guidelines, is that something that's not required by zoning, something that's not required by the building codes is required by the residential design guidelines, it was an effort to have some good neighbor policies given the force of law, and they do have the force of law. those are my two points, and i would ask that the commission take discretionary review and assure that those two points are taken care of. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor, welcome. jonas, normally, they would have ten minutes, 'cause there's two d.r.'s. >> clerk: they would, but the secondary d.r. requester didn't speak. [inaudible] >> president hillis: can you do it in five or -- i know you prepared ten. [inaudible] >> president hillis: all right. so let's go seven.

>> thank you. hello. my name is jamie austin. i am the owner of 739 tejaro street, along with my husband. we purchased our home in 2010 and lived there with our two children, ages four and seven, we are deeply involved with the local potrero hill community. from our house, i walk our son to a local school, and then i work at the california college of the arts at the bottom of the hill. >> president hillis: you just may want to shift that up. >> we want to live in san francisco for the long haum, but we really face the need to right size our home for the future. question chose ann fougeron --

[inaudible] >> -- meets all san francisco codes and residential design guidelines, involves nothing exceptional and extraordinary, and has explicit support from nine immediate neighbors. we've spent a lot of time with the d.r. requester at 745 tejaro trying to find a solution. we've met with them over ten times. we just don't understand why they keep claiming we did not do anything for them. we did all this without being asked by the planning. our voluntarily concessions include 5 foot set back on the top floor at the 645 property line to help preserve light, air and views. we've limited our ground floor extension to 6 feet versus the allowed 12 feet. we've limited the building to two stories. we are 18.5 feet below the allowed height.

the total increase in our home is only 7'9", and there is more than allowed by code, and we have a simple facade that blends with neighborhood set back. this is a picture of our block with our house highlighted in blue in the center, and locations of neighbors who have signed letters of proper highlighted in green. the two d.r. requesters are in yellow, both uphill for us. the vast majority of the neighborhood supports our project including three adjacent neighbors, and our neighbor directly across the street. this is a similar overhead view of our block. our building envelope is highlighted in green, adjacent property building envelopes are in blue, and the rest of the block face is in gray. as you can see, our proposed rear extension is very modest. most of our neighbors intrude much further into their back

yards, and we have voluntarily limited this extension. our rear extension is also voluntarily set back on all levels? first, let me explain this drawing a little bit? the shaded red area represents what we are allowed to build on each floor according to the code and design guidelines? the gray shaded area is what we propose to build? and here, you can clearly see the concessions that we've made on every level of the house. at the basement level, only a section of our house is extending to 6 feet versus the 12 feet allowed? our two downhill neighbors go to full depth. on the first floor, we are only adding a small kind of window angle? and on the second floor, we have added a 5 foot voluntary set back from the d.r. requesters property line angling back, and again, no one told us we had to do this. we chose to do this for the benefit of the neighbors.

the top floor, we know is sensitive, given the d.r. requesters nonconforming property line windows. here's a drawing showing the rear elevation of the d.r. requesters home. i'd like to highlight a few things. as well know there's nothing extraordinary or exceptional about closing or covering up property line windows. for example right behind us, our rear neighbor, they covered up property line windows of their uphill neighbors just this year, and that's a five story project, much large he were than ours. our downhill neighbor also covered up our property line windows when they remodelled, and it is clear that the d.r. requester will have ample, even enviable access to light and air including two full height sliding glass doors opening onto a main deck, a picture window that will remain, and we have noted throughout our planning process the windows that were meant to be covered up. now let's have a look at what this will look like from inside of the property? this is a picture that the

previous owners took while marketing the property? it's publicly accessible from a local realtor website, and it shows the interior of the room where the property windows will be covered but all of the windows and doors highlighted in red will remain uncovered. specifically there will be a large picture window and two, yes two separate sliding glass doors that open out onto a deck and this alone offers ample access to light, air, and view. this all adds up to light and air access that is comparable if not better than most properties on the block and indeed enviable compared to san francisco in general. here's another view of the same room. okay. the nonopening windows were outlined in black, and those were the ones that will be covered up, but as you can see, right next to them were other windows offering light and air. we just don't understand why the d.r. requesters are so

worried about driveways and curb cut, honestly, they're the norm in our neighborhood, and they're often adjacent to neighbors just as we proposed. we live on a steep home, walking to and from the car with our children is exhausting. we're proposing a one car garage that impacted only one parking place. seven other places on the block have javt or double wide proje -- adjacent or double wyatt cuts. adjacent driveways and curb cuts are common even on steeper streets than ours. here, as 20th street just around the corner from us, they're on a 24% grade, and you can see they have four adjacent driveway and curb cuts, and the pedestrians, including us are just fine on that street. for voidance of all doubt, we've submitted detailed

descriptions of the new driveway and curb cut to show very modest elevation changes and no warping of the sidewalk in front of the d.r. requester's house. our house is set back approximately 3 feet further back than the d.r. requesters house. all right. in summary -- >> president hillis: you'll also have a three minute rebutt al. >> all right. >> president hillis: or two minute. so hold those thoughts. we'll take public comment in support of the project if there are any here. >> hello. my name is emil williams. i live across the street so i'm a neighbor. and i just wanted to come and support jamie and dave on their project because i think that they're exemplary neighborhood

citizens. their remodel doesn't seem out of yark of a number of other remodels that have taken place on the street. so to say that there's some kind of sort of conservation that needs to be taking place because the neighborhood is so preserved for its original facade is i don't think is very true, and it would total be uncharacter. this remodel isn't extraordinary, and they've made very -- they've been -- made very concerted efforts to reach out to all the neighbors and make sure that we are all well aware. if we had any questions, they were open to us asking and talking to them. and they've been very accommodating in my interactions with them, and any other issue in the neighborhood, they've been very

accommodating. so i'm -- so i wanted to support them to make sure -- you know, so their project can go through. i know they have a growing family, and i can totally sympathize with myself. i'm expecting my second, and it would be a loss to the neighborhood if, you know, they weren't able to size their home -- resize their home very modestly to accommodate that. so, yeah, i think those are all of my points, but i just wanted to say that, you know, they're really great neighbors. i really think they've been very accommodated. they've reached out, done their due diligence, and they've made many accommodations to their neighbor, and i just want to say that let's push this through. i think it's well worthy to be pushed through. so any ways, great. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? seeing none, d.r. -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: yep.

we'll give you three minutes here. >> so i've lived on potrero hill since 1978, and for the last 21 years, on tejaro street. so through those years we have successfully convinced and/or fought for keep the row four gable cottages, keep that feature. i'm hoping that the project sponsors respect the neighbors request to retain this particular feature of the gabled roof in their remodel, no matter how big they want to go. in addition i hope they can respect their immediate neighbors' concerns who will be losing a lot of light and air because of this remodel. i respect their need for more space and a garage, but i'm hoping they are respectful of us as well. our neighborhood has always had

a cooperative spirit. i realize that the neighborhood is changing, but i hope that we can convince the project sponsors -- will listen to our concerns and make adjustments. so far there has been no effort to do so, much to our frustration. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so you've got a two-minute rebuttal, the d.r. requester, the original. >> so first just want to clarify, we are not attacking their character. we also want their project to go through, but with some modest modifications, get them the house they want, the space they want. we're not challenging any of that. i want to reiterate the fact that they have not made a single change to their plans since it was first submitted to the city, so all the accommodations they walked through were accommodations that they decided to make after they submitted the plans. when we requested changes, they were ignored. in talking about support from the neighbors, we have three immediate neighbors who are all here who have written letters to the commission.

of the nine support letters, all were form letters. five lived on the block. of the five, three have moved, are in the process of moving or are not their primary residence. related to the property line windows, obviously, there are lots of examples where property line windows are boxed up. there are also many examples where the commission or neighbors just being neighborly have allowed property line windows to receive additional light via light wells or a set back, so look, i think what we're asking for are modest modifications to the plan, and we're hoping that that can be pushed forward and that the project can move forward. >> president hillis: project sponsor, you've got two minutes. >> regarding neighborhood character, we just want to point out that it's mixed with several modern facades. this is just around the corner that also has some of the same privacy screens that we're proposing?

and that's just around the corner. in addition, we have an image of the other side of our street that you'll see the same trends. our street has many different styles, particularly here at the top of the block. these are quite similar to what we're proposing, and like our side of the street, the vast majorities have driveways and curb cuts, three of which are double wide or adjacent just as we are proposing. [inaudible] >> president hillis: you just need to speak in the mic so we can hear you. >> i'd also point out there's no consistency of gabled versus flat roofs. >> we've made a lot of effort to reach out to all of our neighbors. i would disagree. i think all of the letters of support of people who are really engaged in the process with us, and you know, i think in general the vast part of the

neighborhood is supportive of this? so in summary, we just really want to show that the current project already compromised for the benefit of neighbors, it meets all san francisco residential and code design guidelines. it involves nothing exceptional or extraordinary and has explicit support from nine immediate neighbors. we'd really like to request that the commission make a decision today. we've been waiting since march 7, 2017 when we submitted our plans, and we're excited to build our house for our family that will enable us to stay in frisk for the long haul. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. so that will -- >> clerk: you should probably afford secondary d.r. requester rebutt tal rebuttal, as well. and ma'am, what is your name because i have the second d.r. requester as a barry minnow.

>> so all these houses used to be little cottages, but the owners who developed them to be bigger spaces always retained that gabled a-framed shape, so could be reminiscent of potrero hill's character of that -- of that time. so i'm hoping that we can retain that. >> president hillis: thank you. that's all -- that's all we have. we'll close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. i just have -- to the project sponsor, you had that picture of the -- of the interior of the adjacent home, and just so we can get -- you ran quickly through kind of the windows that were being covered.

on the whole, we see a lot of kind of additions, this one's pretty modest. i think you kind of respect the pop owegraphy -- topography on the height. i don't think there's anything extraordinary or exceptional, to be honest. we run into this a bit on lot line windows. these aren't protected but there's a view to that side. can you just run over which ones are being proposed to be covered. >> all of the windows highlighted here. actually you will "au" see two of them are actually full height sliding glass doors that open onto a deck. that would be this one here and this one here? these are picture windows that you can see. all of those will remain uncovered. >> president hillis: and the fall line between the cabinets, that's into the adjacent -- that's not into your property -- >> that's right. that's facing south.

this is another view, so this -- you can see, this is the north facing side -- >> president hillis: those are the same two ones that you showed us to the south. >> that's right, and these are two facing north that would be covered. so you can see, yes, light, not coming in from here, but right here, adjacent windows that'll provide ample light in our opinion. >> president hillis: and you have a comment. >> so you show two of the windows. i would say i get the direct sun light from the northern facing windows for four months out of the year. they're showing two of the windows. the other windows, two more, one is in a bathroom. the only access to light and air. two of the windows they highlight are in my neighbor's lot. it's in an open lot with trees. i would get more light if it was a while wall because it's

mostly leaves. i am significantly impacted on the back of my home, and if a light well were created, i could get light and air access to the back part of my house without any modification to their floor plan. >> president hillis: i'm generally comfortable with the project. i think it's a modest addition to a small house, but not making it anywhere near what we see kind of in other projects. i guess there's going to be an impact to you from the covering of kind of lot line windows. we see that often. it's unfortunate, but they're kind of there, and not protected under the rule. so i'm comfortable with the project as -- as proposed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: mr. fung -- commissioner fung was before me, but that's fine. i would have liked to see a 3-d massing, and i don't see any materials. obviously, the architect is well known, does very good

work. the building is a little bit self-centered. that is, it's hard to understand what is behind the window screens there, but it is code compliant, meets the residential guidelines. does its stepping. it is a modern addition versus a gabled house, and it is difficult to take d.r., other than looking for a neighborly gesture that didn't occur. and we cannot really enforce it because while i believe property line windows on all the buildings perhaps should be a neighborly gesture, we cannot enforce that. i would have liked to see a certain recognition of that gesture, but i believe there seemed to be a little bit of animosity between the parties. why, how, i don't know, but this is nothing we can physically deal with. we cannot take on getting in between that nonresolved discourse between the two parties. so i'm not making a motion.

i'd hoped that there would be something, but it's not happening. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner fun commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: the gabled roofs, while i think there are a number of them in a row, they're not necessarily sister houses, and so i don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary here, and move not to take d.r. and approve project. >> second. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. >> president hillis: all right. and that's the last item. the meeting is adjourned.

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement

depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific

neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop e, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring that the ordinance be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san

francisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no, you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i'm here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star child, outreach director of the libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd know that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where they won't be checking

i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to more retailers closing. controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful

nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k. canny flavored tobacco has only one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has already been passed by a unanimous decision at the board of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with you, dr. chung. do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight

youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health. >> and the same to you, star child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal

unlicensed cigarettes on the street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at preventing kids from smoking. i mean, kids get tobacco know. i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star child first, is do you believe proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various

things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier. does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to make money off of it on both ends, fining it from the sales, and criminalizing it on the other, and all the apparatus, there will be air cost with enforcing that, and we've seen with the war on drugs and putting people behind bars, especially with low-income communities and communities of color, and this is the wrong way to go. we know proceed hibitihibitionr on drugs is the wrong way to go. >> dr. chung? >> absolutely not. again, most kids start smoking through candy flavored tobacco

products. these flavors are added for a reason: so make smoking easier and to make more pima ikt didded. we know the more you smoke, the more it'll call you to have harm, cancer and eventually death. i like to do whatever i can to keep my kids safe and to keep my community safe. i do believe this ban will be effective in reducing our kids from smoking, so i'm a proponent of this proposition. >> and we'd like to have our closing arguments. we'll start with you, star child. >> well, first of all, i wanted to point out, for one thing, there's medical health professionals and people who care about kids and reducing death on both sides of this argument, so please don't be misled by the fact that my opponent has the word dr. in front of his name. et he et -- he's a dermatologist, not a health care researcher. the fact that kids may start by

smoking flavored tobacco, that has nothing to do with the reality that everybody likes flavors. they're acting like oh, just because it's flavored, it's going after kids. nonsense. i like different flavored when i eat products. i don't smoke cigarettes, but it's something that people should have, again, ultimately the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, and this is not going to reduce smoking. history shows it's not going to reduce smoking. the belief that it will somehow flies in the face of reality. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you. again as a practicing physician in san francisco for over ten years and having represented san francisco marin medical society, the california medical association and also the american medical association on public health policy, i can tell you that all of our organizations feel that this proposition is the right thing to do. this proposition simply is to uphold the ban on candy flavored tobacco.

big tobacco is waging a war, an assault on our kids' health. they try to get a new generation of children to be addicted to tobacco products that's going to increase our health care costs down the road. nod to diseas-- in addition to diseases and deaths, so please vote no on proposition e. >> thank you. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no on prop e. >> we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org, remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7th, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, remember to vote on june 5th.

♪ >> i am so looking forward to the street fair tomorrow. >> it is in the mission, how are we going to get there? we are not driving. >> well what do you suggest? >> there are a lot of great transportation choices in the city and there is one place to find them all, sfnta.com. >> sfmta.com. >> it is the walking parking, and riding muni and it is all here in one place. >> sitting in front of my computer waiting transportation options that is not exactly how i want to spend my saturday night. >> the new sfmta.com is mobile friendly, it works great on a tablet, smart phone or a lap top, it is built to go wherever we go. >> cool. >> but, let's just take the same route tomorrow that we always take, okay?

>> it might be much more fun to ride our bikes. >> i am going to be way too tired to ride all the way home. >> okay, how about this, we can ride our bikes there and then we can take muni home and it even shows us how to take the bikes on the bus, so simple right here on my phone. >> neat. we can finish making travel plans over dinner, now let's go eat. >> how about about that organic vegan gluten free rest rft. >> can't we go to the food truck. >> do you want to walk or take a taxi. >> there is an alert right here telling us there is heavy traffic in soma. >> let's walk there and then take a taxi or muni back. >> that new website gives us a lot of options. >> it sure does and we can use it again next weekend when we go to see the giants. there is a new destination section on the website that

shows us how to get to at&t park. >> there is a section, and account alerts and information on parking and all kinds of stuff, it is so easy to use that even you can use it. >> that is smart. >> are you giving me a compliment. >> i think that i am. >> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. sfmta.com. access useful information, any

[ roll call. ] >> clerk: mr. chair, you have a quorum. >> thank you. item three. >> you want to make the announcement? >> yes. that's right. thank you for reminding me. some people may be disappointed to see me in this chair instead of miss brinkman. she will be back shortly. however, you still have to go through the board of supervisors approval process and so they will miss this meeting while that goes forward, so they will take over for today, but rest assured, chair will be back here next time.