concerns. we more fully address our concerns in our letter in the packages that you have. therefore, i ask you to deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, mr. president, commissioners. my name is norma garcia. i am a homeowner. i live at 329 monthhom street. i share a fence line with my neighbors, kelly and jason. their project is due west of my home's garden. let me just set something straight here for the record. our opposition is not based on housing discrimination. i've spent my entire legal career fighting housing discrimination. this was not housing discrimination. i'm also the parent of a child of mexican immigrant parents. i know housing discrimination.

this is not it. this is about the merits of this particular case. we believe the planning department was correct in its denial of the variance application. the proponents failed to show that they met their burden of proof on every requirement to show the variance was justified. i'm speaking on behalf of myself, my husband, and our children who live in our home. we have done what we can to engage with the proponents to try to address the issues that concern us most. unlike some of the other individuals who testified, the process involving us was not nearly as transparent or inclusive. we were brought in at the last minute, before deadlines, and given last-minute offers that we had no time to fully consider. we have tried to work closely with the proponents since we became aware of their appeal,

and unfortunately, even with this updated design, we as neighbors continue to be materially harmed and have not been presented with a design that indicates otherwise. in our case, in our case at 329 mont calm, we're draftily affected. let me show you this 12-second video. -- we're drastically affected. let me show you this 12-second video. i shot this video on march 29, 2018. it's a panorama of the sun light in my garden across the west light. that's my neighbor's home. i'm telling you we're going to lose a lot of this, and our

neighbors haven't done enough to mitigate the harm to us. it's going to be a tremendous loss to us, to our enjoyment and use of the property. this is a green space in the middle of the city. it's going to be severely impacted, and we're asking you to please, don't allow them to siphon all the enjoyment, the use, and the value out of our property for their project. we've submitted all of our documentation to you. it's in the packet, and i invite you to ask any questions should you have any. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, we will move onto rebuttal. >> greg gladstone again. i'm going to talk about the variance findings, since i ran

out of time, and ask the architect to come up and show you the new ones that's never been seen tonight. first, variance finding number one, exceptional circumstances. this lot has a depth of only 80 feet, not the typical 100 feet. was this also stated in the 2015 variance by mr. sanchez as a reason to issue that? yes, exactly the same. he said that had only 80 feet. this is a -- the district in which -- it's the only introduction in which we have a mass reduction requirement. mr. sanchez has said in our variance, you can't point to a code itself as a reason for an exceptional circumstance. read the 2015 variance that i gave you. he says precisely there that this criteria is met because of a difficult, unusual, and achonistic mass reduction requirement. hardship. this building was built in 1907, prior to the building set back

requirements, prior to the mass reduction requirements. the building two doors away sites this itself not only as a circumstance but as a hardship. also stated by mr. sanchez in the 2015 variance, quote "the property could not be expanded to create additional living space anywhere else on the lot without a more obtrusive or impact to open space,." and then, he says other changes, ones that we could have done, would have impacted the adjacent neighbors too much. and criteria three, denial of a substantial property right granted to others. well, three years ago, two doors down, mr. sanchez granted a variance.

he tries to deny it tonight by saying it has a greater slope. i think you should ask him about that. he also explained to you that that building had an a-framed top floor, and that we don't, and that they were making a full floor out of that a-framed attic. well, pardon me, but so what? that building didn't have a third floor. it got a third floor it didn't have through a variance. we're asking for a third floor. no detriment to neighbors, that's the other criteria. well, i think you should look at the bernal heights design review board. they didn't find a detriment to neighbors. what they said is please discuss further with your neighbor next door, and we're talking about roland, who spoke tonight, roland courtney bishop, and they says please visualize for him the effect you'll have on his property, and we have. you'll see something in a few minutes if you wanted to that

helps that even more. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i've got a question for either counsel or their architect. so one neighbor indicates that there's been great clarity and transparency, right? the other neighbor on the other hand said there was none. so usually, there's -- there's meetings in advance. can you explain those meetings, how they go, who attended, and what transpired. >> since i wasn't a party to the architects, and my clients were, i'll let them. >> so i'm michael morrison that gentleman roland, mentioned. as i was c.c.'ed on a lot of the organizations of these meetings, i believe it had much to do with the availability of the neighbors that we were meeting. i saw a lot of back and forth e-mails between the various neighbors. it was easier to meet with the neighbors sebastian and his family than getting a time for

roland and, unfortunately, vickie wasn't able to attend with him when roland came. we met with them last week. >> so, i mean, the question is i have this just didn't happen last week. >> over the course of -- >> right. >> so how many times -- >> can i finish -- can i finish my question, please? >> oh, my chair just fell. i think i need to move my mic. so did you meet with the neighbors, and how many times and what happened during those meetings? >> okay. we reached out to all of the neighbors at the same time, and then, based off the availability, we were able to meet with each one. i think it may be more perception that maybe they -- everyone got the same equal amounts. in terms of the rush, it -- we -- you know, we reached out to everyone on the same day or within 24 hours, and then, based off their schedules, they either could or could not meet, and

then our other neighbors, we said we wanted to meet, but they said they would not accommodate us. we met with norma twice in this last -- we met with roland and vickie, and vickie said she couldn't meet. >> we went in norma's rear yard. >> so you set a date, and you're going to say hey, my architect is here, we're going to discuss this project, and you tried to accommodate that. >> we tried to bring in our architect, whenever they can meet, so we were trying to be very accommodating. we were trying to make it work. we had kids there, we were meeting later in the evening, when it's difficult. >> thank you. that answers my question. thank you. >> excuse me. don't walk away yet. excuse me. so during the course of these meetings, has any -- anybody brought forth specific items that they want to see changed?

>> yes, and i actually can show a drawing that -- 'cause we addressed those since those meetings, but -- >> okay. >> yeah. there's no more public speaking -- public comment. >> this is a comparison on this side is what we're -- [inaudible] >> sorry, and here in the green, on the right, is the response to the comments about there were concerns on the shadows being cast by the overhang, and the slope of this roof, and both parties, 329, which is norma and burt, and one is 1709 alabama, which is roland and vickie, i assume roland spoke for vickie because it was only roland that

was in attendance, and they were concerned that this was an additional unnecessary piece of hat owe, and so in order to address -- shadow, and so in order to address those concerns, we lowered the roof by 19 inches. we cutback the overhang to a 6 inch overhang, and we removed the trellis off the deck. there's -- apologies. this is a context to you of where we are in the neighborhood. this would be roland -- i'm sorry, that would be roland, that would be norma. i have one more image that can probably present that angle a

bit better. i apologize. the photo i was looking for was actually on the screen. this was the variance neighbor here. in the purple is the approximate height of the variance at the angle of this satellite image. >> okay. i didn't ask that question. you're not getting time to redo your case. >> okay. understood. so this, i believe, would be the most direct response to the question. >> okay. so you made some changes. they weren't specific, and i can ask them the same question, but they were not specific in terms of what they're still unhappy about. >> we haven't had the chance to present this to them because of the proximity of the meetings this week, because we only met with roland on tuesday of last week. >> but also, specifically, there has been concerns about the sun light effect and the shadows, so we did do a new revised sun

study that shows minimal effect to norma's garden there. we're happy to show that to you, but also, the effect to roland and vickie's house is also minimal, but we're happy to present that to you if you need to understand that. but that basically has been the largest concern. >> would have been good, i think, if you had shared some of these things -- >> we even addressed the angle of the shot. we even changed the angle of the shot to be following what he was requesting. >> okay. thank you sir. >> thank you. >> okay. we will now hear from the zoning administrator. thank you. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. first to clarify the appellant's misunderstanding, i did not hear this case. it was acting administrator cory teague who heard this case. it wasn't as if i had suddenly two drastically different opinions here.

first, there were different people that were hearing these cases. second, there are material differences between this and the property two doors down. there is a significant enough topography difference that i recall from the plans that such from the rear, this reads now two, going to three, and the other property, it read as one going to two. there was, yes, a peaked roof there. there were, as i recall, in that third floor, as well, and certainly, the volume did increase, and i believe john lemon was the architect on that, as well, so he may recall some more of the details, and i think that seems to be a key argument of the appellant's brief, other than stating a variance was granted for that, they really didn't go into too much detail in comparing the two how they are similar as they claimed, because i really don't think

they are similar. we don't think the variance findings have been met in this case. there are distinct differences between this and the property two doors down. i think the appellants spent too much time making excuses for the variance two doors down and not enough for the variance here. but this is a de novo board, and if the board feels enough justifications have been made for the five requirements, they can make the decision. thank you. >> so the obvious question for me is what should this project look like if it can meet the variance requirements or is it impossible for this project to meet the variance requirements? >> i mean, i think -- well, i think the architect, maybe they can discuss if they have

developed a code compliant alternate ti alternative. it may not be feasible for the purposes of the plan of their client, but maybe they could present that. and it may be that a code compliant alternative may not even fully address the issues raised by the neighbors, as well, because there under the code it doesn't speak to the height of the building, but to the mass reduction. it can be taken off a number of places that do not fully address the concerns of the neighbors. >> i'm not hearing the answer that i wanted to hear. in its current state, as presented -- and by the way, i -- i would make the comment that, you know, this hail mary activity by the architect and the lawyer, also, and not -- we hear plenty of cases, this should have happened six months ago, guys, not two weeks ago, so this is offensive, and i would be freaked out if i were the neighbors, too, but that's a

discussion for later. but what i'm trying to find -- but i'm trying to find the benefit of the doubt. if this would have done -- been happening in a little bit less of a hail mary, last minute, last ditch, what are the -- what would this -- what changes to the design or what elements to the design would you have recommended or would have been -- what would have been okay to get you closer to variance? >> i think it would be a question of seeing what a code compliant alternate tiff would be and then using that as a baseline to justify why they need the variance and how they -- maybe they could argue that they -- some small variance woulden available a better plan than what they are proposing with the code compliant alternate tiff and would not have any negative impacts on the

neighbors compared to what had been before. i'm not aware of that discussion in the department, as well as i'm not aware of having seen these plans. i understand the a.d.u. is now out of the project. >> so you know, i -- i would like like -- i would not like to see another family forced out of san francisco. at the same time, we cannot break the law, and i gave this lecture in the last hearing. we've got to pay attention to the law. >> can we -- >> but what is -- what can -- do you -- do you see in a further, with more time, -- do you see with more time and with more discussion that a further design could get closer to your

support -- >> right, but could we address what you called the law? the appellant has indicated that he -- the bernal heights review board isn't aware of the way you calculate in terms of -- and, you know, the term that is used is how they consistently used the -- the nonconforming portions of the square footage as part of the calculation where nobody else was aware of that. can you define that a little bit better? >> that's been the practice in the department since as long as i've been in the department in '99. no staff recalls processing these applications in any different way, and i don't know that the project sponsor has actually presented us with any evidence of it being applied in a different way, other than what

the design review board said, we kind of don't agree with that application. this is a provision that has been in the code for 27 years now, and this is how the planning department has been applying that. they sought a letter of determination -- >> that portion of the nonconformity is not specifically dealt with in the code. you folks are -- you're saying that you have consistently used that interpretation as part of your review process. now, my question to you is if it's not definitively in that portion of the code, if you tell me that you've consistently used it since 1999, that's one thing. if it's something that's not consistently been used -- >> maybe i can -- >> you see what i'm saying? >> yeah. >> is it an interpretive issue or is it, look -- >> i think it's just the code

can't logically be applied in any other way. they sought a letter of determination, outlining what our practices has been, and they did not appeal that. that decision has been final, and that is how we've been doing it for some number almost 30 years. >> do you apply the same standard to the other -- the house where the -- where the variance was granted? >> yes. >> so you've been consistent? >> yes, and i'm not aware of any instances where we've been inconsistent that the appellant has riehighlighted. >> that one was a required reduction in the front structure and required rear set back. in terms of where do we go from here, if the -- this is a step in the right direction. i mean, and we haven't had the ability, and i haven't had the

ability to hef it with mreview teague, who heard the variance. it could be additional discussions with the neighbors. i think if the board would indicate, maybe, to all the parties what, you know, if the board sees that there's an approvable project in here, that it might be justified -- >> well, i'm asking the same question of you, actually. can you see that there is a project that can be justified or a variance that can be justified with further work? >> can i interject? maybe we can ask the architect what a code compliant project would look like. >> well, i think we actually need to have sometime to review that and get back to you on that. >> okay. and i saw you nodding your head that way. did you do the house that got

the variance? >> no, i did not. we actually have done another house further down on the street, so -- >> okay. >> so i see that since we are going to have a new z.a. in this city that we are going to have a little conflict every once in a while. >> well, i did reach out many times to cory just to ask the same question, which mr. swig asked, which was is there something we can do because we really are trying to build a house and keep this family here, and they really do care. and i had -- unfortunately, i never got any -- i would -- normally what happens is when we have a variance hearing, and we have a conflict, the z.a. did ask oh, i'm -- will ask oh, i'm inclined or declined to approve this. can we work together on this? this, it was just no, it's a denial, which was fortunate for

us. >> yeah. how long have you had plans of any kind for this project that you considered moving towards final? >> we had this two years ago, when we started working. we actually introduced this to the neighbors, even in the preapp, where there was a lot of discussion about this. there was also, as you know, the 311 process, which they did not oppose, so it was very surprising to have them come to the variance and not support the project. it came as a shock. actually, kelly only heard about this a week before the variance hearing. interesting enough, the 311 period ended exactly the same day as the variance hearing, and so it was very shocking to us that first of all, the variance would be denied, and the neighbors expressed that they didn't want the mass reduction variance allowed, but they didn't approach us with the actual project, so very, very

surprised. >> so there has been -- i mean, what's -- what's been presented here tonight in testimony and in public comment is that, wow, this is brand-new to us and we haven't had conversation on -- from a couple of the neighbors. there were -- a couple of them said wonderful, transparent, we're all into it. and there were obviously two neighbors who -- one right behind and one next to, which are kind of important to the project, that seems to be without discussion. where were they two years ago? >> they were there, and they've been in discussion. there has been no indication after kelly and jason have been talking to them about this project, there was no indication that there was going to be this opposition to the variance. so it did come as a surprise. mind you, they both -- they're all neighbors, and they're all

trying to get along, and they do care a lot about each other. it's very difficult for everyone to -- obviously, we're trying to weigh something that's very emotional because obviously, everyone has -- wants to protect what they have, and we're all in the same spirit here. but i know this is a complex thing, and i do think that -- i'm -- i was, you know, normally, as an architect, as you know, most of my work, we try to come -- bring people together and see if we can solve this problem. and so unfortunately, that has not been allowed in this -- this denial. >> okay. did he answer your question? >> yeah. >> okay. >> i'm still murky. >> okay. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> yeah. so i -- to expand on the -- my question, i would like to see a continuance on this matter

because suddenly, suddenly, there are new plans, suddenly, there is the plan to make an adjustment which may be the hail mary to save this project and keep a family in san francisco. and clearly, the neighbors don't feel they have had a full say or a full exposure to what could be to -- which may still require a variance, but still may be better for the z.a., what still may be better for the neighbors. so i -- i'd like to see a continuance on this. >> but it would only be -- i would only do that if we give an indication to the z.a. -- excuse me, to the planning department where we may go with this a little bit, you know, because if

you're not going to go with a variance at all, you might as well say so at this point in time. speaking for myself, i see an opportunity for a variance. i think some of -- they're not far off from satisfying those five criteria, and i would also bring forth another thing, is that -- when the bernal heights special use district and the guidelines were created, there was a lot of discussion. and it was in reaction to the opening of bernal heights to developers because they found open sites, lots of them, and they were building three and probably 3.5 story, trying to get richmond specials on the

hill. and i think the question is whether those guidelines were so numerical as currently practiced in terms of how to reduce mass, how to make sure that the incoming projects are not to the maximum is done. and so i don't see it as a numerical process, i see it as a case by case process, whether the design here, the volume here, is something that is going to be out of character, out of scale, etc. so from my point of view, i would be somewhat supportive,

and i would like to see a little more communication, however, we may not get any further results from that, but i'll give you my viewpoint which is that i'm leaning toward at least the satisfaction of the criteria on the variance. >> well, after reading the material and listening tonight, i don't feel that i'm at a place that i can make a decision on this. on the one hand, we've got the variance, on the other hand, we're being told there's potential changes for the design. so to me, the only way to reconcile that is to continue this matter and allow the parties to keep talking and see if we can get there. i couldn't get there tonight. >> i agree with both of my fellow commissioners -- actually, all three of my fellow commissioners. the 311 notification is just that. you get sent plans, and -- and at which point, if you have a concern about your neighbor's

builds, you make the call, and it -- this city, more than most, offers lots of ways that you can have discussion, and you can force people to have discussion because we have a discretionary review process. and as the cases are before us, even though this is de novo, those people had filed discretionary review on this process. it's kind of tough when a family goes through two years of process, and someone doesn't file a d.r., it's kind of a blind hit. i'm somewhat supportive. i've done stuff in bernal. at one point, i believe they required three parking spots was a major thing. so that, in san francisco, you're only allowed 70% on large projects at best, and we pretty much eliminated the need for

parking. so evidently, some of the criteria that has created that district is no longer applicable. things change in time, and the average size home in san francisco is not 1100 square feet. so i would support -- i mean, i'm thinking at this point i would like to see more discussion, but i am open to supporting a variance. but i do want -- i will ask specific questions if we give time that i would like some open dialogue between both parties or all parties involved so that that could happen. >> all right. sounds like a continuance is in the works. the next meeting with all four is either next week, the 17th, or november 14th. >> option a or apgoption b?

>> with all due respect, i think the 14th would work. >> november 14. >> yes, november 14. >> how about to the appellants -- i mean, excuse me, the neighbors who have indicated that -- >> opposition? [inaudible] >> okay. whenever you folks are able to get together, we hope the same, okay? >> so you want a motion? >> please. >> yeah. motion to continue the matter to november 14 with the expectation that the various parties will meet and confer and is -- somebody just said before november 12. >> and at which point, we'll probably have a fifth commissioner at that time. >> hopefully. okay. we have a motion from km commissioner lazarus to continue

to november 14 to allow the parties to meet and confer. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. that motion carries and we'll see you november 14. >> this meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning, everyone. good morning. thank you all so much for being here today to announce the launching of the rising up campaign to reduce youth homelessness here in san francisco. as many of you know, every night, there's over 1200 young people in our city who are experiencing homelessness and our goal is to cut that number by at least 50% in the coming years, but to do that, we need

pard partnerships from all levels of government, from the provide sector, from our nonprofits, and we're excited that so many people have come together to launch this initiative. most important for things like this to be successful, and we need leadership, leadership from city hall, and i'm so thankful that our mayor, london breed has taken up this issue of youth homelessness. it's a great honor for me to introduce to you all our mayor, london breed. >> the hon. london breed: thank you all for being here today. many of you know that before i became an elected official i was the executive director of the african american art and culture complex where we work with so many young people. in fact, the phrase, tay, which is transitional age youth, young people between the ages of 18

and 24 came out of a lot of the work that the african american cultural complex did, along with mo magic and larkin street and the department of children and families in order to identify ways that we can do a better job of serving young people who unfortunately may not always have a support system. i remember when i was that age, struggling in college, trying to stay in college. the frustration, the expenses, how much it cost for not just the dorms, but you know, even in a roommate situation, the food -- i mean, basic needs -- books and borrowing books, and just the challenges that exist sometimes for young people who sadly may not have the support they need, so i can't even imagine, when, you know, many of them don't even have a place to call home. and in san francisco, it is estimated that about 1255 young people that are tay youth

actually live on our streets, and 49% are lgbt. we have to do a better job at addressing this issue, dealing with the challenges that exist take real, thoughtful solutions. things that are not just for today, but are sustainable, things that are going to matter and make a difference because what we want to do is make sure we break the cycle of homelessness. we want to take care of this young population so that they don't continue to live in this kind of situation. and so today, we are proud to announce that the city is launching a new program that is a public private partnership, and this is absolutely going to be incredible. it's called the rising up campaign, because what we want to do is we want to lift young people up. [applause]

>> the hon. london breed: you know, i just meet with two incredible young people who are going to be speaking here today. one, zach, who i already know, who served on the san francisco youth commission, an impressive individual who's been doing great things, and yesi, who is in college, where is she? right here. she's in college, and let me just put it out there, we need to keep her in college, so i'm going to be asking you all for some support to make sure that her tuition is paid so that she can finish. so -- i'll just keep going. can you hear me? so this program, this campaign is possible because of a public private partnership, as i said, and san francisco is investi investinging $6 million in this

campaign, and tipping point is here, and they've invested $3 million in making this possible. [applause] but we couldn't make this program work with just money. it's our nonprofit partners that help to make this program actually work effectively for young people, where the goal is to keep them housed and provide a subsidy and to make sure they get a good paying job and to make sure that we're supporting them through social services and other things to just really help them become self-sufficient. and larkin street services, and cherylyn adams have been at the forefront to help people struggling with homelessness, but they have done incredible work with the tay population, so together, we are going to make sure that this program has the support it needs to that we can

end youth homelessness in san francisco for good. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and let me tell you, it does take a village. it takes a village, along with wi the nonprofit support, and a number of partners, including the department of children, youth, and families, human services agency, the confidence of economic and workforce development, the department of public health, and the san francisco unified school district. and i want to also put out there a call to the business community. we're going to still be looking for dollars to help with subsidies, we're still going to be looking for good jobs for young people, those internship opportunities that are paid for the purposes of helping to cultivate the next generation of leaders here in san francisco. so this is a campaign, this is a campaign to end youth homelessness, and i am looking forward to doing that with our incredible partners.

and i want to thank each and every one of you for being here today. [applause] >> now it's my honor to introduce daniel murray, the c.e.o. of tipping point and one of our first donors to the -- private donors to the rising up campaign. >> thank you, jeff. [applause] >> thank you, mayor breed. we commend and appreciate your resolve to address our city's homelessness crisis. we're proud to stand with the mayor and with jeff and the city to tackle this issue together. when tipping point announced our $100 million commitment to cut chronic homelessness in half by 2022, we knew we would have a long road ahead. this work does not happen over night. in order to achieve this goal, which is also the city's goal, we must do a better job of

identifying and supporting vulnerable populations earlier in their lives. 50%, 50% of all chronic homeless individuals become homeless before their 25th birthday. these are our kids, the future of our city. what tipping point has learned over the course of 13 years is that when you support the right solutions, the right leaders, the right partnerships, great out comes with possible. we've seen that with larkin street. we've been partnering with larkin for seven years now, and they know how to get results. over 80% of their clients have stable housing upon leaving their program. and we know that they can't do it alone, as the mayor just said. supporting the young people living on our streets required an all-hands-on-deck solution.

this collaboration between the city, larkin street and private philanthropy is the only way we're going to see the change we all want for our community. we must all take responsibility and hold each other accountable. we've cut homelessness for transition aged youth by 2023. but even with the right metrics, partners, and leaders, you need the right stroategy. that's what i love about rising up. it also builds in a housing subsidy, but build in for education and keeping a job. these are all the critical things that we needed when we were young, and that's what today is all about. it's about giving young people

like zach and yesi an opportunity to change the course of their lives. this time in a young person's life should be about finding one's self, not finding a home. so thank you, thank you, mayor breed. we're incredibly honored to be partnering with you on this. [applause] >> right now, it's my pleasure to introduce the director of one of our critical partners around addressing transition age youth homelessness, cherilyn adams, the director of larkin street. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. i -- this is such a monumentous day, and i am just so incredibly honored that the mayor has

announced this, that the mayor is supporting this, and that your leadership is bringing this to happen. this is huge. and jeff, your leadership has been amazing. we have been fighting a long time for youth homelessness to be at the forefront of the conversation or a part of the conversation about homelessness. we have worked with daniel on this as a partner, and many of you in this room have made this happen. so this day, this campaign, about bringing together the city, city departments, a number of departments, and philan tloepy to significantly reduce the numbers of young people sleeping on our streets is huge. we are excited to be the ang core or hub of this project, but we will not do this alone -- anchor or hub of this project, but it's going to take all of

us -- new door ventures, so many of us that have been working so hard to make sure that as the mayor said, that t.a.y., that we know that t.a.y. are, that's a group of young people who if we do not intervene, young people that are experiencing homelessness, will be on the streets for a long, long time in our adult population, that they need housing, and education, and they need case managers to care about them, and they need everybody in the community to see them, and so by launching this today, we say we see you, we're going to help you, and we're going to make sure that it is unacceptable to have young people sleeping on our streets in this city ever again. so thank you. [applause] >> one of the most -- or the most important partner in the rising up campaign are going to

be young people themselves who are experiencing homelessness or struggling with housing instability, looking for pathways towards self-sufficiency, so we're very lucky and honored to today to have yesi, who's a larkin street client, to share some of her thoughts with us. yesi? [applause] >> hello. i'm a little nervous please . please be patient with me. my name is yesi, and i'm 22 years old. i'm from e thiopia, and my family experienced poverty. because of that, i came here to get an education and better life. in ethiopia, women are not able to graduate college and go to school.

conversation about sexuality and mental health are considered taboo. i thought living in america, everything would be magical and perfect, but it was not. our home, i didn't have to deal with racism, especially i didn't have to worry about being homeless. when i came to america, i experienced so much, including homelessness and racism. i was adopted by a family here in the bay area, and i got kicked out. i didn't know where to go. i was lost and confused because i didn't know anyone. a friend recommended i go to larkin street, where i got a bed, and i got a case manager. that was 1.5 years ago. since then, i got housing, and i joined larkin street youth advisory board to help bring

youth's voice to the table. also, larkin helped me prepare for college and navigate the system. because of my mental health, larkin street is patient with me. they're very assuring and that makes me feel comfortable in asking for help when i need it. i'm a sophomore in college now. i want to get my bachelor's degree, and with larkin street support, i will continue to achieve my goals. thank you. [applause] >> when i finish school, i want to get a good school and help my family back home. i want to bring back what i learned in america about lgbtq issues, mental health, gender, and sexuality. in ethiopia, the media gives you a false perception of america. in america, everything is not

perfect, and nothing is handed to you. thank you for providing morrissey roerss to help young people. i know this campaign will help many more young people like me, and if i can do it, they can, too. thank you. [applause] . >> thank you, yesi. now we're going to hear a few words from our friend and colleague, zach. >> good morning. my name zach frenette, and for the next 45 days, i will be a larkin street client. as i'm beginning to age out, there's been a lot of reflection on growth, on what's succeeded, on what hasn't. i'd like to begin today just by thanking everyone for being here, for thanking the

leadership of our civic leaders, mayor breed who has known me and supported me for over two years, someone who gave me a shot before i had earned it. and i think that's what we're here to talk about. so often, the young people who end up experiencing homelessness on our streets, really, all they need is that shot, that chance, that opportunity, that moment. and for me, that moment has happened, and it's happened through the support of the city, it's happened through the support of this phenomenal organization. i can't say enough good things about cherilyn and her leadership over many, many years on the issue of homelessness. and it happens with the support of our peers. some of relationships that i've built in the past few years have stemmed out of this organization, both from the support of some of their staff, my case manager, keisha, i'm

going to put you on blast. everyone give her a round of applause. [applause] >> and last, but certainly not least, the incredible individuals who walk-through these doors. yesi is someone i've known for over two years. we've been partners in our work on the youth advisory board, and for the better part of 18 months, next-door neighbors, as well. and that's really what we're trying to build out here. i think we all know the stats, we see it efrd. -- every day. we know that if there's one young person on the street, it is it's far -- street, it's far too many. we need more resources.

ending youth homelessness is something that we can do, but it will take all of us. so thank you all for being here. [applause] >> thank you very much, zach, and thanks all of you for being here today. we now have to begin the hard work of helping prevent homelessness for 500 youth and helping 500 youth who are currently struggling with homelessness find housing and to find jobs, and to do that we're going to need all your help, so before we close it out, i just want to make a call to the community. we are currently looking for 500 jobs for young people. we currently have our friends from the golden gate restaurant council, from the hotel council, they have committed to help finding jobs for young people in the hospitality sector.

our friends from rediff are here to -- to help get folks into jobs in the -- in social enterprises. we have a lot of support from our friends at tipping point, providing financial assistance, but we are also -- if you have an employer or work for a foundation or are interested in contributing, we would greatly appreciate that. we have some private citizens, volunteers here, brenda and miriam. we also have rabbi brian mauer, and lastly, if you own an apartment, or you know somebody who owns an apartment or works for a real estate company, we need housing for these young folks. they'll pay their rent, we're going to help them pay their

rent, we're going to help them be responsible and good tenants, if you know anyone who can provide assistance in finding housing in san francisco and give young people a chance, we would love to hear from you. we need jobs, funding, housing, we're looking to all of you for assistance, and all of our city partners and all the young people to make this program work. thank you very much for being here today. we appreciate your support and we look forward to reporting back to you in a couple of months when we start placing our first young folks into housing. thank you.

>> 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

>> thursday october 112,018th. i would like to reminds members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. silence your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission stage your name for the record. [ roll call ] item 1, pca, the mission alcoholic beverage special youth district in transit district planning code amendment for continuance to october 18th, 2018. two case number