speaking are requested but not required to state their names. completion of a speaker card will help ensure proper spelling of the speakers' names in the written record of the -- of the meet. place speaker cards to the right of the lectern. there is a speaker st.^pete at the front table. s.f. gov tv, please show the office of small business slide. >> it is our custom to begin and end each small business commission meeting with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your small business in san francisco and the best place to get answer about doing business in san francisco. it should be your first stop when you have a question about what to do next. you can find us online or in person at city hall. all our services are free of charge. the small business commission is the official public forum to voice your opinions and concerns

about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses in san francisco. if you need assistance with small business matters, start here at the office of small business. thank you. please call item 1. >> item 1, call to order and roll call. [roll call vote] commission dooly is absent. commission huie is running late. [roll call] you have a quorum. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item 2, general public comment. allows member of the public to comment on matters that are within the small business commission's jurisdiction but not on today's calendar and to suggest new agenda items for the commission's future consideration. discussion item. i presentedd to on your binders a public comment that was received before the start of the meeting. that would be applicable under general public comment. >> great. do we have to do anything to

recognize that comment? >> nope >> okay. so are there any members of the public who wish to speak on any matter that is not on today's agenda? seeing none, comments closed. okay. please call item 3, 4 and 5 together. >> okay. item 3 board of supervisors file no. 200086, planning code zoning map, bayview industrial triangle cannabis restricted use district. ordinance in amending the planning code by amending the zoning map to change the use classification of certain parcels in the bayview industrial redevelopment project area from m1 light industrial and nc-3 moderate scale neighborhood commercial to pdr-1-g and to change the height and bulk classification of certain parcels in the project area from 40-x to 65-x, affirming the planning department's determination under

the california environmental quality act and making findings of consistency with the general plan, discussion and action item. item 4, board of supervisors file no. 200-0087, planning code, zoning map, bayview industrial triangle cannabis use restricted use district to create bayview industrial triangle reschool districted use district, discussion and action item. item 5, board of supervisors file no. 200144 police code ceasing acceptance of new applications cannabis retail permits. ordinance amending the code to provide that cannabis retail permit applications will not be accepted as of the effective date of this ordinance, and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. discussion and action item. >> i move these items be continued to the march 23 meeting at the request of the supervisor's office. >> i move.

>> motion by commissioner adams to continue items 3, 4, and 5 to the march 24 meeting. seconded by commission zouzounis. roll call vote. [roll call vote] motion passes 5-0 with two absent and. item 6, presentation, san francisco metropolitan transit agency fiscal year 2021 and 2022 budget discussion item. the presenter is director jeffrey tumlin of the s fm ta. >> welcome, director. >> thank you. good evening, my name is jeffrey tumlin, i'm the director of transportation for the s fm ta and we are here to present findings on our budget that will go into effect of july 1 this

year. i have been at s.f.m.t.a. for just over two months and i'm wading deep into the data. a lot of the data are not very impressive. if you look at the high-level indicators of success, everything is going rather poorly. congestion is increasing significantly. greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector now account for about 50% of san francisco's total greenhouse gas emissions. fatalities and injuries going up again rather significantly, whereas mode for walking and biking and transit is declining. for many of the things we care most about, things are getting worse, and we understand the causes. one of the core causes for many of our transportation problems is our regional housing policies. san francisco and san mateo counties have addedded about 2,000 jobs every month since

2011 while add only 400 housing units. while we in the transportation world have to clean up the mess of failed housing policies where we force people to commute longer distances as opposed to allowing them to live near their work. at the same time we are also creating problems for the medical profession as a result of these transportation failures, adding to injuries and fatalities. we know that as people have shifted towards driving, not only have driving speeds declined, but the ability of our transportation system to move people is also in decline at the same time we are being asked to deliver more people, that all of this economic activity requires greater efficiency out of our transportation system and our system efficiency is declining. that said, when you look beyond the macrolevel data and look at the work that the s.f.m.t.a. is actually doing, all of our

projects, the things that we are actually investing in are having extraordinarily positive results. our muni investments in the muni forward program where we are making 100 small improvements to improve bus speed and reliability are significantly increasing travel time, reliability and more importantly ridership. ridership is up as much as 60% on lines like the five and five rapid. similarly where we are envicinitying in protected bikeways or other safety improvements, we are seeing huge improvements in bike ridership and very positive results in terms of safety. one of the things we discovered last week is one of the changes we made to the quick build component of market street is market street has the highest peak period bike and scooter ridership of any corridor in north america. we understand that when we apply

these solutions, when we focus on the movement of people rather than the movement of vehicles, and when we prioritize the most space-efficient modes of transportation, that our streets can move more people, that we can accommodate economic expansion while also improving quality of life. similarly when we prioritize those investments for the people who need them the most, the people with the fewest choices, we can reduce household expenditure and transportation, and we can expand job accessibility, training accessibility and other opportunities for the people with the fewest choices. we understand where the solutions lie. we have demonstrated success in implementing the solutions and unfortunately the thing we need most in order to continue this path is additional resources. and that's really a big part of our challenge. we also have challenges around people trying to understand really the nature of the problem. here in san francisco, there's

generally broad agreement on progressive goals. when it comes down to doing actual implementation, every bus stop is sacred, every parking space is sacred. as san franciscans, we love our community, and we are deeply resistant to any sign of change on our block. and so change is hard in a city like san francisco. we also have the same problems that many of your members are experiencing as small business owners, the challenges of trying to attract and retain staff as housing becomes far more expensive than it's ever been. we as an agency have about 1,000 vacancies in the s fm ta which negatively impacts our ability to deliver basic services to the public. we also operate in a very complicated world where people, because they use the transportation system every day, think they understand how it

works. people believe that adding another lane to a highway actually helps with congestion whereas the data is clear that adding highway lanes worsens congestion. similarly, people have a hard time understanding the complexity of the transit system and think what seem to be obvious solutions, in fact don't really work in practice. we also have a lot of common customer frustrations. everyone who experiences the transportation system every day has concerns about personal safety and security. our buses, are very, very crowded. and while we are getting significant improvement in the reliability and quality of service in our bus system, for those of you who take the subway every day, we've got some significant reliability problems as a result of deferred maintenance and aging infrastructure. all of which we're trying to solve for. and for many people, while they want to be able to walk or bike or take transit, the fact is we've designed the city, and

people have designed their lives such that the only reasonable choice is driving. for those people, the best way to make it possible for them to continue to drive when they need to drive is to make it more practical and more delightful for people like me to do something other than drive. so we know what we need to fix. we have a reasonably good financial basis where we're starting off from. but we also have a $66 million structural deficit, because that's how municipal governments are structured in california. our costs rise with the cost of delivering service. our expenses are driven entirely by staff, and it's critical for us to provide a basic living wage for staff. we don't pay our staff lavishly. but we pay them enough in order to be able to attract people to the job and keep them committed.

but the fact is the cost of living in the bay area is rising far faster than our wages are. in the meantime, our revenues are rising with inflation. so here we are, perhaps at the end of a peak boom cycle. and the gap between revenues and expenditures widens, leaving us with a structural deficit. i'm going to turn the presentation over to our chief financial officer,ley yo levee -- le o levinson who will talk about supporting the small business economy that is so essential for us to be able to get the revenue we need in order to run the system and make sure that the people of san francisco don't have to get in their cars and drive so far because the needs of daily life are available within their neighborhood. leo, please. >> thank you, director. it's really been a delight since

jeffrey came that we have a director who is not only understands the transportation system but also the financial challenges of operating within the constraints that we have. and so we have a big challenge here like every city department in these circumstances as jeffrey said. when we are putting together our next two-year budget, we are trying to look both at financial sustainability for the long-term and resilience in the face of potential downturns and hits in the economy and looking at what service is being demanded from us and are there ways that we can close that gap and go to the public and make a case that it's worth it to fund this transportation system to provide the kind of service that they should expect. as director mentioned, we have a structural deficit, we estimated at $56 million as we were starting to put our budget together this year. that's the difference between the ongoing revenues that we

have and the cost of providing the service we are providing now and looking forward, that was growing over $100 million as we looked forward. these are figures that we provided at our budget workshop with our own board, the mta board, in february. we've been working on these numbers since then. and we are going to be actually required to close that budget gap on march 17. we are going to our board with a balanced budget proposal, not only to see how we deal with that gap but also the demands for improved service that we've been given. director mentioned the revenues. this is a quick snapshot that the top line here, we are very fortunate as a transit agency, transportation agency, that we are both, we have combined running a transit system and the parking system for san francisco. we were formed by the merger of the department of parking and traffic and the old muni. and we have a tremendous public

support in san francisco that provides us with a portion of the general fund in order to make a really high-quality transportation system work. and the general fund has been our savior during these past years of the boom while our other revenues have been flat or declining. that's the main story of this particular slide is the top revenue is the combination of our parking and traffic fees, our parking meters, parking citations, the garage tax, parking tax, all of those have been flat to declining in recent years. this is something you'll see nationwide with parking is a trend that you can see. the second line, the blue line that's going up, that's our general fund transfer. and that's where we've been getting a share of the amazing economy that san francisco has enjoyed. this projection was made from the controller's office prior to this coronavirus. and what we are seeing. so of course we are going to be working very closely with the we city in updating these

projections as we look at the economic impact. the next line down, the darker blue line, that's our passenger fares. and the decline there is a couple of different things. one is somewhat of an overall system decline in ridership or paid ridership. but we also during this time period, we did introduce a number of equity products to lower the cost of transit for our most vulnerable populations so during this time period we instituted a lifeline fare at half the monthly fare for low-income individuals and free for low-income youth during this time. so that is part of the revenue decline. and so more recently, it's been sort of flat, not as severe a decline, but that's something that we are actually doing a little better than transit agencies around the country, which have seen a more severe decline as the other options have come up with the transportation network companies. and then the final one is the

state operating grants where just recently, again, this helped us, there was a bump up in the last year's, so the passage of the statewide sb-1 that supported transit, but we don't expect the state funding to be continuing to go up in that regard. we also have tremendous capital needs in the agency. we estimate we have about $14 billion wort of assets to look not just at our transit system, our subway stations, also the parking meters, the traffic signals and our own facilities. and the capital funds that we expect to receive are also declining. we received quite a lot of federal support for the central subway extension that we're very excited about, and we are going to be continuing to work on. and that, however in the next period we don't expect that kind of influx of federal funds. so we are aggressively looking for whatever funding sources we can get. we don't expect the same level

of funds coming in in the next period that we enjoyed during the last five-year period. we also do an analysis like the city does of potential for an economic recession and what the impact would be on the s.f.m.t.a.'s revenues in particular. we looked at the last major downturn in 2008. and that was a four-year period to recover. and based on that, the equivalent would be about $160 million worth of lost revenues to make up for plus extra expenditures to keep the pension system whole. so we are looking overall at $200 million scenario recession. so we are trying to keep that in mind of trying to find adequate reserves without a worse shock to the system. this is probably more detail than you want to see but this is what we presented our board in terms of the requests that were

coming in for improved service. so in addition to the $66 million shortfall that we had to start with in our bumming process, we had -- in our budgeting process, we had a working group, a wonderful working group with the board of supervisors and our own board to brought in experts from around the country in transit to talk about what was needed to improve our service to the level that the public would expect. they have a lot of good recommendations, and basically we needed to fill the staffing holes that were described, improve some of our, we are working on improving our train control systems in order to make the subway more efficient and then basically we need more operators and more service to meet the growing needs of san francisco. the estimate just for the next two years was about another $70 million, another $90 million after that. so we were scouring for what

were our options in the budget in terms of increased revenue. and this one i want to mention, when we're looking, from our agency we really are mission-driven lens that we look. and so we aren't looking jus for how to raise revenues but how to improve the transportation system in a way that may also increase revenues. and so one of the items that's been sensitive in the past was the issue of increased hours on our parking meters. with the idea that it's targeted at areas where businesses actually were asking for more turnover, where the parking is congested because the hours of the businesses continue into the evening, and when our meters end at 6:00 p.m., customers can't come. similarly in neighborhoods on sundays where there's congestion for parking. and so we put forward a proposal for a range of options looking at targeted corridors, and that's something that our board

is considering now in our budget. we can only expect the revenue to be at the high end. this was a range that was done by our team from three to 28. but our commitment is to do it in a way with a lot of businesses as well as the faith community and to phase it in in a targeted and smart way so we expect the revenue to be lower than the higher end for that. we also looked at fares. there was -- we have an indexing policy to try to keep fares in line with the rising cost of living. so there's a default that fares would rise with a combination of the cost of liveing and our labor cost increases. our board also has the ability to revisit that and adjust it every time we go forward with a new budget. so just based on that indexing policy our topline cash fare which is currently at $3 would rise to 3.25. there's a current leafiest cent discount if you pay by muni

mobile on your single ride fare. and then we have passes, full fare passes around $81. it would rise to $85 under the indexing. so there were various options we wanted to put forward before our board. there's been a lot of public demand or really activism around the area of reducing fares and telling us about the impact that muni fares have on many of our customers. and so we did provide options of just pausing the cash fare at $3, reducing, trying to raise more revenue perhaps to pay for other equity options by reducing the discount for using clipper or muni mobile. there's been a lot of talk about expanding free fare programs to all children rather than low-income. and there is something else. currently there's a low-income monthly pass. we've heard that many people

can't come up with the $40 that's half the price of the full pass. and so options for people to pay the single ride with a discount discounted fare. i'm not sure how much you want to go into this with this body but this is what we presented our board. we have been building up funds to be able -- this is our fund balance history. we have a policy of a 10% of our operating budget reserve for economic downturns. and that's the gray line. that would be $120 million rising to $130 million in the next budget. for a couple reasons we've been building up cash in our funds. it's partly because of the tremendous economic success story of the city of san francisco in terms of the general fund revenues and usually it's been budgeted conservatively in the beginning of the year, and the end of the year they deliver a further amount that's added to our fund balance because of the economic growth, and secondarily the vacancies we have.

and that's not something we're proud of, that because we haven't been filling our vacancies, that's where the savings comes from. we need to use this fund balance strategically. so we had a policy, a potential ways of using it that we talked to our board that would include setting aside significant amounts for the contingencies that we see in front of us both on our capital projects and operating projects and then we do have something maybe of interest we have to replace our parking meters throughout the city because they operate on 2g cellular technologies for taking credit cards, and many of you know probably, 2g, we have been warned that it may stop being support and we have been warned that by the end of 2022, so we have to replace our parking meters. we are looking at our policies as to how many would be single meters which have different advantages in different places. so that is something that we expect to do in the next very

short time period. so the basic method here, the bottom line is we can't fund everything that we ask for. we started out with $66 million and there was a further $70 million and $90 million in requests to provide the services we would like to provide. with all our tweaking of the budget, there's some small things with fares and parking, there's areas where we have flexible funds that can be moved that are more sustainable that we can use, that can help close our basic service gap, but they don't provide the funds to fund the recommendations that we had. and this is not really a surprise. there have been different task forces in san francisco looking at the future of transportation. and identifying the need for additional funds to make this really the transportation system that we want. and so there was a task force, that was a toxic force looking forward to 2045.

a tax force looking forward to 2045. those are potential funding mechanisms. we are going to be working very hard during the next period to see what may be feasible, what the appetite is, the demand from the public, what makes the most sense, if people are willing to say yes. we want to earn their trust to say we know how to spend it that will make the difference in the lives of businesses and residents and tourists. some of the options, i actually already did have the proposition d, which will provide a modest amount of funding from the transportation network companies, uber and lyft. we estimate that will see maybe coming in lower than the estimate from the time it was passed but we were hoping around $15 million toward our operating budget and a further amount for safety projects. there was an attempt to pass a sales tax that got more than two-thirds of the vote but it had two pieces to it, and it was

confusing, and the second piece didn't. so that would have provided $100 million and it didn't pass. we'll be continuing to look at sales tax measures and that's been happening regionally. there's a number of sales tax measures being proposed. and there have been other proposals that we'll be looking at, of course congestion pricing is something that has been talked about as being studied and, again, has a transportation system benefit as well as a revenue benefit if we want to find any way to reduce congestion in the city. a community benefit district is something else, understudy which would provide for the maintenance of our tracks and overheadlines and traffic signals to keep them in good repair. and then we are scheduled to come before the voters with another general obligation bond which is very necessary for our facility upgrades so we have a very necessary and exciting facility program. but we are one of the oldest transit programs in the country.

we have bus yards over 100 years old. they are not capable of housing the fleet that we need and the type of electric buses and infrastructure. so we are looking at very exciting possibilities of rebuilding the facilities and perhaps with development on them. so you may have heard about or potrero yard which is being looked at to have over 500 units of housing. we are planning for the presidio yard. there's interesting ideas of what could be done with that space that could accommodate the bus yard and other development. that will be exciting in the future. we are looking for big ideas that are aligned with transportation goals that can make our budget both sustainable and resilient. and so we have a lot of outreach. this is part of our outreach plan. and many, many different types. unfortunately our next open house that's scheduled there is

being converted to a virtual open house in line with other efforts in the city for safety. that we hope to -- we'll have the first chance for our board to adopt our budget on april 7. we will have a second chanson april 21. chance on april 21. and that's our presentation. >> do we have any commissioner questions? >> i just want to say that was a great presentation. and one of the things i realize is you have probably the most challenging transportation network in the country, because you got buses. you have the f line, you have cable cars, you have the subways. i mean there's all these different transportations that you don't see in a lot of other cities. i want to comment, you know, i was skeptical about the market street closure, and i do use the upline from the castro to

downtown. and i will tell you that train moves faster once you past van ness now. and it's only a 20-minute ride which used to be a 40-minute ride. so that was a good move so thank you. >> any other commissioner questions? >> commissioner. >> my question was so all those big ideas around fare changes, where are you with them in terms of what levels you want to pull? >> so we are looking at several different options around fare changes. as mr. levinson stated, fares are an important part of our revenue. and our fares are scheduled to go up each year in alignment with our expenses in order to avoid doing a major increase every couple of years. we are trying to do is to think

through how do we get to the bottom line of what we need in order to run the service while adjusting all of our different fare categories in order to maximize the equity of the outcomes. so we're looking at the data of exactly who uses which fare categories and trying to minimize increases for people with the least amount of means and to make adjustments where people can most afford it and direct that revenue towards our equity surface. so we are going to be presenting our board next week with a variety of different options in order to help them help us think through those trade-offs. we are also working with community-based organizations to get their input on what are the mechanisms that will have the least negative impact on the most vulnerable riders.

>> one more question. i'm hearing both that it's a, you know, you kind of reached capacity in a lot of ways. there's a lot of people in the city using transportation. and at the same time tncs have taken a lot of people who would have taken public transportation and congesting the streets. can you tell me about kind of, is it that there's too many people using the public -- the infrastructure we have or is it the infrastructure or kind of where's the play between tnc regulation and our public transportation system? >> so a bunch of questions embedded there. so in san francisco, we don't have the authority to regulate uber or lyft. we are currently engaged with the california public utilities commission which does have that authority to see are there some carve-outs that we can have in san francisco in order to be able to welcome private providers that provide a

tremendous amount of convenience for the people who can afford them but to allow that to the extent that it upholds the public good, that whereby we have the tools to manage the public right of way for the greatest public good. so that is some work that we're doing. at the same time, we're also working in order to minimize the congestion impact on the highest capacity most efficient modes of transportation, which are basically the highest ridership muni lines. so as you can see, we have done a tremendous amount of work recently on market street that's paying huge dividends in terms of improved speed and reliability. as we shorten the muni trip, we can also reinvest the travel time savings in improved frequency of service, which also results then in improved capacity of service. so we are doing the same thing on third and fourth streets. we are looking very carefully at additional improvements to the five, we are looking at changes to tar very well street, and we

are about to roll out significant improvement on van ness next year, and we are getting started on geary right now. we are looking at the books and budget, assumes we have the money to do so. and again, that is providing dedicated lane from high-frequency routes that experience significant congestion, looking very carefully at signal timing to that a bus or train doesn't have to stop with 150 people on board in order to let three people in the back of an uber turn left in front of it. it's also looking at optimizing the placement of our bus and train stops in order to maximize ridership while being sensitive to vulnerable populations for whom walking an extra block is more difficult. so it's partly big moves but where we get the real benefit is from the thousand small moves that we've demonstrated in the data on the entire muni forward program. >> thank you, director.

>> commission zouzounis >> thank you for your present. i learned a lot. i have a question about the vacancies. are those in the rank-and-file like the mechanics and drivers or are those largely management? >> it's throughout the agency. we've prioritized in terms of staffing up, we've prioritized first and foremost staffing up our human resources department. the human resources department that i inherited was suffering. so we have a new director who is fantastic and we're working to make sure that she is adequately staffed in order to be able to staff up the service-critical departments. i have withheld hiring in my own team in order to prioritize our mission-critical workforce, particularly bus and train operators, mechanics and machinists, the people who really deliver the service to the public. >> okay. i was just curious, because i

remember the line being long for some of the trade-related positions. i'm curious if that was because of this. >> we are also concerned about succession planning in the skilled trades. when i go onto our shop floors, home to some of the most skilled people i've ever worked with, i'm sometimes the youngest person in the room. and we want to make sure that we are passing on that knowledge of this unique system to the next generations of skilled mechanics and machinists, which i would point out for those of you who are interested in new career lines, is a career that will last. even as technology changes, the need for skilled mechanics and machinists only increases, and there's skarsty in the marketplace increase -- scarcity in the marketplace increasing as well. >> all the auto body shops, those are all going out of

business soon because of properties being sold. and so i'm thinking all the time there's so much skilled labor here, and i hope that it's going to be transitioned somewhere else in the city. >> send them to the s.f.m.t.a. we provide very good benefits. >> commissioner ortiz >> thank you for your presentation. i don't know you yet. but seems like you know what it is on the ground level as a commuter. i get the good vibes. so i look forward to working more with you in the future. i do have two questions. i know you are doing something with the pdc, the burden that tncs have on our infrastructure. behind those specific carve-outs, how do you see to mitigate the tremendous burden they have on our infrastructure? don't have to get into detail.

>> ultimately what we really want is the tools to be able to manage the public right of way for the public good. so right now i charge $2.50 for somebody to get a one and a half square feet of space on a 38 geary bus. but if you're driving alone in a car, riding the back of an uber, well now i get a tiny percentage of your uber fare, but the basically if you take up 350 square feet of space, the public gets nothing from that. those financial incentives are reversed. the scarce resource that i have is a limited amount of street space. and we are no longer demolishing neighborhoods to widen roads. i need to manage my limited street width in order to serve the most people and the highest public good. i'm in a rational system, we would think about managing the street system like you manage your businesses where you pay

rent and you charge more for the more expensive goods and less for the cheaper goods. frankly, i think i should be charging $10 for somebody riding the back of an uber, and you should be paid $2.50 to take a 38 geary. we don't currently have the regulatory authority to manage our streets for the public good. >> and then my second question, regarding small businesses from an equity lens component like 24th street, visitacion valley, how do we fit in in that plan in your budget and the vision going forward and your mission >> so frankly, i think one of the most important transportation performance metrics should be retail sales per square foot particularly in our neighborhood commercial districts. and there's a couple reasons for that. one is in our neighborhood commercial districts, most of them are overwhelmingly in local ownership.

so even if that individual business isn't making as much money as a chain store some place else, all those profits are reinvested back into the community many times. and most of you are the most phenomenal entrepreneurial skilled training programs that exist. no one teaches people really how to run a business more than small business owners do, and particularly family-run small businesses. it's also important to me that from a transportation system perspective, that's the needs of daily life be available in every neighborhood within walking distance of all san franciscans. because otherwise it's a burden to the transportation system if i'm asking people to either get in their car to drive somewhere or order it online from amazon. both of those create big problems for the transportation system. so it is very much in my interest as the transportation director to support small business success, particularly

in our neighborhood commercial corridors. i mean, all neighborhood commercial corridors in san francisco are there because of the tight relationship between small businesses and transit. all of our commercial districts are on former streetcarlines. every single one of them. we grew together. and if we want the city to be economically sustainable and socially equitable at the same time, we need to continue that relationship and strengthen it. >> thank you. >> director, thank you very much for coming. it's enlightening and heartening, frankly, to have your perspective running m.t.a. we are very grateful to have you. i wanted to, you know, i was looking at your capital funds expenditure. i know we've been moving more towards protected bike lanes.

that's definitely a direction we want to move towards. how do you -- do you see that as competitive from a revenue standpoint, because it's a cost expenditure to generate these or do you see it as helpful because it removes cars and -- i guess where does that fall on the spectrum for you? and i'll give you a hint of where i'm headed with this is we hear a lot from small business owners and there's a lot of consternation and parking and bikes as you are all too familiar. >> yep. >> and i think one of the things that i'm particularly interested in is helping people sort of find their ku m b y ya with this

in understanding how these pieces go together and i think you can speak to that really well. >> we are interested in increasing the use of bikes and scooters and other forms of micromobility for people of all ages and abilities, in part because that mode of transportation offers a unique combination of user convenience and system efficiency for certain types of trips. so about more than half of our trips are basically three miles or less. particularly for us san franciscans. we make a lot of really short trips. and san franciscans who drive make a lot of really, really, really short driving trips. so in reasonable doubter to allow our streets -- in order to allow our streets to move more people and expand the economy,

particularly the local economy, if done right, increasing use of biking and scooterring can be super useful. that said, we recognize there's a tension between how we use space, so there's a tension between allocating dedicated space for people on bikes and scooters and dedicated protected space, which is necessary to actually attract people to those modes in any significant number, versus providing that space either for traffic lanes or for parking. and parking is particularly important for small businesses. we know that most small businesses in san francisco operate at a less than 10% margin. that is if -- >> [off mic] >> if our transportation -- >> [off mic] >> all right. i think the test was successful. [laughter] if our transportation system changes, cut your business by

10% or more, not only does that mean you are going to be out of business but you are going to have lost your family's investment of capital for a long period of time. i mean, you really don't want to do that. so what we're interested in is how can we deliver more people to your business. cars don't shop. people shop. so how do we use that space to deliver more customers to your business. that means collecting data in a different way than perhaps we have in the past. it means looking very carefully at the sales tax return data. and we think likely. >> [off mic] >> that's the building's fire management system testing to make sure everything works. >> i'm glad it's working. i feel safer. so it means not only collecting the sales tax data to make sure things are tracking but also likely purchasing credit card data so we can know in a quicker

time horizon, whether our projects are having a positive -- net positive or net negative effect on small businesses and building trust in the community. for the most part what we'll be seeing is in most cases, the work that we're doing creates some benefits but in some cases it hasn't. that's another reason why a lot of the work that we're moving forward with is through what we call quick build, where we are not investing in concrete, we are investing in paint and little plastic posts and other stuff that can be quickly undone if the unique considerations of that commercial district or that particular project is not turning out as well as we'd expected, we can easily reverse those or make adjustments as we go along. >> do you have a sense -- so first of all, that's actually kind of exactly where i was headed, which is there's data that shows whether this is helping or not helping and how quickly can we get to that data so local business owners can be

assured that even if we put the wrong foot forward, we can quickly take it back and correct and do what's right for the community. so exploring that just a bit more is the -- do we have a sense overall how protected bike lanes are affecting local businesses? if you had to sort of generally say it's a net positive for local businesses or net negative, would you have a conclusion there? >> so i think it varies. so the protected bikeways tend to be a net positive to the extent that they're tied to the rest of the network and creating a significant increase in bike ridership. what we find with people on bikes and scooters is it's super easy for them to see into a storefront and make spontaneous trips because they don't have to worry about parking assuming

they tether their bike or scooter so something stationary. so that type of user tends to shop a lot more frequently and a lot more locally. where we are doing investments that aren't connected to the network, we see the response is less. which is why most of our investments in the protected bikeway network have been incremental and kind of starting around market street in the downtown and slowly spreading out. some of the investments that we're making now are trying to piece separate pieces of the network together in order to actually create that network effect that tends to result in a big unleashing of new people out on bikes and scooters. >> that makes perfect sense. quick little observation. the meter upgrade, the 2g in hindsight maybe wasn't future-proofed enough. are you -- as you explore the

next phase of whatever you choose, let's assume it's 5g and now five years from now we are looking at 10g and like wow, we are going to discontinue 5g, have you thought about how you might get more life span out of it the next time around? >> yes. the next thing we want to do is move increasingly to mobile payment. we really like mobile payment in part because it's easy but also because on mobile payment, it allows motorists to extend time on their meter to they don't have to guess how long they're going to stay and to be criminalized if they have a better experience at your store or restaurant than they were intending. we want people to stay longer and spend more money, and if you pay by mobile, the app will actually because you and ask you if you want more time. >> so an idea i had, and somebody's probably mentioned this or thought of this before, but what's the harm in throwing

it out? i'm imagining a business might want to pick up the tab. >> sure. >> for a customer or sort of pay, we got our meter while you are having your meal. are you guys think about that at all in terms of -- >> does park mobile allow for that? >> i don't know >> in other cities, that is part of the program with mobile parking payment apps. we can look into what it would take to have our provider offer that service of picking up the tab basically, validating parking automatically. yeah. >> and then a quick budget question. so you have i think it was like 170 in the reserve fund? is that right? i don't have it in front of me. >> we are looking to build a $225 million to $135 million.

>> how does that plug into the deficit? do you ever use that fund to address the deficit or just the reserve comes in over the top and addresses the deficit and you hang on to the reserve? >> yes, the total we have currently is about $175 million more than the reserve. the reserve we want to keep for a definite to fund approximately we hope it might be half of a recession scenario, and we'd still have to solve the other half. for the remainder of the fund balance, really with director's strong leadership in this area, to the degree if we use -- we probably will need to use some of that fund balance. and we historically have used some fund balance to budget our funds at the beginning of the year. it usually comes back to us by the end which we can't expect this time. but to the degree we use fund balance for our operating costs, we are being very transparent

that it could be a bridge, if we don't get another funding source to carry on after that period, it will require a significant cutbacks after that point. so we want to strategically use it as a bridge to a more sustainable budget in the future. and we will still tie our fund balance to part of our budget that could be flexed up or down if it were necessary, so we don't want to exceed the amount. so in other words not to use it for our labor operating costs and use it more towards necessary that if necessary we can slow down or postpone in the future. >> we are obviously sailing into the quite the black swan event here. how far are we into sort of evaluating what all this looks like? i know it's -- nobody has any real idea, but nonetheless, we have to plan for all the scenarios. >> yeah, we are really just ramping up now and want to sort of up our level of sort of realtime monitoring as to what's

going on in our system. so we are going to be monitoring our ridership and revenues on as realtime a basis as possible, looking at the trends, both recent trends and comparing it seasonally to the past year in order to be able to really report out on the significance of the impact. and then looking forward. and we'll be very tightly monitoring our budget as we go through our budget period, and we'll make course adjustments as we have to. >> i'm sure you'll -- whatever temporary measures have to be taken to make it more appealing to riders, users. it's looking like spacing is going to be an issue. and i read in the paper there was a significant drop in the bart usage. i think it was like 170,000 or something like that. so it was -- we are behind you, and whatever we can do to help, let us know. thank you very much for taking

the time to present. >> thank you. >> public comment >> sorry. do we have any public comment? one day we will. [laughter] >> [off mic] >> seeing no public comment, public comment closed. item 6 does not require an action. thank you, s.f.m.t.a. for presenting. we appreciated you guys coming very much. >> thank you >> next item, please. >> commissioners, before you is item 7, adams confirm they did watch the february meeting? >> yes >> thank you very much. item 7, presentation, summary discussion regarding the february 26, 2020 meeting on third party delivery platforms and virtual and ghost kitchens. discussion item. the presenter is dominy can -- a

donovan, senior policy analyst, office of small business and someone here also to provide you with some support. >> thank you. >> sf gov tv, i will have a powerpoint ready for you in less than a minute. >> how high do we think he's going to count to before he's done? [laughter] i think we are at 12 now. 13. >> one, two. [laughter] [fire system testing]

>> thank you. okay. great. thank you for having me. donovan with the office of small business. this powerpoint is arguably less pretty than the s.f.m.t.a., but bear with me. so today's presentation for you is a summary of our own discussion from february 26 where you all discussed virtual kitchen and third party delivery platforms. what i tried to do was draw conclusions based on that discussion and summarize that in a memo that you have in your binders, and that's also posted

publicly. the idea is that you can affirm that these conclusions are indeed yours and you would like them to be presented at the march 12 meeting that supervisor safai called on the same matter. effectively, there were two conclusions drawn at that meet. one being that virtual and ghost kitchens and brick and mortar kitchens should be regulated equitybly in order to preserve the vitality of our neighborhood commercial corridors. and second, that protections for brick and mortar businesses and how new technology such as delivery apps interact with them, should also be exploreed. your discussion was framed under five main issue areas which included health health and safed use, fair competition, economic analysis as well as

infrastructure. the additional comment that you had were that virtual ghost kitchens as well as third party delivery apps provide brick and mortar businesses with a unique opportunity to grow their brands and to operate in a more economical manner and that you also recognize that the third party delivery platforms can play an essential function in connecting restaurants to their customers. [please stand by]

. >> -- and that they should be commensurate with brick and mortar restaurants. there is not clear guidance at the moment for how consumers can be made of those same time health rating of from virtual kitchens from which they are ordering. customers ordering from

third-platforms do not have a good understanding of where their food is coming from or whether it's been reheated. additionally, when a product is collected by a delivery courier, there's no requirements that the food be maintained in a safe and healthy manner before it reaches the customer? any questions on this topic? great. in terms of land use policy, we drove to two conclusions, one being we thought that formula retail controls and how they interact with catering uses should be explored by the city, particularly where virtual kitchens appear to be able to open under being principally

permitted where restaurants are allowed to be opened. for background, as s.f. planning presented, they consider virtual and gross kitchens to be catering uses. however, we know that those -- that some virtual and gross kitchens have previously sought permitted under mobile restaurants and food facilities, and the department is currently reviewing those definitions. caterers are usually permitted in industrial areas of the restaurant. limited restaurants are usually permitted in neighborhood commercial corridors. virtual and gross kitchens are

considered to not exchange money for services on the property. if a fast-food change wanted to open up their own kitchen, they would be principally permit today do so as a catering use. >> dominica -- >> go ahead. >> for this particular section, i feel like there was -- there was some stronger feelings and less stronger feelings about whether or not formula retail should be allowed in catering uses. i think i was in the strong feeling that it shouldn't be. >> okay. >> i guess my question is on process of this. are we going to go through each

section and agree this is what was said, and if we go through as a body, then we question? >> yes. >> okay. then i'll hold my questions. >> okay. as more businesses open, congestion may thusly increase due to an increase in use of those delivery apps.

>> effectively, you're determining what. [inaudible] >> -- who's a virtual kitchen versus who's a brick and mortar, and effectively, they recommended the city come up with a way to make a better determination of who's who and study it for the impacts.

so effectively, your conclusion was that the city should formally support the food fair delivery act, which is at the state level, but also should explore local regulations that could ensure brick and mortar businesses have adequate protections in the third-party delivery space. what was not fully discussed at the meeting on february 25 was legislation that's been proposed in various states and localities, including the fair

food delivery act, which to be perfectly honest, i've not done a thorough analysis of. i'm hoping my counterpart can speak somewhat to it, but it was introduced recently, so give us a little space to better understand it. the state of rhode island has proposed legislation regarding disclosures and regulation. the state of new york has proposed legislation regarding health inspection grades. the city of new york has proposed the most robust package of legislative proposals relative to this space, six pieces of legislation in particular, which are outlined on this slide. again, i haven't had the time or band width to fully understand each piece of

legislation, but we have an idea of what they are generally proposing? you have that, i believe, in your binders, and if not, i will e-mail this out to you. and with that, i am happy to take questions at this time. >> commissioners, do we have any questions? okay. well, it was a super interesting hearing. ben, did you want to speak at all to -- has there been any development since the hearing in terms of how the planning department is looking at this? >> sure.

good morning, commissioners. ben van houten from the office of economic and workforce development. i agree this created a lot of interdepartmental dialogue. i won't speak for the folks at planning or d.p.h. other than to say we've had good follow up conversations with them, and i think we all have a more keen eye on this emerging set of models. based on that hearing and the discussion tonight and the memo and the recommendations you provide, i think that'll be really helpful in terms of approaching thursday's hearing, which, again -- this is all the beginning of this conversation if it ultimately all goes up into legislation, i'm sure this'll all be back before you in this conversation, and it'll continue on. >> sure. appreciate the presentation and appreciate you being here tonight. i think -- oh, what?

oh, there is? oh, sorry. do we have any public comment? yeah, i got it. seeing none, public comment closed. so my observation was, at the hearing, there didn't seem to be any dispute between the restaurants or us when we -- us, when we debated it, that there should be opt in or opt out. i think there was broad consensus, i think we all agreed on that one. that does not need further discussion. i think we all need on the health score, and i didn't hear any objections from the restaurant industry, either, and it doesn't seem like it's a big ask of the delivery services. but that seems fairly nonconfrontational -- what's

the -- >> controversial? >> yeah, that's what i meant to say. so the live issues, from my perspective -- commissioner yakutiel, you mentioned formula retail and how that plugs into it. and then, you know, i don't get the sense that the -- you know, there was a ton of debate about catering and limited restaurants other than there was a sense that the planning department should be aware of this and, you know, obviously, we don't want to have a lot of ghost kitchens suddenly clogging up commercial corridors and competing with brick and mortars on some sort of an unfair playing field. it sounds like they are going to take a look at it, but if anybody feels like we should

not take a look at it. >> yeah. i think there was a difference between limited kitchen, ghost kitche kitchen, and pop up kitchen. it does seem like the planning department was noting it was happening in certain cases and trying to clamp down on it. and i think if we're giving a recommendation to planning, it is thank you for doing that. please continue to do that because i don't think anyone had major issues with it happening, it was where it happening. >> right, and where it could potentially lead. >> right. >> as commissioner ortiz said, you know, sometimes our job is to make sure that a potential bad thing doesn't happen in the future because we didn't keep our eye on it. >> yeah. >> so on that point, i think -- dominica, thank you for writing

that there. i think my point would be to specifically say that ghost and cloud and virtual kitchens should not be allowed to be zoned as limited restaurants. they should be zoned as catering, and they should not be allowed in our major corridors. >> i agree with that. >> it doesn't say that with as much teeth, but that's how i think it should be said about it. >> you know, the only thing i have is laurie from g.g.a. said these can sometimes fill spots that can be vacant, and she sort of outlined that that was a good -- or she recognized that that was potentially a good thing. i don't know if she was speaking against her interests. >> i think that maybe speaks to

a larger issue that we can delve into during our retreat. you know, there are a lot of businesses that are, you know, maybe not anybody's third choice, but, you know, maybe third, fourth, fifth choice in their neighborhood, and they're, you know, filling a vacant spot. and i'd like to get a sense of the commission's point of view in terms of how much weight does that hold, you know, the fact that they're filling a vacant spot? is that enough weight to say yes to maybe another non -- nonretail use, non -- you know, depending on each neighborhood, everybody has a different kind of feel. all of our corridors feel very different to one another, and

noncomplementary business. is that, like, okay because we're just, like, trying to fill spots right now. >> right. and to that spot, aunjon spoke quite eloquently to that spot referring to that model. we drove him to that model and aligned forces with businesses that practice that model, and now we're going to recommend pulling the rug out under that model. >> i think it's where the business is. i think in this specific instance i'm talking, like, more about the neighborhood commercial street, right? like -- >> yeah, but i think the businesses that he has, i think they're, like -- >> two block away. >> yeah, it's off of 24. >> i think that if the spirit

of some of these regulations could work. the problem, the way they stand, a small business could take two or three years going through conditional use. that's the real problem, because if conditional use would actually work, then poof, a couple months, the community has input, you can stay here, whatever the community wants. that's the spirit of conditional use. the problem is it's not working the way it should be working, and that's the problem, like you said. the problem is storefronts, neighborhood districts, they want them all filled. if that's what they want, that's what they want, but unfortunately, that's not going to happen in san francisco. >> yeah. >> i think this is a tough one in san francisco because i do think we have an issue of vacancies in our commercial corridors, but the way i think

about it is i do think that these businesses could, in the immediate or long-term, pose a threat to restaurant. i think in the short-term, we're squeezing restaurants, and this is an opportunity to generate more revenue. but this is a -- [inaudible] >> oh, my goodness. >> if these spaces are able to, in the medium and long-term, lower their prices and have their own kind of brands in there that are reducing time and costs for restaurants that are now in direct competition for businesses on the corridors, it could have a

direct impact on an industry that is already under threat. so when you and i think about this journey together that's happening on commercial co corridors, i think about the businesses that are already there that have helped the community. i don't think -- i think we can have an open mind. the issue is i actually see that this particular kind of business could hurt if it is -- hurt, if it is located on a commercial corridor, the brick and mortar locations on that corridor. we have concentrated neighborhood commercial corridors for a reason. >> i think, you know, we all want to be very careful with the commercial corridors, and i think it's well said.

i think it's a real concern. i -- i guess part of me is wondering whether this particular component is quite ripe for us putting our stamp on, you know, recommending a specific course of action. and by that i mean, so far, we have a sample size of one. we're seeing a possibility of a trend, a possibility of harm, but we don't have actual harm yet. and i'm a little concerned just lightly -- and i think reasonable minds can look at this two different ways. i'm just wondering if maybe the right time to sort of advocate sort of forcefully for an issue is when people are complaining about it? or is it premature for us to

get involved when g.g.a. says there isn't a problem right now? >> i think, with respect, that's why we're here, and we're trying to be proactive and not reactive. and i don't see a reason why we would not, having taken all this information and provide some clear prescriptions of what we think should and shouldn't happen. >> wouldn't it be easier to do it proactively, if there isn't anybody right now trying to get in the neighborhood corridors, to just say we don't want it there before we have a bunch of permits that go out, and then, we have to get them stuck in the c.u. process or whatever it is? >> right. now we have to -- remember, with the businesses that are there, they're giving them, like, a one-or-two-year extension, and it's a lot harder to undo something in the community. >> oh, yeah. i think it's a very fair point.

steph steven, i think you have a viewpoint on this. >> oh, yeah, i like what she's saying. i agree with that. >> okay. >> i think the catering, that's where we can be the most proactive. they're doing exactly what uber did, and after, it's too hard. >> yes, dominica. >> just one point of clarity, the one virtual and ghost kitchen that has been allowed in a neighborhood commercial corridor was allowed on permit because it was miscategorized, and i think that had been maybe lost in the conversation on the 26? and so corey, the planning

administrator, explained it, that the concept would be catering uses, which are generally permitted in the industrial areas of the city and not on the commercial corridors save for -- i think it's the mission and c.t. >> so the instance that we're thinking of may in fact not actually be -- may not have passed muster to begin with, and so we're -- would ordinarily not be allowed to proceed under the status quo? >> correct. >> okay. that's helpful. >> but that's when they -- right now, their current model is they get a facility, and they cluster group, correct? right? individuals, some proviivate, that's their model now.

but if i wanted to bypass this, i didn't want to cluster this and have a single caterer use, that's how i would bypass them if i wanted to do that. >> i see ben walking up. >> this is one of the most complex pieces of it. my understanding it four facilities, if you don't allow a member of the public to walk up, and you're only doing delivering out of a kitchen, that is a catering use, and catering uses are not generally permitted in the neighborhood commercial corridor, so anybody that is doing that business should be under active neighborhood enforcement. so the point was to treat businesses the same way in the neighborhood commercial corridors. i think it was the discussion that you had about directing planning to keep up the good

work to make sure that folks aren't doing that. where the catering retail and formula uses intersect is in the more industrial areas where catering is permitted, formula retail are already permitted. to the extent that there are questions around this feels different than other catering -- other types of catering -- you know, when we think of catering, we often think of somebody catering an event or a wedding or that sort of thing. i think that moving forward, when we talk about where catering uses are permitted, these things -- these types of new types of models are permitted and thinking on an individual district-by-district level, that seems certainly an

area ripe for consideration moving forward. but i think in the future, making sure that businesses are consistently treated in the neighborhood commercial corridors to prevent any sort of unfair advantage. that seems like the most immediately attack there. >> so how hard would it be to say catering resources can't have formula retail in them. i'm sorry. i'm confused. those two things are both permitted in the same area, but this is one business that is a catering use but also has formula retail in it, so it's like a business within a business. isn't that different? >> well, i don't know that the planning department would take that same assessment that it's a formula retail. it has formula retail in it. if the facility is not operating for public walk up, it's not public retail at all,

so the argument around formula retail is different. it's the look and feel -- it doesn't really lend itself to a nonretail use. that being said, i think, certainly, when we talk about catering, different types of catering, in the neighborhood commercial corridors right now, a neighborhood restaurant can do some accessory catering as long as it doesn't do catering directly to consumers, so there's different ways to think about catering. so i'm just not sure -- again, i would defer to the planning department on this, but that's the argument on trying to use a formula retail sort of approach. >> we're talking about being equitable and protecting small businesses from competition. what i think we're trying to get at is a mcdonalds shouldn't

be able to open up in noe valley versus direct delivery. i don't know how we think you guys get there, but if that's what the commission believes, it should be clearly stated, that we don't believe that formula retail should be able to operated in catering areas where they're allowed. is that what's written here? >> effectively. >> i just want to make sure this has teeth. that's all. >> yeah. >> i know it's not making sure it's full molar, claw, but i think it's important. >> i think the purpose of thursday's meeting is to layout what the issues are? i don't think that this

document is intended to be in its final version? i think that that should be reserved for the march 23 meeting, where something more formal can perhaps be put into place after the discussion on -- on thursday? >> so -- yeah, i agree. let me just say -- and this, i think, encapsulates it. we know what catering is. you deliver to the bar mitzvah, you deliver to the wedding. retail is you walk up to the place. this is a gray zone between catering and retail. this is a customer where they're ordering from mcdonalds, and it's coming from mcdonalds, but it's coming out of this third area. it's catering retail or retail

catering. it's this third category, and i think that's where we are all sort of struggling is it does seem like a place that's ripe for inequitable distribution even just in terms of, you know, when i go on grubhub, it's pretty clear that some restaurants have paid more money or done a deal, but there's some reason why some restaurants always come up near the top. it's not a stretch to think that companies with better resources have more chances to exploit that, and it would be more challenging for new businesses to come up. i don't know how to sort of describe that to the planning department, if that's the issue, or -- but i agree with commissioner yakutiel, that however we describe that, it needs to have some oomph behind

it, that that's the concern. and, i mean, that's actually new information to me. i did not know that a major fast-food chain was the number one delivery option for those two services. so for me, even, like, right now, that changes the math a bit in terms of where i see the potential concern is because we definitely want to protect, you know, these unique mom and pop restaurants that are what makes -- it's why many people come here. so dominica, where -- are we making a motion -- >> we're not voting on anything today. >> can i do one more? i'm so sorry. on the city economyist piece, i understand the desire to analyze the terms and kind of what the metrics are, but why

wouldn't we -- if we're going to provide a recommendation to provide an economic analysis, dominica, help me understand, you said it in the way you described it, but you said, the way it's written, it's really about the metrics. can we ask the city economyist to do a more flushed out study how many people are dining out in our city, what apps are being used, what hours? i think, for me, the chicken-or-the-egg question -- we know restaurants are suffering for a lot of reasons. we heard them, but is part of the reason they're suffering is these apps are taking people out of their restaurants and they're eating in their homes or are these apps sort of giving them a buoy? if that's something we could

ask the city analyst, that would be extremely helpful. >> so the way that -- and i am not an economyist. but the way that it's explained to me is we collect sales tax information based on, like, hotel and restaurant sales and these entities are being classified as restaurants, and we can't breakdown those sales between brick and mortar restaurants versus on-line restaurants. so when you go to -- i think it's the open-book s.f. -- or it's under the controller's office, where you can analyze how much sales tax has been collected based on the category, you can't definitively see a specific trend based on what you're describing? and so i think the idea is to

ask the city controller, one, whether or not it's possible to even conduct such an analysis, and if it's not, how can we get there? >> i mean, do other people think that's a good use of time to try to understand that trend because i wouldn't want to waste -- we have a lot of terms of priorities in terms of questions we want answered. >> i think a big determinant of that is what director tumlin was speaking to, the fact that people are working eight hours a day far away, and then, they have to go back to their home. this is the nature of the beast of capitalism that we're in, is it's continually obstructing us from our social environments. i feel that there could be so many factors, and that's what i

know traditionally economyists fear, are those variables. so i feel like it would be worth it to have, like, a consultati consultation, like dominica said, that can give us the answers. >> right, but i don't think there are tools that can give us that information. you have to make it up. you have to figure out the sales tax information, and on that sales tax information, how you break that up? this is a new thing, so you have to go out and figure that out. >> i actually think some of that, like, data, we can find that on, like, private industry, like, not relying on, like, necessarily government data. i know i found a lot of data on, like, kickstarter. they're so excited to get

started, they're going to give you, like, all of this trending data. so maybe if we were able to do a little bit of research themselves on, like, trending data in the delivery app space, i think we would find that on our own in our own kind of, like, places because a lot of that data is available in our city. >> i like that. and i'll just, you know, kind of point out again, i went into that hearing not knowing anything about how the restaurant industry would look at -- look at it overall. i try to be really respectful of them because they're the industry most affected by any decisions or recommendations we might make, and i was really quite surprised to hear them say that this is not really -- you know, we don't look at this as being an issue, and i kept

waiting for other restaurants to step up and say no, it's a huge issue. it seems like to a t, and even when when i talked to other restaurant owners, these delivery apps help them stay in business. so i -- i would recommend that we look for that existing data before we start asking the city controller, who's probably going to be quite busy with more pressing issues. >> yeah. okay. cool. >> one thing that we didn't really talk about in the hearing that i'm kind of curious about is that we're talking about equity, like, equity between, like, small businesses and large businesses. and one of the big things we heard is restaurants are really burdened by permitted and all these different -- permits and all these different fees and things. but labor costs, like, labor costs are really hurting all of our small businesses.

and i look at some of the legislation that's been passed recently, like ab 5. how would that change the picture if, all of a sudden, uber eats had to wake up tomorrow and had 20,000 employees, versus where we're all struggling just to keep five to ten employees employed? so we're talking about a lot of little things, but, like, in this larger picture, how does it look a little bit different, whether it's more equitable to small businesses or not or whatever? like, i'd like to have some sort of understanding as to what the world looks like if all of a sudden these really large companies have to have formal employees that way that we're -- you know, right now, we're talking about taking care of people for basic things like sick leave. when people talk about mandated sick leave, i'm wondering, is that going to be my responsibility also or is that

going to be a government responsibility or whose responsibility? and so i think when we're talking about the restaurant issue, i would like to kind of just explore, i guess, like, what those types of opportunities could be in terms of actual enforcement of things that have already passed. >> i love that you bring that up 'cause that's really my biggest p biggest pet peeve. you know, we start a business, and of course we're going to be successful if we don't have to pay all those fees. amazon, uber. you know, in my neighborhood of color, we used to have gypsy cabs, and then, in the 90s, we

got persecuted. and then, later, all somebody has to do is put it on an app, and pay a fee, and it's cool. that's what you said, the whole formula conditional, they operate in that complexity, and that's how they make money. they can't operate like we operate, so that's what we have to do. >> so, i guess, two thoughts about that, right? in terms of the ghost kitchens we have the opportunity to tour one, and they do have employees, and they're employing -- at least the one that i toured had a lot of employees, and they're well paid. in terms of the delivery services, i think ab 5 has now,

you know, kind of addressed that. it remains to be seen whether it'll have a level playing field, but it is an attempt to address this issue that uber eats and other companies don't have to pay workers comp and sick leave because if you work for them long enough under ab 5, you have to be that person. with respect to what we have in front of us here, my question is, is this something that's not included on this summary memo, and if it's not, should it be, and how should we characterize that? >> i think we want to do

something to stop the bleeding right now. just like what got us here? all the crazy legislation and rules that our legislators passed. we've just got to stop the bleeding from our mom and pop restaurants. just put a little more -- that's what you were saying, commissioner. but this is great for me for now. >> okay. great. so whato's presenting this on e 12? >> regina is. >> okay. so i think we're going to strike the economic analysis part -- oh, no, just forget about it. we'll keep it the way it is. >> yeah. we agreed to do that on our own. >> no, i think we can consult with the controller instead of tell the controller. >> no, the way it's written is fine. i wanted to add more and beef

it up, but i think it's fine. >> commission recommends the controller determine what metrics -- >> that makes sense. it's just asking them to figure out how to study it. it's not asking them to study it. >> it's asking them to provide direction so we can all study it together. >> okay. i won't die on that hill. >> that seems good. >> all right. somebody want to make a motion? to direct the staff to present the document at the hearing on thursday, march 12. >> i make a motion to direct the staff to present the document at the hearing on march 12. >> seconded. >> motion by commissioner hui to support -- to direct staff to present the memo at the special hearing being held on the same topic on march 12, seconded by commissioner

yakutiel. roll call vote. [roll call] >> motion passes, 6-0, with one absent. >> okay. so that brings us to the topic of the day, possibly the big topic of our lives, coronavirus. it has been a -- already had a huge impact on many of our local businesses. we received statements at the start of the hearing already talking about the extraordinary impact that coronavirus is having on businesses. we know from looking at what's

happening in other countries that we are in a very challenging moment, and the next -- the next few weeks, the next few months are really going to be an extraordinary challenge for many of our businesses. and typically, in order to introduce an item, you have to introduce it far enough in advance that there's sufficient public notice. to overcome this public notice, we as a body have to make a determination that there is an emergency that represents a public -- serious threat of public injury, and in this case, the public injury would

be to the businesses that we're charged with representing. so i guess first, dominica, you didn't quite break this up into two, but when i was looking at it, we have to break this up into two. so first, we have to make a finding that this is an emergency that requires our action, and so i will make that motion that we make that finding. >> i second. >> okay. you have to do a roll call on that one. >> the motion that you make the finding -- the motion should be that you're adding an agenda item based on a finding. >> well, first, we have to find -- we have to have the finding, then i guess to make the agenda -- add the agenda item based on the finding. we have to do the finding first. >> so then, there are three motions -- so then, there would be three actions.

>> there would be a finding, and we add an agenda item, and we talk -- i think it's still just two. what's the third one? >> you're making a motion to establish a finding, but you're not saying that you're adding an agenda item based on that finding. >> oh, right. so then, i have to -- >> so if you say the commission finding that there's justification enough to add this agenda item to tonight's meeting. >> all right. >> i think that might cover it for you? >> oh, right, but what's missing here is there actually has to be a vote on the finding that's the emergency. >> mm-hmm. that's the motion, and then, i'll do a roll call vote. >> that's the motion. i don't see it in here. i move to add an item to -- >> yes.

that language is pulled directly from the charter. >> all right. when i was looking at the charter, it looked like two separate things, but if you're saying -- i defer to your expertise. >> great. >> then i make a motion to urge the city and county of san francisco to declare a state of emergency on the impact of coronavir coronavirus or covid-19 on small businesses. [roll call] >> motion passes, 6-0, with one absent. >> so we're going to -- so the city -- so we took the roll call. do we have a discussion now or do we do public comment before the discussion? >> you can discuss, take public

comment, discuss again. >> okay. got it. so we'll do a discussion. so my thoughts on this are our leaders, the supervisors, the mayor are facing unbelievable challenges in how to navigate this, and i simply want to give them our strong support and to urge them to move as expeditiously as possible because i think that the health of our small businesses is not just an economic issue. the sma if the small businesses start to go out of businesses, then the workers lose their jobs, and they can't afford their health care, and then, the situation escalates and becomes even more dire. i think a lot of times, tough

challenging issues can be politicized, and i want them to know we're here for the supes, we're here for the mayor and for the community that we exist in. that's my thoughts on this, and i welcome any of your thought or questions on this. >> i agree. >> i've definitely been hearing different types of impact. i think the city can play a role in terms of supporting the l.b.e.s that they work with, local business enterprises that are in contract with the city for multiple things, and the city is starting to cancel all

of these events, caterings and not giving proper notice, like, day of notice, so i think that the city, yeah, should be giving small businesses notice, and that could be a form of mitigation, for example, that we're presenting today. i think the police department should be aware that many small businesses already can't afford to have less closing time because there's been less people coming into the businesses, and there's security issues arising from that. those are just issues that i think the city could play a role in. >> any other commissioner comments? >> when i was trying to give some thoughts around, like, this whole thing because it's such a huge -- it is such a huge impact for all of us right

now, i was reading something -- i think it was, like, three babes bake shop and how their catering business has been hard hit with the loss of orders, and i was -- you know, and it -- it kind of goes back into what we were just talking about in terms of, like, the restaurant industry and things like that. and, you know, a lot of our small businesses are finding ways to really take advantage of the technology sector that we have here, and now that's really been floating a lot of our small businesses. and it's, like, as much as i -- you know, i think we as a city have this, like, tension between the technology -- between, like, the technology sector and our small businesses, but i think many of our small businesses have come to rely on that, right? we're looking at the statement from andy town in front of us, and i think that's something that we need to kind of think a

little bit more about in terms of, like, you know, diversity, like, in our city. our city has really become very reliant on one type of workforce and one time of economic pillar, right? like, that's kind of the anchor to san francisco and the bay area is technology, and a whole sector of people can really go and work from home, behind their computers, and there's a whole sector of people who, like, can't. they have to be there, and i think in the news, this has been highlighted, the inequities. but i think as the commission, i would hope that as we talk more about equity, that this is -- this is another example of kind of maybe why diversity and all these other things can -- can really -- i don't know -- will become more important, i think. >> i'm really frustrated

because i'm not a public health professional, nor do i presume to be, and i know that the people that are making decisions that are affecting small businesses are weighing all sides. and at the same time, you said that there are a cascade of effects when you basically shutdown chunks of the economy. this is, of course, we're talking about it in our city, but italy has shutdown the entire city, closed it down. what's frustrating is i don't understand this virus. my best friend is an e.r. doctor, and i'm talking to her, and she said it's serious. but when you're talking about shutting down businesses and all these layoffs, it's

consequential to people. i'm very worried that in the -- in an effort to slow down the transmission of a virus you know very little about, we are throwing tens of thousands of peoples' lives into melee. and i don't -- that is just a frustration. i'm not saying that anything should necessarily change or be done about it. i think in 72 hours, i lost $15,000 worth of bookings, and i've been talking to a lot of small businesses owners, trying to get our finger on the pulse. i think we're trying to be strong for our communities and our employees, people especially on this commission. but in local communities, we are -- in many ways, we're holding people up, and it has

been hard to stay upbeat and positive and excited when i know that this is possibly just the beginning. but that is what i am doing. the other thing i'll say is, just to put it out there, what -- how this is potentially affecting the large businesses in our city, maybe even more than the small businesses in some ways. you think about the moscone center, the pier buildings, some of these buildings that have massive, massive rents. cancelling some of these events in a peak season could be a devastating event for some of these businesses. so while we represent the small businesses, the level of worry and acti and anxiety, to me, surpasses us and kind of the large businesses that anchor our

city. i'll just say i'm glad we're doing this, and i support it, and thank you, commissioner laguana and dominica for bringing this up. >> let me just say on a personal level, we had 30 or 40 rentals on south by southwest. our business helps artists go on the road and play shows, so it's going to be increasingly difficult for people to have public gatherings. that is an extinction event for us. maybe i'll have to resign. i might not have a business in a month or two, so -- but nonetheless, it's simply an extraordinarily challenging event that none of us have any context or ability to sort of assess. there is no plan for this.

we've never had anything like it in our lives, and i feel really strongly that this is the time to stand with our government and with our leaders and support them. not out of blind loyalty because we really are in this all together, and the only way we're going to get out is all together, and we need to support each other as a body, as citizens, and as members of the city and as members of this country and as members of this planet and help each other get through this -- this time. it's going to be hard. it's going to be really rough, but we've got to be there for each other. so, you know, part of my motivation here is letting our

government, letting our leaders know that we're standing with them, even as we're asking them to stand with us, and i just wanted to -- i just think it's so central to what our responsibility is under the charter to standup and speak for all business. i can't imagine a moment within our lifetime, and that's including 9-11, where everything seemed more on the edge, and so yeah, that's how i feel about it. >> public comment? >> do we -- thank you. do we have any public comment that wish to speak on this? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm amelia lindy. thank you for all you do to

help small business, and thank you for this really important topic. i wasn't sure if this would be covered, but i think it's top of mind for all of us. i'm the small business manager for the san francisco chamber of commerce, and i'm here tonight to try and bring up this topic, because just as you all are facing, the questions are coming in, what if somebody gets sick at my office, and i have 50 other employees? how are we going to make it through the next through months with practically no payroll? how am i going to make payroll? we live in this beautiful city that brings people together for meetings, celebrations, and forums for new ideas. normally, when we make it a situation where people are going to start limiting their gatherings, we're going to see a huge impact across san francisco. so i'm here because i'm concerned for small businesses. we are currently in an almost

unprecedented situation. we need to ensure that our businesses have not only the resources, but they will surely need to remain viable during this challenge, but also the information and tools that they need to support public health. we can all agree that there were -- there are challenges to running a small business in san francisco, even before coronavirus, and we all know there will be challenging to running a small business in san francisco after coronavirus, but what we have to urge our leaders to do is to ensure that we will have the same small businesses that we know and love now here also when coronavirus is gone, so we have to think of anything. provide some relief to policies or restrictions that could help. maybe some relief on business fees, tax extensions, something to get a break, maybe even direct financial support, whan

when this is all over, we have to help our small businesses recover. we can't make coronavirus go away tomorrow, but the one thing the city could do is alleviating uncertainty. thank you so much of for bringing up -- so much for bringing up this really important topic. >> commissioners, do we have a motion to approve a resolution to support small businesses and work together to support the city? >> so moved. >> second. >> motion to approve a resolution to support small businesses. on that motion -- [roll call] >> motion passes 6-0 with one absent. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item 8, commissioners' report. allows president, vice

president, and commissioners to report on recent small business activities and make announcements that are of interest to the small business community. >> do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have any commissioner reports? >> oh, yeah. >> commissioner zouzounis? >> we are -- our body wrote a resolution a little while back regarding the mandated cans and bottle collections that are coming from cal-recycle that is a state entity, and san francisco has defaulted on, so the burden is falling on small merchants. the media is going to be picking this up at one point soon. i think we need to on circle b

to this as a commission because not only is it the pilot program -- so the context real quick, for those of you that are not aware, we wrote a resolution to kind of expedite this process of alleviating this burden on small businesses and allowing san francisco to adopt a more flexible recycling program for people looking to redeem c.r.v. value, and this was then created as a state initiative to allow san francisco to take some of this revenue that bigger companies like safeway and such, who are paying the in lieu fees instead of collecting the cans and battles. so there's now basically a fund that san francisco has access to, and a pilot program is to be set up to allow mobile recycling or a different type of collection. this has now been stalemated,

and we need to check in on it. in the meantime, merchants that were now previously exempt are now getting letters from the state, saying that exemption is revoked, and small businesses are also receiving, like, $30,000 or plus in delinquent services for the state, because you get fined each day if you don't collect these cans and bottles. even if you do, the state doesn't believe you, and so it's a huge, huge issue that needs to be revisited, and i think the state isn't moving as fast as they should. i've been hearing both reports from media asking and merchants, showing they're revoked. so that's my reported on that.

>> okay. commissioner huie? >> i wanted to report that i attended the san francisco small merchants alliance meeting. it was a really great meeting. i really liked the fact that they invited the chief connectist to talk about business tax -- economyist to talk about business tax. sounds like that particular body wants to ask if small businesses can just be exempt from business taxes 'cause it's just not a large enough revenue source to really make a real impact? instead of, like, just tweaking the numbers, just getting rid of it altogether, like, seemed to be their ask.

so i heard a little bit about what the commission does, and that was another meeting where, you know, i think sharing what the commission does simply was, like, enough and just kind of getting them know, like, we're here. and they really wanted to just revoice, too, that, you know, they have a very unique set of goals, and they are a unique organization, and that, you know, i am happy to talk to them, you know, more, so i was really grateful for that. >> awesome. i'm so glad you went. commissioner yakutiel. >> two. i ran for the board of the valencia commercial corridor businesses, and i won. i just wanted to publicly thank commissioner huie for having brunch at manny's this weekend

and coming in as i dealt with lots of orders and cappuccinos, so i wanted to thank you for bringing your family to have brunch at my spa. thank you. >> thank you. anybody else? do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on commissioner reports? seeing none, comment closed. next item. >> item 9, new business. allows commissioners to introduce new agenda items for future consideration. discussion item. >> commissioner yakutiel? >> so i had names of three businesses that were on my phone. two are social home and kitchen in either the richmond or sunset, and then, this place called odd dog in the frog.

it's a bar that's -- >> mad dog in the fog? >> mad dog in the fog, and i think it's been here for a really long time. those are the businesses that are closing that i would like to adjourn in honor of if possible. >> i would agree. i'd like to add one special group to that, which is i would also like to close in honor of all the medical workers who are assisting coronavirus victims and will be assisting coronavirus victims, especially locally and, you know, now with the ship docking in oakland, i think that, well, a special shoutout for them. i would also say, under new business, that at our next session, it is likely that we will have legislation from the

board to consider. i believe that they're crafting and drafting mitigation -- coronavirus mitigation. we may also consider the chamber of commerce has drafted a letter on behalf of the many business groups. we may choose to make some recommendation to the board based on that letter based on whatever legislation winds up being crafted. i just wanted to give you a heads up that that is likely to be coming up at the next meeting. okay. anybody else? okay. do we have any public comment on new business? seeing none, public comment closed. >> sfgovtv. please show the office of small business slide. >> welcome.

it is our custom to begin and end each small business commission meeting with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco, and the best place to get answers to your questions about doing business in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have a question about what to do next. you can find us on-line or some person here at city hall. best of all, all of our services are free of charge. the small business commission ask the official public forum to state your concerns about the small business policy in san francisco. if you have questions that need to be answered, start here at the office of small business. >> item 10, adjournment, action item. >> so moved. >> second. >> meeting is adjourned at 7:41 p.m.

shop and dine on the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within neighborhood. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant. where will you shop and dine in the 49? san francisco owes the charm to the unique character of the neighborhood comer hall district. each corridor has its own personality. our neighborhoods are the engine

of the city. >> you are putting money and support back to the community you live in and you are helping small businesses grow. >> it is more environmentally friendly. >> shopping local is very important. i have had relationships with my local growers for 30 years. by shopping here and supporting us locally, you are also supporting the growers of the flowers, they are fresh and they have a price point that is not imported. it is really good for everybody. >> shopping locally is crucial. without that support, small business can't survive, and if we lose small business, that diversity goes away, and, you

know, it would be a shame to see that become a thing of the past. >> it is important to dine and shop locally. it allows us to maintain traditions. it makes the neighborhood. >> i think san francisco should shop local as much as they can. the retail marketplace is changes. we are trying to have people on the floor who can talk to you and help you with products you are interested in buying, and help you with exploration to try things you have never had before. >> the fish business, you think it is a piece of fish and fisherman. there are a lot of people working in the fish business, between wholesalers and fishermen and bait and tackle.

at the retail end, we about a lot of people and it is good for everybody. >> shopping and dining locally is so important to the community because it brings a tighter fabric to the community and allows the business owners to thrive in the community. we see more small businesses going away. we need to shop locally to keep the small business alive in san francisco. >> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing. - >> tenderloin is unique

neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a liquor store but there are impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside of their neighborhood to assess fruits and vegetables it can be come senator for seniors and hard to travel get on a bus to

get an apple or a pear or like tomatoes to fit into their meals my my name is ryan the co-coordinate for the tenderloin healthy store he coalition we work in the neighborhood trying to support small businesses and improving access to healthy produce in the tenderloin that is one of the most neighborhoods that didn't have access to a full service grocery store and we california together out of the meeting held in 2012 through the major development center the survey with the corners stores many stores do have access and some are bad quality and an

overwhelming support from community members wanting to utilities the service spas we decided to work with the small businesses as their role within the community and bringing more fresh produce produce cerebrothe neighborhood their compassionate about creating a healthy environment when we get into the work they rise up to leadership. >> the different stores and assessment and trying to get them to understand the value of having healthy foods at a reasonable price you can offer people fruits and vegetables and healthy produce they can't afford it not going to be able to allow it so that's why i want to get involved and we just make sure that there are alternatives to people can come into a store and not just see cookies and candies

and potting chips and that kind of thing hi, i'm cindy the director of the a preif you believe program it is so important about healthy retail in the low income community is how it brings that health and hope to the communities i worked in the tenderloin for 20 years the difference you walk out the door and there is a bright new list of fresh fruits and vegetables some place you know is safe and welcoming it makes. >> huge difference to the whole environment of the community what so important about retail environments in those neighborhoods it that sense of dignity and community safe way.

>> this is why it is important for the neighborhood we have families that needs healthy have a lot of families that live up here most of them fruits and vegetables so that's good as far been doing good. >> now that i had this this is really great for me, i, go and get fresh fruits and vegetables it is healthy being a diabetic you're not supposed to get carbons but getting extra food a all carbons not eating a lot of vegetables was bringing up my whether or not pressure once i got on the program everybody o everything i

lost weight and my blood pressure came down helped in so many different ways the most important piece to me when we start seeing the business owners engagement and their participation in the program but how proud to speak that is the most moving piece of this program yes economic and social benefits and so forth but the personal pride business owners talk about in the program is interesting and regarding starting to understand how they're part of the larger fabric of the community and this is just not the corner store they have influence over their community. >> it is an owner of this in

the department of interior i see the great impact usually that is like people having especially with a small family think liquor store sells alcohol traditional alcohol but when they see this their vision is changed it is a small grocery store for them so they more options not just beer and wine but healthy options good for the business and good for the community i wish to have more [♪]

>> i am the supervisor of district one. i am sandra lee fewer. [♪] >> i moved to the richmond district in 1950 mine. i was two years old. i moved from chinatown and we were one of the first asian families to move out here. [♪] >> when my mother decided to buy that house, nobody knew where it was. it seems so far away. for a long time, we were the only chinese family there but we started to see the areas of growth to serve a larger chinese population. the stress was storage of the birthplace of that. my father would have to go to

chinatown for dim sum and i remember one day he came home and said, there is one here now. it just started to grow very organically. it is the same thing with the russian population, which is another very large ethnic group in the richmond district. as russia started to move in, we saw more russian stores. so parts of the richmond is very concentrated with the russian community and immigrant russian community, and also a chinese immigrant community. [♪] >> i think as living here in the richmond, we really appreciate the fact that we are surrounded three natural barriers. they are beautiful barriers. the presidio which gives us so many trails to walk through, ocean beach, for families to just go to the beach and be in the pacific ocean.

we also also have a national park service. we boarded the golden gate national recreation area so there is a lot of activity to do in the summer time you see people with bonfires. but really families enjoying the beach and the pacific ocean during the rest of the time of year. [♪] >> and golden gate park where we have so many of our treasures here. we have the tea garden, the museum and the academy of sciences. not to mention the wonderful playgrounds that we have here in richmond. this is why i say the richmond is a great place for families. the theatre is a treasure in our neighborhood. it has been around for a very long time. is one of our two neighborhood theatres that we have here. i moved here when i was 1959 when i was two years old. we would always go here. i love these neighborhood theatres.

it is one of the places that has not only a landmark in the richmond district, but also in san francisco. small theatres showing one or two films. a unique -- they are unique also to the neighborhood and san francisco. >> where we are today is the heart of the richmond district. with what is unique is that it is also small businesses. there is a different retail here it is mom and pop opening up businesses. and providing for the neighborhood. this is what we love about the streets. the cora door starts on clement street and goes all the way down to the end of clement where you will see small businesses even towards 32nd. at the core of it is right here between here and 20 -- tenth avenue. when we see this variety of stores offered here, it is very

unique then of the -- any other part of san francisco. there is traditional irish music which you don't get hardly anywhere in san francisco. some places have this long legacy of serving ice cream and being a hangout for families to have a sunday afternoon ice cream. and then also, we see grocery stores. and also these restaurants that are just new here, but also thriving. [♪] >> we are seeing restaurants being switched over by hand, new owners, but what we are seeing is a vibrancy of clement street still being recaptured within new businesses that are coming in. that is a really great thing to see. i don't know when i started to shop here, but it was probably a very, very long time ago. i like to cook a lot but i like to cook chinese food. the market is the place i like to come to once a year. once i like about the market as

it is very affordable. it has fresh produce and fresh meat. also, seafood. but they also offer a large selection of condiments and sauces and noodles. a variety of rice that they have is tremendous. i don't thank you can find a variety like that anywhere else. >> hi. i am kevin wong. i am the manager. in 1989 we move from chinatown to richmond district. we have opened for a bit, over 29 years. we carry products from thailand, japan, indonesia, vietnam, singapore and india. we try to keep everything fresh daily. so a customer can get the best out a bit. >> normally during crab season in november, this is the first place i hit. because they have really just really fresh crab.

this is something my family really likes for me to make. also, from my traditional chinese food, i love to make a kale soup. they cut it to the size they really want. i am probably here once a week. i'm very familiar with the aisles and they know everyone who is a cashier -- cashier here i know when people come into a market such as this, it looks like an asian supermarkets, which it is and sometimes it can be intimidating. we don't speak the language and many of the labels are in chinese, you may not know what to buy or if it is the proper ingredients for the recipe are trying to make. i do see a lot of people here with a recipe card or sometimes with a magazine and they are looking for specific items. the staff here is very helpful. i speak very little chinese here myself. thinks that i'm not sure about, i asked the clerk his and i say is this what i need? is this what i should be making? and they actually really helped

me. they will bring me to the aisle and say this is battery. they are very knowledgeable. very friendly. i think they are here to serve not only the asian community but to serve all communities in the richmond district and in san francisco. [♪] >> what is wonderful about living here is that even though our july is a very foggy and overcast, best neighborhood, the sleepy part outside on the west side is so rich with history, but also with all the amenities that are offered. [♪]

>> thursday, march 5, 2020. i would like to remind members of the public to silence your mobile devices that may sound off. when speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. i would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] commission richards has -- first under your, on your agenda, is consideration of i'ms proposed for continuance. item 1, case 2019-001455cua, 1750 wawona street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance. item 2, 2019-003900drp, 1526 masonic avenue proposed for

continuance. item 3, 2019-017837prj proposed for indefinite continuance, and item 4, 2015-4109, 33 12th street has been withdrawn. item 12, the hazardous materials management procedures informational presentation is proposed for continuance to march 19, 2020. items 13a and b for case numbers 201913cuavar proposed for continuance to april 30, 2020. under your discretionary review calendar, items 15a and b, case numbers 2825drp at 780 kansas street has been withdrawn. and the variance component of

that project is being proposed for continuance to march 25 to the zoning administrators variance hearing agenda. i have no other items proposed for continuance. i did have one speaker card from mr. dr atler on item 13a if he wishes -- no, he does not wish to speak to the continuance. so that is all i have. >> would anyone else like to publicly comment on the items proposed for continuance? come on up. >> ryan patterson representing the project sponsor for items 13a and b. this is a cu for section 317. we are, it's a section 317cu trying to preserve an existing unit that was reconfigured with permits about 15 years ago. this unit is tenant-occupied, and while we have recently received concerns from planning, we would like to work with planning staff to try to resolve

those and to support a continuance, request a continuance to april 30 to do that. thank you very much. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm sorry, so one more time. anyone else for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> move to continue items as indicated in addition with item 12, 13, 15, with dates in the record. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue items as proposed then. [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. if the zoning administrator could opine on items 13b and 15b. >> sure. item 13b, variance will be continued to april 30, joint

hearing of planning commission, and item 15b will be continued to the regular variance hearing on march 25. >> thank you. commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission the public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. 49 missouri street and item 6, case 022530cua, 4 west portal avenue, conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. would any members of the public like to comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioner johnson. >> move to approve items 5 and 6 with conditions. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve items 5 and 6 under your consent calendar, [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0 placing us under commission matters, item 7, consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 20, 2020. i have no speaker cards. would anyone from the public like to comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner diamond. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for february 20, [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners.

that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 8, commission comments and questions. seeing none, commissioners, department matters. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to thank commissioner richards for his service. and i will miss him as a colleague and an effective person being on this commission with us. thank you, commissioner richards. >> if there are no other comments, we can move onto department matters, item 9, director's announcements. >> commissioners, good afternoon. with the department staff here in a unique week as we bid farewell to director ram and await director hilli say. -- director hillis. >> item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals

and historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday >> this week's land use committee heard the in length occupancy. the ilo ordinance proposes to regulate occupancies and dwelling units between 30 and 365 days. you heard this item twice, back on january 30 when you voted to recommend approval with modifications. those modifications include enacting interim controls on new i.l.o.s, collecting data on the scale and clarifying admin amendments for nonprofit organizations. monday was the second time the ordinance was heard at the land use committee. this week at the beginning of the hearing, supervisor peskin announced another continuance to give him time to meet with representatives and advocates. he invited planning staff to co. staff expressed concerns over

the unanswered questions in the ordinance. supervisor peskin moved to continue the hearing to march 9. the ordinance that would amenity bay windows and horizontal projections passed it's first read. the appeal for the environmental termination of 1581 howard street was continued to april 14. that's all i have for you today. >> thanks. >> seeing no question, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i have two speaker cards. [calling names] >> i have three minutes, please,

sir? thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i second vice president moore's comments about commissioner richards, and i totally agree with them. anyway, i looked on your website for roof deck policy and you can't find it there on the website. and so i think the official roof deck policy installed since 2018. so something last spring that was tried but i don't think that went ahead. and i have a handout but i can't find that on the website. so i think that roof decks should be defined as the following: open space on the uppermost area of a structure requiring a stair penthouse or hatch for access. i think the plans often conflate this type of roof deck with the access required at the top with a roof deck that is off living space, created by setbacks that reduce the mass, particularly setbacks overlooking rear yards,

and i told these should be called terraces because that matches the definition in the dictionary. roof decks that require stair penthouses or a hatch should not be permitted on smaller projects if the open space requirement can be met through preservation of natural carbon-capturing rear yards. here are the negative issues as i see them with roof decks that require a stair penthouse or a hatch. they add hundreds of thousands of dollars to construction cost and sales price of one to three-unit buildings and that decreases relative affordability. they increase the mass. i mean even if you have the glass, when you see them, it's mass, and people put couches from restoration hardware up there, and that makes mass. i think they're also used for the marketing of the projects by capturing views and my favorite mantra is no one entitled to a view. i don't think they should be up there for that reason.

and finally, they're really not viable in a windy, foggy city like san francisco. so that's my comment on that. and here's the 150 words for the minutes. thank you all very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> can i get the overhead, please? great. commissioners, my name is joe butler. i'm an architect here any city. i'm here about 526 lombard street which is on your agenda for next week. only recently hired by aquaintances of 20 years who live near the project but were traveling during the period of 311 notice. several things are missing. and several things are incorrect

in the application that was submitted by the project sponsor and their architect, second architect on the job. first on the permit application, you can see that the new construction, and i'm talking about the rear building which will be wholly new construction on a required year yard for which variances will be sought, you can see that a site survey done by a civil engineer as required, we don't have a site survey. second, it fronts on two streets or more precisely, a street and an ally, at the back of the property is fielding street. the back of the property is fielding street, at the front is lombard street and if one reads the code carefully you have to use the street to measure. so in the back, they are reducing the required rear yard by adding a new building where

there's currently lawn. and it's at least 34 feet high from grade. but that's not where we measured. we measured from the top of the curb, at the midpoint of the two on the up and the low ends of the lot, on its main frontage. also when we reduce the rear yard, the last 30 feet, the last 10 feet of the building is supposed to be reduced to 30 feet in height. so that we don't have a big, shady yard. in this case, there is no such setback, but we think two things. one that 261 should apply, and the sun point should be observed. you can see what happens to the third floor. there we go. if, however, the project sponsor were to drop that to 30 feet above grade or the midpoint of the top of the curb, maybe four or five feet as i've shown here,

the sun plane wouldn't interfere with the 30' height that's required for the last 10 feet of averaging. you go down a longer list. here's the planning department submittal guidelines which call for the site survey. here's the fee schedule. this one is rich. the first architect put $300,000 for a 3800 square foot new house. it's really over a million. that means that the planning department has lost down on about $12,000 in fees. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president koppel and members of the planning commission. my name is kathleen cortney. russian hill community association. two years ago, the russian hill community association sent a letter of support for the

reappointment of rich hillis as a commissioner sitting on the planning commission at that time we noted that there were a couple of things that we disagreed with the commissioner about, but we appreciated his comments. now, you more than anyone else knows that there's a difference between the skill set required of a planning commissioner and a skill set required of a planning director. you're also well aware of the concerns many community members have expressed about the appointment. but more than this, you're complicit in the decision of the reappointment or the appointment of rich hillis as planning commissioner, because you are the commission that recommended reviewed applicants, that gutted them, that looked at the minimum requirements and recommended the recommended names to the mayor. so i call to your attention, and

i urge you, and i really request that you be aware of your responsibility, because starting now, your responsibility extends beyond the idea of simply looking at what comes before you at the planning commission. your responsibility also is to the planning department. it is up to you now to make sure that the qualifications, the protocols, the mentoring, the education of our planners is really disciplined and professional, because if we don't have a professional architect or urban planner in charge of the planning department, may i respectfully request that that responsibility now falls to you. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi, everyone. my name is anna and i'm a resident and artist at 221 11 street, also known as the dovetail community. at dovetail we house artists and their workspaces at affordable rates. we are being threatened with eviction despite working with the landlord in good faith to legalize our space. we need the planning department to accept our application for conditional use of our space under the act. we are one of the last communities in san francisco of offering space for movement arts, visual arts, live workspaces at below market rate. as a dancer and movement artist personally dovetail represents to me a haven. the availability of affordable indoor practice spaces and the possibility of hosting creative community gatherings are rarities in san francisco.

spaces like dovetail make it possible for me and many others like me to pursue the arts and foster strong communities around the arts. we want to be in good graces with the neighbors and landlord. we support the success of the restaurant downstairs from us in many ways like encouraging the patronization, being conscious of noise, especially during their business hours, and offering other forms of assistance throughout the years. sadly, the landlord has blocked two times our notarized permit request and trying to evict us on the platform that we are not doing the work. city ordinance requires this to proceed and obligated to provide code-compliant housing. planning allowed the withdrawal of conditional use application by the property owner. the legislation which you read into the last meeting is clear, the owner should not have a discussion to withdraw legally filed conditional use application. instead they are required to

bring the building into compliance with residential code and legalize the space. please help protect dovetail and the artists of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is brittney, and i'm also a tenant at 221 first street. i'm a mental health counselor. we work with people struggling with housing and i'm also a student in the urban studies and planning program at s.f. state with a focus on homelessness and affordable housing. the dovetail community means a lot to me as it provides a space for me to live affordbly as i'm working and going to school. it is also a place for hosting activism events around topics like affordable housing and encouraging people to participant politically such as voting parties to inform people about ballot measures. it is critical to me to maintain

currently-existing affordable housing in the city so students and social workers like myself and avarices can live, work and study in a home that offers secure and affordable housing and encourages participation in the greater community. this is our home, and it would mean a tremendous amount if you would support the planning department to accept our conditional use permit as it is required by the act and your applications that we can move forward in the legalization process to become residents. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else? come on up. >> good afternoon, president koppel, fellow commissioners. with no neighborhood counsel and san francisco coalition. i'm here to echo what ms. cortney brought to your attention and our basically total surprise from the outcome of who you recommended as part of the roster for the planning director. we have brought up issues in

terms of mr. hillis' qualifications, that's not new. but one thing we have not talked enough about is his outlook on what neighborhoods are supposed to be transformed in light of all this push for denseification. we really look to you to make sure that something that is going to come out of the planning department that most likely is going to reflect that is going to be equitable and just. as an example, i know that director hillis used to often time bring up the residential expansion threshold and would oftentimes bring up that maybe we should bring it back. as some of the speakers here mentioned, that program was kneecapped, guilty as charged, i was one of those people that worked very hard to make sure it was kneecapped. the reason it was kneecapped was because it was unjust. you cannot go and up zone --

well, up zone in a sense, of the square footage of the entire city of san francisco to come up with a floor area ratio that is virtually covering maybe 5% of san francisco would live up to that. so that's an example that we are looking to you to look into these programs that are going to be coming out of the planning department and look into you to make sure we are not going to have back door up zoning. we've already had front door up zoning thanks to assemblymember phil ting and his two adus per lot. we would appreciate it if you look into the programs and side with us, the residents of the city of san francisco, who need to have a just program, fair planning. that's what we're asking you. thank you so much. >> thank you. anyone else for general public comment? seeing none, general public

comment is closed. >> there are no questions, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 11, 49 south van ness avenue, permit center project informational presentation. >> hi. my name is melissa white how is. i'm the permit center director in the city administrate's office, and i'm excited to address the commission today. i'm probably going to present for somewhere between ten and 15 minutes and i'm hoping there's time for questions at the end. before i i've in, i wanted to say thank you to all the planning department, in particular, i really would like to thank every individual there but in the sake of time i want to thank liz watty and the whole core pick team for how wonderful they've been since i've been in this job for a little over a year. i want to thank jonas and this commission for helping us have christine silva to support

electronic plan review. i'm going to talk about how integral she has been to this process. i hope while you are hearing my presentation, you are taking pride because we could not be doing this without your support of having christine support us and your whole department being so open to change, which has been really great. so i also am joined by samuel who is a project manager at public works for all of 39 south van ness and then jeff hamilton who is a communications director for the project as well. so i'm going to give you an overview of the 49 south van ness project and the permit center which is the driving force for this building. i'm going to talk about how we are preparing through pilots at your existing locations and lastly i'm going to talk about electronic plan review. so this building, i'm sure you are very familiar with it. when i took this job, we spent four months where i went in depth observing. i sat with the team, i got to know them, i sat at the mission.

i had a lot to learn when i took this job. i came from the mayor's office where i was used to improvements and being cheerful and pushy, but i had never worked in the perming world, so i really got a crash course from the employees in my first few months, and we did strategic planning. and this is the mission and vision statement that came out of that process, ultimately signed off on by the mayor. john ram and many others were involved in that. what i love about this is we are going to be a one stop shop is what we are trying to say, and we are going to be friendly, streamlined and efficient. so i think about that quite frequently. what does it mean to be friendly, streamlined and efficient? so, well, we are going to be moving into a new 16-story building, 430,000 square feet. we sold three buildings to finance this project as a city. the whole second floor, which is the main public policy push for this, is to improve our service to the public. it's going to be a one-stop permit shop, about 40,000 square

feet. we are going to have up to 500 transactions a day, up to 16 different departments interacting on the floor, and we are really using this move as a function for change. we are going to keep things that are working well, and we are going to change things that need to be improved. and by the way, we are moving, starting to move in less than three months. so here's the picture of the building. you probably notice as you walk by. it's looking similar to this now. this picture has been here since before it was up at all. you can see there's going to be beautiful trees, balconies, light, planning will obviously be on floors 13 through 15. it's going to be so beautiful up there. beautiful views. yesterday i was there at the end of the day when the sun was setting. beautiful sunset. you can actually see future tower over the twin peaks. it's going to be very bright, everything new. new furniture, really wonderful. these are renderings of the permit center floor. another thing as i mentioned, we are going to colocate. we are going from 13 locations

that we send customers to right now, and even just like at 1660, we send customers across six different floors of one of these 13 locations to one floor of one building as much as humanly possible. so a really big change for the staff. and after we move, we are down to the orange dot on the page, we are going to be leaving port out on the port because it's more efficient for the port tenants. they already operate as a one-stop shop on the port but everyone else is coming in. so we are moving, we are colocating, does that mean we are immediately efficient, friendly and streamlined? not necessarily. we still have to be super thoughtful about how we organize. and when i was doing the discovery period, what i saw, which i was really pleased by, is i saw just huge -- i wasn't pleased by this but didn't find it surprising. there's a lot of bureaucracy. department staff want to do a good job. they are working super hard, but they have subpar technology and

subpar space, and there's not a lot of -- everyone's nervous to tell anyone else what to do. so as a result, we kind of see a lot of silos. so really the benefit of this building is breaking that down, starting to work together, we are going to all be together. so i feel like it's not any individual department's fault that things are the way they are, and i'm sure you all can appreciate that. but it's just really this bureaucracy. so how are we organizing the permit center? we have eight departments that we are calling regular station departments. they are going to be staffing our hopefully regular standard hours of operation, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. as of a week ago, thank you again to the planning department, you have expanded your historic preservation hours, which is amazing. customers are so excited about that. and we had ten different sets of hours of operation across these eight regular station departments when i did our

initial analysis. and we are pushing everyone to the same hours of operation every day. so when you're a customer coming in, you know who you are going to be able to encounter when you come in. and then there's another group of departments that don't need to be sitting there all day, but they are going to have access to the floor. maybe they are sitting in an upper floor, and we'll call them down to the next floor to meet with a customer. here's the floor plan. this is the second floor. another big thank you to planning. so instead of all planning staff being together, planning is going to have one business in -- one in the business area. we did this intentionally. a lot of thought went into how we structured the floor plan. we are trying to organize it around customer goals, instead of department. we are trying to think about this as what is a customer trying to do and how can we organize the whole floor to help them accomplish that. so the permit services area is the equivalent of the department

of building inspection's i.p.r. and c.p.b. today which are permit techs who take your plans and help route you. the construction area is the equivalent of planners and engineers, people doing the technical review, and special events and business are not related to construction permitting as much although there can be overlap. and so what are the changes that we are implementing? huge change is coming. we are going to be co-locating in the space. we are going to have a print shop, a one-stop print shop on the floor so that planners in the middle of the day, when someone rips down the signs all around someone's building and a planner three or four is like being called from city hall to go and print the signs again can seemlessly send the customer to the print shop on the floor where the job will be saved, and they can get them reprinted. that was on a idea that came from planning and public works. we are going to have valuized cashiering cashiering -- centralized

cashiering. we have people who will smile and greet you when you you arrive. we have such a wide range of customers. we have customers that come every day, and we have customers that come once and every return. the customers who come once were wandering around lost and confused, getting in the wrong line and sometimes crying. we cannot have that. last week we had a team of model molded after your 311 classifications. their job is to help the customer and route them appropriately. this should hopefully take workload off of your permit department staff who are just working so hard to issue thousands of permits a year as well. so it's a benefit for both customers and staff. and then technology, we also implemented -- we started in august, thank you again to planning, to try out our new electronic cueing system. we just went live last week across the fifth floor of mission. it was a big deal, and it went

fine. no one freaked out. it's going well. people are seemlessly moving around the floor. it was a massive change. i was very nervous. but i'm really happy. i think we showed proof of can september. when we move into the new building, instead of everyone having their own sign in, there's one location where everyone gets in the cue for all the departments. when i finish with planning, planning recused me into the building queue. if you haven't been by 1660, you should check it out. your team was supportive. the last one is electronic planner view. this is showing you, so how are we preparing for the change without overwhelming your employees? the answer is piloting. we started a pilot with planning and fire in august. then we implemented at public works in january. last week as i mentioned, we took a huge change live to test out all these concepts at our existing space, and that's what

we are trying to do is slowly ramp up over time. and really so that we can get feedback before we move. so here's the fifth floor map. so you can see you come off the elevator. there's a giant start here sign. and then you go to one location on the floor where the team greets you and helps to get in the line. we took a new routing step. the new customer service team, pictured now, lovely folks. a new system, a new customer service team. we implemented a new routing slip with no acronyms. that is a paper sheet that helps you understand your whole journey. and where you are going. we implemented signage changes. there was signs everywhere with arrows and all that got taken down. it was really fun. late at night one night. and now there's clear signage across the floor. and i should also note planning moved from the first floor to the fifth floor in january to fill at a time this change.

we flipped your staff. they were so patient. so lovely, moving four months before another move. so i'm just really appreciative of how wonderful planning is. and that is it on the physical space changes. i now wanted to talk to you about digital space changes. so it's really exciting the changes we are making in the physical space but if we want to have a huge impact on the customer experience, especially with intake permits, we really need better digital tools. so these are photos of actual cubicles full of plans and we are really going to try to go paperless. the permit center team is taking on the implementation of electronic planner view. we have huge support having christine on board to move this forward. and why are we doing this? it seems like it would be obvious but just to be clear, process improvements, no lost plans, efficiency, time saving, paper saving, environmental

savings, cost savings, many, many reasons why we want to move away from paper plans and into the product we've selected. so we procured blue beam. it's being used frequently in the private sector right now. s.f.o., the airport has been using it for their projects for two years. we have up to 15 city departments involved right now. we also brought, in addition to having christine who is so amazing and has so much experience with the planning department, we also brought on ae, they have implemented blue beam in other jurisdictions that went to no paper as well, and it's been really helpful having them on board. and this is not a big bang implementation. we are not saying starting tomorrow we are paperless. instead, what we have done is we have done three pilot projects, three 100% affordable projects. one teacher housing project, one 71-units for formerly house and

one set of affordable units. and we are just piloting. our first project got completed entirely electronic review, 966 oak, that just finished last week. every department, what this means is, the plans live in the cloud. every department got invited in by christine. they marked up their comments, and we yesterday invited the applicant in to review the comments. and this also date and time stamps everything that everyone does. so it's very clear who is doing what, who is saying what, really, really excellent tool. and really though, a big change. so it's did take us a little bit to ramp up in scale. we are in the middle of a massive move, as i mentioned, so we don't want to overwhelm people, which is why we are going to learn from this pilot and scale up over time. and i've also been told i talk very fast. so i am happy to answer any questions. i just wanted to be really respectful of your time today. and that's it.

thank you. >> thank you very much. any more presentations or public comment? >> public comment. >> just the one speaker card from georgia. >> thank you. >> we may have questions for you later >> that was really great. i need three minutes, please, i guess. a couple things occur to me. the thing that i'm looking forward to is that d.b.i. and planning will be together. and there's two things that come to mind as to why it's good they are together. one is the flat policy. so if somebody comes in, and they have a pair of flats, and they want to do something, it's caught if they are not doing something they should be doing. one thing that puzzled me are over the counter permits going

to be with permit services. if you are just going to redo the flatlies would that be with construction? that information could be lost. so there's a lot of problems as you've seen with over the counter permits coming on. the other thing is reviewing plans that are extreme alterations for the demo calculations. sometimes what happens is the plans are submitted, they go to the planner, and then six months or longer later, the planner has to write an n.o.p.d.r. saying i need the demo calcs. so that's -- when the project sponsor comes in with the plans, those demo calcs should be on there. i hope that with d.b.i. and planning together at that, the construction section, they can check on that. because right now, i don't know

that that's always happening. and i know that d.b.i. looks at vertical expansions over $350,000 as demos. i assume they'll continue to do that unless something happens with 317. so that's what i'm hoping, and it sounds like that will be the case. the other thing i have the question about, the paperless. right now, if you want to, as a member of the public, you can buy, for $5 a sheet, and it's pretty cheap, i know, a full-sized set of plans each sheet. and sometimes it's very helpful to people. so does that mean if you are going paperless that you won't be able to buy that anymore when you get it all ramped up? it's just a question. the other question i have is when the public comes in to see plans, if there's not, like i laughed at that scene but i've experienced that with all those plans. will you be able to see them on

a full screen when you come in as a member of the public to review the plans? or will you have to look at a little screen? there's a big difference between a little screen and big screen. that's why the full-sized plans are sometimes important to look at at. that's basically it. but i worry about the over the counter permit things and things getting missed. if over the counter is going to permit. the surgery between d.b.i. and planning is the most important thing you are going to get from this. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner fung. >> question for the presenter. i understand there's a software system that is going to be able to cross the departments. i understand that's a software system that's going to be able to cross between the departments. is that software system very

expensive system finally in place? >> are you talking about -- so bluebeam is the system where -- >> i'm not talking about bluebeam. >> you are talking about d.b.i.'s p.t.s. system versus what planning is using or -- >> planning will be going into that. >> they are using the software for their case management and a lot of times p.t.s. is being used as well. by planners. so they are going onto p.t.s., which is the department of building inspection's system. and they are signing off there and the other one. >> i understand there's going to be a common system. isn't that correct? >> i can't hear you >> i understand it's going to be a common system. is that not correct? >> you know, it would be better to have d.b.i. come and present. i'm not involved in that project. but i'm aware it is on hold at the moment. >> okay.

>> commissioner imperial. >> i just want to address one of the public comment. is there going to be an option for paper for the plans? >> yes. and i will be happy to give anyone my card that wants to meet with me so we can walk through the details. we are committed to meeting the customers where they are at. so for some customers, they love bluebeam, they are using it, and they are going to make comments back and forth with the city staff in bluebeam, but for some customers, they don't want to do that, so we are thinking through the need for different work flows, and we have the case where some people are not interested in using a computer, and we have a beautiful new brand new permit center where we would love to accept them and help them. and we can scan in their plans after they have submitted them for them. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. i just want to thank you for this presentation and to all of the staff and our wonderful

planning staff who has been flexible through all this change. love the idea of having a cross-department collaboration in this space. we know that space is the only thing that fill dates collaboration between departments -- facilitates collaboration. i think she is an expert in the use so i'm glad you switched information, and i hope you will talk. and a special thanks to ms. silva. i've heard from many people about your expertise and support in this process, that it's been really helpful and excellent. so thank you all so much. >> thank you. >> mr. snyder. >> not to pylon too much but i want to acknowledge and thank this particularly dynamic group, samuel and jeff and particularly melissa. the impact and benefit to all ability to serve the public is going to be tremendous. and work that you and your team have done, herding the various

cats involved is herk -- hercul. >> thank you. i'm sorry i couldn't hear well before. thank you. >> item 12 has been continued as have items 13a and b, places us on item 14 for case number 201-012576cua at 1769 bombard street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david, planning department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303,

145.2 and 71220 authorize an outdoor activity area in conjunction with a previously authorized kennel use at 1769 lombard street, as well as a required one-year review of the approved kennel use. condition number 13 of motion number 20355 approved on december 13, 2018, requires a one-year review of the establishment and its adherence to the conditions. the establishment has adhered to a number of conditions but failed to adhere to others. i will summarize them here. condition number ten required interagency consultation between planning department staff and staff of other agencies of the city. since the previous commission hearing, staff maintained continual correspondence with staff at the department of public health, and the report includes a list of requirements that will be placed upon all animal care facilities by d.p.h. it will be subject to these

conditions once the health permit is approved. that health permit is currently on hold at the planning department pending approval of this c.u.a. and a corresponding building permit. condition number 12 is a required staff to conduct unannounced inspections of the facility, three held on may 24, july 23 and december 12 of 2019. during each inspection, staff was welcomed to view the interior of the establishment but prohibited by employees from walking through the establishment to the rear yard. condition number 11 required a neighborhood meeting to be held that included the attendance of department staff, to date this meeting has not yet been held. conditions number 14, 17 and 19 are operational conditions relating to minimizing nuisances on the adjacent properties. they have adhered to the conditions including assuring that employees use low voices, practice zero tolerance for animal cruelty.

the establishment also has begun to drain all waste from the rear yard toward a sewer and away from adjacent properties. they have begun use of a bioenzymeenzyme product to contl odor. they have not replaced artificial turf with concrete for one of the conditions, nor have they consulted a sound engineer, but they plan to do so upon approval of this c.u.a. as well as a corresponding building permit. condition 20 restricting use of the rear yard to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. however because the area was never authorized, use of the rear yard is currently prohibited. the sponsor claims the rear yard is not in use, although this claim has been contested by some neighbors. the project sponsor also has volunteered a condition that no more than eight dogs be in the rear yard at any time and that all dogs in the year yard be

supervised at all times. this has been reflected in an update to proposed condition number 15. prior to the 2018 hearing, authorizing the kennel use, staff received 23 letters of support as well as a support petition with 127 signatures. we also received one phone call and three letters of opposition to the request. however, since that hearing, and up until today, staff received 38 letters of support and 22 letters of opposition, all of which are included. staff recognizes that there are significant concerns with this facility and nuisances on adjacent properties. however, on balance, the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and recommends approval with the recommended conditions. this recommendation is based upon community support, previous commission approval at a hearing in which the rear yard was extensively discussed, and continual monitoring per the conditions of the commission of this pending motion as well as the department of public health.

thank you. and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. project sponsor. five minutes. >> can we have ten because it's a c.u., and we would like to have them explain it? >> well, seven. >> seven. okay. i have a handout too. representing the project sponsor. so i'll speak very briefly about the c.u. that was approved a year ago, and this current c.u. does not change the physical size or capacity in any way. although the most, a year ago, most of the discussion we had here was about the year yard and the use of the rear yard, they determined after the hearing that the rear yard is categorized as an outdoor activity area and does require a separate c.u. that the prior hearing was not noticed for, and that's why we are here today. a typical n.c. district includes a bistre and retail-oriented

street with zoning at the same block at the year. that is the case here as well. if you look at overhead, on the overhead, i have a current image of lombard street in front of the business. not only is lombard street lined up a busy street with three lanes in each direction, you have businesss on both side of the street including a gas station. there's significant amount of construction going on and with respect to dogs, we also do have neighbors in our rear who also own dogs. the purpose of n.c. districts is to provide for a wide variety of commercial youings, including neighborhood -- uses, including neighborhood-serving uses. in a city that has more dogs than kids, kennels provide an extremely necessary service. you had in the record a number of support letters and signatures. what i just handed out to you are additional 32 letters in

support that were written since last friday. including three letters from the residential neighbors who live above the space who would be the most impacted. in terms of the conditions for the use of the rear yard, those were already laid out in the c.u. a year ago. and while that c.u. did not address the rear yard as an outdoor activity area, it absolutely addressed and conditioned the use of the rear yard. so given that, we are going to focus some of our points today on really on the one-year activity and kind of bring you up to speed as to what has been done and then what has not been done and why. so in your packets and on the overhead, you have this chart. you have this chart that summarizes the conditions of approval. and then it gives an explanation as to what has been implemented and what are the few items that

are yet to be done. as was mentioned by staff, we have not yet consulted a noise consultant, and we thought it would be better to do that once the concrete is in place in the rear yard, since that's where i think the noise complaints are coming from. we did not change the turf to concrete, because in order to actually use the rear yard, we need this c.u. for the outdoor activity area. the last item is the neighborhood meeting. there have been meetings and discussions with michelle who has been the unofficial representative for some of the concerned neighbors. there's a meeting with her in early april. another meeting was scheduled by her late april. it got canceled. but there's been other communication with her. so i'm going to turn it over to the general manager and the owner of the project to talk a little bit more. >> thanks for hearing our case today. my name is earnie, and i'm the general manager and owner at the grateful dog. all we want to do at the grateful dog is to provide a

much-needed service for our community, taking care of dogs and live harmoniously with our neighbors, residential, commercial, all our neighbors. a lot has happened in the last couple years and it has been very draining on this company and all involved, physically and financially. to summarize our progress in the last year, we have done a lot to address the operational aspects. we want to continue to be good neighbors, and we will do what is necessary to accommodate any concerns that may come up from time to time. we have implemented many of the operational plan requirements even though our backyard usage has changed. as much as we have done, the reality is there were neighbors who want us gone. some of the neighbors are here today and want us gone. that's not going to change. i want to emphasize we have been operating here since 2009. we chose this location because it had an outdoor space. no one opposed us then. all the opposition and

complaints started a can you remember years ago when we were forced to apply for a c.u. as if we were a new business. there is a clear pattern of these complaints, an effort to paint the grateful dog in the most negative light. please keep in mind that we run a dog care business, and just because we have implemented the operational action plan steps doesn't mean a neighbor would never hear a dog barking. most of our immediate neighbors have dogs, and they bark during the day, and guess who gets blamed for their barking. after every complaint that is reported, that i hear about, i always respond, investigate and go over with my staff. we want a peaceful relationship with our neighbors. we want to work with them, and we will do whatever it takes to address and mitigate any issues. what we do and have done is to implement a number of operational steps that minimize any noise and odor concerns. we run a business that is dependent on our customers trusting their dogs in our care. we have been around for over ten years, and we plan on being around for many more.

we ask that you approve the rear yard subject to the conditions that were listed in a prior c.u. and accept our one-year report. thank you. >> hi. thank you. i'm car do. i'm the founder of the grateful dog back in 2009. this business means the world to me. and our neighbors have made it really difficult. and i feel like it's maybe because we didn't hear from them in 2009, and some of those neighbors resided there then. and so here we are ten years later, and it seems like there's an opportunity to try to get us shut down. despite everything that earnie has said, i don't think there's a lot that we can do when that's somebody's ultimate objective is to shut down a small business. i don't know how much we can do to try to satisfy or appease them. and yes, we can always get better and we are working to get better. >> thanks so much.

your time is up. we may have questions for you later. okay. seeing the project sponsor is done, public comment. is anyone here to publicly comment on this item? come on up. >> my name is dr. stewart kaplan. i'm new to san francisco. i moved from the east coast, north carolina, about a year ago. i have a dog who is a relatively large lab mix, probably has some pit bull in him, and looks like it. when i walk him down the street, people are nervous seeing him. when he is exercised and well well-rested, he is as quiet and sweet as can be. when he's not, although, i don't think he would be aggressive, he can sound it. he can growl and be scary. he was in doggy day care every

day that i had him for five years in north carolina. i never had an issue. when i moved here, i couldn't find a place that he would go to. well, when i used to drive up to the place in north carolina, he would run out of the car, he would get excited, and he would not want to go home. i tried four other facilities in the city, and he was scared to go the second day. so i crated him at home, because that felt better, and his energy got up and got up and got up. so it was a public service to the city. now that i have found a place that he runs back into, he is again a quiet, peaceful dog that is completely non-threatening to everybody who sees him. i can't speak to whatever the neighbors have to say, but i know in the short time i've been with them, they have been responsible, they have been good small business owners. and i think provide a huge

community service that's needed in this city. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment? >> i've lived in san francisco for 25 years. >> speak into the microphone. >> my name is dory craig. i've lived in san francisco for 25 years. i have had a dog for a year. and when looking for a day care provider and border, it was nearly impossible to find anyone that was affordable and close. i don't have a car. i'm a true san francisco resident. so it made it very challenging. when i found the grateful dog, they were affordable, they were close to my home, and they treat my dog like with all the respect and care. i feel safe with her there. and like this previous gentleman said, sometimes she doesn't want to come home.

it really wounds my ego, but she does enjoy being there. i can understand where people would have issue with barking dogs. but that whole neighborhood owns dogs. and there are more dogs in san francisco than children. if you live next to a school, you don't ask the school to shut down because they are too loud during recess. in addition to that, it's a small business. it's successful and providing a huge service to people of san francisco. and i just think it would be a shame to push them out when they're doing such a huge service for residents. and finally, for the -- i've heard that people are concerned that their property values are going down because of the doggy day care, and i would say that they should look at the sidewalks and know that my dog's not sleeping on them. my dog is not defecating on their front porch either. so thank you. >> anyone else for public

comment? come on up. >> hello. my name is elaina and i'm here on behalf of the grateful dog. the last three years i've lived directly above them in my apartment with my husband. and i'm happy to share that we've actually been pleasantly surprised on how great it's been living above them as well as our other residents in the apartment building. they have lived there for nine years. and i'm speaking on behalf of them also. we moved here for work. before we even chose that neighborhood to live in, we sought out to find what's the best place for a dog, what's the best day care, we are going to be gone so many hours a day. and after speaking with some residents and some research, it became abundantly clear how well-respected in the community they are. and in the district especially there are dogs everywhere. almost every friend i have in the marina have a dog. it's a very dog-friendly and active community.

and as you have recently heard, you are hearing how important this business is. this neighborhood needs this business. it is not only just a doggy day care, but it's a great one. they provide so much care and love, when we drop off my dog when we have family troubles or a late day at work, i don't have to worry about it, and it is such a relief. i want to discuss concerns about the location and noise. so regarding the disturbance, there's a few things we questioned before moving in, would it be too loud when we are at home spending time, would this be bothersome, would it smell. and we were pleasantly surprised at the outcome. i see them constantly cleaning and performing maintenance on this place. i'm in there every day. i can see them doing. we have become friends with them. they are our neighbors, you know? and as well, we don't really smell anything. there's no wet dog smell or any issue. and we live directly above, and we have the same address and everything our mail goes to

there. and also we don't have a problem with noise, even so much so that when people come over, they can't believe we have a doggy today care below. we tell them every time. further like they were saying before, we live in a city that has construction on lombard. you can hear cars driving and motorcycles driving. it's a busy area. but it comes with the turf. and although i do understand the concerns, even if it's not those dogs barking, it's aa dog five doors down. so i really consider to be lucky to have them as neighbors. and they have held quite a reputation in the marina, and it takes time to do that where people can have such great things to say and be so trusting. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment on this item? >> yes, i'm with the southeast asian community center. and we are a small business

assistance center in san francisco. we have been doing this for over 20 years actually. the grateful dog and carla has been our client now for over ten years. and we did help them get started in the beginning. we've been working with them for over a ten-year period. and seeing how successful they have become over the years, they offer an excellent service in the area and a very-needed service. and as you know and many people have said here, there are so many dogs in this city. and there is a need for these kinds of services, especially in their particular area. so i want to voice my support for the grateful dog and car do and hopefully the -- carla, and hopefully the committee will approve. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fung. >> question for the applicant.

the beginning of your presentation, your attorney indicated that you are going to discuss why some of these conditions were not maintained. i didn't hear any explanation. >> maybe i could briefly recap. so one of the conditions was to change the artificial turf that's currently in the rear yard into concrete and install a concrete barrier at the edge. we did not do that one yet, because that is in the rear yard. >> let's deal with the two issues that are the most prevalent from the opposition. one is noise. one is sanitation. let's deal with the noise. why wasn't the sound study done? >> so -- because we have not yet changed the turf into concrete. because i think the noise concerns were not coming from the building. so the windows to the building,

the doors to the building are kept shut, so noise is not a concern coming from the building. it's the noise from the rear yard. and i think once we have the concrete in place, i think that is, we felt, the more appropriate time for the noise consultant to opine on the additional things that should be done. >> i'm not sure what i heard from the opposition that the noise is also coming from within the building. >> some of the mitigation measures we had last year was to make sure that the windows are shut, the doors are shut during the business hours so the noise is confined, and that has been implemented. >> all right. then the question is do you folks dispute that there's noise supposedly affecting some of your neighbors? >> i don't think there's a lot of noise coming out of our

facility, because the back door is usually always closed except for when we are going out >> that's not my question. my question is do you dispute that the neighbors who have complained about noise is hearing the noise from the building? >> i dispute a lot of their claims, yes. >> commissioner diamond. >> question for counsel. why didn't your client allow for the backyard to be inspected? and the fact that they said that there's a liability issue is not really a satisfactory answer, because it was a condition. so i need to know why you didn't figure out a way to solve that. >> so the visits that were done by staff were unannounced so we don't know about them ahead of time. there is, and i think carla can speak to it more, but there is a liability of letting people into the main area inside where the dogs are free. they are not in cages. they are free in the floor. so there's a liability.

but what we can do is if they decide to visit the rear yard, we can provide access through the upstairs neighbor so the person doesn't have to go through the main floor. but that's my understanding. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> we have to give them notification. as a matter of fact elena, she is the one who i would have to get in touch with, and she would go downstairs and unlock the door. it's always locked for security reasons. >> before i ask a question on that issue to staff, i would like to know why you didn't hold the neighborhood meeting? >> we did. >> we had one meeting in april, and we had another one scheduled. and michelle wool canceled it. she said there was nothing to cover. and then we had a liaison, bruce bedroomen, who was in charge of that, and -- bruce berman, who was in charge of that, he tried to rally up another meeting, and they didn't have any interest on

that. >> can i ask two questions to staff? i can clarify too a little bit. it wasn't a noticed neighborhood meeting as i think the planning department typically expects. so we can certainly do that. it was a meeting with michelle wool who was the main representative for some of the concerned neighbors. >> okay. thank you. staff, i have questions for you. >>. when the conditions were put in place last year, was it your expectation there would be unannounced visits to the rear yard? >> mine? >> yeah, staff. >> well, it's written that way in the motion. it says, so if i announced them i would not be adhering to the motion. >> and says here that they didn't meet the condition about a neighborhood meeting. they are saying they had one. >> yeah. >> any meetings that happened, i don't know about them. the meeting that was put in place by the condition said that staff should attend. i don't think it says anything about notification so meetings

may have occurred but a meeting specifically that satisfies that condition that says attended by staff was not held. >> another follow-up question, which is what is the enforcement right of the planning department, assuming we go forward, if we go forward, does the planning department and also the department of public health have the right to go back and do inspections and shut them down if they are not in compliance with the conditions? >> well, i can speak only to planning department's enforcement requirements, basically any condition of any motion must be enforced. >> but are you required -- you had a one-year inspection rule. are you suggesting additional inspections be carried out on a regular basis? >> i'm suggesting nothing other than the conditions that are proposed here. >> and they don't require that at the moment, is that correct? no ongoing inspections by the planning department to ensure -- >> that's not what's before you.

correct. if you have other conditions that you would like to place upon it, that's your prerogative, is my understanding. going back to your original question, basically our enforcement team handles not just building permit issues, building beyond the scope but also conditions of approval. if any of those conditions are not met, then enforcement staff will helicopter to work on that. there's an enforcement planner who has been assigned to this case for quite a while, and we have been in constant communication so make sure they are working towards adhering to all conditions. one of those conditions would be getting the outdoor activity area certified, which they are seeking to do today. >> thank you. i'll say to the other commissioners, i wasn't here a year ago when this was approved. i believe there is a need for more dog facilities in the city. i own a dog and probably a number of us own dogs and want to be able to accommodate dogs. but i'm really troubled by the fact that they didn't comply with two conditions that exist already. and i personal at the moment would be in favor of continuing

this until they comply with the exact language of those conditions. assuming they do that and staff comes back and tells us, maybe that would change the nature of staff's conditions if they actually held the neighborhood meeting that staff attended and actually saw the backyard. and i don't feel at the moment, prepared to make a decision until there's full compliance with those conditions. and on top of that, assuming we get there, i would like to see a condition that has periodic inspections at least for a while afterwards so we can make sure that they can, once the noise is taken care of, and the concrete is in place, to see actually whether or not it's working. but that's just what i'm thinking at the moment, but i would love to hear from the rest of you in terms of where your views are. >> commissioner fung. >> another question for staff. it was similar to the question i asked the applicant. but when i read the condition

about the sound testing, it was to the premises, not related to the yard. >> sorry. yeah. >> is mine on? >> yeah. >> when i read the condition for the sound test, and it applied to the building, i believe. as part of the original conditional use. and so the applicant is saying that they are going to do the sound test after the turf is in the rear yard is changed. well, that has nothing to do with the sound prevention from the building. is that not correct? >> i'll refer specifically to the language of the motion. so that would be condition number 19, which reads, let me see, the project sponsor shall consult a licensed sound jeer to

determine best practice of noise abatement concerns and shall implement any methods recommended by the sound engineer. the premises, so i guess maybe your definition of premises. the premises shall be adequately insulated for noise so the noise shall not be audible beyond the premises. >> i don't think it's my interpretation of the word premises. it's your condition. as far as you know, then, they had the one meeting but no mitigations were discussed between the project sponsor and the neighbors? >> if meetings occurred outside my knowledge, i can't speak to it >> you are not aware of any? >> correct. i've heard what the sponsors told me today which is that they met and tried to discuss issues and whatever the outcomes of those were was the outcome. >> just to conclude my comments, i'm also not supportive at this

point. based upon the fact that if there is noise in a facility and it's bothersome to some potentially, the generator of that noise in their business needs to take care of that within their own facility. >> commissioner moore. >> were you the planner last year on this project >> say that once more. >> were you the planner last year of this project? >> i've been the planner since the beginning of the project, yeah. >> for those commissioners who were not around last year, it was an extremely contentious meeting as you will recall. the opposing party is not here, but that does not make me not remember how controversial the meeting was. one of the reasons why it's controversial is this commission very much supports small business, and particularly the lombard corridor. however, the adjoining

residential neighborhood, as you move up towards the south, is all residential. it's high on residential, they live pretty much right on top of this small open yard which is in question. the noise issue is a matter of personal sensitivity. and even one dog barking too many hours in an apartment during the day can be of great annoyance to one person. in this particular case, we had an entire representative group of adjoining neighbors coming and saying they just could not really envision having multiple dogs barking out there, and dogs not necessarily bark but they do. and when we speak about outdoor activity areas, for example, an outdoor sitting area for restaurant or bar, we always are very, very careful in order to find appropriate noise attenuation members or not

permit it at all depending how close residential is nearby. i'm on the fence on this one. i was not really supporting outdoor at that time either. i support the operation as an indoor facility with the proper noise provisions. but just as my fellow commissioners here to my right, at this moment, i am not in support of this being permitted for an extra outdoor area. particularly i believe that the concrete surface for this particular rear yard is not the appropriate measure adjoining to other outdoor open spaces for residential use. >> seeing as that there is very high demand for these businesses in this location, i would be supportive of denial. i'm leaping toward supporting but would be okay with the continuance.

commissioner imperial. >> incidence i was not here and opposition are not here. but i am support this small businesses as well. but i would like to see as well as like a plan for more consistent inspection and to have community meeting, it would be great to have a planner to be in that community meeting so that you can also give us that kind of feedback when you return as to what has inspired. so i would support in continuing this item as well. >> a motion? >> commissioner johnson >> i will make a motion. i agree with my fellow commissioners. i think not having met many of the conditions gives us pause. i think the benefit of meeting with the -- holding a community meeting as well is that i think some of us are on the fence

about whether or not this outdoor activity is actually a good use in this space. so understanding what mitigations you might be willing to put in place with community members or other things you might do to operate outside with your dogs is important to us in helping us make a determination. so with that, i will move to continue this item. >> second. >> do you have a -- >> clarification before you do that. does your motion also -- for continuance, can it be amended to include the unannounced inspection of the backyard? >> absolutely. >> that was the original condition, so i would like to see them do that. i don't know if commissioner -- i'm in agreement with commissioner fung's condition about the study on the premises that currently exist. >> thank you for helping me be more specific. i think what we're looking for

is a community meeting held. a sound engineer around the interior of the building. and also an inspection which will be unannounced by nature of the inspection. >> of the outside area. >> the outside area as well. >> thank you. then i second that. or there already was. >> i seconded it. >> is that amendable? you mentioned there were restrictions on allowing that inspection, correct? can you elaborate on that? >> yeah. i think you need to work with the insurance company to figure out. >> well, i can probably make that happen. i can probably -- >> it is for the safety of the inspector, with dogs. >> i would get a key from one of our neighbors upstairs and always have it there accessible so any time an inspector came in, i could take them straight upstairs, and he wouldn't have to walk through the pit area and

be exposed to the dogs. right. no problem. >> can i clarify on what the motion is? is the motion to approve the c.u. subsequent to the continuing? >> no. >> so here's my question. are you requiring them to do the rear yard improvements without the right to use the rear yard? >> clarify on that. yeah. >> come on up, staff. >> from my understanding, i'm not there every day. to my understanding, they are not permitted to use the rear yard now. from what we have been told, they are not using the rear yard. i will adhere to any motion that requires inspection, but i think what they are trying to say, and i maybe need to clarify, is i mean, i can inspect the rear yard, but my understanding is there won't be any dogs there, which is fine, i'm happy to do that nonetheless. i just wanted to clarify what that is from my understanding. >> unannounced inspection, it

maybe to confirm that there are no dogs in the rear yard. >> also i'd like planning staff to see the rear yard, because it may be that once they are there, and they see where the windows are that they may come up with additional suggestions for conditions. so i still think it's beneficial. >> did you have a time frame for the continuance, commissioner? seems like they have a lot of work to do ahead of them. >> do you have a suggestion? >> as soon as they can -- excuse me. as soon as they can do it. i don't want to continue this on some arbitrary number. they are anxious to get going, so how fast do you think you can satisfy the conditions? >> come on up. >> i'm at the point where it's difficult for us to stay open in san francisco.

we have been serving thousands of clients for the better part of the decade, and this cost us hundreds and thousands of dollars. we are at the point of bankrupting the business. we are doing the best we can. there's a need for the business. we are losing clients and we are losing staff because we are getting harassed by neighbors. the corridor is really loud. so we could bring an acoustical engineer. i've worked for one of those companies before. we are happy to have someone come out but we are not the only noise in the neighborhood. it's commercial lombard corridor. it's highway one. we are getting beat up because of the noise but nobody is thinking about the fact that there's a lot of noise, and we are not the only dog. i'm so tired of how much work we've done on this and how hard it was for us to open in 2009, and we keep getting put through the ringer, and i'm sorry, but i just can't stay in san francisco anymore if this is going to continue to happen to us. we need use of the rear yard. we've lost so much on this already so the neighbors can be

happy about that because they want us shut down ultimately. having a meeting with them, i don't know how much that's going to help. because they want us shut down. there's nothing we can do to appease them. >> okay. thank you. >> i believe in experience, acoustical engineer can judge on the levels of noise, depending on use, not on this very specifics of the facility. i do think that commissioner fung's request to also reflect on the noise coming from the interior is equally important, but that can't be done without the rear yard being fully built out. so i personally would suggest we give this four to six-weeks if you can do it earlier, that would be fine but having also meeting is obviously something you need to prepare for. >> given the nature of the meeting, i think actually giving them a couple of months just with schedules and things like that would feel a little bit

better. but again agreed that don't want to drag this out longer. >> the urgency. >> april 23rd. >> yeah. >> do you have a comment? >> april 23rd was the continuance. i mean, i think -- what are we now? march -- >> i think we can probably do it a little bit sooner. >> clarification that we need to be done again. i think just from being here, they want just another, like, outline of what needs to be done. then they would have a better idea. >> the commission in their motion made it explicit. compliance and adherence to the original conditions of approval. >> they have attended noticed community meeting. >> that was part of the original conditions of approval. >> correct. i'm explaining. >> things that have not been

done to date >> commissioner diamond. >> so we have two times when we are not meeting between now and april 23. so i want to make sure that there's room on the agenda, to do it before april 23. >> there really isn't unless we do march 19 which i don't believe there's enough time. >> april 23 then. >> very good, commissioners on that motion to continue this matter to april 23 with direction for the project sponsor so adhere to the original conditions of approval, [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that will place us under your discretionary review calendar, item 15a was withdrawn and 15b was continued places us on item 16 for case number

2019-13012drp-02 at 621 11th avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. the item is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of building permit application 20190613.3354 to construct a second story horizontal rear addition of 12.' side setback to the north and of' side setback to the south along with a first floor horizontal rear addition that extends 8' 10s" beyond the first floor and the 4' side setback to the north of 621 11th ann. there are two d.r. requesters. kevin wong, the adjacent neighbor to the south and chao of 619 11th avenue, neighbor to

the north. they are concerned the proposed project violates the residential design guidelines related to neighborhood character, light, air, privacy and scale and access to the mid-block open space. the proposed alternatives are to reduce the extension of the second floor by three to five feet, stagger the windows facing their properties and make the sidewalls to the deck transparent. to date, department has received no letters in support or in opposition to the project. because the extent configuration of the proposed rear addition including the four foot and six foot side set backs, echoes the pattern of massing found on the two adjacent properties that preserves access to the mid-block open space, light, air and privacy, staff's recommendation is to not take d.r. and as the project does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions. this concludes my presentation. and i'm happy to answer

questions. thanks. >> thank you, mr. winslow. so we have two d.r. requesters. we are going to hear from d.r. requester number one first. come on up. >> is that on? >> sf gov, can you go to the overhead, please? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i hope you are well. my name is kevin wong and my wife and two sons, 11 and nine, live at 625 11th avenue. we are the south neighbor to the proposed project. we have lived there since june of 2011. before i begin, i would like to acknowledge that we have enjoyed being the neighbors. they are good people. but the past years, we have been

their neighbors and we hope they don't take this process personally. we understand that regardless of the outcome, our hope is they see us in the same vain as we see them. we truly value being good neighbors. we believe in being considerate, conscientious and communicative in building good relationships. we wish we did not have to take your time in this matter. but despite this sponsor's good character, their actions have shown zero consideration and next to nothing in regards to communication while drafting this project. i say extremely disappointing that the sponsor and their architect refuse to discuss the project with us. i have seen this department and commission prohibit projects from moving forward for approval until the owner tries to at least listen or work with their neighbors. in this case, we are attempting to sit down with the sponsors to voice concerns about the project. and each time the sponsors and their team have either denied the request or ignored them. when we first saw the plans, we were concerned that the plans may not have been accurate.

submittal did not show windows on the north side of our property. we requested the adjacent building be shown accurately so we can understand the impact of this project. we have asked the owners to provide three renderings of the light and shadow studies so the impact can be better understood. i have seen many projects from this commission provide this information to neighbors when requested. in fact when we did our remodel, a light and shadow study was provided, reflecting our attempt to be considerate to those around us. despite the refusal of any discussion about this project with us, we believe there are exceptional circumstances that would deem this condition to take d.r. the residential design guidelines and planning code require that light is maintained to adjacent propertys and consider the impact an expansion has on light and privacy for structures. the volume of the project shall reduce our light and privacy and specifically will box in the rear of our second floor where

our family and i spend most of our time. this is the main gathering space for us and contains our desk which my wife and i use daily since we work from home. in addition, our sons in the afternoon spend most their time in this room, basking in the westerly day light, reading books and doing homework. the decks will look straight into the windows of the properties on either side, reducing privacy. we are not trying to stop them from building and developing their home. their current proposal creating a large family structure with nearly 4,300 square feet. given this amount of square footage, we believe this is an opportunity to make minor changes that will help minimize impact to our light and privacy. the sponsor refused to talk to us. we would have the commission to have the extension match ours. this would reduce their current extension by three feet which is a 75 square feet reduction to their proposed project. we would also like the sidewalls

of the deck to be cable railing or glass to further preserve our light. we would like to request the windows on the south side on the second floor be staggered to preserve privacy. as you can see from the exhibit, it creates a visual highway into each other's homes. this element of design is a lack of thoughtfulness while taking away our privacy. we feel these three items are minor alterations and had they been willing to show an ounce of consideration, a little bit of community spirit and openness to dialogue as good neighbors do, we felt we could have reached a compromise to satisfy all parties involved and avoid taking your time. however, since we cannot force the owner to speak to us about what we believe are reasonable concerns and requests, we respectfully ask this commission to take d.r. and include these minor modifications. thank you. >> thank you. now we are going to hear from d.r. requester number two. come on up.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is chao. i have been living at 11th avenue since 1992 with my wife and daughter. this is my first time here. so please excuse my accent. when we were first notified about this project where there was no date or time for the required preapp meeting, we have been able to obtain, but it was giving little detail of the project and promised by the architect to follow up which never occurred. we had a time, numerous time to walk with the owner and architect only to be ignored.

we had a time to relayout comes about inaccurate plans as we know that most of the work done to this home in the past was done without a permit, without waiting for the permit for plans. we are concerned about the order property line windows. we are also impressed with planning's effort to have us meet to reach a compromise and given mr. david winslow open gate for the meeting. once again, the project sponsor refused. so, commissioners, we have left with no choice but to file d.r. we are simply asking for the following items. one, accurate showing of all windows on the property. we believe this will provide a better understanding of the

impact that this extension has to our light. two, new windows on this project should be staggered so that it does not look into our windows, thereby affecting our privacy and light. three, any vertical part of the deck should be either rail or glass to further minimize any impact to our light. four, scale back this proposed second-floor extension by five feet to minimize the impact to our light so we can see in this photo. we have little light. which would be totally lost in this living room. we are supportive of the project sponsor renovating their home. we are also concerned with the impact to our daughter, my 36-year-old daughter is autistic the and living with us.

she spends most her time in the living room which would be most affected by this project. she does not allow -- she loves the sunshine. she not only love the sunshine in the living room but also her disability access to light is necessary to her health. we are surprised that the planning department and this commission would approve a project where the project sponsor refused to discuss the project with adjacent neighbors. any application to accommodate to serious concern to light and privacy. we ourselves made numerous changes to our home renovated to accommodate mr. mcclaire by eliminating our deck and decrease the size of window because he wants to see the open space of our backyard. the owner was a without any consideration to adjacent

neighbors. there were other san francisco property to minimize impact to the adjacent neighbor's light and privacy. commissioners, the proposed project does not even attempt to minimize impact on light and privacy to adjacent properties. the project sponsor is seeking to build a large single-family home nearly 4,300 square feet. we have heard about numerous projects that would not only makeling minor modification or accommodate neighbor concern but also including an a.d.u., other changes to ensure that the project is consistent with the city's housing policy. and all direction to work with other's neighbors. we respectfully request that the commission take a discretionary review and incorporate the minor

modifications which will still result in a home over 4,200 square feet. thank you very much for the attention. >> thank you very much. now we will take any public comment in support of the d.r. requesters opposed to the project. okay. seeing none, project sponsor, your turn. >> good afternoon, commissioners and mr. winslow. i am jim mccare and my wife mary and i are the owners of 621 11th avenue. we have lived there for 37 years. we have always had a good relationship with our neighbors, including the chens to the north and wongs to the south. these are the two neighbors that are requesting the d.r. application. these two neighbors have extended their houses in a way that is very close to what we

are proposing. when the chens added on years ago we were not happy with the amount of light and view we lost but at that time we thought this is what the city is allowing, the planning and we will just have to get used to it. we also thought at some point that we might do a similar project. a few years ago, kevin wong at 625 did a similar addition and resulted in the same situation, blocked light and view to our house. and again, we did not interfere with this project. now it is time for us to add onto our house. our daughter and son-in-law and grandchild live with us. they work in the city, and everybody knows what housing in the city is like. for this reason, we want to maximize our allowable space at our house. we were very surprised when these two neighbors objected to our plans since we felt they already did what we planned to do, and we felt our plans were

reasonable. the size of our second floor additions extends a little further than the wong's addition but less than the chen's addition and is narrower than both. our setback is four on the north which is less than their setbacks to our house. we feel our plans are very reasonable, and that's what i we did not want to change them, and we felt like what is there for them to do should be fair for us to do. so i would like to show a few pictures. so this is the relationship between the three houses. >> you are going to have to pull that microphone over and speak into it. >> their houses are outlined in red. as you can see, the 619 is about three feet from our property line, we would be four feet from theirs.

and kevin wong's is four feet, while we would be six feet. ours is outlined in the green. it's a little further out than him but not nearly as far out as theirs. if we cut back five feet, we would be nine feet back from where they are right now. as far as the square footage they mentioned our house is about 2500 now and we are going to be putting on around 700 so that's not 4,000 feet like what they were saying. this picture is actually from the chen's application, and it shows the relationship of the three houses where they state our house is out of character with the neighborhood. i would say that the picture of our house in the middle fits in quite well with the houses on either side of it. this right here is a picture

from my roof looking down at the chen's addition on the right-hand side over here. our addition is going to mirror our deck right here. so you can see the difference in size and what we are adding on to the second floor. this is another picture of the chens' house next to us and our deck, the size that we are going to add on. as you can see, this is the size of our addition again, same thing. we are going to add on the size of our deck right here. there's a lot of room between our house and the wong's house to the south. there's at least ten feet right there. this is the wongs' addition. it's a beautiful addition. and our lower floor will be the

very similar to his, sticking out below the fence line. and our second floor will be the same height as theirs. we will be narrower because we couldn't go all the way to the property line on that side. this is a view of the wongs' house looking out of our dining room window. you can see the addition comes right to here that they added on. it does block some of our light and view from that side. and this is what we look at every day out of our kitchen window is the -- the chens side. the windows they are worried about are back in here so partly are blocked by their stairway. so we know they want us to change the size of our building,

but i feel like our plans are very reasonable, and i actually talked to kevin wong about that before, and if you remember seeing my response, i address the thing about the window. i said we would put fogged or ribbed glass in so we wouldn't be looking into his house. we really don't want to do that anyway. so we just, we feel like it was fair for them to do, should be fair for us to do. that's why, you know, we knew they wanted us to knock a lot of space off, but we felt like we wanted to pursue the plans the way they were drawn up and approved. so that's it. >> thank you. >> so you have four minutes left. if there's someone that lives in the same house as you, now would be their same time to speak. otherwise they'll be called up as public comment later. >> i think we've said it all. you know, not meeting with them is just because they knew what we wanted to do, and they knew

we felt like it was fair so why would we want to chop five feet off when they're already almost four feet past us. and talking about how much square footage, that's not even true. >> and we will have you back up here for a two-minute rebuttal if you want too. if there's anyone from the public in support of the project sponsor in favor of the project, now is your time to speak. okay. seeing none, the d.r. requesters, you each have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. so some of the ideas, on the plans themselves, to say that will house will be 4,287 square feet. so there's the discrepancy, it's not being reflected in the plans that should be accurately drawn. second of all, in terms of the character, you'll see that on the foes he presented -- photos he presented, desid i did have

cable railing as well as the -- i did have cable railing as well as the neighbors two-doors down have cable railing. he mentioned having ribbed glass but those are temporary solutions. those are areas where the windows could be easily replaced to be clear from another owner, so we aring for something more -- we are looking for something more permanent to preeve our privacy. the -- preserve our privacy. the other thing is there's no objection to the building of the property. we just want to ask for modifications. the fact that we couldn't sit down, as you can see, they felt they had the right to do whatever they wanted to do. we felt that's not very community-spirited as well as not consistent with the planning commission's guidelines for building. and again, we haven't seen -- if there were going to be ribbed

glass or fogged glass, there weren't any modifications shown in the submitted plans that were provided. so that is all. thank you for your time. >> d.r. requester number two, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. i don't think -- because he say on the application that you can see the 4,000 feet. you look there. the extension the building to where the current deck is, in addition to extension of -- those severely impact my light and the entire rail portion, my building. okay, you can see that from this. and the extension here, this is the extension to the house. almost equal to my house. in addition to what they say.

you can look at the back. because they are sitting on the top of the hill. five feet above us. so you can see the back of this, the extension here, totally out of my house. so blocking our light completely. so the neighbor deck transparent or glass. there's no deck that can close a solid wall. you can see the deck is enclosed. looks like a building out front. so totally no light goes through. so i don't think he's talking about is correct description if you look at it, their plan. okay. that's all my, the end of concern about this. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, you now have a two-minute rebuttal as well.

>> i still don't get where they are getting the 4,000 feet. but anyway. the walls we would like to put on the deck, on the side of the deck, would be similar to this, obviously. >> the microphone >> on the end, we were planning to have, it shows in our plans having a wire thing. but on the sides we feel like we would like to have the walls with the siding that matches our house to keep some privacy between their deck and our deck. i mean, their deck has the wire on the side. if we are sitting on our deck. so that kind of keeps things separate as far as we are concerned. i don't think that's a major thing because where his windows are would be looking over the deck. and the deck is at the ground level. it's not up at the second level where the addition is going to be. so anyway. like i say, they extended out way past us. we have had to get used to that

gigantic addition where they put their stairs out to the side. we've lived with that for 12 years. and we just had to get used to it. that's just what we figured in life. so we don't feel like our plans are unreasonable at all. we would like to pursue them the way they are. so that's about it. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes the public comment portion of this item. i'll just start off by saying i'm in favor of staff's recommendations and really think that this addition is smaller than the two on either sides of you. commissioner diamond. >> i'm also in favor of staff's recommendation. i didn't hear any description of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that in my opinion would justify taking d.r. >> commissioner moore. >> i believe that the applicant is showing the modulation that is very much reflective of what's to the left and to the right, to the north and south, and i could not see anything

exceptional or extraordinary myself either. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further there's a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion-[roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. places on us item 17 for case number 2017-7931drp-02, 2630 divisadero street. discretionary review. >> good afternoon. david winslow, staff architect. the item is a public request for discretionary review of building permit 2019-0613.3554 to

demolish a three-story single family dwelling and construct a new three-story, 7700 square foot single-family dwelling. the proposed new building will be three feet shorter than the new building as it will have a flat roof, above which 720-square foot roof deck is proposed. there are two d.r. requesters. laura and raphael of 2673 broad way and cindy of 2682 broad way. both parties are adjacent neighbors to the south. she is concerned the proposed additional is not articulated to reduce impacts to privacy and light. the rear is not compatible with the scale at the mid-block open space. the roof deck impacts privacy and violates an existing view and that the noise from the roof equipment will be excessive. the proposed alternatives are to

confine the project to the footprint, and to eliminate the proposed roof deck. she is concerned about noise due to mechanical roof equipment as well, nighttime litem nateing from the skylight and privacy -- light emanating from the skylight and privacy. her proposed alternatives are to reduce the size of the roof deck and limit the usable area to the east of the skylight, reduce and provide coverage of the skylight, relocate rooftop mechanical equipment and reduce the massing at the southeast corner. to date, the department has received no letters in support nor letters in opposition. staff's recommendation is to take the d.r. and approve the project with the following modification: to reduce the massing at the southeast corner, at the third floor, the original

line of the rear wall, the bay projections, provide an adequate notch that allows for mid-block open space and light to ms. yu's property in particular. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to take questions. >> we will hear from d.r. requester number one. >> i have some documents. [please stand by]

cindy was fair and you would expect a good neighbor to be. they have asked for mitigation of mechanical noise and line of sight and mitigation of personal mitigation of the skylight and

they, as well as the solar panels and low profile brackets for which we thank them, they have been inflection able with respect to the rear yard massing and roof deck. the mass of skylight is a pollution concern but with respect to the roof deck, the proposal is massive. it's a thousand square feet and it covers almost the entire roof, the deck would be close to lauren and rafael's home and the window into the main living area would be 15 or less feet away. it would have a negative impact on their privacy as the deck would have direct line of sight into their main living area and would create significant light

pollution and rooftop clutter. further, this deck, which exhibits many features such as cooking and storage facilities, is meant to be a party deck with an intensity of use out of charter with the neighborhood. it presents noise concerns and an unreasonable imposition on neighbors in general. therefore, we ask the roof deck be denied in full and the rear yard massing be consistent within a used position and confined at the second and third-storey of the project southeast corner to the current building envelope. thank you for your time. >> thank you. let's hear from d.r. requester number 2.

>> sf gov will go to it when you start speaking. >> ok. hi, good afternoon commissioners, david, and hello everybody. my name is cindy yu and i live at 2682 broadway and my house is directly perpendicular to the project sponsors' house. i'm showing you a diagram of hoe looking down on their house and it's kind of exactly like how you are looking at this, my hi-tech demonstration right here.

i built this myself yesterday because i thought it would best and most efficiently explain my concerns. so, the viewpoint where you are sitting is where my house is. this is the project sponsors' house as it currently is. with its current footprint. the new proposal that they plan to have is to build out a rear extension such as this. so, in essence, this is what i'm going to be looking at. the lines you see here from this loin to this line is the current width of my house. my house right set up above to this and my direct line of

sight. i do understand that planning has suggested and made a recommendation that you will approve this house with the modification. modification being that this part is removed and this part is going to be the new proposed plan according to modification recommended by planning. to me, this doesn't serve the purpose. i know you are all vested with why this discretionary power to deny and grant permits. i'm not asking you to deny it. i'm asking you for a chance to look at this from my point of view and i also fall under the am bid of your power to protect my power with my access to mid block open space.

that's what i'm asking. so for me, the best scenario is they can maintain the current footprint leaving their existing open balcony on the third floor open but extend first, second flor floor, in the back on the lower floors. to me, i feel this is effective because it essentially protects and up holds this section which is my only access to mid block open space. my building is odd because i'm sandwiches between two houses on both sides with non confirming, which are no non conforming structures. i don't have open space on this side at all because laura's

building is right here. this is my only slit for air light. this is my only access to mid block open space. by just enclosing this and cutting this notch out, it doesn't really relief the light her tailment and i want to bring to you the attention of what the planning commission did about 20 years ago. my house is -- my whole block went through demolition and construction. i went through remodeling adjacent to my house, we went through demolition and remodeling. so planning has ruled that my

neighbor here, oops, my neighbor here, they wanted to push the back rear to this line. planning has ruled, because of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of restricted space in the back. leaving me with only this mass of open space, for light and air, that they had asked them to move the line back to be flush with my building. i ask you to uphold the ruling that you did 20 years ago and protect that little con constrid space in the back. >> thank you. >> we'll take public comment from members of the public in support of the d.r. requesters in support of the project. seeing none, the project sponsor. you are up. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners, jody knight. on behalf of project sponsors

tella and thomas. we're here today on a project that we think is compatible with the surrounding buildings and reasonable for the site. as you hear when you hear about the design, although, there's square footage being added only 469 feet is above grade because every effort has been made to minimize any impacts. we've had many discussions with the project and we had follow-up conversations and unfortunately we're here today. a few issues that we're working with the dr requesters regardless of any other outcome in terms of the sky light issues related to the mechanic als and solar panels and we're working with the dr requesters on that and they're just good-neighbor issues and we'll continue to work on that.

the house is designed to be built below that easement. the dr request that people on the roof violates -- it's an object on the roof that violates'ment. we did think there's legal merit to that but it may be a question for a judge for another day. it's not a question for the commissioners here. i will now pass this off to jim westover who will present the design and we have questions and thank you for your time today. >> good afternoon, this is dustin foster and i'm jim. this first image we will start with is an areaal view to give you context. our clients' house is outlined in red and. >> the main takeaway is the two houses are up the hill from us

and they're top two levels and they're roof deck do look directly over our project so i don't think there's an issue with light and air. also there's no blocking of direct sunlight just ambient sunlight and we'll go into more detail on that. the next i am age is a front elevation in relation to the u residents. the blue dash line is showing the existing profile. and i think we're showing here is we're expanding the profile in this view and we're adding throw feet at the side and it's occurring next to the other house on the corner and it was not one of the dr requesters. we're increasing, we're not increasing the roof height but we have a railing that increases the over all height by 14 inches. the other thing we want to know

is the u residents does have a 25-foot rear yard so if i look at this there's access to light air and mid block open space. the next exhibit -- one other thing i also want to. >> this is looking at the back of our client's house in relation to the residents. the blue dash line is the existing profile and we've stepped it back to address concerns and this dark line is showing the rear wall and a hatched section and that setback five foot eight and there's another line that you will see. it's at the front of the house so that doesn't occur adjacent to the dr requestors.

since the residents abuts our rear yard it's important to note we're not blocking any light or access to mid-block open space. the concern there is really just privacy. so we'll talk about that in a second. this is the south elevation so this is what the d.r. requesters are looking at. the big takeaway is most of the area being added is a new basement. the existing first floor shown in green on the side facing the dr is below grade and below the fence. we're looking at the green and blue area where we're adding 46. the next one is the third there were plan which is the top floor plan on this project. the original in blue and the original design was in red so that complied with the planning code but there were concerns

from the neighbors and rdat about the visual connection to mid block open space. since that meeting, with the neighbors and at the rtat we have setback the notch at the top two levels throw feet. there was a concern about no light coming in and if we look at the corner house on this image, which is 2690 broadway it's a one story gorge so there's afternoon light coming in that yard. on our roof plan, we do have a small backyard in shade. we have proposed a roof deck to get access to sunlight and enjoy the same views that are enjoyed by the dr requesters. the area is about 750 square

feet. it's set away from the dr requestors and it's setback 16.2 from the bay window and 39-foot four from the yu residents. again, the massing is setback at the corner so there's still some visual connection from the yu residents. as recommended by david winslow, we also offered to move this rear wall back that setback 5'8". they were offering to move it all the way back to its existing location at the third floor but that was rejected by the neighbors. we also understand that the current staff report is recommending making this same change at the second and third floors and if we are required to make that change, we would request that it be at the third floor. the reason for that is if we switch to the next exhibit, what you will see is that the second flor, which we like to keep as

proposed is at the basement level of yu level. so at the first floor where the bedrooms are and all the floors above that they're not going to be effected by that. the other things we want to note here is the relative height difference and ms. yu favorite us photographs we used from our home so we did before and after exhibits when we met with her. and i think these are instructed what we're seeing on the left is the before image with the house in pink. you can see the view, access to open space or to public mid block open space and a view of alcatraz. if the proposed version, we still have light and air. we've reduced the view to mid block open space but it still

occurs to the right of that post and there's also still a view of alcatraz. private views aren't protected and it was mentioned by the neighbors when we met with them so we wanted to show we were trying to preserve that. this next one is going up one flor in the yu residents. this is her living room. you see our client's house in pink and then to the right, you are seeing the new project and this demonstrates there's essentially no difference in view, light or air from this level. and at the mess inine level they're up one there were. this is where there's a privacy issue the thing to note is there's an existing balcony that i would think already presents what they might consider a privacy issue in the new scheme, the roof deck is actually going to be setback a little bit so i

think any privacy concerns are really no change from exiting to proposed and again in terms of light, air and that kind of thing there's no impact whatsoever. how are we doing on time? i think that concludes our presentation. are there any questions? >> if there's any members of the public that want to testify in support of the project sponsor, now is the time. >> seeing none. the dr requestors you each get a two-minute rebuttal. >> laura will give the rebuttal we are happy to answer questions

afterwards. >> hi, thank you all for listening today. i just want to keep it chick. privacy is a really big issue for us because we do live in that non confirming house. one of them that cindy mentioned they were nice to rearrange it to be slightly further away so we appreciate that. but there's such a closeness there that we are really concerned about the privacy on our main living space. the houses were designed. all of the houses on that block were designed with contractual agreements that impact the way the house was designed and the way it was lived in and when we rebuilt, basically the kitchen and the living space are on a floor to take advantage of light

and views absolutely but it's also just that main living area and there's an expectation that you have that privacy that came with those deeds and. >> i just want to get those out. >> time is up many of. >> you are welcome.

>> and dr requester number 2, you have two minutes. >> ok. thank you for listening to me. i'd like to show you a little drawing that i it again. i am only concerned about the third there were of the project sponsors he's building. because this number one, is my building and my bedroom. i am not concerned about anything about views. i know that the planning code does not.

>> 99% of the design i approve and i'm happy they're going to build it. a small change for them is a huge impact on me. and that is why i'm here today to ask for your consideration. and to put it in light, this is the section wore talking about in terms of the mass this is very little it's just the end of the top third there were o floow building. i hope you will take this into consideration and help with the modifications that is needed before you approve the permit

for them. thank you very much for your time. thank you. >> thank you, very much. that closes the public side of the hearing. i'll just start off by saying i'm in support of the proposed project minus half of the roof deck. i would be ok keeping the front side of the roof deck. >> i'd like to also speak about the roof deck. the question to the architect, i see mechanical equipment, could you please come up? >> thank you. i see mechanical equipment indicated could you specify what it is? it is air-conditioned or heat pump? >> wore trying to get planning approval so we haven't engineered anything and i don't know if we'll do air-conditioning but it's heat pumps at the place holder for equipment but we have a section and a diagram. it's going to be below the level of i believe of the para pit and

we'll to whatever best practices for noise. just anecdotally, the house on the corner has rooftop equipment on top of their garage adjacent and we to have any noise issues. >> i'm asking you questions and that's i do. we would very much like to know as to whether or not you are doing aircondition. i'm sure a house of that kind of large set up, you know that already. the rules will change and i will ask mr. winslow to help us with that. if it's air-conditioned we're in a different ball game in comparison to heat condensers? >> i'm not a mechanic allen guinear it's well beyond my knowledge between the two and their sound. maybe you can can show that section again. >> there we go. >> so i think what this is showing is we have a wall which

will block visual access and the other thing we would be happy to do if there's any criteria for sound transmission like they have in atherton if we need sound a ten youation on the wall or with partial cover, we're happy to do that. >> that aside for a moment, the size of the roof deck, given that this commission has discussed roof decks for quite a few years and we're working with the department to establish policy, the roof deck is larger than a single family home in some cases in the city. i am concerned that this type of a roof deck given the neighborhood is creating more problems than anticipated. that is noise and visual interference with people who live slightly above ann an a jog

streets. the commission has basically generically spoken about that one-third of the roof area is recommended in roof deck. >> one-third was proposal i believe that never went further than that but when we -- are what wove done in the meantime, is we've adopted commonsense approach to looking at the roof deck in terms of size and locations. so, when we see large roof decks, it's naturally we assume there are large gatherings of people and nuisances from time to time and so we do troy and tend towards reducing that to the thing of a third or 500 square feet per that original roof deck policy. the non authorized roof deck policy. >> in this particular case, could you guide the commission a little bit your thoughts on

which part of the building that would be best accommodated? >> given the key lot conditions of the adjacent properties and the proximity outlined by the dr requestors it could be more appropriately located towards the front of the building without detriment to the users and nuisance to the dr requestors. >> i would agree with you and that would be for me, one of the conditions. i'm still trying to fully understand the concerns about dr requestor number two, speaking about being blocked and relative to the strange location of the key lot. is that anything you as a rd talked about? >> so in our rereview and subsequent negotiations i think we identified the recommendation

in front of you which is incorrectly revised which was the third floor notching the third floor to the existing building until a point where the existing buildings bay protrudes out. that allies with misused basement level if you will. it was a reduction to the roof deck would be the minimum i would suggest if we are taking dr so i'd like to make a motion

we take dr. reduce the roof deck as outlined together with the notch on the third floor that you are already discussing with the applicant. >> i'd like the architect to respond to what the appropriate line would be assuming we were in favor of reducing the roof deck, could you tell us? >> it's a good question. just to clarify a few things. these are two foot by two foot squares if we can get the roof plan up so just it's closer to 250 square feet which is probably a little more than a third of the area so, one proposal is to move the rear portion of the roof deck towards the front until we get to one-third. we would be happy to cut it in

half and knock it back another 12 feet that means anybody on that roof deck could be further away from the bay window then they currently are on the balcony at the third floor. >> could i make an observation as well. typically the roof deck policy has a 5 for th 5-foot setback. i'm not sure it makes sense to maintain that 5 for the setback as well as on the northern edge at the front. there's also a side setback separating you from the downhill neighbor. that might be a way of having, you know, having more area available to you and reducing the deck from the year. >> i think if i can can chime in. if i'm not mistaken, it's very specifically for the firefighters being able to access the roof. >> not to my knowledge.

i only know about the one we imposed from our continued deliberations on roof decks. >> i would be supportive of maintaining that 5-foot and i thought one-third was too big for this roofdeck. i would support the commissioner moore's position to notch the they had floothird flor at the d and we accept the reduction of the deck by the eastern portion of that from the stair be cut in half. >> just to clarify. when you say cut in half, are you talking about the line wove drawn on the image here? >> yes. >> thank you. >> so there is a motion and i did not hear a second. i did hear an alternate

suggestion. >> i don't know if the motion clarified ex lo exactly what too with the roof deck. >> reduce it by they ha third t. >> mr. winslow, could you just -- >> mr. winslow indicated is one-third or 500 square feet maximum or something like that but this is a little different. we're doing all the math. >> pull it forward here. >> please, mr. winslow. i will use the overhead. >> this is the outline proposed by commissioner moore as the roof deck. >> are you proposing that the

front of it could move forward? >> yes, i would agree with mr. winslow it could move forward by two feet. that is still holding behin givt more area. >> chair m. marquez: is everybody ok with that? >> is that part of your motion, commissioner moore. >> yes, it is. >> second. did that also encloud your comments. >> >> roughly. >> there's a motion that has been second-degree. on the motion, reduce the roof deck allowing a two foot extension forward and on the

third floor. mr. winslow, a question, is the motion in words explicit enough to the degree of reduction on the right side of the deck? i heard two feet but not the dough lynthedelineating commentt side. >> there was a diagram submitted into the record by mr. winslow that i believe he will use to address that. >> that would suffice otherwise the wordings does not express what we're saying. thank you. so moved, that passion passes 6 will have 0. >> thank you.

>> we're adjourned. evening. we are now called to order. roll col, please. [roll call] >> thank