contact and reach out to me through the circles of the city through the announcement into the record on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a state of emergency related to covid-19. further more, the mayor and governor have issued a law making it possible to hold hearings remotely. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely through the end of the shelter-in-place. this will be our 20th remote hearing. i am requesting everyone's patience in advance.

we're now using web x and we're all new to the platform. i expect this will eliminate some technical difficulties, but may present new challenges. if you're not speaking, mute your microphone and turn off your newscast. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 1-415-655-0001. entering access code, 146 013 1154. when you are connected and would like to submit public testimony, press star and 3 to be added to the queue. please do not hit star 3 repeatedly as star 3 will raise and lower your hand. each speaker will be allowed up

to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime. when the allotted time is reached, i will announce your time is up and take the next person to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly. and mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll. >> commissioner moore: here. >> commissioner chan: here. >> commissioner diamond: here. >> commissioner fung: here. >> commissioner imperial: here. we expect commission president koppel to be absent today. first on the agenda is item 1 for consideration of items proposed for continues. 2019, 1760 ocean avenue, proposed for continuance to december 17, 2020. item 2, 2020-251, conditional

use authorization is proposed for continuance to september 17, 2020. items 3a and b and c for case numbers 2019-000494dnx, for a downtown project authorization, conditional use authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to september 17, 2020. item 4, 2011 -- 1356, central soma cleanup planning code amendment is proposed for continuance to september 17, 2020. we received a request from staff with sponsor being amenable for item 6, case number 2019, 021010cua, 717 california

street, also proposed for continuance to september 17. even further commissioner, under your regular calendar, item 12, 2019-# 590 second avenue, we received request from the project sponsor to continue this matter, however we did not receive a request for a specific date. so i believe the project sponsor will be speaking to this when we take public comment. so if they could specify the date they prefer this to be continued to, it will avoid renoticing. we should take public comment. one person in the queue. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to speak to matters proposed for continuance. we are accepting public comment only on the matter of continuance, not the project itself. >> i'm calling in regard to sf

prestige. i'm not sure if now is the time to make my comments? >> jonas: is sf prestige proposed for continuance? >> no, i'm not proposing a continuance. i'm making a public comment. >> jonas: sounds like, sir, i don't believe sf prestige is on the agenda so it sounds like a general public comment. >> excuse me. the project is the last project here today. >> jonas: oh, yes, prestige. you'll have to wait until item 13. thank you, commissioner. >> okay, thank you. >> hi. i'm a neighbor concerned about

the 590 second avenue project and i would like more information before we design -- before it's decided to go to continuance. i have to start work in i.c.u. and i'm not going to be as available to come on. i wonder if i am going to be able to request to have a statement read aloud at this future date when it is, because we don't know when it is. you know, i would like some more information about what exactly is going on here, because, you know, we've -- we don't always necessarily have time to be on here. i just want to know what the proposed date is and what is going on and why it's proposed for continuance. that would be awesome, thank you so much. >> jonas: right now we don't have a proposed date. the reason for continuance is to have the project sponsor continue working with rec park. i believe we'll hear the proposed date when the project

sponsor speaks to the matter of continuance. >> hello? >> jonas: yes. >> is it my chance to talk? >> jonas: it is. >> oh, okay. i live next door to the project at 590 second avenue. we've been in such a state of not knowing what is happening, dates change, plans change, neighbors not notified. we really feel the neighbors are not part of this project. at&t has made changes without notifying us. so we feel very uninformed at this point. as much information as we could get, we would be grateful. at this time, we can't communicate with our neighbors and we're having a hard time dealing with this project proposal. that's all i wanted to say.

we have so much opposition for so many reasons, but a big part of this process is being part of the information and knowing what is happening and we're just -- we're just not there with this plan. so that's all i wanted to say. i'm sorry to take up your time. >> jonas: it's quite all right. thank you. i will remind members of the public that right now we're taking public comment on the matter of continuance, not the project itself. >> jonas: caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> yes. my turn to speak? >> jonas: yes, sir. >> okay. so you're not taking comments on the san francisco prestige yet? >> jonas: no, we're not, sir. that will be heard at the end of the agenda today. it is item 13. we'll take the next caller.

>> hello. i'm calling regarding the cell lines or antennas proposed to be put on the roof of the building 590. i'm calling on behalf of the richmond district residents. i'm requesting that the planning commission postpone all the decisions regarding the issuance of the conditional use permit for this installation for the antennas on the roof of the 590 second avenue. lack of adequate public notice. considering the risk, the health risks to the public, to the immediate community that we should have a more, should we say, formal hearing about the

health risks that are proposed by this installation. in view of the fact that it poses a health risk to the public in general, each resident should have been notified personally of the installation and the possible risks of radiation emissions that may result from the antennas. opportunities should be provided to the -- should be provided -- opportunities should be provided to the immediate community, residents, to hear from the proponent of this installation and assess for themselves, the health risk that may result. emitting radiation in a densely -- >> jonas: i'm going to interrupt you. we're only taking comment on the matter of continuance of the project itself. it sounds like you're in favor of a continuance. >> i'm in favor of a continuance. okay. >> jonas: thank you.

>> it's note about continuance, but my neighbors. i'm a neighbor of prestige. we have all this and we have nothing. i'm calling -- two of them i've been trying to reach them all week as the notice set -- >> jonas: sir, i'm sorry to interrupt, but we're not taking up item 13. s.f. prestige will be taken up later. this is matters for continuance. thank you. >> hi, commissioners. candy blackstone from at&t, as you mentioned we did learn that one of the commissioners would like us to further investigate the possibility of locating the site at rossi pool, so we are proposing a two-week continuance while we work with the recreation parks department to

see if the rossi pool site is a viable option. >> jonas: thank you. so, again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into queue. i'm going to check to make sure this person got an opportunity. did you already speak sir, or ma'am? >> yes. as item 13, i am. >> jonas: great, thank you. so, again, members of the public, if you wish to speak to any of the matters of continuance, please press star 3, otherwise -- we have one more caller. go ahead, caller. >> i just wanted to say that i'm definitely in favor of the investigation into the rossi pool site into a non-residentials site and it's much higher. that would be appreciated.

for that, i'm in support of continuance as well. thank you very much. >> jonas: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to speak to the matters proposed for continuance. seeing no other -- i take that back. go ahead, caller. >> hi. this is mary foley. i support a continuance, but i also oppose moving it to the rossi pool site. we do not need 10 macro towers near children or -- >> jonas: ma'am, i'm going to interrupt you, because we're not taking public comment on the project. we're just taking public comment on the matter of continuance. >> then continue it, please. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. okay. commissioners, i believe that is

all public comment is now closed. and the matter of continuances are before you. just for clarification, second avenue is proposed for continuance for two weeks to september 17. yes? >> question for staff on the continuance for second avenue. isn't there a timeline upon which -- beyond which the permit is automatically approved? >> jonas: is staff available to respond?

>> commissioners, planning department staff. 590 second has been continued, so there will be extension. we won't be running into any problems. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> commissioner diamond: yes, move to continue as proposed. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners. seeing no further requests to speak by commissioners, the motion has been seconded to continue matters as proposed including california street and second avenue to september 17. >> commissioner moore: i would call for the at&t representative saying the 24th. >> jonas: i heard two weeks.

>> commissioner moore: i heard the 24th. >> i also heard two weeks. >> commissioner moore: okay. then i am wrong. >> jonas: okay. so all matters -- actually, i think everything on the continuance calendar is going to september 17. on that matter of continuance, commissioner chan? aye. diamond aye. fung aye. imperial aye. moore aye. so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and we'll place this under your consent calendar. all matters listed 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 these 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. item 5, case number 2019, 16 had 2, 424-434 francisco street, a condominium converse. we have received a request to move this from consent and it will be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar. item 6 is continued to september 17. leaving us with item 7, 2019-20048, 524 howard street, request for conditional use authorization. we should take public comment for items under the consent calendar and as previously stated, we only have item 7 remaining on consent. item 5 will be considered under the regular calendar. i see one member of the public requesting to speak. i will remind members of the public you need to press star 3 to be recognized to speak.

>> i think i might have pressed the button prematurely. i'm here to talk about 424-434 francisco street. >> jonas: we'll be taking that matter up under the regular calendar, sir. >> right. >> good afternoon. san francisco coalition. i got the same memo from mr. and i won't waste your time. i'm here to ask for 424 francisco street to be taken off the consent calendar and am delighted it is taken off of the consent calendar. thank you very much. >> hello, this is a member san

francisco tenants union. as the previous speaker said, i'm also delighted that this item will be heard today as the first item on the regular agenda because protected class seniors and people with disabilities lost their homes. they were not protected. >> jonas: thank you. again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to request for item 7 to be removed off consent. seeing no further public comment or requests to speak, commissioners, item 7 under your consent calendar? commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: move to approve item 7. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, on that motion then to approve item 7 under the consent calendar, commissioner chan aye. diamond aye.

fung aye. imperial aye. moore aye. so moved. that passes unanimously, 5-0. placing us under commission matters. 8, commission comments and questions. commissioners, any requests to speak under item 8? seeing none, you can move on to department matters. item 9. director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to let you know that calendar and informational hearing in early october to give you a presentation and data on the economic impacts of the pandemic and the city's response to the economic recovery task force. we're hoping to have those representatives from the controller as well as the task

force to join us during that presentation. and the hope is that this hearing will be a springboard for us to start constructing the long-term implications of the pandemic. i recognize that the impacts, especially the long range, are still being understood, but it's clear to all of us that the crisis will make a mark physically and socially on the city that we should anticipate and respond to. so i look forward to having that discussion with you. i also wanted to let you know that the state wrapped up its legislative session recently. and after a flurry of initial bills related to land use and housing, only a few made it to the governor's desk. we're in the midst of analyzing those and we'll report back to you either by a memo or a hearing in the coming weeks. that will conclude my report. thanks.

>> jonas: sorry. i unmuted. awe can move on to review of past events at the board of supervisors and the historic preservation commission. i have no report from the board of appeals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. manager of -- [inaudible] i'm still here. apparently you need to -- [inaudible] so just for the foreseeable future. thank you very much for -- me. i made some people laugh and confused some people.

actually leading the department to perform the musical hair. it's hard to read a virtual room. but the attempt was to pause and acknowledge the extraordinary time we're going through. a lot of people is suffering. i would like to thank the commission for the continued professionalism and dedication to your role and the agencies that continue to conduct the business during this extremely challenging time. thank you. now for the report. this week, the land use hearing, the committee considered supervisor peskin's ordinance that would allow certain limited restaurants the ability to convert. commissioners, you heard this last week and recommended approval with several amendments to make the program work as intended. you also recommended that the supervisor consider this program in other neighborhoods of the city. at the hearing, supervisor peskin amended the ordinance to reflect the recommendations you made, however, at this time no

other supervisor chose to duplicate this program. this could still happen as it moves through the process. this item was continued to the next land use hearing but because of labor day will be two weeks instead of one. at the full board this week, the -- [inaudible] -- i will have a brief report

for the historic preservation commission that did meet yesterday. the hearing was only brief. everything was approved under consent. so if there are no questions,

commissioners, we can move on to 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 each member of the public may address the public up to three minutes. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to press star 3 to enter the queue to speak under general public comment. this is not to speak on items on the agenda. that will be taken up later. >> i'll be quick. remote meeting, there is an opportunity for you to force neighbors to talk to each other. i tried talking to my neighbor and he refused to talk to me.

i have a hobby of watching reruns at night. he refused to talk to me. in the hallway. how mean neighbors can be to each other. i couldn't believe it. that's one disadvantage of the remote meetings. you can't force people to talk to each other. which you know is not your job, but it was nice that you could do that before, and now you've lost that ability. that's it. talk later. bye. >> jonas: thank you, sir. >> hi. it's georgia, good afternoon, everyone. i hope that you had the opportunity to read the e-mails that i sent on august 26 and 31st regarding noe valley

projects and the e-mail i sent this morning. i tried to put a zip file, but it didn't work which is proof why i missed the overhead projector which is one of the heights of technology. be that as it may, the one project on sanchez and day sold for $9.1 million in july. it previously sold for $1.167 million in july of 2015. and the site permit valued at under a million dollars, but it's emblematic of all the extreme alterations, but this one is especially egregious because the calcs were so close to the threshold and it should have been ccua. the project on elizabeth is unfortunate because it is two currently very livable flats that are unoccupied and empty.

plus its calcs are squishy. as i said, i guess i'll say it again, but the demo calk should have been adjusted once since 2009. and probably twice actually in that time to comply with the intent of 317. and i'll just add that there is some $7 million homes i want to talk about, i'll save that for another time. but i do want to commend the commission for the flat policy. one of those $7 million home lost its flat and that's for sale now. it's over $7 million. i'll talk about it another time. thank you for doing the flat policy. sorry i couldn't send the pictures. it didn't work. but i think adjustment in the demo calcs seems more imperative now due to the volatile real estate market with covid, the astounding income inequality highlighted by all the current

events. certainly 9$9.1 million in a pandemic for a house is amazing. and the need to preserve housing as we can. and that was the intent of this section 317. i'll wish you a happy labor day weekend. stay safe, be well, be happy, take care. bye-bye. >> jonas: thank you. >> hi, my name is -- i work for upsf and i live in the district. i wanted to make a comment that i support the process for the approval of the ccua for the prestige san francisco club downtown. >> jonas: i'm sorry to interrupt you. item 13 will be called up later today. we're only taking general public comment at this time. so, again, members of the

public, if you wish to speak on items that are not on the agenda, this is your opportunity to raise your hand by pressing star 3. seeing no further requests to speak, commissioners, we can move on to your regular calendar. item 11 -- excuse me, we will be taking item 5. case number 2019-16420cnd, 424-434 francisco street. this is the condominium conversion taken off consent. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> yes. >> jonas: okay, you have the floor. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. care fahey. this is a condominium request. the project proposes the conversion of three-story

building into residential condominium unit. no evictions were filed. as prescribed by section 13 of the city and county subdivision code. if an eviction had been filed and upheld after may 1, 2005, the property would be ineligible for the conversion program because the code is tied to the issuance of an eviction notice. wrongful eviction claims filed prior to may 1, 2005 or april 1, 2003 and april 23, 2003, according to information obtained august 28, 2019. neither claim was upheld. additionally, there is no direct or indirect physical change to the environment proposed as part of this request, therefore, the request is not under ceqa pursuant to ceqa statute and guideline 15378. therefore, the department

recommends approval given that the proposed conversion to maintain existing housing stock and provide homeownership opportunities. and the proposal is done on balance and consistent with the policies and is found necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. and the project sponsor is also available. >> jonas: great, thank you, caroline. project sponsor, do you know who the project sponsor is? >> rosemary macinnis. >> if the project sponsor could raise their hand by pressing star 3, i will recognize you. >> hello. >> jonas: there you go. you have five minutes. >> so we committed this application -- submitted this application pursuant to the san francisco subdivision code

1396.4 which is the expedited conversion program. the expedited conversion program allows the conversion of six-unit buildings. it's a special program initiated in 2013 and expired in january of 2020, this year. under this program, stated that if any applications for conversion were subject to the section that caroline fahey referred to, which is section 1396.2. and 1396.2 states that the department of public works may not accept any application for conversion where notice of

eviction was filed after may 1, 2005. when we consult with clients, we are a law firm. i'm an attorney, a member of the law firm. when we engage a client to prepare an application for conversion, we check with the rent board. we ask the client, please provide us with the records from the rent board. we look at the records from the rent board. to determine if the property is indeed eligible. and we found that it was eligible in this particular case. we have not been provided with any documents that show a notice of eviction after may 1, 2005. and that is all i have to say on this. unless you have any questions.

>> jonas: i was on mute. that concludes your presentation? >> yes. >> jonas: very good. commissioners, if there are no questions directly for the project sponsor, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to speak to this matter. it was removed from the consent calendar at the request, so members of the public if you'd like to speak, this is your opportunity. okay, i see one person. go ahead, caller. >> hi. this is --

[inaudible] -- okay. yes. it's my turn? okay. hi, i am -- i've asked this to be removed from consent calendar. i did send many documents to all of the commissioners. the long and short of it would be the letter from tenderloin housing clinic, the attorney there stephen collier had written this letter talking specifically about how this building was purchased with the sole intent of turning them into tics after creating vacancies and then at the earliest possible date to then convert into condominiums. and so when you look at then, yes, section 38 -- 1386 which he

has on page 2 of that letter, it states very clearly that the planning commission determines that vacancies in the project have increased or elderly or permanently disabled tenants displaced for the purpose of preparing the building for conversion. that did indeed happen here. there were eight of the 15 tenants had actually had disability claims. there were also at least two who were over age 60 at that time. and so -- again, i understand it is confusing as to the other document that shows the eviction history of the building. that the file -- the filing of the intent to use the ellis act to evict was filed in 2004, however, as the court documents

show in that decision, that it was until 2007, june 6 of 2007, per the documents, that the tenants were yet in possession of their units because the decision had been appealed. so arguing that, yes, in 2007 is when that eviction occurred and again, steve collier said in his letter there were elderly and disabled tenants on the property at the time of the eviction. [bell ringing] is my time up? >> jonas: you have 20 seconds. >> okay, quickly. yes, so, so, again, it is confusing also with the 1396.2 that talks about no conversions ever in a building and so you know depending on when it's a

question. when you are -- [bell ringing] when you are looking at when the evictions took place. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. now your time is up. >> hello. this is a member of the san francisco tenants union. the history of this building does not reflect a clean title and i ask you to deny this project because the evictions have taken place at this property address after may 1, 2005. san francisco rent board eviction notices show the history of evictions at this address took place from 2004 on ward through 2016. the protected seniors and people with disabilities lost their homes. they were not protected. two of them passed away within six months of the eviction. there was a removal of rent-controlled multiunit buildings from the rental market. a loss of affordable housing and family housing. the current t.i.c. owners took a

risk in buying into this dirty titled deed building. i oppose the condo conversion because the buyers of the unit were fully aware of the implications of buying where tenants were ellis acted. they knew hard working san franciscans were uprooted for profit and walked in with full implications of this act. the bottom line, these six units were forever lost to speculation where tenants were displaced from them and this does not comport with objective 3 of the general plan, rent controlled units and permanently affordable units that meet the needs of lower income levels must be available. and policy 3.3 of the general plan that allows limited conversions of rental stock to condominiums to help achieve homeownership. but while the city needs to

consider the impact of ownership status, it will impact preservation of rental units and this issue should be balanced with the need for a diversity of housing choices. none of these units can be sold at a rate affordable to moderate income households and, further more, commissioners, i implore you to uphold the general plan policies and reject the conversion of these units. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. san francisco land use coalition. i am calling to the points raised by the previous callers, and urge you not to approve the condominium at this location. unlike what the counsel pointed

out, there were obviously evictions at this location past 2005. now even if there weren't, even if the evictions had taken place before that, which obviously that is not the case, i want to take your attention -- i want you to pay attention to the general plan and the objective that was stated in the general plan. san francisco is a city of renters. that's what the general plan states. the rent controlled units and affordable units need to meet the needs of lower income level. this is what happened to lower income and moderate income people who have been staying at a place. when a speculator shows up, turns around and sells it at t.i.c. then the people who have the means to buy it as t.i.c. turn it into a condo.

why do they want to turn the units into a condo when they could sell them if they don't want to live there? thanks to the banks, you don't have to buy a place and assume the risk for other units if you're buying it as a tic. you could just buy the unit as a tic as is without having the obligation to meet the mortgage payment of other units. so why is it that they're converting it to condo? well, the answer is, profiting more. making more money because the condo unit is worth more than a tic unit. thinks all on the -- this is all on the backs of the tenants. for you to approve this, you're actually sanctioning what speculators are doing, which is emptying rental units only to turn them around to tic units that can be later converted to condos, because guess what?

the counsel is going to show up and say there was never, ever any evictions taking place in these places. so i'm asking you this. do you actually believe that a six-unit place in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in san francisco was empty? that is not the case, of course. so, please, reject this. [bell ringing] and uphold the san francisco's general plan. even the policy 3.3 of the general plan that allows limited conversions of rental stock is only because they want to provide opportunities for moderate household, moderate income households. these are not moderate units, commissioners. 1 million+ dollar is not affordable to moderate income households and do not convert them to condos because they'll be worth way more than that. not affordable to average san franciscans. thank you.

>> commissioners, this is lorraine petty. i'm a senior from the fillmore and i'm a member of the senior disability action and also the tenants union. i want to request that the commissioners deny the condo conversions at 424-343 francisco. it's clear from the documents presented today that you have before you that the tenants, a majority who were seniors or people with disabilities, were deliberately targeted by investors with ellis evictions with the intent of condo conversion. looking over the documents and also the local and state laws that apply. commissioners must come to certain conclusions. one, the title here are

extremely clouded. two, the ellis and the tic processes were mishandled and completely unfair for the residents. now it's the intent and goal of the planning code that existing affordable units must be preserved. and also it's the intent and goal of san francisco law that there be no condominium conversion where seniors and people with disabilities have been displaced by ellis act evictions. this whole case is -- well, first it's a clear illustration of why san francisco needs a rental registry or inventory. but that's for another time. this is clearly -- this case before you today is clear another blatant case of investigators and speculators pushing aside seniors and people

with disabilities in their rush to reap profits. such egregious misuse of laws and regulations must not be rewarded. please deny this conversion. thank you very much. >> jonas: thank you. commissioners, that will conclude public comment. the matter is now before you.

>> thank you. i have a question to the attorney. and also to the staff. but first, the city attorney. so in our document that was presented to us it says no -- were -- on or after 2000, may 1, 2005. and it looks like that the public also sent us a document that there is looks like a hearing or appeal that was denied back in 2007. can the city attorney clarify on this? it looks like to me that the ellis act filing was thwarted in

2004, but the final decision was made in 2007. >> sure. deputy city attorney. that's a good question, commissioner imperial. the subdivision code talks about prohibition for certain types of conversion. there is a trigger date of may 1, 2005. so that applies where the issuance of the eviction notice occurred on or after may 1, 2005. and i think what we're talking about here is the difference between the issuance of an eviction notice, which is the legal document that starts an eviction process, compared to -- and judgment from the court of appeal, which occurred in 2007. and those are two distinct

documents. and i think that may be where some of the confusion is coming from. >> commissioner imperial: yes. so by the law that we have by section 1386, wouldn't you say that 2007 was -- this is the decision of the ellis act evictions happened or occurred and maybe that somebody that should have been laid out clearly in the documents. because that's not something that is being presented to us right now. and how would you -- >> i think your question is, what is the significance of the ellis act eviction under subdivision code 1386? and that is also a very good

question. and you know subdivision 1386 was written in 1981, or last amended. in more recent years, the city, there has been a number of challenges to local laws involving landlord rights under the ellis act. and courts have ruled that local jurisdictions cannot restrict the development rights or otherwise penalize landlords for exercising their rights under the ellis act. so what those decisions do, it clarifies that the city cannot limit the property owner's exercise of those rights as a result of taking an action that is permitted under state law. in other words we would be preem preempted. >> commissioner imperial: without -- well, based on interpretation, but we do have section 1386 -- i'm not talking

about -- i understand what ellis act law intends do, but in terms of the condo conversion, there was a timeline that says on or after may 1, 2005, but the decision, evictions that happened on or after 2005, but the decision was in 2007. -- eviction was in 2007. i feel like the information that is being presented to the commissioners is inaccurate. and, therefore, it's not upheld through section 1386. so for the planning commission, this is something that should be denied because this is not uphold section 1386. that's my interpretation of the condo conversion. and also -- and with the intent of section 1386 as well in terms of the intent of using evictions for the purpose of, you know,

selling it or withdrawing from the rental unit with the intent of displacing tenants. i mean i think that was pretty clear in section 1386, article 9. so that's my interpretation of what is happening here. and i would -- on this next item. >> commissioner diamond: yes, follow-up question for the city attorney. if i understood you correctly, are you saying that this applicant is fully in compliance with the condo conversion ordinance in san francisco? that the evictions, despite the fact that the ellis act stuff might have happened after 2005, for purposes of this ordinance, the appropriate notices happened before hand and so, therefore,

they are fully in compliance with the ordinance and can proceed with the conversion under the terms of the ordinance? >> based on the -- and that's -- thank you for that question. based on the evidence that i've seen in this packet, i have not seen anything that indicates the issuance of the eviction notice came after may 1, 2005. and i don't believe staff improperly -- on this, but there have been any evictions in the last three years related to seniors or persons with disabilities. so i believe the conditions under -- i believe the application is before the

commission. >> i can add that staff bases their analysis on the rent board filings. what we found were eviction claims submitted in april of 2003. and then subsequently we were submitted some information that they were arbitrated up to 2007, but given the criteria of 1396, we don't assess or look at that. >> if i'm understanding the two of you, you're saying they do fully meet the criteria as specified currently in the ordinance, whether or not we agree with the terms of the ordinance, they completely complied with the terms of the ordinance. >> yep, right. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> commissioner moore: calling myself. i'd to expand on commissioner diamond's question, following up and asking as to whether or not

he saw the latest printout that we received this morning, eviction notices with dates which go all the way to august 2016, that is not what was in our report packet, but that is information that came by the tenderloin housing or other sources that were copied this morning to commissioners. i would like to ask if the city attorney has seen this information and help us understand it relative to the specifics that commissioner diamond also asked. is this a complete record? is indeed every stone left unturned? because these later dates have also been taken into consideration, or is it just what is in front of us today. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i have seen this document generated from the rent board. i'm not familiar with this type of document, so i can't give you

too much insight into what everything in that document means or purports to mean. you ask a good question whether or not every stone has been unturned or looked under. and if the commission feels that they would like more time to consider everything that has been included in the packet, or have more information, the commission would continue this for a time to ask us to do more research. >> commissioner moore: i would like to respond to your answer. i appreciate your making clear what our options are. have you indeed seen the document that was sent this morning? do you have that in front of you? >> i believe i do. >> the latest tally is august 16, 2016. that's the latest date on there.

i am not familiar with the subt subtleties but i would be very comfortable to continue this as it's a very important matter. i have to anticipate this will not be the end of eviction notices, but that it will potentially increase to the vulnerability where we find ourselves under the threat of covid-19. so i would like to ask that the commission consider somebody making a motion, which i cannot make, to continue this item. >> jonas: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: [inaudible] >> jonas: you may be muted, commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i was. i had a similar question as the

previous regarding that document and it was a snapshot -- a screen shot. i'm not sure that -- what the basis of it was, so i would support a continuance to have staff look at that document and give us a directive on it. >> commissioner moore: is that a motion, commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: it is. >> commissioner moore: i can second that motion. >> jonas: did you have a time frame or would you like staff to respond to how much time they would need? >> commissioner fung: caroline, how much time do you need? >> i would say two weeks, but that seems that the information is readily available, i would have to go to rent board and maybe talk to some lawyers who are coming up with the cases that i haven't seen. so... >> commissioner fung: jonas, all our other continuances went to

the 17th. does that work or should i go to the week after? >> commissioner moore: the week after. >> commissioner fung: jonas? >> jonas: jonas, you're on mute. >> jonas: the 17th is fine. >> commissioner fung: my motion would be to continue this to 17th to allow staff for the time for analysis. >> commissioner moore: i second that motion. >> jonas: there is a motion that has been seconded. commissioner imperial is requesting to speak. >> commissioner imperial: i don't have to speak today. i retract that. >> jonas: in that case, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to september 17. on that motion, commissioner

chan aye. diamond aye. fung aye. imperial aye. moore aye. so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 11 for case number 2020-620cua, 5140 geary boulevard, conditional use authorization. does staff care to make their presentation? >> i am, jonas. thank you. >> jonas: great. >> good afternoon, planning commission. ashley lindsay. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t macro wireless telecommunication facility at 5140 geary boulevard.

it includes panel and tenants as part of the at&t mobility telecommunications network. antennas andance larry equipment will be proposed at ground level within a proposed chain link fence enclosure at the rear of the subject building. the geary boulevard comer district. sponsor held a community meeting on december 2, 2019 at 6:30 to 7:30 on the playground. approximately 11 community members attended the meeting. the department received approximately five e-mails letters from the public in which the correspondence has primarily expressed opposition to the project. the opposition expressed concern over radio frequency, design and noise. please note two changes to staff report. page 9, line 4 and 5 should be

removed as this project does not include outside seating. on page 53, paragraph line 3, line 7, should read preference 5, and not preference 4. we find it is on balance with the wireless telecommunications services guidelines. and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will enhance the ability of the city to protect both property from the effects of a fire or natural disaster by providing communication services. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. jonas, i'm prepared to share my

screen. >> jonas: thank you. why don't i make you the presenter. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? >> yes. we're here. >> jonas: okay. i'll let you go when the slides are up. >> okay. >> jonas: you'll have five minutes. >> great, thank you. good afternoon, chair moore, commissioners, candy blackstone, sternal affairs for at&t for san francisco. this site has been a long time in the making. the area is very busy as you know for a major east-west thoroughfare through the city with one of the used muni lines, there are small businesses, schools, coffee shops and all of that drives a lot of network traffic. the site will include band 14, first net, the first responder network. you may have something in your packet from first net that describes that further.

from a public safety standpoint, this is a very important site to the city of san francisco. it will enhance the business climate through improved communication services for residents and workers. this building was selected after a very robust search in the area. you can see the alternative site analysis in the packet. and we did hold the community meeting as ashley mentioned, last year, to address the concerns of the residents. i know of one resident who still has concerns about sound from the site. and i just want to let you know that at&t does always comply with the local sound ordinances and we're quite willing to mitigate further if there is a problem. so on the line with me, i have derek turner from j35 who is the project manager for the site. he can walk you through it. our network engineer is here to answer questions about the network itself or exposure concerns. thank you. >> hi, this is derek with j.5

representing at&t. i'd like to thank the planning commission for the time to speak today. you can see this proposed site for at&t has a huge coverage gap along geary boulevard. there is a lot of congestion and traffic along that area. and we were able to secure a lease on geary boulevard with the current landlord. and we are moving forward with the site. we've redesigned the site several times to accommodate in the last year. we've moved the frp boxes back to accommodate. and we have -- well, we basically redesigned to accommodate planning characteristics for the area. as mentioned, this is a first net response site.

we have local support of the emergency services for the area. this site will be in compliance with all fcc emissions and regulations. as you can see on the slide, this is the proposed coverage that would fill the gap. and if you want to move to the next slide we can look at the overall site plan. and you can see the different frp boxes on the site. and if you want to move to the next slide, you can look at the elevations in compliance with sf planning ordinances. and the equipment area is in the back area along the alley. and we did a sound investigation and they came back with a report that is available for the public to view.

if we look at the next slide, there are photos. looking down geary street. and then you can see the proposed frp enclosures. the next slide is a more direct shot of the building. and you can also see the frp enclosures. painted and textured to match the outside characteristics of the building. and the next view is down 16th street and from this view, there will be no -- you cannot see the site from that view. and that concludes the presentation. we have two members on the phone to -- [bell ringing] -- answer any questions from the public.

>> jonas: does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes my presentation, thank you. >> jonas: great. members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star 3 in order to submit your public testimony on this matter. i have no callers requesting to speak at this time, so -- i take that back. here's one. caller, you have three minutes. >> i'm one of the residents under the building and i do have a lot of concerns about this. i think the only reason they've chosen our building, that it's gone through any agreement in our small little area, is because we are a low-income rent-controlled building and we have negligent landlords. our building is very old. it's over 100 years old. it's made of wood and plaster.

and we had our back stairs rot through and fall through last week. we have my window that is rotted through and the wood and these are all parts of the building that haven't changed in a hundred years and i'm interested in what actual structural measurements were done on putting the weighted equipment on the roof here. because the roof here is rotted in several locations. these are pretty massive structures. more overour landlord hasn't done retrofitting here. that requires jackhammering, we asked because of the pandemic they wait until anybody here has a place to go to escape the noise. we work from our houses. it's been shelter-in-place. it's been a year of impossibility to organize and inform our neighbors. when we got the notice of this hearing, for example, actually lindsay's telephone number to get information was wrong. and there was no message telling

us to call a different number. it was a wrong number that gave me a busy signal. so i called for two weeks before i realized this was a situation because she responded to an e-mail and that was in the footnote. the issue of noise is a problem. the back corridor where they plan on putting the generator for the 12 massive antennas, is concrete floor with concrete walls. what their noise measurements said in the document that they sent -- which they sent to me just yesterday -- says they did not accommodate the levels for the reflective noise. so i still feel that is an issue and that they should address, if you guys think it's safe for them to put equipment on top of our crumbling old building that has been ill maintained. with covid, there are lots of commercial spaces that aren't just above residents' heads. seniors. there is a child care run out of

this place. it's seniors, children and vulnerable people. [bell ringing] this is out of place and you should be installing these antennas. i know the laws are limited to protect the health and safety of citizens but i think all the same it should be considered and an adjustment be made. i think they can find a better place particularly now because of the changes of covid. i thank you for your time and attention on this matter. i hope you will consider the well-being of the residents here who have little recourse to change things after they've already installed it. >> jonas: thank you. again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to request to speak. there we go. >> good afternoon, commissioners. george hooding. san francisco land use coalition. please do not grant a

conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 209.2 and 303 to allow installation of a wireless telecommunications facility within the rm-2 zoning district. there is no need for this -- these 10 antenna telecom towers. this tower will be placed on the residence, in the residential neighborhood, instead of a corridor where it would be more appropriate. there are also several commercial buildings in the area. at&t has chosen to pursue this issue during covid where

neighbors cannot congregate. as of 901, the surrounding neighbors have not been notified or the 9-03 hearing or revised plans. no one seems to know about this hearing. that's why you have two people talk today. and maybe five people from the letters. no one knows what you're doing. the city has not even demonstrated that this antenna tower is actually necessary regardless of what is shown. studies show that the radio frequency radiation can be harmful to humans. n.t.p. concluded fiber optics are the best and only solution. they are energy efficient, due to electromagnetic pulse, cfmt

and hacking and do not have emissions that cause damage to health and the environment. i completely agree with the prior speaker who lives in that building where the burden is going to be for her and her neighbors -- [bell ringing] -- and how hard it is going to be for them to live and how dangerous it's going to be for them to live in that building and the people in the surrounding area. i think this should have been done much better in terms of notification. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. again, last call, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to get into the queue. submit your public testimony. commissioners, i have no callers requesting to speak. the matter is -- public comment

is now closed and the matter is before you. >> commissioner moore: that is the question to staff and our city attorney. normally these types of applications, not much reflects on the status of the building. when that is presented to us as an argument, people being concerned on the installation may be impacted by such lack of -- is that something we can take into consideration? it's the first time for me. i've heard many applications for the installation of macro towers

over the year and would be interested to hear an answer to the questions that are raised. ms. lindsay, you could answer that or the city attorney. >> thank you for the question, commissioner moore. at this conditional use authorization stage we're looking at the project and land use compliance and code use compliance in order to implement and construct the project. the sponsor would need to file for a permit building application. at that stage, d.b.i. would look for structure safety and require seismic if necessary. >> commissioner moore: thank you for that answer. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i agree with ms. lindsay. i think she's accurately stated the process as it may develop.

>> commissioner moore: that allows me to be disappointed that the applicant as indeed there are no issues with the seismic reporting would not have thought about themselves. obviously installing a macro antenna on a private building is the matter of the landlord gaining from that installation. i would feel more comfortable when all parties have come to a clear position this is possible, that the building is functioning, that under normal circumstances there are no tenants in the building. so i'm a little bit disturbed by the fact that the tenants of the building have to bring those deficiencies to our attention. curious to what the other commissioners have to say.

>> commissioner diamond: could staff address the noise concerns that were raised by the resident of the building? i didn't see that addressed in the staff report. i did hear the applicant say they'd be willing to do something, but i heard no specifics. i don't know what kind of conditions you would want to design. have there been noise studies done? i don't feel we have enough information on that subject, so anything you can shed light on would be helpful. >> sure. i believe we do have a condition in our staff report. implement some type of noise regulations. however, as a material, that needs to be submitted with application. it's not something we request at the time. i believe the department of building inspections also regulates noise. my understanding is the sponsor will do a noise test and have a

noise report readily available for anyone from the public to refer to. >> commissioner diamond: could i ask the applicant to address that question, please? >> yes. hi, this is at&t. so we did do the noise study. obviously, we won't know until it's built if there is additional noise. and at that point we would address any issues. the one resident did say there would be a generator and there will not be a generator on site. we don't put generators on site. there will be a generator hookup, which we are required by the cpuc to install in the event of an emergency, they could have a generator like on the street. if there wasn't power for weeks on end, they could hook the generator in. but there won't be a generator on the site itself. >> commissioner diamond: thank you.

>> i'd like to clarify that the staff report refers to noise and that is also regulated by the department of public health. >> jonas: thank you, ashley. commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: this issue comes up frequently regarding health-related impacts. i'd like to raise that question to the city attorney as to limitations by this commission with respect to that particular issue. >> thank you, commissioner fung. you are correct, the fcc regulates radio frequency emissions and issues guidance for what levels are acceptable or are considered safe and permissible. so as a result, state and local

government are not allowed to regulate the placement or construction or modification of facilities on the basis of the environmental effects associated with those radio frequency emissions. to the extent that the facilities comply with the fcc regulations. i'll just note in 2019, the fcc updated its guidance which continued the existing rf guidance. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> jonas: commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you, i really appreciate my fellow commissioners' questions. i think this is clarifying for me. i think generally i'm supportive of wireless communication facilities. i think this is a necessary and critical infrastructure for the city as a whole. when evaluating the project, i

think the site and the geary commercial district seems appropriate to me. given that, the purview of the commission is to evaluate impacts to design, noise, reduce access to light, i have reviewed the plans and i have not found exceptional circumstances with regards to that. so i am prepared to approve. >> jonas: is that a motion, commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: yes. >> jonas: i will just clarify that staff read some amendments into the record and so that would be a motion to approve with staff amendments? >> commissioner chan: yes. >> jonas: is there a second? >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioner diamond. seeing no further requests for deliberation from commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended by staff. on that motion, commissioner

chan? aye. diamond aye. fung aye. imperial aye. moore aye. so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. placing us on item 13, as item 12 was continued to september 17, for case number 2018-15652cua, 1524 powell street. this is conditional use authorization. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization for 1524 powell street, pursuant

to section 303, 722, 780.3. the legalization of an existing general entertainment use, prestige sf, within the north beach district and the north beach special use district. the project is in response to enforcement 2018-01562. this is a 3400 square foot on the basement level of the war veterans association building. it is open to the public in two ways. any member of the public can reserve the space for private events where people can become members or have access to the space during operating hours. the project sponsor intends for the prestige sf to be a

multiculturalism, for -- [inaudible] -- bar mitzvah and seminars and meetings. the project sponsor has taken steps to soundproof the space, installing sound barrier curtains and they're subject to the jurisdiction of the entertainment commission. prestige sf is not a restaurant, bar or nightclub. there is a kitchen on site with food preparation and service can only be done by catering businesses. alcoholic beverage service can only be provided by catering businesses with permits. there is no limit to the number of catered events that can be held. when scheduled and prestige sf is only open for the private members to drop in, there will

be no alcohol service. the draft motion includes -- require permitting with the entertainment commission. the project sponsor hosted five open houses between fall 2018 and spring 2019. the department has received two letters of support, six letters of opposition and eight letters with a petition of opposition. the letters of support are centred on the business owners, including they contribute to veteran support initiatives, good times and collaborate with non-profit. the letters of opposition are about nuisance issues that commonly occur near bars and nightclub and negative impacts from neighbors experienced when prestige sf previously operated. the opposition concerns are late night noise, parking, public urination, drug used, increased criminal activity, debris, the

proximity to other bars and public safety. 311 case records show that one call was made regarding powell street where prestige sf operated in 2018. during this time, the call for service records showed that three calls were made about loud noise and music and five calls about traffic violations in the 1500 block. these call records are not from a specific address, so they cannot be definitively connected to prestige sf. the opposition to this also states that prestige event held no event in the six months leading up to covid-19 and only regularly operating businesses should be eligible for conditional use. the lack of the activity is a

sign of their commitment. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the interpret of the north beach and the objectives and policies. it will create a new social gathering place and venue for artistic, and philanthropic events. they find the project to be necessary, compatible to the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation. and the project sponsor is here with a presentation. >> jonas: very good. project sponsor, are you prepared to submit your public testimony -- or make your presentation? >> we're prepared. >> jonas: you have five minutes. >> perfect.

this is autumn danielle, with prestige, showing our presentation. as you arrive to prestige sf, our logo is on the front door to help us identify us in the lower unit. the stairs that lead to our lounge are well lit and have handrails for safety. the soundproof drapes are visible to help reduce noise by 50% when entering or exiting the building. the curtains on the right act as large soundproof area and reduce sound or light to the front exterior of the building. this is a view of our lounge and on the right. >> jonas: autumn, i'm going to interrupt you. are you watching sfgovtv in the background.

if you could turn it off, you're creating an echo. >> okay. >> jonas: and you might want to mute your -- silence your computer as well. just keep the microphone on. >> okay, one second. >> jonas: there you go. >> perfect. okay. are we ready? >> jonas: go ahead. >> perfect. so the lounge on the left side is a view from the front of the building. and on the right side is actually from the back of the building. this view as you can see gives us well lit and it allows space for clear walkway with comfortable seating for our visitors. this is the prep area on the

left side coming from out -- actually the right side is the prep area. and as you can see, as you exit the prep area, you go down the stairs and that is the view you're looking at to the left. this is for catered events and has sounds, light and fireproof curtains as well. this is a view from the prep area again. as you can see, the big beautiful chandelier above. so a well-lit lounge when we do have functions. so the last photo is the stairs exiting prestige. as you can tell, there are reflectors, handrails to help the visitors exit safely to the street level where they are directed toward their method of transportation. again, you can see the sound barrier proof curtains that reduce the noise as exiting. we hopes this gives you a brief

walk through of prestige sf. thank you. >> hi, amanda johnson. the idea of prestige came from a disparity of diverse social setting along with the strong desire for leadership in underserved communities. it's to bring together those with a common agenda. we've raised funds for our district and other districts in san francisco. we've held private events for the mayoral staff and leadership of the city. our team consists of bay area natives with a long history of professional work and volunteerism within the city. my counterpart is a san francisco native who worked at the sheriffs department for eight year and is a longtime

non-profit contributor who also helps many board with the numerous non-profits in the city. a longstanding real estate agent focuses on mentoring young women. as for myself, i worked in san francisco with both academy of art university as well as pg&e. i've developed community and outreach working with under privileged youth. our team had a steep learning curve. as the hurdles rose, we acted and responded immediately. we met with the central police station as well as lieutenant falzo falzon. we had hosted to view our space and address questions or concerns our neighbors had. [bell ringing] all of which were

immediately handled. some of these included noise levels which we addressed by installing sound-proof measures. the street parking concerns, we've encouraged patrons to use surrounding parking garages and hiring additional security. we can provide notes on concerns and outcomes. [bell ringing] we want to provide -- diverse by age, socioeconomic status. we would be only one of two black-owned private event venues in san francisco. >> jonas: i have to interrupt you there. that is your time. but you will have an opportunity to address commission questions if they come up. at this time, we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to press star 3 to get into the queue. and to the chair, each member of the public will be provided with two minutes. >> -- she is such a liar. i mean i've been a neighbor -- a member of the american legion for -- i've been a neighbor 68 years. i was a previous member. they have been good members for 65 years. the past three years have been a nightmare since prestige showed up. the first was sadiq. they park on the sidewalk. said we don't do that around here. he said don't bother me. then park right at the entrance to see how they operate. people have money can get in and join one second. especially a pretty girl.

scantily-clad. the guys, especially if you're white, you can't get in. you sit there a couple of times. cops showed up. hey, man, you got to get out of here. i'm crippled. they walked me over to my house. i'm only 50 feet away. i tried to talk to sadiq. never called me back. i used to talk to people coming out of the club. they said they're ex-law enforcement. then the commander of the american legion threatens me because i've been organizing neighbors against him. i said, i can threaten you too, all your billy club violations. the commander backed off. [bell ringing] he came, threatening me, she don't need to talk to me. the neighbor, this big deal, doesn't talk to me. i talked to the police station, they don't want to talk to me. two years ago, there were so many parties out here, you can't

stop everybody. he doesn't talk to me. either does captain zip. i'm your neighbor. how can you not want to talk to me? that's it. >> jonas: thank you, sir. go ahead, caller. >> hi, my name is or lita morgan. i'm a native of san francisco. i'm calling to support prestige san francisco in its application for the cua permit. prestige selflessly gives back back to the community through feeding the homeless and the less needy. and i support them remaining and staying in business where they are.

and that's it. >> jonas: thank you. >> hi, my name is kevin harvey. longtime neighbor of san francisco. lived there -- i'm 61 years old. i am a case manager with baker place's prc work, with mental health. i want to support prestige in their application. it's place where we can go and socialize. the parking is -- there is a parking lot right down the street. the venue is exceptional for socializing, getting together, networking with other non-profits and meeting people who are like-minded. i've never had any issues with

anyone with loud noises or people standing out in front. it's been nothing but a really experience and i want to support sadiq and his application for prestige. >> jonas: thank you. >> hi, my name is phyllis blackwell. i am also a native of san francisco. [no audio]

[inaudible]

>> that congregate outside. it's all inside. you can't hear a noise. and most people use uber, which is more money for other people. so i greatly approve this organization. and hope that you will approve a black enterprise in san francisco. >> jonas: thank you. >> hi, i'm a native of san francisco. i'm laura watson. i have been to prestige numerous times for events they've held. they have always been very professional. it's been a diverse group there which i really enjoyed and i fully support the permit that they're trying to pass through at this time.

thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am an employee with alameda health systems. there i am a case manager. i want to support the application for c.u.a. for prestige -- [inaudible] -- [no audio] >> [no audio]

>> thank you. >> hello. i'm a native -- i've been a native for over 30 years in san francisco. i know the owner, mr. sadiq, to be one of the most upstanding individuals that i know. i have attended prestige sf on several occasions. as everyone said, the parking is great. [inaudible] city of san francisco, it brings the money to it, the city. and it gives people a place to come and relax and enjoy themselves. so with that being said, i

support this application for prestige sf to be approved for their c.u.a. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> hello, i'm jerome harper. i'm a longtime san francisco resident. i definitely say i support the application for prestige. it's going to reopened. i've been to the prestige club a number of times. it's always been very friendly, the atmosphere and environment. i've never had any issues. there has never been large crowds outof the facility. i am definitely in support of the prestige san francisco be granted the c.u.a. thank you. >> jonas: thank you.

>> hi. i'm cynthia. i'm in support of prestige sf and the application for permit. i've been there on several different occasions and i've never experienced any problems. volunteer services and it's always been a pleasant experience. so i just want to call in and support them. thank you. >> jonas: caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? hello, caller? okay. we'll take the next caller. >> hi, how you doing?

my name is paul. i'm part of the leadership for institutional here in northern california. and chairman of the board for a non-profit adopted by the magic johnson foundation. i think there is definitely a need for a venue like this. i've attended their opening events that showcase the space. i think it meets all the requirements. the parking is ample around the area. and being a resident of san francisco for over 25 years, growing up here, we still attend and visit the north beach area quite often. and i think now, as part of the revival of that neighborhood, this is exactly what this neighborhood needs and what san

francisco needs and i especially was excited to be part of the prestige and have a space to hold non-profit events for my organizations and also support like-minded individuals and organizations. so my hats off to sadiq and his team. i'd like to definitely support it. and hopefully, we'll have a space we can all attend and gather. so, thank you very much. and hope san francisco makes the right decision. >> hello. hello? >> jonas: go ahead, caller. >> yes, good afternoon. i'm a native san franciscan, 47 years. i work in san francisco as well with ucsf and as a social worker

in the violence prevention sector. i'd like to first address my support for the c.u.a. permit for prestige in san francisco. in regards to public safety, i have attended this venue on countless occasions where guests are prescreened. there has never been any incidents that i'm aware of in regards to any public safety. their security, topnotch security on staff, usually there are security and staff work in conjunction with one another in regards to ensuring that patrons arrive safely to their vehicles to the neighboring parking structures, which it does not create a log jam as far as double parking or illegal parking issues along the corridor of the neighborhood. again, i have not seen any engagement with any patrons or

anyone with law enforcement. the area is cleared and dispersed immediately after gatherings. a number of patrons arrive by uber and lyft. [bell ringing] i've attended there with politicians, professional athletes. it's been extremely diverse with people from various socioeconomic demographics. so, please support this black-owned business in san francisco. especially with the decline of the population here since i've been born and raised in san francisco. again, thank you for your time. >> jonas: thank you. >> hi. >> jonas: go ahead, caller. >> my name is tara beasley. and i am the owner-operator of -- i am one of the caterers that has provided meals and

services to prestige. it has always been a pleasure to work with mr. sadiq and his staff has been professional. i recommend them for this cua permit. thank you. >> hello. >> jonas: go ahead, caller. >> thank you. my name is johnny. i am calling in strong support of prestige sf. they have a topnotch ownership team. they definitely know how to run a tight and well-managed establishment that is good for the neighborhood and is a good neighbor. and above and beyond that, you know, with the impact of covid, we need to approve anyone that is trying to open a business here in san francisco. and the ones that continually have a footprint here. great operators, great team.

the city needs jobs. this city needs businesses and prestige is here to stay. so i highly support their application and i urge the commission to approve without delay. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> hi, my name is mia robinson. and i'm a native of san francisco. i work with community housing partnership and we help the homeless and help them get -- i'm also the president for the local 1021 at seiu. and i'm very in support of prestige. i like the venue. i've been there a few times. they help the homeless. i've been to a few toy drive during the holiday season. i'm very much in support of the club. and what mr. sadiq is doing in

the community. the parking is wonderful. i heard the gentleman say before, a lot of people do come in uber and lyft, but they do have parking garage. never had a issue with parking. i've never seen anyone hanging out. it's secluded until you walk inside the club. i just wanted to put my input and be supportive with the business and hopefully everything works out. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> hello, i'm sanders fry. hello? >> jonas: yes, sir, go ahead. >> yes, yes, i'm thomas fry, a native of san francisco and i've been to the club numerous times. very prestige --

[inaudible] [no audio] [please stand by]

>> go ahead, call. >> speaker: i'm calling to say that i support the speech. i've been a san francisco native for over 30 years and every time i go, it's always a great time and i support them in their permit. >> thank you. yes. >> speaker: good afternoon. i'm a long-time native of san francisco and i just want to say

that i'm calling about your approval for the -- are you there? >> we can hear you, ma'am. >> speaker: i'm sorry. let me start again. good afternoon. i'm a long-time san francisco native. i'm calling today to support the application for san francisco cua permit. i'm calling for so many reason. they provide a lot of resources for our community and give that to our underserved youth in various ways including back-to-school supplies and toy drives, for example. for us as deput adult professio, we appreciate a safe venue for networking opportunities. the club provides a level of

exclusivity. our family and our community looks forward to your committee's approval for this managed and black-owned business to continue. thank you so much for your time. >> speaker: can you hear me? yes, sir. >> speaker: i'm a long-time resident of san francisco and i work in san francisco and i support prestige for its approval. there's a lot of aspiring young businesses tha that shows the diversity and professionalism and also top-notch customer service and so, i'm in support

of san francisco prestige. >> speaker: one concern i have is noise. according to section 2909d, it's allowed between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. seventy would be four times

louder and parties run between on100 to 110 and you can imagine what i went through when the parties were held. not only do i hear the music, i feel it. i understand from cafe post that sound-proofing were in place. no matter how many curtains, how many sound-proofing boards are added, no way that you can bring it down to the requirement. we had gone to parties in our younger years and parties start at 10:00 p.m. it hasn't changed much, except now we have to deal with guns and drugs. so bouncers in the evening, when i see them, they pat the patrons down when they enter. they are not looking for popsicle sticks. now, my complaint is that over the lifetime, i've worked in

satellite stations, the bombers, radars to bring our boys back home safely. this is my public service to you. i've been living in this naked next to them for 60 years and i deserve to live my last 25 years in peace and harmony. so, please, commissioners, do not issue a permit for the night venues. and so i understand this is recorded. and duly noted with san francisco planners and the cafe post. >> time is up. >> speaker: this is posted at the wrong address. presprestige is 1524 and does tt matter? so many people have called and i've never seen these. there's never been a hearing and

they're closed and i got the one notice and nobody there. employee >> speaker: i'm a long-time san francisco native and electrical engineer of the advanced technology group in san francisco. i'm callini, myself, and along y coworkers had a pleasant time and -- (indiscernible).

>> speaker: we will now be able to have a place where we can socialize and feel safe and network with one another.

so i'm in support of pres prestf and i hope you guys do the right thing. thank you. >> speaker: hello. >> go ahead, sir. >> speaker: i'm a long-time native of san francisco and i just wanted to say that i am in support of prestige and the application for the cua. >> speaker: i'm camilia harris, i'm a san francisco resident and i support prestige sf for the permit. thank you.

>> speaker: i'm shawn richard and first black owner of a marijuana dispensary in san francisco. also, i own a nonprofit executive director of organization called brothers against guns. i've been to prestige many times and i support it 100%. not only do i support it because of the entertainment, but because they give back what they do for their community. they have allowed me to come in there with young men that have issues, that's looking for a job, that's homeless and place them in a program and have one-on-one conversations with them and overall, just have an overall counseling with them. i think there's only three black-owned business entertainments in the city, prestige being one of them and it would be ashame to remove and not approve them for this. i totally support prestige, not only just for the entertainment part but for what they do for the community.

i honestly believe by us not having enough resources as african-americans to where we can go somewhere and sit down and young men and women can feel comfortable. it would be ashame to deny them approval. we totally supports this and san francisco supports this. i support this and we want the commission to know that we stand behind prestige 100%. as i mentioned before, i am the first black person to own a dispensary and also own an organization called brothers against guns and we totally support prestige 100%. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony?

>> speaker: yes. i'm paul jackson and i'm a native of san francisco and i also support the prestige cua permits because this is a very professional establishment and i also like the work they do with the community and that's exactly what we need in these times and i support the cua permits. >> speaker: hello. i'm tiara kilometres an williamd to give a call for support in prestige. i've gone there for entertainment is i have been there for a lot of events they have in regards to give back to the community, the children. i'm a caseworker i and i work wh the ambi foundation and i do a lot of them hand-in-hand, providing for youth and things

like that. i have witnessed events and feeling attacked sometimes when i walk there from a lot of white gentlemen throwing out racist slurs and thank god they have great security there because the security have escorted me to and from my vehicle to make sure no one is throwing eggs at me. i've witnessed a white person that has posted a white sign and i am standing up for my community and i think this is a great outlet for a lot of young people. a lot of diverse nationalities to enjoy in a safe environment and i feel as though i'm here for prestige and ithin and i thk prestige is here to unite. we need outlet's. we work hard and we should have places to hang out at. i love the community and i think it's a great location and the neighbors and everybody has been very nice.

>> members of the public, if you wish to support public matter, press star three. >> speaker: yes. i'm a san francisco native and i'm from the city and i've been here all my life, voices against violence and they call me coach twin and i support prestige to the fullest. man, they give back to our kids, when it's thanksgiving, christmas. we can bring young men in there and they give good donations to us. when we ask for it, they support our events and they've been supportive, especially for everybody in the community and i

run into mean in the community over that way, they treat us nice. it's been very well and i hope you guys give them the permit. >> i'speaker i'm a real estate banker and i support this reopening. it is one of the few black-owned businesses now in san francisco venue wise and we need more of this in san francisco, not less. and i know the people connected to this venue and they give back unbelievably. they give backpacks during school drives. they give bikes during compass. they do food drives.

i personally have experienced this. i've been to the venue a few times with my granddaughter, believe it or not, and there's no age in there, either. i am a native person in san francisco. we need more diversity, not less. thirty years ago, there were lonlines out the door for beach bingo babylon and never once did i hear people complain about noise, et cetera. it was highly supported in the city for many, many years. i feel there's a little bit of racial issues going on here. this is a venue that needs support. these are good people.

>> go ahead, caller. (indiscernible). >> speaker: i'm connor johnston and calling to offer support. this seems like a no-brainer. it would be almosi serve as a be

california culture association this advocates for bars and night life in the city and in a previous job, i actually helped write the 2015 night life registration. we say it contributes over $4 billion to the local economy in addition to thousands of jobs and that it is a major part of the soul of san francisco and at the time, that may have sounded memelodramatic. people are saying why should i pay higher rent when there's no night life and no culture. this is the heart of what makes san francisco, san francisco.

general entertainment shouldn't require a co. it should be an over-the-counterthing. we have to encourage night life to reap and succeed. while you should vote yes, that's only the first step in that process. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> speaker: yes. hello. >> your time is running. >> speaker: i'm an area native

and i have been a business owner for about 20 years and i do insurance investments didn't ind securities. this club is one of my premiere clients. i've had their coverage for many, many years. i've been to the establishment and it's very, very nice for a lot of professionals to come, spending time, association and network with each other and i've been there at 12 midnight. i've been there at 3:00 in the morning, very, very safe environment and i really believe this business needs to make sure it can have every opportunity to succeed and i'm in favour of the license for this venue. thank you very much. >> speaker: i'm a native of san

francisco and i'm calling in support for the application for a cua permit. it's been nothing but good for the community, and i'm in support of the permit. thank you. >> speaker: hello. >> yes, sir. go ahead. >> speaker: i'm a long time resident of san francisco. i just want to bring up a point. it seems like a lot of chinese people open this club while giving youth -- but it's ok for them to have so many chinese-owned businesses in black community and why is that ok and no one comes out against

them? we are supposed to be diverse, a melting pot and work together in times like this. and one thing that's not been said is that this club is just not used for blacks. this is opened to anyone. and this is the support of san francisco and if we're here to support san francisco, let's look at this. there's always been stigma that you can be any other nationality and open up in a black community and a black community cannot open up in anyone else's community. let's stop that. let's take our time and say, well, here is another club owner, not black, not white, not chinese, not anything, just a club owner. and one other thing. they have clubs on broadway all day long and i have never seen nobody get in the club without being pat down. it's not about a drug, a gun or anything like that. it's procedure and how do we not change procedure? and i'll leave it at, it should

be open for all san francisco people. thank you. >> thank you. >> sir, are you prepared to submit your public testimony? dgo to the next caller.

>> speaker: hi. i'm born and raised in san francisco and i want to support the application to keep prestige open and it always has been a safe haven place for me. i've been to the club many times and they do amazing jobs giving back to the community. and i want to 100% support prestige. thank you. >> speaker: hi. i work in san francisco and i work for a nonprofit entity and i've visited club prestige many

times for private events. they do a lot of work when it comes to giving back to the community, the nonprofit's community-based organizations. and one of the things that i recall being 62 years, i remember in that particular neighborhood the, there was no diversity. one of the things he has brought to that community is diversity as one person who's a resident across the street attested to. there is a diverse population that goes in there and many of the people who spoke in regards to the cua and i'm in support of it and i would love to see it continue to be there and continue to be a diamond in the community. thank you very much.

speaker i'. >> speaker: this is something our community needs and i agree with the last caller, it's not a black, white, green, purple thing. it's a human thing. we need to have some type of voice somewhere in san francisco and everybody knows we're being pushed out. with this club prospect, it will help to bring us back to the city. i'm 65 years old and this was

the worst i've ever seen san francisco as it is now. and so, i fully support. i went to high school with him, my family knows him and this is good for san francisco. >> i would like to remind members of the pum who ar publin to please mute our television so we don't hear the background from the emanated delayed broadcasts. go ahead, caller. >> speaker: yes, i'm a san francisco native and i am a co-owner of golden king motors and i am a black business owner and i definitely have frequented prestige more than a hundred

times didn't i've been involvedd with the thanksgiving give away to give away to the homeless and it was just great. it's always been a great experience. i put both my hands up to keeping this place open and providing a safe haven in a professional place for people to meet of all colors. thank you. >> speaker: yes. i'm calling in support of the

establishment prestige. that's the first time i've been able to go somewhere in san francisco and walk out the door and don't have to worry about a gun being pulled on me or being shot. so the work that they're doing there is great. the work they're doing for the community is very good. >> speaker: i'm a native and i

rip a company called shelly tatum presents in san francisco and the bay area, food drives, fundraisers. i was the first african-american for the lou iris day hall and i truly understand what this whole party, club thing is. about. i support prestige and i think they should be given a renewal of their cu, their cua. i think it would be great tax revenue for san francisco, as well. and i echo everything everyone has said. thank you.

>> go ahead caller. >> speaker: i'm leonard co yorn years old and i'm in support of club prestige and them getting their cua permit and i fully support them.

thank you very much. >> speaker: i'm a san francisco native born and raised and i'm also a small business owner and full-time college student. i'm calling to support the application for prestige. i've been to prestige on numerous occasions and have had a great experience. i participated in many toy drives and homeless feeds and i wanted to show my support. thank you. >> caller, go ahead. >> speaker: i'm loranda smith, a native of san francisco, business owner. and i went through the same thing when i first opened my

business ten years ago and i had angry neighbors who did the same thing that they're doing to prestige, but i won and i'm hoping that prestige wins in this case today. i'm in full support of prestige. thank you very much. >> go ahead, sir. >> speaker: i'm a long-time resident of san francisco and i'm fully if support of prestige. everything it's doing for the community. thank you.

>> speaker: i'm a san francisco resident and i have been through this twice networking, which is making this a great place for kids in the community and entrepreneurs to come and network and that's what i use it for. i had a great time and everything went well and san francisco is about diversity and i support the prestige. thank you.

>> speaker: they're respectful and this is a establishment of promoting unity. i'm a promoter of the ymca engagement and prestige is a great example i and i totally support their permit. thank you.

>> commissioners, that will conclude the public comment portion of the hearing. i have no further callers and i apologize -- one last caller did come in is i wil and i will affm the opportunity. >> speaker: hi, i'm anne lee and i live a few doors away from the cafe post and i'm hearing that this is a race issue. it's not a race issue. what it is is a noise issue. so i live there. i see it and i hear it. so the evening issue venues is a problem. so there's not a lot of places where you can have your venues. crowbar at montgomery sits empty. there's two-level parking behind it. if it's tutoring during the day, that's fine, but the problem is during the evenings. i live there and i see it and i ar