>> welcome to the san francisco planning commission. the mayor declared local state of emergency related to covid-19. april 3, 2020 the plannings commission received convening. this will be our 28th remote hearing. remote hearing requires everyone attention and most of all your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. opportunity to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001.

when we reach the item you're interested in, press star 3 to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i will announce that cure time is up to take next person to speak. speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. i like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> first touch is consideration

of items proposed for continuance. 1760 ocean avenue, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance december 3, 2020. item 2, continuance december 17th 2020, item 3, 1600 ocean avenue, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. i'm pleased to announce to you that under your discretionary review calendar, item 12, 811 valencia street, the discretionary review has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should take public comment on

the matters proposed for continuance or that have been withdrawn. members of the public this is your opportunity to enter the queue and speak to the items proposed for continuance by pressing star 3. seeing no members of the public to speak. public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. do i hear a motion? >> move to continue those cases as specified. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. that motion to continue matters as proposed. [roll call vote]

motion passes unanimously. 7-0. we'll place those under commission matters. item 5 sorry, i'm jumping ahead. that places us the consent calendar. this is consent calendar considered to be routine and may be acted upon by single vote of the commission. and commissioners, you should have received an amended motion earlier today for this matter. we should see if any member of

the public would like to pull this off of consent. again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to reach out. seeing no members of the public, the matter is now before you.

we are moving right along here. item 6, commission comments and questions. let me just start by formally welcoming commissioner tanner to the planning commission. she was already a commissioner for those who don't know. and honorable mayor breed was gracious enough to swear her in earlier this week. that was a pleasant surprise. i'm thrilled and looking forward to having a full commission with seven great voices advocating for the city. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to join you welcoming commissioner tanner. i have also worked with her on the board of appeals. quite a fighter. i'm delighted to have her join us so we can operate again as a full commission. welcome, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner fung.

>> commissioner fung: i would like to welcome my compatriot for the board of appeals. welcome commissioner tanner. >> i'm going to use the chat to get into the queue. thank you so much, commissioners, president koppel, vice president. thank you commissioner fung. it's been great to get to know you before joining you all here. hopefully, at some point we'll be in-person, which would be lovely and wonderful. but thank you for making yourselves available via video. i'm excited to serve with you and the city. and thank you to director hillis and director for your work in helping me get ready to work today.

>> jonas: that concludes all deliberation from commissioners. if you would indulge me, i would ask that you consider a resolution that i will share with you on your screen. christine, the former manager of commission affairs that assisted me very much in the background getting these remote hearings up and working, i am requesting that adopt a resolution commending her 13 years of service with the planning department. the last six of which in my small office of commission affairs. she was integral in digitizing our records, making more public availability of all of the things that used to be requested

in hard copy. they're almost all now available digitally. mostly due to her efforts. again, i wanted to thank her so much for helping me navigate this sort of virtual normal place and getting our remote hearings up as swiftly and as efficiently as we have been able to. so hopefully, you can see my screen with the resolution. it was adopted by the historic preservation commission yesterday. and so i would request you do the same today. >> president koppel: let me first start by saying, definitely, very supportive of this resolution. not only did christine make all -- filling in -- for jonas and did an amazing job, but we probably all have no idea how much work she was doing behind the scenes just as explained by

mr. ionen. thank you for all your time, service and wish you the best of luck in future endeavors. >> commissioner moore: i'm with him, because you started when i became a planning commissioner. so i've known you from day one. always great contributions. coordination with secretary and everything that came after. thank you very much for your service and we will miss you. i'm making a motion to support. >> president koppel: on that motion, commissioner tanner? commissioner tanner? >> can you hear me? >> president koppel: now i can. >> aye. and thank you, christine, for

the pleasure. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. president koppel? >> president koppel: aye. >> >> commissioner moore: there is an incredible noise in the background. there is something dragging back and forth. >> i hear it as well. i'm not sure. it was coming from your computer. >> okay. thank you and good luck to you at the board of sfmta. >> commissioners -- >> just -- then i'll mute. i just wanted to say thank you.

it's been such a pleasure to work for such an incredible department. not just one, but two great commissioners all these years. i would be remiss not to thank director hillis, jonas for all their support. and our commission affairs team. thank you so much. i'll miss you all. but of course i'm not going far. just over to m.t.a. thank you and wish you all the best. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> jonas: commissioners, that would take us on department matters, item 7, director's announcements. >> [inaudible] >> can you hear me? >> we can. >> so congratulations, christine

on your new position and it's a big loss for us at planning. but great promotion for you, so congratulations. we will certainly miss you. welcome back to commissioner tanner, who was with us in the planning department, is now back. obviously in a different role. but we're extremely happy about that and looking forward to working with you. also want to recognize and congratulate former commissioner melgar who appears as district 7 supervisor, so we look forward to serving with her on the commission. looking forward to serving with her on the board. i also wanted to note election-related that prop 8 has passed. it's got 62% of the vote. so it will pass and becomes effective from the election -- when the election is certified. i'd like to schedule an

informational hearing here with you to talk about the details, because it does change and streamline some of our processes in neighborhood commercial districts. so we'll do that over the next couple of weeks. the basics of it is it requires 30-day process for permitted uses to be acted upon. it reduces some of the noticing for permitted uses in neighborhood-commercial districts. and it generally makes those permitted that may have been conditionally permitted before things like general entertainment, movie theaters, restaurants, limited restaurants. social services. so we'll come back and give you more detail on that. i would also note that mayor breed has asked us to start working on making the shared

spaces permanent within the department and within the city. so we're working with sfmta and ttw on that. we'll come back to you, it may require that -- i wanted to note that they have opened up public comment on the rhna allocation. so the executive board approves the methodology of the goals to the various governments and jurisdictions as we've talk would about before. these numbers are increasing over two times what they were before. but that public comment period to comment on the methodology is open and is later this month on the 25th. if there are no questions, that's my report. >> president koppel: i think commissioner moore has something.

>> commissioner moore: you were speaking about prop h. i was wondering is there a social equity component? >> specifically is there something in the legislation that addresses social and racial equity? i don't believe so. i think, though, part of the rationale and the reason for prop h was to make the process kind of simpler and easier. and not require a small business that may otherwise require a permit expediter or going through an elaborate c.u. process, or requiring a lawyer to navigate that process. -- in an easier fashion. i think that in and of itself will help many of the small businesses we see navigate that city process. >> commissioner moore: fabulous goal. i support that.

i believe though that we owe it to ourselves as commissioners as well as the department to have a look at social and racial equity in that discussion. >> i should also note some of the provisions in prop h don't apply to the mission in particular in 24th street in recognition of the unique circumstances kind of in the mission. >> commissioner moore: my second question to you, director hil s hillis, is there any provision for corporate impact and change and state population exodus, vacancy, et cetera? >> yeah, it's being factored into the broader bay area. but as you know, these are

long-term numbers and long-term goals. so looks at 2050. the allocations themselves cover the period 2023 to 2031. so i know it was discussed during the meeting, but there is also a recognition these are longer term goals and hard to kind of look at kind of the shorter term goals of covid and what is going to happen in the next few years as part of that under taking. >> commissioner moore: okay. thank you. >> yep. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have a question, director hillis, regarding the abag, you said the comments by the 27th. how can that access? >> sure. you can access it through abag's

websites. it's in comments. people do comment at hearing that they had. there will be a future hearing to adopt that methodology that members of the public can comment on through e-mail or letters. you know, it's available to comment on the website. >> commissioner imperial: if it's possible for the planning department to have that, many people may not be accessing the website. >> great idea. we'll do that. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. >> jonas: that concludes the director's report. we should go item 8 -- wrong page -- item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron star, planning department

staff. while you were out on break last week, the board did meet. there were no items in land use and planning. the full board of supervisors, they unanimously approved mayor breed's appointment of rachael tanner to the planning commission. congratulations. they moved the appeal of 617 sanchez to november 17. they considered the landmark designation for the history of medicine in the ucsf campus. supervisor peskin is the sponsor and supervisor safai as cosponsor. they considered this designation on august 19 of this year after receiving the resolution initiating designation from the board which was initiated. the frescos are significant for their association with the works progress administration federal art project displaying high art value. and as an excellent example of the work of master artist and

muralist, bernard zakheim, the period of 1936 to 1938. supervisors peskin and safai noted their full support and how important it was to san francisco and california that the frescos be preserved and accessible to the public. there are two public comments which expressed support and that ucst relocate the frescos on the campus and make them accessible to the public. it was moved to the full board with a positive recommendation. the board this week, they continued both ceqa appeals for the media rails. i expect their attention was elsewhere. that's all i have for you today. thank you. >> jonas: i did not receive a report from the board of appeals, but the historic

preservation commission did meet yesterday. and they considered the draft environmental impact report and the preservation alternatives associated with 447 battery street. this is a draft that will come before you next week, november 12. they adopted recommendation for approval with modifications as amended directing staff to continue to working on the area boundaries and with the communities on the american-indian cultural district expansion coordinates. finally adopted recommendation for approval as amended for the state mandated accessory dwelling controls that you will be picking up later today. and their one amendment was reference to the review standards and to make sure those were updated to prevent any conflicts with the state controls. if there are no questions, that concludes those reports. we can move on to the 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 items is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your general public comment for matters not on today's agenda by pressing star, then 3. >> hello? >> jonas: yes, go ahead, caller. >> this is jeremie paul. private consultant in san francisco. first of all, congratulations to commissioner tanner. if you're on the same trajectory

as director hillis, it will be a few years at the commission before you move on to directorship. my comment is about proposition h. and the impact on our neighborhood-commercial districts. there is a lot of questions out there in the community. the last thing i would want this simplifying legislation to do is to complicate the lives of people in the neighborhood commercial districts in our small business community. i would encourage planning staff to hold workshops for small businesses and neighborhood commercial districts specifically location by location if possible so that the information on the impacts of prop h can be fully understood. and the resulting, you know, driving consultants like me out

of the need for changes in those communities kind of out of that business entirely, i'd love to see things simplified for those very stressed communities right now. so thank you very much for taking the time. i look forward to seeing prop h fully implemented and the small business communities rebound in this town. thank you. >> linda chapman. for all of the work that hundreds and hundreds of my neighbors did over a period of 25 years. you know, i have a lot of concern, to say the least, about the unnoticed changes that are -- unnotified changes, lack of notice, that are occurring. on the small scale directly across the street from me, certainly within 150 feet, a 7

story building is being built. i would have expected notification under conditional use. i'm told i'm not entitled to it in my district. i didn't receive notice about the variance. not that i would have objected to the variance with the front yard. i prefer that actually. i suggested it in the past as a good solution, but i would have liked to comment on the fact that if you're doing that, the advantage for the pedestrians to go by the dense area to see it through the windows that are being sprefshed in the automobile -- sprefshed. but i had no opportunity to comment, nor the organizer of knob hill, both of whom live by had any kind of notification at all. not even a sign posted. so there is that. and then i discovered that all of nob hill was rezoned, or at

least a large part of it, as tide limits. i was the one that gathered 5,000 signatures for the height limits which were 65 feet. throughout nob hill ultimately. i and other people submitted a series of rezonings. the ultimate outcome was that nothing was going to be built over 65 feet and i think i've already explained the reasons. we'll come back to it. we were going to be completely overwhelmed with high rises. dean makras eventually realized the horrible impacts that were happening even when he thought he could manage the situation by replacement housing. the developers were very happy to build another project to evict all the renters on nob hill and build high-rise

condominiums. suddenly, a building was going up 87 feet i was told in the 65-foot area. the planner who i talked to ensured me the whole area was 65-foot zoned. i knew that. then you approved it. and then over and over e-mails and phone calls and so on to get a zoning map. where are the zoning districts? well, i couldn't get them. they sent me other things or nothing at all. and finally, during the shutdown, i received the zoning map showing that -- [bell ringing] -- were raised to 320 feet in some areas of nob hill. >> jonas: thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia chutetice.

congratulations to commissioner tanner. i sent you an e-mail with a guide to the hearing that you can see on sfgovtv march 26, 2009. i encourage you to watch it if you have time because it was the implementation of the code of implication documents for section 317. there is a three-page pdf attached where the staff person at the time explained what was in the document. and the most -- well it was all very interesting because he explained it very well. as you watched the thing, you could see it or just read what i submitted in the pdf. these are his actual notes. i'm going to read the last

paragraph because i think it's pertinent for today. what he said, we intend to return in a couple of months -- remember, this was march 26, 2009, with a report on the first year of operations, section 317. it had already been effect for a year by this time. and may make recommendations for adjustment of some of the thresholds that the code empowers you to make. particularly about the thresholds for alteration projects that are tantamount to demolitions. thank you, i'm available to answer your questions. and i found that poignant that remark of his, that statement of his, because of the word empowered. you were empowered and you still are empowered and it's something that you can do that you've never done. so i'll just leave it at that.

i think you should watch the hearing because it's really interesting. you're a whole new commission, except commissioner moore was there then. thank you very much and take good care. have a good day. bye. >> hi, can you hear me? >> jonas: yes, we can. >> thank you, this is >> supervisor stefansteph pete. i ask that you postpone the adu ordinance coming down because this is not the time to building more housing, despite what commissioner -- >> jonas: i'm sorry, we're not taking public comment on the adu matter at this time. you can request that continuance when the matter is called. >> thank you. >> jonas: good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastasia, i'm a district 8 tenant and member of the san francisco.

i watched commissioner tanner's hearing at the rules committee and listened carefully. i was encouraged that so many tenants weighed in. and the fact that you, commissioner tanner, extended an invitation it meet and engage with san francisco tenants union. thank you. i did want to mention on the levels, i didn't catch the date that we needed to send in our comment. so if somebody could repeat that for me so i don't have to watch the replay of the hearing, that would be great, thank you. >> just to clarify, november 27 at noon. >> to where?

>> we'll put that information on the website. >> perfect. thank you. i just wanted to mention that the embarcadero study came out with numbers that were different. they said that the numbers had been artificially inflated due to some error. so i think that needs to be noted. thank you. >> good afternoon. welcome, commissioner tanner. this is tess, district 5. i'd like to comment on proposition h and ask that the planning commission take certain steps. first of all, you need to know there is some history. a couple of years ago, oewd proposed legislation to make things easier for small

businesses. which was ejected by 10 of the 11 supervisor districts. and they made a second effort here with prop h to go around the legislative process, to go around the public input process, and put this rather poorly written measure on the ballot. everyone wants to do things to help out small businesses. that's not a problem. but the things that are in and the things that are out and the date, that's still considered. most of our commercial districts have residential units, too. and in prop h, there is a clause that allows backyard activities regardless of whether there are people living above or next to a commercial spot. that seems to me that those

should have been subject to more review. in any case, prop h will be subject to review in three years, so the planning commission should direct planning to keep records on activities that take place under prop h so that we can, in three years, consider its success or if any changes are needed. thank you. >> i wanted to respond to the comments about planning code section 317 protection. first of all, i say that i like the fact that coding 317 protects the destruction of rental housing, however, i don't think that the planning department should expand tantamount to demolition

requirements for renovations. and i would recommend that the hearing on aaron peskin's bill last year for more information about that, because i thought that was a very good hearing where people explained the nonsense that you have to get an inspection, even if you know that there are some studs that are rotten and you're going to have to tear down, you have to get an inspection to prove they're rotten and say that you can -- you'll try to repair them in like kind and that is going to make housing somehow more affordable. instead of expanding tantamount to demolition requirements, if we do expand, i think we should at the very least exclude from tantamount to demolition denominator any walls that were external, but the renovation

would put them inside of the building after the renovation, because you're not really demolishing a house when you expand it. and some of the exterior walls are now inside the house. but tantamount to demolition considers those to be demolished. which greatly expands the number of renovations and expansions and ad u conn instruction that would all in the tantamount to demolition regulation. >> jonas: thank you. members of the public, last call for general public comment. public comment is closed. we can move on the regular calendar. item 9, case number

2020-3248pca, state mandated accessory dwelling unit controls. this is a planning code amendment. ms. flores? >> yes, thank you, commission secretary. good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is the state mandated accessory dwelling unit ordinance introduced by the mayor. today i am joined by natalia, our adu coordinator and preservation planner and peter and andrea from the city attorney's office. after the staff presentation, i will invite the zoning administrator to share a few words regarding the upcoming interpretation as mentioned in the staff report. i'll go ahead and share some slides for you right now. so the goal of this ordinance is

really to align our adu program with recent changes to state law, which clarified the ministerial review for adus. a focus of the ordinance, i think that we are required to do to comply with state law. the department determined this ordinance is not a project because it would not result in any indirect or direct physical changes in the environment. so it is not considered a project for the purposes of ceqa. this determination is posted and available on the board file for this ordinance. the ordinance itself does not approve any adu project, rather implements an adu approved process that is mandate pleaseded by state law. the ordinance also includes

minor amendments to the city's local discretionary approval process, but those amendments are clarification to the city's process. and again would not result in any physical environmental effects. as a reminder, the ministerial review means there is no discretionary action on this adu if it complies with the state law requirements. these are not subject to ceqa review and we cannot review them against design standards. additionally, for changes made last year, state mandated adu have a shortened appeal period. under state law, there are two types of state mandated adu brackets. the first here we're calling this streamlined adu.

they are in existing single family or multiple family dwellings. they can only add one adu. the adu is the most flexible for property owners because there are no requirements for setbacks. the second bucket is the ministerial adu. this applies to existing and proposed single-family dwellings, or to existing multi-family dwellings. this closely resembles our current in that the adu requires planning code clients, such as rear yard and open space. the only exemption is for density. and under this bucket, there is also a new type of adu called

the junior adu. junior adu can convert up to 500 square feet of a single-family dwelling, which requires an efficiency kitchen and may or may not share sanitation facilities with the dwelling. the owner needs to occupy either the junior adu or the primary dwelling. so with the different buckets under state law, keep in mind our local program, a property owner may qualify for more than one type of adu. in that case, they will work with them, but ultimately it will be up to the applicant to decide which type and which path they want to pursue. the ordinance includes a few big picture changes that i want to go over with you today. state law now requires that all permits for the state mandated

adus are issued within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. currently the city has 120 days to act on the complete permits and this now cuts the time in half. i just want to share that starting this meets the planning department online application for all new adu projects. and the planning department has taken on the primary role of accepting and issuing new adu permits in the city. this new online submittal process will also allow streamlining the adu -- [inaudible] the ordinance also amends article 10 and 11 to explicitly say that proposed state mandated adus and individual buildings or districts and articles 10 and 11 are exempt from certificate of appropriateness and permit to

alter review so long as they comply with state law. so this change to article 10, 11, is required by state law, no discretionary mandate is requested. some of the changes outlined in the ordinance clue that related to -- include that related to impact fee. there is impact fee waiver for all state mandated adu that are smaller than 750 square feet and for state mandated proposed properties with three or fewer existing dwellings on the lot. additionally, there would be a reduced impact fee for state mandated adus that are 750 square feet for larger. and this proportion is calculated based by comparing the size of the existing

dwelling unit. the single-family dwelling. or the average size of existing dwellings in a multi-family dwellings. last year there was a 30-day notice requirement added to adu within single-family dwellings with a notice to the tenants of the property. the ordinance would change this requirement to only be required if there is a tenant within the single-family dwelling. and if so, the property owner would either need to complete the screening form if it's applicable or complete a planning or notice. or either the d.b.i. screen form or the planning notice would need to be submitted with the application to be considered complete. this allows tenants to learn

about the proposed adu sooner rather than later and ensures that the 60-day time frame mentioned earlier. in this ordinance, there are two certifications to the local program. these changes are non-substantive and clarify -- the first clarification is related to waivers and clarifying that waivers from the planning code are only granted for adu proposed existing battlegrounds. -- buildings only the density waiver may be granted for the

new construction buildings in the local program. the second clarification under the local program is related to noticing. with last year's change to permit adu in new construction buildings, there was confusion on what was exempt or not. so the changes state that the new construction buildings themselves are subject to neighborhood notification, separate adu permit and it's not subject to neighborhood notification. after we receive the packets, the department did receive e-mails with concerns related to not being able to impose control on state mandated adu and a general comment regarding tenants' rights. the item appeared in front of

the historic preservation commission yesterday. and after discussion, they recommended a modification to -- reference to standards -- i've highlighted the language on page 13 of the draft ordinance here. so please let me know if that part of my screen is not viewable. but the -- [inaudible] -- again is to architectural standards. and this came up because under state law, we can still apply these objective standards to state mandated adus. however, some of the standards that were adopted last year conflict with the new state law requirements. so the ordinance proposes striking reference to such architectural review standards, when in fact it's the standards themselves that should be modified, not the planning code. so h.pc. has proposed

modification and facility to impose the review standard, which again, is permitted under state law. the h.p.c. also directed staff to return to them at a future hearing to clarify and remove any of the standards that conflict with state law. staff approval of the ordinance in front of you today, which focuses on bringing our code and compliance with the recent state law changes. these are all the things we need to do to comply. additionally, when you take action today, you're able to mirror h.p.c.'s recommendation to -- [inaudible] -- on state mandated adu. again, that's the background that i highlighted for you in the draft ordinance. this ordinance also supports the housing elements and also builds on previous efforts to allow more adus. and help adds more and different

types of dwellings to the housing stock. and at this time i want to go ahead and pass it off to the zoning administrator. again, i'm available to answer any questions along with the rest of the adu team that is on the call today. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. we had a brief note in the case pact that i wanted to touch on to give the commission a heads-up. as you know, the zoning administrator is tasked with interpretations of the code, very large and complex. in general, that is done ad hoc, one off basis as needed. my office has been working for some time to collect a fairly large amount of interpretations that are necessary for the code in an effort to release them all instead of ad hoc, instead more

as a larger set. most of them are minor and technical in nature. but some of them -- a lot of them are related to housing in one way or another which is why it's part today of the adu legislation before you. a lot is due to the fact that, especially over the last five years or so, the regulatory framework around housing has evolved and changed so much. whether it's adu program that continues to evolve. the legalization program and so on. so there is a lot more issues that need to be addressed through interpretation. so that will be coming out hopefully by the end of the year. more specifically as called out in the staff report, we will be reevaluating the zoning administrator bulletin number 1 to help make sure it better responds to just the very different regulatory framework that we have today that is very different from when it was

issued in the early '90s. so there is different room to liberalize that to a degree that works under the current framework. and again, this will be released, we're hoping by working toward this release by the end of the year. we'll send you a copy and we wanted to make you aware of that going forward. thank you. >> jonas: if that concludes the presentation, we'll take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this item. each member of the public will be provided two minutes. >> hello, this is stefani peak with land use coalition. in my opinion, it would be unwise to eliminate oversight over these adus. san francisco open space is limited and right now especially we need outside areas to meet

and let us not forget our most important shared responsibility, that is to protect our environment. our porous earth. you may not know for the first time ever this year, california's temperatures reached 130°. unsustainable for humans. this last month -- these last months have been very difficult. but they have given us an opportunity to reflect and reset. please do not let real estate tax streamline a building at the expense of our planet's life. thank you. >> good afternoon. this is bruce bowen. as you consider this resolution and ordinance carefully to ensure that the code changes and the more general language in the resolution do not go beyond the requirements placed upon us by state law. i'm particularly concerned about

the promise or threat that we soon will be seeing proposals on the changes to take advantage of the "ability to be less restrictive than state law and go beyond what is required by state law. and already discussed zoning. this sweeping of zoning provided by recent state laws are perhaps at best a worthy experiment, but given the changes in demographic and economic demand in san francisco, we don't know what the effects will be. we don't want to get ahead of state law. in particular, any streamlining that kneecaps the controls and neighborhoods that we are able to do in san francisco today. thank you. >> good afternoon.

this is jennifer -- oppose this premature -- proposal. i understand that the goal is to not -- but i feel like planning interpretation goes way beyond -- never -- [inaudible] -- planning summary includes poorly defined categories. what is going to be ministerial. it's going to be stream lined. will it have rent control or won't it? even scott wiener supported rent control as a condition to get his legislation passed. the rent board's definition of rent control has been very broad. it applies to two-unit buildings built before 1979 and it doesn't matter whether the second unit was built legally or not. even if the planning map doesn't know that the second unit exists

and what size it is. if a landlord of a single-family home rents that room with separate leases like boarding home situation, the rent board considers those tenants to have rent control and cause for protection against eviction. i'm not sure that planning is acknowledging this. these interpretations need to be acknowledged and better reconciled. eliminating this can violate the just cause rules. you can't take spaces away from existing contracts, that includes garages and storing spaces. the planning in some cases -- [bell ringing] -- that is proposed adu may take space away from the existing volume. does that mean with existing tenants? tenants in single-family homes, 15 years and older, do have just cause protection from eviction. you can't boot them out to build

an adu. is that going to be acknowledged? the ongoing problem is how is the -- [inaudible] -- space since they weren't asking applicants where these places are occupied when the plans were submitted. [bell ringing] what happens if the -- [inaudible] -- area -- >> jonas: thank you. that's your time. >> hello? >> jonas: hello. >> this is francis. i'm an old and infirm gentleman in district 2 and it's interesting, i'm calling pretty much to piggy back on what the previous lady just said. my fellow tenants and i are looking down the barrel of what appears to be an unjust eviction for parking and storage. and we've tried to get organized on this and we're having a heck of a tough time figuring out how

we go about proposing discretionary review and maybe keep our parking. i've been here 42 years. i don't get around well. losing my parking so somebody can make extra few bucks by building adus is upsetting to me. there you go. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is jerry with the san francisco land use coalition. i'm against the proposed legislation because it is not a city-wide solution to expediting the approval of adus. it is unnecessarily narrow departmental solution. there are four departments involved in approving adu. d.b.i., public works, puc and planning and the proposed legislation only deals with planning. the proposed legislation does not force collaboration between d.b.i. and planning.

it perpetuates the two separate silos. if the goal is to streamline the adu approval process, the mayor should adopt the standards of sb1069 which would be much better than the proposed legislation. adopting sb1069 would allow the city to prohibit adus in areas of the city that lack adequate water and sewer services or where adus would have negative impact on traffic flow and public safety. i am also concerned that adus share walls in existing buildings and unlicensed individuals can submit plans for adus under the state planning code. it's a conflict with the city's policy of constructing -- [bell ringing] -- buildings.

the city should outsource adu plan checking to licensed professionals and not have inexperienced planning staff performing plan checks. the proposed legislation is ineffective and the enforcement of unit affordability and the pro-h prohibiti prohibition. the enforcements rules are vague and unfunded. thank you. >> linda chapman. my whole life i've lived in places where there were adus and i certainly favor them in certain circumstances. at 18th and kirkham, where we lived, it was a single-family home with three-story bedroom on top, before we moved it was

turned into an apartment. room down i used as a graduate student. when i lived on mason street in the co-op, we had five rooms we rented out. we had a bathroom and added efficiency. where i live now, which hope to put an adu in the basement where i'm told it could be done. but there is a difference as density which on nob hill we regarded as a good thing, and eliminating open space that is important. you know, for the children or the central block area where you look out. or eliminating the proper notification. if notice is not done by the planning department, i have the impression here that perhaps notification might be done by the property owner? people are not going to get notices. remember lower polk neighborhoods, the nice lady opening the club, the permit expediters, she was required to send 1700 notices by abc as

opposed to your department doing your own notices for the conditional use. she didn't send one. i investigated it. turned it into abc. they didn't care. [bell ringing] later, she violated her conditional use, which i happened to find out about. notification has to be done by the department for sure. ask the state to change the law. the laws that are not good for san francisco. that can be done. you know, either they had unintended consequences or they don't care to do a little set aside for san francisco so we can have workable rules. so, yes for adus, but you know, things like open space, exposure and so on are important. [bell ringing] >> jonas: thank you, ms. chapman.

>> i'd like to second the comments made by jerry. would like you to send this back for further work. you're asked to approve this on the findings of public necessity. well, where is the evidence? just because the state has passed a law, yes, you have to reconcile with that, but where is the public necessity? adus are a good idea, but they are conditions. for example, the original adu legislation in san francisco mandated that these units be placed under rent control. so while they could be charged anything for their initial rent, at least over time, they would become more affordable housing. and calling them affordable is without any restrictions, without rent control or any other restrictions is a joke. so that has to be changed.

and allowing units to be subject to use as airbnb? that is, again, a travesty. it's not a public benefit to have an adu used as an airbnb. we need housing, not airbnb. also, the loose verification of tenant occupancy is another flaw. asking the owner to provide notice to any tenant in place -- [bell ringing] -- allowing that to be notice. that's hardly sufficient. please protect the tenants of san francisco. this needs a lot more work. and should not go beyond what is required by law at this time. thank you. >> yes, hello, commissioners. this is kathrin howard. i oppose this legislation. this legislation, despite what staff said, will result in changes to the environment

because it means the end of inner block open spaces in san francisco. backyards are an important part of our open space. they provide a safe place for children to play and place for families to socialize at all times and especially now during covid. further more, wildlife now depends on open spaces in our cities. they provide habitat for them. by eliminating backyards we're shrinking the territory open to them to forage, nest and raise their young. that tree peeking out behind the building, that will be gone under this legislation. i am concerned because this legislation is also part of a planned attack on the ceqa process in san francisco. developers hate ceqa and are always attacking it. that's to be expected. but i find it disturbing that our city government has decided once again to attack ceqa. i would like to outline the benefit of ceqa and why we should support and not attack it. ceqa sets up an orderly

manageable track that project proponents and residents can follow. it protects public health. the ceqa process has been used to cut climate pollution, reduce air and water pollution and protect open space and habitats. ceqa ensures environmental justice and equity are part of the decision-making process. [bell ringing] it gives san franciscans the opportunity to know what is planned in their communities and weigh in to help reduce health and environmental impacts. and it minimizes court challenges to projects. this legislation really needs a lot of work. it should be rejected for the attack on ceqa and the attack on the much needed habitat and open space. thank you. >> hello. this is anastasia, district 8 senior tenant.

actually the basis for recommendation by the department to support the proposed ordinance, i disagree with it, because it supports the housing elements goes to ensure adequate housing for current and future san franciscans. well, these are not affordable units. these are going to be market-rate units. and in fact, right in the -- it's called the -- your executive summary, it says even if adus are less costly due to smaller square footage, adus are not typically rented at very low or low-income ami levels, so there is still an affordableability issue. this is on the section of racial justice. skipping down to the tenant issue, it says, well, if there has been e -- evictions within

the last 10 years of prior to filing application for the adu, or the tenant was evicted in five years prior to filing the application. now where is our rent ordinance telling people -- i'm just so upset that -- [bell ringing] -- any owner could say, yeah, nobody lived here prior. i never evicted somebody. so there is no validation. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i have been the permit consultant after utilizing illegal dwelling units and

creating new dwelling units, quite often in odd places, in basements. i've been doing that since the late 80s. and i've watched as the policies and legislation have developed and amazed we're finally dispensing with our car-obsessed planning policies. it's about time that we have taken these steps and stop linking a kitchen sink to a parking space. the elimination of the rooms matrix is long overdue. that was created very specifically to prevent people from adding bedrooms or creating new rooms for people to live in in their basements. and the way we live now is very different from the ward cleaver version of american reality that was experienced at the time that was first conceived, never mind

it already being obsolete at the time it was put in place in the early 90s. i have seen that on policy brought into being from my experience, it seems based on a racist and -- [bell ringing] -- perspective on what a family is and what a family is not. i welcome the rooms matrix going away and making it possible for families to live in their homes the way they choose to live in them. with multiple kitchens if they need them. with outdoors separating them from their parents or their children. without security separations. it's time to free the home. and let more people start to live in our neighborhoods. thank you very much.

>> i agree completely with the previous caller. thank you for the adu changes to bring san francisco's law into compliance with the new state laws. i wish we could actually go further and repeal planning code section 207 and move the streamlining sections into a separate part, because frankly, planning code 207, as a are emine der, it's the density units that prohibit you from putting a two unit building in the excelsior. almost my entire life i have lived in undocumented inlaw units in san francisco. if it weren't for those undocumented inlaw units, i would not have been able to grow up in san francisco because of the lack of housing and the fact that adus are the most affordable form of housing. the units are obsolete in 1990

and even more obsolete today. we should just take out the dwelling completely in my opinion. not just commenting on zoning administrator cory teague mentioned about that one. i agree it's obsolete. the roomsdown policy was to trying to prevent adus. now that the state and the city have made 180° turn on the issues, there is no need to prohibit rooms. we should encourage homeowners to make adus. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. calling in opposition to this

new adu ordinance. and i am absolutely disappointed that at a time we are facing evictions, we're facing people that are having a hard time paying their mortgage, mayor breed, instead, is introducing a legislation, introducing an ordinance that is absolutely insensitive to the plight of the people in san francisco. what is the rush to adopt a state law that was passed before the pandemic changed everything? why the rush to streamline approval process at the cost of removing the neighborhoods' voice? and at the cost of screwing over the tenants? these spaces for the most part are leased to tenants on a legal contract. you can't just take them away because the planning decides to run a process, so-called streamline the process. plus, at a time that the

construction has slowed down, as evidenced by what director hillis stated a few weeks ago. $19 million budget shortfall. that's 42% of the planning department budget that the department is short. so why the rush to do this? commissioners, here's my question for you. why don't you ask the staff -- has adopted this? another question. wouldn't this adu in the backyard have impact on the yard averaging? i encourage you to look at the planning code from section 134c to see how the interpretation from 1986 would allow yard averaging of a legal residence in the backyard so that neighbor next door could actually even build further into the backyard. why is it at a time that our only -- [bell ringing] -- backyard, safe space, is -- why

is it that the -- [bell ringing] rent control status is being denied. a city with -- >> thank you, that's your time. >> hi. good afternoon. i was glad the staff report noted about the mid lock open space and the issue there. i think your staff has done a report where the greatest source of tree canopy in the city is the private open space. cumulatively, the mid block open space, that's the greatest source of tree canopy. and that's our lungs, hypothetically, of the city. and we've already seen a lot of that lost in noe valley where they turned the backyard into

nothing more than cement bunkers. i guess that's my issue with this legislation. it doesn't distinguish between somebody who wants to build a place for their mom or dad or their kids or an aunt, versus a speculator. and the whole issue with the kitchens is very, very important. because we're already seeing -- and this has come up a lot with the second units, the legal second units, non-adus, where they don't have real kitchens. they have wine refrigerators. and they pass mustard with d.b.i. so when he said that, he was spot on about there is no coordination with d.b.i. and you. it happened last night in the board of appeals as well. it happened across the street as well from me. that's that. i think you should look at 653 28th street which you put an adu

before, back in 2017. it's still not done. the adu is not in there yet. it's basically below ground. the house that was there could have easily had an adu in the garage and been expanded a little bit and kept the backyard. so one more thing i want to say, i know people don't like cars, but some people still need their cars -- [bell ringing] -- keep the curb cut and let people park in their driveway. they can do that now anyway. you're not giving up anything to the public by doing that. think about the trees and the importance of the backyard. i'm done. thank you, goodbye. thank you, too. >> good afternoon, this is sara ogleby, a renter in the mission district. i would like to speak in support of the state mandated accessory dwelling unit control. i would like to affirm the

comments of mr. randolph and the caller before him i. i think it's time to completely revisit the use of the space in san francisco, especially considering our up coming housing element. state mandated things are happening because we haven't built enough homes. so we need to really take a look at these opportunities to do so. if we're going to question this type of legislation, other legislation should be forth coming in the next four years that will definitely up-zone parts of san francisco. and so this is an important first step. i think that the planning commission has done their diligence. and they have made findings consistent with the general

plan. and the eight priority policies of the planning code. so, again, i urge you to approve the recommendation and support this legislation in san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is letisha young. i'm a homeowner in san francisco. and i am also a real estate investor in san francisco. however, i am calling today to oppose the planning commission's adoption of this ordinance for a number of reasons. first of all, the ordinance misstates the government code section 65852.2, which is the most recent adu legislation. it says that ministerial actions are not subject to ceqa. the statement is absolutely untrue. the latest government code does not mention ceqa at all, much less say that reviews are not subject to ceqa.

that is an untrue statement. the second issue, this ordinance ignores that many physical changes to the environment may happen and this does in fact require the ministerial actions to be considereds a project. -- as a project. by allowing this to move forward, there could be significant environmental impact. there could be a direct impact on the biodiversity for plants and animals that depend on urban space to survive, impact the open space by reducing the quantity of the space and impact the air quality which we struggle with so much these days. these are just a few of the very long list of very potential important effects. the last thing i would say, is that the planning department staff failed to provide a copy of its ceqa determination -- [bell ringing] -- attached to the ordinance.

this determine nation and its reasons must be provided for public review and comment. we don't know what the activity is being provided by ceqa, who exempted it and for what legal reason. >> great, thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. if you wish to submit your testimony, please press star and 3 to enter the queue. commissioners, i have no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. public comment is now closed. the matter is now before you. i understand that city attorney -- there he is. >> this is deputy city attorney. can you hear me? >> jonas: we can, yes. >> thank you.

planning staff just asked me to weigh in here. i wanted to confirm a few things. for the commission's benefit. the first is that with exception -- the exception of the minor clarifying amendments to the city's local discretionary program, this ordinance is necessary to bring our local controls into compliance are recent amendments of state law. those amendments do require the city to ministerially approve projects that meet certain requirements and do restrict -- further restrict the city's discretion to impose certain planning code standards on certain adu projects. once that is indeed the case. ms. flores was accurate in the description of the need for the ordinance. i want to touch on the ceqa determination and mention that determination was available -- or is available on the board's website in the board file. and it's also cited in the ordinance itself. thank you.

>> while i'm waiting other commissioners, i wanted to say i'm in favor of what is in front of us today, seeing that based on city attorney's advice, this is just bringing us into compliance with state law. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question for either our staff or the city attorney representative who just spoke. the one change that was being proposed by the preservation commission, does that conform to the state ordinance? >> thank you, commissioner fung. i know that probably was a little confusing, so thank you for allowing me the time to

explain a little further. the ordinance as written currently removes the -- to the architectural standard that the historic preservation commission adopted last year. so that striking of the language is not required by state law. we do have the ability under state law to impose those objective architectural standards which is something that the h.p.c. wanted to continue to do so. so part of the effort will be for the standards themselves to be modified at a later date. and in the interim, we will -- we will impose those standards that do comply with the state law. so the -- there is a slight change in the -- that part of section 207. again, striking it is not required by state law, but we want to be able to retain that

authority. >> commissioner fung: and the review standards, architectural review standards portion of it, it would be not be a certificate of appropriateness then? >> so the state mandated adu, we do not have the ability to have any discretionary action, including things like certificates of appropriateness, which are inherently discretionary. so only those under adus under our local program would be subject to the certificate of appropriateness if they do not meet the minor -- report that are outlined in the delegation agreement. in the h.p.c. allegation agreement. i see on the video here, if she has anything else to add, i'd like to invite her to speak.

>> thank you. planning department staff. veronica is correct. so state law seeks permit and takes away the discretion of the process of the -- [inaudible] -- article 10 or 11 property. that is mainly for adus added for state law. our local program still remains used more widely and adus added to 10 or 11 properties will still have to go through the process of certificate of appropriateness. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i have a couple of questions. thank you, ms. flores, for the presentation. can you tell me about -- i heard a lot of folks talking about rent control. can you help me understand why the rent control cannot be applied to the state mandated

adus? is it something specific in the statute or considered a discretionary action? why can we not impose rent control on those units? >> sure, thank you, commissioner tanner. so with respect to the rent control question or rent control concern. state mandated adus do not receive any waivers. only those adus that are pursued under our local program are granted waivers. so in exchange for granting these waivers, that is the time, the only time when the city is able to enter into the agreement to be able to impose rent control. so again, that is outside of what we're talking about today. and i know it's a big question. and it does come up often. that is the high-level explanation. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> the and there's been local and state law standards. we'll have to do more research on the impact of the later state law changes on a.d.u.s in the process. >> thank you. sorry, commissioners i will keep going through the rent control topic. when it comes to the monitoring of rent control units how is the department monitoring those and what is the information and data gathered around the rents or other things related to rent control or a.d.u.s?

>> a.d.u.s are monitored as part of our housing inventory. we do subject a.d.u.s through the rent control agreement and [indiscernible]. >> are we monitoring and getting information about this affordability of the units and wondering if we're able to monitor and how much they're paying for rent or here's the number of permits issued. we don't know how much they're being rented for? >> the data we have available how many a.d.u.s have been built subject to rent control. to date about 380 units have

been built and 281 are subject to rent control. our local programs still the program primarily for a.d.u.s and certain cases it offers more opportunities as well as [indiscernible]. does that answer your question? >> >> commissioner: that does, thank you. so curious to see that for detached a.d.u.s space up to 1200 square feet is that correct? it could be in the rear yard, for example. is that correct? >> the detached a.d.u. could be in the rear yard. >> anywhere on the lot which

requires four-foot setback from the property line. >> commissioner: why not have the maximum size for the a.d.u.'s be 800 square feet? my understanding is 800 or 850 is what's required by state law to be approved. it seems if we do want to retain the open space pattern at least as much as we can trying to streamline the size of the a.d.u.s would go further and folks that want to go bigger would have to use the local program and have more exchange. i don't want to reduce the a.d.u.s constructed by any means to having them conform more to our code and design is better and in line with policies. why would allow a 1200 square foot a.d.u. to be approved. >> under the program that square

footage is 800 square feet. >> commissioner: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. those were really good questions regarding the rent control. i think my one big issue on the ordinance is not be subject to rent control and how will this impact the existing tenants. here there's wait on the city attorney on waiting on the ordinance. i do have a question when it

comes to affordability. how are we going to ensure that these a.d.u. are also meeting goals for san francisco? >> these are what should be discussed and have analysis. a.d.u.s are 20% cheaper than

market rate. and another question i have is in 8068 which i believe the ordinance cited, it does look into the factor at the traffic, sewage, parking. how are we and maybe this is a question for our administrators, how are we going to designate areas that the local agency can designate areas with different factors? i how are we going and if we're complying with state law, how are we going to regulate the a.d.u.s that need to look at

other aspects? >> thank you, commissioner imperial. regarding the first comment on the goals, i do want to say that the department has been working on the next set of the housing element and we'll touch base and have more information for you regarding the a.d.u. and how it all relates and director hillis has also joined us and don't know if they want to comment on this matter. >> commissioner, you both raised issues about data selection and look at how the a.d.u.s we've produced under the past ordinances and potentially under the state's rules, who's living

in them and what the rents are and there's discussion about these being generally more affordable but we recognize these are market rates generally but i think as part of our housing element we can dig deeper into that question about rents and who is living in these units and try to get out that question because it's an important one. i think it would be important for us as we consider future policy discussions around a.d.u.s. >> we don't have that data. >> another thing too is when it comes to -- i bring up the issue of ceqa.

ceqa still exists and [indiscernible] how are we not -- how is this ordinance -- are we in compliance or not in compliance with ceqa at this point? >> thank you, again, commissioner imperial? >> again, the state mandated a.d.u. permit, these are ministerial permits and not subject to ceqas. that's a high-level response for you and i did want to get our ci city attorneys available for the more technical details for you today. >> city attorney yang did you want to hand that will question? >> sure. so the issue before the

commission today is the ceqa analysis for the legislative code and these are changes to the process in which a.d.u.s are considered and staff made a determination put in the board file and available to the public. but they followed the procedured required. >> i'm looking at a multi-family

building and i think of different scenarios as well. and what will take in the input of the community and another thing for me as well is how it will impact the open space in the city? this is something we don't have analysis on as well. i'm wondering if these are things that we have right now is it going over to the state law that -- and i believe it's cited different laws 8068 seems to be the most -- and i wish it was in our packet as well which state laws i believe 88 1, 8086 it

would be good to have that citation in our packets and how it will impact our open space. >> regarding the comments on which the bills cited ab8068, abf1 and apologies if that was not stated in the staff report for you but i'd like to confirm that again for you right now and with respect to the question regarding the open space, this is an area where there's an expansion on types of a.d.u.s we'll be seeing and where they'll be located on the

property. >> mm-hmm. >> as explained earlier under the streamlined a.d.u.s is the ability to add a detached a.d.u. up to 1200 square feet in the rear yard of the property so long as it has the four-foot setbacks. we recognize this is going to have an impact on the open space however, with the size and height restriction we feel that there's still a balance there and again i did highlight if we come into conflict with the concerns you, as the commission have, such as the issues brought up but i want to emphasize the ordinance and this

type of a.d.u. and detached streamline a.d.u. example we'd like to have you approve. >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: thank you. i think we share many of the same questions and i'd like to thank the public for having added a significant amount of questions to the discussion which make me think we may need more time and work and there's been criticism on the acknowledgement and you mentioned yourself the complete absence of knowledge which state legislations being used here is very difficult for both of us who are not [indiscernible] day in and day out hovering over state legislation for myself i say i

do not. i periodically follow things and follow 8068 particularly the change to rent control and protections of rent control. i found that issue as being part of the city's dna and for the protection and expansion of rent controls basically with this particular a.d.u. i think the concerns expressed about open space are the once significantly shared if we're having open space ajace edjacen multi-unit apartment building the open space is for the tenants who live in the building and follows the criteria for necessary open space and would be greatly diminished.

by adding an a.d.u. up to 1200 square feet in that open space we're diminishing the open space for those who live in the building i consider that as a reduction of quality of life not to talk about the usability of open space with an independent structure there. i appreciate your attempt of putting more to this ordinance by saying it needs four feet here and there. i think that is a circumstantial thing and i do have problems with all reviews being category automatically exempted

[indiscernible] we received letters from the public on the ceqa's determination and this is only in your presentation i understand was filed and a do not research the supervisor's backgrounds and would appreciate that would be acknowledged as missing because it needs to be there. i'll take one more moment here. in your motion under findings and under compliance and the general plan i'm reading into the record housing elements

objective 1.5, identifying making available for development at thecyte -- at the cite to make permanently affordable housing. that's not being addressed you were describing today and policy 1.5 the secondary unit with support and can be achieved the housing was made permanently affordable to households and the support requires review and participation and we are not talking about permanently affordable to lower-income households. i believe that particular

statement policy 1.5 is a contradiction to saying racial equity because i find that essential for us to know what we're voting on and that particular element makes me feel uncomfortable. thank you. >> commissioner chen. >> commissioner: thank you fole -- fellow commissioners by your questions. i'm encouraged about collecting more data on the a.d.u.s built so far and the affordability levels they're currently offered at and i want to thank for clarifying and responding to specifically 8068 and sb13. and for me i'm wondering how the department operates under the state mandates insect with other state laws ab671 which requires

governments to have an element to promote the creation of a.d.u.s offered for low to moderate income households. it seems we should be talking about the state requirement with the whole package of mandates. i feel what's getting lost in the discussion right now and i'm not hearing very much about is how we're coming up with a plan to make sure a.d.u.s will be affordable for low and middle-income households. i'm interested in supervisor mar's pilot program and hearing the outcome because i think it acknowledges correctly that not everyone is equally able to participate in the program. a.d.u.s require a certain amount of capital and know-how and people come to the development table with different levels of

experience and particularly lower-income households lack resources and we have a.d.u. developers who are not always incentivized to make it affordable to lower-income households. i think having the state mandated a.d.u.s are not going to create the affordable a.d.u.s in the housing element and policy 1.5 as commissioner moore mentioned. i want to see the department get ahead of the curve and to think creatively and intentionally on what such a plan looks like and that may be coming up with a plan on incentives or outreach programs that really aim to get at those outcomes. i think is a good example is the programs. it's also been cleared and having a program alone doesn't mean equal access. the department has also been agile and show that it can come together to provide resources

and support so that program can be equitable. so i think the a.d.u. program isn't just looking at building the number of units alone, it's understanding the equity barriers. i think that's a particular problem and i think we can have a plan to make sure that we're not just building a.d.u.s but creating a.d.u.s as affordable rental housing for lower-income households which we need to be doing any way as part of the a.d.u. 671. like the other commissioners, i do think there's some missing pieces in the staff report and i think in particular i would really want to see for example an audit of a.d.u.s proved to date and having the information in support of the supervisors will be useful to have the commissioner before them i think

is the ordinance and in particular i think the questions are how many of those a.d.u.s are at rates that are affordable to low and moderate household incomes and under the new program what is the potential loss of rent controlled units and i think overall how's it help us to understand how many a.d.u.s create under the state laws will allow us to mandate for affordable rental housing at low and moderate income households. >> commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: one clarifying question for staff and then a question for the city attorney. for staff, i'm a little confused by the impact of the streamlined a.d.u.s on mid block open space. i've been reading the summary correct correct correctly so long as you meet

the four-foot setbacks you can have a detached a.d.u. of 1200 square feet we can say for argument's sake is 30x4 and many are on lots 30 feet wide. are you saying we could have detached a.d.u.s that essentially fill the backwards? -- backyards? >> state law requires we meet the four-foot setback and requires 60 foot in height limits and the square footage of 1200 square feet. we would violate state law. i want to clarify or the

ministerial state law the detached a.d.u.s would have to be within the buildable area and would have to meet the code requirements. >> commissioner: i'm not concerned about the ministerial ones but extremely concerned about the streamlined ones because the state law seems like it didn't allow for -- it didn't distinguish between the areas like in san francisco and larger lots that exist in the state and the 1200 square foot size could eliminate our back yards or our neighbor's back yards which is an area of extreme concern to me with regard to open space and it strikes me if the city is going to consider lobbying the state at all about changes, that is one that we might want to take into account because of the extraordinary impact it has in dense urban areas.

just a point for your consideration. you do have a question for the city attorney which is a number of the points that were raised by my fellow commissioners were all excellent points but what happens if we don't adopt the ordinance? what is the im -- tell me what the state of affairs is if we don't adopt the ordinance given it's a state requirement? >> commissioner diamond, the state of affairs is essentially the current state of affairs. the state laws took effect january 1 of this year and the city has already required to approve a.d.u.s pursuant to the state law ministerial approval requirements. whether the ordinance pass or not, the city will be required to apply those ministerial standards and not only those ministerial standards to a.d.u. permit applications. >> commissioner: and the

ordinance and therefore adopting the ordinance does what? helps us create a smoother process for implementing what's been otherwise is going to exist even if we don't adopt the ordinance? >> city attorney: i think there's a number of reasons why the ordinance should be adopted. to the community and public is probably the primary one. our local code should be accurate and reflect the requirements and apply that to s throughout the city. it's important for our code to keep pace with changes in state law that require it it to change. it does also allow the city to be very clear about how the state law requirements interact or relate to other provisions of local codes and so making those connections and cross references is important as well. >>

>> commissioner: okay. thank you for that clarification. while i agree with my fellow commissioners there are many areas unclear and where additional data would be helpful and areas where data might lead to legislative changes and i like commissioner koppel would support the ordinance at this time but i would like us to pursueyy the data request other commissioners and will be helpful in understanding the impact of state law and what changes we might want to pursue with the state.

>> there's things like rent control, mid block and open space and others like affordability we're having to implement this within our code nort and informing local ordinances.

def >> we are already required to implement the law. you can already put a 1200 square foot a.d.u. in your back yard. we don't know how many people will avail themselves to it but wewe do know the attached a.d.u.s are more affordable and with a detached a.d.u. you have to run a separate sewer lines and barriers to constructing a detached a.d.u. so whether a lot of people take advantage of it or not, the

a.d.u. is always stated in our case report for the ceqa determination. we don't ever include a ceqa determination in the actual form e.p. sends out to the board because it's an extra added piece of paper. we just say what the ceqa determination is. it is in your packet. i'm not sure what the confusion is it. those are clarifying points i wanted to make. thanks. >> thank you, mr. stark. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. thank you for that information about the constructability of the detached a.d.u.s. it does give hope the other pathways are achievable and building on the idea, i wonder and maybe this is a question for you, mr. hillis, what do we have

to incentivize people to take the other programs or c waivers the report mentioned as 750 square feet there are no impact fees and there are proportional fees. that may be an encouragement for 750 square feet a.d.u. i wonder if we did develop another fee waiver could we implement rent control for those with the fee waiver program or restrictions such as not having a 1200 square foot detached a.d.u. and talking about fees may not be looking at fees and thinking about incentive around how can we make other programs

more attractive and also more equitable and accessible for folks to build a.d.u.s? >> maybe the city attorney can chime in. what the fees are for locally controlled a.d.u.s. i agree with you the incentive is you can build an a.d.u. under the state laws will be to take or do it under the state law because it's ministerial and not required to do some things for the local ordinance. i think it's a fair point. i think one we can look in to. i think there's currently the fees are relatively low on our current locally controlled a.d.u.s but maybe someone can look in to that.

>> i'll respond on the legal question whether there's an opportunity to pursue fee waivers and exceptions under costa hawksin. i don't have an a -- hawkins. i think fee waiver was sufficient in utilizing the exception to coste hawkins and we need to make sure there's represent control. >> does anyone know what the freeze we currently charge for a.d.u.s? i'm thinking about the barriers to constructing them we can

alleviate a path to allay some fears we've discussed in the commission. >> a.d.u.s are subject to the standard building application fee. so those are pretty standard across the board. it depends on the cost of construction. certain a.d.u.s are smaller and up to code. we pulled data to understand the impact fee. it's pretty minor. a.d.u.s are added in neighborhoods that don't have specific impact fees. on average the only fee triggered depending on childcare or residential fee and it was around $600 per application.

and then in regards to your first part of question about incentivizing the program. a local program allows more opportunities for a.d.u.s and many cases an unlimited number of a.d.u.s may be created and usually an incentive for property owners. in some cases the applicants are able to also partner with the mandatory program to allow a.d.u.s. >> commissioner: id -- it seems the fees could be high or low and not forward to -- appropriate to put forward a fee waiver at the time but maybe once we recover from the economic downturn as an incentive or opportunity to

supply low and moderate income home owners and decrease building fees to help improve our racial and social equity goals. if we can look at that over the next year or two, i think that -- it's suggested in the staff report but there's questions as operating some type of program like that would need to be considered and i don't think would be appropriate to put in this ordinance at this time but something i'd like to see. and on a totally different topic, interior connects between attached a.d.u.s are they allowed or prohibited? there's an ordinance about needing exterior or independent entrances. there's also concerns when it's not an a.d.u. which may show rest rooms and it may have an expanded home which may be fine or whatever but it's not

achieving our goals for more housing units. are there prohibitions around shared entries or interior entries and access from the main unit and if not can we add those to have more assurance or at least try to have more assurance to have an independent living unit that is not just an extension of an existing home. >> because a.d.u.s are a type of dwelling unit, they do require to be physically independent. that's always how the a.d.u.s have been constructed. now because of the new type of a.d.u., which we refer to as a junior a.d.u. is the only one that allows for an interior connection. and state law requires a separate entry. these are always functioned as separate and distinct living spaces. >> thank you. that's my questions. >> commissioner moore.

>> the questions that i still have are partially answered and i will bid my time to the commission. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. just one more question because i saw that in this ordinance that an existing tenant in an a.d.u. they'll be given a 15-day notice. what is the basis on that and the notice and is there state compliance for providing a notice for a tenant? >> thank you, commissioner. state law does not have a

noticing requirement. the proposed changes to the noticing as part of our ordinance refer back to the department of living instruction screening forms which has been in effect for quite some time. that requires the property owners to post a notice for 15 calendar days if there's a removal of housing services and affected tenant. the proposed legislation requires if there are tenant in these situations the property owner post before submitting to give heads up to the applicants applicants applicantses-applicants or tenants. >> this was in the legislation? >> the addition of a.d.u. was not normally noticed unless it's part of an expansion and the expansion is what triggers it under the planning code.

>> if i can clarify one thing, i'm not sure if i was clear. the screening form does apply to all a.d.u.s being added so regardless if it's a local program or state-mandated program, that form must be completed by the applicant if there's a lack of housing services or affected tenant. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner: the question before us is not whether we like this particular ordinance or the things that will change within the code, there are some things that i'm not in agreement with in terms of the ordinance.

however whether we adopt this or not, the requirement is still there from the state. i would be supportive of at least at this point in time creating a conformance with the state codes. i would request those with the state legislators there needs to be some changes for dense urban settings such as san francisco. >> did you have comments? >> yes, thank you.

>> we heard your request to have our data on the a.d.u. and staff is able to gather the data requested but i did want to emphasize once it's enacted. we don't the how many a.d.u.s will pursue the law under the program. that's ultimately up to the owner on which they qualify for and two if they qualify for more than one program it's really about what are their goals for

the a.d.u. if any of those cater more to their goals. in looking at the data it's not fully telling of what the future will look like for a.d.u.s. that's one commented i wanted to reiterate for you today. as commissioner fung point the out what is required under state law and a want to emphasize that state laws don't allow us to be less restrictive and to that means we can go in and have some more flexibility than what the state law man dates. we're not looking -- mandates. we're not looking into those aspects but we can do so in the future. the focus is to bring up to

compliance under state law the three bills under affect as of january 1 this year. >> that's an overall comment i want to reiterate to you and we'll look more into the questions and comments or others offered in the department. lastly, as a reminder, h.p.c. did recommend keeping the preference to the standards which is currently in the draft ordinance. in your action you have the ability to mirror this recommendation if you'd like and is appropriate and would allow us to impose the standards which are consistent with state law.

>> commissioner moore. >> commissioner: it's not one size fits all legislation. as outlined it flies in the face of the type of dwelling units we're talking about and that's

where state legislature is [indiscernible] with the plans of stran francisco and i'm obligated to bring that into the record and consider and i do share the other commissioner's concerns about [indiscernible] and until we have clarification i'm not able to support it particularly as outlined there may be certain things coming to us in the future. that is not enough. this is a major shift in general city policy with particular aspects unclear i would have to know more about it to support it and i like the idea of a.d.u.s.

[indiscernible] and i would not be prepared to support what's in front of me today and willing to entertain a robust conversation on refinements. >> do i dare ask any commissioner make a motion?

okay, i'll wait. >> commissioner: i'm prepared we move to adopt the ordinance with the amendment proposed by the preservation commission that applies to landmarks and landmark districts. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. just to clarify, the standards

the standards from the ordinance of the historic preservation commission. on that motion to approve this ordinance with the amendment to include a reference to the review standards. [roll call] . so moved commissioners it passes 5-2 with commissioner imperial and moore voting against. that would place us on item 10 for case number 2020-005123cua. is staff prepared no make the presentation? >> yes.

good afternoon, commissioners. before you is a commissioner use authorization pursuant to section 303, 303.1, 703.4 and 745 to allow for a general retail sales and service retail use within the mission street zoning district. the proposed project would authorize a general retail sales and service for retail use in a vacant ground floor tenant space. the tenant space was previously occupied. with no expansion of the

existing building. the project site is located in the latino cultural district. it recognizes the contributions of the latino communities to surrounding neighborhood and san francisco as a whole but does not present any land use controls. within the 300 foot radius of the project site, six of the approximately 29 commercial storefront on the frowned floor have retail -- ground floor have retail uses. if approved it will increase the concentration of retail from 21 to 24%. for many retail store fronts will increase from 36% to 38%. for the section of the code without concentration limits or set maximums for retail use. the project sponsor conducted a pre-application meeting.

to date the department has received six letters of support and none in opposition. it's on activate vacant score -- storefront and wallbeds n more as tenants and they have held outreach meetings. in a zoom meeting representatives asked how the location was chosen and how the business will benefit local residents and what job opportunities are available. concerns were raised about the furnishing being too expensive and the project sponsor discussed lower-cost items as well as financing options and making products more affordable also. the department finds the project is unbalanced, consistent with

the intent of the zoning district and the mission area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will activate a vacant storefront and provide home furnishing tailored towards smaller-sized apartments like the san francisco housing stock and they find it necessary, desirable and compatible with needs. this concludes the staff presentation. the project sproerns -- sponsor is here and i'll be ready to answer any questions. thank you. >> i commend staff for after the

a.d.u. discussion we have a very simple solution to making good use of the existing structure without having to go through legislation or permits. so having a wallbed you can turn a one-bedroom into a two-bedroom or a bedroom into an office. this is a great product for dense urban settings. also what is noteworthy is this is [indiscernible] for those who have encouraged brick and mortar buildings and it's important space saving which is important

for land use with our housing crisis. the location is also extremely beneficial. this is a vacant space. vacant for two years. it's in the middle of [indiscernible] so very prominent in terms of the district because it's relatively-y furniture it happens to have the benefit of a yellow zone right next door.

and it's protected from traffic on the street. there was community outreach on this and we found nothing but positively, as you can imagine given what this is. the operator is available. basically they want to integrate in the community. they want as much bilingual staff and involved in groups and also we have inclined for all the beautiful art behind there and wants to display art and is

working with local artists. i can't think of a better fit and there's only 12 of these in the entire world and a few in texas and washington. i'm available if you have any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you, that concludes project sponsor presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, you'll have two minutes. >> caller: hi, this is ryan mots with the mission merchants association. we first met the project sponsor

we wanted to understand how wallbeds and more would benefit the mission district and how it could serve an area where high-end and expensive furniture is not needed. we learned wallbeds and more as a lot of affordable solutions and can benefit the mission by offering affordable solution for tight spaces in the area are space is very scarce. it was noted that that area in the building has been vacant for two years and currently vacancies seem to be higher than i've seen in recent history. after learning the intended use and what was need from the constituents and serving the district we unanimously put it

to support for this project we think it's a good addition and needed addition to the mission district. thank you very much. >> members of the public, last call for public comment if you wish to submit your testimony regarding this matter press star 3 to enter the queue. i see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

commissioner chan. >> commissioner: when do you think you'll open if approved for conditional use, when would the store be open for business? >> well, i think the first thing since i've done a lot of permitting i think we can [indiscernible] the way this works -- >> commissioner: i don't need the process but i want a sense if the store will open later 2021, early 2021? >> 2021 and there's an appeal period after that we have to wait and for any restrictions to come and the property owner has to execute that and then goes to the recorder's office and then

it's recorded and to the architect and [indiscernible] upon that approval the owner can offer building permits as well as cite -- site permits. it will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] it's ait will t commissioner. [indiscernible] it's a -- site . it will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] it's asite perm. it will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] it's apermits. it will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] it's a perfect location. >> commissioner: okay. can the project sponsor speak to how many employees would run the store and what skills they would need. >> [indiscernible] these are operational questions she could answer.

there's obviously employees on the floor for the sales and there's insulation and [indiscernible]. additional services in the san francisco market. >> commissioner: i know your reference is on the [indiscernible] by accident? one of my questions i was trying to understand the real benefits to community. one getting a sense of what's opening and there's a pandemic and timing for the store to be successful and who will be employed because that's a benefit and i want to know more about that benefit and lastly is about the operations in terms delivery of these. we all experiences park in front of the shops and the furniture is big.

you need a truck and need to move it around and are you offering delivery services? . would that be something that's needed in the area having a loading zone so that either the guest or customers or the delivery trucks have an opportunity to safely get the furniture and take it to the location where it's being delivered. you may not know the answer to that question. >> the parking i can speak to is on the 2600 block of main street 22nd and 23nd and next to the grand theatre. there's a yellow commercial strip which is perfect for the business. in terms of the passenger [indiscernible] i don't know if you're family with this area.

from the 21st to 22nd it's a block away from the public parking block. they can come in and buy a box spring and there's a range of product which is are affordable and there's neat stuff and i believe and you can have a bed in the evening and dining table in the daytime.

and in terms of bilingual folks -- >> thank you. that's a great location for this type of use. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. for the project sponsor because the packet didn't say what you had or the things that are going community especially the ones here can you elaborate again the discussion you've had with the community and the one thing that i ask about bilingual staff being there and can you

elaborate and there's some echoing as well so we can hear in the record what has been discussed. >> if i can interject, i don't flow if you're computer speaker's on or have volume turned on but there is a significant echo coming. i'll try to annunciate better. we have smaller ones than those built here and qua i've seen is sales people somebody coming in

and during covid i understand they've been making appointments. it's not like going to ikea or something like that. it's much more personal. [indiscernible] you can't get convertible sofas and what not

we have special events it's good for business and the project sponsor said they'd work with the merchants association to do special event marketing which is very important to have merchants. i mentioned about working with the local artists and giving them a place to display and sell their art. it's at the price point you talk about and the merchants are favorably inclined towards open store fronts. people are able to look in and

walk in it's what you want to have. and they want to give equal opportunity to do that. there's concessions with the neighborhood groups. >> it's good to see you reach out in the cultural district and though having that effort to reach out and incorporating them we know the best is the

community where you're doing your service. >> commissioner moore. you're muted. >> commissioner: i have a question for you. the furniture that's being sold in this particular store is this a show room and is it put together and to what you mentioned or is all furniture directly sold from the store to the buyer? >> it's mostly a show room. it's too heavy to tuck under your arm and walk out the froont

door with and the installation of it, you should know what you're doing. you want that secured against the wall. >> i think it makes a more interesting store when people can look at their own fabric and see what they want. that's a great idea. any other stuff you listed with the community informalized and in the memorandum of understanding or have an ongoing evolving formalized and in the memorandum of understanding or have an ongoing evolving relationship? >> we have an m.o.u. and signed it and dated and signed over to the c.e.o. so you have adoption commissioner moore. >> commissioner: thank you for

saying that because obviously we like to hear active community engage the and like it and we have ongoing productive relationships and i appreciate you explaining that and i'm prepared to make a motion to approve the project. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner: motion has already been made. >> in that case commissioners, if there's no further deliberation we should take one more public comment that came up. >> commissioner: go ahead. >> go ahead, caller. >> caller: this is peter popo p

popodoplous. i had trouble getting in. we were kept in the loop and i like what i'm hearing and the details from local artists and bilingual staff and space for local artists is i premium right now and lastly making sure making sure there's an greeme greement -- an agreement to make sure there's affordable items because wallbeds and mohr can -- more can be a pricier shop and make sure people can buy things for well under $1,000 and we

always find items and we appreciate that and thank you for your work on this and thank you for digging into this a little bit and giving me a minute to log in. thank you. >> that will conclude the public comment and there's a motion to approve. [roll call] >> so moved commissioners that

motion passes unanimously. 7-0. the final item on today's agenda, item 11, 2020-006148cua. a conditional use authorization. staff are you prepared. >> yes. the item before you is a list for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 202. 303 and 739 to establish a 1,455 square foot cannabis unit. the project also includes a rear addition to the structure including construction of a new second-floor deck at the rear of the building for the residential unit and replacement of the

stairs leading from the rear yard up to the residential unit. they originally requested approval of the rear yard hands been moved the department indicated a request may not be afforded to the residential unit. the project was found to meet the rule as the finding section 202.2 and that it's more than 600 feet from any school, public or private, and any other cannabis storefront including medical cannabis dispensaries. the project applicant was found to meet equity requirements at the office of cannabis. the project does not include request for authorization an on site smoking or vaporizing room and the packet is to prohibit smoking or vaping of cannabis product including in the rear yard. permits only allow for the

consumption of edibles an topical cannabis products. the department received one letter in support and five in opposition including one from a residential tenant that resides in the subject building. the letter in support is for the operator and business model and using a vacant storefront in an area with a significant amount of vacancies and the letter of opposition generallicyte genera cited the neighborhood was not in need of additional locations and letter was receive about the proposed retailer and that as part of the project there was an attempt to vacavacate tenancy a

access to the unit and approved under the project scope. the sponsor is no longer pursuing eviction of the tenants and contact the tenant directly on multiple occasion to follow-up and see what has occurred since that last letter that was issued october 9 but unfortunately we have not been able to receive any response from the tenant. the project sponsor may proved additional information about the issue during their presentation. the department has received an additional 25 letters in support of the application citing support for a new cannabis retailer in the neighborhood. as the project meets the requirement of the planning code and policies of the general plan, furthering the city's equity goal and provides a

retail asset contributing to the breaking news of the uses within the -- balance of the uses in the city the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions and the sponsor has a visual presentation for the commission which i will display now. >> thank you. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, sir. >> have you five minutes on your presentation. the slides are up. >> thank you. hello commissioners and thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you a little bit with the project. my name is skip ald ness and one of the partners for the dispensary at 2845 gairy boulevard. my family has deep roots in the bay area and my partner was born

here and raised in the city and my partners and i have been in hoy hospitality, real estate and marketing for over po years. my wife -- 30 years. my wife andry passionate about cannabis for medicinal use and we want to bring awareness to the use of cannabis and it's many forms. we're dedicated building our community relationship with much needed well paid jobs and creating revenue for social equity partner and will provide tax for the city and it's our goal to bring sunlight into the areas where the dispensary is

locate. though female oriented it will be a safe and reliable resource for everybody. i'd like to push it back over to our vice president of operations and she'll talk to a little bit more about the details and give a quick presentation. thank you. >> thank you so much. thank you the planning commission board for your time. if you can move on to the next slide, please. i'm jane. i'm the v.p. of operations at mary modern and have the privilege of working on the project since its inception. i've been in the cannabis industry several years now. prior to the project i took great pride in the opportunity to share product and knowledge that hopefully will contribute to a positive cannabis experience for the consumers i've heard and we have a commission to create safe spaces

for women and all allies can gather and share experience, educate and share wellness products in the community. we're excited to be wedge you all today with -- with you all and share how we plan to support the community at mary modern how laurell heights and as well as the diverse city of san francisco while further supporting social equity. our team of collaborators is supported by a talented and caring team and our a majority of women it's a space designed by women with women in mind. this is a rendering of the proposed dispensary. it's space is primarily designed for women and open to all consumers. the floor plan display has an

floor plan and will allow flexibility to deploy product during covid-19. with cannabis consumption on the rise it's important to remember the effect on the community. our social responsibility is not limited to the safety of employees and patrons but the community surrounding it. and we look forward to contributing to the organizations.

we also to ensure we're on the right and we are helping to tailor the brand to fit their needs. i information our time is running out. in term s of our community outreach we exceeded what we think it means to be a good neighbor. posting an additional community outreach meeting instead of the requirement of one we also notified the community and our neighbors within a 500 foot radius and not just the 300 foot radius. we've become active members of a local cannabis community and have had an opportunity to discuss mary modern with well

respected groups and leaders in san francisco such as the san francisco chamber of commerce and [please stand by] .

the last message we received was from a lawyer, apparently be the lawyer and they reached out and let us us know they have a lease cart and until everything is resolved, my wife and i are still opposing the construction. thank you, very much for your time. best of luck. >> hi, my name is jenny hayes. i'm a san francisco resident and native and i was born down the

street i actively and strongly support it and san francisco needs a dispensary that supports women and the comfort of women because to be honest, as a cannabis user i feel uneasy. i love everything that has been propose inside this protect and really strongly support it. that's it. >> my name is andrew and i'm a resident of san francisco and native as well and my family lived four blocks away for over 10 years now and i strongly and actively support the construction of the distance re. my mother is who is stopping physical illness is no longer able to travel to other areas to get access to state medication

and thank you, very much. >> great, thank you. members of the public, last call for your testimony. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed and the matter is before you. commissioner moore. >> i'm very interested in this particular project and i think it's a great idea to have a home operation cannabis operation to which i am (inaudible) and it's something we need to be aware of. i still don't quite understand why it's being at it and i understand the scare and i need to know as to whether or not this particular alteration and as a displacement and i feel

uncomfortable about it because the tenant, i didn't go into detail. seemed to say that they are all of a sudden being the store on it's own would not necessitate that. >> so, with regard to the tenant, i think there are two issues at play here. the first is the actual physical modifications to the property. the initial proposal was to remove the connection from the residential unit to the rear yard and thus cut it off from that opening space. so the depth proposed as a replacement useable open space for the residential unit and it's indicated to the sponsor that was not supported while it's common tuesday a rare yard in some cases they have a lot of

ut i have so it's housing service that's was not really -- there wasn't a balance of something that was gained so in response to that, the they readd a connect from that second floor down but the deck is a remnant of the initial soak it's something is that can be done. the second tricky portion of this is there was unresolved a parent unresolved discussions between the property owner and the residential tenant and at the end of the 12 month lease agreement there was an attempt to terminate the lease agreement

and it's not required for the project scope. there's nothing that really requires that the residential unit be vacated and there are some modifications to the hear but those are fairly minor in scope and step i canal and so, that issue of the attempt to term enat the tenancy is a separate issue that is a little difficult for us to grapple with. not something that is physical to the property. >> it's unfort a at this particular time it's a different issue we just talk about tenant protections which is often very hard to get and hard to document and because the tenant wrote to us, i have to ask the question and hope that you had an answer and i can obviously project sponsor either because the project sponsor is a commercial challenge is a mixed use

building. so the owner is here, the owner needs to ask the question. >> the commercial tenant is the owner of the property. they discussed this and the project sponsor is the property owner. >> could we ask that question? >> i would be happy to answer the question. >> thank you so much. >> so, just a quick background. we had included our tenants in the community outreach and had let them know that what our plans were and there wasn't an issue there and so we made the assumption they were going to take over the stop unit and they want today stay at the last minute and so we had several minor issues as far as the build

out was concerned moving a sub panel up there. we had to solve those trash and you couldn't access the trash. the only way to do that was to go through the commercial space down below so we had to solve that and part of that deck, that everybody is talking about, is the addition was because currently there's a attached shed that was modified and we have to take that out and -- >> i lost his voice. >> mr.al bin, are you there. >> >> thank you so much. >> it looks like they've called back in. >> hello. >> yes. >> can you hear us? >> yes. >> can you hear us.

>> we'll put a deck upstairs so the tenants can enjoy a deck because we were going to remove the stairs because we needed to bring the building up to code, remove the shed and the existing stairs so it was more of a safety issue and a maintenance issue and they want to stay. we have a trash shoot to put their trash in there and we will

take the trash up for them and it's up in their unit and they can stay as long as they want and there's not an issue there. there's access to the rear yard and so all of them have been addressed and as far as we're concerned. i hope that answers your questions. >> and as they normally do. i'm comfortable with what i could accumulate and the customers have to ask. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. >> i want to follow-up and build on commissioner moore's questions. we just had the tenant on the phone saying the last contact with you or your agents was from a lawyer seeking to enter into a new lease agreement and that's the last they heard of it. i'm going to ask you a series of questions that basically hold up the tenants' description of what

happened and see if you think that's accurate and you will continue to be honest and fourth right. when is the last communication you had with the tenant and the current lease with you right now? >> >> you apparently seem to be muting yourself. you need to stop doing that. >> it's a technical issue we're experiencing. >> can you hear me. i was going to have jade my v.p. of operations handle that question. she has more contact and she's involved in the situation with the tenants. that is an inaccurate statement. >> do you have a lease with the

tenant. >> yes, they're currently on a month to month. they've finished their one-year tenancy on the lease and month to month aspe as per this reque. >> so they're on a month to month lease. when was the last contact with them or your agent had with them? >> our legal council attempts several times to reach out to them. i believe october 6th, it was also my understanding that our planner tried to (inaudible) and they had to clarify as well with no response. >> what is the attempt to clarify? to enter into a longer-term lease. what are the attempt to do? >> just to clarify a possible misunderstanding and the short term and long-term plans to

mitigate any issues that they might have. >> what is the short and long-term plan that you have. >> i know some of them were access to the so they plan to relocate that up to the residential unit. we have given them, we've modified our plans to allow them access to a trash shoot as well as access to the backyard. in doing so, we will be bringing the stairs and that back half of the unit of the code making it the tenant in the letter had a

couple things they needed including they were threatened with eviction, they were threatened by a lawyer, i believe, stating that there has been many lawsuits and not messed with them and how do you respond to those a serrio assern the ten apartment's letter. >> those are inaccurate and myself and other project sponsors on this project are not currently in any type of litigation nor recently. >> so when they said they were told they were not lawsuits and it's not true. ok. or there were many lawsuits, rather. >> you may not be on the line anymore. >> one person asked to speak and it may be the tenant.

we can take that caller when we're done. >> they're related to different topics and we can come back to that potential caller and if you are the tenant and you can raise your hand that would be helpful. there's mention about the car wash next door stepping to keep it tidy. aim understanding that correctly. was that about trash or something related to that business. >> i think it's a sore point for the community and so as part of being a good neighbor, we want

to help keep the parameter of the story front as clean as possible and that included the excess debris that tends to occur from the car wash. >> i see the glitter from the car wash ends up around the car wash site and you guys are going to clean that up. great, thank you. i think that's all my questions. if the tenant is available, i would like to hear from him just what the state is currently if there's a lease or have been attempted to enter into a new lease agreement. >> hi, this is gabriella, i am one of the tenants who lives at 2843. if i could just first off say is that we actually never had any intentions of moving out nor did we lead them to believe we did. there was a text message showing we have to move out after our lease is over and we can provide that for you later if needed to

reiterate that they were trying to force us out of our house. >> ma'am, at the moment, i know it's been challenging for both planner and it seems like the project sponsor to get in touch with you, have they made any attempts? are you aware of any tempts to reach out to discuss items like the trash shoot and relocating the breakup panel and other items? >> we have not been reached out to. after they contacted us with the lawyer, we did reach out to a lawyer and he has reached out to us with for instance they said they were going pop for nor what they would say and we have not received any notice about a new lease except for potentially to pay more money and get released in that way. if can you pay more. >> is it your goal in your residency you want additional lease or are you comfortable

with a month-to-month lease and the discussion some of the improvements to your unit to make you can inhabit it. >> so, we just want to stay here. we were very shocked by the announcement we would have to leave because of protection in san francisco. we just want to stay here and we are concerned that they took away access to our breaker box and we're not able to move our trash cans in and out. they moved them out this last monday but for months we had no way to bring them idea. that's my questions, commissioners. >> my question is on a different issue. i'm in full support of this project and ultimately i just wanted to ask about the plans to benefit the community because i wanted to know more about that.

so, thank you for addressing that. >> o. well this isn't a question and answer period so that concludes your public comment. >> yes. >> very good. >> i don't see any additional members of the public to speak at this time and did you have a comment to make. >> i just wanted to offer the commission sort of a grounding reminder about our considerati consideration. >> and run it by the users.

>> is president koppel, i press the button and -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner, moore, go ahead, please. >> thank you so much. thank you for remind us us it's a different matter in front of us and please give us room because of the great concerns we have about tenants, tenants and it makes me feel comfortable about the project and i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, if there's no further deliberation there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> aye. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: so moved commissioners, that motion passes 7-0. and that concludes our agenda today. we're adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you everybody. >> thank you. >> good afternoon and evening.

>> >>[music] >> i came in with her impression of what i thought it was good >> what i knew about auditing with the irs spears i actually knew nothing about auditing >> in my mind it was purely financial. with people that audited the pain no one wants to deal with it >> now i see a lot of time explaining auditing is not just about taxes. >> oftentimes most students believe that auditing is only financial whereas when they come into a government environment we do much more than financial audits. we do operational audits that were looking at the operations of the department for economy and efficiency and effectiveness. >> when i hire an intern some of the things that i am looking for first of all is is this

individual agile and flexible because i am our environment is so fast-paced and where are switching from project to project depending on what's going on in the government at any given time. >> primarily i didn't with audits on utilities management across city departments. >> citywide this ods management audit was also been assisting with housing authority audit program >> the homelessness audit >> the it functions >> [inaudible] >> were starting any water on the department of public housing environment allows >> i also assist with the [inaudible] program. >> then additionally i really enjoyed having staff who have some critical thinking skills. because i believe the basis of auditing is not do you know how to audit, but to have critical thinking skills [inaudible] >> [inaudible] even though i've only been here for short

time our quick in-depth analysis and research >> analytical skills there's a lot of taking enlargement of information a compacting it a very concise report because we've a big focus on [inaudible] if you're transmitting this information to the audience you need him to be able to understand it. >> so i work with the sparrow program primarily. broadway stan abused [inaudible] they prepare me for full-time employment because i knew i could not to challenge myself in order to be an auditor. >> at the [inaudible] we are a content feedback and communication and they pointed out areas where i need to grow. >> one of the things i like about working at [inaudible] is that they actually give you quite a bit of autonomy i feel like kevin sage trusted me. >> the environment really

[inaudible] to everyone feeling super collaborative and wanting to get to know one another. which i think at the end of the date is a better work environment and gives you a better workflow. >> i believe that a really is a great experience because it provides an opportunity to have a better understanding of how government works. >> i think what i've learned so far is that every audit is unique everyday. different learning opportunities. >> the recordation we make in on its i can honestly go home at the end of the day and zack and treated [inaudible] in a better way. >> even of not familiar with what auditing is you should deftly find out. it's been really really awesome he was it turns out there's a whole world of auditing that i cannot open file oriented performance and [inaudible] and that's an exciting. audit is a lot broader than i ever knew before. >>

test captions. test captions. >> thank you. [roll call] >> i have the pleasure of chairing the committee today. many of you know that chair bernal serves as representative pelosi's chief of staff. i also want to thank the commissioners. we have a fairly full agenda, but everyone submitted questions on many of the presentations, and we've gotten

very thorough and thoughtful answers from staff, so hopefully that means we can go through our agenda in a very efficient way and we can go to our different activities of the evening. first item is the minutes. are there any additions or corrections on the part of the commissioners? okay. any comments from the public? >> clerk: if you're on the public comment line, please press star, three if you'd like to make a comment on the minutes. no comments, commissioners. >> okay. so is there a motion to approve the october 20, 2020, minutes of the commission? >> so moved. >> second. >> can we have a roll call vote? >> clerk: yes. [roll call]

>> clerk: just for everyone to know, if the -- if you're not speaking, then please mute yourselves, and commissioners, if you're making rustling noises, and you're not muted, i am going to mute you. so i apologize, but we want to keep the sound quality good. so we'll move onto item 3, the director's report. >> hi, commissioners. grant colfax, director of health. you have the report in front of you. since i am going to give an extensive covid update, and in

keeping with commissioner green, so we can move through this meeting, i stand to answer any questions. >> any questions on the director's report? >> yes. [inaudible] has a very robust lab testing program for kids, and i didn't know where we were today or how well that program was doing, which i thought might be nice to let our commission know in terms of being that we just closed out lead poisoning presentation week. >> yes, commissioner, we with provide you with an update on that.

i'll reach out to the team and ensure we have some things for the commission. >> sure. >> and if i may, commissioner chow, i just sent you a few things. i can summarize to the commission that the d.p.h. children health's initiative currently serves over 2,000 children a year. there's $21 million in the sellman funds. they did get that to us. >> being ookay. anything you wanted to, dr. colfax, to highlight in the report or did you want to move onto the update? >> commissioners, all of my

update would be covid, so i thought we should launch into that unless commissioners have questions on the director's report. >> all right. hearing none, let's do our covid-19 update, then. >> okay. i believe we have slides coming up. right now, we have 12,554 cases of covid that have been diagnosed in the city and county of san francisco. we've unfortunately had 149

deaths. we've continued to strengthen work, meeting with community groups and making investments going forward. as we've seen across the rest of the country, there's a predominance of male versus female cases. we continue to have relatively few cases among the homeless population. only 3% of our current cases are homeless, and at this time, you can see that the majority of our cases are community contact, and then, you see the distribution of cases by sexual orientation. next slide. we continue to do well compared to other jurisdictions or similar size or density in san francisco. you see that our death rate is

often half of the next lowest death rate, which is king county, seattle. our death rate is, again, less than half, with the only exception of miami at 1.98%, and then, our testing numbers are higher than any other jurisdiction for which these data are available. things have changed since i've last presented to the commission. we are seeing increase, again, in cases. our rate of increase in total covid hospitalizations is high in the red alert at 20%

increase. now though this number is i increasing, the speed is important. the good news is our health system capacity remains robust. you can see that at the 21% and 45%. our case level is creeping back up again. it was 3.5% last week, and it's back up to 4.2%. contact tracing, partner notification numbers, while not at quite that 90 and above that we'd like to be, we are holding in the mid80s. i would mention to the commissioners that there was a very nice paper published in the journal of the american medical association, thabout d.p.h. leaders. it's been well received about our work with the ucsf

partners. next slide. and then, our health care workers remain at 100%. this is a hard graph for me to look at every morning, but we need to look at it and better understand how fast the disease is accelerating. we're at 9.3 million cases. a 44% increase over the last two weeks, and deaths over 225,000 and increasing significantly. next slide. so i mentioned these are data looking at the various case trends, and you can see here that our cases -- these --

[inaudible] >> so the virus is really spreading very rapidly in the midwest. i bring these up because, you know, even though we're doing very well in san francisco and the bay area, we see what happens or can happen and what is happening in other parts of the country. hopefully, we will not get to this point, but certainly it remains a possibility. next slide. so these are our numbers in terms of hospitalizations.

in san francisco, remember, the blue lines are people that are in the medical surge, non-i.c.u. beds, and the other line is people in i.c.u. we had two surges we beat back. in august, we got up to 21 people in the hospital, and we're back up to 34, which is why we're in the red zones in terms of hospitalizations, so we'll continue to watch this carefully. next slide. and our reproductive rates has crept up a bit. it got up to .79 last week. we're now at .83, so we're obviously watching that very, very carefully. this reproductive rate and the hospitalization is really calculated based on the hospitalization rate. and remember, the hospitalization rate is about two weeks behind the case rate, so that case rate increasing,

that overall positivity rate increasing, we expect to see the hospitalizations increasing commenceately in the next two weeks. so we made a decision on friday to pause further reopening plans. we had planned for further reopening on november 3, greater capacity with regard to indoor capacities, including indoor dining, worship, and church services. we're concerned about travel for the holiday and the national picture, we've made a decision to put a pause in order to, you know, hopefully ensure that san francisco can continue to reopen safely. this is also an effort to ensure that we didn't overshoot

and have to reverse openings, which we feel is more disruptive and difficult for businesses in the community, and we'll continue to follow our health indicators going for the record. finally, i just want to say, in terms of our success, just can't emphasize enough the gratitude for all san franciscans taking this very seriously and walking in the streets or driving, it's really remarkable to see the masking prevalence, which we show sakns lives, and i just want to thank san francisco for their support as we continue to work to slow the spread of the virus and look with grave concern at the national situation, but hopefully, we can, again, provide a good example and also avoid some of the situations that this -- that this pandemic has created in other

communities. thank you. >> thank you, director colfax. and i think the whole commission would offer our gratitude to the government, to the mayor's office, to your department because the progress that we've shown has been remarkable compared to some areas of the country, and the team has led in such a diligent way, that we're all grateful for the collaboration of everyone in this endeavor and how much, sadly, contact is going on in other parts of the country. we have another presentation on the flu vaccine, but we have an opportuni opportunity, before public comment, for commissioners to ask questions about dr. colfax's report.

anyone? >> yeah. may i ask, dr. colfax, the numbers are certainly remarkable, but is there any indication that the opening of some of the activity might have caused an increase -- the numbers are so small, i would hope that you're going to actually say no, that we've opened up indoor dining, and we've opened up indoor shopping. so is there anything measurable that would worry you? and i fully agree withholding the line here, that makes a lot of sense. but i'm just wondering, in your tracing and contact type of work, whether we've seen any of that, or even as certain schools have opened. >> thank you, commissioner. so we don't have any indication with the level of specificity that i think we all wish we

had, that this increase is due to one or two or three of these activities. i think the bottom line is, since september 1, when we've been taken off the state watch list, that we've been opening up outdoor activities to, you know, lower indoor activities, to what would be considered high risk activities: indoor dining, in which people cannot even eat inside with a mask on. we expect, and we continue to expect as we continue to open up more virus spreading because it's basic biology, and there's not a way to completely prevent

the spread. our goal is to try to continue to get the balance right so that we open, we ensure that people are doing everything they can to stay safe. we anticipate what might be increased risks on halloween, but we're getting reports that it wasn't an increased risk. we're trying not to, in a sense, overshoot with our reopening because as you know, by the time the virus takes off, and you know you have a lot, it's too late, and it takes a long time to push down, but we're looking at the data both locally and then looking at the science to see if there are ways that, as we work to slow the spread of the virus, we may be more surgical with the work in terms of better --

getting a better understanding of, you know, on the surface, these all might look like equal, what we understand the virus better, these things will rank it up at a higher level. right now, normally, based on outdoor versus indoor, masking versus nonmasking, good ventilation versus poor ventilation, and obviously, the number of people congregating in these activities. >> commissioner guillermo, you had your hand up? >> yes. it's a related question, but i know there's some new data nationally that shows that infections among children are at upwards of 60,000, but it's probably a way undercount, and so i'm just wondering, does our contact tracing indicate

anything demographically with regard to an increase in children either being in contact or being -- increasing the caseload? >> yeah. the virus did shift to a younger population to some degree in the early to late summer. we haven't had another big shift in that regard. obviously, with schools reopening, we expect to probably see more children diagnosed, but we're following that very carefully at this poi point. but we haven't had a major shift in that direction at this time as far as i 'm aware. >> any other comment dos or questions from the commissioners? so i guess we can have the presentation about the flu vaccine.

>> and i just opened up the presenter wall, so julie should be able to do that in about one second. there we go. >> thank you for the opportunity to present about -- and provide information about this year's influenza season. my name is julie, and i'm the director of communicable diseases control and prevention here in the department of public health. our section includes the communicable disease prevention unit along with the immunization and travel clinic in addition to responsibilities for surveillance [inaudible]. so this slide shows last year's

disease estimates for the flu season in the united states, and you can see that there were an estimated 40 to 65 million flu illnesses, 18 to 26 million medical visits, hundreds of thousands of flu hospitalizations, and tens of thousands of [inaudible]. so looking ahead to this season [inaudible] but also to minimize surge in outpatient clinics, e.m.s., hospitals, and due to flu illness, and also to mitigate increased testing demands due to undiagnosed influenza-like illness. so what is the flu season going to be like this year? are there any takes we can

derive from the southern hemisphere, which as you know, their flu season peaks during our summer, so they've already been through a flu season during covid-19. so while [inaudible] in australia [inaudible] on the right side of this graph, australia was doing plenty of influenza testing, which is indicated by the blue line, and finding very few positives of influenza disease, and those are indicated in this graph by the colored -- the colored bar lines, and you can see it was nearly flat in their flu season during our summer. australia saw only 350 flu cases, which is down 99.8% of their flu season [inaudible] and this is thought to be related to the measures that

were taken in response to the covid-19 pandemic, including social distancing, masking, border closures, and also an increase in flu vaccination. there's lots of unknowns about the upcoming flu season every year for us. this year, and every year. flu seasons are predictably unpredictable. we don't know the exact season timing, such as when it will arrive, how long it will last, and this year, on top of that, there's the impact of social distancing and the possibility of a twin-demic [inaudible] while covid was circulating. however, even though the southern hemisphere did experience a mild flu season, we cannot count on that happening here, and we need to do everything we can to prevent

a severe flu season which starts with ensuring widespread flu vaccinations. so where does d.p.h. and the san francisco command center fit in? so this year, much of the d.p.h. is [inaudible] in the command center so [inaudible]. every year and this year, the majority of san franciscans will get their flu shot through their primary care provider or pharmacies, but the flu vaccination team is focused on filling in gaps and focusing on the homelessness. so this slide shows our flu vaccine strategies. our strategies are to clbt with existing city partners and

pharmacies. number two, modify our supply to encourage document, develop information and guidance for clinicians, standup community flu vaccination clinics, to ensure sustainable staffing, and across, all of this, efforts to help inform our plans for covid vaccine. during sept, we connected an age assessment of partner flu vaccination efforts in san francisco to understand the plans for the upcoming flu season. we heard back from 93 flu vaccination sites, and 96% of them anticipated vaccinating either the same percentage of their patient population of last year or a greater percent of their population of last year.

one of our focuses has been understanding vaccine inventory across covid demand. it's continuing to be distributed incrementally. manufacturers have indicated no significant delays, but the measure of distribution has gone on longer than usually because of this record number of doses that have been produced. we're seeing doses come in now from this federal supply. one of the things that the team has done to monitor the flu vaccine supply is to create an inventory across d.p.h. that gives us a weekly snapshot of the flew vaccines that we have available and have administered. through the public and community engagement, our goals had to provide the public with -- are to provide the public with reliable

information, including providing information to san franciscans on where to get their vaccine, covered by insurance or not covered by insurance. there've been public outreach and social media campaigns. for information and guidance, we -- we sent out our san francisco health officer order that dr. aragon signed. [please stand by]

that we learned about through our health care partner survey. the green bars indicate the sites that are stirred up by the san francisco health network.

[inaudible]. and the yellow stars are community flu vaccination sites that we're working to [inaudible] up. to ensure that there is a low barrier to access to flu vaccine in san francisco, our strategies have included leveraging existing health facilities [inaudible], supplementing gaps by creating these community-based flu vaccination sites in collaboration with our community partners. these are staffed by b.p.h. staff and by lab core which is contracted through the california department of public health. [inaudible] will start later this week. amazon had its first [inaudible] yesterday and there were 59 flu shots given and we anticipate increases.

and additionally, the san francisco health network has worked to stand up flu vaccination critics but are co-located with the covid-19 testing sites. these a snapshot of our website where we list the flu shot locations publicly available and include locations where people without insurance can [inaudible] or walking in. and last, we plan to learn from our experience with influenza vaccination this year to [inaudible] vaccination buffer. we are building our command centre team, which is working

with flu vaccine and will transfer over the covid-19 vaccination efforts once flu vaccination scales down. we are learning [inaudible] associate distancing and vaccination clinics while covid-19 is co-circulating and we plan to adopt flu vaccinations where appropriate for covid-19. that is my presentation. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] extensive work. i believe this is a time for public comment. >> yes. >> on the director's report of this presentation. >> thank you, commissioner. also on the public comment line, if you'd like to make a public comment about item 4 that includes the flu vaccination, a vaccine prex, please press star 3 so i can see your hand and then

recognize you. again, if you aides like to [inaudible] press star 3. i will put your tail on the timer and when the timer goes off, please know your time is up. i've unmuted you, caller. >> caller: hello. my name is yung schen. thank you for the opportunity to speak. thank you for kaeping us all safe here in san francisco compared to the rest of the country and the rest of the world. i just wanted to quickly ask a question and make a point about youth sports in san francisco, specifically out of school time programmes. i am a parent and also volunteer for a youth soccer club called san francisco seals and we work with about 350 kids in our programme and we're currently following the health

and safety guidelines that sfphs put out, i believe on august 3, following all the rules like making sure all the kids wear masks and limiting ourselves to 14 kids and making sure that stays stable for a number of weeks. and staying true to social distancing guidelines where we try to maintain distance and not interact with each other, etc.,etc. one of things that has come up that is very clear from outside world and if we look at sports in general around the world is that there is no indication that covid-19 is being transmitted during competitions. i think all signs and evidence points to covid-19 being transmitted in indoor settings like meals and shared rooms and cars and transportation and hotel rooms and etc., etc. it seems like the guidelines we currently have for our kids, which restrict us from doing simple thing like scrimmaging with each other would then

[inaudible] of 14 kids doesn't seem to make any sense, especially when we're outdoors in open air where there is very minimal, if any, risk of transmission. i wanted to ask, even though there's been a lot of guidelines like, you know, making things for indoor facility -- making improvements for indoor facilities coming up, there doesn't seem to be any changes to the guidelines for these recreational programmes for youth, especially working outdoors and i wanted to see if we could do something about that to allow us to do thing like scrimmaging within our [inaudible]. i bring this stuff up because there is -- >> excuse me. your time is up. i'm sorry. >> caller: ok. >> thank you. and i'm sorry to cut you off. it's what we have to do to be fair. and just to note to everyone from the public, the commissioners don't respond to public comment. i know it is a little strange, but it is procedure so there is not a back and forth. but what happens is the

commissioners and the departments will note the issue that you bring up and will take it to the department and see if -- and in time those questions can get answers through policy or at meetings. again, thank you for your comments. there is one more public comment, commissioners. and i unmuted you. >> caller: hi. i have two things. one is just a quick comments on the flu vaccine. i don't think you mentioned that the san francisco community clinic consortium clinic as well as our homeless s.o.s. band have been giving out flu vaccines so we wanted to make sure that everybody knew that, that the flu vaccine -- there's been some shortages but i know we will be getting some more and people are working our homeless programme are going out on the streets and giving flu vaccines. but the main comments is about dr. cofax's report on covid. i was at the local resource

board meeting yesterday and they presented a plan to basically get people out of the shelter in place, hotels. and this is a highly vulnerable population. and there was not one mex of this third surge or any concerns about public health. it was all about housing and funding, which i understand that's their perview. but i just wanted to make sure that there is some correspondents going on between department of housing and the departments of public health about the possible ramifications of sending vulnerable people out where they have been sheltering in place in the hotels pretty successfully out into the streets. and i know they're saying their mraeen is to re-house people. but it is not clear that the numbers add up and it is not clear that that is going to work. >> thank you for your comment.

>> commissioner girardo has her hand up. >> thank you. and thank you for an excellent presentation on the flu vaccination. my question is very simple. have you reached out to san francisco unified school district with your messaging so they can do a e-mail blast to a ul of their families since they are all online anyhow? because my understanding from the pediatricians i work with, that the vaccination rate for the pediatric population is down. >> yes. back in september, the communicable disease prevention unit met with san francisco unified leadership and provided them a temperate letter that they can send out to all of their families. this letter was also provided to the archdiocese schools and the independent schools in san francisco and the pre-k schools

as well with information encouraging catching up with routine vaccination because of that stuff. what happens back in the spring during the initial shelter in place and also encouraging vaccinations. they also were provided a list of back-to-school immunization clinics. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate it. but you might just do it again. just because -- what the pediatricians are saying is the kids aren't coming in. just another blast wouldn't hurt. commissioner christian, you have a question. >> i do, thank you. are vaccines given to people who come into custody in the jail?

jailhouse services does provide vaccine and we get [inaudible] given to jailhouse services to provide by vaccination. >> thank you. commissioner? >> yes. thank you for the presentation and i'm still somewhat curious about the experience in the southern hemisphere and perhaps i didn't quite hear correctly, although it sounded like you said the australian experience showed that there was a significant decrease in influenza. what about the other parts of the southern hemisphere or is it that they also are showing the same decrease in influenza because of the social distancing and masks and so forth? >> thank you for bringing that up. so australia, we were a i

believe to access a lot of their data, but there was a c.d.c. report that also reported on chile and south africa and they additionally had very, very minimal flu activity as well. i don't know about the entirety of the southern hemisphere, but the data that we do have suggests that it was -- there was pretty minimal flu activity. however, it's hard to know, you know, what we can expect here. >> if i could follow up. did they also then speak about the concurring covid or that there had been a change also in the covid numbers or -- or if, in fact, they were following the masking and so forth, that these stayed down and did not have sort of another surge. >> that is a good question. i don't remember the exact

details from the south africa and chile experience in terms of what we were seeing with covid incidents at the same time as the flu activity. we do know that with the australian data, they were seeing a surge in flu activities while covid remained flat. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. commissioner green, i muted you partially. i don't think commissioner christian heard. your hand is up and we're not sure if it is from the first question. looks like no more questions. ok. >> thank you so much. i guess one question i would have is -- actually two. how many languages do you have your website information would be the first. and the second is i think it

echoes what we're hearing about children not getting vaccinated. patients are not seeing doctors at the rate they did thanks to covid and many are fearful of going into a doctor's office, coupled with the fact that many physicians offices which aren't large systems have really not received their vaccines. i know my office just got 300 today. but we were out for five weeks. this is disturning some patients and i just wonder how we're getting the word out to people if they either don't want to go to the doctor, delaying going to their primary care or traditional spot for getting their vaccine, how we're making sure that people can go to the website or find a place where they can get a vaccine absent an encount weather a drugstore they're afraid of or a actual medical office building. >> those are great points.

>> what we tried to reinforce in our guide is how providers can create a safe environment for guidance and how to encourage them to come back for flu advocate nation and all the other flu vaccinations. particularly for children and adults to stay up to date. in the press release, we did direct people to access our website so we'll get locations that they can go and call their primary care doctor and their pharmacy first. the issue with the flu vaccine, i think ultimately is probably related to people that are seeing a decent demand for flu vaccination this year give than

covid-19 has been circulating which is great and we want to encourage that as much as possible. the flu vaccine has been coming in in increments over this early season and it would have been nice if it came early, give than there were record amounts produced. but that is just not the way it work out and now we're starting to see it come in. we've gotten some [inaudible] and what can we do to promote through social media or other ways that people should call their doctor and get their vaccines coming in. and regarding the languages, i have to look into it, i don't know. >> there a -- thank you for that. is there also any band headline on the city test s.f. website mentions you can get your flu shot when you get your covid

screening test or anything even at the pop-up sites that we have that kind of make sure people understand that is an option for them? >> i mean, we are giving out information. we have flyers made for people who are getting tested for covid. oin that is available. i can look into this. >> thank you so much. the work is incredible and i think we're reaching a huge percentage of our population. we're really very grateful to you. i guess we'll go to the next consent item -- >> we have item 5, general public. so if you a like to make general public comment, please press star 3.

amy lane would like to make a comment. she texted me. raise your hand and then i would know you want to make a comment. anyone? elaine? all right. so elaine, i've unmuted you. can you hear me? i'm sorry. the connection is not working. elaine? ok. sorry, everyone. >> caller: can you hear me? >> is this elaine? >> caller: yes. >> i'm putting two minutes on and when the buzzer goes, know that your time is up. >> reporter: ok. my name is elaine. i have two girls who are aged 12 and 14. they're competitive soccer players. they have been able to go to soccer practice. but they have only been able to

do conditioning, no scrimmaging so it is not really soccer. so, now that i know that 85 schools have been approved for opening i was just wondering when can my girls start scrimmaging again? can you address return-to-play with youth sports? >> is that the end of your comment, elaine? >> yes. >> as i indicated earlier, it may be frustrating, the commissioners do not respond to questions. but they take note of the comments that you made and we'll round up the proper folks and hopefully answers come through with policy and all their discussions. already, commissioners. that is the last general public comment. we're on to item number 6, commission kerr. >> it is finance and planning committee update. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

the finance and planning committee met this afternoon before the commission meetings. and we had a lot of contracts to consider. so please bear with me and you will find them on the consent calendar as well. but i think that it is really worth, like, giving a little bit more context to them. the first is the contract report. we have added this to the consent calendars of like five contract amendments and it is the salvation army, the ra -- rafiki coalition health and wellness, the ucsf substance -- oh. i forgot the name of it. u.c.f. department of substance abuse and medicine and last but

not least there is the regions of the university of california. and a ul these different contracts are requested to have like the terms exthe ended and there are some modifications to this as well. i won't go into details because we have a whole bunch of other contracts to discuss. and the next on the consent calendar is the request for approval of new contract for [inaudible] pharma incorporated and they provide outsource [inaudible] compound services and productses that's not available commercially and it's to be used by san francisco general. the proposed contract amount is

$5.2 million which includes a 12% contingency for the term of november 1, 2020 through june 2023. and the next request is aprove al amendment number three to the contract of college genomics. college genomics is the contractors we used for covid testing programmes. and so it is quite important. and we had the discussions because i don't think that we have seen [inaudible] before. but it is, you know, to increase the agreement amount by $74.4 million. for an amount not to exceed

$84.3 million and to establish a specific term, date of -- and please mark the changes here. term date of april 6, 2020 through april 5, 2021. so, there is a error in the items on the agenda which says april 6, 2020 to march 31, 2021, which is incex. so that is the adjustment. and then we had -- [counting] and 11 contracts all related to the implementations of the

electronic health system. i was really detailed and there are three parts to the budget. so it is the epic, the venter and professional service. for the contract that we are, 10 contracts of nine different vendors that provide professional services and they prem 15% of the professional services budget. and rather than go into too much detail, i'll just like skip the -- most of the detail and say that the contract

amount for each of these vendors $3.5 million each. then we have two additional contracts related to sugary drinks, distribution contracts and, of course, you know, like -- as you know, this is a new initiative and, you know, also a new programme that are being implemented from the sugary drink [inaudible] that we received and so there are some learning curves so to speak. for these contracts. so, the first contract is for the marin city health and wellness centre doing businesses bayview clinic. and what you see on this budget is like the surfaces they estimated for the first year, although we are proving a three-year contract.

and we had decided to t like, go ahead and, you know, aed that to the consent calendar with the understanding that they will come back to usen we know the progress for the next year and what is some of the projected changes they're going to make for the following two years. and it is similar for the request of approval for the second contract to the contractor 18 reasons and, you know, and we have -- national convention same requests, you know, because they are only able to give us the first year's budget of how they're going to implement the programmes. but the actuality of like how -- what the health -- impact of health outcome is not something that they are able to project

at this point. so we have asked them to come back also in one year and to give us an update. hopefully by then we will have like some, like, more updated information to share with the commission. and that is the entire consent calendar that we are asking for your approval. >> any public comment on this report? >> if you'd like to make public comments on the report, please press star 3 now. no public comments, commissioners. but i would like to commend you as you did a fantastic job of summarizing that very detailed information. >> absolutely. >> well, thank you. so i believe there was0s in

public comment, right? if we move to the consent calendar, then, the goal is to be able to approve the entire calendar. are there any items that require [inaudible] that commissioners have questions about? i know that this is the area where the staff did such an excellent job of giving us truly detailed responses to many of the presubmitted questions. so, is there anything else that the commissioners want to add or question before we consider a vote? >> i just thought in addition to the clarification about the epic part of the budget that these 10 contracts are not actually individual contracts in which each person is -- or each contractor will receive

$3.5 million. this is similar to what we had in the past in which we've had maintenance contracts in which a series of contractors are actually allowed to bid for certain types of services. and so all of these contracts are expert in most of these same services and this will allow them the chance to actually find which contractor, which professional contractor can assist right away with an issue that comes up within this. [please stand by] [please stand by]

with some luck we have have savings from the end with this allotted budget. >> i think the other part is that with the $78 million contract, which is probably one of the largest contracted i've seen in the past, it's almost like a bond issue. it actually is the covid testing and they gave an excellent explanation of how all this is going and these are the the tests that are needed. in fact, we did ask about performance and we're told at the moment, in less than a day,

they're responding to us and i think david mentioned, at the moment it's about half but normally it's 24 to 48 hours. that's a better performance that our older contracts were. >> thank you, dr. chow. i want to thank the finance committee and michelle rugels and her team because this was detailed work with a lot of other responsibilities and also, to those of you on this committee, i know that this was a lot of analytic brown power required of you as well so we really appreciate the clarifications and and this all being presented. there are any other comments or questions from the commission? >> well, i guess we can entertain a motion to approve the consent calender. is there a notion approve. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> do you want to take the roll

call. i'll make sure we don't have public comment. if you'd like to make comment, press star 3. no comment. i will do roll call vote. [roll call vote] i think that's everybody. did i miss anyone? i don't think so. the item passes. thank you all for that great work. that was a lot of work today. >> yes, thank you so much. well now i'm actually looking at the agenda so i know the next item is number 8 the san francisco health network update and mr. pickens will present to us. >> good afternoon.

good evening, commissioners, can you hear me? >> yes. >> great, great. all right. so thank you very much. it's my pleasure to present this fall 2020 update to you on the status of the san francisco health network. and i'm joined by my colleagues on the leadership team from the network. our chief medical officer dr. claire horton, our director of ambulatory care, haligoniansd susan. hopefully between the four of us, we'll have enough brain power to answer any questions that may arise during the presentation. in the presentation today, i'll discuss our network strategic initiatives in the form of our ex matrix and true north metrics

and the impact of covid-19 response on those initiatives. i'll review our performance in this the last year of our five-year 1115 medicaid rar wair and the work we have to do as we begin to restore and reopen our delivery systems programs to their pre-covid-19 levels. and finally, our share of brief timeline showing san francisco health net operations and resources that were required to shift over the last year to respond to the covid-19 emergency. next slide. so as we do with all of our presentations, we start with the d.p.h. organizational chart to provide a visual reference of the areas we'll discuss. today we'll focus on the lower left-hand section which depicts the san francisco health

network. so this is our most current and updated organizational chart for the leadership of the network. and for those of you on the commission, you will know the last few years we've had significant turnover. claire is our new medical adviser after alex chin left to go to the state. this time last year, maggie was the acting c.e.o. at laguna honda and she's back in her regular job and we now have michael phillips as the c.e.o. at laguna and filled his vacant chief nursing officer position at laguna so we continue to refresh our leadership staff and to do the work that we have ahead of us. next slide. so within d.p.h. and the network

we develop our strategic initiatives using lane. as we've discussed here before, lean is both a management system for running an organization and it's also a methodology for process improvement that emphasizes value from the perspective of the customer. and in our case, the customer can be either a client in behavioral health, a patient in our physical health delivery system, a resident at laguna honda or an inmate in jail health. lean also values the expertise and knowledge of the people doing the work. the people who we reference to in the japanese term for the place where the work is done. in terms of lean, healthcare was a late adaptive lean and they've been deploying lean since 2005 and we've been d.p.h. and the

health network we've been on our lean since 2012 and while there are several tools and documents in the lean library, the two primary drivers of an organization's implementation of lean are, the true north and the x-matrix. true north can be described as a precise, concise and universal set of ideals which when taken together provide a compass that describes the ideal or state of perfection that your organization should be continually striving towards. true north involves both our head and our heart and considering both the strategic, the hard goals and the defined business targets as well as a tightly-held belief to our organizational purpose and it's

values. the true north pillars facing service experience, workforce, financial stewardship, and equity, are meant to be consistent over a multi-year per idea and should not change very often. next we have the x-matrix. the x-matrix is essentially our one-page all-encompassing strategic plan which incorporates our true north pillars and relates those pillars to our very few razor-focused strategic initiative. the x-matrix itself is developed during our annual strategic planning process. next slide. so, just briefly, i want to refamiliarize you with our x-matrix. in the west quadrant to the far-left, we have our true north pillars that we are just discussing. at the top in the north

quadrant, we show our few, the three razor-focused top-level organizational priorities that we set over a year ago, remember, pre covid, ok, moving to the right to the east quadrant, this is where we show some of the key metrics we need to improve in order to achieve our organizational priorities. and then finally, in the bottom box, the south quadrant, this shows our performance target and our annual outcome for those targets. and as you can see, our initiative during the x-matrix have been significantly impacted by our covid response and have been deferred. it doesn't mean we stop work on these. for example, those three strategic examples you see at the top. number one ehr readiness. that was going to focus this year on stabilizing our epic

implementation and moving into phase 2 implementation of epic which is set to consider within the next week or two. work has continued it's just that we haven't been able to really do it with the vigor and probably amount of attention we would normally do it and similar to our value-based care initiative, much of that work continues predominantly and the 1115 waiver that has programs that require us to report on our performance on various clinical measures. over the last of the strategic initiatives is develop our people through lean, which is very much had its heart that we would deploy what is called the daily management systems in other areas of the network and that's one place where the work

just stops due to covid-19 because the staff supporting those efforts have been pretty much redeployed exclusively to our covid activities. i wanted to point that out to give you an idea of how we have had to pivot and expand our focus to incorporate covid-19 activities. next slide. the previous slide just shows the progressions of our true north. actually, can you go back one slide. let's go to the next one. and one more. there we go. mikaela, if you can hit it again. we should have some numbers at the bottom for 19-20. yes.

so, thank you. so this slide you get to see the progression of our true north over the last several fiscal years and in terms of the fiscal year we just completed, which was june 30th, you will recognize that was half of a year spent pre covid and half of a year in covid so we have 49 true north metrics and you see the results there at the bottom of those 49 metrics, 11 were on target and the vast majority of which were actually had to be deferred because of the deployment of staff to covid activities and the inability to really focus on those initiatives and then we have 16 of those 49 where either the data was not available or the target was not met. next slide.

it so in this slide, you get to see those true north initiatives all on one page. hopefully the colors are coming out exactly on your screen. we wanted to show you and one snapshot just what our performance on these metrics has been over the years. green represents those 11 targets that were met the reds those that weren't and you will see the proliferation of purple reflecting those metrics that were not able to be persuade due to our redeployment of resources personnel and efforts towards covid. one of the things i'd like to highlight is, you see zuckerberg, san francisco general at the hop top, laguna d pc, behavioral health and child and adolescent health.

those last four are all within the ambulatory care division within the network and you will see that's where most of the purple occurred and that truly reflects just the tremendous amount of impact that our covid response has had within the network particularly in all of those ambulatory care divisions. next slide. so as i mentioned in my opening remarks, we in the network are completing the last year of our five-year 1115 medicaid state waiver. that waiver has several different program components. one is the prime program and prime stands for public hospital incentives and ro redefined in

medical. as i reported previously, we've done well under this program and we will earn $50 million in available medical funds through this program this past year and kudos and we net 95% of all of our medicine trick tricks and ts and received 100% of numbering g because of the cares act covid relief that was provided that allowed us not have to meet all of the performance measures but to report and we were able to receive 100% of the dollars available to us.

6,000 flu vaccines and improvements in blood pressure control for avenue americans. next slide. so, as the 1115 medicaid waiver ends in december, and we will be starting a new medicaid waiver in january but because of covid, that process has been put on hold and there's currently a request at cmf to allow california and other states in the last year of our waiver to get a one-year extension so we hope to hear about that. even with that waiver and hopefully being extended for a

years, the prime program is set by the quality incentive program and it has 45 to $50 million available to it and you will see under this quality incendiary testify program which is a par for perform apps which means we have to report our outcomes on different clinical measures in receive reimbursement and decided primary care heavenly focused and also we require amount of work with our local medical managed care plans in san francisco health plan and anthem blue cross. it's important to really note that forward to be successful on the qip, we're going to have to really reinvigorate our investments in primary care and

the other medicaid 1115 waiver program is called the global payment program. this really involves funds to begin to transition providers from traditional inpatient focused services to more ambulatory out patient nontraditional services which met 79% of the threshold earning in 99.5 in revenue. it was down from our previous year which we were closer to 95% and again, reflects our experience with covid-19 because

we saw a large reduction in acute inpatient days and in-person out patient visits attributable to covid-19. next slide. and this is the final slide in the deck and just wanted to give you a snapshot of what this past calender year looked like for us in the network starting in january up until where we are now, the month we just closed out in october. you will see in the first quarter, that's when the country and the state and the city really went no action with our covid activation. we have the medical surge at san francisco general having additional icu capacity and put into place and we have a huge efforts to increase our p.p.e. supply chain throughout the

network and we had an initial small outbreak of covid at laguna honda for resources there and i think we reeked the rewards of that effort by having a pretty minimal impact since then at laguna. we also began to move resources from the network to support a covid activity like the testing in the community grants of the covid command center. we also deployed a lot of our staff from the network to supportive tease like the shelter in place hotels and the isolation and quarantine hotels where formally homeless individuals were moved to get them off the streets. so, from the beginning of our deployment back in february, we've had about 1,200 staff who have been moved out of their

regular jobs within the network and d.p.h. and own over to do covid specific related activities and as of last month, we're still having almost 700 people who are doing jobs other than their regular ones that are covid related. so that concludes my former presentation. i'm happy to answer questions and i know there was some questions that were posed previous to the presentation and i don't know if you received the written response and i can provide that now. >> commissioners, this is grant. can i just say that i really want to thank the network leadership. dr. horton, dr. hammer for their incredible work, especially the covid-19. this is just been an incredible balance of trying to keep the

network while we're also balancing all the work needs to be done to keep the health of our community as strong as possible. so it's just been a really challenging dynamic and mr. pickens went through this in detail but just wanted to emphasize the amount of work that what he just showed has taken and we'll come back to the commission in december to talk about our term planning with regards to priorities in covid. thank you. >> thank you so much. this is remarkable work by staff that's been incredibly trained and it's really it's a defendantment to your dedication and commitment you can accomplish what you have and i really appreciate it. i guess we should ask if there's public comment on this item.

>> there's no one on the line. in addition to this presentation we have a vaccine task force presentation so the commissioners can comment and then we have that presentation as part of this item as well. >> o. let's see are there any comments, questions, i don't see any raised hands at this point. let'let's go onto the next presentation. >> my question s. i'm not sure who is presenting. dr. chen are you going to be doing the slides? >> i am presenting. my slides have been added on to rolland. >> great. >> give me one second. thank you, i gave that back to mikaela. thank you, sorry about that.

>> thank you, everyone, for the opportunity to present. i will be brief, as it's a special day for all of us. as we are looking at national events. i do want to talk about the health networks' vaccination work during covid. we're really trying to play our part in terms of fighting the flu. you heard earlier from the city wide team that's been working within the c3 from the public-health division, the fabulous work they're doing across the city and really we have benefited from collaboration and support from them as well.

we'll touch everyone coming into the limited services visits, during a time of reduced staffing that you just heard about it and the southeast corridor and the mission. those of our main goals this year. this year, this is the year to coordinate our response and lead

our support in covid vaccinations. so the task force is forced participation has been fabulous. there are folks across these entities across the network coming from different experience points in vaccination. next slide. it's inventory tracking and distribution. using epic in care to document and report including those who were just now in wave 2 epic

there are efforts and for the first time this year they used an online flu vaccine consent form with a qr tracking system and this is been very successful and as of mid-october, they vaccinated 77% of their staff and they've made sure their colleagues are getting vaccinated. laguna honda paired it with weekly testing for covid.

they've vaccinated 76% of their staff as of mid-october. we have partnered with hhs, they work with kaiser in setting up flu clinics for our city employees and have worked with them to expand some of these into 25 van ness to our centralized staff and also some within general health. behavioral health started a staff vaccine support effort as well at 1380 howard. next slide. and so the services and the places that have usually vaccinated primary care, the sfg laguna honda they worked on expanding vaccinations this year to their patients and clients and they are referred to flu clinics and staff worn use who t

used to talking about flu vaccinations to talk about it. we streamlined epic work flow across the network and expanded access at weekend flu clinics and radiology they're vaccinated and the biggest efforts are the ats alternative testing sites for covid testing. they've set up pop-up flu clinics and they're all life now and 34% do not have primary care as a medical home so we feel

like we're reaching the community at large with these ats sites as well. the totally new service areas include the shelter in place sites that the covid command center has been setting up and so, our whole person integrated care team have been working very hard in terms of reaching the homeless population and 1380 howard is vaccinationing for the first time and the tb clinic at the general is vaccinating this year.

a number of the ats sites are primary care sites. all of our service lines are vaccinating many people earlier. next slide. we do want to specifically look at disparities in terms of vaccinations and equity is one of our true north pillars. and we have noted from the data so far and we'll continue to track this and ask our operational leaders to look in this and in terms of differences for a black african american population in particular who are not having the same rate of vaccination. some of this we believe is due to documentation, lost opportunities for documentation but some of it is also due to a higher rate of decline and

vaccination, when asked, i believe one of the commissioners had a question specifically around this. i think this is a great area to look no. there are standardized messages that staff are being trained in and in terms of common myths around the flu shot and i think what probably our operational leaders will end up doing is trying to specifically engage patient advisers to look and see how that messaging is being received and if there are specific types of messaging that need to be -- next slide. so key successes and learning

that we hope to carry forward in terms of covid vaccination planning with the command center, the collaboration with those teams has been really crucial in terms of quickly setting up these efforts during covid. we need continued coordination of the vaccine inventory and storage. there's been borrowing that is useful when people have been run slow. i think the q.r. tracking and the occupational health has put forward for zfsg. we really do benefit from using something like that across all of the parts of the health network in terms of making sure our staff are vaccinated and the need to fix on health disparities has continued. that's it.

there's been tireless work with our operational leaders across the work to achieve what they've done. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. is there any public comment on this presentation? >> no, commissioner. no more callers are on the line. >> and any comments or questions from the commission? >> >> i don't see anyone with a hand up. on bow half of all of us thank you for this work in this resource constrained environment and we are living in today. very much appreciated by us and everyone in san francisco. the next item number 9 is the annual compliance (inaudible). >> yes, thank you and i just gave you permission to share

your screen. it might take her 10 seconds to set it up.

>> fantastic. >> all right. ok, good evening commissioners and maggie rykowski for the director for compliance and privacy affairs and i'm going to be going over the annual compliance training.

annual compliance training this evening. this is an over vow of what i'm going over. this meets our requirement for the governing body to receive annual training on the organization's compliance program. so i'm just going to give you an overview of our program components and i will not be addressing other areas of ocpa or providing any data. this is just on our compliance components. it's to ensure integrity and we want to insure our workforce conduct themselves ethically and that we do ensure integrity and dph business and clinical operations and we worked very diligently with our providers and workforce and dph staff and

to ensure they integrate compliance into their daily operations with d.p.h. our program is operated in accordance with state and federal standards and regulations. and we do follow the oig's recommended seven elements of a compliance program so these are the seven elements and i'm going to be going over these very briefly. so, element number one is the program must have a com ployance officer and a committee. i, as the chief integrity officer, oversee the com ployance program for dph and we also have compliance officers and compliance programs at laguna honda, vsfg and population health. we do have a dph com ployance committee and it's the executive and director level and each areas of laguna, honda, vsg and

population health, they have their own com ployance committees. element number two, required to have policy and procedures which we definitely do have. we have several written policies and procedures and we have our code of conduct and we have compliance work plans and we review everything annually and update add needed. the open lines of communication we do maintain a confidential hotline so they expect concerns. we also have an e-mail address. people can give their concerns or contact us if they have any questions. we also often times staff or others will actually contact me directly or our deputy director and we're always available to listen to people's concerns and

provide guidance as needed. we are required to provide education and training, dph pro voids an annual com ployance training through an online training module. our compliance training is coinciding with our privacy training and it's a compliance privacy and data security training module and we also provide refresher training and on side training if any issues arise and we just distribute news letters and we have eye news letter for com compliance and we distribute that quarterly and we have one coming out shortly and that's one is going to be on guests. since this is a holiday season, we are going to be focusing our news letter on gifts. so we are required to have an internal auditing program.

we have auditing both internal specifics ternal and our external audits will be if cms comes in and audits performance audit and we also have internal audits. every fiscal year we conduct risk assessment and we want to give feedback to providers and make corrections and if also if issue comes to our attention, we will conduct an audit and review as needed. so, we do need to have a system in place to respond to detect offenses, ocpa will investigation and brought to if

an allegation is substantiated we will do an pro pre a lot resolution and develop action plans and we'll make sure that we follow-up to ensure the corrective action plan is in place. if we are doing an audit and we determine that there was an overpayment, we will quickly do a pay back to make sure that the payment is done quickly and we don't have any overpayment. and enforcement and discipline, we are required to have a standard enforcement and dis plan and we work with the department of human resources to ensure that there is discipline and stands address are imposed and one thing is the oig states in his guidelines that he wants to ensure i want to talk about

our code of conducts. this covers many of our business practices and standards and it's a good guide for staff. i did provide a copy of the code of conduct. it's 20 pages and it's comprehensive and these are the elementelements in the code of . when we do our staff training, part of that training incorporates reading the code of conduct and signing that they have read the code of conduct.

the rules, regulations and laws. we want to make sure that you have an awareness of regulations governing provision of care in our reimbursement of services. monitor fiduciary duty and oversight for dph and the health commission, you have a lot of meetings and you have your having the oversight for the health commission. i just wanted to very briefly touch on a couple of healthcare laws and regulations. that we follow. one is the false claims act and this is a federal statute that

sets out criminal civil penalty for falsely building and the this is for medicate and we have to ensure that we have policies and employs our in form of a whistleblower protection and we have it in policies and different education materials that we do provide through employees. and finally the fraud enforcement and recovery act. this just is an act that actually was instituted that increased funding for federal agencies so they can do more robust auditing and inspections

for to combat financial fraud under the false claims act. i just want to move on to our statement of i am compatible activities. this is a city wide, it's not just dph. dph we do have our own policy but it's a legal requirement for all city departments to have a statement of incompatible and commissioners, i do provide the gph policies. these are covered and uses prestige of office or city work products or professional ganes,. those are a couple examples. recognizing and reporting compliance concerns and it's the duty of everyone and especially our employees that they need to comply laws and regulations and

the code of conduct and other city and and they may we really work hard to maintain a culture of -- we want to respond quickly to any compliance problems and prevent retaliation to do report and we work very hard and we let all of our staff know that they have a duty and responsibility to report misconduct including potential violations and so we really try to really emphasize with our staff and our partners that if you see something, say something. air on the side of caution. if something doesn't look like

let us know and we'll look into it. there are consequences of violations. as i said, we're going to investigate. when it's completed if it's substantiated we will take appropriate action to resolve it and this could end up corrective discipline and even up to suspension or termination. and there's also consequences for the organization. we could have the loss of eligibility to participate in medicare and medicaid, lots of our medicaid contracts and reduction and reimbursement rates and also could be loss of organizational reputations. so finally, this is our poster and we do again, whoa we emphasize the duty for violation. these are posters we have

throughout dph with our toll fro number and what should be reported? who to report to? and i think we do get a lot of inquires and we do have a lot of staff and they take our compliance program very seriously. and with that commissioners, that ends my presentation. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> there is not. no public comment. >> then, any questions or comments from our commissioners? >> well, seeing none, first of all thank you so much for this presentation. >> yes, i thank you and this is an excellent over vow of the com

ployance. how does this fit and it's an additional compliance plan that we actually are responsible for? >> yes, commissioner. it's additional. we are required office of the infect or general and the oig has set out guidelines for compliance programs and one of their strongly recommended we look at it as a requirement that the governing body needs to be made aware and really have an awareness of what the compliance program is for the organization so this is for dph's com ployance program.

>> and i think some of the questions that were asked and which i would also the then articulate. do we get a review of what our compliance program has created in terms of either number of reports and the results of those? how is it then that we understand that the department is actually doing this and the outreach has worked -- at laguna we were right with the number of complaints to the state but what do we follow here and when would woozy theswe see these parametet would be nice to be part of this and what would be the years' activities that we've had? >> ing, i do present an annual report and i did present the

annual report in august or septr and all of the office of compliance and privacy affairs and the compliance component is part of that. we also, at the jcc, and we also, if there are other reports or other information that you would like, you can please let me know and we can develop a mechanism so that you can get maybe more frequent information. >> i'm actually not sure we're interested in frequent but i'm interested in consideration that as we're looking at the compliance program, they're tied to it and also what happened that year so maybe the two things should be put sort of together in terms of a process so that we get our annual

compliance information and then we could do also what the compliance report for was that year. i think that there may be issues that can happen but it would have been fairly logical and we're listening to this we see what we're supposed to be doing and how much has been done but we don't know about the how much that has been done off of the codes. >> i see. i understand. >> so it just ties all the things. i don't know if you had a specific time that you have to give this or it could have been given at the time thaw gave your annual report. i'm not asking for extra work. i think every call that you were giving information before. this comes sort of separately and we're trying to tie these all together. >> understood. >> ok. again, thank you for the very

comprehensive information. >> any other comments or questions from the commissioners? hearing none, well, we also want to thank you so much. it's clear that you did not miss a beat going from your row marketable contribution and leadership role at laguna honda to fitting right back into your responsibilities and compliance. you are a great team player and we're so proud to be working with and we're so grateful to you for all your contributions in the last year you've given your heart and soul to this department and the citizens of san francisco and the residents of laguna honda so we're grateful to you and thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so, i guess item 10 then. >> yes. >> other business. >> is there any other business that the commissioners want to

raise? >> we have a happene a hand up. >> commissioner chow. >> yes, as you know, dr. lee passed away this past week. he was the first president of our commission. appointed by mayor diane feinstine in 1985 and he was actually an out standing citizen of not just our own city but of the country. he was previously in the johnson administration and (inaudible) and actually was one of the people who actually pushed it wasn't the primary person, in terms of the medicare implementation and subsequently

of course he was ucsf chancellor. i would like to see if the commissioner would consider adjourning in his honor. well in recognition of his work with us and having passed away and also suggest that we have a memorial resolution for his family. >> thank you so much dr. chow. i think that is a wonderful gesture and so many of us knew dr. lee at so many levels. he was a mentor to so many. my generation included but his contributions and policy government, equity, i mean there wasn't a single thing in the development of healthcare in this country that you didn't look to dr. lee. he was a prolific publisher. why think he wrote a single thing that wasn't published immediately. to have him homegrown and the first president of the this commission is an honor to us and so i think that would be a wonderful suggestion. i don't know if we need to have

a motion on this or whether we can compose a resolution and bring it to the next meeting. >> the resolution would be something that we can bring to this december 1st meeting or another meeting. the next meeting is the meeting and adjourning, you can do the commissioner suggests you just do that so there's no vote. there's not an action item on the agenda so when you adjourn, i'll remind you that we're doing that. >> thank you so much for bringing that up dr. chow. that would be a great addition to our agenda. >> and it's almost a really would be a personal privilege to have brought this up because i actually took dr. lee's position after his four years as president of the commission. and he was a great mentor. it's clear that the direction

and the work that the commission here is doing was set by dr. lee. >> you mentored many of us so you are carrying on his tradition. i know i've personally been fitted from that so thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i apologize, due to all the that is happening today, i did not send commissioner chow notes for the sum row for item 11 so would you consider delaying that item until the next meeting and having two jcp reports because dr. chow doesn't have the information he needs to report and i apologize. >> actually, it's fairly easy because the work of a jcc was really to screen and to approve information that you will be seeing at the next general meeting. along with also doing the usual quality work and in closed

session having pass the credentials report and the partnership report. and dr. grown wh grown green mid more but it might avoid giving a report at the meeting and we have only simply duplicated what we were going to do at the next meeting. >> thank you. i appreciate your compassion on that. >> thank you. >> so, i guess item 12 is the consideration of closed session. is there a motion to go into closed session. >> so moved. >> did someone second it. >> second. >> [roll call vote]

>> as we move into closed session, i want to thank everyone who will not join us. closed sessions include sfgovtv i'm going to move you out the room and we'll see you afterwards. anyone who us didn't need to be in closed session, say good-bye and give me 30 seconds to move us over >> second. >> commissioner chow. >> [roll call vote] unmute yourself, commissioner.

>> i believe we are at adjournment and commissioner chow asked for you all to adjourn in honor and memory of dr. philip lee. >> i would like to move we adjourn in the memory of dr. lee. >> i would like to take the privilege of seconding that. >> i will do a roll call vote. [roll call vote] thank you all. on this crazy night. >> thank you, commissioners. we,

2020 meeting of the police commission. i think it's probably fair to say that we all have our minds a little bit elsewhere tonight given everything that's going on in the world, and this being probably the consequential election of our lifetime. we're glad to be here with you all and we will all take the pledge of allegiance tonight with maybe a little more awareness of what's going on in the world. i will ask everyone to place their hands over their heart so we can say