>> president koppel: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for sures, january 7, 2021. happy new year and very merry christmas. on february 25, 2020 the mayor declared a local state of emergency. april 3, 2020 planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely through end of shelter-in-place. this will be the 33rd remote hearing. it requires everyone's attention

and patience. if you are not speaking please mute microphone and turnoff video to enable public participation sfgovtv is steaming live. we will receive public comment for each item. opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001. enter access code (146)157-7789. when we reach the item you are interested in, please press star then three to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unfuted, that is your queue to begin speaking. each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i will take the next person in the queue to speak. call from a quiet location,

speak clearly and slowly and please mute volume on your commission or computer. we will take roll. commission president koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner chung. >> here. >> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you, commissioners, welcome back from your holiday break. first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. 2018-01728 3-d rp at 476 lombard street to continue to january 14, 2021.

2017-01197drp-02. 3145 jackson street. discretionary review for continuance to january 14, 2021. case 2013.1535 c.u.a.-03. 450-474 o'farrell street and 532 jones street. conditions of approval proposed for continuance to january 21, 2021. four. 3927-3929 19th street discretionary review to january 21, 2021. five. 576 27th avenue. request for conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to february 4, 2021. further, commissioners under the

regular calendar item 12. conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to march 11, 2021. no other items for continuance. we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to speak to items proposed for continuance. press star 3. caller are you prepared to submit your continue with regard to items for continuance? next caller.

>> good afternoon, richard hammond for the christian science church at 450 o'farrell street. we appreciate the opportunity to bring this back to the commission, and have requested this continuance until 21st so that we can continue our public outreach process and bring that to a more successful completion due to the delays of the holidays and covid issues. we appreciate your support. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i am michael on behalf of pacific bay inn with respect to item 3 as well. we support the continuance. i wanted to reference the letter submitted this morning from the

law firm. i support the continuance. >> thank you. last chance, callers. if you would like to speak to any items proposed for continuance. okay. there is one more. >> i am patrick. i lived in san francisco for over 10 years. i want to comment on the continuance of a lot of reviews. the planning commission has presided over the increase in housing prices which is caused by the suppression of no housing construction, and that has caused the increased

homelessness as people are squeezed out. >> sorry to interrupt. it is public comment on the matters proposed for continuance. you have a general comment. >> the issue is the continuances delay construction of new housing. that is my objection. that is the end of my public comment. i wanted to raise that point. >> thank you. members of the public. last call for comment regarding the matters proposed for continuance. seeing no other requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. the items proposed for continuance are now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> moved to continue items proposed. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion to continue as proposed. commissioner tanner.

>> aye. >> commissioner chung. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. this places us on consent calendar. it is routine pan may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. no separate discussion unless a meter of the commission or public requests. which event it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a separate item. six. 2265 mckinnon avenue. conditional use authorization. seeing no member of the commission requesting to remove it from the consent calendar,

members of the public, this is your opportunity to do so by pressing star 3. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, the matter is before you. >> i would entertain a motion to move on consent. >> mover to approve on consent. >> second. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner chung. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that moss motion passes 7-0. that takes us to 7.

consideration of draft minutes for december 10, and december 17. seeing no public comment. it is closed. the minutes are now before you. >> i would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> commissioner diamond. >> move to approve both sets minutes. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissionecommissioner chun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on 8. commissioner's comments and

questions. after a long holiday break no one has anything to say. okay. >> well, i wish everybody a happy new year and hopefully our new year will be better than 2020. we are looking forward to 2021 starting out the same as 2020. it is good to see you. thank you for members of the public for joining us as well. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. seeing no further requests to speak. we can move to department matters. director's announcements. >> happy new year. i want to recognize this week is supervisor fewer and president

yee's term out. i want to thank both of them for ongoing work with our department. >> thank you. >> item 10. review of past events at the board of supervisors. i don't have a record from the board of appeals. historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. >> googood afternoon, commissioners, aaron starr, manager legislative affairs. land use considered land mark designations sponsored by supervisor piston. 1 montgomery and john deere coffee company 447 battery street. they were recommended to the full board. at the full board the supervisors passed to allow light manufacturing and wholesale storage on the 24th street mission district and mayor's ordinance to amend

planning code to allow until they can convert to retail. that is all i have for you tonight. happy new year. thank you. >> thank you, mr. star. if there are no questions for aaron, historic preservation did meet yesterday briefly. they only had three applications on the agenda. they did adopt recommendations for approval for all. that included american conservatory theater, hardware and company. "bladerunners" and 24th street dental office. if there are no questions, commissioners we can move onto your -- excuse me to general public comment. at this time members of the

public may address on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda your opportunity be will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission up to three minutes. members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing star and 3. we will take the first caller. >> hello, commissioners. i am eric. i am a student ccsf. i am advocating for zero code. i was wondering about what the commission's stance on zero code happens to be if any. >> this is not a question and answer period. it is an opportunity for you to

submit general public comment. if you would like you can contact the planning department. we can try to respond to your question. >> okay. thank you. >> hello, good afternoon. georgia. happy new year to everyone. i hope you had a great break. on tuesday i sent you an e-mail with two attachments. one three pages and one one page an attachment. i hope you had a chance to read it. it won't take too long. i hope you have a chance to read it. i will say the following. regarding they have never been adjusted. while the rh-1 value was adjusted five times prior to the legislation from the supervisor that was approved last year. i think that is a worthy

discussion to have hopefully and again everybody take care, be well, be safe and happy new year. good-bye. >> good afternoon, commissioners, the neighborhood council and san francisco land use coalition. happy new year to all. i am calling to draw your attention be to the fact that despite all the requests for permit applications and cases coming before you every week, the fact is that developers are not getting loans from the bank to actually do any construction. now one interesting trend has happened in the city. that is why i would like to draw your attention to it and maybe you can commission the planning

department to do research on this and give us a report. i have noticed that a lot of the projects before you in the past year are in fact past few years are now have been put up for sale just with the plans. in other words, we see a lot of ads, real estate ads with imaginary pictures of what the house is going to look like, whereas, no construction is taking place. while we cannot stop the flow of permits coming, permit applications coming to the city and the flow of projects that come before you for approval, it behooves us to find out how many of these projects that you are presiding over the approval

actually get built and how many provide additional housing. all of the folks that call in to keep encouraging you to expedite approval of the projects whether or not they have a point because obviously when i am going through the real estate roll i keep saying the projects that came before you, some contentious, some the neighborhood came before you with an issue with the projects. they were demolition and, of course, they were demolitions that were disguised as remodel, a lot of them still sitting there unbuilt because the reality is no sane banker is going to actually give a loan to develop the projects. to summarize, my request from you in the coming year, please commission the planning department to do a study on the projects that came before you

that were approved to see how many of these have gone on sale with the plans as opposed to being built. thank you. >> members of the public last call for general public comment. you need to press star then 3. no additional members of the public to speak at this time. i take that back. go ahead, caller. >> i am patrick. i am calling about public comment about a general comment about the state of housing in san francisco.

i really would like the planning commission to treat the lack of new housing with urgency and as a crisis that it is. use the powers to change zones, up zone a lot of large parts of san francisco to allow more housing and approval projects more quickly. adding more housing will help address the housing affordability crisis and reduce homelessness. i support more housing. we need to grow our city. thank you for all the work you do. >> hello. is this the appropriate place to comment about us ff m.o.u. >> we will call that item next. >> can you stay on? what should i do? >> i will clear this list of people requesting to speak and

you will have to press star and 3 when that item is called. >> okay. >> yes, i am new. can you hear me. >> we can. >> i am looking at the live streaming item e general comment there is no sound and no image. does that mean it is not working or what is going on with your streaming? >> that would be an issue for governor goff. -- fo for sfgovtv. turn up the volume or reboot the system. >> hello, i am george. i am a member of the san francisco land use coalition. i want to agree with one caller who just stated everyone

realizes there is a great need for more housing in san francisco, low income, middle income, whatever. the problem has been the developers can no longer make it and the banks will not give them money. many of the large projects in the city are now in an bayians where the bank has to forgive the loan for a certain amount of time because the renters can no longer pay the rent. in this situation, the developers can no longer make money on the permits that are being dumped on the city so the only way the planning commission makes 90% of their income by issuing permits so they keep issuing permits, but the developers who get the permits

cannot then use them or utilize them. as badly as we need housing and as badly as people would like to have housing built, there is no margin. it is not up to the city for the developer to build. they can give incentives. what they cannot do is have a developer go into a situation where they cannot make money. developers that no longer do that is one of the biggest reasons san francisco right now has a housing problem because they no longer have -- they have a finance problem. i do feel for the people who want more housing. i do understand there is a huge housing problem, but people have to understand regardless of how many permits, finding.

[ inaudible ] they are not being built because developers are making under 20% per unit. they need to make around 30%. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed. we should move to the regular calendar. >> item 11. u.c.s.f. parnassis. m.o.u. informational presentation. staff, are you prepared for the presentation? >> yes. >> i need to make you the presenter.

for the benefit of the public staff and u.c.s.f. have 20 minutes for the presentation. members of the public will be provided two minutes to speak. faculty, employees, regardless of whether or not you live in if immediate vicinity you are not permitted to speak under public comment. you should be part of the u.c.s.f. presentation as you have direct or indirect financial interest in this project. go ahead, josh. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. planning staff. we are here this afternoon for an informational hearing on the memorandum of inning between the city of san francisco and u.c.s.f. regarding the comprehensive parnassus plan. before we get into the m.o.u. and the plan, i want to hand it

over to jeff buckley from the mayor's office for introductory remarks. >> thanks, josh. i want to note the work you see before you is the product of months of negotiation between the city and u.c.s.f. it is a strong ex am bell of collaboration between the departments. i want to thank the planning department and the director, sarah jones and kristin from m.t.a. the city attorney's office and john from the office of economics development. i want to give thanks to jen and kyle from the board of supervisors who were partners in this effort. as i speak i am keenly aware that ambulances are outside of emergency rooms across southern california because the hospitals there lack capacity to care for

people. this m.o.u. goes beyond vital public interest. it is adding 200 hospital beds. we focused on housing, transportation and work force. staff will lay out the housing and transportation commitments in the m.o.u. are equal to and exceed what we ask of developers that we entitle. also, as the son every tired nurse i understand the importance of hospital not only to the people they care for but to the people they employ. hospitals are an engine of opportunity for those who work there. that is why the m.o.u. contains 30% good faith to about san franciscans for construction and entry level positions. we have also extended the work force programs in the m.o.u. that added capacity that u.c.s.f. seeks is vital to the health of the city and region.

lastly, u.c.s.f. expansion is vital to recovery of the city, for the beam that care for, -- people they care for and those that graduate. it is important for the economic vitality to the city and neighborhoods and city at-large. we appreciate your consideration of the item. i look forward to your feedback. >> thank you, jeff. before i hand it off for a recap of the plan. i want to remind every one of the context. u.c.s.f. as a state institution is not subject to the development regulations. our agreements between them are voluntary and negotiated. there is an m.o.u. assigned between the parties in 1987 to adds vance ongoing -- advance ongoing collaboration.

this is regarding parnassus. it is a legally binding document with accepted commitments between the city and u.c.s.f. jeff mentioned the city staff involved in this and they are here to answer questions today. you will hear from u.c.s.f. staff in a moment. we will hand it over to bryan who works in government relations and real estate and planning and health. the m.o.u. is the process that we have been undertaking for more than a couple years going back to 2018. city has been involved in the process along the way with comments and feedback. e.i.r. was published in 2020. m.o.u. has been under development for the past several months. it is important to note the new hospital will undertake its own

specific planning process which kicked off and will ramp off after the plan is approved. with that i will hand it off to bryan newman from u.c.s.f. to provide comments and overview of the plan. >> thanks. i appreciate it. i am audio today, is that right? >> we can hear you loud and clear. >> appreciate the time before the commission today. i am bryan newman with u.c.s.f. i was here a year ago to present the parnassus plan. i want to interest fight a couple themes. i want to thank justify and jeff and the team for working with us over six months to be accessible

and cooperative. the conversations weren't always easy. the final product is something we are proud of. now as far as why parnassus? we have been focused on building the mission bay campus for 25 years. the faculty and stakeholders wanted to turn at tension to the main campus where we have been for over 100 years and prepare for the next century. make it a place to be proud of and address some of the deficiencies seismic, in compliance with state law, obsolete facilities and believes, average age is over 50 years as well as create open space so the campus is a wonderful place to visit and spend time on. right now i don't think that is true. the magic of parnassis is where

all three missions education, clinical care and research all come together and ad value that is delivered in the care we provide. so the new hospital and a lot of investment is about creating capacity to continue delivering the kind of care that can only be provided at a academic medical center where we specialize in acute care. we have 3,000 cases who can't get care because we are too full. this provides framework to grow in patient capacity by 200 beds. that is modest but important in the services we provide. 42% increase in bed capacity. not overwhelming but balance to continue that service that we have been providing at parnassus

for quite some time. as we talked about last time i was here we went through a community process to identify six big ideas that shaped the plan. i don't have the time to go through all of them. let me emphasize a few. one is the park to peak connection to make sure the campus connects the golden gate park and doesn't provide a barrier and am allows the mount into the campus. another is greening the campus with open space and gathering areas and converting to a true main street, not a thoroughfare hard to cross. a main street with retail and street furniture and art. we want a new front door on irving street where 60% of arrivals come from. we want a true front door and softer edge. we will invest in those garages for a brand new front door to make it much more welcoming. those are integrated in the

plan. i am happy to answer questions. i need to move on. the other piece i want to share is our commitment to design excellence. with the new hospital, one of the first projects, we have hired two to deliver it. they embraced these high design aspirations. it is not just the new hospital. we adopted new design guidelines for all new buildings on campus to up design excellence to make sure we deliver buildings instead of page and bulky that don't age well but transform so it is a great neighbor with the kind of architecture we would like to see throughout the city but at u.c.s.f. in particular. now the community process is used in the making. we started in october 2018 with the visioning process.

that transition to community investments and addressing the growth. that community investment conversation led to the m.o.u. discussions with the city and also environmental process and review we have done. the draft e.i.r. was published last summer and final e.i.r. will be published next week. we haven't initiated the design for the hospital we hired the design team. we will kickoff in february of this year so real soon. that will have a separate e.i.r. specific to the hospital building. not the current e.i.r. in front of the regents right now. that robust process includes 28 community meetings, surveys, outreach to officials and external stakeholders and engaging thousands of neighbors. we learned a lot.

it informed the m.o.u. in front of you and the focus on affordable housing, transportation investments and open space. we are extraordinarily proud of the broad-based support and coalition for planning as it gets to mobility advocates to neighborhood groups and economic development organizations as well as elected officials. we tried hard to make this a balanced plan that just doesn't focus on one building but a framework for campus that is a good neighbor and provides for the kinds of excellent service and care that people are expecting from u.c.s.f. for the next 100 years. so i just want to finish by saying because employees can't live nearby can't speak as part of my time i want to share three voices from their perspectives.

>> i am susan fisher. i have been a professor at u.c.s.f. for almost 40 years. so proud to be part of this world class institution that is an intellectual and economic driver for the city. thank you very much for supporting revitalization of our campus. >> i am the chief administrative officer for u.c.s.f. institute of genetics and research at parnassus heights. i am a five year resident. as neighbor i support the plan. it will increase pedestrian safety, increase public transportation and increase jobs. i see firsthand the need for

upgrading the aging infrastructure. >> i am a professor at u.c.s.f., 30 year bay area veteran. i have lived on sandy street three years. it is adjacent to the use of open space. i love the idea we are going to reduce the be mouths on the neighborhood and replace with development to reduce commutes. and i also love the sensible park that will continue to improve our use of the open space. >> thank you very much. now back to you, josh. >> thank you, bryan. just real briefly. the m.o.u. process the city hosted over the last several months began at the urging of the mayor and supervisors for

president yee and preston at the time. city an agencies in the fall attended by significant number of city residents and interested parties. a lot of our comments helped shape be the process. i will hit the highlights ongoing collaboration. the 1987 m.o.u. provided general parameters. the city and public to maintain that collaboration. it requires a written report not just the progress and the m.o.u. but ongoing development, transportation patterns and important data. it does require at the behest of the planning commission an annual briefing on the same as

well as city participation to come in early on the design of individual buildings and projects as well as ongoing community events and information. i would like to mention one of the premier topics of the m.o.u. is housing. this is the greatest interest from the public and commission on housing. the work force the plan would represent. as proposed it included 750, 760 new units on the parnassus campus. interest in making sure the work force is housed, particularly those making lower wages. to give you a sense of the wages. hospitality services folks are at 40% to 110% admin assistance. higher in clinical research up to 115%. those are jobs that we are most concerned with to find housing

in san francisco that they can afford. that advances the goal by upping the housing commitment to provide 1263 units by 2050, half to be delivered in the first 10 years in line with construction of the hospital. that commitment 1263 units in the city, 750, 760 on parnassus campus. overall housing commitment plus 1,000 affordable units across the overall housing portfolio which would be delivered over the next 30 years, half which would be delivered by 2030. affordable half would be at affordable for those meeting income up to 90% or below. other half would be affordable

units available to those making up to 120% of a.m.i. there are other provisions through other units with the city providing land and expanding down payment support. transportation. there is a lot of circulation improvements the plan proposes to the campus. we heard concern around the transit capacity and circulation issues and impacts of campus growth to minimize trips and improve safety. this advances by having uc participate in funding of transportation improvements through payment of the transportation contribution which would total around $20 million over the build out of the plan. it is important to note that is just ahead of what we would expect a private developer to pay through tsf subject to jurisdiction. that would go to s.f.m.t.a. to

stand on transit improvements on services that serve the campus in the immediate vicinity. it calls out specific improvements to the platform and commitments to work with the s.f.m.t.a. in the city ongoing improvements to bike and pedestrian routes in the immediate area. couple key transportation provisions not in the m.o.u. proper but in the mitigation including commitment to tdm program with trip reduction requirement has well as commitment to expand policy programs. the patients and work with student body to support the students to assess themselves. importantly, work force policy goal to advance equity and opportunities for all sorts of people to get a foothold in

education and healthcare careers. this is a major focus of interest as well. you heards from jeff, a commitment to expand the excel program which provides an opportunity to arrange jobs at u.c.s.f. 30% local hire goal and expansion of other partnerships between uc and the city. importantly an expansion of partnership that uc has with the school district to advance mentoring opportunities for disadvantaged youth and students of color to enable them to gain a foothold to learn about opportunities in healthcare and education. on the healthcare front you heard this is a hospital healthcare program which expands medical facilities on the campus.

we did hear interest from community folks in advancing the mental health facilities as well as engineer reatric and skill -- jerrgerryatric nursing. the opportunity to expand in mental health and psychiatric care and commitments to continue to work with the city in public health to advance those kinds of services. on open space you heard commitments to maintain the reserve as well as way finding from surrounding neighborhoods and maintain vegetation on mount so tro. it is not in the m.o.u. the murals will commit to completing a task force to identify a

suitable location for the murals preserved and stored until a suitable location is found to be publipublicly viewed. we are happy to answer specific questions about the details. this is an overview. quick on the next steps. after today a hearing of the land use committee of the board of supervisors this coming monday and regents will take up the matter and the plan itself in january. the m.o.u. will not be before the region. following actions by the city they will sign the m.o.u. and execute it. that concludes the staff presentation. we are happy to take comments. there is staff from a variety of agencies should that need arise. >> thank you. before we go to public comment,

commissioner diamond, i believe you have a disclosure. >> commissioner diamond: i wanted to disclose that my daughter is a pediatric resident at u.c.s.f. it is her employer. i do not believe that will affect my ability to independently evaluate this project and participate in the planning commission deliberations on the project. >> thank you. members of the public this is your opportunity to press star 3 to enter the queue. i will start taking callers. through the chair you each have two minutes. >> hi, i am doctor theresa palm i am a patient at uc. my main concern is the lack of commitment to hospital-based long-term care beds.

one of the reasons that uc has to turn patients away because uc has no hospital-based long-term care beds. the master plan for healthcare indicated with an aging population in san francisco we are looking at a vast shortage of long-term care beds for seniors and disabled. what uc does when you are done with acute care, you get sent to soak up the rehabbeds in the community, which displace people that need long-term custodial care. there are no longer any sub-acute skilled nursing beds in the city. these are beds used for people that are ventilator dependent or need complex care, and especially with covid there are people that are going to need to be on ventilators for some time but don't need acute hospital

bed. by not having the beds at u.c.s.f. they have to go out-of-county away from family and friends. you have already against the wishes of the community described a vast increase in footprint to make many of your neighbors miserable but yo you e not meeting the needs of seniors and disabled people for long-term care beds. i think the whole thing should be delayed until there is a discussion about this. it is violating the needs clearly stated in the healthcare master plan. i appreciate the behavioral beds but we need hospital based long-term beds. i am done. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am judith, class of 1978 and

president of lum my association. board of directors of u.c.s.f. supports the plan. this project is prioritizing community engagement to envision a 21tion century educational and clinical health science campus. it is an environment nor accessible to the campus and local communities. it brings the campus up to seismic codes. over 100 years, u.c.s.f. is a healthcare partner for san francisco. assisting thousands following the 06 earthquake to the present pan dammic we are committed to the health of the community. the plan will allow future student to receive top tier training in facilities designed to promote collaboration and specialized care to further the mission of advancing health world wide.

we are very proud of the 68,000 alumni as they apply the passion for educating, improving, saving lives and as this past year has shown generating and sharing knowledge, research across the county and the world. the cphp ensures that generations to come will contribute to the legacy of u.c.s.f. from research on vulnerable population was and the surgery it is known for brilliant researchers and ad vancement in medical fields. we see this as a vital vision for the future of our school. personal note we are post war babies in senior years. it is time for rebirth of 21st century hospital. please don't delay the hospital. thank you so much. >> hello. i am familiarly abraham

representing the san francisco chamber of commerce in support of the u.c.s.f. parnassus plan. we need healthcare in the city as well as local jobs for the city to emerge from the pandemic. the campus would provide a world class hospital and about local residents for construction jobs with the 30% goal for legal hi and small businesses. we have been engaging for more than two years. 28 community meetings, 70 briefings, 2400 community services and much more. they have committed pol$20 million into the public transit improvements with the city which it needs. it is committed to building over a thousand housing units and sharing 40% with the work force.

we remain in a housing crisis in san francisco more than ever. this is a much needed addition to the housing supply in the city. the m.o.u. addresses the potential increase in the campus population such as commitment for providing local jobs, housing and prioritising transit. please do not delay this critical project for the health of all of san francisco. thank you for your time and happy new year to you all as well. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am speaking on behalf of the housing action coalition. we recognize this is an informational hearing with no vote. we wish to express strong support for the proposal. it is a world class leader and this is vital to continued success to serve more patients.

u.c.s.f. has gone above and beyond for community input as part of the planning process and the result is well thought through comprehensive plan to address the critical healthcare, housing, jobs and public transportation needs of the community. third a well documented that healthcare and housing are linked as housing is an established social dermtive of health and u.c.s.f.'s commitment to more housing of affordability reflects that reality. u.c.s.f. recognizing the beneficial health impacts of stable housing on households reduced rates and we commend them for alleviating the san francisco housing short age and affordability crisis. 246% of housing units per households at 120% emi or less and 19% for staff households at

121% to 200% a.m.i. with increased supply of affordable housing will help the residents and increase financial flexibility for healthcare. last but not least we applaud u.c.s.f. emphasis on improving and expanding public transportation in addition to environmental benefits of reducing car traffic. this will benefit those who rely on on public transportation to access necessities food, employment, education and healthcare for all of these reasons and many others the housing action coalition supports u.c.s.f. thank you. >> hi, commissioners. i am laurie in the inner sunset. we can agree u.c.s.f. is a greatly valued medical

institution. the central issues before you concern u.c.s.f. as developer. the 2014 long-range development plan including the parnassus redevelopment reaffirmed the space ceiling. less than two years they expanded 42%. this was a bait and switch for community members who worked on the lrdp. i appreciate the work of planning to negotiate m.o.u. mid pandemic with short timeline. negotiated increases to housing and transit are too little afford ability for the low wages paid to entree level uc staff. this leads to low paid workers long distances and pressure on local housing costs driving gentrification and displacements. $20 million for transit is less than $1 million each year of construction. the cost of one three car train

platform is ducted from that. the bulk of the agreements are nonbinding by the use of good faith efforts, investigate potential for, explore opportunities, subject to available space, reaffirms desire to, etc. it overflows with paragraphs that as knowledge the partnerships and programs while understanding the limits on the city's authority it relinquishes the true leverage issuance of permits in exchange for so little. the vast expansion violating decades of agreements is not even addressed. uc rush to seek approval during the pandemic within seven months of the draft e.i.r. is not in good faith. please support request for delay. thank you.

>> hi, i am a renter in inner sunset. i pass u.c.s.f. when i walk every day. this is an amazing project. i support this as quickly as possible. the community benefit package is generous including the hospital so they don't turn people away any more. 4,000 jobs, $20 million in funding for transit, 1200 new homes, 1,000 subsidized homes. u.c.s.f. has gone above and beyond. it is more than we can ask for, more than legally required. given how great u.c.s.f. is in a neighbor reaching out ho those nearby. i hope we can be great neighbors. the process has lasted years with 30 community meetings. it would be a shame to drag this out any further. thank you. [please stand by.]

we look forward to collaborating on these investments. >> hello. i'm a pharmacist at ucsf and i'm calling in support of the parnassus. it is more important than ever to make sure that ucsf invests in upgrades. the truth is we simply cannot get to our fullest extent with the limitations of our current campus. this will encourage people to join our community and come up with solutions, not only in san

francisco, but in the country and world. i almost didn't come here because i come from a low-income family on the east coast. i wanted to know why people come up with innovative solution problems, it's important to consider the hit the city has due to the economy this would create. we don't want to encroach on the neighborhood. i'm proud to give and serve my patients. it will help us better serve our community. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is conrad. i'm the executive director of the san francisco medical society. we represent over 3,000 physicians in san francisco and ma written counties including 800 ucsf positions. it was in consultation with our

members that we carefully considered the proposal and the board of directors voted to endorse the plan. on the increased capacity to serve patients that their redevelopment of the parnassus site campus would provide. the plan proposes to increase the site's capacity while replacing and renovating the medical, clinical and research facilities. it's our belief, the belief of our board of directors, that this investment is necessary if the community that we represent is to continue to provide excellent care to san francisco's communities. and if we are to maintain parnassus height stature as a world class medical facility. i think it's important to consider that the planned

enhancements will attract the best to san francisco. i would like to thank the commission for the opportunity to provide the public comment. >> hello. i'm resident of the inner sunset. this is a very nice picture as it serves the goals, short-term, long-term of ucsf, but how does that actually happen? years of construction. years of noise and pollution for the immediate area. this really has -- ucsf has not adequately addressed the impact over many years on the immediate residents of the inner sunset. and so from even a health standpoint, this is -- what about our quality of life? and i'm not convinced and i'm not sure that we've been given

any guarantees about how this actually is going to be done. how do all these materials get to ucsf? using all the various streets surrounding ucsf? this actually has to be built. this is going to take a long time. earth has to be moved. debris has to be moved. and i really feel like we need to delay this decision because i don't think the neighborhood has been adequately informed about the specifics of how this is actually going to be rolled out, what the duration is, what it's going to look like, feel like, breathe like during this entire period of development. i don't understand the need to go as far as ucsf is going under the guise of offering world-class medical care. this is -- there needs to be modifications in the scope.

thank you for listening. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tia. i'm chair of san francisco unity. i want to speak in support of the project. and also to point out that what we're hearing today is micro cox of the planning process. doctors and nurses who are risking their lives right now, working around the clock to saving us during a pandemic are not allowed to speak. but wealthy homeowners who make millions off the housing crisis, can call in and continue to advocate for no new housing that could affect their property values. i understand we don't want people with financial incentives to be speaking, but saying that nurses can't speak and wealthy homeowners can is not equity. second, i would like to say, this is why we shouldn't make

decisions based off public comment. wealthy communities have opposed this hospital for the decades. in the 70s we gave them control over the affordable housing and because of that we have fewer i.c.u. beds than we had let them limit the size of the hospital. think about how much better off we would be as a city right now if we had more i.c.u. beds. if we hadn't given people control of our hospital system. it's just incredibly out of touch and privileged to ask, oh, can a hospital -- the fact of the hospital providing hospital beds is the benefit to the community. the housing is a benefit to the community. we should not be listening to them and prevent them from

having us build more housing projects. >> good afternoon, commissioners. neighborhood council and land use coalition. i just want to bring to the commission of the -- attention of the commission, that we heard from several individuals in the past 10 minutes when the public comment started that are employees of ucsf. so i don't think the rule that jonas announced at the beginning of the public comment on this matter is being observed. secondly, i'm calling in opposition to the expansion of ucsf. nothing is more preposterous than bringing up unmet community needs as the reason for a mega expansion of a for-profit hospital. ucsf is not providing beds to the community. this is a for-profit operation and if you do not have the insurance or the means to pay,

you're not going to be at ucsf. this is the largest commercial project before you in many years. and at a time when the city is going through the population contraction and tens of thousands of our fellow san franciscans are facing economic hardship and job losses, nothing is more offensive than taking on a massive project like this, with little to no benefit to the public, plus not having the appropriate outreach for the people who are going to be -- who are living in that neighborhood. this plan breaks the longstanding agreement with neighbors and the city to maintain the current size and population. ucsf picked mission bay for their expansion and signed an m.o.u. now they're breaking it. also the pretense to providing affordable housing is offensive. 50% of those so-called affordable housing has been slated for 90% of the ami, which

believes behind the janitorial staff. we look forward to defeating this project. thank you. >> good afternoon. this is lope jr. i'm a professional filmmaker, vice president of the george washington high school alumni association and one of the principles in defending priceless art at george washington high school as well concern with the -- the issues of the zackheim murals at ucsf. i like to thank the ucsf for creating a task force and i hope they can do this immediately because my observation is there has not been a preliminary report to save toll and hall or zackheim murals.

there are no reports to create a bubble so you didn't have to move the murals. and if you did, i mean i know they picked arg and all to move them, but there is not a definitive plan on things like are they going to be environmentally controlled environment? proper supervision? no declaration on whether they're going to be reinstalled on the new campus or not and when. because the last thing we want -- we would not love to hear an indefinite storage. that is why i'm hoping that the task force can be proactive in helping ucsf not -- stewardship, art insured -- stewardship and i would be happy to volunteer if asked. thank you very much.

>> hi, my name is -- i am resident of district 8 and a member of san francisco unity. and i'm calling to strongly strongly support this project. for a few reasons that are pretty straightforward. the first is that this is a state project and as a result, i think it's important to note that this project -- the city zoning doesn't directly apply to it and as a result, much of this entire exercise is irrelevant and a waste of time. further more, i think that the fact that we're in a pandemic and we have people arguing against hospital expansion is pretty remarkable. there are so many articles and so many studies coming out about how covid is not going to be the last pandemic we face.

others like los angeles are 0% i.c.u. capacity and to see the selfishness of people saying, oh, there is going to be construction near me and we can't build a hospital and if people have to die in the next pandemic, so be it. it's disgusting. further more, i think that a hospital is in and of itself a community benefit. especially a public hospital like ucsf. and the fact that they're building housing and providing funding is a cherry on top of that. and we should be incredibly proud of the fact that we're getting a world-class hospital expansion. and in a time where transit is facing unprecedented crisis and particularly budget crisis, $20 million, will help people throughout the city get to work and lower carbon forms of transportation. so this is really a no-brainer.

and i hope that the planning commission and also the supervisors make the right decision here. [bell ringing] frankly, i'm opposing this project. thank you. >> hi. this is jeff till. i'm an architect and speaking today on behalf of spur in san francisco. spur looks at some large development projects in the city that have a heavy level of impact through our project review board which i serve on as well as the board of directors there. and i just want to say a couple of things about spur's review of the project. we were asked to look at the conceptual plans a few weeks ago. and our group got together to look at the things that concern

spur's agenda which are around urban policy, urban planning and good government in san francisco. so we felt as though the plan at the conceptual level that it sits at now is pretty impressive in how it starts to reknit the campus back into its adjacent neighborhood. number one. and particularly with the parked peak idea and how that is going to be implemented. and secondly, also the ability to provide -- not only just provide affordable housing, but to provide that affordable housing in a way that creates a certain amount of buffer to the neighbors and to the scale and the transition of scale from residential into the more intense level of hospital density, if you will. so, those two features at an urban planning level seem to be very beneficial from our point

of view. we do recognize that the existing site as its developed does provide a bit of a barrier as you're moving from north to south and trying to get up into the -- onto the hillside. and this notion of making it more permeable, providing access for the neighbors and everyone in the area, connected to transit, and then to the employment that it brings, is a pretty good mix -- [bell ringing] of improvements and benefits in and of itself. so, again, our focus is really around the quality of urban design. and the quality -- >> thank you, sir. >> hi, jeff, josh and rich. this is george wooding. i'd like to name at least five residents from the september 29th meeting or the december

meeting. he states there are thousands. there may have been many people before, but the actual m.o.u. has not been presented to small homeowners through -- around the adjacent campus. many people will not like this project once they understand it. this is slipping by through the covid and just simply by not being publicized. so i want to thank the former m.o.u. people. that's how we got dog patch. that's how we got mission bay. it's time to either delay this project while it's reviewed by real neighbors, because planning

lists are not made up of residents, they're made up of contractors and developers. we have no idea who was the residents. they only claim in their own literature that they talked with 50 residents. [bell ringing] it's a situation where just passing by, there has been no neighborhood involvement whatsoever. i'm against this project until the neighborhoods become an equal partner and stakeholder in this. thank you very much. >> hi there. my name is dave brown. i've been a neighbor a few blocks away from ucsf parnassus for over 15 years now. i think i'm in full support of the plan. i think it's great. i think the outreach to the

community has been impeccable. they've gone above and beyond in communicating with all of us who live nearby. i'm personally grateful for ucsf parnassus, the institution. my two kids were born there. my best friend recovered from leukemia getting a bone marrow transplant at ucsf. i think at a time when a lot of businesses have left or are thinking of san francisco, we need to do all the more to keep great institutions like ucsf able to succeed and grow and evolve in san francisco. you know, i would be mildly inconvenienced by construction maybe, but that's a small price to pay for keeping such a great institution in our neighborhood. thank you.

>> -- [indiscernible] in the bay area. >> jonas: caller? >> can you hear me? can you hear me? >> jonas: now we can hear you. go ahead. >> hi, this is matt regin from the bay area council representing 350 of the largest employers in the bay area. by way of personal preference, privilege rather, my wife started her nursing career at ucsf many years ago in the neonatal intensive care unit and at that time and today it is the world leading institution for saving the lives of countless young children and incredible institution there and elsewhere within the hospital. we're fully supportive of the plan. i would like to echo the comments made earlier by spur.

we also reviewed the plan. it promises to be a world-class facility, a world-class institution that san francisco will be proud of in years to come. the community benefits package is incredibly generous. the long range planning for transportation and impact mitigation is as good as i've ever seen. the bay area council would urge to you move forward with this plan as swiftly as possible. thank you. >> hi, can you hear me? >> jonas: yes. >> my name is matthew, president of the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce. ucsf has been a good partner of the chamber in addressing issues that affect our community. our chamber approaches small business advocacy from six different points. one, contracting and workforce development, health care access,

housing, education, social-economic stability and demographic stability. we see the ucsf parnassus plan threatening our advocacy. the ucsf parnassus plan is wholesome, fair and equitable and demonstrates attention paid to stakeholder identification and engagement. the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce supports the plan and is looking forward to your support of it. >> hi. this is scott. i'm a renter in san francisco. and i'm really excited about this project. it's time to get shovels in the ground and start building this desperately needed new hospital as quickly as possible.

it's amazing that ucsf will build over 1,000 homes and substantially fund transit improvements with the project. the current m.o.u. terms are to move forward. our community doesn't need more negotiation from supervisors. we need a new hospital and we need it now. let's take a step back to appreciate the fact that a new hospital is a massive community benefit in and of itself. even if there were no m.o.u. at all. for over two years, ucsf has listened to the community. now it's time to build. s.f. is extremely lucky to have a facility like ucsf serving our community. during this pandemic, we've all realized how much ucsf has worked tirelessly to save the lives of our loved ones. our community strongly supports this project as it stands today. a once in a century global pandemic is absolutely the wrong

time to delay building this hospital project. i could go on and on about all the benefits, but i'd like to focus on earthquake safety. this hospital is far more protected against earthquakes than other ucsf facilities. we all know that the big earthquake could attack any day. if we've learned anything during this pandemic, it's that our city needs more hospital beds and more hospital capacity. no more negotiation. please approve this project asap. as a community, s.f. wants to support ucsf. let's support our health care heroes by not delaying this project any further. thank you. >> hello. my name is cass. i have served on community advisory groups. our only role on the parnassus plan has been to say what could

-- palatable to neighbors. not how could the plan be improved with neighbor input? ucsf does provide many benefits to san francisco and west coast patients, however, ucsf has long gotten a free ride as it benefits from emergency services, city streets, water, transit and housing in san francisco without to this point ever contributing to their -- [indiscernible] i'm glad to see that ucsf is offering some compensation back to the city. however, at best, ucsf offers housing which we have fought for very hard and many offers to explore or make a good effort or identify opportunities or increase opportunities, these things are not tangible. on the subject of transportation, based on current access to campus. approximately 2500 additional

cars will be arriving at campus. ucsf only offers us a 15% reduction. where are the commitments? where are the guarantees these commitments will be kept? please delay the m.o.u. until real commitments are made with guarantees. [bell ringing] please delay the m.o.u. until the b.l.f. and the public can review the final eir documents as well as the m.o.u. the changes to this plan because of covid, everything is just -- 50% -- [indiscernible] we love what ucsf does, but it has a very big footprint in a very tight neighborhood. thank you. >> hi. my name is martha. i live on sixth avenue and president of the inner sunset park neighbors and neighborhood group.

i served on the ucsf community group and also part of the revisioning process. inner sunset park neighbors support the plan, but we were a little disappointed there was not more specific community benefits included in the m.o.u. to support our neighborhood business corridor. we asked them to consider community connection to the business district to be included in the plan. as of the 1976 original m.o.u. si -- cited 9th avenue as one of the campus. we've asked to -- not just down to 9th avenue as way to lead people from the campus into our business district. we've asked for safety improvements at the entrance. we urge the m.o.u. to include a

fund to go towards specific community benefits to the inner sunset. we hope and value our partnership with ucsf. we are good neighbors to each other and we hope that this can be considered. thank you very much. >> hi there, my name is patrick. resident of san francisco. lived for a long time in 9115. i'm just speaking in support of this project. it's such a great project. this is exactly the kind of project we need in the city. i'm so proud that we're going to be getting, not just a new hospital, which is incredible, especially during a pandemic with more beds. we're going to have great new jobs at the location. it's right along a transit corridor served by the highest capacity train line in the muni line in san francisco. it is also served by three bus

lines. and those people who arrive at ucsf say, do not arrive by private automobile. they arrive mostly by walking, biking and taking transit. that's the majority of trips in the eir. and i'm really happy about all the housing. we desperately need housing in the city. so by building more housing, we'll have more people able to afford to live here. the city will grow. and i'm proud and excited about this. makes me really excited for the future of san francisco. and i just want to say there is a lot of misinformation shared by people opposed to the project. i want to call that out. it's important that people share the truth about the project and not misrepresent the complaints. too many -- [bell ringing] -- i just want to say i support the project and i hope that the planning commission will support it. thank you.

>> hi, this is steve, i'm a resident of district 7 and i'm calling in strong support of this project. i would like to just point out that this construction will provide jobs for a lot of working class folks. you know, these are really needed jobs in our city. it will also provide 4,000 permanent positions and also improve the surrounding neighborhoods like the inner sunset, haight ashbury. doubling the housing in parnassus heights would contribute much needed housing to the city. this is a tremendous opportunity. it will expand our access to health care. it will give jobs, desperately needed housing, so i strongly urge you to support this project. thank you.

>> go ahead, caller. >> hello? >> jonas: yes, go ahead. >> hi. this is benjamin catching. hello, commissioners. i'm not only a resident of district 5, but i'm also a -- [indiscernible] and i'm very much in support of ucsf parnassus campus plan and the m.o.u. with the city for most of the reason that as students not always regarded as the primary reason why ucsf is there, most people think about the service of a hospital, but the future generations who work at hospitals need to be trained somewhere. and students living in san francisco desperately need the housing that this plan will offer. the fact that 40% of its housing

will be affordable to students is greatly needed by students who work here and hope to get back to the muni by helping them heal in ways to heal. please do not delay this critical project while staff and faculty may not speak on its behalf, this plan will greatly help students. thank you. >> hi there. this is andrew day calling. i'm a district 5 resident. and i just wanted to call in strong support of this project and hope that it will move forward without any delay. i think we're in the midst of four major crisis. we have a housing crisis. we're in the middle of a pandemic. middle of a recession. in the middle of a transit budget deficit. and i think this project really contributes solutions to all

four of them. the city is in desperate need of more housing stock. this will provide over a thousand units and a good portion of them are affordable, which is fantastic. it will provide both short and long-term jobs with benefits, which is fantastic again for those who may have lost their job or are looking for gainful employment. i think the transit improvements, the transit funding will be instrumental to kind of both the area and the media at large. and obviously, from a health care perspective, you know, increasing capacity in any way is certainly fantastic and is a wonderful community benefit. so i just wanted to say that i strongly support this project and hope it moves forward without delay. thank you. >> commissioners, john speaking

for bay area build affordable faster california. wish you a healthy new year. two points. the draft eir for the project that the ucsf has done did not calculate the job housing balance number, the need for new housing for the increased in 6,000 average daily population of students and workers. that would result from the project. we need that and of course we also need it broken down by affordability tiers to know if the proposal in the m.o.u. for 1200 units is in fact sufficient to meet the demand for the housing that would result from the project. the department staff could do this i believe relatively quickly. and it would be good if they could do it by monday before the board of supervisors hearing. this will come up.

it may be legal somehow, but not having this proposed m.o.u. put before our city legislature, the board of supervisors for actual approval as well, as the planning commission, is really bad look. it obviously looks like a political game of keepaway is being played here, where the commission will do it, but the democratically elected legislative body cannot weigh in, even though the propose d ucsf project change is certainly equivalent to a major up-zoning that would always have to go -- [bell ringing] -- for action. it's a bad look. the board was selected democratically. your commissioners are appointed, but they're elected representatives and they should in fact approve this m.o.u. before it is final. and i think you really need to take care of that. thank you.

>> hello, my name is richard rothman and i'm calling about the murals in toland hall. i think the committee that ucsf is proposing should meet right away. and we need to know more about the committee, not just who the chairman is going to be. who the members of the committee are. will the meetings be open to the public? will there be public comment? you know, moving these murals -- i don't know how many of you have seen these -- but these murals tell a story. and they all need to be in one location. and i ask ucsf how much would it cost to leave the murals there and build around it? because originally their plan was to leave toland hall in

place. there is going to be no patients that wing, so it doesn't need the seismic upgrade. so there is just a lot of questions. and how do we know once they go down to oyster point that they'll find a location. just look what happened to the rubio murals. how many years have they been in storage in oakland and we haven't seen them? the city made these a city landmark. [bell ringing] the planning commission and staff need to be more aggressive in making sure that these murals are protected. and you need to do your job to make sure. and there should be a written agreement about the task force and procedures and dates and

then josh talked about having meetings with ucsf about this mural. i'd like to find out what the staff is talking about. [bell ringing] so if you could make those documents available to the public, i would appreciate it. thank you for your time. >> jonas: hello, caller, are you prepared to make your public comment? >> yes. can you hear me? >> jonas: we can. >> thank you. i was on mute. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm matthew blaine. a mountain bike advocacy group and i'm calling to support the plan. it was one of the first places i learned about mountain biking in san francisco when i moved to the city and one of the places i

started engaging in the local community and local volunteering. the open space is an important part of the city and it recognizes this by improved space, improved management of the open space and improving connection to the park. in addition to the approved hospital and the very important housing to community. we look forward to working with ucsf and their other local partners in improving this area and hospital. i hope you support this. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. as a point of order, it would be nice for -- if the secretary could announce how many people are in the queue, that would help probably with folks figuring out scheduling. for the project at hand, you know, i think hospitals, as we've seen in the pandemic, are a public good.

the fact that there is housing and transportation benefits -- my name is michael chen. i'm resident of district 2 and i support this project. so the housing and transportation benefits look really good. i think these are really great things that happened over a very long and extensive community outreach process which has been the past two years, 25+ meetings. and it seems good to have these things go through. ucsf started this process a long time ago. i think that we've had a lot of yacht reach. you know, this is housing that the community asked for. this is transportation benefits that the community did ask for. and i think we should respect those things and try to speed this project along. we've gone through so many hoops and hurdles, it makes sense to proceed without delay. i hope the commission will encourage that. thank you very much.

>> hi. my name is eric schultz. i'm a current resident. i live next door on both sides of ucsf at belvedere and 7th and lawson. i'm calling to express my strong support for the ucsf plan. in the midst of the pandemic, it's important to have such an amazing hospital to deal with this and future health challenges. this is not going to be the last major health challenge we'll face as a city and i'm grateful to have ucsf here to help us weather it. ucsf is a public hospital that leads in medical research which benefits us all. it's a national treasure and i'm grateful for it. our health care workers have stood up for us in this pandemic and now we must support them,

ucsf building more seismically sound facilities. it's a big win for all that lives here. it's a public hospital, not-for-profit, and its public mission is well known and well regarded. i support the ucsf plan. thank you. >> hello. my name is jeff cole. i'm a neighbor of ucsf. i'd like to first urge the commissioners to give the planning staff and other city agencies a request to actually study the traffic and transit impacts of building a 300-foot tall tower at the parnassus campus and bringing in what i have heard are 8,000 extra people expected a day, 2500 cars. the sierra club, if you look at their recent letter, feels this

will be a disaster. the transit components of the draft m.o.u. appear to be aspirational. and despite capping ucsf's commitment at $20 million, do not specify any actual improvements that are going to be made, other than improving the stop at 2nd avenue. and i don't think anybody knows whether there is anything that is even feasible that can be done to the enjudah, to avert what will be otherwise a disaster. and there is no reason the city needs to rush into this. give it time, take a look at it. this is so important to get it right for the city. if you ruin the neighborhoods, you're going to drive everybody away. downtown is already -- [indiscernible] -- like it's coming back. one further thing. the open space -- [bell ringing] -- preserve is supposed to be maintained at the same level of what it is now.

and, yet, ucsf admits they're going to excavate a hillside and take away part of the forest. where are they going to find additional forestland? make them specify that. there is time. i appreciate everybody's work on this, but the cost of getting it wrong is too great. thank you. >> hi, my name is dr. brian grady. i'm a urologist. i am a former resident of the inner sunset. i did my internship and residency at ucsf and i was there from 1994 to 2000. at the time, even then, 20-26 years ago, the buildings there were in bad need of repair.

there is a problem with hospitals in that the technology involved in the administration of health care rapidly outgrows the buildings. and there is only a limited amount of rehabilitation and restructuring from within that can be done. at a certain point, it becomes important to replace hospital buildings completely. i recall having to walk from the long and moffatt buildings down to the other conferences. when you enter university hall, as we used to call it, there were big signs that said enter at your own risk, this building is a seismic danger to yourself. so that was 25 years ago. i can only imagine what it's like now. and the clinical buildings that house patients are no longer considered up to seismic standards, so they need to be replaced. let alone, all of the technology that is important for -- [bell

ringing] -- medical care. so -- and i have also experienced as a long time resident of the city and i work at california pacific center and there was a lot of opposition to the van ness campus and the mission bay campus. but once they were completed and open, everyone cheered how great they were. everybody who sets foot inside those hospitals is floored by the modernaity and the advanced technology done fort neighborhood. and the same for mission bay. [bell ringing] i support. >> jonas: thank you. >> hello. thank you, commissioners. my name is michele bell. i'm the general manager at mission hiring call here in san francisco. we support ucsf's parnassus campus plan and the m.o.u. with the city.

we've been a long time partner with ucsf to provide employment to san francisco residents. we're confident of the community outreach, the research and the effort given to the creation of the m.o.u. ucsf plans to ensure a 30% local-hire for the construction workers on the project for years to come, this project will only expand the opportunities that san franciscans currently have with ucsf in health care, education and services. on a personal note, of ucsf impact to family, our son is a current medical student at ucsf. ucsf was his top choice. ucsf awarded him a full scholarship and he just interviewed for resident position. he'll begin his medical career without medical school debt. and i'm confident that opportunities of this magnitude will continue to grow with this project. please do not delay this project.

please listen to the support in the community of the city that we serve. thank you so much. >> hi, i'm a homeowner in inner sunset living here with my husband, small child blocks away from ucsf. we're in no way affiliated with ucsf. we're very much in support of the parnassus plan. the pandemic, my husband and i commute daily on the n and other buses and we're excited to see investments in public transportation serving this neighborhood as we're very familiar with its current issues. we're also exited about the potential for -- excited for the opportunity for the neighborhood to be more connected with ucsf. and we're glad to see the investment in affordable housing. i recognize this project may cause disruptions to my daily life, but i believe the

long-term benefits outweigh any short-term discomfort. they've done outreach and provided ample opportunity for me and my neighbors to provide feedback and it's time to approve the m.o.u. without further delay. thank you. >> good afternoon, members. my name is sara hoffman. i've a member of the san francisco and i live just on the other side of boris. this project is a no-brainer. it's going to expand a public hospital providing additional capacity at a time when the importance of high quality medical care has become so apparent. it will provide much needed housing for the heroes who have been working around the clock to look out for us during this pandemic. it's troubling that ucsf are barred from speaking at this hearing.

the cacophony of neighbors ignores the fact that having a state-of-the-art public hospital in the middle of san francisco is a community benefit. affordable housing is a community benefit. improved transit is a community benefit. and bringing more residents to this neighborhood will benefit local businesses. the disgruntled neighbors speaking here need to recognize the benefits this project will bring. their objections are more -- [indiscernible] -- fortunately, the city doesn't have the power to deny the project, because it has no jurisdiction overstate land. as they're aware, the project delayed means a project denied. i ask this project move forward without further delay to bring this housing to san francisco.

>> hello. my name is evelyn. i'm looking at this and i think of janitors and i don't think they make 90% or 120% of san francisco's average means ami. many have been displaced. and i don't know any alternative for janitors commuting in from tracy. so when we speak about the two -- cars -- or whatever that was, those are people who are commuting in from tracy. so we need to think about the janitors. the support staff and i've only heard a handful of people commenting on this. let's give it more serious thought. thank you.

>> good afternoon, planning commissioners, hello, my name is sarah. i'm a lead member of welcoming all potential residents to san francisco. i also want to say my husband has been a patient with ucsf. he was involved in extensive clinical trials that really treated his atrial fibrillation and has helped save his life. clearly i support the project. i think that ucsf has been committed to working with the community since july 2018. beginning with an online survey distributed to the surrounding neighbors. 1,000 surveys were collected. results provided. insights given. community members, you know, have had ample opportunity to provide their feedback.

and you know, everything about this project is good. it reflects sustainability, reducing urban sprawl, using energy more efficiently, creating a smaller carbon footprint. it's about accessibility. it's going to encourage biking, walking and taking public transit. it's going to increase access to diverse cultural products and each other. this is about opportunity. this is going to increase job opportunity. promote innovation and enable people to be more productive. this is a particularly efficient place to build housing because of its moderate climate. [bell ringing] this project is absolutely exciting and i would love other people to have the opportunity to treat their health issues as ucsf. i think we should not deny those people opportunities at the soonest possible time. please support and move this project forward as quickly as possible. thank you.

>> hello, commissioners. my name is tim. i'm a lawyer and a district 5 neighbor on clayton street. i'm calling in support of ucsf parnassus campus plan and m.o.u. ucsf is a fabulous institution. in one of the buildings that the campus plan would ensure is seismic, which is has not. my father has parkinson's disease. it's important we are able to update the hospital. some complain there has not been neighborhood involvement. there has been community involvement for more than two years. we've heard there are not enough community benefit, but there are so many community benefits. a huge number of jobs. housing units, including

affordable ones. more open space. improved and safer traffic flow. truly will revitalize our neighborhood. i spent more time than ever walking the streets of our neighborhood during the pandemic. i love the area and firmly believe more people should get to live here. this project will make our area better. the costs of delay are so high. particularly in the midst of our housing crisis an this global pandemic. i'm thrilled about this project and encourage you, please, please, approve this project. >> hi. my name is -- i live in san francisco for 15 years. i now live in district 7. i'm also the founder of a coalition of residents who advocate for housing and other development in the city. i strongly support the ucsf

expansion and we're lucky that ucsf is making such a large commitment and investment in our city. ucsf is a large part of my life. my two daughters were born in mission bay. everyone in my family is a patient. i believe the opposition is shortsighted and selfish. we need to think about the long-term growth of our community and city. as someone who plans to live in district 7 forever, i'm excited to have a new world class hospital on the west side of the city. in addition, i believe ucsf has gone above and beyond with the m.o.u. and the investments they'll be making in the neighborhood. muni is in trouble. the n train is not running. the six is dead possibly forever. since covid, we know how critical open spaces and infrastructure are. all of these investments will create jobs, make our streets safer and support local

businesses. i'm happy to be raising my two daughters here. we're now up to 830 signatures. hundreds in just the past 24 hours. we're not going to stop. we're going to show broad support and the opposition is a minority. we should not let them block progress in the city. please do not delay this project. it is time to invest more in the city so we can come back stronger post covid. i look forward to seeing this project become a reality. >> hi there. i'm evan. i'm a neighbor of ucsf campus. and i'm here to show support the ucsf parnassus expansion. i would like to suggest that a 7-month approval process is too slow, especially in light of the multiple emergencies of our

time. after years and years of no construction, i'm in support of years and years of construction. especially in our community. nothing would make me prouder as a neighbor than to put up with a minor disturbance to my own life to support the medical staff of ucsf who save lives every day. that's what it means to be a good community member. so let's move some earth and please make noise. let's support the parnassus expansion. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on beof half of the housing action coalition speaking in support here today. the aforementioned petition from a couple of speakers, we're also cosponsoring that. when i sent that in, there were 568 signatures. right now i'm looking at it online, there are 830 -- 842 now

signatures. 86% of the signatures are coming from san francisco residents. 34% of the signatures come from zip codes 94117, 94132 and 94131, which are the immediate neighbors around the project. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> 700,000 people employed and only 400 homes. only half of the workforce is living in the city. this amounts to hundreds of thousands of people needing homes.

have people stopped needing healthcare? are hospitals useless? i mean, look at the facts. san francisco is an aging city. in 2010, 14% of people were age be. when a hospital wants more space, to provide more and greater healthcare, like our city should make a plan for how to support that. what i hear from this meeting is people are upset about a lack of housing and a lack of transportation. those are absolutely real problems, but the responsibility for fixing these things belong to the city government, not hospitals. thank you. >> hello.

i'm a planning commissioner from the city of campbell in the south bay, though speaking here only for myself. i encourage the planning commission to support this project. this has underscored how our housing capacity is underserviced. the city is suffering from an excess of caution. the costs are getting it wrong after a full e.i.r. and a public engagement process is a fantasy and an excuse. please move this process ahead with all possible speed. i understand people might not want to see their neighborhoods change. i realize this will go against with some of the arguments here today. i yield the balance.

>> this is essential because [indiscernible] so by allowing new construction on this campus, we will be able to address the long-term healthcare needs of the city of san francisco and of the entire bay area community. and i think this represents a fantastic face plant update of the campus in general. it continues to attract people

to the bay area. >> ucsf has been harvesting [indiscernible] -- ucsf has been harvesting comments and reached out to me and my neighbors. an opposition to this plan includes a vast spectrum of reasons from a variety of stakeholders in the community including neighbors, employees, major donors as well. there are hundreds of signatures on the petition. ucsf is an amazing medical provider, but this plan is still deeply flawed from the hospital building to the crowding and densification of a covid-19 campus. to the environmental impact on

humans and wildlife to the health and safety of neighbors who will be exposed to particulate matter. finally, ucsf's unwillingness to compromise on the massive scale of the plan or explore other alternatives that would not only explore other alternatives and the community but the community itself. ucsf should take this to strengthen community relationships and instead they are forcing a plan through setting up a global pandemic that would place animosity on neighbors and place overwhelming demand on the city. >> members of the public, if you wish to give public comment, you have to press star.

i have no more members of the public wishing to speak on this item. of course now there are more. >> hello, i'm a tenant in san francisco. i picked up an article in the examiner and read about this and i also scanned the [indiscernible] and i'm kind of ashamed for ucsf to present to the planning commission an m.o.u. that is not finalized. it's like an insult. you know, we want to know particulars. when you do an m.o.u., when we did it through the project, we had everything there, every detail ready. so i think it takes more time,

like mr. ebling said, you need to present this on monday to the board of supervisors. also, with the afford hbility, how affordability is defined is $154,700 for half the people and the other half $115,000. so you're getting -- you're increasing the numbers of units, bravo. you're going to collect more money and not giving a reduction in rent to the people. as supervisor melgard said, you need to seek deeper affordability levels to ensure workers like janitors would be able to live in the area. and she's open to negotiations on this.

and i hope that the ucsf is open to negotiations. thank you. >> hello, my name is pinkie kushner and i live on 6th avenue. i object to this m.o.u. there are no numbers there. transportation and and parks are important topics, but no numbers. 20 million for what? what will it go for? how much will it cost to do improvements? what kind of improvements for transportation? housing for whom? housing for the janitors described and been mentioned in comments? how can we do anything with this housing. parks, what about parks? it appears to be that there's

going to be transporting severely. finally cultural which ought to be part of the m.o.u. as an important item. the cultural excitement around the medical murals is probable throughout the city. these are important murals and deserve to be highlighted and not shoved in a warehouse in oyster point. [indiscernible] --

>> go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? okay. i'll take the next caller. >> that is you. >> i'd like to echo some of the folks that have spoken before and add one new thing, starting with a new thing that hasn't been mentioned. with respect to traffic, i hope there's been considerable consideration on it in a neighbor that lives nearby which is an opportunity for people on stanyon to turn west when coming from the hill is a dangerous intersection. a neighbor of mine, her husband was killed in that intersection. the hill there also makes that

particularly dangerous. i hope that any additional trucks and things like that, that will will be some kind of improvements in that spot. i think the murals are important as mentioned. they seem to be site specific. so i don't think that they would very easily translate into some ordinary, for example, museum, and they should be preserved to the degree possible in place. dr. theresa palmer talked about a shortage of long-term care. i think that that's a hole in the available services from the hospital, that's important. i think everybody knows keeping folks close to home, including older folks [indiscernible]. there are a couple of other things with respect to the huge increases in floor space. i don't think there's been any

mention specifically of height and the shadow issues. those are things that i think also need to be very strongly considered as impacts to the neighborhood. with respect to traffic, that's a danger not just for residents, but anybody visiting or working in the neighborhood. [indiscernible] at all in the street in any way [indiscernible] -- >> hi, i wish i could scream loudly and look the commissioners in the eye at this point because this meeting has been successfully sabotaged. so many people have been called by ucsf to make their statements and they keep saying the same thing over and over again.

alternative voices have been totally drowned out at this meeting. if i had had the opportunity to speak earlier, i would have pointed out something that almost every one of these speakers has wrong. if this project is delayed at this point, not one delay in construction would take place. the hospital hasn't been designed yet and hasn't received an environmental review. a couple of months won't make a difference on this project. it will go ahead in terms of its normal processes without any concern about delay here. it's not necessary to delay it, to fear delay at this point. delay means nothing in slowing down the project, not one single minute. so i would like to speak to the authority of this commission. the 1987 memorandum of understanding has been mentioned

by several staff and other people, but they left out in describing that 1987 m.o.u. the authority of this planning commission. that m.o.u. said that [indiscernible] of all matters concerning master planning, et cetera. here is the important point. the city planning commission will review such proposals and advise ucsf in writing as to conformance of such development with the master plan san francisco and the planning code section 304.5. so with recommendations, if any, with amendment to the proposal. so not only has that not taken place, the planning commission has not been given an opportunity to deal with it [indiscernible] --

>> that is your time. >> hello, i am a resident and lifelong native san franciscan, born and raised in the mission district, as well as the community leader throughout the city. i have to tell you that i'm a little des heartened by some of the neighbors that are trying to stall this project. we in the mission know the neighbors who do not want this to happen. ucsf and this particular project is not just about the neighbors, but it is a city-regional resource that needs to happen, not only for the sake of patients, both current and future, but for the sake of businesses and union workers. i'm always disheartened to hear

this from folks putting cogs in the wheels. as those who see this as a bigger issue to move forward, i would ask that things move along so this project can get happening and get it done so seismically it will be a safe place for people to use. so i encourage this project to move forward and thank you all for your consideration. >> i'm dean brown, a neighbor of ucsf. i would like to voice my support for the project because in this age of covid i think it's important that we have hospitals like ucsf where we're doing research on medical problems that we face, obviously not just viruses, but other types of important medical research.

i believe this type of research is best done in a city where you have a lot of really good people who live in the area and can contribute to that. i think it's important that we have big medical projects that reside in cities because we have transportation that help people get to and from those types of facilities. i think it's better to have people driving out to bakaville to get the medical care that they need. as a neighbor, i would like to express my support to this project. i think ucsf has been a good neighbor and done a good job at reaching out to the community. i look forward to being a good neighbor for many years with them. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this presentation or information. commissioners, seeing no

additional members of the public wishing to speak on this at this point, public comment is closed on the matter before you. >> i wanted to thank those for their great presentations. i think mr. buckley started off credibling. i don't think i've ever seen this city literally shut down and shut down indefinitely because of a global pandemic. i really think that now is the time to heavily invest in healthcare, especially as the world-renowned institution as the ucsf. the hospitals are kind of similar to hotels. they're going to offer a lot of jobs and commerce temporarily on the building of the hospitals and then they're going to actually employ a lot of workers

when the construction is finished. not only will there be construction workers on the job site, but the higher opportunity because ucsf has historically a good relationship with the building trades and their local contractors. it's not just the construction workers on these job sites, but also the contractors who may take a hit on the shutdown. they're going to have more business. those contractors have people to work in the office to manage the job and even people off the jobs, there are people in the trailers working on designing the projects. there's just so many ways this job is going to provide opportunities for san francisco businesses and residents. those people are going to live here and have a good time

working here. it's not just the labor side, but also the business side. in the 91214 we've been working with city build, the city agency, to give great careers. you're not just going to come on this job and be done. you're going to have a great career for decades and decades. it's job security for our residents and our contractors and businesses. disadvantaged neighborhoods that feed into the build and the city programs and our trades.

>> can the densification of the [indiscernible] greater than proposed? >> can you hear me, this is brian with ucsf. sorry, i was having a hard time unmuting myself. thanks for the question. we just kicked off what we call as a validation study. we took the concept in the parnassus plan and determined how the units, the arrangement of units, the number of bedrooms, and the arrangement of units, and the costs. one of the questions we posed to

the consultant team was across all of valaia. we're going to be tearing down older single-corridor buildings and building with double corridor buildings slightly higher. what we've asked by utilizing that same footprint, can we get greater density and increase the count. because the housing units are higher than when we started, that's one of the places we're actively looking. we don't have an answer yet whether that is possible and how many additional units. >> keep us informed on that. the second question is looking at the plan for the open space improvements, can you expand a

little bit further on the enhancements being done both around the site and through the site in terms of improving access to the preserve area. >> sure. i wish i had a graphic to share with you, but maybe i can e-mail it afterwards and share it with the commission. we're looking at ways to bring the reserve into the campus. specifically on the west end of campus, where u.c. hall exists today, the concept plan is actually to bring the trail head all the way down to the corner of parnassus and 4th avenue and open up a u corridor. if you're standing at that intersection, you can look up to mount sutro. that's one area where we want to provide direct access into mount sutro. while we know the grade is

significant, it is definitely possible. we're looking at ways to connect into the reserve from the hospital. the sixth floor conceptually, and the hospital hasn't been designed, so bear with me. but the sixth floor will have a public component with the terrace and views and food service. it just so happens that that floor is right at the grade of fifth side behind the hospital. so we're looking at ways with a bridge that you can just step off that sixth floor terrace and into the floor directly, which would be a great opportunity directly for those with mobility challenges and can't manage the grades going into parnassus avenue. those are two examples. there are also opportunities to create what is now called the promenade, which is an open space component behind a medical

center building that will open up a view corridor and access way to the heart of the campus for an extension of fourth avenue with views of the ocean. i'll send you graphics of that. it has a balance of formal open spaces and informal and a connection to mount sutra. >> in terms of this -- my comments probably are directed more to planning staff. as i understand it, [indiscernible] -- on the more general side and a more specific e.i.r. will be developed for the hospital itself. with respect to the more specific plan then, i think it would be incumbent on staff to

be asking that u.c. provide the analysis related to a much greater detail for construction impacts, going beyond what they have in the fdir with respect to air quality and noise control. given the fact that hospitals and the current operations that will have to be maintained around the project site, because that could very easily extend out to 10 years which hits the

2030 approximate time frame that we're talking about with respect to the development of some of the community benefits. if that occurs in that time frame, i would also expect there's probably going to be a significant amount of phasing of different things to be able to integrate the new building with the existing building and utilities and infrastructure. with such a long time frame of continuous work and the fact that there will probably be thousands of trucks and cars related to construction, construction material, staff, debris, everything related to it, then it's incumbent for staff to request that there be

definitive analysis of what those impacts are and what potential mitigations can occur. i would request that of staff. >> yes, commissioner. this is on behalf of the planning staff. we would of course review this for the hospital and also, as you've seen in the m.o.u. itself, be engaged in the design of the hospital and environmental review staff in the department. we'll work closely on reviewing that. if you are interested in reviewing that, we are happy to provide that. >> i would be happy to, though, i probably won't be here 10

years from now. >> are you complete, commissioner? >> that's the extent of my comments. >> thank you, commissioner, for your comments. i have al question for ucsf staff. can you put me back in time in terms of the 1976 resolution and can you explain to me how was the process in expanding for -- from 3.5 million square feet to 5.5 million square feet. is that -- does that expansion -- was that percentage accumulation or was that something thought up through the community? i would like to hear how that

thought process went. >> sure, can you hear me okay? again, this is brian newman with ucsf. just to be clear, the 3.5 million square feet that was in the 1976 solution was a political decision. it wasn't based on an analysis of carrying capacity or impacs.s and the domain to turn down those homes and find out the uses. there was a cap on growth as a way to stop that. it was definitely a political policy outcome, but it wasn't based on the -- any kind of

is -- the resolution itself while being amended, this is growing off of our current footprint will be amended. this will accommodate new technologies and new program space and new therapies. so that's one piece of information i just want to share. what happened was two years ago we went through a process and we looked at our programs and we looked at our needs. we heard from our stakeholders external and internal, not just about the internal care, but also retail and housing and public spaces and medium spaces. we came up with a range of options. the concept, if you will, that

had the most support and checked so many boxes but also addressed the facility challenges, the capacity challenges, is the plan that is before you today. i just want to correct one misperception out there that is the recent resolution and the space ceiling has been amended once, maybe twice since the 1970s and we're going through this process, a very robust, public process to amend it again for the regions resolutions. it was never intended as a permanent number. it was something that was put in place and can be revised obviously with a vote of the regions. >> thank you for that explanation. so extension and the expansion

and the housing development goals, was that considered by the region? >> so the plan process did try to achieve a balance of uses, whether housing, retail, or other kinds of functioning as well. we in that original plan, an increase of 762 housing units. it was your team at the city and others who reviewed that, looked at the jobs-housing linkage policy, affiliated the members, and pushed us to increase our housing from 762 to 1,262 or 1,263. we increased it by 500 units

correctly in response to that feedback as well as including the affordability goals. that's one connection where we're voluntarily doing it. it was informed by the methodology systems that the system uses on private development. same thing with the $20 million investment on transit. that is required. we're not required by the fee. it was the calculation done and the agreement that we've agreed to was the same fee rate that a developer would pay. that was directly informed by that as well. we're not directly applying that ourselves. cheater point, sorry for taking too long. we looked at many of those issues as it addresses our own plan and how to be more aligned with the city's goals. >> i appreciate that response.

i think -- i mean, i think as a commissioner, if this is in the jurisdiction of the planning commission -- [indiscernible] or expansion. that is something that we would like to see you comment on. another question [indiscernible] on january 20 to 21. i believe commissioner fung also clarified what's going to happen. can you also clarify what's happening on january 20 to 21. what is the e.i.r. going to be

approved. if it is for the hospitals, will you tell us if it will be the e.i.r. >> yes, i apologize that i didn't do that. right before us today is the programmatic e.i., which is the vision for the campus as well as the building sites themselves and the massing envelopes, if you will, of those buildings. that's what's going before the

regeants. then there will be a certification of the environmental report. it is worth noting that we were scheduled to go to the regions in november and we've held over for this next cycle to allow ourselves more time to finalize the m.o.u. we're already waiting for longer than the original plan. in february, we will kick off the public process for the next e.i.r., the project for the next one. if we stick to the schedule, that would be published in the summer of 2021 and would be in front of the regions roughly the same time, november or january. november of 2021 or january of 2022. that's a draft schedule right now, but that's what we're currently looking at.

that project e.i.r. will be very specific in the hospital building and design of that project which has a separate e.i.r. because we just don't have enough information yet because that's why it wasn't included in the parnassus plan. >> i have a question to the planning director. this draft m.o.u., will this be in connection with with or [indiscernible] -- was it have an m.o.u. before being approved? >> we cannot find, nor can the

region execute this m.o.u. until the other regions [indiscernible] until the region certifies the e.i.r. and adopts the plan. so we can't finalize it until that happens. that can't happen until we execute the m.o.u. >> so the e.i.r. has to be certified first until you certify the m.o.u. >> yes. >> thank you for that. there are a lot of questions. i do have them. in the [indiscernible] -- i am not aware of what is going to be the facing process of this construction as well. i think it's because the e.i.r.

is not going to be improved by the planning commission. can something be answered to us to answer that question right now, the ucsf staff. >> i'm sorry, maybe i misunderstood, the question about the construction statement? >> um-hum. >> sure. i mean, we have some information now as it relates to what we refer to as the initial phase projects. we have a timeline for the hospital and our new research building. we have a timeline, though conceptual, pretty rough, for what we refer to as the early street arrival project which is the new front door and garages. we do have a draft timeline for those three projects and we would be happy to share those with you. there are a lot of other projects over the course of the parnassus plan that we do not

have dates and timelines for. some of them are intended to occur in the first 10 years. as that information becomes available, we're happy to share that. just a quick comment because i realize this is an issue for the neighbors. we currently have $400 million of active construction projects at parnassus today. these are happening right now. we have a pretty good track record of minimizing that activity. those neighbors don't realize that is going on. in order to keep a campus of this age going, there is all kinds of work that needs to keep going. just the five years at mission bay we constructed five buildings adjacent to hundreds of thousands of additional apartments and condos being

built. we led the comprehensive logistics efforts with all of those parties to minimize impacts and disruption to the neighbors. we invested several millions of dollars alone in that record. the track record that really minimizes the track record on the neighbors in that area is the experience we would bring to parnassus. i'm not suggesting there won't be impacts, but we're sensitive to them and we would be happy to share the timeline with the staff about these efforts. >> i would love to hear about that. just on my comments in terms of the -- i know this is coming through the january 2021 ucsf regions. i know the planning commission doesn't have authority, but we could make comments because it

is in the city, to first look into the transportation study as well as the environmental impact it will have in the city. i read on this letter and i found on there your letter quite -- i think it's justifiable in terms of looking into the transportation and the jobs and housing balance, the effect it will have on open space, the height and the shadows it will have. at the rare end is the community input. i believe we should really take into consideration the transmission study and the jobs and housing balance on this one. that's why i ask you about the expansion from 5 prn 55 to 5.05 million square feet and the justification for that.

the other thing too, as we are looking into this m.o.u., i am -- i will just be honest. i'm disappointed by how fast or fabricing of how fasted this happened. this happened last night and it has to be certified first in order to execute the m.o.u. for me it requires for time and review by the community that lives there and with the office input as well as facilitation being the district five office needs to participate in this m.o.u. discussion because it would generally affect or generally affect this rate.

at the same time, in terms of transportation, we're looking at transportation not just to that, but also the regional as the workers will come from different places. the fact that the $20 million [indiscernible] as well, in terms of of the e.i.r., is that equitable enough. when i'm looking into this m.o.u., how equitable is this? as i'm looking at the housing requirements, the fact that it's up to 90% a.m.i. and 1% a.m.i. and there is a first down limited assistance program for

the ucsf employees which i would like to see better spread. i would like to see an m.o.u. that is specific and having vague language in terms of up to 90% doesn't sit well on me. another thing is in terms of partnership in behavioral science is i think we have to have measurable and equitable terms of what that means. i would like to see more numbers. i think that's how i would like to see the city looking into the m.o.u.s so we are accountable and the ucsf is accountable in this m.o.u. benefit. if my comments start, i would like to have more time on this m.o.u. and [indiscernible] to

consider the impact directly into the neighborhood. and if further needs more time and distribution with the m.o.u. for community input and offers participation in it. so that is my comments and that's it. if i have comments, i will say more. >> i just want to thank everyone for a symbiotic relationship. i want to start with some comments. i wonder if you could provide some more information about the workforce at ucsf in terms of the breakdown and who is commuting from other parts of san francisco or is the workforce coming from other parts of the bay area and

beyond? >> i don't have those numbers at my fingertips, but i can characterize it for you and get you more information, either during this session or soon afterwards. but we are a regional employer. so we have employees that we draw from the entire region. that said, we have an enormous workforce in san francisco. and particularly in district five and district seven and neighborhoods around parnassus for the employees who work in mission bay. so i don't have the actual percentages and numbers. but -- and i've seen maps have shown the extent of our employment in the draw from other counties.

but we can get that to you as soon as we get that. >> that would be helpful in concrete numbers. i wonder if you could give us an idea of the [indiscernible] workers. >> great question. we are a direct employer. you may not be aware, but the regions of the university of california adopted a new policy in 2019, it's the policy 5402 that doesn't not allow us to contract out for functions and roles that can be directly provided by the bargaining unit, and that unit provides directly janitorial and custodial work, food service, shuttle, and

parking valets and all or most if not all, of the lower-wage work at a place like ucsf. those are living-wage jobs with a great benefits package provided directly in-house. in the extraordinary circumstances we do contract out, we are required that those vendors pay the parity wage guidelines that they pay the equivalent wages of ucsf employees. so the regents as well as the president of ucsf, as well as our chancellor, are interested in having those largely in house. >> [indiscernible] one is on housing and transportation, but

of course these are interrelated. on the housing front, if you have some questions [indiscernible] at this point, i do think it would be helpful to see some clear guidance about the distribution of the unit. and to see if this would tackle the lack of affordable housing. i suspect the household incomes are probably around 50 or 70% a.m.i. and far below the 70% a.m.i. i think it would be help to have some range of employees that are in that range of up to 90% and to have a tiered approach to match that housing. i'm glad to hear about the labor

practices. this would not all provide full benefit and employee status to the food service workers and those who are subcontracted. i would question whether that would affect their eligibility and access to affordable housing that is being proposed here, whether you are a contracted worker or a ucsf employee, both demand tributes to the campus and they should be looking at the total number of jobs and not just the job classifications. i think it's helpful to have the a number of jobs on campus knowing the work will change and daily allocate the tiers and proportions of the number of jobs as appropriate for the a.m.i. that leads to my comments about transportation. before the pandemic, the bay area had this housing-job

spatial imbalance. we had the commuters commuting for long times in each direction. there have been some mitigation s of the purchasing of annual bulk passes for students and staff. i see the m.o.u. offered the possibility of exploring patient passes. i think it would be worth exploring expanding that and making sure the employment benefit is not just tacked on for students on the back end. we need to make sure that the t.d.m. matches the volume of those who need to come to campus and those coming at off peak as well is not exactly becoming an

option. i am concerned that the proposed a.m.i. levels do not match the lower income brackets of those who need to be on campus and this could perpetuate this. that's all for now. thank you. >> i just have a couple of questions and i'll make some comments about the project. just picking up on the topic of transportation, i was a little -- i think what understand is there was a goal to have 15% trip reduction. that's the t.d.m. target? >> it's not listed in the m.o.u. because it's a specific e.i.r. mitigation, but it is a specific e.i.r. >> what are -- under the hospital's current mitigations,

who are the current ones that workers or students are using to be effective? >> this is not my core competency, but i'm happy to take a shot at answering all questions. first of all, our t.d.m. program is extraordinarily robust and we have one of the lowest drive alone mode shares of any employer in the city, which is extraordinary considering we're not in the central division, but in parnassus and bay, so we're proud of that effort. that includes quite a bit of effort to get people out of cars and charging market rate for parking. that's not just the front-line employees, but the chancellor himself. we have programs to encourage bicycling and walking to work.

we have the bike share or go by bike infrastructure on both of our campuses. we've done a lot around amenities, around showering and lockers for people who bike to work. we've done a lot with the port to fund the new ferry terminal in mission bay which is on the other side of the warriors arena. we've done a lot of things to make sure people can get to our campuses. we've operated one of the largest campuses that goes beyond parnassus and mountain zion and mission heights. we've done quite a bit to make it easier for people to get to work and to get to our campuses without driving. >> great. i think building on commissioner

chan's comments, i think overall for our region, the drive alone to work is poor, so it's great to hear that ucsf has a great record regarding that. i think that is one of the biggest down sides to the redevelopment, is the increased trips and the trips that could be happening by car. what the campuses could do is managing the transportation demands and focusing on the workers who need to come and assess the period of time that may be longer than a patient who has come for a meeting and maybe it's more convenient for them to use a vehicle or getting dropped off. really focusing on how workers can get there. notwithstanding that some folks can -- because of the time, the car may be the best way to get there. people may be coming from very,

very far distances. do you have an idea of the scmut andcommute and what distance pee are coming? >> we definitely have that and can get that to you. >> the other question is, maybe this was the planning staff. i know there is language at m.o.u. of meetings in the future. obviously there have been meetings in the past. i'm concerned about the teeth in the m.o.u. some points are clear if things are delivered others will be delivered in good faith effort. this has been a good faith effort to work with the university to get the m.o.u. what does staffing look like? does it look like routine meetings. 2050 is a while from now. how do we keep up with this and

make sure that we are following the things outlined in the m.o.u.? >> i don't know who wants to take that question. >> i'll take it. the m.o.u. itself does identify at least for now additional key staff members on both sides of the m.o.u., at the m.p.a. and oewd and there are individual people in the m.o.u. and in the foreseeable future to make sure the ongoing meeting and coordination happens. [please stand by]

>> can i chime in as well about the staffing question and also about the other questions raised on the transportation issue? really appreciate a point, i think they are very relevant.

yes, this m.o.u. does set up a much better coordination structure we ever had with ucsf. it moves away from what's been great partnership but very ad hoc and lot of times spinning the wheels. some really important mechanisms for working together around these common issues. that's one piece that's really exciting. just one to recognize how important these measures about transit passes and transportation demand management -- [indiscernible]. almost $20 million is fabulous, obviously. what's almost more important is these very accountable production that will be able to work towards. transit passes are really important to us at the sfmta because it creates a much more

certain revenue stream that helps us with our operating cost. we are hoping to keep working with sfmta around expanding programs to the staff as well as the population that's identified. >> the university has a privilege and a responsibility of being the pipeline for so many essential jobs. the way that equity is or isn't addressed when it comes to race and gender, really the university is really poised both to reach out to the k through 12 level to hopefully inspire young folks take up careers in healthcare but also to look at itself in terms of class and how it is developing or not developing with color and women

and other groups so they can be competent in serving that population. can can you speak at all to ucsf's track record on healthcare pipeline and becoming professionals in healthcare? >> it's something that we have to provide one of my colleagues. there's quite bit of an effort to expand our outreach -- we have current outreach programs around staff and around pathways to careers in healthcare that we're proud of. we have our commissioner on the construction side with city build and the academy and our own voluntary effort to mimic the city requirements around 30% local hire. we love to share more with you. on the healthcare path in the stem work, i'm happy to get that

from my colleagues. >> commissioner tanner: i think we all know that we need to do more to really rectify the inequities. as a public institution, the university has a particular responsibility and the resources to really help turn the corner on what are some very persistent equities that challenge care and leads to unequitable outcomes that we see in terms of patient outcomes. the last comment is about the housing. i think this project is overall really fantastic. it's the kind of partnership that really is exemplary of what can happen with public institutions come together to really work together collaboratively even though there's an expressed need and

requirement. we recognize that all in one city. it depends on the city and the city has a relationship with institutions, jobs and healthcare. it's an institution that some things happens remotely but lot of healthcare is in-person. that said, i would really hope to see ucsf and other state institutions and universities taken seriously housing crises. without housing in else can happen. housing is a determine how we live and how much folks have left over out of their paycheck and pursue things in their lives. the university and uc systems has such robust ability to do development on its own to make its own rules to some degree.

i love to see rules providing housing for student and workers and part that are incredible campus life. that can help to bridge new gap and create a more robust city for everyone. i know -- i want to recognize there's tremendous amount of housing provided. it's more than what we have now. the units are needed, every single unit of housing is needed. it's more a comment how major employers, including public institutions really need to look at housing crises and their responsibility as well. it's something that affects everyone and it affects the outcomes that the university and system suffers in high respect. that concludes my comments. thank you for your presentation our your time.

>> president koppel: commissione r moore. >> vice president moore: i think the comments had been exemplary. that covers many of the questions i have been asking. i appreciate the depth that has been spent on housing. i do believe -- [indiscernible] it's not only complicated but it's constrained by state and topography. i appreciate that part. open space, we heard a lot about it. i look forward to seeing more detail on that particular subject matter. overall, i think this is a very strong plan. i appreciate specific response to taking the plan apart.

one question i have is trying to bridge a gap between 1987 and former commissioner speaking about what she felt is not fully answered and not explained to us. i hope the director will employ this commission to have him speak in more detail to our commission about that. why there's a gap between then and now isn't quite clear to me. there are people who spoke to that bridge between then and now. that's a concern to me because

there are people who have been activist on the subject matter for decades. i'm more comfortable when i see everybody held -- is ultimately part of where we are supporting the project today. i like to see that gap filled. i would like to ask mr. newman, whether or not he has any intention of giving the board of supervisors a brief or have discussion with them? >> thank you for the question, commissioner, brian newman of ucsf. we're scheduled to appear on monday of next week in front of the board of supervisors land use committee. we have been asked to both

present the comprehensive parnassus plan as well as talk about the m.o.u. it's scheduled to attend and participate. i'll participate as well. we'll be having very similar conversation we're having today with you, with the supervisors on the committee on monday. >> vice president moore: i'm not sure who's on the land use given there's a new board of supervisor. land use is only a small fraction of the entire board. my question is whether or not you're prepare to speak to the whole board of supervisors? >> well, certainly. if invited. we'll be happy to speak to anybody. we briefed many of the supervisors individually just to be clear. the conversation has been going on for months.

if asked to present or speak from to the whole board, we'd be happy to participate. >> vice president moore: i would encourage that approach. again, this particular institution has what name s.f. behind it. we're all better off to know about it, support each other and move forward as a whole. you have my support. i think it's a very strong plan. i look forward to taking and seeing the evolution of -- [indiscernible] >> president koppel: commissione r diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you to the staff, both ucsf and the city and all of the public and especially my fellow commissioners for all of the really great comments and questions. i have one question and several

comments. my question is as follows. one of the letters we haved in e received, the commenter asked why parnassus and why not candlestick? the letter went on about the benefits of moving the entire operation or parts of the operation to candlestick. i'm curious if uc thought about candlestick in particular or other a alternative locations ad why to stay at parnassus? >> yes. parnassus was our original home p. it was our original campus. there was never a conversation about just packing up and leaving campus and moving some place else. there's certainly been a focus on the plan about renewing

parnassus. addressing some of the deficiencies both esthetic as well as amenities as well as facilities over the next three decades as we implement the parnassus plan. there's been no conversation about just picking up and moving. i want to go back to that other comment i made earlier on, kind of the value added of a place like ucsf is when all of our mission areas, researchings educatioresearch,education and s come together in one place. people use the term bench to bedside. it's not an exaggeration that with clinical trials and all of these new therapies that having the proximity of a researchers with our clinicians, gives us that distinction as a healthcare provider that others really just can't match. for us, it has never been about

packing up and leaving parnassus and it's about improving parnassus and being a better neighbor. while we often talk about the new hospital, it's really we're reinflationing half of our hospital. our current hospital suspect two buildings. moffitt is the one that's deficient and doesn't need the state mandate and needs to be replaced. long, hospital, however, they both operate as one unit, will continue to function. we have critical facilities and beds that will remain in long that will now instead of rather than oriented towards moffitt, will be oriented towards this new tower that will function as one complete hospital. when people say, why can't you build this new building some place else. they're talking about half of the hospital. to my earlier point, though, even if that was possible, we wouldn't support that. the proximity to our educators and our researchers is so

critical to exactly what we do. i'll point out, we did expand with the mission bay campus. being one of only one e.d.s on the west side, we think that service in that proximity is welcomed by most of the residents. >> vice president moore: i understand the colocation argument and value having hospital on the west side of the city. can you elaborate about the historic commitment to parnassus. it's not just this sense of history but it is a massive investment that will be hard to replace? >> that's a very good point. we have billions of dollars, i think think said a minute ago, we have 400 million active construction projects. we're not tearing down every building and rebuilding. we're renewing buildings everyday. we have billions of dollars

invested. we're not going to walk away from that obviously. it's a huge investment. we love the location. our staff love that neighborhood. they live in that neighborhood. they send their kids to school in that neighborhood. we want to continue that as well. >> vice president moore: here are my comments on the project and the m.o.u. i think that we are very fortunate as a city to have ucsf, which is a world renowned hospital and research facility in our city. yet, it has outdated facility, some of which are seismic not safe. space really matters. cutting-edge research training and care facility needs the buildings to go along with it. it is a huge point of pride for many san franciscans that ucsf is here and continues to do its incredible work and we should never take ucsf presence for granted.

on top of that, i think i read that it was the second largest employer in the city and that is all the more important right now in light of all the uncertainties we face as a result of covid in terms what's happening to the office market and jobs to go with that. with that role, i am pleased to see that ucsf recognizes great responsibilities as a community member. as i read the m.o.u., it indicated that its purpose was to foster harmonious relationships between ucsf and the city regarding the growth and development of ucsf facilities within the city's boundaries. it seems to me that the process to get to the current draft m.o.u. has fulfilled that purpose or is fulfilling that purpose of the 1987 m.o.u. the current m.o.u. is the result of numerous conversations,

meetings, written documents shared between ucsf and the city to get ucsf to do more than was originally proposed by ucsf to reflect all of the city's land use goals. with respect to those most important to us now, housing, particular emphasis on affordable housing, transportation, open space, workforce development, job creation. the staff, with the input of the community has identified the additional areas of investment for ucsf that went above and beyond the mitigation measures that are in the draft e.i.r. one area that is an issue with

our city's general plan is the height of the hospital. i get that that hospital may need to be very high because of the constraints very high for the ceiling heights that require for hospitals. also the fact that ucsf is trying to stay within the boundaries of the current campus. which means that putting constraints on itself that force it to go up. now might not be the appropriate time to worry about the design to address the design issues in the m.o.u. i'm hopeful that during the hospital e.i.r. process that will accompany the design of the hospital building that ucsf will work diligently with the city to make sure that tower is fits best it can to a very residential neighborhood.

so i'm extremely supportive of the project and the m.o.u. >> president koppel: thank you commissioners. >> thank you commissionerrings r your comments. i want to reiterate to the city staff to put the m.o.u. together. our partners at ucsf, the supervisors office, supervisor preston, mar and yee who has been involved in the public to

give their input on the plan in the m.o.u. thank you very much. we look forward to this. >> clerk: thank you director hillis. that concludes information of the presentation, we should move on to the rest of our regular calendar for item 13, this is a commissionly use authorization. staff, you prepared to make a presentation? >> i am. >> good afternoon commissioners, michael christensen. the item before is conditional use recommendation. for project to establish a new 2085 square foot cannabis retail

use within the ground for commercial space. the site is located within the mixed use general zoning district. soma youth and family and height and bulk district. no additional requirements are required by the special use district. the closest other approved cannabis retailer is 970 feet away from the site at 985 folsom street. these locations are not schools

under the planning code. however, in response to the contact, the proposed cannabis retailer is design to shield products from view from the street. we did receive a request for some clarification on the department's recommended condition of approval for on site consumption of cannabis products. the commission of approval will prohibit on site smoking that would not from prohibit prepared cannabis products such as edibles or topicals. thithe department only recommens commission exercise discretion. this activity has possible for compatibility issue.

the department does not recommend limitations on type a and type b consumption. first the consumption activity allowed under type a and b consumption permit are very inoculate. they allow person who sit in the store to consume topical or edible product. this activity do not pose the same impacts as smoking cannabis products. second, more importantly, for a person who is new to use of cannabis products, it is very easy for someone to overdo it. much more easy than it is to overdo it, smoking a cannabis product. when somebody new to cannabis, it's very helpful to have adult person to explain dosing to them particularly for some complicated product which is where you measure a liquid in a

pipe, which is common for medical patients how to properly use the product can help avoid overdosing. more than happy to answer any questions on consumption permits if the commission has further questions. we received a question regarding the exemption if the project. it contains some additional language for the end of the project description that was contained in the initial application that was submitted by the applicant which reference the north beach special use district which does not apply to this project. that citation has been removed

and the document has been corrected. also in a recent case before this commission, commissioners asked for clarification on how many locations and individual equity applicant is permitted to have an interest in or open. under code section 1613 equity applicant is permitted to have an interest up to four locations in san francisco. the equity applicant as applications for two locations. this location is 1057 howard street and other is [indiscernible]. the department received one letter in opposition and four additional letters in support.

[indiscernible] supporwe received letter of supt from the santa rosa city council citing positive impact on the community. in summary, project complies with the zoning and policies of the general plan, provides new business activating current vacant space, complies with the city's 600-foot rule and furthers the city's equity program goal. the department recommends approval. this congratulation my presentation. i'-- thisconcludes my presentatd

i'm available for any questions. >> than [indiscernible] >> clerk: if you could mute the volume on your television or computer, we will present the echo from happening. your presentation is now displayed. you have five minutes. project sponsor, are you with us?

[indiscernible] i do not have the a 707 area code called in. okay. seeing that the project sponsor is having a bit of technical difficulty. try calling into our call-in number and we'll give you five minutes at that time. why don't we take public comment at this time. members of the public, you need to press star 3 to be entered in the queue. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes to submit your testimony. >> this is jim, eli's father. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> i'm representing my son, eli. i wanted to give a little background of our family and

having done business in san francisco. >> clerk: i'm going to interrupt you for one second. sorry, sir. you making the project sponsor's presentation? >> i'm not making his presentation. i'm just speaking on his behalf. do you want me to wait? >> clerk: go ahead, sir. >> do you want me to continue? >> clerk: yes, please. >> i'm having a little bit of an echo here. i wanted to give little background on our family and our established businesses in san francisco since the early '60s. my father, anthony, owned and operated automotive businesses in numerous parts of the city. the latest one was on green

street golf and octavia california garage, i owned and operated california detailing for close to 40 years. i'm just delighted ton able to speak up for my son on behalf of the rest of my family. my stepmother also owned a business on union street for well over 50 years. we're very passionate about small businesses in san francisco and the opportunity to grow another business. we were, of course, under a lot of stress when eli was arrested for cannabis. now we're very happy that he has an opportunity to be part of the social equity program. overall, i think with all the jobs that have been hurt by this

pandemic, anything that we can do to support more business, i think is a great thing. that's been our life in the city. i wanted to let my support to this project as having been in business close to 40 years. >> clerk: thank you sir, that's your time. >> hello, i'm adam shell. eli works for me. hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. are you part of the project team? >> i'm not part of the project team. i'm his employer. he is kind of my head of operations. i own two licensed cannabis farms. one of them in humble county, another one in lake county.

i actually very fortunately met him at my kids boxing gym. he was a delightful guy. we got to chat. he's been a very positive in my 9-year-old son's life. i'm so impressed with this guy and his coaching and the way he works with my son. we struck up a friendship and when i found out he has a cannabis industry, i needed someone will his skill set. i think the world of him. he's a man of incredibly high competency and integrity. he oversees lot of my projects. he kind of manages the managers. making sure farming techniques are compliant. helped me with some of the state regulations as well. i'm just a character witness. he's a tremendous individual.

i'm very happy to employ him and call him a friend. >> clerk: thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i name is eli. [indiscernible] good afternoon commissioners, my name is eli. i'm the equity partner of this project. after over two years of patience and effort i'm excited to share these cannabis retail business projects with you today. as michael mentioned, we have two projects to present to you. i will present them back-to-back.

some of the material will overlap like outreach efforts will be addressed independently. in 2018 when we started two projects, we went all in to ensure our success. the third generation san francisco native, hopefully a third generation small business owner, community mentor and verified equity applicant. my family has been small business owners in san francisco for over 50 years. starting with my grandmother and our family restaurant. my california started california detailing in 1982 and has been a well respected member of the business community since then. wanting to follow in my family's footsteps, my dream is to open two cannabis businesses within that city and continue that legacy. growing up in san francisco, i learned the importance and value

of community. i began studying martial arts at an early age. the social i believety program -- equity program is a big opportunity for me. we're currently working to find right operations and funding partner that can assist in bringing these projects to fruition so i can pick up where i left off. these projects mean the world to me and my family. we would hope that you will approve these projects today. now i'm going pass the presentation to julian who will talk more about the business and outreach efforts. >> thank you. i'm julian. outreach coordinator on the project. within the industry, comes with challenges and cannabis is no different. cannabis is -- we focus on

developing new project and connecting with great operational partners. we want to be up front that we are actively having conversations with groups not coming on board. the project was launched in 2018 and. we plan on this project -- [indiscernible]

we made 109 touch points by e-mail and phone calls. we'll work with the office of cannabis to ensure the project moves forward. we'll work with operator to ensure complies with all regulations. we trust you'll approve the project today. thank you for considering our project. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we'll continue with comment on this matter. >> can anybody hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> sorry guys. i was waiting to speak.

is there still time for me to give a statement? >> clerk: who is this? >> this is dave terrell. should i begin now? >> clerk: yes. >> my name is dave terrell. i'm a former u.f.c. fighter. eli has been a volunteer coach there for about probably 13 or 14 years and what always amaze me, he helps these kids out being a volunteer. he's not collecting any money, not just like he's doings it for a year or two. he's been in the academy helping people for years. we've traveled from brazil to new york to pennsylvania, coaching u.f.c. fighters.

he's an amazing person. i hope this all works out for him. >> my name is bradley. calling in today to sit in huge support of medical cannabis. unlike eli, i'm not a third generation san franciscan. i lived in the city for seven years now. grew up in dallas, texas. really just lost the best friend of bone cancer at the age of 20. he contracted it at the age of 16. it's horrific. what will stay with me was the

tremendous efforts we had to do to get him cannabis, which helps tremendously throughout the entire process. we all watched the news of the exodus out of california to texas. i keep waiting for the boom rang for lot of those folks that are leavinleaving this wonderful ren when they get -- [indiscernible] every opportunity that we have here in san francisco to expand the access to cannabis for those that are in need of it and can find relief from it, is always something great. just as a final note to all of you on the planning commission, thank you for all your amazing efforts during these covid times. i know how difficult it is to hold these hearings. thank you for everything you're doing to prevent the city from coming to a complete stand still during all of this. thank you.

>> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional request to speak. >> my name is johnny, i'm the president of the san franciscan business retail alliance. probably not a surprise. i'm calling to support this project. just reinforce how important all of these new cannabis businesses in our city will be to our economic recovery and covid. we are creating jobs. we are making commercial corridor safer by filling in vacancies. we are providing community benefits to the surrounding communities. we are employing people. we are bringing workforce contractors. we are signing labor peace agreements with unions.

strong support for the projects. just as a point of order, i like the commissioners and secretary to clarify if they like to us to call back in for the second project? everybody that called expressed their support. we'll be happy to call in for item 14. being conscious that we saying the same thing. after that, massive item 11, i'm sure we would like little reminding. thank you once again for hearing me and please approve. >> clerk: i don't think it's necessary for folks to call back in. if staff advised me, i would call these matters up together, given they are the same project sponsor. commissioners that will conclude public comment. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: i'm in

support of the staff recommendation. >> vice president moore: that same holds for me. are you calling on me president koppel? >> president koppel: yes, i am. >> vice president moore: i'm in full support of the project. only thing i ask this project sits in extremely sensitive community. we all know about having to extend careful considerations to this particular part of the community and i would like to see that the applicant is aware of where this location is. i'm very happy to hear the remarkable stories about the

applicants and move to approve. i would like to ask mr mr. christensen, can you please provide us with a map that shows existing approved and pending cannabis facilities. it's helpfull helpful to visual. i would like to see all facilities within the larger area. i think you have that on it should be able to develop and put in your package. that's all. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i have one question. it's great to hear from project

sponsors. question about on the site consumption. mr. christensen, do you have indication from other facilities that have on site consumption? is there any reasons to be caution about what you're describing? >> any complaints or thing that happened after their cannabis begin to operate? >> the difficulty is, these permits we've been discussing today are all new. for the most part, we don't have any facilities that are open and the ones that could have opened in the last year have been tax cu--shut down due to covid. we don't have a good picture. it does appear that the type a and b consumption permit are generally more popular.

likely something we'll see more because type c looking in vaporizing ventilation system will cost few hundred thousand. we will get to see that more in the future. it's not an activity that's been happening recently. >> commissioner tanner: okay. [indiscernible] i wanted to make sure that -- i want to clarify, at the time of the application meeting, there will be no on site consumption. that seem like that changed? >> i would make clear, at this point, we have not heard from the project sponsor that their

intent as changed or that they -- that rule will be different. consumption is just of a difficult issue. i do believe that particularly limiting type a and b is something that would not be abgood city policy for the city to adopt condition of approval. it is something that they'll carry through from operator to operator. if this operator does have it included in their operating agreement, they go through with the office of cannabis. they won't include on site consumption, there will be more of of process in the future for them to change that. but the land use approval that you're considering today will cover the site as long as it's

there. >> i will be happy to second. >> commissioner imperial: i'm also supportive of this project and looks there's another one. this is more of of general comment when it comes to cannabis retail. by the way, thank you for are the clarification on on the site consumption. i'm noticing during this pandemic, i saw here in the commission hearing lately, we've. seeing more of conditional use approvals for cannabis.

this is more for us to consider as -- i would like to see more -- i would like to see the map of pending applications for cannabis. where are they? are they being distributed equally in the city of san francisco. as we know, many of the cannabis retails repeated on the eastern neighborhood part. there's some effort to put it on the western side. i haven't seen the map as well. as we're in this pandemic and there are commercial spaces, this become the policy now just to fill in commercial spaces. mistakes something to think -- s something to think about.

this is something for us to think about. i'm in support of it. >> i would like to clarify for the commissioners. in the future, we can certainly prepare p.d.f. version of the packet, existing medical cannabis dispensaries and things that are in the pipeline. in the meantime, if you would like more information we have an interactive map on the website. if you google cannabis retail map in san francisco, it comes up. it does show the location all of our existing medical dispenries

and everything in the pipeline. it's a helpful map digital services prepared. in the meantime, if you like more information, i would recommend that. >> clerk: there's a motion and seconded to approve this matter. on that motion. [roll call vote]. so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. final item on the agenda, number 14, case number 2020-007488. 1095 columbus avenue. this is also conditional use authorization for a cannabis retail user.

sound like as previously mentioned public comment will be the same for this one. >> good evening commissioners. the item before you is a conditional use authorization planning code section -- to establish cannabis retail use at 1095 columbus avenue. project sponsor proposes to establish approximately 1140 square foot cannabis retail use within ground floor of special space of existing three-story mixed use building. the business will be the first

cannabis retail in north beach. project site complies with the 600-foot buffer rules of schools. and 750 feet away from project site. the project sponsor is participating in the city's equity program. as you just heard, the other project -- [indiscernible] the sponsor hosted a preapplication meeting on june 30, 2020 at the project site which 64 attended. they contacted registered neighborhood group by phone and e-mail during the fall of 2020. the department has received eight messages in support of the

project and one message in opposition. support for the project centered on job creation and new business. opposition for the project cited concerns about customers walking in the sidewalk. the department finds that the project is balance. the project will activate a storefront, provide access to in demand products and increase the diversity of retail options. the department also finds the project should be necessary with the surrounding neighborhood.

this concludes staff's presentation. the project sponsor is still here ready to answer any questions you may have. >> clerk: do you have slides to present? >> yes. >> clerk: project sponsor, you're going to have five minutes. are you still with us project sponsor? >> we're here. >> you have five minutes.

go ahead project sponsor. >> pardon me. i missed my place on the slide. 1095 columbus slide. sorry guys. thank you commissioners for your hearing both of these projects today. in the same format, i will pass it over to julian. we appreciate the commission hearing in this manner as we have been waiting for this moment since 2018 and very eager to move both projects forward. as a former medical cannabis owner, i'm excited that this opportunity. we know some of my background, i want to focus more on my story and what motivates me to work very hard to make this happen.

i was medical cannabis cultivator from 2006 to 2012. i had a 12 employees passionate about medical cannabis. by run a great small business and helping patients while supporting families with job security. in 2012, everything changed. in 2012 i lost everything. i was arrested for cannabis, i lost my business and home and the facility i built and my life savings. the events devastated everybody involved. by 12 employees including some were medical patients themselves lost their job. this was a very traumatic experience. after three years litigation and thousands of dollar in debt, ironically, the legitimate companies with more economic

resources got benefit from the business. fortunatelywith the creation of the equity program, i feel like i have a second chance. we hope you will approve these projects today. now i will pass the presentation to julian. >> we're proud of our partnership with eli and to contribute to the equity program in san francisco. funds required to get these projects off the ground can be significant.

we conducted a community outreach campaign. given covid and impacts on the community, we made efforts to reach out to 24 stakeholders. we made 43 touch points over two to three month period by e-mail and phone call.

>> clerk: thank you, we should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commissioner on this matter. by pressing star 3. commissioners, for the moment, i

see no members of the public requesting to speak on this matter at this time. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissione rs. >> commissioner tanner: i want to clarify with the project sponsor if they can give their hours of operation? >> clerk: project sponsor, are you still there? >> the hours of operation is not exactly defined yet. however, it's very likely to be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

12 hour window of opening. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. there's a little bit of discrepancy in the staff packet that we received. >> commissioner imperial: if you go on page 28, it says 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. monday through sunday. i wanted to clarify if that's the plan? >> okay. >> commissioner imperial: is that still the plan? >> 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. is the idea that we're going for. 8:00 a.m. is probably little bit too early. 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. is the idea now. we're going to be sticking to the regulations on opening hours. >> commissioner imperial: is that monday through sunday? >> yes, it will be seven days a week. >> commissioner imperial: in that case, it will be helpful to clarify that in the motion.

>> there aren't really any specific times or dates. under the conditions of approval under number 14, i think we want to be clear that if the time proposed be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days a week so we have consistency on what we're voting and approving. >> i'm looking at the wrong e-mail. i was checking my e-mail from the hours. proposed hours are 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> commissioner chan: staff packet says 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> i'm looking at my e-mail with claire. it says 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

>> commissioner chan: in that case, i'm okay with hours to 10:00 p.m. would like to have some consistency what we're considering here. >> to your point, commissioner, under 60 [indiscernible]. >> commissioner chan: that's all for me. >> commissioner diamond: claire, hours 8:00 to 10:00 p.m., those are standard right? >> yes. >> commissioner diamond: is that standard for all retail or standard for cannabis retail? >> it is standard requirement for cannabis.

>> commissioner diamond: we're not doing anything extraordinary here? it's the basic deal? >> yes. the same hour hours that have bn approved. >> commissioner diamond: with that i would move to approve. >> second. >> seeing no further deliberation. there's a motion and second to approve this matter. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. 7-0. that concludes your first hearing of the new year.

>> president koppel: bye everyone. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, i'm now going to call roll. [roll call] we have a quorum. we have chief william scott from the san francisco police department and sarah hawkins from the department of police accountability. members of the public, this is being televised if you are interested in making public comment, dial (415)655-0001 and enter access code (146)973-3657.

press pound and pound again to join the meeting as a participant. you will hear a beep when you have entered the meeting. when public comment announced, public comment dial star 3 and this will advise the moderator you wish to speak. when you hear them say good evening, callers, you have two mints and thiminutes to provider comments. when your two minutes have ended you will be moved out of the queue has a participant in the meeting and members of the public may stay on the meeting and listen when another line item is called in order to make public comment by pressing star three to be added back into the queue. so, line item 1. vote for the election of the officers as rules of the order and duration of officers. action.

>> clerk: we are vote for the election of officer and duration of offices action. >> i would like to nominate leah cullen for president and suzie ally as for vice president. >> i second that. >> all right. on the motion to elect public comments, are we -- do you want to do this as one vote for both of them or split it up as a president and vice president? >> one vote is fine. >> one vote is fine. >> thank you. >> ok, the public that would like to make public comment online item 1, please press star

3 now to raise your hand. we have no public comment. on the motion to elect commissioner cohen as president and commissioner elias as vice president. [roll call vote] >> we have five yeses and the motion passes. you are now chair of the meeting. >> madam president. >> thank you, everyone. good evening.

i appreciate that vote of confidence and i'm excited to be taking the helm with ms. cindy who is fantastic and i just want to thank my colleagues for that vote of confidence and also note that today has been an interesting day. 2021 is off to an interest start as you have been catching what is happening at the capital and i think it's very evident the importance and the need for good, strong leadership transparent leadership so, i would like to have part of our discussion today on the agenda talking a little bit about our goals about what we'd like to accomplish, just in 2021 as a commission. and i will keep my remarks brief because i believe in a brief meeting. i want inform ensure that we are

focusing on how we spend our time together and with that i will say elias has anything she'd like to add? >> i want to be brief and thank you and the new model in 2020 is we're not going to talk about it, we're going to be about it so let's get to work. >> that's awesome. all right. >> thank you. next item, please. >> and just for clarity, commissioner, can i clarify the link of the president vice president it may 2021? >> i can't give you a yes or a no on that one. we'll schedule the next election and we'll have a discussion at the board and we'll schedule it there and i'll do to my

colleagues and i have no idea. >> what i would add is that trends on the commission leadership have generally been one year and so i think it will be probably right to start with that assumptions and obviously things can change and that is the history in practice and i think that the assumption we should start with today. if my fellow commissioners agree. >> that makes sense. >> i agree. >> it looks like we have consensus so there's your answer, sergeant. one-year term. you are welcome. >> so what is next on the agenda. >> line item 2. adoption of minutes. action force meetings of december second and 16 the of 2020. >> any discussion on this item? >> all right. >> second. >> before we take that motion, let's take public comment on it.

for members of the public online back adoption of the minutes and please press car 3 to raise your hand. it looks like there are no public comment, commissioners. >> good. so public comment is closed. motion is made by commissioner hamasaki and can we take this call without objection. without objection, motion minutes are adopted unanimously. line item 3. report to the commission discussion chief's report and crime trends and occurring in san francisco and major significant provide merchandise planned activities and events and this will include a brief overview of activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commissioner discuss on unplanned events and activities will be limited to determining whether the calender for a future meeting.

before question get started i just wanted to enter a note here and going forward i'd like to see reports to the commission be no longer than 10 minutes we are all adults and we've read the materials and so what i'm looking for is a report of the highlights, a summary, within 10 minutes about the slides and presentation. i want to make sure that we leave enough time for conversation on follow-up questions. good evening, chief. >> thank you. president cohen, congratulations and congratulations vice president elias and happy new year to everybody. i will start with just the big issue of the day which is what president cohen mentioned about what is happening in our nation's capital. i want today say in our city, we have not had any residual effects of that and we're monitoring what is happening in

our nation's capitol as well as other cities around the country and some protests and other cities around the country and some of our major messages but nothing like what we saw in washington d.c. so the good news is that at this point there's nothing to report in tims of activities and they have been a couple of social media about the protest and nothing of concern to note and we'll keep an eye on that throughout the night and moving forward. i'll start off with an overview of our crime year to date and by these reports it's tricky and this time of year because the numbers fluctuate because the numbers of small. we have to keep that in mind as i tell what you i've year to date. we are 63% down and on crime but

again we're talking about a few days of the year and these numbers are small and they fluctuate this time of year and we look compared to last year and the last week of the year and 28% and now that it breaks down we can continue to see larceny and burglaries which we were plagued with throughout 2020 and sorry far there's a slight decrease year to date but again i'm going to caution about putting too much credence where we are this time of year. we did have a significant arrest and we believe an individual was arrested that was a serial burglar and the officers tapped into tenderloin and that individual is taken in the custody and he had eight outstanding warrants in addition to open burglary cases and you

grow it's an impact and we'll keep an eye on that to see how tim pacts what is happening in that part of time and as far as our violent crimes is concerned, we had a homicide the last week of the year and we finished the year with 48 homicides ask 17 decreased compared to the 41 that we have in 2019 which was 50 plus year low and our afternoon are 50 homicides a year and our average over the last 10 years of 52 a year so we are below our averages but 48 is a number we hope to reign down these years because it's far too many and hopefully we make head way on that and we strategize on what we're going to focus on 2021. there are no on sides year to date yet we have had six

shooting grips from five shooting incidents so that is from and it's alarming and there are no connections that we can determine at this point between the individual shootings and some of them appear to be random just argument and they have turned into gun play and two were robberies gone awry and there was one as a result of vice games that went awry and as far as the spread, they were spread across six different districts in our city and i will name those here in a second. southern bayview mission, and tenderloin all each have one shooting so far this year. as we move forward to 2021 there's a few things that we

want to turn around in terms of just over all strategies and we know they have a tough year and we had a burglary and we all reduction of crime and the burglary was alarming and they were spread all across town so that's something that we can focus on working with our partners and community members to be resilient and identifying the prolific burgers who we believe are causing damage as part of that strategy and i will keep the commission how it transpired throughout the year and another one is to reduce gun violence. we had 48 homicides last year many of them were gun related and we want to get a better handle and reduce our gun violence in the city. we were all over all in gun violence in 2020 and we hope to bring that down and reduce that in 2021. we have also moving to traffic fatalities, there are two

fatalities and this was the result of an incident which a hit two pedestrians which resulted in the deaths and that individual was arrested and the district attorney has followed changes manslaughter among other charges on that individual and an unfortunate incident and he was found out from our investigation involved with other crimes apart from the manslaughter that i just mentioned and this resulted in our first traffic fatalities of 2021 and we will continue to work on vision zero and reducing traffic collision and fatalities in our high incident high collision corridor and that will be an ongoing issue for 2021 as well and the last thing i would like to report is just our

progress on our driving or rushing a.k.a. side shows and we have what i agreed to be much more efficient response on this schuff and we had a number of those incidents occur over the new year's eve weekend and we were deployed and we had our unit ready to take action and all of these events were disrupted. we did issue citations so this has been an ongoing discussion that i presented to the commission in the past and we want to make head way on that issue because those events are extremely dangerous and disruptive and we want to do better in that regard. that concludes my report and if there are any questions from the commission i will answer them. >> great, do you have any questions for the chief?

>> thank you, chief. happy new year to you as well. my question was we were provided a crime trend chart this morning. will this be published on the website for the public? >> yeah, we can publish this on the west side and just for the public information our crime data is on our department website as well as data sf so there are many ways and we can publish this report that we provided that information to the public. yes, ma'am. >> it breaks it down very nicely and the department did a great job and it shows that even though we are a weekend to the new year, that crime is down in all categories from last year except for homicides and bug lar

he's. >> we are actually having no soldiers so we're dealing with it last year and it's up slightly and that is for the most part. >> >> thank you, president and thank you chief for thaw date. especially at the beginning of the year. i was thinking in just the last meeting we asked he was asking about some of the terms that we might be seeing due to covid. since we know covid isn't going anywhere as we come into the new year i was just wondering and thinking is there anything that the department has learned from the course of the last nine months that we'll really look into as we come into this new year? >> >> we really have to focus our strategies on the ving that we believed are called in the most

damage and the jail population and for good because of the outbreak and the jail system including the personal system and so when we make an arrest, some people will be released and may not be released and we have seen other issues for the same offenses and that area where we are working with our partners and probation and parole to get traction when we have are prolific and i think that focus will do us good and we can get track on and maybe reduce a little bit of what we saw this past year and the other thing, just to note quickly is some of these trends were national trends which is happening in the

other cities i remember size and larger. burglar he's are up and car thefts are up across the country and you are seeing and across the country so the connection with the possibility and the mental health issue as it relates to this and we don't know that to be proven but it definitely anecdotal that there may be some correlation there. as we work through that and our health professionals and do what we can to test that issue will be important as well. >> mr. hamasaki. >> thank you, president cohen. i just wanted to fall up on the chief's comments and notes that i think there's a lot of public concern about the increase in property crime over the years and if you look throughout

california, this is happening everywhere and it's not too hard to draw a correlation between covid and our wonderful and failing to provide working for us and that this property crime wave has been happening. i appreciate everything is doing and this is not a local issue. thank you,. >> all right. is there any other comments? >> i appreciate it, chief. >> 11 minutes, not bad. including questions and comments. not bad. >> you are off to a good start. >> thank you. >> let's see if there's any public comment. >> public comment comes right after line item 3. >> got it.

>> and we will continue with the d.p.a. if you would like me to read the d.p.a. portion. >> yes, please, i would. >> d.p.a. director report. report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements and they will be limited to a activities and announcements commission discussion will determine there the issues raised for future commission meetings ex. >> congratulations president cohen and so i'm going to start with the weekly stats and in 2020, as of the end of the year,

we've had opened 798 cases in 2019 it was 773 cases. we had closed cases and in 2019 we were (inaudible) cases. at the close of 2020 we had 351 cases pending compared to 417 in 2019 and in 2020 we sustained 44 cases compared to 86 in 2019 and we discussed. they have extended beyond the 370 mark of those 17 are told pending other criminal investigations and of those 12, 11 were cases we received before the shelter in place order went into effect and so that is a little bit of a delay.

we closed out 2020 with 50 cases mediated compared to 38 in 2019. to date, we have 14 cases that are pending before the commission. two of those are appeals. we currently have 38 cases pending with the chief. those are statistics at the end of december of 2020. turning to our november statistical report, we received 34 complaints in the month of november that is down from 49 complaints we received in november of 2019 however, looking at the year to date as of november, we received 729 total complaints in 2020 compared to 713 complaints in 2019. so, that is the monthly snapshot as of november. i'm going to go through some other updates and i'll turn to our third quarter statistical report. times of outreach, our last

commission meeting on december 17th, 2020, on d., a. staff were and the operations center and the city covid task force and holiday prop up site at 24th and mission. highlight the events in yan and there's a virtual mediation tabletop focusing on our balances and on the 15th, we'll have a take holder engagement on the 21st we'll have two separate pan als, the importance of language access in oversight agencies and one about police oversight auditing and d.p.a. is participated in and our last meeting and obviously spoke to the commission and all

of the staff attended and 2018 and recently december 4th of 2020 and the staff has not attended that training and hiring and implicit bias training virtual tim hortons and on december 18th, we are having our staff train on cross culture that's also and virtual training and then in february broken up into two long sessions our staff will attend the office initiatives general update and i will start from our third quarter reports. can you please bring up the

powerpoint? >> >> thank you so much, next slide, please. this is an overview of what we will talking about. i won't go through and we will go through it in the slides and i am hearing the call. if you can advance to the next slide. what this slide down is breakdown the allegations by type in the third quarter and i'm going to go through the broad categories and i'll give you a little bit more information about what each category means and that was a request of commissioner ally as and we advance it and do these reports you will get even more of a breakdown in the draft themselves. the left column is the neglect of duty of allegations and we received 160 complaints which

fell into that category and what they do includes failure to activate body corn cameras and failure to display and failure to issue relief and make an arrest and failure to prepare incident reports and failure to care for a person in custody and investigate and process property and supervise and fail your to properly provide a number and when you get in the point and we'll get numbers of what these mean but that's just an overview of what neglect can include. with regards to contact and which we had 126 allegations of june third quarter and that can include general conduct on becoming by policing and

statement and specifically to denieder identity and misrepresenting a trend and authority and selected enforcement and harassing behavior of use or profanity. the next is all the way to the right which is unrented action and that can mean citation without cards and justification and without cars and in proper search or seizure and intentional property damage and that might not fall within those specified categories and we will have unnecessary force and policy violations or referrals and referrals is someone makes a complaint that it's not within d.p.h. jurisdiction and might be another law enforcement agency

or jurisdiction that falls within internal affairs as opposed to d.p.a. next slide breaks down the complaints by district so you will see that 40% of the complaints we received were from central and 30% from the airport bureau and the biggest category that we see here was from the mission and 67% of the cases so this breaks down where the complaints are coming from. if you can add advance to the next slide please, this is findings by allegations so on the left we sustained seven complaints and we break that down by the allegation type in

that pie chart so there were 40 sustained allegations. of those if you look at the section of 28, that is neglective duties and 26 of that 28 represented a violation of a department rule or law and that would be a general order or another violation of a specific loss. when you look at number eight, the next section of the pie chart that is becoming uncoming and of those seven of this sustained allegations were for in appropriate behavior and comments and one for general conduct on becoming an officer. for the next category of seven and three of those were fail your to comply with the general order 5.01 and three unauthorized force and one was

unnecessary use of force. and finally with regard to the unwarranted action, we sustained two allegations and one of those was a search and seizure and one a general unwarranted action. this shows a comparison of cases opened and closed by quarter and the lighter shade on the left from 2019 and the darker on the right is 2020 to get a comparison of cases we opened and closed per quarter. and a large number were received phones and then there's referrals and it's the same process i talked about that we might refer to other agencies and others referred to us

including internal affairs or other outside agency partners and we do still receive some from mail and earlier and we received 10 referrals and i would like to know there's been a change with covid and us being closed inform in-person complaints but we have a process where someone shows up in-person there's a phone where they can call and either write them and make their complaints over the phone or set up a specific time to do so. if you can advance to the next slide, please. if you look at the decline to state on the left most graph, that's 42% so while we definitely adept to get demographics and they don't tell a full story because it is an

optional piece of information that individuals may provide if they want. that said f. they did want to, 6% were asian and 11% black or african american and 9% hispanic or latin x and 24 white and 8% other and we have a breakdown by age and gender and so we will keep compiling these numbers and presenting those in our quarterly and annual reports and if you advance to the next slide. they are talks about our mediation and the amount of pieces that were mediated and what the status was so what this breaks down is per quarter new eligible cases which means cases when they came to d.p.a. were identified as being eligible for mediated and the number of cases being meeted and we will get

officers who were ineligible. sometimes officers have had a mediation within the past six months and it would make them ineligible for a certain amount of time and we breakdown officers who officer the opportunity to mediate and only one officer out of all the officers declined mediation and it's a voluntary process and officers has to agree and similarly we showed the comply ants and not those who declined and the cases that the mediation didn't solve the issues so the cases were returned for investigation and the last column is the number of mediations at the end of each quarter. if we can advance to the next slide, please. this is the complaints who

mediation and black or african american and latinx and again, whether or not to provide this information is voluntary. if you can advance to the next slide, please. i'm happy to answer and that you have. >> thank you, very much. no one? >> am i overseeing anything? sixth a couple questions and you noted on slide five that a significant a lot of complaints occur in the police district and tenderloin had 25.

>> zahra: and the mission had 33 complaints. and is there a view as to why this is the case? >> that's a great question. i would love to be your answer but i'm curious to know if these correlate with the increase of community policing? increase the police presence on the streets and you might also be introduced more opportunities for police interaction both positive and negative. i wanted to get your thoughts. >> we have not looked at whether or not the numbers correlate with the increase of community and i agree that is something you should look at and we can work on the timeline and what the complaints why and we haven't other than collecting the data and i think that's something that we should do for our annual report when we present this data to you again.

>> it will include the fourth quarter so we do quarterly reports for quarters one and two and three and they're plus the fourth quarter and it's something we can look into and research before that time. >> i appreciate it. >> any other questions? >> sergeant young blood, let's pivot and go to public comment. >> commissioner, do you want to finish off line item 3? >> yes, let's finish line item 3. >> commissioner reports. commissioner reports will be limited to a brief description and announcements and commissioner discussion will be holding to determine will be the calender any of the issues raised and a commission meeting. president report and scheduling of items identified for consideration as future commission meetings action. the floor is yours.

any thoughts? >> any reports? there we go. >> thank you and go back and i wanted to the right time to comment was but i wanted to comment on the election and congratulate president cohen and vice president elias. i think as a commission we have a good strong five members now and i'm very optimistic as we start 2021 that that is going to be a productive year and wore going to push reforms forward in a way that i think it will make

(inaudible) and people proud. that was it other than the commissioner spoke at the beginning. i would like us to (inaudible) around goals we would like to do this year and you can be the next two meetings about and we can achieve -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner. it sounds like someone is on the line but their computer is not muted. it is now it sounds like. >> >> that was my point to raise and i think we need to act more

proactively instead of reactively and i appreciate commission president approach to spending our time working as opposed to getting bogged down in hour long presentation was a issue in the past and so i'm excited for the new leadership and it's a good sign that we're returning the commission to acting on behalf of the city and it's people so i'm excited and thank you. >> yeah, i think to that comment, we did have a meeting on tuesday president cohen and getting some work done with d.g.o. 7.01 and commissioner hamasaki ihamasaki is part of tg group and we met seven or eight times with this working group so

it's the policy for youth and non psychological detention and custody and i wanted to give a shout out to that working group. we have several young people who are part of the working group and providing great input and giving us great feedback as we work through this d.g.o. which we will bring forward to our colleagues and to members of the public, soon. any other thoughts or colleagu colleagues? i just wanted to let the welcome disparities group know that we did receive their e-mail and we are working on a response and the three commissioners were present with a lengthy and productive conversation with them and we may have quorum issues with another commissioner responding before the three of

us had an opportunity so, please be patient with us and we're working on trying to appropriate respond and to the group and the issues raised turning and we appreciate your patients. sergeant young blood, can you check to see if she has anything she would like to discuss. >> yes. i don't think she can unmute on her found. >> i can't unmute her either. >> ok. we tried to figure out and i'm going to just. >> i've been trying to think about how we deal with public

comment and how we address the public's concerns and one thing that i have been toying with is we can go on to our business and from there if there's any remaining public comment, we can at the end of our business ex this is general public i'm speaking about and having it appointed time where we take a certain number of speakers for a controlled amount of time and i'm open to ideas on this and why i'm bringing this is because it's unfair for people to wait hours to give public and we have business to take care of and don't have the luxury to sit and

spend hours and hours of public comment and not get our work done so i'm trying to find a happy medium that will strike a nice balance so we can accommodate everything that we nodneed to get accomplished. with that said, i would welcome any comments or feedback. if it's a terrible idea, don't hesitate to let me know and i'll reach out to the commission secretary, not to violate any brown act violations but to solicit some feedback to the members listening i welcome in of yours.

>> can you hear us? >> yeah. >> if you don't have anything to say, we don't want to force you. we wanted to give you an idea to share your ideas or something you want us to work on for 2021. >> i'm here. >> we're going to get moving. we will keep this conversation open but let's keep going with the agenda. >> we have line item 4. discussion and action to approve

draft 5.03 investigative detentions and for meeting and conferring with the san francisco police officer association. >> i don't think we took public comment on item 3. >> sorry, you are correct. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment online item 3, please dial (415)655-0001 and enter 146 973 3457 and press pound and pound again and then press star 3 to raise your hand. members of the public that would like to make public comment now, please press star 3. >> i'm here i just couldn't find the mute for this thing. >> we're in public comment right now. >> i'm, i'm going back to mute. >> we have one public comment. >> great. >> good evening, ms. brown.

you have two minutes. >> yes, hi. congratulations to ms. cohen lisa. thank you. i'm calling -- as always, i'm calling about my son. i'm talking about my son murdered august 14th, 2006 to gun violence. to this date his case is not involved. as a mother i just wanted the police commission to keep my son's memory alive and announce his murder to the public on sf gov and i want to thank commissioner de jesus for this lovely letter of the it was an early christmas present. she not only did this for my son, this is not a christmas

press enter for my son but all african american people of color that have lost their loved ones, you know, that they're being stereo typed as gang members and just because they live in a certain neighborhood, and they're going to be labeled also and i just wanted to thank everyone that was involved with helping her get this letter. i know i can be a pest and i can be a squeaky wheel but i've been dealing with this for a long time and i wanted to thank her personally versus everyone else, thank her personally for this wonderful letter and i hope everyone read it and if anyone can piggyback off what she's done, i would love to have that because not only is my son being stereo typed, it's a lot of us being stereo typed out there and again, i think this is just to keep bringing remembrance to our children's homicides that are getting murdered everyday in

this world and in this san francisco world. i just wanted to say that and to again thank de jesus for this so much. please, piggyback after her. >> it is. i was happy to do that. any time. thank you so much. >> any other speakers? >> there are no other speakers. let's keep moving forward. >> line item 4. discussion and possible action to approve draft 5.03. for meeting and conferring with the san francisco police officer association as required by-law. discussion and possible action. -- by law. this is a revision by the department of general order 5.03

investigative detention and a become interest are several provisions that relate to reasonable suspicion. what wants to talk on this item. of course, commissioner elias. burning up the chat line to get in queue. >> thank you president cohen. this d.g.o. has been a long time in the making and we worked very hard on this and i'd like to especially thank the chief, who we had a special meeting with respect to some of the language in this d.g.o. to finalize the adding additional language for report sewing we wilreporting ss in investigation and have a more thorough data set.

i'd like to thank julie tran from the san francisco bar association, rebeca young from the public defenders office and janelle kaywood for providing memos regarding the issue that were helpful in guiding our discussion so we can get this to the finish line and bring it before the commission. i would also like to thank the group and the members that participated in this, especially all of those that attended all the various meetings that we have so thank you to the community for your support. with that, i would ask that the fellow commissioners support 5.03 and i'll turn it over to the chief with respect to any additional comments that he has on this. >> thank you, vice president elias and i too just want to say there's a lot of work that went into this and a lot of discussion and thoughtful discussion.

you may have mentioned it but i didn't hear it so pardon me if you did but i also would like to thank the d.p.a. for their input on what i believe to be a really solid policy and a good upgrade to this retention policy that allows us to do many things including collecting the data you mentioned so i want to thank everyone for working on this and i think it's a great start to what i believe to be a really sound policy on detention. and with that, we have commander bird, teresa who is available to present and answer any questions regarding either the d.g.o. or the process. >> perfect. before we hear from your staff, i wanted to give commissioner hamasaki an opportunity to weigh in. >> thank you. i just wanted to thank vice

president elias this got bogged down earlier in the year and there was opposition to it and elias worked with the d.p.a. and bar association to bring everybody to the table to get it in the fashion that it is in today which is why i was particularly excited to have her elevate to vice president. she's shown a real dedication to doing the hard work that is required to hammer out policy. so, with that, i would move to adopt it. >> so commissioner hamasaki has made a motion to move.

is there a second? >> second. >> second. let's hear from sfpd and their presentation. [please stand by]

>> the policy requires a certificate of relief anytime someone is not free to leave. then also an incident report. updated forms as well, 105 form. the follow-up form, officer business cards to include information on how to come in or make complaint against officer. it is more comprehensive and provides clear direction to the

officers. any questions i can answer for you, i am here for you. >> any questions, colleagues? >> there is a gram attical error commissioner elias wants to point out on final draft on page 3. >> there is a -- it isfetty extra period in section c2. period before public safety exception. if we make changes once the motion is passed it may be difficult. that is the only be issue that i see. other than that it is great. >> commander, i have a question for you. how do we -- how does the department ensure officers are

regularly trained and informed of this d.g.o. regarding the investigative intention? >> they have to sign off acknowledging the d.g.o. >> sorry what? >> power dmf online as opposed to just signing off in hrms. >> is that a technology platform, i am not familiar good another anothe-- with it? >> it is a better way of auditing to make sure everybody is signing off. this is something that is gone over in the academy as well as

follow-up in arrests. we have a host of classes we talk about in regards to fourth amendment and roll call training as well as ao and cb t. mandatory plain clothes training officers have to attend as well. it is gone over regularly. >> are there refresher courses that happen? >> yes, ao cb t is every two years. >> if i could piggyback. i know we talked in acronyms. advance officer is inservice training that officers have to go through routinely. we have to have so much training every year. that is an opportunity for refresher. also, there are regular training and lineup where our commanders

and supervisors. this is policy. we will issue through power dms. everybody has to sign for it. the academy goes through the regular training of in service to refresh people on these rules. also, because of right now we are in formation to give us more time to train we want to incorporate the policy changes in our regular rotation of training. reality is we have a really aggressive revision calendar for the revisions. we have to go through all d.g.o.s on five year rolling basis. we have to have a rhythm to make sure it is what we do. we are not all the way where we

need to be we changed the lineup six months ago. it allows more time for training to refresh on these issues. we are excited about that as well. >> thank you very much. commissioner elias. >> one other thing. my understanding and the chief can speak to this as well. with respect to this d.g.o. and 5.01, use of force that these policies will be reviewed by field training force option training unit, which is a special unit to look more in depth in terms of tactically how this is played out rather than the training scenarios they are given from the post training and other trainings they receive. the ftfo department is where it is fine tuned. this d.g.o. 5.01 will go there.

>> that's correct. ftfo plays apart in helping us implement changes in policy and law with use of force and tactics. thathat is a lot of what they d. with the dba and chief of staff can speak to this. working with the d.p.a., we are working together and she has started creating some trainings scenarios for officers on these types of issues. definitely that is something that is going to give us more energy for training as well. that is really important as well. >> thank you, chief. any other discussion on this? we will move to public comment. please check the phone lines.

>> clerk: members of the public for comment online item 4 press star 3 now. we have one caller. >> welcome, caller. >> you have two minutes. >> caller: this is rebecca young, public defender of the working group. first, congratulations to the commission on excellent selections for president and vice president. i agree with chief scott that 5.03 is good and clear and well defined general order members on the street should appreciate. 5.03 is the product from dedicated public servants on a final goal to serve common good. why does this 5.03 serve the

common good? because it sets clear expectations for members regarding maintaining respect in tone and conduct with citizens. it also follows well established law. respect by police towards citizens in de tension will improve community respect for police and hopefully improving overall public safety for citizens of san francisco. i want to commend commander for her guidance of our working group and i want to thank chief scott for his openness in listening the bar association of san francisco regarding the language in the d.g.o. and how important it was to follow well established united states supreme court law. i urge its passage. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers, sergeant?

>> one caller. good evening, you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. this is pastor. i am a chaplain for the san francisco police department speaking on my capacity as citizen and resident of san francisco. i will extend greetings on the epiphany. we have a fine lutheran president of the commission now. i want to just raise up the leadership of the executive work group and everyone who really worked hard to bring this d.g.o. into a space where it can be before you at the commission, and i want to lift up the leadership of the commander and the way that all community members were able to have a voice at the table. this is a fine example of ways

to care about safety and respect in our community and also find ways that we can be the best we can as a police department and decrease bias. thank you for everyone who put hard work into this. >> any other members of the public to speak? >> that was it. there is no more public comment. >> i am sorry to interrupt. i apologize. i want to thank sergeant kilshaw who sheparded this for the past several years. this did fall offtrack for quite awhile. she brought it back even in her retirement she is dedicated and tirelessly working on these d.g.o.s it is because of her sheparding that this is here. thank you so much, sergeant

kilshaw. >> very nice. let's keep moving. >> on the motion to approve the draft of 5.03 with the correction of the two periods. commissioner day de jesus, how do you vote? >> yes. >> commissioner hama saki. >> yes. >> commissioner elias. >> yes. >> commissioner brookter. >> yes. >> vice president cohen.

>> aye. >> i have five ayes. >> thank you. is there anyone else on the line? i have an indication someone is calling on public comment. >> there is no hand raised. if they are on the line they need to press star three. they just came up. good evening, you have two minutes. >> thank you. so sorry there is julie. i am on the line. 5.03 i wanted to commend particularly the chief, who i think had a strong hand in the drafting of this changing how we

document. at the very beginning of the work with the bar association i with a number of people including tony cam ever -- chaplain wrote this and we had no way to track detentions. the chief led the way to make sure the detentions will be tracked. it was air lot of discrepancy. i think we understand how all of us coming together to get it and involve many have come up with the best general order, which like the use of force and bias, free policing general orders will serve as model for the rest

of the states. the commander and for cindy for reminding us there is a jury instruction regarding detentions that refocused our attention. i know you are voting. thank you very much. i just appreciate the hard work that went into this and, of course, we support it fully. thank you so much. >> next item. >> line item 5. discussion and possible action to adopt revised deputy general order 11.11. meeting and conferring with the san francisco police officers association as required by law. discussion and possible action.

>> any discussion? >> yes we will present on this one. >> chief, i don't see them on here at the moment. >> rather than spend time. i can go with overview of the policy for the commission.

i can brief the commission on it. the purpose of updating this policy to reflect that ddo11.11 is primarily designed as resource for members with problematic and ad duc and addie behaviors. we want to get to the problems before it becomes a crisis or tragedy or disciplinary issue. thathat is the spirit behind 11. to pride timely intervention and recovery resources for problematic addictive behavior alcohol use, drug use, gambling, anger management. that is not all inclusive. members may be mandated to participate in the program as a condition of displane and chief

of police determines the duration. members can elect to participate in the program on their own. that is, when a member sees they have a problem they can selfie elect to participate in this program and get help. our behavioral science unit is a confidential resource. they do a really good job. i want to make sure members who are struggling with any of the issues that fall in this category have resources they need to get help before a problem and not have to deal with these issues on disciplinary level after something happens. couple of updated procedures in the policy to highlight. officer in charge of internal affairs division shall ensure the program administrator is notified when a member is

referred to the program as a result of disciplinary action. if a member fails, the program administrator will notify the internal affairs division to conduct an investigation following the department protocol. also, the behavioral unit which is a confidential resource to assist members and successfully completing intervention and resource programs will be a big part of hopefully getting officers and members when they have these challenges, getting them back on the right track to get them the support they need. the program is really designed for that purpose to provide resources for members in need. formal updating of the program to emphasize the concept of intervention with members and resources available to members is one of the intentions of the

program. to let officers, members, know the resourceses are available and not let it be a secret to anybody. the resourceses can be set up by members prior to the actions that result in discipline. that is what we are after. get help before it becomes a problem. focus of the program is to keep members mentality and physically healthy and provide assistance to members in need. healthy members result in safe and productive police officers and better delivery of public service. that is an overview of the intent of this updating of the general order. if there are any questions, i can answer them. >> commissioner hama saki. >> it doesn't seem like there is any particularly much substantive changes or changes that will impact this in

practice. is that fair to say? >> there are a few subtle changes that are important changes. one, the tracking of this and the commission asked in the past about the tracking and ad ministration of the program. we felt we can do a better job tracking the administrative program. when somebody gets in the situation that they need support in this area, one of the things that is follow-through tracking to make sure that support is actually yielding the results that the program is designed to do. i mentioned about the internal affairs, administration of the program. those are subtle but important issues that i think will put us in a better position, commissioner.

>> i know we have had this discussion a few times, mainly related to discipline cases, and there is some concern as to whether or not part of it is settlement agreements or discipline may involve referrals to bsu. from there whether or not the officer or member is getting the type of oversight and support they need. i know we saw at least one that i am thinking of where somebody had gone through, i think multiple referrals without addressing the problem. is there -- is this going to track referrals voluntary, people who come to the program

follow daily and -- voluntarily or how do you plan to show the effectiveness and officers to learn what areas can be improved on? >> well, if it is voluntary that information is kept confidential, if a member seeks help and they go to the unit. that is confidential. as far as discipline, these cases are mandated by discipline. definitely that will be tracked. some including mandatory testing to make sure the testing is being done. of course, a negative outcome on the testing results in further disciplinary action. that is an area where we thought we could do better and that definitely will be tracked. >> that is what i was thinking about. there was a situation where an individual had gone there and

had it for a period of time. we discussed this previously. it seemed like the commission that perhaps the individual needed to be on a tighter reign. it sounds like this is what you are addressing. >> that's correct. >> i am glad to hear that. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. chief, i wanted to know how this is going to interplay with the early intervention system. i know when the mayor released the goals for the 20% policing early intervention is going to interplay with this policy. i do belief the early intervention system is aimed at finding issues that may arise

from officers in a manner that we can basically intervene earlier rather than later after the disciplinary part. >> there could be interplay between that system and this program. early intervention system has triggers based on adverse behavior complaints or other issues. if those issues are the result of somebody who has a substance abuse problem and then they start to impact the impact how they do their job, start getting involved of use of force and we

trigger early intervention. there could be there. they could be referred to this program and that will be tracked and monitored. if it is self-select. the person says it is impacting my job and that is confidential. there could be a correlation. the eis system does not follow these issues. if we have an intervention and derm that these type of issues are the root cause of what is going on, that is where it coming together. >> okay. commissioner elias, does that satisfy you? any other questions? >> no, thank you.

>> any other questions? we can go to public comment. sergeant, public comment. >> members of the public regarding line item 5, department 11.11. call 415-655-0001. access code (146)973-3457. press pound, pound and star 3. press star 3 for public comment. we have no public comment. >> all right. a motion to approve 11.11? >> so moved. >> second. >> motion moved by brookter. second by eelias.

for the record i don't see petra on. did she drop off? >> she is here. >> i am here. >> we will take this without objection. thank you. this motion passes unanimously. next item, please. >> line item 6. presentation of 2 and and third quarter sfpd/dpa document protocol report. discussion. >> i will not go through the documents. i will give context and background. this document protocol used to be on the consent calendar, meaning not subject to discussion. there were a few questions that came up with regard to the information sharing project that we are working on in terms of

better communication between d.p.a. and sfpd about exchange of documents body-worn camera and things of that nature. the commission put this as separate agenda item to ensure that we were working with the department towards those goals of ensuring we were getting what we needed and had an opportunity to communicate with the commission for outstanding issues. i will say that you have the second and third quarter breakdown of items we requested, what we received, what the outstanding status was. further update i received today was at the end of the third quarter there were 15 outstanding requests. as of today there are six of those that are still outstanding which all involve body worn cameras which has been coming out on a rolling basis. as we discussed before many

incidents involved several body worn cameras from several officers and large amount of time where the complaint is only on the small portion of time. there is a lot of back and forth between us and the department to narrow or get the body worn camera we need. at the next fourth quarter document protocol presentation we will update those six pieces and continue to ensure if there are issues we bring them up. i point out that i believe at one of the later january commission meetings ac moser will be back to give you an update on the information sharing that is done. i am very optimistic about that status of that work. >> i appreciate the update.

my question was on the old numbers. in my notes for the second quarter 17 documents remain pending. third quarter there were 15 documents that remained pending. how do we know if the pending requests from each quarter have been addressed? >> the request for documents, are there requests for documents still pending in. >> there are requests pending the body-worn camera, six body worn camera pieces. it is for six cases of body-worn camera. i can't say with certainty that the cases the 17 second quarter and 15 from the third quarter are carryover versus new. we can track that in the fourth

quarter. i don't know that for sure. >> thank you. commissioner elias do you have a question for this item or was that previous? >> that was previous. thank you. >> any other questions? i see none. public comment. >> for public comment online item 7. third and fourth quarter -- i'm sorry document protocol report. press star 3 now to raise your hands for public comment. we have no public comment be. >> this is a discussion item. there is no vote. we will keep moving forward. please call next item. >> 7. presentation of the third answer

fourth quarter 2020 police commission report of disciplinary actions and update on cases remanded back to the chief. discussion item. [ inaudible ] >> commissioner hama sack key. >> i withdraw that. >> commission, this is a follow-up of disciplinary cases in which officers were -- had cases pending and they resigned from the department and the commissioner requested that i follow in open session on these cases on today's commission.

there are four cases that i will speak about. how i will do this to protect the confidentiality of the officers is read the case number, what the charges and violations were, findings were and where we are. there was another issue. i can't remember which commissioner asked whether any cases worr would be releasable r the criteria. i will let the commission know which ones are and aren't. those four cases. i will start with first one. i.e.d. 2018-0212. the general order violation was violation of 2.01 rule 9 three

counts. charges of a misdemeanor conviction of fish and game section 2002. unlawful possession of creature to members of the public out-of-county law enforcement agents. making false misleading statements to the commission. it was taken off because of retirement. that was remanded to the chief of police for further decisions and to reach final determination to permit the public release to the personnel file as permitted by law. 1421 question. improper conduct. what happened after i may being the findings the member is notified by mail, a letter of the findings. they have a right to appeal. if they decide to appeal, they

get to review all of the case files and the information to make that appeal, and then from there we don't have any jurisdiction. they do have a right to appeal and to object to the findings. those letters are sept out. we have not heard back at this point. they had 30-days to make the appeal. there were letters sent out within the 30-days. on this particular case it is our belief this case is releasesible under 1421. next case is d.p.a. 0213-18. violations were violation of 5.01, which is the violation of 2.01 and violation of d.g.o.

10.11, body-worn camera. charges consist of use of excessive force, misrepresenting truth about use of force, areas to activate body-worn camera. officer resigned or retired from the department. this was remanded to me to the chief of police for proceedings and for a final determination. it was improper conduct and the officer was sept a letter of right to appeal. we believe this also falls under 14.21. this case is releasable. id2019-0115. that case isvey violation of rule 9. charges of officer involved in violent road rage incident while off-duty armed with off-duty

firearm. this member retired as well and case was remanded to the chief of police for further proceedings and to reach final determination which was improper conduct. this one we don't believe under the law is releasesible under 1421. next case is i.e.d. 2018-0204. violation is 2.02, 01, 9, rule 9 and charges consist of firearm while intoxicated and destruction of property. this is taken off calendar. member resigned from department. this is remanded to the chief of police for further proceedings and to reach final determination. that determination was roomed improper conduct. that member was sent final

determination letter and we are waiting a response on possible appeal. we don't believe under the law this is releasesible under 1421. that is update on those cases. >> commissioner hama saki. >> chief, thank you for this report. this is the first of these reports that we have received. to give the public a little background. this has been a long process for this commission that unfortunately that the public hasn't been able to see. you know, the big issue, there are two. one is transparency and

accountability that we want to make as many records public as allowable under the law. i am pleased to hear the two cases are 1421 eligible and should be released publicly. the second concern raised since before i got on the commission but even came up during the summer and the black lives matter demonstrations and discussions was around the idea of officers retiring with open discipline cases and then being rehired in other jurisdictions and including individuals who had been charged with pretty substantial conduct would be able to be rehired elsewhere if they presented a danger to the community of san francisco which is why they had to leave. this process by the chief

completing the investigation himself will allow, i believe, files to be noted as such. if they ever try to work in another jurisdiction and that jurisdiction requests files and disciplinary files, they will be advised. i can imagine from assurance and liability perspective it will help keep dangerous officers off the streets. this is really important work. this has been going on behind the scenes with multiple city attorney memos and legal guidance to get to this state. thank you to the chief for implementing this. it may beings me happy to see this and feel like we as commission are doing our job to ensure the transparency, account ability and protection of the community is foremost. thank you. >> chief, i have a technical

question dealing with policy failure. i want to note in the disciplinary report for the fourth quarter that there were charges neglect of duty to report and investigate and/or investigate used during the agreement policy failure execution of a wanter. the neglect of duty not reporting use of m4 rifle as forced after it was used during the execution of warrant. the m4 rifle at minor children not subject of the want. neglect of duty not reporting the use of the m4 rifle after used during the execution of the warrant. i would like to know what

happened. >> yes. the good news on this is the commission's revision of 5.01 back in july addressed this issue. the issue is this. the way the previous policy before the revision the only intentional pointing of the weapon was being the reportable use of force. this particular situation it was definitely some questions on whether or not the weapons were drawn, whether or not there was intentional pointing of weapon during a search warrant, tactical operation and search warrant and whether or not those weapons were intentionally pointed at an individual's. that really was a bigger discussion on the intent of how

those weapons were positioned. the policy didn't -- other than what the previous standing policy said at the time which was it had to be intentional pointing of weapon to be a use of force. that issue has been addressed now because the commission's revisions now have language that when a weapon is drawn even when it is not intentionally pointed, even if it doesn't amount to use of force it is reportable. it clears up a lot of that issue. that is the good news. i think, you know, there is some acknowledgment when guns are drawn whether or not they are pointed to a certain degree of promise to other incidents or those who witnessed that. this policy will address this or give us the ability to evaluate

whether or not the mere drawing of the gun even if you are down already. which there was a lot of discussion on low ready if that should be reported or not. now it will be reported in most situations. that has been addressed. at the time this incident happened that was the issue. it is the policy that didn't cover it based on circumstances of that case. >> thank you. seeing no names in the ky, i think we have no other questions. public comment, please. >> public comment online item 7 regarding the commission report of disciplinary action. press star 3 to raise your hands.

we have no public comment. >> all right. thank you. next item. >> 8. general public comment. at this time the public is welcome to address the commission for up to two minutes for items not on the agenda. under the rules and order neither police or d.p.a. personnel or commissioners are to respond but may provide brief response. opportunities to speak are available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. enter access code 146 -- star 3 if you wish to comment. if you wish to speak you will be added to the queue. speak clearly and slowly and turndown devices in the background. you may submit comment in the following ways. e-mail the secretary of the

police commission or written comments to the public safety building located at 1245 third street, san francisco. members of the public to make comment press star 3. we have one public comment. >> thank you. this is rebecca young again. some of the commission members know me. i wear several hats. i am a public defender and member of the san francisco police department bias working group co-chair racial justice, it is on bar association of the san francisco criminal justice task force. as a result of these roles i have done a fair amount of study around meet and confer policy that protects the san francisco police department can collective

bargaining from any sort of public reviews. under the city charter 11.100 and .101, all negotiating power is invested in dhr, department of human resources as agent of the mayor. the san francisco police department in 19 88 gave mayor authority over labor negotiations with this bargaining unit. we are asking for transparency. not only in san francisco but across the country is asking this collective bargaining unit poa that they are transparent in their bargaining. we are encouraging the commission to do whatever you can to encourage the dhr to advise the poa to include a transparency rule on their meet

and confer process. we are also asking that you propose a charter amendment so that in the form of a proposition so that the voters can weigh in on whether they want transparency in police negotiation process. without transparency there will not be any accountability. transparency and accountability are like salt and pepper. they go together. you cannot have complete accountability for police behavior and change the culture that chief scott is trying to do without transparency. thank you. >> what was the caller's name? >> rebecca young. >> one more caller.

you have two minutes. >> i just wanted to -- i don't expect this but i am going to do it. i wanted for the sfgovtv concerning my son on august 14 at 3:00 a.m. he was murdered in grove and baker. 17-years old. if anybody has any information we urge them to call the inspector. i forget his name right now. (415)553-1145. the case number tip line 575-4444. case number 060-86-2038. i wanted to keep awareness of my son in the light of the public.

i will continue to do that. hopefully we will get back into the city hall real soon so i can see you guys in person and we can see each other's expressions again. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public like to comment? >> that is the end of public comment. >> thank you. let's continue moving forward on the agenda. >> line item 9. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 11 below. closed session including public comment on item 10, vote whether to hold item 11 in closed session. >> public comment is open.

check the lines. >> we have no public comment. >> all right. public comment is closed. next item. >> 10. vote whether to hold item 11 in closed session. administrative code section 67.10. action. >> i will take a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> motion by hama saki and seconded by commissioner elias. without objection the motion passes unanimously. >> i will take us into closed session. >> thank you i'd like to entertain a motion.

is there a motion? >> motion. >> all right, motion made by commissioner lai, seconded by dejesus. thank you. without objection and the motion passes unanimously. all right. i don't believe we need to take public comment on that do we? >> normally we do, yes. >> i'll take a motion to rescind. is there a motion to rescind. >> motion. >> made by elias seconded by -- thank you, dejesus. so the motion is rescinded. public comment not to disclose what was in closed session. >> public comment on line item 12 regarding not to disclose, please press star 3 now to raise your hand.

and we have no public comment, commissioner. >> excellent. thank you very much. all right, let's redo that motion. motion made by commissioner elias not to disclose. seconded by commissioner dejesus. we can take that again, without objection. without objection, motion passes unanimously. >> yes. >> all right, what else is on the agenda for tonight? >> line item 15, adjournment, action item. >> all right, folks. >> motion to adjourn. >> motion made by supervisor -- supervisor? by commissioner brookter. >> don't do that. >> seconded by -- force of habit. seconded by dejesus. ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. i take it we take that without objection? >> yes. >> thank you, everyone. good night. >> thank you. good night.

>> this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please mute yourself if you're not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy... [roll call]

>>