>> san francisco planning commission regular remote hearing for thursday january 21, 2021. the mayor declared related to covid-19. the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to recon vane remotely. remote hearing require everyone's attention and your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming that hearing live. we will service public comment for each item. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001. and entering access code.

146 671 1537 press star and 3 to be added to the queue. when your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is reached, i will announce that your time is up. to speak best practices is to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television. at this time, i would like to take roll. [roll call] thank you commissionerrings.

first is consideration of items for continuance. item 1, 1555 oak street a discretionary review. item 2, 3543 pierce street a review has been withdrawn. item 3, 468 jersey street, a review has been withdrawn. new regular calendar, item 13 case number 2013-1535c, o'farrell street and 532 jones street is requesting a continuance to i believe it was

february 4th. item 16628 shot well street proposing a continuance to marc. finally commissioners, item 18. 1560 folsom street is requesting continuance to february 4, 2021. i have no other item for continuance. we should open up for public comment. member of the public, if you address to any of the matters proposed for continuance, you must do so now by pressing star 3. i do see several callers.

you have two minutes. >> good afternoon members of the commission. this is richard, i'm representing fifth church of christ. for item 13, we are continuing our ongoing efforts to work with the community and requesting a continuance until february 4th. when we hope to bring this back. we appreciate your patience and your assistance and helping us through this process. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm ella strong, president of the executive board of fifth church of christ scientists. our church cosponsors the 450 o'farrell street project. just indicated moments ago, we

respectfully request continuance of our item to give time to make sure that the amendment to our project is universally and properly understood. thank you so much. >> this is a question about something that was scheduled for today. i have in my mail. i didn't hear. i appreciate you clarifying 446, 448 ralston street, is that scheduled for today or different day? >> it is scheduled for today, sir. it will be called up under the regular calendar when its turn comes. >> thank you. >> this is greg.

i represent san francisco bay. which is the owners of 500 jump street which is adjacent to the o'farrell prejudice that has -- project that is up for continuance. we are also in agreement as to the extension to be continued at this time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment for continuance. seeing no additional request to comment. always too soon. commissioners public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

>> commissioner imperial: move to continue items as proposed. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. that motion to continue all items as proposed. [roll call vote] so moved. commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0. making today's agenda significantly shorter. commissioners, next on your agenda is your consent calendar. consider to be routine by the planning commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member or public or staff request. item 4, case number, 3927-3919,

19th street. item 5150 7th street. , commissioners we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to press star 3 to get in the queue and to pull either of these items off of consent. i do see one member of the public. go ahead, caller. which item would you like to pull off consent?

>> i'm calling for 446-448 rule 448ralston avenue in san franci. >> clerk: we'll take that matter up later. we'll announce we're accepting public comment and that will be opportunity to press star 3 and enter the queue for that. members of the public, last call to pull either matters off consent. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed. the matter is before you. >> vice president moore: move to approve items 4 and 5 on consent. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to take approve the project has modified on 19th street and approve 7th street matter with conditions under your consent calendar. [roll call vote].

so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us under commission matters for item 6. consideration of adoption january 7, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star 3 to enter the queue. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you commissioners. >> commissioner chan: move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, that motion to adopt the minutes for januar. [roll call vote].

so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 7, commission comments and questions. >> vice president moore: i wanted to check with my fellow commissioners in this particular round, reviewing the projects. i'm wondering also to whether or not we can start selectively to get hard copies of significantly large projects.

o'farrell, folsom as well as unfortunately, department budget review -- as we are now going into our 36th, or 38th virtual hearing, we may have to use an interim provision to receive paper copies on these last projects. i'm wondering how the commissioners feel about that. [indiscernible] >> clerk: we can certainly look into doing this. there be will a possibility to reinstate hard copies issued to commissioners? maybe we can have that sta of can adhere to shelter-in-place.

>> vice president moore: i appreciate that. >> commissioner diamond: i wanted to undercore commissioner moore's time. i'm having terrible time reviewing the drawings on an ipad or a small laptop. the narrative portion is fine but the actual drawings, i have to shrink it so small in order to see everything that's on that's really hard to read all the notes. i previously indicated the same desire for ceqa documents for draft d.i.r.s and importance -- response to comments. in reviewing those, it's nice to have. >> i like to make a -- i like to talk about the drawing. it seems like every applicant

submits their drawing in a slightly different format. sometimes the proposed and existing around the same page. sometimes they are pages apart. sometimes we get 3d models, sometimes we don't. i'm wondering if an effort can be made if other commissioners feel the same way, to figure out what works best for us in our review and let those become criteria. there may have been efforts in the past. i will be very interested in hearing other commissioner's spotsen this. >> commissioner imperial: i also support commissioner diamond and commissioner moore on the hard copy. as far as i know, the e.i.r. is

something we requested it's not mandatory. those are things is very important. in terms of the drawings, it's a lot of going back and forth. when it comes to other very important documents that involves policy or long range development, those things as well i feel like may need some more hard copies for myself. this is something that we'll talk about later on. the budget -- i was having a hard time to piece everything in. if i would to have a hard copy, the e.i.r.,s land use or long range development plan or large

project -- [indiscernible] i'm not sure about the discretionary review. i have a hard time looking into those pictures as well. >> vice president moore: i want to briefly comment on commissioner diamond's comment. previous commissions had issues with inconsistency of drawing submittals. some do great job and others do hard to understand job. it's hard, it's adding lot of extra work to people, making demands. however, there's a basic

standard -- i think it's still on the planning commissioner's website where it was little bit more consistency. i think this may be the time to slowly review the standards and see if we shall stand with that. and have staff direct for information that is required from all and not just from some. it's simple tweaks. we have gone so far substandard submittals, reconsideration of that is at the top. >> we can send out guidelines so others can see the feedback.

>> vice president moore: at that time we careful not to overburden people. >> clerk: i will convey this request to staff during our weekly commission cases meeting and see if staff can start little more diligent in the plan review when they come to the commission. >> commissioner fung: i'm okay with either way. whether it's electronic or hard copy. i have a 30-inch monitor and a touch screen on my computer. either way works for me. >> clerk: we won't send you any hard copies commissioners. >> commissioner tanner: i second for myself. as we roll out how hard copy

works, maybe there's some items where i want that. i'm okay with electronic. i will make it a special request to access that for myself. >> clerk: i will poll the commissioners before we start sending large packets to your receiving address you give us. seeing no additional request to speak from commissioners, we can move on to your next item, number 8, election and officers. with the rules of the san francisco planning commission, the president and vice president shall be elected of the commission held or after the 15th day of january each year or a meeting the date of which will be fixed. i don't know why that sounds so complicated. in any case, the election of officers posted on --

[indiscernible]. >> commissioner diamond: i believe that commission president and vice president moore have been doing a great job. that my understanding is that most people serving this position for about two years. i would like to move to nominate the two of them. that will be the right motion here to serve for another year in their current capacity. >> second. >> clerk: if there are no additional nominations, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded. electing commissioner koppel to president and commissioner moore to vice president. on that motion -- [roll call

vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously, congratulations to the two of you. commissioners, that will place us under department matters. item 9, director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. first of all congratulations. i wanted to give you -- i e-mailed out a letter today from mayor breed regarding bay area. it focuses on housing environment, transportation and the economy.

the plan allocates house holds in the county and cities. [indiscernible] [background noises] we're not the only city affected

that are getting increases. we are the most significant. one of the bigger issues, where the growth is allocated. that gave us concerns. shifted out more higher resource jobs which communities along the way. you'll see those issues being outlined in the article.

abag is taking that up tomorrow, voting on the preferred alternative for their e.i.r. to take a look at this. i wanted to bring that to your attention because it's moving fast. second item, the m.o.u. for ucsf was approved by the committee on board of regents. it's on their calendar for today for the full regents. they are having changes made to it. it aligns with some of the concerns that you have. there's been a shift in affordable housing. 50% -- 40% of affordable housing was designated to a.m.i. levels.

we seen some improvements to the affordable housing and targeting a.m.i. i wanted to give you that. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, if there are no questions, commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: [indisc ernible] it seems there are people pulling strings. you described what's happening but who's pulling the strings

here? we are building large amounts of housing. we are leading the region. >> we're trying to understand -- this is the latest draft which is the final draft just before the holidays in december. we're trying to understand how this shift was made. there's couple of things going on. they've got a model that they

use to model future growth and strategies that are put in the model. it's been a little difficult for us to get answers to how this happened. i think it's a combination of shifting growth to meet greenhouse gas emissions. closer to cities that have significant amounts of transit. some of this seem to be due to a mistake made about how they accounted for our pipeline projects. there are some assumptions we're seeing about redevelopment of multifamily housing over redeveloping single families on site. we're trying to understand that as well.

and understand why this shift happen so we can better articulate what technical reasons why we don't think that should happen and the people reason behind it. [please stand by].

>> the historic preservation commission met yesterday. they heard the proposed department budget and work program which you will hear next as well as initiating or adopting resolutions recommending initiation of the sanchez building at 2778 24th street and the cultural center. if will are no questions we can move to general public comment.

at this time members of the public may address the commission on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reach understand the meeting. you may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds 15 minutes. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to get into the call by dialing star 3. >> before i talk about the e-mail i sent in yesterday. happy inauguration day today. i saw mission local article 89,000 households requested change of address cards from march to november last year. if that is permanent i do not

know. that is interesting. given the e-mail that i sept you, it was about the project in the sunday chronicle. if you read the article you saw the masterpiece. that was approved in 2008. that was just after section 317 had been passed. this is rh1. because it was over 1.5 value at the time it was approved for demolition. the neighbors called the dr. i watched thank you sfgovtv. it was interesting. the commissioners were really uncomfortable with the demolition of what everyone agreed was a sound structure. the two points about that. it is good planning policy that

you eliminated the rh1 apenough approval last year to have greater oversight on demolition to protect sound housing in these neighborhoods which are most of the city. two, the logical follow-up to the legislation would be the adjustment of section 317 to protect sound housing and preserve affordability as allowed by the planning code and use as the commission are to do with legislation. in case you don't get the chron on sunday i want to read the article. he talks about what it is like. good weather. young person. single person would like the tech employee drawn to the house. it is fancy with a dj thing in it. the quote. it is not a typical young family

with younger children that can't have separation from parents. alluding to the master bedroom location on the top floor with other bedrooms below. i have shown to people looking for the chair. the couple from new york city. your hearing last week about th recovervey strategy and income inequality. this is extreme not that far-off from what i have seen for the last six years. thank you. take care. good luck. be well, be safe. good-bye. >> go ahead caller. >> thank you. i am barbara hornsby. i am calling about a hearing

about 446 wallston street. demolition of the building. i would like to read my statement and my concerns. i have lived at 478 wallston treat for 39 years. i have concerns about the demolition of the building. >> i have to stop you. you are calling about an item on the agenda later today. you will need to call back. it is on the agenda regular calendar which we will get into shortly. i will need to stop you and ask you to get into the call when that is called, please. >> okay. members of the public last call for general public comment for items no the on today's again.

seeing none. we will move to the 11. 2020-0104430c r.v. proposed department and budget work program. this is informational. adoption hearing will come back to you in february. go ahead, director. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to present our budget today. i goes without saying it is a difficult year financially and operationally. great thanks to our staff in the commission. not just forgetting us back up and running. we are in good shape back up and running but willing to take on major policy and program initiatives. our work centering and

prioritizing our work on racial and social equity and the economic crisis as part of the city's recovery efforts. as you know, the budget is more than just numbers on a spreadsheet. it is a statement of all priorities where we allocate resources. it is important and challenging years like this it is more important where we don't have ability to add resources. i would like to thank our admin and finance team who strategically over the years have managed our finances and budgets in a way we can afford. we are relatively big reduction in fees this year and next year without significant cuttings to our programs or layoffs.

we hope that can continue. as part of this year's budget preparation, we undertook an effort to look at the budget through pilot equity goes to evaluate how the budget and resources will benefit the communities of color and vulnerable populations. the results of that assessment in the staff package. there is some difficulty in coming up with numbers and quantifying that assessment is not simple to do, but we think it is important to do that so that as we continue to makeshifts and change programs and derm priorities we have a basis to kind of analyze ourselves and have dialogue and conversations with you. the assessment we will talk about defined priority policy

areas, equitable housing, environmental justice. you will see that changes were made to the upcoming year's budget as a result of that assessment based on the community equity division, although in future years that doesn't mean we can't ask for additional resources. we focused on priority recovery efforts and racial and social equity and building internal capacity to advance these efforts. i want to thank them for work in helping develop and implement that assessment. i will turn it over to meghan. this is meghan first's time at the planning commission.

i want to introduce her. she is with the department since 2017. senior environmental planner in environmental planning currently working part-time with our community equity division assisting us in developing the budget equity tools. graduate of uc berkeley with masters in city planning and public health. now, i will turn it over to meghan. >> thank you, director. good afternoon. i am meghan from the department staff. i will provide overview of budget equity assessment, included in the budget staff report you received today. the department derives the purpose of the budget equity assessment from three places. phase one of the racial and social equity plan for the department has resource allocation goal. the commission's resolutions

from last summer state to quote move beyond acknowledgment of injustice and take concrete actions visible in work programs. this will align with the office of racial equity fourth coming equity assessment tool which all departments will utilize as they submit budgets to the commission and mayor's office. first, i want to show this quote. this is from last summer. san francisco's budget process transforms with a goal of more equitable city. we must reject status could that reproduces inequities year after year. city leadership understand as a city we are on a learning curve.

we want to support learning to shift effective practices and promote equity. i like this framing because we are definitely on a learning curve in terms of figuring out how to quantify and as sesswhich parts of our program are advancing racial equity. i would like this concept of increasing accountable as we move forward over time. what does this look like so far? in june 2020 when the mayor asked the department to reduce budgets in light of pandemic and economic downturn the tool was included then. since that time we have been working on updating a pilot tool to help each division to identify resources allocated toward racial and social equity and populations which i will

explain more on the next slide. results are included in appendix to our report on the budget. we know that this is just one iteration and we need more work. we also want to road test this to understand what challenges and limitations exist. it can only come about with the tool itself. the exercise brought about meaningful conversations about measuring equity impacts of the work and shifting additional resources. in future years we will be better equipped with more baseline data and performance measures we will develop for this year as well as guidance from the office of racial equity as they rollout their budget tool. the commissioners can expect to see the tool in the coming year. lastly, just to get to the message of how we identified items represented in the tool.

we really wanted to identify resources that the department has allocated to advancing racial and social equity in 21-22 budget. the tool identifies only the program areas and contracts that met two cry tieria. one, issue priority area which is listed at the top. the work is focused on priority geography or population served. we use the san francisco department of public health areas of vulnerability map as that geographic marker and thinking about priority populations not geographically concentrated such as indian american community members and people with homelessness. the managers reviewed budget proposals using this and listed work program areas and contracts in the tool that met the

criteria. this is the start of a longer process and we need to do more to measure how it is benefiting or burdening communities of color or priority populations. we look forward to your feedback today and any suggestions you may have in the coming weeks. we will come back next fiscal year with updated tool and reporting materials. i would like to invite debra to present on the overall budget. i will be available for questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director administration. a couple housekeeping items. i have been having trouble with my computer. if i disappear, tom will take over and continue the presentation. i also want to let you know that the power has gone down at liz's house. she called on her phone. rich has offered if she is

unable to respond that he has volunteered to do so. with that let me share my screen. we are going to talk about the budget for the next two fiscal years. i am going over the mayor's instructions, volume over the last decade and revenue and expenditures we are proposing, review the work program and look at the calendar for the next several months. at that point that will conclude my presentation. we will have public comment and we are available for questions after that. the budget focus from the mayor's office to prioritize economic recovery, produce meaningful outcomes and continue the covid response. the deficit for the next two years is projected to be

$653 million. if you compare with last year it was 420. definitely looking at more of a two year challenge than last year. the rising employee costs are a topic we discuss every year. this will continue. i should mention the financial report with the controller's office. the deficit is fueled by unbudgeted labor costs and rising employee costs. again, there are uncertainties and risks which we all are aware of. the reduction that they have asked us to make is 7.5% with a 2.5% contingency. as you can see over the last decade the volume was going up, up, up. three years ago we were on track

to be at that same level up until march 2020. then you can see the dip. for the current year we look to handle over 12,000 for all different cases, enforcement and buildings. actually before i move on, one thing to point out is that our enforcement cases and referrals are much lower in the current year than any of the last two years. a few things to note before i jump into the numbers. when we open the budget system, we are not looking at last year's budget. it is with adjustments for increased salary and benefit costs. i am talking about making these different cuts and the general fund reduction. they are not off last year's number. they are off the number in the

budget. that number in the base budget was about $64.5 million. we are making the cut from that number. this includes the reduction. it might not appear to be because it is from the base rather than from last year's budget. our charges for services, our fees. we are proposing to reduce fees to the operating fun by $2 million. the fees in nonoperating funds, special revenue funds. some of those increased in the budget. that is why you don't see $2 million drop there. the special revenues. we are looking at potentially $3.4 million of grants next year. that will be great if we get them. we are hoping that we will. i am not sure that we will but

we are hopeful. because we don't know the grant opportunities out there yet, that 820,000 number reflects th recurring grants that we think we can count on year to year. our impact fees are changing slightly. most of our impact fees are actually dollar amounts for noncity agencies. we have $1.5 million of administration for the implementation committee, the planning department runs that and we also are working with the financials with the impact fees. most of that is passed to other agencies. expenditure recovery is based on what other city departments request from us in terms of work. we recover expenses for the work

we provide for them. not a huge change. this will change between now and when we come back to you. probably will continue to change as different projects are scoped out and we are talking with different departments. expect that number to look a little bit different when we come back in a couple of weeks. the general fund support. you can see from last year $6 million to 7.7. the base you can it from $6 million to 8.2 due to salary and benefit increases. reduction from the 8.2, not from the 6.0. again, the total number fy21-22 is larger mostly because of the grants. on the expense side, the staff is what costs the most.

it costs more every year. we are looking at eliminating vacant positions from the budget. we are discussing which positions it will be. again, i want to emphasize that they will be vacant positions. the overhead number is calculated by controller's office. that is something that changes as well. it will change after the planning commission has voted on this budget. we don't have control over that number. it is in the budget after we submit to the mayor's office. nonpersonnel services anything from a lease on copier to contracts. you can see here we are going up by about $1 million. that increase is due to contracts, specifically relating to the housing element eir which we are budgeting approximately

$1 million for that. the materials and supplies you can see came down. that is because we had increased for the move. now we have moved and we don't believe we need extra supplies any more. capital and equipment we do not need to buy for the next two years. that will be zero in both years. project where we budget grants and impact fees. that is a general line to reallocate later to other lines. since we don't know specifically what grants will be spent on until we put in applications and receive this. we use this general project line for those special revenues. this interdepartmental services we are paying for services in other departments. that increase is yet again due to the represent. we did not have a full year of rent last year. this is our first full year of

rent -- i should say in the current year. 21-22, our first school year there. for the inter department mental services are rent, city attorney, and department of technology. one thing that is new this year is gone from five divisions to seven divisions. we recognize current planning city-wide zoning and add ministration. community equity is available. we split out commission and director's office from administration. it used to be part of that division. the functions are different. policy work that they do and legislative work they do. we have now seven divisions in the department instead of five which we had previously.

you can see the fd count is staying steady. you might see -- you will see changes when we come back in a couple of weeks because we will have identified which positions, vacant positions we will cut and the overall number will change. the historic preservation commission yesterday and we are here today with you. we will be back with the full commission in two weeks februar. this year we are submitting the budget a day late because 21st is a sunday. we will be submitting on the 22nd this year. the mayor has it and publishes back and forthwith the department through june 1st when the mayor's budget is published.

in june we work with the board of supervisors and then in july the budget is considered at the board. that concludes my presentation. i will stop sharing my screen. >> thank you, debra. we should take public comment, commissioners. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star 3. you have two minutes. >> hi, this is brett gladstone, local attorney. i looked through the budget and compliment those who put it together. i have concerns about whether there is enough planning for two particular neighborhood commercial areas. i am pleased to see planning for more housing in the sun set.

my concern is about geary and third street. i did not see something about planning for up zoning of geary. i noticed that the new geary transit line will cost at least between stanon and 34th avenue $235 million. that is less than half of the entire project cost of the new downtown to the ocean geary line. i did not see any planning for the up zoning of geary. i wonder if i missed it or if i haven't, i think it should be looked at. along the third street railway we spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the administration of mayor brown. there was a decision not to up zone along that transit line. i think we should look at money

to plan up zoning along that line. i don't mean any up zoning other than the lots facing third. i don't want to have us end up re-zoning all of that industrial properties east and west of third, but i think along third it should be in the budget. thank you very much. >> seeing no request to speak public comment is closed. the matter is before you. this is not an action item. that will come back to you in february. >> thanks to the staff involved. these are trying times. last year and this year is up in the air. thanks for all of your help.

>> commissioner imperial. >> thank you for putting this altogether. i may need some internal discussion just to have more clarification, i guess. i guess my general question is as we are looking into projects how does planning prioritization of the project come about? what project is, the budget, you know, what project that needs to be looked at after three years, five years?

>> commissioner imperial, this is part of that process in looking at the budget and work program certainly throughout the year. the commission's feedback is where we are going. in response to the public comment as we look to kind of where we should accommodate new housing. we are looking to the west side of the city and that is where we developed. we have one answer for that. it is the process with you and the public, the board, the mayor with those priorities. >> thank you for that clarification. still learning on the budget process. another thing, too, when it comes to the grant, how do we

make sure the grants we submit also align with our racial and social equity? are the grants deliverable? >> some are more flexible. we can -- they are more general. we can define a work program, get more specific. i think those that are general, we respond with a work program we think is appropriate and can fit with our priorities. sometimes you pass on a grant that may not be aligned exactly with our work program. >> okay. that is good to know. it looks like in terms of

prioritization in areas, you know, generally it looks good. i feel like in terms of the materials i may need to look for it. i have a hard time just trying to put together in terms of staffing, which project needs prioritized. i may need to have more internal presentation from the staff just for me to have a clear what is proposed to prioritize. that is just for me. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you, staff, for the presentation. for the very thorough report. one thing to do on page 40 where

it has the tables that go over. i think what is the topic area and the fte assigned? to me that is where the narrative comes to life. we have goals, things to achieve. how are we dividing up the chief resource staff time to berelated to those goals and priorities. we are a department driven by permit applications we receive that is where most revenue comes from and what we need to focus on a certain amount of time on the applications that come in. those are the applications that we get. we can't control that too much. a couple things when i went through that, perhaps you want to address it. trying to understand why we see the attention to the economic

recover reand retail strategy and how that is related to the geographic areas that might need more support. the commercial districts in those areas how the staff report, how much are we dedicating to the program across divisions. how are we deploying that resource? i was glad she showed the increased fte. how is that related to the geographic areas that need recovery in greater need toward the equity planning? those two shared spaces and retail recovery are napped glove. also, what we just talked about in terms of the goal. that process iscomming to an end. i am not sure if our city will consider appeals. the .25 regional land use coordination city-wide is

sufficient for that type of goal. hearing your representative maybe we have enough resources to be prepared for that. i also heard in the community equity division that there seemed to be three neighborhoods specifically called out for having outreach. it is on page 44. it says engagement strategy. it has b. district development and tenderloin and i am trying to understand how those geographies which i listed relate to the math that we saw. where to put resources and technician and tenderloin are part of that. how are we resourcing other

areas and having staff to work on projects and policies there. the last thing which is minor note. curious if the department has plans to look at the rooms down legislation since we have adus. that has changed how the city looked at developing the homes. my understanding is that some origin of the rooms down on the prohibitions and not really wanting folks to develop on ground floor is a way to keep people out, keep homes over a certain size. with multicultural families having that legislation we will talk about home size overall to avoid the homes that are unaffordable in the future. there is within reason the ground floor.

that may be needed for them to stay in the home they have and can afford to move else where and further push people to other areas further from san francisco for the jobs annette work. those are my preliminary comments and questions on the budget. >> commissioner chan. >> do you want answers now or can we come back to you? the questions you raised about specific areas we may want to come back to you. sometimes they are broken up. especially in the commercial other than recovery there is legislative stuff. it is hard to pull it together by the staff level. we can take a cut at that, too. >> that would be great. >> totally agree we have been

meeting. it is somewhat outdated, probably very outdated. i think you can expect that to be just pulled back or eliminated. there are issues about how we look at udus to make sure we have procedures in place to do that. you can expect changes there. >> thank you very much. >> before commissioner chan. anyone else need to answer commissioner tanner. >> acting director of the city-wide planning division. commissioner tanner, good to see you. i want to respond to a couple questions. first about shared spaces. that is a program rolled out city-wide. initially we are seeing high concentrations of specific cord doors and not a lot of exampling

in other parts of the city particularly those neighborhoods are the challenges. there is an effort to broaden the program so the social benefits can go across the city. once the repurposing of the half a million dollars towards grants to focus on prioritizing minority owned businesses and those are rolling out right now that can pay for past work or upgrades or future projects. >> we are working to deliver equity projects pilots in the ee neighborhoods that are deficient

in access space. land use is very important. >> we work with the projects. fte reflects what it takes in terms of most of the work is work that they do and we need to coordinate to make sure it works for us. what is not captured in that is the land use forecasting and modeling which is what we do at the local level that is showing up in the work plan. point 25fte allows us to do the coordination we need. >> i appreciate that.

>> thank you for your comments and staff for your sponsors. i think because much of the budget is focused on staff i want to recognize and appreciate all of the planning staff who have pivoted to remorning work dealing with power outages and issues and have done their best to keep the functions of the department going during these times. i wanted to say that was top of my mind. given the long agenda today. i have sent my comments to the director. i want to share high level thoughts with the public and my fellow commissioners. i really appreciated the pilot assessment of using racial social shall equity and the resources i think it is a great thing we are focused on racial and socialal equity. i think one of the greatest

priorities is how the department commission will actually define and measure equitable outcomes. this is a conversation we should be an having with communities impacted by long-standing racial and social inequities. doing it in a way that is thoughtful would set the tone for the work to follow. lastly, commissioner diamond interesting about whether the department should provide guidelines from public health safety standards. things around filltation, touch less fixtures so we don't have people reinventing the wheel they come forward with projects. the department has baseline expectations. the project sponsors could consider this in the initial design of project. this idea is great. it is whether we can do

something similar with the priorities. we can't really control mu comes to the department with permits, but we could provide guidance and educational opportunities to let the sponsors know what are the department priorities around the equitable outcomes. by sticks these up front it could help project sponsors to understand the expectations and in some ways allow us to meet those equitable outcomes. thank you. i look forward to future conversations. >> commissioner f un g. >> it is interesting how last year when we went through this

budget i had raised a number of questions related to the work plan. this year the budget has provided a greater clarity into the work plans of the various divisions. i applaud that. two things that are significant uncertainty with respect to the upcoming year has already been discuss. the one related to where our performances between the projections on the larger part of revenues with respect to the entitlement side versus what is going to be actually happening over the upcoming year leads to a lot of uncertainty since it is

a large chunk of our budget. the other one uncertainty relates to the progress that is made with respect to both the recovery and the racial and socialal equity programs that are integrated throughout the various divisions. given those uncertainties it would be good and i would recommend to the department and the director that perhaps we have informational hearings on a quarterly basis to see how we are doing with respect to those two uncertainties and allow us then to have a better grasp as to what progress we are making.

>> commissioner moore. >> in response, during these times we are not quite sure how quickly we will recover. it is totally appropriate and we are happy to do that. >> go ahead, commissioner moore. >> thank you to my fellow commissioners for very thoughtful. i agree with all of it. i would like to add one point. commissioner fung's comment. creatively respond is something that is hard to budget, it is something that is hard to prepare for, particularly when you scrape every day to do the necessary work.

what i would like to suggest and see support for is the robust continuing education and utilization with other cities and planning departments, e.p.a. on challenges that we need perhaps in similar as it is spread across the country in different kinds every responses. this department has always been the leader in innovative planning and pilot programming. i hope we will find a resource for each of our staff to stay current, look at future skills, to continue to form technology but also in the real art of planning. as you indicate, it would need to be program and budget-driven

to approve development application by staying strong and creative in the art of planning itself. i appreciate the addition of additional departments to dill e skill level and i hope we will have some support for robust continuing education to stay ahead of the curve. thanks. >> commissioner diamond. >> i want to thank fellow commissioners for their comments. i want to follow up on a point raised by commissioner fung.

that is how we plan in times of uncertainty. i would like reassured we are budgeting for scenario planning to address different outcomes. i think that conversation at the beginning of the hour about a bag is a good indicator what we may face in many areas going forward. it seems like the a bag numbers reflect yesterday's reality and hoped for tomorrow but do not reflect our current reality. i worry many aspects of our planning require different scenarios depending upon how events play out over the next year or two and what our recovery looks like. so understanding or getting comfort our budget allows for different scenarios or some other way of dealing with uncertainty seems to be quite

important. >> quickly to respond. i totally agree. i think it has been great in building in flexibility into our budget? anticipating shifts in revenue. this year we didn't expect what happened to happen, yet we were able to absorb that shift priority and take on different work in response to it. that is a great example how the budget in a system that doesn't tend to like too much flexibility is still giving us a little distance. >> planning of itself has a division. we spent time coming up for a

vision for the future and implemented. we may need multiple visions over the short term and al locate resources to allow us to plan for different visions of what recovery could look like. a new skill that we need to or new way of thinking about what our longer term planning looks like. >> commissioner moore. >> one additional question. a absolutely tough one. there is a budget and budget performance. particularly in private industry when you undertake a large project there is a budget at the onset and as you move through the project you monitor and account for performance within the budget limitations relative to what you are supposed to

deliver. last year and in previous years the department has been asked what are you doing with the budget performance? you have a large project x, y, z. you have a budget, staff, goal of the product. do you and the department account to yourself how you perform with staff allocated time and product to budget performance and also make the budget outcome? >> sure. it is not only part of the budget process where we are allocating resources, but i think part of the performance evaluation process in working with division directors and subsequently working with staff to define priorities, work

programs, goals. in following up on that throughout the year to make sure those are implemented. yes, that is built into our system both the budget and the performance measure. >> on a weekly basis does everybody make a timecard? five hours on this task and three hours on that task and you see every month this project is on budget, this meeting meets the timeline. >> yes, at my level i look at major project, programs, plans that we are working on and man manage from that standpoint. not hour by hour standpoint. certainly we get to that and manage the department. >> i do want to jump in to add

to that. yes, the managers do look at staff times on a weekly basis. it should be on a weekly basis. it might be bi-weekly because that is how often we get paid. we do approve time every week on monday. that time does track by every 15 minutes. what projects people have been working on. >> you use that as a measure for budget performance. it was on budget, 20% over or ftc and other budgets? >> it depends on the division. for example, city-wide is long-range planning. the projections i think could change more based on what members of the commission or the public are asking the department to look at for those larger

projects. for example current planning, environmental plans is easier to track the hours to say, okay, this is how many hours on this type of work this year. we anticipate it is going to be relatively similar next year so we can project those hours. yes, we can get into that level of granularity and managers and line staff do. to rich's point a few minutes ago, the director's point, that in the larger picture, it is looking at what are the big projects coming before the commission or the director and knowing i thought this was going to be done six months ago or not for another six months and it is here now and feeling good about that. >> thank you for answering that. it is important question to

answer, and have accountability for. i believe the department's work is very good quality. it is just knowing that you generally meet your own expectations. i would not want to see a drop in quality. i would like to see increase in quality, particularly with new challenges and new departments, new divisions you have created. you have my full support. >> thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> one last question which is for the c study. if there are proposed updates in fees. is that something integrated in this budget? i am interested in how the fees could reflect equity goals or would reflect the need for more

revenue combined with a need to recover the cost for work review but thinking about the need to recover and if that is something that would happen later on? what do you anticipate for the fee study? >> i can answer at least the first part of that. yes, absolutely, if we are going to propose any changes it would come back to the commission prior to going to the board with the legislation. changes to the fees require legislation. yes, we do expect that we will have some robust conversations about equity and how any changing might impact different geographies, communities, types of projects and if that is a conversation you are interested in having with staff before

anything is final we would be happy to talk with you. we are working with our consultants to crunch the data. there is a lot of data. they are going through years worth and looking at potentially restructuring. it might come back and say you are good, just keep it the way it is. we think that is going to finish up beginning, middle, hopefully, march. we will be back prior to the first week of may which is when all budget legislation, this would be part of budget legislation for the mayor's office. >> thank you. [please stand by].

>> good afternoon commissioners diego sanchez. today's staff is requesting initiation on planning code amendments. outdated cross references and make revisions to simplify code

language throughout various sections of the planning code. in initiation does not involve a decision on the substance abuse amendments. it begins the 20-day notice period after which the commission take action on the amendments. amendments are proposed for the following two reasons. one with repeated amendments to the planning code, minus errors. two, requires amending the planning code. planning code clean up includes changes such as the following. amending the large lot development table to include the newer districts. including additional clarify in the zoning table. clarifying the dwelling unit mix requirements in multiple zoning control tables.

noting exemptions for movie theaters and amending the neighborhood notice requirements for limited commercial uses in supervisor district 4. staff recommendation is to initiate these planning code amendments today and schedule an adaptation hearing no sooner than february 10, 2021. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you mr. sanchez. commissioners if there's no immediate questions, we should open up the public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address issues on this matter. seeing no request to speak, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you.

commissioners, there's a late request for public comment and seeing that no commissioners have entertained a motion or have any questions for staff, i will reopen public comment and allows these members to speak. you have two minutes. go ahead caller. >> good afternoon planning commissioners. any name is kayla and i've been a resident of the mission for 20 plus years. i'm calling in to ask that their conditional use for the 550 valencia proposal be denied. >> we're not talking about 550

valencia. we're not on that matter. we will be taking that matter up later this afternoon. next speaker. you here to speak to the code corrections that we're currently considering? >> not sure if i'm supposed to speak now? >> clerk: i unmuted here, are you here to speak to the code corrections? >> no. i was calling about the 560 valencia as well. >> clerk: at this time, i will remind you as i did the previous caller, you need to press star 3 when i ask for public comment on that matter. right now we are not on 560 valencia. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the code corrections that we're considering.

560 valencia and ralston will be considered later today. seeing no request to speak, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial: i have a question to the city attorney. i believe there's a connotation regarding the san francisco apartment association [indiscernible] can someone give a background about that? in regards to the c.u.a., includes tenant efiction protection. >> commissioner. i can give you sort of a general overview of the case i have to

go back and reread the case to give you detail. i believe the case arose out of the city's regulations over evictions. the court instructed the city that we could not essentially penalize property owners who exercised their rights under the state. we have number of co-provisions in the planning code and the subdivision code, i think and possibly the rent ordinance that imposed additional restrictions on property owners who had exercised evictions. we have advised the city that we

could no longer impose these additional series of additional requirements or wait periods or restrictions on property owners who exercised their ability to evict tenants >> commissioner imperial: there are some items that come before us where there are a dwelling unit where a tenant -- usually they will be put in the description, the findings of the case. is that something that applicable. is that something that not applicable? >> i think what you're asking is whether staff can include that

information, just information for purposes of the planning commission's interest. i don't think that there would be any problem providing that information but the planning commission would need to be careful as to how it use that information. >> commissioner imperial: thank you very much. >> i can also get a more detailed summary of our advice that arose out of those cases if you would like. >> commissioner imperial: it's great to see a miami -- memo so i can better understand.

>> commissioner tanner: i would like to move forward with the adoption. i'm not sure if i'm saying it right. to initiate and consider adoption. >> clerk: this is just an initiation hearing. part of that motion should include scheduling public hearing on oar after february 11. >> i like to move that we initiate the legislation and consider adoption on or after february 10, 2021. february 11, 2021. >> second. >> clerk: commissioner diamond did you have anything to add? >> commissioner diamond: i was going to make the same motion. i would just second. >> clerk: commissioners, seeing nothing further, there's a motion that's been seconded to adopt a resolution initiating custom changes and scheduling a

hearing on or after february 11 this year. on that motion. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. 7-0. commissioners, your next item number 13 has been continued to february 4th. which will place us on items 14a and b for case numbers 26-008707 for the property 446-448 ralston avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation?

>> good afternoon commissioners. bridget hicks planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section to allow the demolition of the existing two-story, four bedroom single family home at 446 ralston street. which currently occupies both lots 305 and 036 of block 6 699. that will authorize construction of two single family home. project total of four dwelling units on two lots. each home will be 35 feet tall include a four bedroom unit and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit. it will be one vehicle parking space in each home and one by school parking says in each home. the main unit at 446 ralston,

will be 2410 square feet in area. the accessory dwelling unit at 446 ralston, will be 1152 square feet. the shared garage will be 308 square feet. at 448 ralston, the main unit will be 2767 square feet and the accessory dwelling unit will be 1152 and 308 square foot garage. there was currently a state licensed inhome child care facility at the site. this will continue to be operated within the home of 446 ralston street. 446 ralston will provide two additional class 1 bicycle parking space for child care employees in the garage. this includes legalization play structure in the rear of the

property. the existing residential unit is owner occupied. there's no known evidence of eviction on the property. the department received six letters in opposition to the project. the opposition is centered on the lack of side yards set back. the addition of a third floor and that the children play structure would block views and proximity to property line. this department has eserviced three more letters of opposition, noting similar concerns about the increase in density, lack of parking spaces for the accessory dwelling units, lack of side setbacks at portions of the upper floors and noise from the child care facility. the sponsor has hosted a community meeting in accordance with the department guidelines on april 16, 2019. the project will seek a variant from rear yard requirement push

saunt to planning code section 134. to maintain minimum rear yard equal to 25% of lot depth or 25 feet. the children's play structure encourages 16 feet 9-inch in the rear yard and the variance haves required. to ensure with ocean view special use district, staff would like to read the following condition, add the following language to condition of approval. this was sent out to you this morning in draft form. the condition is revisions post-approval general conformity should the applicant seek to remove the parking or the child care facility from the scope of the project, this shall be considered a significant revision to the project and a new conditional use approval shall be required. in conclusion, the department

finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the new building is designed to be keeping with the pattern on the street and provide appropriately scaled house. on two currently under utilized residential lot and will result three net new dwelling units. the project complies with the special use district including the floor area ratio and the proportion of the unit size. the proposed units are size appropriately with the neighborhood exceeding 1000 square feet and the main units providing four bedrooms for family sized housing. the department finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the project sponsor team is here and has prepared a brief

presentation. this concludes my presentation an i'm available for questions. >> thank you ms. hicks. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> your presentation slides are up. you will have five minutes. >> okay. [indiscernible] existing 446 ralston sits on two parcels. for the purpose to create

efficient of the resources, the owner decide to demo the existing house and three-story houses in the two parcels. with those two parcels, we try to compound everything. we maintain one parking garage in the ground floor areas.

we try to minimize neighborhood building character. one of the buildings, we use window type summer to the -- sie neighbor. we try to use the bay windows. the two buildings will have differentiation on the front and for the window, we try to maintain texture style of the windows. for the purpose of exposing of

the building, -- [indiscernible] looking at our neighbors, one of the neighbor, 444 ralston they will have the same three-story building and we try to match the

size of the house and also at 446, the house will reduce the size less than 448. which means -- [indiscernible]

we have a child care license. we are going to maintain the same child care business. [indiscernible]

>> clerk: thank you sir, that is your time. i will interrupt you there. that is your time. commissioners may have additional questions for you later. at this time, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the ralston avenue project by press running star 3. i have several speakers. through the chair, you have two minutes. go ahead caller. are you prepare to submit your public testimony. we'll go to the next caller. >> i have to grab my sheet of

paper. thanks for this opportunity. in the area city codes, there are updates two new windows. it's pretty shocking to see the perfectly sound home in the rh1 district will be permitted to be demolished. the contract is very sharp between those two decisions. the property previously known as 446 ralston street was in good condition before the purchase by the owner who bought it at the same time as the associate next door purchased a dilapidated door and created a three-story house with nine plus walking bedrooms including nine ensuite

full baths. this associate has violated city requirements for adding additional walls and kitchens. the 446 owner was involved in the building construction of 454 and the two owners are associates and mr. chan represented himself. he was involved in the building construction of 454 and the two owners are associates, they coordinate projects and businesses that work in cooperation on managing the 454 ralston tenants property and two day cares between them. neither owner resides on any property. 446 ralston has been a airbnb. the owner will call him mr. chan, met with neighbor around the new year of 2018 stating he will tear down the

house and build two apartment buildings and rent it out. the neighbors opposed the plan. during that meeting -- the owner -- >> clerk: that's your time. we'll have to go to the next caller. >> i'm also calling to express my opposition to this project. i i'm shocked to hear in in the description that these proposed buildings are within the scope of the neighborhood. simple walk down ralston street can show that's not the case. this building in the form is representative being owner occupied. it's not my understanding it's owner occupied. the building is represented by young chan. as previous caller indicated, this building is coordinated

with 454, which is clearly being run as an illegal apartment building in the neighborhood with multiple units and multiple independent families living together. finally, i don't see any reason to grant the variant to create a structure that will have less than 5 feet of backyard in this neighborhood. it's not in scale of the neighborhood. it's not justified in any particular way. it's an opportunity to create a very large house which will eventually be flipped. we can all easily see that eventually the child care business will be gone. the owner will have a 2700 square foot house on one lot and a very large on another lot which will be flipped to maximize his real estate profits. this is not reasonable. if you look at the history of construction on this lot, it is known that retaining wall that was constructed was constructed without permitting. this is not an owner who generally consistent with appropriate approaches to

regulation and he should not be rewarded with the opportunity to construct two very large out of scale houses. not appropriate use of this space and it should be rejected by the planning commission. thank you. >> hi, i live at 478 ralston. i lived there for 39 years. i too have serious concerns about the demolition of the building at 446 ralston in order to build two dwellings. i understand progress is inevitable. but the character of the neighborhood is also very important. the neighborhood of merced heights is classified r1. the reason we moved here because of single family houses. as our mayor london breed referred to recently on television. my concern for the property at 446 are the following.

adding an additional house will create parking problems as has been said. only one of houses will be garage space because the other will have two units and the twin peaks day care which has no garage space. there's already a problem with parking when children are dropped off. this is the second child care center we have on our block. the house next door is to 454 ralston is ellen's child care. the owner claim to not know each other there's a short walkway and doors for entry into the center. we have three houses on our block with multiple units. we have one -- was converted illegally. then we have 454, which has been mentioned. it has several bedroomings,

bathrooms and kitchens and violations. it also has ellen's child care. we didn't know they were going to have child care there. we have 446 also having child care. the changes to our block have affected the density on the block. it's affected the quality of our lives. >> clerk: that is your time. >> thank you. >> clerk: i will give you one more opportunity to submit your opportunity. >> planning -- [indiscernible]

the other than at 446 want to demolish a perfected sound structure. this owner cause foundation damage to two neighboring properties with work done without permit among various other violations, most without permit. with some certainty, he will continue this practice. mr. chan has lied about his residence and his ability to speak english. don't know why, he's a bad neighbor already. one of the current tenants of 446 has a kitchen and one of the garages with building materials and boxes cluttered in it because this owner doesn't provide legal and safe cooking. they are just providing rooms. traffic and parking, has only two off street parking spots for 10 bedrooms and or tenants.

we have double parkers daily parking across neighbor's driveways. shouldn't that be a planner consideration for the neighborhood? planning may not care but we do. not all these issues are under plan's purview, they are a result of planning decisions. we're currently have two residents on the block one renovation 453 and 454 that laid out the blueprint for 446. please meet your mission statement and deny this project for the neighborhood.

>> clerk: thank you, sir. >> hi, good afternoon. it's georgia again. i usually don't comment on projects outside of noe valley. i have questions about the process of this. i agree. i accept that it's demolition. i would not read those demos on the plan. they made no sense to me. i don't know how the planner was able to deal with it. i think -- i'm not saying she didn't do it right. i'm sure she did. she's very good planner, i don't understand how she's able to do it given the information she was given. i guess two other points, this project has been kicking around since 2016 and also it seem to have apply originally as an alteration which is kind of what i've been talking about with

alterations as mask themselves as demo. it will be good it find out what the situation is with these demo calcs and what the process was to get to that. that's it, take care good-bye. >> clerk: members of the public, last call to submit your testimony on this matter. seeing no additional request to speak, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner fung: question for staff. bridget, which building has the

child care? >> yes, when you're looking at it in plan view, it's the building on the right. which is 446. on the floor plans on a1 it will say great room and child care. >> commissioner fung: i couldn't find it until i looked at sheet a2. the question is, the child care is being shown on the second floor. there's an a.d.u. and there's bedroom and is it child care use or not? >> yes. the enforcement planner and i went out and did a site visit of this project, over year and a

half ago. it was a child care. we felt that giving the a.d.u. access from side entry ways and retaining parking that's so important for this neighborhood, that's why the child care is on the second floor. it is an inhome child care, it's state licensed. it happens in the home. it's not a specific facility. if it was over 29 children, then it would kick into that category. >> commissioner fung: i thought state license child care could not exist where the elevation

change in terms of height with greater than 6 feet. >> i'm not sure about that provision. i do know that they are currently state license. when they get their plans reviewed, the state will look at the revision. >> commissioner fung: if this is on the second floor, it's got to be 10 feet up. >> yes. i'm sorry i'm not well versed in the state child care license requirement. i know they will look at the plan and they have to get fire approval when the structural plans come in. i can look into that further. >> commissioner fung: the corollating question is that, the child care is on the second floor, then the kids have to come down and go to the rear yard to use the structures that are the basis of the variant? >> that's correct. in lot of cases in san

francisco, the ground floor is not -- it's a walkup. that is correct. >> commissioner fung: okay. i'll have some further comments later. let's hear what the others want to say. >> vice president moore: i think commissioner fung touched on some very important question. which i like to see clarified before considering this project. is the child care facility allowable.

>> commissioner tanner: i do want to ask, i don't know if staff aware or if the project representative aware, if the child care is currently operating. i know under shelter-in-place and stay-at-home, the child care are essential and they are operating. are we aware it's still an operation today? >> i'll have to defer to the project sponsor.

i have to defer to young on that motion. >> i'm available. can you hear me? >> commissioner tanner: are you aware if the child care is operating today? >> not now because of covid-19. they do have -- [indiscernible] they have been operating since 2016 after the other than purchased -- owner purchased the house and acquired child care license. >> commissioner tanner: the owner of the home is the occupant and the operator of the child care? is that who holds the license for the child care facility? >> yes, right. >> commissioner tanner: okay. the goal will be to continue the operation in the new facility. i'm assuming that during construction it would have to pause as well? >> yes, right.

after the construction finish, the child care will be located on the second floor, 446. >> commissioner tanner: okay. what are the numbers of employees that are currently working at the child care facility? >> before the covid, -- [indiscernible] >> commissioner tanner: overall, i'm pretty supportive of this project. i think it's really excellent to see larger size a.d.u.s. it's good to see larger side a.d.u.s that can really accommodate folks and to see what is currently one home becoming four places to live. i do think it's really important to understand these questions regarding the ability for the child care facility to be on the second floor and there may be some exceptions.

i'm not no expert in state child care law. it would be not great to have gone through all of this, have them go forward with the next step and then hit a roadblock that brings them back here because as you said, not having the child care would be a significant change of the project. if we can get those questions answered, i think it might be beneficial for everyone to have that. those are my comments. >> i agree with that. the owner operate -- >> clerk: sir. your opportunity to speak was during your presentation. the commissioners haven't addressed you for questions. i apologize but i'm going have you refrain. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond: this is a question for the project

sponsor. have you shown the plans to the state child care licensing board? >> the child care license is -- [indiscernible] >> commissioner diamond: you >> commissioner diamond: you have not had any discussion with them. >> when we have meeting with the labor, they know we have a child care over there. >> commissioner diamond: it's not the neighbor it's the licensing board. have they seen the plans? >> we didn't attach it. [indiscernible] >> commissioner diamond: i don't believe mr. chan has shared the plans with the state facility at this stage, they are waiting to get approval for the overall project. >> i know the administrator

agreed about child care on the second floor. >> commissioner diamond: i like to hear what he has to say. i'm interested to see whether or not there's sufficient outdoor space for child care center. i don't know if we've have chicken in the egg first. do we need to approve something for them to take to the child care licensing board or can they show it to the child care licensing board and assuming we get city approval, we'll meet your standards. does the city has its own standard and does this project meetings all of that including outdoor space and second story issue. >> i will tray to address some of the issues. child care can be a little challenging.

as bridget mentioned before, this is specifically inhome family day care. which is regulated differently at the state level. it's not technically a separate use or separate occupancy. it's considered part of the residential use. it can be at the second floor, state prefers child care to be on the ground floor and generally doesn't submit above the second floor due to emergency exit issues. it can be at the second floor. because this is an inhome family day care, the state actually does not require any outdoor open space. if it was more of an institutional facility there will be requirement for outdoor space. but there is no state requirement for inhome family child care facilities to have

any outdoor open space. although many of them do. to the question does the planning code have any, the answer is no. for that use, we don't add any additional requirements beyond what the state requires for those facilities. >> commissioner diamond: like commissioner tanner, i'm supportive of the concept the project. i like the idea adding additional dwelling unit. i would like to know what happens if they don't get approval -- they don't get whatever license they need to run inhome facility. do they come back to us? does this approval permit them to do something with it. that will be helpful. >> thank you commissioner diamond. that's part of the reason we added that additional condition.

.would have to come back to the planning commission. we were trying get that in. >> commissioner diamond: one final question. the unit that has the child care in it, the second floor, it look like the living room, dining room kitchen room was all going to be child care but yet there were bedrooms in the back. who's living in those bedrooms? what are these people using -- when kids go home are they using the child care facilities for the family's own use? what's the plan with that? >> inhome child care is an interesting way the -- it really is to just a homeowner occupy and live in. they have the children there for the day. that's why they put a little office in there so they can keep

whatever they need for recordkeeping. it's really just -- if your neighbor was the nanny and had three or four kids come over, these guys have take extra steps and built out a structure for some rain shelter for the children. it's exactly that. it's essentially a single family home. they have a bunch of children there during the day. that's pretty much it. >> commissioner diamond: i'm in supportive of the concept. thank you. >> vice president moore: i'm appreciative to both. [indiscernible]

>> second. >> clerk: thank you commissioners for that. before i call the question, there's a late request for a public comment through the chair, should i allow that person to submit their testimony? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: okay, you have two minutes. >> i want to comment again about the concept -- >> clerk: if you're commenting again, you don't get second bite at the apple. i will mute you. well, there another person requesting to speak. have you spoken already? >> hello. >> clerk: have you spoken already? >> no. this is my first time. >> clerk: you have two minutes. >> i'm the owner at 444 ralston,

just this morning, there was a parent parked car in front of my driveway and drop off the kid. the operation of the child care has been going on. even though three years ago when they have all the violations underpinning on my property, they still continue operating. kids are playing on the ground floor and at the backyard, it's all rubber. they allow the kids to go out there. most important objection that i have is for the extension of that particular rain cover or the backyard, i do have a big concern. there was a time my backyard spotted something on that cover. standing on the cover and trying to climb over to my backyard. commissioners, you have to be really cautious because even though you allow this property to build, i have no problem,

a.d.u., i love it. but at the same time, there is a hallway between 445 and 448. people can easierly climb up there and come through the backyard and other neighboring backyard. this is a security issue. i want you to consider and the three-story thing, ms. hicks explained it to me. i understand. it lost a lot of the sun light because the bathroom is right against my property. i voice my opinion arespect your decision. please, consider the neighbor's feeling and consider the neighbor's livelihood as well. i have a big question mark. the operation is still going on. that's the end of my comment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

commissioners, that will conclude public comment. if there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended by staff on that motion. [roll call vote] so move the. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. we'll place us on item 15. i apologize. >> i was going to make a quick note that the proposed rear structure straddles the property line. technically require an easement to be recorded to be issued around the building code.

some additional information i want to get boo that structure especially considering its size and the fact that it's space is not required for the child care. i will take the rear yard variance under advisement. >> clerk: thank you zoning administrator. item 15. 2750 geary boulevard. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> good afternoon commissioners matt dito planning staff. for the entries in use size of existing residential care facility known as -- the project proposes a three-story 11,400

square foot addition at the rear view existing facility. the addition contains 20 residential care units raising the unit total from 79 to 99. the additions -- the three-story section is proposed for 9000 square feet and contains 18 carries. second two-story map is proposed 2400 square feet and activity room for residents. the addition will not be visible from the public right-of-way. the owner received two comments since notification of the project. one concerns over the lack of parking. there are two parking spaces proposed. which do not currently have any legal parking, approximately eight cars parked along the northern property line off wood street. this project was submitted in september 2019. at the time of submittal the project included four stories.

setback was increased to approximately 20 feet. this project will creator additional residential care units for seniors needing 24-7 care. it is a form of housing for at-risk population. on balance the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan. we recommend approval with condition. at this time, i like to propose an amendment. this amendment is to include a condition to the project to have a community liaison between sagebrook and the community during construction. this is standard condition thati can provide you the exact

language at the end of the hearing if desired. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you mr. dito. is the project sponsor prepared to make a presentation? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: you have five minutes. [indiscernible] >> there are currently 79 units and we are adding 20 new unit. we discussed possible considerations historical relevance due to age and how it best transitions. we agreed with the current proposed layout best fit with the terrain. over the past eight years, we have met the neighbors and

discussed the urban design city planner -- [indiscernible] the neighbor are concerned about light and space on the property. we pulled the building further away 17 feet to the east and 22 feet to the north. we tried to reduce overall mass by including balconies. one of the biggest changes is the fourth floor retirely to have three-story building.

[indiscernible] we've done our part, listen to the neighbors to make changes and proceeded through the mandated -- [indiscernible]

>> clerk: thank you, that concludes project sponsors presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address this matter by pressing star 3. seeing no request to speak. the public comment is closed. i spoke too soon. go ahead, caller. >> hello commissioners. good afternoon. i live on wood street directly across from the sagebrook project. have organized over the past two and a half years with some others a good neighborhood response to this. the first thing i and several others want to convey, we're grateful and thankful and both

joann wong who was just sponsor architect and project owner. i want to be on record on that as well as an e-mail that myself and another neighbor have put into the file. we also want to thank both sylvia jimenez who met with the group of neighbors a year ago. we believe listened to our concerns with the project as well as most recently, the current planner on the project has been very responsive. we are just grateful that when developer and business owner hears and sits at the table with neighbors as they have, we ended up with a result we are very happy with as joann just

explained the owner was willing to -- [indiscernible] [please stand by]

>> commissioner diamond: i'm supportive of the project. this provides another option for people who need care. and allows them to stay in the city. and it seems like they work very well with the neighbors. i'm happy that we added the community as thely say son condition. i suggest that condition not end at construction. but that it remain in through operation. which we sometimes do. so that as issues arise, there

is someone who the neighbors can reach out to and talk to. that would be my suggestion. otherwise, i'm very supportive of this project. >> secretary: commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i'm supportive of the project. it shows the quality of care that exceeds what we've seen in preface -- facilities of similar kind. as commissioner diamond's suggestion, that the community extend beyond construction -- [indiscernible] but there is an ability for [indiscernible]. i'm in support of the project. and move to approve with

conditions. >> second. >> secretary: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: i agree with everything said. i have a question. the residents of the facility, do they need 24 hour assistant? i notice their kitchens. are they able to perform activities? it depends who is residing in this facility. >> right. the people who are living here, they're going to seem more independent. so the type of kitchenette is small. there is a general cafeteria area where people will be generally eating. >> commissioner tanner: how many employees are on a given shift, during the day shift, night shift? how many employees are on-site? >> that i don't know. but i could probably find out for you. >> it's more out of curiosity.

i'm supportive of the project. thank you. it's a healthy dialogue and robust discussion and compromise with the community. thank you for engaging with our community and operating and expanding this type of facility, which is much needed. >> secretary: if there's nothing further, commission, there's a motion that's been seconded. though, i have a late request for public comment. shall i open public comment? >> president koppel: yes. >> secretary: very good. you have two minutes. >> thank you. my name is clay. and i like to thank the sponsor for working with the mayors. i know this is not the sponsor's responsibility, but when i read through the findings, the finding said that parking will not be significantly impacted. i don't know what significant means. given that the eight cars -- the eight to ten cars currently parked there, they have to park on the street, that's going to take up parking spaces that are not there. and if they're increasing their

work staff for the additional units, that could mean more cars parking on the street as well. so is there something we can do with sfmta to get them to come around? at least ticket cars or mark the tires? because right now, they don't oh do so. and if they don't come around, all we're going to do is have people parking all day long. and even it's a permitted area with stickers. so that's my only comment. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. commissioners, public comment is now closed again. there's a motion that's been seconded to approve the matter with conditions, as have been amended by staff. but extending that liaison duration, not only through the construction, but also through operation.

on that motion. [roll-call vote] >> secretary: so moved. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 16 is continued. item 17 case number 2019-018013 cua, 2027 20th avenue. staff are you prepared to make the presentation? >> i am. >> secretary: the floor is yours. >> good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. the request for authorization for the demolition on the one-story residency and two-story detached garage structure and the one-story,

with total of two dwelling universities. the site is a 3,000 square foot property between pacheco and quintara streets. in the bulk district in the outer sunset neighborhood. the neighborhood includes reuss dobell development. this is a family dwelling unit. i'm before you applying section 330 and 317 of the complete demolition of a existing one-story single-family residency and construction of a three-story residential building and the abatement of case 2019004623 enf. prior to the project, the subject property owe nonce applied and issued application number 200804048918 for the demolition of the subject existing one story detached structure and alteration of the existing one-story single-family

residency into a three-story single-family residency. the building was not to be demolished but expanded. [indiscernible] demolished. to date, the department has not received correspondence or support of the project. the project was conducted and completed per the meeting august 13, 2020. and no members of the public attended. the department recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable. the project is on balance and consistent with objectives and policies of the general plans. and applicable to the planning code. [indiscernible] on a developed lot and provide one dwelling unit to the city's -- the project will provide compassable zoning district and compassable

in size and characteristic of the neighborhood. this concludes the staff presentation. i'm available for questions. >> secretary: thank you. we should go to the project sponsor. you have five minutes. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> secretary: we can hear you. and your presentation slides are up on the screen. >> thank you. okay. good afternoon, president koppel, commissioners. [indiscernible] on behalf of the project sponsor. with me today are the project sponsor and our architect. i'd like to first thank staff for their work on this project. it's helping us get to this point. it's been a lot of twists and turns for us in the process. some of it -- but all of the staff has done nothing but try to help us solve problems and we appreciate it. i'd like to start first with background. expanding on what gabriella

said, touching on some of the policy issues applicable here. and then, discuss the project. you can see here paragraph of the original building. this is 2016. believe it or not, this project started in 2008 with the building permit submitted that year. the house here shown in 2016 was at that time 90 year-old, non-historic one-bedroom structure in the rear of the property in the rear yard with the detached garage front. it was an underdeveloped property that represented everything you wouldn't want in this location out of character in the neighborhood in bad shape physically. the owners tried to salvage it. and proposed alteration and expansion. ones construction began, the contractor found a good deal of dry rot. they were an out of town

contractor, not familiar with the demolition rules. they overdemolished to review the dry rot. that's when the enforcement began, and we appealed it. at that time, we were getting mix would information about whether and how you were able to remove dry rot and whether demolition was permitted. the request was denied, which brings us to the application before you. in closing, part of the background, it's worth noting the appeal decision was close. the board of appeals urged us to seek conditions [indiscernible] losing the appeal and part of the rational for the vote. gabriella, would you show the three renderings. we've made changes to the project. we've added 692 square feet on the ground floor behind the garage with access to the rear yard. as to the rear yard, were the

approved new buildings was matching the rear wall of the prior noncompliant structure, we're not demolishing the rear of the building and not have to seek a variance. you can see it matches the neighbor to the south, reduced to the third floor. the main unit is reduced to 2,680 square feet. would you show slide seven of the presentation. this is the ground floor. you could see on the rear, with the separate bedroom. then, the access. which could be a nice amenity. this should be an appealing unit. two parking spaces shown in the garage. and at the rear, you can see how our rear building wall matches the rear wall of the neighbor to

the south. would you show page 9, gabriella? this is the front elevation. and page 10, next page, is the rear elevation showing matching the south neighborhood. page 12, you could see at the top, it's the existing building. is that 12? yeah. okay. there it is. at the top, you see the new building to be removed. and then, below is -- will be the finished proposal. you can see the second and third floors are setback from the

rear. and finally, page 13, please. it shows the original structure the residential shelving in the rear and the garage in the front. and the proposed building today. that concludes our presentation. we're available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> secretary: great, thank you mr. tunny. if that concludes the project sponsor's preparation, we should open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3 to enter the queue. i see one person. you have two minutes. >> coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. speaking on my own behalf, my concerns regarding this project are as follows: it appears to be a monster home with over

3,000 square feet [indiscernible] besides the view, it has a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, five bedrooms and four bathrooms. my other concerns are that this appears to be -- this is based on the design and the design firm's track record. there is a land use attorney involved when a project on the west side on rh-1 lot typically wouldn't have one. also, to backtrack, there was background noise. there are five bedrooms and four bathrooms on the none a.d.u. side. also, the long-time owner of the property is also a long-time realtor. i would therefore urge the commission to require the project sponsor to scale back the square footage of the proposed project.

thank you. >> secretary: great. thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. >> while i wait for the other commissioners, i will say i'm supportive of the project and will entertain a motion. commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i find the demolition of the structure that was heavily into the rear yard to be appropriate, and to approve this conditional use, i

would make the motion. >> second. >> secretary: wonderful. thank you. seeing no additional request to speak from commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve the matter with conditions. on that motion. [roll-call vote] >> secretary: so moved, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 67-0. item 18 has been continued. placing on the final item for today, commissioners. number 19, case number 2020-006575 cua. this is for the property at 560 valencia street. this is a conditional use authorization. through the chair, we did receive a request for organized opposition that was granted, and will be recognized after the

project sponsor's preparation. the project sponsor will receive six minutes. as will the three members of the organized opposition that will be speaking on behalf of that organization. and then, members of the public will receive two minutes for public comment. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> secretary: okay. michael, the floor is yours. >> commissioners, michael christiansen, department staff. the item is for conditional use authorization, pursuant to 202.2303 and 762 for a project that proposals to establish a new cannabis retail use, including on-site smoking and vaporizing lounge. within the ground floor space of a one-story single-unit commercial building currently occupied by a furniture store

doing business as blue dot furniture schedule today vacate in june. the site is valencia street nct zoning district and bulk district. the location complies with the 600-foot rule established under planning code section 202.2. and that the approved cannabis retailer is more than 600 feet from the site at 2075 mission street. the nearest school is the children's day school, 743 feet from the site. within the general vicinity tee of the project of kid power park, 460 feet from the site. this location is not a school under the planning code and does not cover it under the 600-foot rule. in a recent case, the commission asked for clarification how many locations an applicant is able to open. under police code 1613, an equity applicant is permitted to have an interest up to four locations in san francisco. the applicant for the case, has

application for four locations. this location at 560 valencia street is the only location under review by the planning department. the locations pending are 1333 columbus, 1154 howard. and 4033 juda. those locations are not yet under review. the project sponsors conducted three multiple outreach meetings required by the city's office of cannabis. the department has received a total of 211 letters in support of the project. including many from nearby merchants. the last hearing the department received a letter to opposition to the project from united to save the mission. which is now represented as an organizationed opposition group at today's hearing. since the last hearing, the sponsors contacted united to save the mission to discuss concerns. the department is not aware of a meeting that occurred between the parties. the department received a letter of opposition from u.s.m. earlier today, signed by merchants from nearby blocks.

the department has also received some concern as to the concentration of cannabis retail uses in the mission district. historically, the limited areas where medical cannabis dispensaries could locate in the city with the 1,000 radius in schools, resulted in medical dispensary businesses clustering in certain areas of the mission in some neighborhoods. the adult use ordinance adopted in 2018 revised requirements for cannabis retail to lessening the buffer to 600-foot standard and be allowed except chinatown. since the adoption of that ordinance, the department and commission have collectively approved 35 new locations in the city. two of which have been in the mission district. at the commission's request, the department prepared a map detailing the geographic distribution in the city, which is included in your packet. i have additional detailed maps ready if the commission has

further questions on the geographic distribution. we heard concern harding the total size of the use which at almost 5,000 square feet would be one of the large e. establishments in the city. since the existing use is that size, the project does not require additional authorization for the use size. the commission does retain discrags to limit the size of the use. if the commission elected to limit the size of the use, the department recommends a prefers size range be set. the balance of the floor area be required to be partitioned in a separate and distinct use and these modifications be made to the project plans prior to the approval action by the commission so our environmental evaluation can reflect the physical changes necessary to the build. this would require continuing the item. in summary, as the projects complies with the zoning and plan, provides a new business to occupy a space scheduled to be vacated in june, complies with

the 600 foot buffer rule and further's the city's further equity rules, the department recommends approving the conditions. >> secretary: thank you, mr. christiansen. public sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> secretary: you have six minutes. >> thank you very much. commissioners, thank you for allowing me the time to present to you about the cannabis equity marketplace at 560 valencia. next slide, please. i'd like to start the presentation by acknowledging that 560 valencia is seated on the incest rale home land of

the, the original inhabitants. i've been arrested multiple times. i've experienced economic and housing insecures. my 15 year-old brother was killed by law enforcement and my story starts from humble beginnings. given the amount of adversity i've experienced, i have a unique perspective. i can relate to many of the difficulties that are faced today as a tribe. starved businesses and establishments in the competitive cannabis industry. having experienced adversity, i take it as my personal responsibility to do something about the status quo of the cannabis industry in 2021. 560 valencia is how we're going to influence change and level the playing field, how we're going to remove barriers to entry and provide a path to economic opportunity and equity

in this industry. and in doing so, we encourage others to do the same. next slide, please. unlike any other cannabis project that has been proposed in san francisco to date, i am proud and grateful to are working collaboratively with an equity committee, nine community stake holders who volunteered to provide a project base and hold us accountable for the goal we set for the project. the equity committee is made up of mission district natives, current are and displaced residents, equity applicants and professionals with diverse backgrounds working with nonprofits, manage programs, government, education and cannabis industry. we are working together to create a business that promotes equity within the cannabis industry for black people, indigenous people, people of

color, lgbtq community, and who are impacted by the [indiscernible] this is our collective mission and responsibility. next slide, please. with 560 valencia, we're committed to developing, promoting, preserving equity in the cannabis industry. we'll do so through binding, enforceable commitments to hiring local and hiring local labor to build out our store. creating 40 quality jobs for our local community. we're hiring equity abcants, we're embracing affirmative action, paying above market wages and above market benefits such as ten days sick leave, paid vacation time, healthcare benefits, retirement savings accounts, professional training and development and promoting from within, funding an annual college scholarship, equitable supply chain seed to sale, and cannabis business program that will feature rent-free

incubation space. a cannabis entrepreneurship program and annual fellowship that will provide a grant in technical assistance to inspiring local cannabis entrepreneur who has graduated from the 560 valencia entrepreneurship program. next slide, please. in order to achieve these goals, and create meaningful, sustainable community benefits, we have designed this business as a cannabis equity marketplace that is more than a traditional cannabis retail store. it's a unique design that will feature a highly secure layout and separate entrances for customers and staff and delivery. and overflow areas to mitigate the impact of pedestrian pathways to neighboring businesses. consultation space for guests to receive counsel, guidance and education as the effective use of cannabis. equity brand demonstration space for demo and to display products, dealing with customers

in the high traffic area of the store. this would be a fully accessible store consumption space, including two a.d.a. accessible restaurants. one in the consumption area and retail store. and a private office space. starting with mr. castro, a fourth generation mission native for three years and continuing on with the new applicants we'll work with in the future. our safe, ventilated and sealed consumption area is where we'll offer educational courses for community members and inspiring cannabis entrepreneurs. the 560 valencia area will be built to the health and safety standards to a food and beverage business for smoking, edible cannabis and baking and limited prep, heating and cooling. our hvac system will feature

aand mitigation. and double wide setbacks on a required by the health code for hvac exhaust. this unique space will be available for equity operators to provide opportunity to display and demo their products and engage with consumers in a consumption environment. we are not aware of any other cannabis business in san francisco that will provide such unique and beneficial opportunity for our local cannabis equity community. next slide, please. this -- excuse me. to support the equitable business, we're committed to building an equitable supply chain [indiscernible] cannabis companies followed by people of color. these are examples of those brands. >> secretary: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> thank you very much. >> secretary: as previously mentioned, we received a request granted for organized

opposition. unfortunately, i don't see miss levitz -- the information in the attendees' list. so we should go to public comment. through the chair, each member of the public will be provided with two minutes. if we get miss petroncelli -- well, we'll have to see how that works out. okay. go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony? >> yes, hi. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes, we can. go ahead. >> hello. i work at meadow, a local cannabis software company headquartered in nearby sow ma.

we've been in the neighborhood since 2014. i'm speaking on behalf of my team. we believe 560 valencia will provide economic benefits, valuable educational and professional development opportunities for local equity applicants and those who have been harmed by the war on drugs. cannabis needs more equity focused cannabis businesses like 560 valencia to build an equitable cannabis industry. i hope you grant approval to move forward with the much-needed business. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i hope you all are safe and well. my name is gina riggs, a san francisco resident of ten years. i own a small business as an independent hair stylist. i support the project at 560

valencia. i've personally known will for over five years. he's always talked about a business like this being his dream. he's gone out of his way to do professional work for free for myself, friends and family without hesitation. when covid-19 first hit in san francisco, he stopped everything he was working on and he dedicated his time to helping small business strategize how to survive covid's impacts. in his personal life, i've repeatedly seen how much he cares for others. he's always looking to see how to improve or better someone else's life, career or situation. i fully believe he will make a difference for the better with this project. i believe this project also provides a large economic benefits in the wake of this pandemic. as an example of that, would be prioritizing local equity applicants, district residents, people who have been affected by the drug war, and people with disabilities.

[indiscernible] jobs and above market wages and benefits. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. okay. i'm going to try to unmute the organized opposition. i believe this was the second number. and you have six minutes. is this miss petroncelli? >> yes, it is, thank you. >> secretary: you have six minutes. you have all your people with you? >> yes, we do. >> secretary: okay. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. with our mission no eviction. our mission no eviction and the united organization, ask that the planning commission demand a full equity analysis of the cannabis equity program. the intent of the program is foster equitable pipings in the cannabis industry. and not intended to assist those

with a wealth of opportunities, establish businesses and careers and connections to capital. the equity applicants need to receive a handout ahead of other equity candidates -- ahead of other candidates, who have no -- they need -- they have little or no resources. the member of organizations of u.s.m. worked loudly and clearly from your family's nonprofits and long-time businesses. they want geographic equity first and the remaining locations for cannabis as permitted to go to equity applicants for the neighborhood who would have a ownership stake in the business and respect their concerns. it was asked for opportunities for shared ownership and shared decision making in the project which he said was not possible. if a structure is illegal under state law, there's nothing to prevent a business partnership.

it's actually uncommon to see equity cannabis businesses that don't include multiple partners. and the project sponsor is yet to make it clear why he won't consider this at least part ownership for equity cannabis for the neighborhood. without this aspect of equities, the project is just seen as performative. there's three other opportunities at other sites which he has applicants submitted. they provide geographic equities -- we feel coming to a strong communities benefits agreement and adapting the project to address community concerns is a fair request. otherwise, this project is not appropriate for this location. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm codirector of -- and member of the united states mission

cannabis equity workers. we made it clear we adhere to community-based decisions. the project -- neighboring businesses to build a solid working relationship. instead, he waited until he was already promoting his project in u.s.m. and mission community were in lock down for covid-19. and overwhelmed with a crisis. in the good faith process, members of the u.s.m. equity work group met with the project sponsor, p.r. team, ivan castro to share concerns where we were candid about the harm it would bring to the neighborhood. instead of inengaging in an open process, they sent out information about the project. they even sent out a mask. demonstrating a lack of understanding and sensitivity to the community the proposed

project hopes to join. the project's sponsor performed his own committee with current and displaced mission native, some of whom are equity applicants. instead of working with our team with the contributions of families, business owners and nonprofits who work in workshops, community meetings, he created this process limiting that of the u.s.m. 16 organizations. he created a community benefits agreement. unlike our agreement, this one is unenforceable and contains items required by law with weak equity provisions that will not create a constructive outcome. some organizations mentioned by the project's sponsor were surprised they had been included without their knowledge or agreement. it's unfortunate it's come to this point where we have to speak in opposition. just recently, the project sponsor finally expressed an intent to engage to begin the process to address the opportunity and equity concerns that we have. however, we received a copy of

the c.b.a., the morning of our second meeting without time to prepare. we requested he continue the hearing to allow continued conversations with the 560 valencia equity committee and he refused. u.s.m. always were willing to meet for planned discussions. we plan to meet next week. the project should be continued to allow time for that meeting to occur. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the mission economic development agency and also a member of the cannabis equity committee under u.s.m. i want to say that we're not opposed to cannabis. i want to express our concerns and how [indiscernible] first of all, our neighborhood families and businesses are not opposed to cannabis. we do however have clear goals how cannabis should participate in your neighborhood to be

constructive and to what degree. neighborhood families told us the mission has seen an abundance [indiscernible] the most recent increase is [indiscernible] there should be sentiment there an opportunity to spread evenly across other neighborhoods to ensure the impacts are among other neighborhoods. the specific concern with this proposal from our families come from the proximity in which this proposal is for family and youth serving organizations, just 180 feet away from some. the concerns come from a real fact that widely -- sorry, widely upscale businesses like this [ [sound of bell ringing] >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. commissioners, we should continue with public comment. you have two minutes.

>> hi. my name is marie sorenson. i wish to oppose this cannabis project. i think the mission has plenty of cannabis stores. and this one will be the macy's of cannabis. it will be so darn big, it will put the smaller shops out of business. and it's being put together by a real estate lawyer, who buys his equity. i can't see how this is a good fit for our community. i wish that he would open a cannabis shop in pacific heights. or the marina. or somewhere else. the mission has plenty of cannabis shops. we don't need to be the dumping ground for more. please send this back. please oppose this project. thank you.

>> hello. my name is jeremy. i'm a mission residents. i decided to speak today in support of the cannabis marketplace at 560 valencia street, because this project will directly benefit the surrounding community in several ways. in 2017, the federal reserve bang's research concluded the retail dispensaries actually lead to reduced crime. sometimes up to 20%. so not only will this marketplace allow myself and other community members to have access to marijuana, which we all know has a wide array of medicinal benefits, but our community has the chance to become safer in the process. after reaching out to will, the project sponsor, i've come to understand him to be someone socially aware with progressive values, and someone who practices antiracism. these values are clearly reflected in the mission of the cannabis project. creating jobs, hiring local, paying well above minimum wage, funding college scholarships and

focusing on equity as a hiring strategy. these ideas are really refreshing, especially after the community's collective awareness to all the injustices exposed during this summer's black lives matter movement. it's important we allow forward-thinking businesses to exist and thrive, especially when they are a beacon of hope to what equity means and how equity can exist for our residents here in the mission. this project is bold, it's thoughtful, it's smart. and i think it deserves a chance to succeed and benefit our community which we all love very much. and i urge the commissioners to allow this plan to move forward. thank you. [sound of bell ringing] >> good afternoon, commissioners. as a san francisco native latina with ties to the mission district, i'm proud and honored to stand by such an amazing contribution to our highly underserved community. i want to use my time to

highlight the extensive damage the mission district faced in regard to classism, gentrification and now covid-19. to halt this dispensary or further stop this dispensary would not only be detrimental to the medicinal needs to the district but further contributing to the issues the opposition is supposed to be fighting for. it speaks volumes the people on the equity people advising the project from the mission district, decided to reject ownership of the cannabis company to instead put the money towards community benefits. this project can be ground breaking. revolutionary, a blueprint for current and future dispensaries to adopt. as stated, no other dispensaries, including that of which was approved recently in the mission, is committing to give back in this way. so commissioners, as you decide whether to approve or deny this project, i ask that you take into consideration who you are supposed to be serving, the

people on this equity board, were born and raised in the san francisco mission district. they weren't born in new mexico, texas, or any other state. these are people from the mission. product from the mission district that we should be supporting. thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. i'm roberto vargas. i'm born and raised in the mission district. second generation mission native. and i've been a cannabis patient and caregiver throughout the years. you know, i was asked to help desipe the equity plan. unfortunately, i didn't have the time to help. but i know the native mission folks on that equity planning

group, i trust them. they've expressed to me they trust the leadership of this dispensary. i've had an opportunity to take a look at the equity plan. it's very impressive. and it has the opportunity to be a model for how equity can be incorporated into medical cannabis retail in san francisco. i think that if we have specifics around how many hours are provided for work, how much shelf space is provided for equity cannabis businesses, we can really be a model, not just for san francisco, but nationally for how cannabis equity retail can happen. i've kept them open, because i understand some organizations i trust are in the opposition. but i'm not hearing strong arguments about what detriments exist for my community. i would not stand against

organizations i trust. if i felt they had a strong argument for how this could provide detriment for my community. [sound of bell ringing] >> i hear a benefit for my community. and for that reason, i stand in support of it. thank you. >> hi. is it my turn? >> secretary: yes, it is. >> hi. my name is michael young, a native from san francisco, army veteran, former diplomat, and advocate of men's mental health, particularly as ptsd affects veterans and a friend of the project sponsor. 560 valencia will provide our community a desperately needed place to connect with community members seeking healing modalities from trauma, war, neighborhood displacement and racism. after serving more than a decade

in the so-called war on terror, i've came to rely heavily on the cannabis communities for my healing. a vote against 560 valencia is a vote against my spiritual recovery, as well as recovery of anyone subjected to the trauma we cause ourselves through war and systemic racism. furthermore, through my work as a san francisco real estate agent, i've come to know will as someone who is open, giving, transparent, and down to earth. will embodies the best for the betterment of the local community. i look forward to supporting the project and availing myself the benefits of the project. please approve 560 valencia now. thank you. >> secretary: go ahead, caller.

i'm sorry. this is miss petrincelli already. i apologize. go ahead, caller. >> thank you. i'm from media alliance. we are a constituent group of united to save the mission. and a resident of the mission district. the concerns here are the existing concentration of cannabis businesses in the mission, which is high. much as the city observed the concentration of alcohol serving establishments in the mission was way too high. and took corrective action. given the scale of this business, which is a chain business, in this highly concentrated marketplace, it's pretty safe to assume that the business is not really catering to the cannabis needs of the neighborhood. but to so-called cannabis tourism from our parts of town, which are not so well endowed

with cannabis outlets. this potentially places severe pressure on the existing cannabis establishments in the mission, many of whom are other equity applicants, who are not operating four different cannabis locations at the same time. we're concerned that this is really a distortion of the intended impacts and outcomes of the cannabis equity program. and will not only have negative impacts on those who are already running equity cannabis businesses in had the mission, only one at a time, and isn't really pointed towards the needs of... [sound of bell ringing] >> the neighborhood where it resides. thank you. >> hello. am i up? >> secretary: yes, you are. >> how are you doing? my name is daniel. i'm a local attorney and advocate for cannabis companies.

i actually represent equity applicants in oakland and san francisco. i'm here today to support this project. and really state that this is a blueprint for the equity applicant impact of equity brands that can come into a dispensary and be showcased. no other dispensary has this type of idea where they're going to showcase equity brands and have them come in and teach the public about their brands and what they do. this is a ground-breaking endeavor. and it should be a model for moving forward for most dispensaries that come into san francisco. equity -- the equity program itself, they're following it to a t in 560 valencia. and they're bringing in equity employees that could be

employees. that is unheard of. at a living wage. so this is very important to the community. and also, the consumption lounge is going to be great for the community. people aren't going to smoke it on the street. they're going to have a place to purchase their product and consume it, in private without the hassle -- or without bothering anybody in the street. and... [sound of bell ringing] >> i support this program fully. thank you. >> yes. my name is brand goodwin. i'm founder of the san francisco social club. as consumer advocates we encourage expansion of the san francisco retail cannabis options available to us. i support the 560 valencia project, item 19. i've worked with will on cannabis issues. found him very community-oriented resident of

the mission. i would like to highlight two important aspects of this project. first, the absolute need for approval of more cannabis consumption locations. second, the incubation aspect of the project. cannabis consumers have little choice or ability to consume cannabis, a legal product in san francisco. you can't do it in parks. our lounges are closed at this point. we can't do it -- they tried to ban us from doing it in our apartments. important that 560 is a stand-alone building, this will be safe for consumers, for consumption and for the surrounding neighborhood. 560 would help fill a big consumption void in our community. please vote yes. also, on the incubation, this is the first one, where ivan, a mission neighborhood resident

will be given available space and time to develop his cannabis products. it's crucial our creative cannabis san francisco residents... [sound of bell ringing] >> get space. ivan and will are important members of our community. we support them. please vote yes on this project. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is david goldman, i'm the president of the san francisco chapter of the brownie mary democrat club devoted to policy on cannabis law reform. i'm on the board of california normal, part of a national organization normal that worked since 1972 to reform marijuana laws. i'm a medical cannabis patient. i'm a senior. i'm a long-term resident of the neighborhood of 60 sanchez, close to the mission for over 34 years. in san francisco since 1973.

i am here to support 560 valencia. i've gotten to know will over the last several months. i'm totally impressed by his devotion to equity incubation, equity display of products and services so cannabis consumers can know. and hiring equity employees. the idea that there are too many cannabis dispensaries in the mission suggests the employees or patrons of cannabis dispeneries are bad people. there's no research to show that cannabis employees of such dispensaries or cannabis consumers, whether they're medical cannabis patients like myself, or just adult consumers of cannabis, do harm to neighborhoods. there is absolutely no research that shows anything but positive effects. cannabis businesses has increased security and lowered

crime. [sound of bell ringing] >> i would also want to say that i'm having a consumption lounge is crucial because many people can't smoke in their apartments and they can't legally smoke on the streets. when covid restrictions are lifted, and we can be with each other, having a consumption lounge in my neighborhood is a great thing. because there are many people i know in my neighborhood who cannot smoke in their own homes or consume cannabis in their homes, so they need this place. thank you very much. >> hello. can you hear me? >> secretary: we can. >> yes. my name is michael cohen. i'm the secretary of the local brownie mary democratic club. i would like to speak from the perspective of being a senior.

i'm in my 70s. i live close to valencia street. i know that many seniors, who live in this neighborhood, have leases and rental agreements that state in them that there's no smoking allowed in their units. so where can they smoke? well, we need to create a safe place, where they could smoke where they feel comfortable and safe and where they can get advice as to what would work for their maladies. and that's what we need. i think we need more of that. we need -- cannabis is a social medicine. and i think that it would be very helpful for seniors to make use of a good dispensary like 560 valencia street. and especially during this very, very stressful time for people. and it would also be easy to get

there. so i urge a strong yes vote when you vote on this tonight. thank you for your time. >> hi. good afternoon. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes, we can. >> thank you. yeah, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ben charles, the secretary of the [indiscernible] labor association tenants association red stone building in the mission, not far from the site of the proposed new cannabis outlet. we are concerned. we are talking about at the tenants' association. that as others have said before

me, there are more cannabis stores in the mission district than any other neighborhood in san francisco. and it's not a question of people who are under the influence of marijuana running amok and engaging as they do in scare films from the '30s. but cannabis tourism brings in patrons, who from our perspective only shop for cannabis without patronizing businesses, immigrant businesses adjacent to the radius. it's a tourist thing. it's a party thing. for that reason, we feel like the neighborhood has reached saturation with cannabis sales. and that's why we oppose this project. thank you very much. [sound of bell ringing]

>> yes, hello. me name is maria. and i am a long native mission district resident. i'm 63 and have lived here all my life. and right around the neighborhood where the 560 valencia, i exercise around there, walking. right now during covid. and i am asking that the commissioners please oppose this -- deny this proposal. the size of the proposal of 5,000 square feet is just out of scale. it will have a harmful impact on our community by causing hyper gentrification in the mission and increasing commercial rents for our small mom and pop businesses. the mission district has more cannabis stores than any other

neighborhood in san francisco. i would suggest mr. doland moves his cannabis somewhere else. we have saturated area around the mission. it is also a surprise that the sponsor positions himself as an equity candidate, when he's a real estate lawyer who owns this property and two others in other parts of the city where he has cannabis applications as well. thank you. i ask you please deny this proposal. thank you. >> secretary: go ahead, caller.

>> i'm an organizer with one of the labor units in san francisco. i am in support of this cannabis equity shop at 560 valencia with the caveat that mr. doland enters a labor peace agreement with the ufcw. as many know, the ufc ferment has been organizing cannabis dispensaries throughout the bay area. it would be remiss of myself to not mention the fact that union labor is what allows the workers to live in high priced various areas within the city.

men. i am in support of this project. again with the caveat mr. doland enter the labor peace agreement with the employees he intends to hire. thank you so much. [please stand by] jobs.

the sponsor made it very clear his intentions to support the neighborhood, to support those in need and to create an incubation for those that need opportunity. right now is not the time to squander opportunities for employment. we need this desperately, and it would be a huge loss to the community. i'd also like to point out that that space was built prior to william taking on this project. was there for a while. if we're concerned about gentrification, there should be a huge concern when it opened up. this is an independently owned business and i hope that the planning commission will support this and will vote in favor

unanimously. thank you. >> hello, my name is es pin osa. i'm a san francisco district naive, born and raised on 24th street. my father was in the 24th street merchant association in the 80s, helping to design and name the park. i took part in painting a mural on 24th and north street that is no longer there. i am also an equity applicant and this project is important because it's not just a dispensary, it's services and community benefits. things that i needed coming in to start my business that i didn't have, i went to meta to take business classes but they couldn't teach me about cannabis. they couldn't teach me about how to be an entrepreneur. so this class is important for

people lick me to network, to get our brands on the shelves because the alcohol industry is controlled with no people of color. cannabis industry has an opportunity to have staircases, people of color, like us. stake holders. the equity team had an opportunity to say hey, we all want a percent of this. we decide that's not equitable. real opportunity is equity is giving opportunities to our community. >> i'm concerned about the project as it's currently presented. in 2018, mr. dolan was actively pusuing two locations in north beach. two and a half years later and several more application, typically in other neighborhood. he continued to push forward with one of the largest dispensearies proposed. as we heard, there are

applications. he's taking up a lot of the equity space. the program is intended for providing aspiring entrepreneurs the opportunity to enter the competitive market. it's not for a hand-up for big parts. as many as eight llcs just around cannabis. there is a concerning lack of transparency around many llcs and their relationship to the property ownership. there are multiple waiting in line and we have one single person taking opportunities away from other candalities who are trying to get a space. it's not fair that he's controlling the playing field. there is a lot more room with outreach. the people who have built their businesses here over many years are the ones who need to have a say. there's more room for direct outreach to neighboring business. i think it's important to keep in mind the rent pressures and resulting displacement. the project with its size will

only continue its trajectory. as you know, we're already lacking equity in the mission. there are seven open more in proximity with seven more in the pipeline. i think you're hearing a lot of equity loss right now when there is no signed agreements that's been noeshd with the neighborhood. we worked last year with a lounge that was only 700 feet away. they they showed up at the planning commission and i think there is a lot more room to come with a real strong equity and we need to have signed agreements. thank you. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. my name is jessica. i'm calling to ask that there are conditional use for the 50

valencia proposal being approved. i was happy to see that there is a commitment to doing prior wages for our community members so that they have a liveable wage. having a labor peace agreement will give workers an opportunity to go further and have an actual contract where we will be able to hold them accountable to these promises that were being made. i also was on the cannabis oversight committee this past year, and many community members were coming forward from the equity community saying that there needs to be a space where people can learn and where they can also make their product and start their businesses off. the cannabis equity program is intended for providing american entrepreneurs the opportunities to enter a competitive market. this project is getting aspiring entrepreneurs of color the opportunity to have rent-free space while they start up their businesses. this is really important to our community, and as a person of color living in san francisco,

we need more access to spaces rent-free, where we can start our businesses and that we can help boost our economy once again. so i supportthis with the caveat that they agree to a labor peace agreement to make sure they have a liveable wage. thank you. >> i'm sorry. was this the person that just spoke? >> no. >> okay, go ahead. >> hi. my name is bianca. i'm a mission resident neighborhood and a mother of two kids. i'm an entrepreneur in the cannabis industry as well, and i believe in tis project 100%. i believe in the equity committee. everyone has done their due diligence to understand where coming there and -- coming from. i feel like this is going to be

a step in the right direction for other dispensearies to follow. i am a latina. i am looking forward to this opening. yes, there are two other ones nearby, but i don't frequent them because of the fact that there are no rooms, there are no -- and it doesn't feel like home to me. so i would like to find another dispenary to go to. also, when somebody had mentioned there is a bunch of equity applications in the mission right now, i don't know of any other than union station. everyone else is not an equity applicant, so i just wanted to say that i was in support of that. thank you. >> hi, good afternoon, planning commissioners. my name is carol are youies and i am a san francisco-born n native. i am going calling in to ask that the proposal be approved

with the agreement. so i'm working in the mission district in san francisco, which is a real concern, but this is an issue that need to be handled outside of this project. but moving on, this project has the potential of bringing community members together in a time when it's really needed, and these folks will have a safe space to shop for cannabis an adjacent. in addition, the cannabis equity program is giving black entrepreneurs the opportunity to enter a market to help people start their own business. and we need existing retail stores to start our neighborhood immigrant population and give workers the right to organize. so i am in agreement with this and thank you for your time.

>> hello. is it my turn? >> it is. >> all right, thank you. hi, planning commission. my name is coy williams. i hope you're having a wonderful day. i am here to support the 560 project. i have lived in san francisco for five years and worked with him professionally in the legal field and he actually represented me pro boo and has been a personal friend of mine as well. he's a real estate investor and this is just another project for him. however, i've seen personally the blood, sweat and tears that he's put in tis project and i know this is a project that he's truly passionate about. he brings positiity to the mission strict. there has also been discussion, however studies have proved that crime has ben reduced and this

gives us the opportunity to buy it by the law and utilize marijuana in a safe environment. also, this project will bring many employment opportunities to the area, which is another aspect of the project that is positive. thank you, and please support the 560 valencia project. >> hello? >> yes, go ahead. >> hello, perfect. good evening, commissioners. my name is nas, and i'm a small business owner on mission street. i'm also a board member of mission merchant association, as well as a resident of the mission. i'm calling in support of the cannabis marketplace. project sponsors clearly have a long list of commitment to the community who live and work here. no other business proposal will come any time soon to this lot to bring scholarships, rent-free retail space and create

opportunities for minority-owned equity businesses, especially with 100% local hires. a building will be soon another vacant storefront, joining many more vacant buildings in tis district. due to mismanagement and constant opposition to anything new. even if the new proposal has great commitments that benefit the community. this proposal usually start with name-calling and assumptions that are actually non-existent. i went through the process myself a few months ago and i have seen hell and came back. only to realize the long cost and pzzling process is making it even more difficult for young entrepreneurs like myself to open up a business. not only it's not exclusive but hor fightingly unfair and jaw-dropping. anyone who read the rules and spoke with them help in

realizing his dream because clearly this is beneficial to the mission. to delay even more is a stab in the back of this community. any community work and collaboration can happen once we welcome william to the neighborhood. there is no need to push people like him out and be so unwelcoming to someone who has so much community support. i encourage the commissioners to approve this project and allow william to move on with this rent-free process. thank you. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> hello, good afternoon, plantation planning commissions. my name is jesse articles of. i was born and raised in san francisco. i'm a first-generation latina, a

mother, and i am also a verified san francisco equity applicant. i would like to show my support for this project at 560 valen valencia. this project is the kind of fun that will help equity applicants like myself. it is very difficult and costly to participate in the cannabis industry. this project will help level the playing field for people like me. i would just like to shore -- show my support for this project. thank you. >> hi, thank you. good afternoon. my name is mario fernandez. the conditional use permit for 560 valencia proposal ought to be approved strongly with a labor peace agreement. i believe this is an excellent opportunity to introduce a robust equity icubaor into a neighborhood disprportionately

affect by gentrification. while they there do exist concerns, there proposal on its face appears to be well-rounded in its outreach and the development of an equity committee, as well as the inclusion of participants from the community. this project represents an opportunity for san francisco to invest in its local historically marinalized residents an opportunity for them to invest in their community when they would not otherwise be able to given the war on drugs that we've seen for the last number of decades. i do want to close again that i think this is an excellent idea and this is something that ought to be approved with the labor peace agreement. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? >> we can. >> thank you. johnny de la point here, representing the cannabis retailers alliance calling in strong support of 560 valencia.

i'm a 20-year resident of san francisco raising two children here, and frankly we need more in my backyard, more of that. it's critical that we approve consumption as part of this plan. i know the commissioners have been very amenable to new cannabis dispensearies but consumption has ben more controversial. the size of this project lends itself well to consumption once our covid restrictions are lifted. and finally, i'd like to address labor peace agreements. of course, it's very, very important that this project has a labor peace agreement. article 16 of the san francisco police code, which ditates how we do business, requires a labor peace agreement so that will be in place before we open for business. so i just want to flag that for everyone, and i'll pass the rest of my time. thank you. please approve the project.

>> hello, can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ivan castro. i am a current mission resident, equity applicant and a small business owner, and i'm calling. >> mr. castro, weren't you part of the project team for this? >> yes, i am. >> okay, then your time to speak s under the presentation time. so we'll go to the next caller. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> we can. >> caller: thank you so much. so good evening, planning commissioners. my name is pablos and i'm a copresident of the young democrats of san francisco and i'm calling this afternoon in support of the 560 conditional use agreement. we strive to empower

historically underrepresented black and brown communities, and the equity program, as my co-president stated earlier, actually does that by giving black and brown people an access to a very competitive market. the cannabis industry is, as i call, the new gold rush of th 21st century and we need to make sure that black and brown entrepreneurs have access to that growing business. and let me make a very candid point of clarity. the coalitions they left the coalition because we are frankly sick and tired of -- please give mr. goldman a chance. thank you. >> hi. my name is claude marks.

i'm with the cander alexander foundation at 518 and 522 valencia street. we represent and house seven non-profits on the block at 522, and i've also lived in the neighborhood since the 70s and been in that building for over 20 years. there are two -- youth organizations that are housed directly in our building. mission graduates that works priarily with high school students in their lab there in their computer lab. we're very concerned about a consumption space for cannabis. we're not opposed to use or distribution of it. we're concerned about the exposure to young people of essentially a center for cannabis use directly on the

block. i don't think any of these concerns have been addressed. for tht matter, the people who are sponsoring this haven't done any direct outreach to anybody else, even on the block to my knowledge, certainly not us. despite covid, there are ways of doing this. our concerns haven't been heard by them. our concerns are also about the saturation of that particular area of valencia by places, including alcohol and cannabis. thank you. >> caller: yes, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> caller: yeah, hi, so good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ruiz. i'm a third-generation latino, born and raised in the mission. and i'm calling today in support of this approval for the conditional use authorization.

i have personally been directly impacted by the war on drugs, by mass incarceration and gentrification, and do i want to be really clear one of the brothers stated in the call that there have been many industries in san francisco that have boomed and have made many individuals rich. however, have left many of us, black and brown people way behind. this project is more than a retail store. this project is more than a consumption lounge. this project will provide the educational and opportunities to members of our community who are interested in entering this booming industry. i support it, and i believe in it as a mission naive. you give a man a woman a space and you will see them. you teach a woman how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime. this project will educate our community how to enter this booming industry. i supported someone who has dealt with the war on drugs in

firsthand generations. i strongly support it and i will ask you to support it as well. thank you. >> caller: good evening, planning commissioners. my name is kevin ortiz. i am a former anti-gentrification activist and i am here speaking on behalf of the latino democratic club. as a resident born and raised in the mission district and currently provide residing in a rent-controlled district. you have seen me many times speaking on anti-gentrification issues that range from houing to cannabis. i hope you are all well and safe during this time. i have to be clear that the concerns that i'm hearing from the opposition are inconsistent with the actual issues that are currently going on in the mission district, particularly when it comes to cannabis. yes, there is gographic inequities that are currently going on, but that is a separate

issue to be handled outside of this commission meeting because we do need to talk about the oversaturation. but ill not here today to speak in opposition of this project, but rather in support of it. we know for a fact tathis project is going to provide opportunities for latinos and african-american entrepreneurs to enter into a highly competitive market and having a rent-free space. this project is no more harmful than other projects that have been approved bythis coalition. i'll be clear, over a year ago this coalition signed a project. we don't -- i'll also be clear that there was a letter sent out with the latino democratic club saying that we were in opposition to this project. this is clearly not the case, and it's a misrepresentation. [bell rings] so let that be clear that the latino dems are in support of

this project but we do want a labor peace agreement to come forward to make sure that folks are going to have liveable wages and it seems like dorrian is doing a really good job of that. i'm in support of this project especially in a furniture retail space that is selling $10,000 furniture. so this is not coming in and [bell rings] thank you. >> caller: hello, commissioners? hello? >> yes, go ahead, sir. >> caller: thank you. my name is john. i'm a born and raised-san franciscoan. i am calling in support of this project. i have been part of the cannabis community since 1991, with my

mother offering appropriation o and have seen for many decades what the city has come to in terms of providing for more retail, which is what we need. and it's very, very appreciated -- seeing the type of outreach the bill has done not only in the community but also on the business side of this project. this is a project that will succeed and will be a pillar in the community and please support this project and we need more retail. thank you. >> caller: hello? >> yes, go ahead. >> caller: okay, my name is mary turner. i am doran's mom. i am a union road construction laborer for 33 years, and at 63 years old, i am still active in

the work force. i'm also a babysitter, a dog citr, a tree trimmer, a landscaper, a technician for tv, a witress, et cetera. i have had to do whatever i could to survive as a single parent. we have had to do without for most of our lives. my son has always been the person who was a giver, not a taker, and going above and beyond to help others and to get ahead himself and to help others get there also. he's been reaching out to help others since he was a small boy at the age of 7. he was emptying his suitcase on trips to colombia, south america because those poor children who lived in dirt-poor shacks had nothing. and even though he didn't have much, he thought he had more than them, and he wanted to share it. all he wants to do is help people move forward and upward, and he wants to pay it forward, and the way he's able to do that

is because he was able to attend college due to fellowships and grants because of his continuing dedication to education and his community service. so he was awarded. he was able to go to school. he was able to learn, have a small business, how to create small businesses, how to move forward with them, and most of -- all, he's learned how to help people do the same. and he's trying to help the people in the mission area move forward. he wants other equity applicants to move on, similarly open projects like his. he's hoping to create an environment that will make other people pay it forward also and i hope that you will approve this project. thank you. [bell rings] >> okay, thank you. members of the public, last call

for public comment. you need to press star, then 3. >> caller: hello? >> yes, go ahead. >> caller: hi. my name is laila and i'm calling in support of 560 valencia. a work in the cannabis business and i'm also born and raised in the mission. i also raise my two children in the mission. we have been part of many programs and organizations that i've worked with in the community, and i'm also a cannabis advocate and i want to stress this program is providing a resource hub for a lot of people who are trying to get into the business but don't have the opportunity, the education, nor the money to get started. as jessica, one caller said earlier, it takes capital to start these things, and we in the community do not have the capital. so it's wonderful to have people

like will to come and work within the community. he actually came to the community and talked to us, specifically to the same people who were already working in the community in cannabis so i would like to express that it's not just another dispenary in the mission, it's providing a hub for a resource hub for us cannabis entrepreneurs of color to get access to resources that we didn't have, whether it's capital, retail space, exposure. however it may be, he's helping and aiding the community by giving us the opportunity. and honestly, there is no other capital in the mission coming here. so we appreciate mr. doan coming through and -- setting up shop and giving us a blueprint for other cannabis dispensearies in san francisco. thank you very much and have a great day.

>> caller: hello, i'm a resident of the mission district. i'm speaking to support the project and i would like the commission to keep the big picture in mind. really hard times with small business in decline and here we have a project that is offering so much in terms of employment, in terms of opportunities. i am not a consumer of cannabis myself, but i can say that yes, there are dispensearies in the neighborhood but there are many lines in front them. there is definitely a need and i don't see why we should deny the sponsor the opportunity to start a business and create opportunities for everybody. thanks. >> okay, commissioners, that will