interesting. interesting. >> 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 item 2, 3543 pierce street a review has been withdrawn. item 3, 468 jersey street, a review has been withdrawn.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 conclude public comment. and the matter is now before you. before i call on the other commissioners, i have questions for the organized opposition. there is a work force agreement and generally in support of the location and the usage, but i had a question for the opposition. we heard a case a year or two ago on the mission street and i know that the project sponsor for tht project really took their time and met with the community and came to a handful of agreements.

bill's project sponsor have met the same types of agreements and if they have or have not, to what degree have they met you guys halfway? >> caller: hi. this is teresa. yes, part of their signed agreement, they had already signed a peace labor agreement, and that was an exhibit that was attached to their community benefits agreement. and then they went -- it's a private agreement, but they went above and beyond anything that's offered here. and the mission had asked this project sponsor for a continuous so that the united states mission members and his committee members could work together to make sure that this agreement was at least as strong as the one that was signed by union station. >> and to what degree have they

met those same commitments or are they close or is it far away? >> caller: we have not made an agreement. we've only met once with the equity council, and we have not -- us m has not signed an agreement. that's why we are asking for a continuous, not a petition, but rather a continuous. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> thank you for your question. i have a lot of questions as well to the organized opposition. can you repeat again or clarify? since you are -- since our requesting for continuous, what are the terms that the project sponsor has not met yet?

>> the biggest concern for us, one of the biggest concerns is that it's on-binding and there is no enforcement mechanism for the cda. but to our knowledge doesn't have signed agreements with the people that peis making these promises to, and that's incredibly important that we've heard feedback from our families, from other businesses, and from other cannabis businesses as well, that he meets these same standards. and he says he's going to offer discounts and he's going to do certain things but there aren't very specific parameters and those are the kinds of things that we are looking to get more clarification and to you know, fill out the cva and make it more robust.

>> thank you. i have a question to our staff. michael, so part of the project description here -- and maybe you can clarify to me as well in terms of the background. it's noted about the mission alcoholic beverage use district and how on site consumption are sometimes based on that. not permitted to the beverage but the on-site consumption does not change that. can you clarify or can you give me a background on that? >> sure, so this discussion is coming from the early 2018 first

phase of us having difficult-use cannabis in the city -- adult-use cannabis in the city. and on-site consumption are appropriate. in those early discussions, the commission had suggested that we look at the land-use allowance for other similar types of consumption uses, such as bars, but that was an early way that the department and commission were considering these. over the course of actually reviewing sites, we have found that that isn't exactly a very helpful view, particularly because there is an equity component to on-site consumption, particularly when the city pusues legislation that would ban consumption within apartments but allow them in single-family homes. and we did have a similar case

in the mission where 275 mission where the department was initially recommending this approval of an on-site consumption lounge, and through our process a lot of concern came with residents of the mission living in houing situations like sros that do not allow consumption and really kind of legalizing cannabis but then making it where it's not any legal place where someone can consume. so consumption is a tricky issue, and we still retain some of that discussion of bar uses but our analysis is trying to be a little more comprehensive. in the mission, there was an effort a long time ago there was a recognition that the mission is overcocentrated with alcohol uses, and there was a desire to not allow more. and so the mission alcoholic beverage use district, you can

move some of those uses around, like if you're an existing bar, you can relocate to another site within the district, but you can't create a new one. so that's where that's coming from, is we have existing controls that recognize a overcocentration of alcohol uses and does not allow the number of those uses to increase. >> well assuing -- well, it sounds like the valencia corridor doesn't have the alcohol-restricted use district. it does or it doesn't? >> the mission of alcoholic beverages use district covers a broad area of the mission, including this location. >> and since you mentioned the previous project that was 275 mission and from what i'm hearing looks like there was a big mlu that happened back then.

was there implementation mechanism on that? and now that there are -- there is a coming in front of us, even though it may not be a factor for our approval of this, how is the implementation on that earlier project? >> so there was a memorandum of understanding, i believe between the mission and the operator for the 2075 mission. that was a private agreement that was not under the city's puview. we do not have a copy of the agreement. that's not something that's enforceable by the city. the cannabis project -- there is the private agreement realm where a sponsor may have some understandings with neighborhood groups. that's not something that the city ever enforces on and most of the time are not privyto.

and there is the benefits agreement that there are enforcement mechanisms under he police code, where if somebody is advertiing their business, will provide a certain benefit when they are doing their public outreach to try to ask permission to get a license. the police code does require that those actually be implemented as part of the business. it's not clear what that enforcement mechanism will look like when these businesses are -- it's a new program for the city's office of cannabis and their enforcement division is something that is still being actively developed. but there are provisions in the police code that, if there is something in the community use benefits agreement, they're not he supposed to be changed without a public process. >> does that mean -- >> it's through the city's office of cannabis through the licening.

basically, there is a provision in the police code -- and i'm sorry, i don't remember the specific version. but it does state that if you are advertising a certain community benefit as part of your good neighborhood outreach, that this is -- it is something that is a requirement of the license. >> oh, okay. so thank you. michael, or mr. christensen. my comments, my initial comments for this is that we are aware that the mission is heavily saturated or not just mission but priarily on the eastern side of the city. and i think for me what i'm finding problematic is that we lack of equity policy when it comes to cannabis. and so what is happening, i feel like, is that you know, communities are resorted to

cbas. and again, in terms of the negotiation that's happening between the community and the project sponsor on the community benefits, you know, again, the committee are left to negotiate on those things. and us in the planning, i feel like we need to assess, especially if it's a big -- if it's a bigger square footage of a place, where just about 5,000 square feet, that if we're -- that there need to be a tracking of cannabis dispenary and whether this is appropriate in this area and if this is appropriate in tis area, then what are the best measurements for equity. i'm having a hard time on this. i'm not going to be -- i'm just going to be honest.

but i feel like in order for committees to have some sort of -- i think the planning department, we should start looking into having an equity policy on the cannabis. and in terms of the implementation of the cbas, i really wish that there is more binding agreement to it. but -- so those are my initial comments, and i'll be happy to hear what other commissioners say as well. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i think you hit oba couple great points i want to echo. i think they're a little bit global than this specific project, which i think we're having a little bit of a challenge. i think it would be adviable for the department to take a look at the equity issues related to cannabis industry, which is growing, but in terms

of gographic distribution. but as we have been getting more applications and perhaps we can learn some things, i'm hoping as a city kind of understand the what is it that we expect our applicants and eventually when we open operators to be providing both as a business to the neighboring community. i know in the 2019 report from the controller there was not a recommendation around geography. but if we take a look at the program and understand opportunities to advance equits through cannabis. i did also note in that report concerns about this oversaturation of the cannabis industry in san francisco, which could be a challenge not only for the diversity of retail types and different storefront operations in the city so that we have diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods, but also that the industry itself could be harmed if there is too much saturation and it goes beyond a

healthy level of competition. i do not suppose to know what that healthy level of competition is, but certainly it's an industry, at least in my short time in the commission, i've seen probably the most applications for cannabis, has been one of the top applications we've seen come forward. it's an industry that is somewhat recession-proof and it makes sense that folks are purr interviewing and continuing to pusue these applications and continuing to pusue their businesses. but i do think it would be good to take a look atit, especially as we are continuing the recession. mr. christensen, to go back to the comment you made about the enforceable nature of the cba. so the cba that we have in the packet, is that something that if a member of the community noticed, hey, they're not abiding by term i of section g or something, that that would be something they would call the

police department to report on? and you said that enforcement is not worked out, would to be a planning code violation? how does that work? >> so the community benefits agreement is a -- term of the good neighbor operating agreement that is part of the licening through the city's office of cannabis. so i would strongly encourage any member of the public who does notice something that is not reflected in how a business is operating to contact the city's office of cannabis. they do have staff who is dedicated to enforcement. my comment was only that the city's office of cannabis is a new agency. it's only about two years old. most of the actual sites that are licensed by the city's office of cannabis, we only have a handful so far and we have more coming in. so enforcement is not something that has yet been an extremely

active part of their work. their work right now is still focused on processing applications. so my comment was more we haven't yet really seen what -- how enforcement will work. cannabis, because it's new, but they are consulting with our enforcement team and other enforcement structures in the city to develop a work plan for that. >> great, thank you so much for that. and just to understand my ignorance of policies. is it possible that the operator didn't want to, if they could amend the agreement to add additional terms or is there just a standard template for the cba and it is what it is? i guess what i'm thinking about some of the ways they describe their business operating for example, having icubator space that is built to the benefit. that's something i would imagine if that doesn't happen, to me that would seem to be a

violation of the proposed use and the proposed benefits that it's providing. however, everybody operator is not going to provide that same type of benefit or the same types of discounts and things like that. so how much flexibility is in there in that agreement? >> the agreements that i have seen thus far have really varied widely in nature. many of them are have-- are kind of a single page, really focusing on how the business will be a good to be in -- neighbor to adjacent neighbors, to sweeping the sidewalk, having presence on the street, things like that. this is a little bit of a lengthier one. you know, it is something that is aministered by the city's office of cannabis and i am hesitant to speak as much about this given that i don't have an answer for you today. but it's something that we can look into and report back. >> thank you very much. and then i have a question for

the applicant, the applicant team. we heard from the united organized opposition some of the things that they had wanted, it seemed like they were able to have one meeting. with your team, i'm curious if you feel you were interested in or able to accommodate their request, how do you view the conversations you had with them? is the applicant on the line still? >> i'm sorry, commissioner tanner. i need to find and unmute them. just give me one second. here we go. mr. dolan. are you there? >> caller: yes, i am here. >> all right, sir. can you respond to just the conversation that you had with the organized opposition and what your your thoughts were? >> caller: i want to clarify that i started meeting with the

member organizations over two years ago in 2018. there have been multiple meetings. most recently there were two specific meetings, one in september and one in january. that we're getting into the community benefit commitments. we presented those to them about seven months ago back in june or july of 2020. they told us that they couldn't support cannabis under any circumstances, and we continued outreach to them through e-mails and concerted efforts between that point and now, and we send them the agreement. and the remaining request at our last meeting were three things. number one, they asked us to continue to stay the hearing, which we've already done for multiple months.

and we don't have the ability to -- stay the hearing and we make sure that we keep this building occupied. and i also want to make it clear that i do not own this building. we've told us m and provided -- and so we can't stay the hearing for tht purpose. i will not be able to move forward with this project any longer. the second request is that we create a cooperative ownership structure, where every member has equal ownership and equal right to vote but is not a legal structure under california state law or a licensed cannabis. and we explained that and we also explained that it's not -- it doesn't qualify under our san francisco equity program.

and the final request that they made is that we physically divide the building into multiple smaller retail spaces. and again, i am not the owner of the building. i don't have authority to do that. i do not have access to capital, and i don't have the ability to undertake a separate construction project. and ultimately, it would defeat the entire purpose and goal of this project, a cannabis equity marketplace and not to just be another 2,000 square foot cannabis retail store. and we wouldn't be able to make the commissions with that small space. >> thank you. that was great. thank you for your response. i appreciate your passion. so with that, commissioners and hearing from everyone, i would be supportive of this project,

not with standing i think the need for the department to do some work with our partner agenies and partners to think about equity as it relates to the cannabis industry in some other ways. and now i think in other ways. but i am supportive of this project. thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> so i want to thank staff and the applicant and all of the commenters on their very, very thoughtful comments. many, many really important points were raised and are important for consideration. the ones that stand out for me the most are the following. to the extent that we think that there is saturation of cannabis retail stores, consumption or not, in the mission, i believe the right way to deal with that is not with one-off approvals or

denials of projects that go all the way through the process, spend a lot of time and money getting to us and then we decide. i think the appropriate approach, if we think that we're approaching saturation point is for legislation, and that it's inkufshth upon the department to make recommendations to legislation and take it to the board of supervisors. so i don't know whether saturation is an issue or not. it seems like it's being raised as a very significant concern, and it is worthy not of one-off approval or denials, but a more extensive study that, if we believe that is a problem, should lead to legislation. i am very concerns -- concerned about the fact that as a city, we're worried about secondhand

smoke, and we are moving towards or considering actions that would limit smoking cannabis in apartment buildings where -- i'm hearing a lot of background noise,ion -- jonas. i don't know if there is anybody i should be doing to silence that or somebody needs to put themselves on mute. >> the microphones are muted other than your own, commissioner diamond. >> okay. that it doesn't strike me as right that we are limiting opportunities for people to smoke or vape but limiting opportunities for people who live in an apartment building to smoke or vape but you can do that if you are in a sing le-family house. and if you are worried about the impact, then we need to provide

opportunities for people to have smoking and vaping. in the year that i'd been on the commission, we were concerned about having consumption lounges in buildings where there have been residents because of concern that the hvac system isn't going to work. we've been worried as a commission about allowing consumption and smoking and vaping in lounges. we've been okay with a and b permits but not c permits, if i got that terminology correct. but this particular facility, as someone pointed out, is a stand-alone facility, so if we were ever going to consider a consumption lounge, this strikes me as the right kind of physical space to allow for tht. and when i combine that with my concern about the equity of limiting opportunities for people to smoke and vape if they

live in apartment buildings, that for me is a strong argument as to why we should approve this. i am also concerned about just the level of vacancy across the city and that cannabis seems to be one of the components of retail that is still vbrant. don't want to have another empty storefront here. and lastly, i am very confused by the role that these community benefit agreements are playing here. when they're negotiated not by us but by third parties and may or may not be enforced by third parties. to the extent that the issues are covered by the agreements are important, then we should be incorporating those into our approval process, either as conditions of approval, the commercial use permits or they should be addressed by the

licening department. i don't want to leave the onus for tht on neighbors. so when i put all of those factors together, there is several recommendations in there for the planning department with respect to how we treat this in the future, including you know, determiing whether or not we want legislation to limit the number of these going forward in the mission and looking at how we, as a city, want to make sure we're imposing the requirements in the community benefit agreements. but i am with commissioner tanner in thinking that this particular process tht it's complying with all of the rules n light of some of these othe equity issues that i just described, i would be supportive of this project. >> commissioner jen? >> i think commissioner moore had a request to speak.

>> you're next. >> great. so i'm wondering if i could ask mr. christensen some questions. so if there is an interest in exploring a cannabis neighborhood cap, what will be the next steps for kind of those legislaive changes? what would that look like? >> caller: for evaluaing that. some idea of what is an appropriate level. i think that the city is grappling with -- we're starting to see certain neighborhoods feeling overcocentrated or feeling oversaturation. but on the global scale, we do have a significant portion of sales that are going to the unregulated market. can biis a very easy thing to

grow in a closet and so it's something that a lot of competition that our retail feel from that ilistit market. and it's a priority of the city to continue to regulate the market such that that switches from the unregulated -- transfer from the regulated market. so taking that picture in mind, you know, i think that the city would need to evaluate kind of a number of locations that the city as a whole can really accommodate that the market can support in such a way that we're accommodating the market as it does exist, while still supporting our existing industries. and then that the point, we would need to evaluate what that would look like as an -- in terms of spreading those uses throughout the city. that type of analysis is very detailed. it would likely require a lot of inpu from industry, from

residents, from a broad swath of the city. and we do have some structures where that can happen. we do have the cannabis oversight committee, for example, which is the -- which the planning department -- where that discussion can begin. but it does need -- [noise] the city controller's office. but up to this point, that type of discussion has not begun. >> thank you. so it's we don't want

another storefront. i do have some thoughts about the enforceibility of the cba

flagship aspect of the project to make sure that the project is going to actually be what it presented itself to be. so i would just put that out there if the other commissioners were interested in trying to report back and just to wait to have an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the cbas after the operation has started. >> before i call on commissioner moore, let me just give my two cents again. i'm in favor of the business and in favor of the location and the usage, but i did hear the words "level playing field" multiple times tonight and i don't feel that the level playing field if someone's business a block away had made enforceable cba commitments that this company won't make. i don't know that that's a level of playing field. >> i would like to support the

-- or report back to calls. on the fence about this project is the fact about enforceable where nobody has experience if that's the core of the cba. just like with c bi, many, many things happen outside and the office of cannabis is 32 years old. i think it's eloquently described and no experience nor does the public know what to complain about. it's not a security camera. [background noise] the

commission has spend a lot of time with us m, and i deeply regret that a more robust jointly acceptable agreement has not been reached. there are two sides representing different perspectives. i cannot say one way or the other exactly what to hear or not to hear. i regret that there is a split in the community about the subject. i agree with every point other commissioners made about those made to equity and other operational aspects of cannabis, the number of cannabis, the saturation of cannabis, and so i am uncertain the size of the business oiginally was a concern. it is still a concern, although the organizational structure of

what is proposed here makes it a more operable project. i would wait to hear more about the commissioner. a lot of back and forth question, and also with mr. christensen's response, i am also generally supportive of this, of this project and also supportive of commissioner chan's recommendation for a one-year report back that will report back on the robust commitment of the planning of the project sponsors together with other groups such as us m,

so that there is a place still for other groups to still have this conversation and to be able to report back to the planning commission. again, my concern, since when it comes to the cannabis and the use and on-site consumption, the size is always a big matter to me. and i am -- 5,000 square feet is important and you know, work with the planning department, together with other city agency. and i agree as well with commissioner the cbas, whether maybe those can be implemented on the conditional use. so but i would like to have the planning department start working on the equity policy.

>> commissioner moore. >> i have one lingering question for the applicant. is he still available to come on and answer a question? >> caller: i'm available. >> thank you. in one of the commenter's descriptions there was a comment that the cba agreement had not been signed. could you hear that yes or no please? >> caller: yes. the cba agreement has ben signed, and we filed it with the office of cannabis, and it is now a binding, enforceable condition of our permit. and there were nine stakeholders that signed the document, in addition to myself, and the documents cannot be changed o

amended without a majority consent of that equity committee and approval from the office of cannabis. does that answer your question? >> you are basically affirming that all necessary agreements discussed have been signed and are fully executed? >> caller: yes. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> i would make a motion to approve, with the addition of a one-year second condition. addressing all of the issues

that were discussed, including the status of the community benefit agreement. i don't know is it the city needs to weigh in on how we actually phrase that particular condition or if that was fine the way it is. >> commissioner diamond, i can work with planner and sort of flush out that language, but the meaning of your condition is clear, so thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> second. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. as have been amendd to include a one-year report back with a specific look at the cba agreement. on that motion, commissioner tanner? a ye. >> commissioner diamond?

>> a ye. >> commissioner more? a y. >> and commissioner koppel? >> a y. >> that concludes your hearing for today. so i thank you. >> everyone, thank you.

>> the goal is simple. it's to raise women's voices. >> learn a little bit about what you should be thinking about in the future. >> we had own over 300 -- over

300 people who signed up for the one-on-one counseling today. >> i think in the world of leading, people sometimes discount the ability to lead quietly and effectively. the assessor's office is a big one. there are 58 counties in the state of california and every single county has one elected assessor in the county. our job is to look at property taxes and make sure that we are fairly taxing every single property in san francisco. one of the big things that we do is as a result of our work, we bring in a lot of revenue,

about 2.6 billion worth of revenue to the city. often, people will say, what do you do with that money, and i like to share what we do with property taxes. for every dollar we collect in property taxes, about 68 cents of it goes to support public sstss, our police officers, our fire departments, our streets, our cleaning that happens in the city. but i think what most people don't know is 34 cents of the dollar goes to public education. so it goes to the state of california and in turn gets allocated back to our local school districts. so this is an incredibly important part of what we do in this office. it's an interesting place to be, i have to say. my colleagues across the state have been wonderful and have been very welcoming and share their knowledge with me. in my day-to-day life, i don't

think about that role, being the only asian american assessor in the state, i just focus on being the best i can be, representing my city very well, representing the county of san francisco well. by being the only asian american assessor, i think you have a job to try to lift up and bring as many people on board, as well. i hope by doing the best that you can as an individual, people will start to see that your assessor is your elected leaders, the people that are making important decisions can look like you, can be like you, can be from your background. i grew up with a family where most of my relatives, my aunties, my uncles, my parents, were immigrants to the united states. when my parents first came here, they came without any relatives or friends in the united states. they had very little money, and they didn't know how to speak english very well. they came to a place that was completely foreign, a place where they had absolutely

nobody here to help them, and i can't imagine what that must have been like, how brave it was for them to take that step because they were doing this in order to create an opportunity for their family. so my parents had odd jobs, my dad worked in the kitchens, my mom worked as a seamstress sewing. as we grew up, we eventually had a small business. i very much grew up in a family of immigrants, where we helped to translate. we went to the restaurant every weekend helping out, rolling egg rolls, eating egg rolls, and doing whatever we need to do to help the family out. it really was an experience growing up that helped me be the person that i am and viewing public service the way that i do. one of the events that really stuck with me when i was growing up was actually the rodney king riots. we lived in southern california at the time, and my parents had a restaurant in inglewood,

california. i can remember smelling smoke, seeing ashes where we lived. it was incredibly scary because we didn't know if we were going to lose that restaurant, if it was going to be burned down, if it was going to be damaged, and it was our entire livelihood. and i remember there were a lot of conversations at that time around what it was that government to do to create more opportunities or help people be more successful, and that stuck with me. it stuck with me because i remain believe government has a role, government has a responsibility to change the outcomes for communities, to create opportunities, to help people go to school, to help people open businesses and be successful. >> make sure to be safe, and of course to have fun. >> and then, i think as you continue to serve in government, you realize that those convictions and the persons that you are really help to inform you, and so long as you go back to your core, and you remember why you're doing what you're doing, you know, i think you can't go

wrong. it's funny, because, you know, i never had thought i would do this. i became a supervisor first for the city under very unusual circumstances, and i can remember one day, i'm shopping with friends and really not having a care in the world about politics or running for office or being in a public position, and the next day, i'm sworn in and serving on the board of supervisors. for many of us who are going through our public service, it's very interesting, i think, what people view as a leader. sometimes people say, well, maybe the person who is most outspoken, the person who yells the loudest or who speaks the loudest is going to be the best leader. and i think how i was raised, i like to listen first, and i like to try to figure outweighs to work with -- out ways to work with people to get things done. i hope that time goes on, you can see that you can have all sorts of different leaders

whether at the top of city government or leading organizations or leading teams, that there are really different kinds of leadership styles that we should really foster because it makes us stronger as organizations. >> take advantage of all the wonderful information that you have here, at the vendor booth, at our seminars and also the one-on-one counseling. >> i wouldn't be where i was if i didn't have very strong people who believed in me. and even at times when i didn't believe in my own abilities or my own skills, i had a lot of people who trusted and believed i either had the passion or skills to accomplish and do what i did. if there was one thing that i can tell young women, girls, who are thinking about and dreaming about the things they want to be, whether it's being a doctor or being in politics, running an organization, being in business, whatever it is, i think it's really to just trust yourself and believe that who you are is enough, that you are enough to make it work and to make things successful.

>> san francisco mayor london n. breed. for persons who wish to ask questions, include your name, outlet and up to two clearly stated questions in webex chat. and now we welcome mayor london breed. >> thank you so much. and good morning, everyone. i am excited to be here today because we know that most

recently we have a vacancy in the city administrator's office, and i am so proud to announce that i am nominating carmen chu to serve as san francisco's city administrator. many of us know carmen over the years. she has served the city and county of san francisco since 2005. she currently serves as our assessor recorder and in that role she is responsible for managing a team of over 200 people. under her leadership, the aassessor's office has reversed a decades old backlog of assessment cases and generating $3.6 billion in property tax revenue annually to support public services in san francisco. had it not been for carmen's leader snip that role, we would have a budget that was deficient in the amount of $3.6 billion. that gives you an indication of how amazing and how valuable she

is to san francisco. such achievements have earned her office the prestigious 2020 good government award, an honor recognizing excellence in public sector management and stewardship. she currently serves on the san francisco employees retirement system board where she oversees the investments and policies of a $26 billion public pension system in san francisco. assessor chu has really stepped up during covid to lead our economic recovery task force as one of the co-chairs. this was not in her job description, nor was it her responsibility, but when i called carmen to ask for her help because we needed all hand on deck to address the challenges that none of us thought we would be dealing with with covid, she immediately said yes. and with her leadership the task force developed 41 recommendations and policy ideas to make the city's economy stronger, more resilient, and

more attainable. prior to the career as assessor, she was an elected representative of the board of supervisor. when she served as budget chair of the board of supervisors, there was no one who was more fiscally conservative and focused on equity and serving the public's best interest and made sure we understood the value of every single dollar we spent. there was no one more of an advocate in that role than carmen chu when he served as the budget chair of the san francisco board of supervisors. she also served as the deputy director of public policy and finance for gavin newsom when he was mayor. she's been actively engaged in really changing bureaucracy in san francisco on so many levels. and just to go back to some information about the assessor recorder's office which was experiencing a lot of challenges, a lot of

uncertainty, a lot of confusion, the work that she did to put everyone for the most part on an electronic system and to re-organize the files in that system was pretty amazing. now, i know it's very bureaucratic and very technical, but to make san francisco work in a more efficient way that provides information to the public in a way that people can understand so that they can pay their taxes and they can do whatever business they do with the city t work she has done has really been about making sure that the average, everyday citizen in san francisco who is not connected to city hall, who is not involved in city hall in any way, that they have a voice. and they have some level of understanding and access to the resources we provide. she is the only asian american woman elected as assessor in the state of california, and she is the daughter of immigrants. her family worked hard to make sure she had some amazing

opportunities to succeed in life, and boy, has she made them proud. the city administrator's office consist of more than 25 departments and programs that provide a broad range of services to other city departments and the public. and ladies and gentlemen, i am so honored to introduce the next city administrator for the city and county of san francisco, assessor recorder carmen chu. >> good morning, everybody. first off, i just want to say thank you so much, mayor breed, for your confidence in me. i am humbled and i'm honored by your nomination, so thank you so much for this opportunity. >> thank you. >> if confirmed by the board, of course, i look forward to working not only with you but also with the board to make sure that we continue to move san francisco forward.

i want to speak a little bit about my parents as i start off with the this. my parents were immigrants. mayor breed spoke about this a little bit ago, and my parents had a small restaurant and we all grew up, my sisters and i, working in that restaurant. i tell you this and i share this with you because so much of our service and so much of what we do in life is grounded by our life experiences. how we were raised. the people who loved us. those who supported us. those were part of our lives. and what they taught me was the importance of making sure that we provide honest day of hard work, and making sure you do everything you can in every single role that you play is important. but they also taught me the importance of helping those who are in need. mike like my parents, not everybody starts off with resources. not everybody starts off with money, with support, and not everybody starts off with even

the ability to communicate or speak english. and i think it's recognizing that so many people start off from different places that it's a privilege when any of us have the ability to serve in the public capacity. it is this grounding, this belief that government can serve and the belief that government can help to support people, especially in their greatest times of need that gives me the privilege and honor of working as a public servant for the city and county of san francisco. first off, i want to recognize the people of the city administrator's office. your responsibility is a big one. the span of your responsibilities serve as a backbone for all of the city's operations. and i really want to thank you, a heartfelt thank you, especially during this time this, time when we're asking you to not only carry on with that work that you do, but also to do double duty especially as we continue to respond to an active

global pandemic. this is something that is not easy. and i know that san francisco is better off for all the work that you are doing not only in your existing roles but also in the extra work that you are doing to make sure that we respond to with the best way possible to serve is city well. to the people of the assessor's office, and i simply put and i want to tell you that i will miss you. we built a really great team in the assessor's office and we have accomplished so much. and things that seemed insurmountable to do and reversing a decades backlog and exceeding revenue expectations in half a billion during my time. and making sure we are completely overhauling outdated tools and systems that we have in our office. these may sound boring to many people, but honestly, it is this kind of attention and this kind of work that really drives change and excellent public

service. i want to thank each and every person in the assessor's office. i enjoy working with you on the professional growth and challenges that you took on and i hope you will carry on the accomplishments and legacy with you as you go forward. and finally, i want to close by recognizing and thanking the contributions as city administrator naomi kelly. i understand your decision was a difficult one. and thank you for helping meet the needs of the city during the global pandemic when we needed the support to lift up so many things that we have done. the accomplishments are not to be diminished, and icismly want to say thank you. with, that i am available, of course, for any questions. and i am really honored for this responsibility coming forward.

>> thank you, assessor chiu and we are honored that you are willing to take on this responsibility. i want to provide member of the public with information about the city administrator's office. they are responsible for overseeing animal care and control, the office of cannabis, the medical examiner's office, and the real estate division. the technology division. our community challenge grant, our grants for the arts program, the mayor's office on disability, risk management, and all of the things, many of the things that make the city run and often times we may have an interaction with any of the departments and not necessarily fully aware that they are all within the scope of the city administrator's office. it is a major responsibility, one that i know you are up for the task. and i am excited and grateful that you are willing to put your hat in the ring and allow yourself to be nominated for such a position. so thank you so much again,

aseser to -- thank you, assessor chu, and with that we can open it up to any questions. >> thank you, mayor breed. before we start the question and answer portion, we are going to take a moment to allow reporters to submit questions on webex. . >> okay. no questions, leo? >> thank you. okay. when mayor breed, the first question comes to you from joe

with kqed. mayor breed k you ask ms. kelly to resign? if so, or if not, why? >> well, many of you know better than to ask about personnel issues. the fact is we cannot discuss them. so we will not be discussing anything regarding anything that is personnel related. >> thank you, mayor breed. and should she be confirmed, are you tasks carmen chu with any specific tasks to address the allegations of corruption within the city that would be in her purview? what are those tasks? >> so just to be clear, last year when many of these allegations first began to surface, i immediately sent out an executive directive asking our city attorney and our controller's office as well as all city departments to not only investigate many of the allegations but to also look at

ways in which to strengthen our policies so that we can make sure that the things that we saw happen or that people were being accused of are not easy to be able to happen moving forward. so what we did was to make sure that people are on alert when they are making recommendations and changes to the policies for the department. and there is not a doubt in my mind that carmen chu will manage her department and make the appropriate changes necessary to address many of the challenges that we have heard over the past year as it relates to some of the department. >> thank you. and if i could just add to, that i think in any person who is assuming a role whether you are leading an organization as the assessor or city administrator, one of the things all of us will be doing is looking very, very closely to make sure we have the systems in place to ensure that

there is transparency and how we're delivering the public service and how it is that we run our organization. these are all things that i am absolutely committed to. it is a fundamental piece to make sure that we have public trust. >> and there is no public servant more respected, who has more integrity, who just basically is one of the most incredible, admirable persons that we have serving the city and county of san francisco than carmen chu. >> thank you, both. there are no additional questions for mayor breed. the next question is for assessor chu from ktfs. as the first chinese female administrator, what does this mean to you? >> i think this is -- this is always a heavy responsibility. i recall back when i served on the board of supervisors. at that time when i was nominated to the role, i was the

only elected, only chinese american supervisor serving in the entire san francisco board of supervisors. and since that time much has changed in the city, but i think any of us, any of us who fill these roles understand that we play a very important spot in making sure that not only do we lead the way but we also create opportunities and how people see no matter where you come from, no matter where you start from, there is an opportunity for you and a seat in government that no matter whether you had resources coming in or whether you were immigrants, that you have the opportunity to serve. and so i think serving as the first chinese woman as a city administrator, i hope to be able to to put my mark on creating a san francisco government that works well, that earns your trust, that is delivering services that you can be proud of in san francisco.

>> okay. one moment. >> an i thought someone was going to ask me about taxes. >> the only questions about taxes is why is my bill so high? >> indeed. >> and the next question is what's carmen's first responsibility after the nomination? and that comes from sky link. >> i think immediately especially during this time when so much of the city's response to covid is important, it is very important to make sure we continue to deliver on what is necessary and respond not only from a public health perspective, but also to support the city in the economic recovery. first and foremost, that has an impact on the lives of residents and operations. a big focus right away will be

starting to take a look t a making sure we continue to support the efforts. that we do that in an excellent way and we also look forward to the future means. in addition to that, we're going to continue to look for more efficiencies. what's going to happen is we're going to go through a very tough time. i think the city is understanding that not only are we going to be coming to recovery, but that will mean we have fewer resources at exactly the time when san franciscans need us the most. and that will really require that we do more, that we work harder, and that we're creative in terms of how we deliver the best services possible to the city. so in my role we're going to be taking very much a close look at this recovery effort, how we support that recovery for the city as well going forward. >> there are no additional questions. this concludes today's press conference. thank you, mayor breed and aseser to chu for your time. if you have questions, email the

mayor's press office at sfgov.org. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you again. . . . >> hello, my name is jamie harper. in this episode, we are featuring the park locations in your very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special. golden gate park's largest body of water is this lake, a popular

spot for strolling and paddling around in boats, which can be rented. created in 1893, it was designed foreboding and -- for boating. it is named for the wild strawberries that once flores. a pleasant trail follows the perimeter past huntington falls, 110 foot waterfall. two bridges connect the trail to the island. the climb to the hills summit, the highest point in golden gate park at more than four hundred feet. you can get quinces of the western side of the city through -- glimpes of the western side of city through a thick trees. the lake is ada accessible. it has a peaceful atmosphere where you can enjoy a warm day.

walk along the lake and watched many ducks, and swans, and seagulls. it is a tranquil spot to stroll, enjoy each other's company, and sail away. many couples come here to take a ride around the lake, floating under the bridges, past the pavilion and waterfall. for a quiet getaway, it makes for a memorable and magical experience. located on 19th avenue, this grove is the place to wear your hiking boots, bring your family, and bring the dog because it has so much to offer you and your loved ones. it is a truly hidden gem in the city. the part is rich with eucalyptus trees.

long paths allow you to meander, perfect for dog walking in a wooded environment. >> i enjoy this base and the history behind it. the diversity that exists in such an urban city, the concrete, the streets, cars, we have this oasis of a natural environment. it reminds us of what san francisco initially was. >> this is a section for dogs and plenty of parking. transit is available to get you there easily. and the part is ada -- park is ada accessible. there is also a natural lake. this is your chance to stroll and let the kids run free. it also has many birds to watch. it is the place to find some solitude from the city and

appreciate what you share with a wonderful breath of fresh air. , an experienced this park and enjoy the peoples, picnics, and sunshine. this is a lovely place to take a stroll with your loved one hand in hand. located in the middle of pacific heights on top of a hill, lafayette park offers a great square a of a peaceful beauty. large trees border greenery. it features tables and benches, a playground, restaurants, and tennis courts. there are plenty of areas for football, frisbee, and picnics. it is very much a couple's part and there are a multitude of experiences you can have together. bring your dog and watch the

mean go with the community or just picnic at one of the many tables and enjoy all of the park has to offer. many couples find this is the perfect place to put down a blanket and soak up the sun. it is a majestic place you can share with someone you cherish. it is located along the 1 and 10 buses and is accessed from the 47 and 90 buses. it is ada accessible. for more information about reserving one of these locations, call 831-5500. this number is best for special events, weddings, picnics, and the county fair building. for any athletic fields and neighborhood parks, 831-5510. you can also write us.

or walking in and say hello at old lock cabin, golden gate park. and of course you can find more information and reach us at sfrecpark.org. >> you're watching coping with covid-19 with chris manners. today's special guest is joshua arsay. >> an i'm chris maners and you are watching coping with covid-19. my guest today is joshua arsay. he is the director of workforce development at the oewdt city's office of economic and workforce development, and he's here today to talk to us an about the resource and services that are available to the recently unemployed or for people who are looking for work. mr. arsay, welcome to the show. >> thank you. thank you, chris.

thanks for having me. >> the pandemic has devastated large part of our local economy, and in particular the service sector, but i understand there are some services and resources available to help the recently unemployed and for people who are looking for work. could you talk to us a little bit about the worker's hotline? the city's resources to help people apply for edd unemployment insurance, and the right to recover program? >> absolutely. chris, as you said, the pandemic has had such an incredible impact on the local economy, and that's because we had to make the necessary public health steps and safeguards early on and several times throughout the pandemic when the surged and that has meant closures of businesses and loss of work for so many workers. the resources that you mention are critical. you mention the san francisco workforce hotline. that was one of the first efforts out of our office in partnership with the human services agency to provide a

live voice to those men and women who in the earliest days of the first shelter in place order wanted someone to talk to. we were all overwhelmed at the local level, state, and federal to answer the questions and a lot of people were really struggling just to get someone on the phone. and an email address or a voicemail is one thing, but we really found that people wanted to have someone that talk to. as soon as the shelter in place order went in place in mid march, we actually in our office stood up a hotline. we answer phone calls in seven different languages. if we can't get you live in your language, we will call you back in your language. organizations like mission, economic development agency, self-help for the elled elderly and help us with spanish, cantonese and mandarin. it is 415-701-4817 is the san francisco workforce hotline. there is no question that we won't do everything in our power

and ability to answer whether that's applying for unemployment and maybe not getting through with one of our partner. we work very closely with at the state edd to help deal with the historic demand for their services and unemployment benefits. we will help you create your account. we will help you log on. we will help you find out information as best we can about the status of your claim and your benefits. we'll do whatever it takes helping you access paid sick leave if that's available to you. referring you over to our training programs which i know is some important we want to talk about a little bit later as well. but with respect to programs like right to recover and other covid relief programs. not everyone is eligible for unemployment. that might be because they haven't worked long enough to accrue the benefits or one's immigration status or any reason at all, there are people that fall through the cracks of the benefit. may not have access to paid sick

leave or quality for other public assistance. the right to recover program which was introduced by supervisor ronen and partnership with mayor breed, our office, department of public health, will help get you funds to safely quarantine and isolate should you, god forbid, test positive and need help to make ends meet. we will provide some resources to help you with your stay. there is other funds there, again, and the way to access those information and access to those programs specifically is to call notline 415-701-4817. five days a week. 8:00 to 5:00. and we're ready to answer calls in seven different languages. >> what resources are available for somebody who's lost their job in, say, the service sector? what kind of train canning they get to move into a new industry? >> for the pandemic, we are foes kued and four areas -- we are focused on four areas of opportunity. when we look at jobs that are available, we look at the

availability of someonement coing from a nontraditional pathway into a good paying job that leads to a career. those industries identified were tech, construction, health care, and hospitality. you can get training today to go out to learn the skills that will make you a competitive candidate out there in the tech industry, which has had impacts, but is hiring now and we expect is going to grow once again as we re-emerge. city build, one of the flagship training programs for construction, opportunities with the building trades and construction through city college and union apprenticeship programs is available. our next class will start in february. we just graduated close to 40 participants a couple of months back and they are all out there going to work because construction hasn't been as impacted as other industries. health care will be essential, is essential today, and will be. there is opportunity there is, again, through the website

oewd.org. and hospitality initiative and talked about training hotel workers, training for restaurant and culinary experts. that work doesn't exist the same as it did before the pandemic. so right now there's opportunities to get some skills in the security industry, preparing for tourism once again, but really what we're doing with respect to hotel workers and culinary workers especially in partnership with labor unions is supporting those men and women who lost work to prepare to re-emerge. >> i know the city's job centers are still open, but i hear they're operating a little differently because of the pandemic. what can a job seeker expect when they get in touch with one of the neighborhood centers? >> right now if you go into one of the job centers, you're going to be at this time doing it virtually. you will be logging onto our website, oewd.org/jobsenters and you can pick one of the

different sites. you can call, go online, you recollect email. we've got a jobs board we put out every week from our office. you can sign up and you can even on our website sign up to get that list of all those opportunities of employers that are hiring. when you go to the job center, you will learn about opportunities to train. we have talked about the opportunity to train in technology, construction, health care, or hospitality or elements where there still is opportunity right now. you will learn about those opportunities and more than anything you are going to get a sense of resources that may be available. some assistance as we mention around accessing unemployment and other benefit programs, covid relief funds you may be eligible. the most important thing is just to connect whether it's calling the workforce hotline, whether it's logging on with the job center. the most important thing is to stay connected with us so that we can do whatever we can to support you. so you can go to oewd.org/job

centers. spelled just like it sounds. and access one of these seven great organizations and whether it's young community developers, meta in the mission, over in the omi lakeview, inner city youth, self help for the elderly. and central hospitality house and tenderloins, south market, or the western addition success center are great organizations to start with. a lot of the work will be virtual right now simply because of the realities of covid-19 and not being able to get together and do the work. but the work is happening. >> well, that's great. finally, let's talk about the recent stimulus bill. what measures were included to help workers with covid-19 relief? >> one of the really important steps that our partners at the human services agency did was to work with the mayor and our office to relaunch and expand the jobs now program. jobs now is a weight subsidy

program and certain workers and can have access to wage subsidy to help pay the wages with an employer who commits to bringing on that individual and going to work. i bring that up because that was a very early stimulus strategy during the last great recession under president obama's leadership. and we're really hopeful in the early days of the new administration we might similarly see a scaling up of that investment. there is something else that we're really excited about that is going to happen with the federal government that will impact and benefit san franciscans, and that is in the last year we were able to get some resources, some national grants to support dislocated workers who've lost their work in particular industries with the state of california, edd office, we got a $1 million grant to support as many as 1200 laid off masconi trade show convention center workers. close to 400 have signed up with the city build program to do a

special training to get skills to transition into construction work. we have a similar grant with san mateo county and san francisco airport to support the thousands of workers who lost work at s.f.o. and there is a proposal in with the federal government as well to fund that through a retraining and support program to again support hundreds of workers that have lost work. we're very hopeful that we can continue to work to bring those resources to bear and support those san franciscans who need it, those worker who is lost work or struggling or getting ready to come back even stronger. >> well, that's very useful. you have given us some great information today, mr. arsay. thank you so much for coming on the show. awe thank you. thank you, chris. >> well, thank you, again. and that is it for this episode. we'll be back with more pandemic-related information shortly. you have been watching coping with covid-19. for sfgov tv, i'm chris manners. thanks for watching.