>> welcome to the san francisco planning meeting remote meeting for january 28, 2021. the planning commission received authorization to reconvene remotely through the shelter in place. this is our 39th remote hearing. they require everyone's attention and patience. if you're not speaking mute your microphone. to enable public participation we're streaming live. comments are available by calling 1-415-655-0001, entering access code 1469321095. when you reach the item you're

wanting to speak to and indicate. when you are allotted time is reached i'll announce your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance.

item two. [reading item] item ab. [reading item] pre opposed for continuance to february 18, 2020. under your discretionary review item 13, [reading item] a discretionary review it is my understanding

the parties are cles to an agreement and requesting a continuance to february 18 to finalize the agreement. i have no other items proposed for continuance so we should take public comment on the matters. this your opportunity to speak to any of the items. i do see one person in the queue. you have three minutes. >> caller: i'm calling regarding number 1 proposed for indefinite continuance and use hotels and motels for a permanent form of housing. funded a lot of money over the weekend to do an extension for homeless housing in temporary

hotel i ask you continue to a date certain like a month out so the staff has ability to find out exactly where the legislation is and is going rather than taking it off calendar. don't think taking it off calendar is the right thing to do in the current circumstances. this is needed housing. thank you, bye. >> caller: this is mary aliza. i'm speaking about items 8a and 8b. i want to thank the commissioners for putting this off until february 18 because we have issues to do discovery and that will give us time so thank you for doing that.

>> commissioner: thank you, members of the public, last call to speak to any of the items proved for continuance. commissioners, seeing no further request from the public to comment on matters proposed for continuance, public comment is closed. and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: we'll come back to that but the amount of time is to be determined on the item on hotels, is that correct? it's our understanding we don't know when it will be prepared for our hearing it.

>> thank you, commissioner tanner. department staff. we want it take the time to speak with the stakeholders and hold to bring the item in front of you in the near future. we don't have a date certain at this time. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. flores. >> i move to them as proposed. >> second. >> [roll call] >> so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us under commission matter consideration of adoption of minutes for january 14, 2021. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by suppressing star then 3 to enter the queue.

seeing no requests the public comment is closed and the matter is before you. commissioner imperial. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> on that motion. [roll call] >> passes unanimously 7-0. item 4, commission comments and questions. seeing no request to speak from commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item 5, director's announcements.

>> thank you. good afternoon. just a couple things i wanted to follow up on my report from last week regarding the plan bay area in response to the most recent draft of plan bay area in december. i think if you take a look there's been media coverage on this as well we'll get to the allocation of the bay area's growth and we'll continue to be a leader in the development involving affordable housing but raise concerns about allocation and most recent allocation which is units and they met over the past week since the last two commission meetings and there was a good robust discussion

about the concerns at both meetings. ultimately the commissions adopted the draft plans a preferred alternative in the e.i.r. and ceqa review and they requested an alternative be included in the i.r. that addresses the concerns we laid out. i also want to mention prop h which allows for permits for be reviewed and acted on by the city in 30 days that includes our review. we've started implementation of prop 8 and some businesses that qualify can apply for a permit.

qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. thanks to our staff and across agencies would put this together and got it up and running. that concludes my report. >> item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors and board of appeals historic preservation commission -- did you have a question? >> the arena allocation you were speaking about. we still have the amount of time of housing units but seals to be maybe shuffling will get different affordability is that correct? different income levels may be allocated to us? >> from the summer draft of plan bay area to the december draft are allocations for about 70,000

units and that's a factor but not the only factor in the arena methodology. because of that we ended up getting 1,000 units for household increase in construction and >> thank you. >> now item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors and board of appeals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. a quick report. only one item at the land use

committee this week pertained the initiation of the landmark designation for the eagle bar and that's sponsored by supervisor heaney and they forwarded that to the board for positive recommendation. that's all i have for you today. >> seeing no questions, thank you, mr. star. the board of appeals did meet yesterday and on behalf of the deputy administrator the board held an election of officers where the commissioner humberg was elevated to president and there was an appeal of a variance for 947 minnesota street and they considered the same project but a joint hearing with a zoning administrator in 2020. the appellant raised concerns about the legalality of the existing structure and portions

are visible on aerial views from 1938 and that a permit from 1952 which did not include plans has a structure at the rear and it and it appears to be legal and existed more than 80 years without complaint. the department also advised the project sponsor any demolition of the rear beyond what was authorized by the variance may trigger the need for a new variance. the board unanimously denied the appeal and approved the variance. if there are no questions we should move on to general public comment. at this time members may address the commission on items of interest to the pub within -- public. the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded from the items reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to

three minutes. this is your opportunity to get in the few by pressing star then three. >> caller: thank you. good afternoon, commissioners and i sent an e-mail and showed the project since section 317 and there were alterations were not what was intended when i section 317 was added to the planning code back in 2008 and if you look at the findings of the section you'll agree based on the photos. i hope you'll have a chance to read the e-mail from tuesday. and what can be taken away from

looking at the photos these projects are not considered demolition or de facto demolition even with the revised demo calcs which we reviewed by your enforcement staff didn't pass the threshold on the sections. therefore the calcs should be adjusted per section 317, 32b and take care. bye-byeful dp >> caller: i hope i'm speaking on public comment. i want to request support for

the parcel f project. it's going bring a lot of work to construction trades and brothers and sisters here and who lived locally in san francisco during a time when there's a lot of uncertainty. i'm asking for your support on that project. thank you. >> seeing no additional request to speak from the public the general public comment is closed and we can move to the regular

calendar items.

>> [indiscernible] there seems to be a lot of feedback from your computer. >> it should be hard wired. can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you. >> i'm from plan staff. the subject is 542-550 howard street known as parcel f. if memory serves me well at least for commissioners the project is materially the same as last january.

and this is four lots in total between howard and three primary uses, residential, hotel and office. the residential is 165 units and the hotel is 189 hotel rooms and the office portion is 275,000 square feet of office. the primary difference between last year and now and the reason we're before you is a change in how the project would go for affordable housing and the proposal was to bill market rate units within one mile of the principle project between trans bay zone 1 and 2 and now here

before you for an agreement that would stimulate 150% of the fee otherwise required by section 415 of the code. it's a pretty significant contribution given it will go towards funding upwards of 19 below market rate units within the sites of trans bay zone 1 and 2 and we what's before you is the agreement resolution which is new to and amended resolution and motion which are the planning code amendment and downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization and making sure they'll cross reference the same affordable mechanism and

physically the downtown plan in transit center plan. i will note the majority with colleagues of mine of the office of economic and workforce development can answer questions tone development agreement and on the development agreement and the office of team investment and structure will all be able to answer questions should you have any. with that i'll stop and hand it over to project sponsor. thank you much. >> project sponsor?

>> the share button is unselected and i can't seem to select it. >> i need to make you a presenter >> i'm council for the project. i have been before the commission a few times now and won't spend a lot of time describing the project itself and our team is on hand to answer any questions so let you know if you have questions. in that regard there's been no changes to the design or program

since this commission approved the project last january. we're returning to you today solely for the purpose of a technology change to the affordable housing obligation. when the project sponsor purchased it in 2015 there was an option agreement with ocii for the purchase of trans bay lot 4 and block 4 is part of a larger residential project and that remeans the -- remains the plan and we're engaged with staff and negotiating the final form of disposition or dda. as i said we're here to make a technology change that will allow parcel f to be in the legal sense a stand alone development project distinct from the block 4 project.

financing will require a ser cat of occupancy at parcel f. this is partly due to the design and construction schedule and relatively timing of the two projects and construction documents have undergone parallel review and reviewing sign on and project sponsor will be able to pull aside permit and shortly after break ground on parcel f. we're anticipating quarter fur four of this year and we're completing the design process and it will take almost north year after that to -- another year to work through the permit process with dbi.

and together general economic uncertainty brought about by covid including with respect to the real estate market made for a more conservative lending market. parcel f and block 4 are both large complicated projects but the risk associated with each goes up significantly if the projects are legally bound to one another. it would be catastrophic for the

parcel f viability if it was fully constructed and ready to occupy but there was an unanticipated construction issue that blocked the block 4. for financing reasons, parcel f needs to stand on its own. one of the challenges our team has is working closely with city stakeholders including notably ocii, city attorney's office and supervisor haney. we propose 150% of the typical affordable housing fee. this fee will be paid to oci and used for affordable housing in the trans bay district and loaned back to the project to support our development of the

affordable lot 4. it's a down payment on the project's commitment to construct the sister project. the result the same but the technology change makes each project legally independent and feasible. the fee proposed by the development agreement before you is massive. they ultimately agree to paid 150% of the frankly already very high city affordable housing fee. and the fee will be enough to fund between 170 to 235 affordable housing unis in

trans bay. and under the planning code and development plan requires 20% on site affordable which would have resulted in 33 units. the approval in january required 33% off sight or 54 units. the fee will be used to pay approximately 192 units in the block 4 podium not including the additional bmi of the block 4 project. in other words, the development agreement unlocked the ability to provide six times the national of affordable housing units by the planning code and four times the number required by the planning commission approval from a year ago. we absolutely plan to move forward with block 4 because walking away from this extraordinary down payment would be unthinkable but for the sake of argument even if the block 4

proceed doesn't currently prode as envisioned they can use the fee for far more affordable housing and existing law would require or allow. we think the proposed down payment on the sponsor's commitment is a win-win and hope you agree. the slide shows aside from the housing benefit, the project provides truly incredible economic benefits to the city at a crucial time. the typical city impact fee for a project like this is substantial to say the least. in addition to the usual fees the project will be subject to the trans bay mel la roos that and this expected to generate half a billion over 30 years. that doesn't include the $288 million anticipated property

taxes, hotel taxes and sales and parking taxes. the total benefits are in excess of $1 billion. and over the four to five years of construction, the project will create 5,000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent jobs and they're come at a good time in light of the uncertainty one of the public commenters has raised around the times we're in now. we're proud of the building trades and proud of the economic

engine and threw -- through the efforts we supported the trade and coalition of groups in chinatown who initially raised concerns about shadow impacts from the project. >> thank you that con cosh didn't includes project sponsor presentation. i have several members requesting to speak. >> caller: my name is cynthia

gomes we represent the hotel workers in san francisco and san mateo county and supported the project towards approval. hard to hear it's been a year. we continue to support the project approval. the project comes at a guarantee the permanent job that will come with a guarantee that allows those workers a fair and neutral path to join the union and therefore have a shot at getting the living standards that will allow them to live here at the project sponsor has been cooperative and reaching out at all stages. we ask all the approvals they're asking for today with respect be granted and ask for your support. thank you very much.

>> caller: cory smith on behalf of the housing acting coalition. as reiterated from our mayor at the city address this is the time and investing in our future and doing everything we can to get this project going forward. right now is a great idea. we hope a shovel can get in the ground as soon as possible and are very much in support. thank you. >> caller: we stand in sol dared with the project and developed with the project sponsor the

greement that will benefit -- agreement that will benefit families living with minor children in single-occupancy hotels and if this is approved by the planning commission and can't wait until the affordable project at block 4 is built. thank you very much. >> caller: commissioners. i'm john corso on behalf of pipe fitters in for instance in support of the project for the revenue and construction jobs and permanent jobs that the project will create. thank you for your consideration.

>> members of the public, last call for public comment. again, you must press star and 3 to enter the qua. -- queue. seeing no requests for comments from the public, public health is closed. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> let me start off. this is one of the first meetings i ever accepted four and a half years ago after being appointed the commissioner. that goes to say how long the project has been in the works. they have great community support. a lot of good local businesses downtown will start thriving again after we filter back in our construction workers and

city workers. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i'm in full support of the project then and now. bound or unbound, the project is remarkable. more importantly, all people are behind it. they have successfully implemented project and have gone through every possible hoop to bring the project forward. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: i'm also in full support of this question for the project sponsor based on his presentation. you mentioned the fee which is about $45 million or $47 million

a portion is a down payment for the affordable housing on block 4. do you have an idea what percentage it will be? >> i'm sorry, what percentage it will be of? >> you mentioned the money will be a down payment. >> the way it will work is the money will be paid to ocif. ocii as part of our disposition in development agreement for the block 4 project will loan it back and represent a portion of the project financing that will go to the 100% affordable podium project at block 4. that money will be combined with other sources including tax credits, state grants and other

typical affordable housing financing not enough to fund the project alone but the lion's share they typically can get through other affordable housing means. >> i'm in full support. if there's nothing else i'd lake it make a motion to sudden we do it as a, b, c, d, e? >> you made a motion to approve with conditions it would be understood unless you want it take them and separate them

>> seconded to approve the development agreement for approval of the planning code. approve the planning code and zoning map amendments to approve with conditions the downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization and office allocations. on that motion. [roll call] .

>> case number 9. [reading item] staff are you ready to make the presentation? >> yes. >> i'm kevin guy with planning staff. we have a request for conditional use authorization for a property at 77 geary street and would establish 12,000 square feet of office uses on the third floor and in the downtown zoning district and applies to the area known as the square. it emphasizes its role as a

regional center for regional offices and services to that end retail are permitted subject to specific requirements. because the space in question is located on the third floor it's visually disengaged and difficult to market such a space for retail sales which rely on the informal merchandise of storefront windows and would not be readily be available for customers and accessed by a common elevator past a security desk and discourage the casual engagement between retail sales that makes for a successful urban shopping district. at approximately 12,000 square feet the space is relatively small allowing office use if the space would not detract from the primary retail character of the district. in addition the union square area is experiencing a

substantial number of vacancies is approval woul not be closed on retail opportunities in the ground floor spaces which are typically more desirable for retail tenant. staff has received one e-mail about noise from construction and other activities associated with the office use however, the e-mail did not indicate opposition. in conclusion, approval of the project currently vacant with an office tenant to provide a revenue stream to maintain the category 1 and will not diminish the character and support retail businesses as employees will shop at the restaurants and stores. staff recommends approval and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. guy.

mr. tony, are you repaired for your presentation? -- prepared for your presentation. you have five minutes. your slides are up. >> good afternoon, president koppel on behalf of the property owner. with me is todd perlman. she's been associated with the property almost 35. we appreciate the opportunity to present for your consideration. we come today but not just retail but the entire world economy. our building is almost vacant and most tenants will not be returning. our request is to lou office uses on the third floor. we want to be clear, this request is not about the present state of affairs but certainly is a factor but instead forward

looking to the post-covid economy and recovery and revitalization of union square. we're seeking approval of office uses because finding retailers for the third floor has been difficult, if not impossible for years now and having office use on the third floor will bring more foot traffic and potential patrons to the district. the first slide shows it from the corner of geary and grant and towards market street. here's the build from the street. you can see the third floor very lilt visibility from the street which is key for retailers.t vi which is key for retailers.t vi which is key for retailers.t vit which is key for retailers.lt v street which is key for retailers.et visibility from th street which is key for retailers. visibility from the street which is key for

retailers. access to the third floor is a constraint on retail and accessed by the entry on geary side. this small recessed entry does not invite patrons and any alteration of the entry or windows above would be prohibited due to the building significant preservation status as a category 1 historical building. once inside the access gets more challenging walking to an elevator bank to the get to the third floor. one more factor, working against retail on the third floor, 12,000 square feet as stated, no retailer wants a space that size and it's divided into smaller spaces and too many to fill and for the reasons we discussed, no retailer is interested anyway. and there's broader challenges

in union square. this map shows the ground floor retail spaces in union square in red and pink is 88 of 237 spaces in total and mer than a third. -- more than a third. todd will talk about his efforts to market the third floor to retail earned a little bit about the -- retailers and a little bit about te planning history and the commission approved office use in the late 1970s on the third floor and above. for many years the building had office uses and yet union square still became the international retail destination it is today. one could argue the decision contributed to union square's success and submit making that decision again will contribute

to its new success. >> the architect is inaudible. >> you can't hear him? >> i can hear a slight muffle. >> you can't hear? >> i can hear you. >> but not him? i can hear him fine.

he's conferenced in on my phone. >> is his conference line you're computer microphone. >> no, we're dialed in on the phone line. >> i believe you're unmuted through the computer and phone line. the first three digits? >> 655. >> 415-417. the 001 number. >> i unmuted your 517 number. want to try again. >> can everybody hear me? >> now we can hear you. >> thank you very much.

>> i appreciate it. as todd stated we had no luck in getting a retail tenant and worked tirelessly marketing the vacancy. the extent we've had interest is the inability to the access through a long corridor and elevators are deal killers. if there's no visibility from the street you can't direct clients to your space and takes real effort to get there it's not viable for retailers in this day and age. incidentally, we've in the generated any interest from retailers for the second floor vacancy primarily due to the same issues affecting the third floor. [background noise]

>> in this case we will extend extra time. >> for decade we made efforts to help our tenants thrive and offered below market rates when we hosted a gallery is an example. we appreciate your flexibility to allow us to lease to an office tenant. without the flexibility our fear is it will remain vacant for years which doesn't benefit anyone. thank you for the time. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the matter to press star 3 to enter the queue.

you'll see it will help with sales which in turn over time will certainly help with sales tax revenue for the city. we have worked on so many buildings like this with upper floor space and a could not agree enough with how challenging this is. you'll probably have a lot of people on the call that will say the same thing. this is the reality we were in before covid and going to be more pronounced now that we are facing what we're facing post-covid. thank you.

>> >> caller: the is ray jackimo from union square. can you hear me? >> we can. >> caller: i was the one that sent the sole e-mail. i live across the street the property in a single-occupancy hotel and we're the only residential in union square i believe and want to make sure there's 70 to 80 people living in the gray stone hotel. it's not really a hotel and now it's a residential s.r.o. we ask for early morning deliveries and we had issues

behind our hotel with some of the buildings also there's a lot of dumpster divers so blocking those woul help and anyone that would like to chat with me online, you're ask -- free to ask the facilitator for the e-mail address. the only question i have was on the document it didn't really say what business was moving in. do we have any idea of the name of the business scheduled to move into the property? >> may i speak? >> it's not a question and answer period just public comment. if the project sponsor wants to get in touch with you after the hearing he's free to do so. >> caller: okay.

>> does that conclude your comments, sir? >> >> caller: yes, sir. >> thank you >> caller: my name is karen grub and i'm speaking in support of this project. for 77 gear yo -- geary it make the converge from retail to office. even pre-covid we were having issues filling our retail space. much of the move for retail has been online which means there's less demand for the retail spaces. and retailers are looking for smaller spaces. even on the ground floor so by the time you get to the third floor there's little demand as stated. i also sent comments via e-mail but we need it bring people back to union square. our pedestrian counts have dropped 90% year over year.

filling the upper floors with office workers that will in then turn shop en our shops and dine in our restaurants will be a huge help to bring back this area and boon tote city. thank you. we urge you to support this. >> caller: good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm pamela mendelton and realtor and i would like to say retail tenants are dropping like flies in union scare. retailers -- square. retailers hold all the cards and can locate on many ground floors at rates right now that are cheaper than they've ever been. so there's not aisle of takers -- fot not a lot of takers for upper

floors, there never really have been. we need to figure out our daytime population and support our existing mer chants and keep our streets safe with pedestrian traffic. we're having huge crime issues and i think this would be something that would help union square out. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. >> caller: hi, thank you. this is alex a resident of san francisco and real estate broker but not involved with this project. similar to what laura and pam have said but expanding on that one of the things an office tenant will do is drive food

traffic to benefit food and beverage and upper floor vacancies don't help and retailers don't necessarily drive traffic to food and beverage office tenants do. [ple

the concern of what i'm speaking about, currently in san francisco, roughly 14 million square feet of vacant homes. that is about -- that's about 10.5 buildings if you put them next to each other. sounds like a lot. why would we dedicate the space when we should be exploring other creative options for that use. what that means creatively begs the first question, residential. is it a way to activate union square in downtown? yes. downtown is mixtures and as we

are doing new parts of downtown, residential and retail can co-exist. that is the idea of the pvr, the type of occupancy.

>> we had this issue in a strong manner before the pandemic hit us and it was a discussion back then. now i think my reasons for supporting the office use are even greater. we heard from a lot of the merchants and neighborhood organizations directly and union square and they're in dire need of the foot traffic and i literally think the office uses are going to help preserve the retail. i'm a huge fan of union square. i love the environment, you get to walk around and see stuff and experience san francisco and retail and shopping environment. the third floor, i'm more than okay. >> i appreciate commissioner

moore and president koppel's comments. this is something we debate here at the planning commission. we were presented with the economic recovery strategies and you talked about the vacancy of office in the downtown. we have not gone deeper into what is going to happen as a recovery strategy for the vacant offices. again, that 14 million square feet is a huge -- i think it's a huge amount. i mean, what does the downtown look like right now? when i go to downtown right now, it's pretty much a ghost town, you know. and there's a lot of -- you know, vacant spaces or vacant -- you can just see it. so as we are having this kind of

discussion and this project is coming here right now, the issue about the retail, i also hear about, you know, we know about the changing of the retails from the building to the online and now it's even hit more in this pandemic and also at the same time, we have not looked into incorporating help into this building environment. so i am, you know, even though this is a small development or this is -- however, we may be taking precedence or we have not made a real discussion yet or i would say even deeper analysis on, you know, the foot traffic and whether the retails or even

the office spaces will be actually the answer and how to incorporate health at the same time. this is interesting for me to hear about this because i don't think we have created or assessed a downtown plan recovery. if we should see about that. but there is that. so, you know, i'm -- you know, i am in rethinking about how offices spaces should look like and what kind of uses maybe we should rezone, i think this is a new problem. not just in san francisco but in other cities as well. i think it needs to be looked at as well. those are my comments. >> commissioner diamond. >> i want to thank my fellow commissioners for their thoughtful comments, all of which are very important points.

the map that they showed with all of the red and pink on it is frightening. i believe that we had a problem with limiting third floor used to retail pre-pandemic and we have a crisis with respect to it now. i am fully in support of either residential or office third floor and above. i believe mixed use districts are healthy districts and economic recovery absolutely needs to be studied, especially with respect to what happens in the cbd and in the union square area. i want to make the process easier for this kind of project to move forward in order to generate foot traffic to provide some hope that some of the retail that is still in union

square will survive. i am in favor of approving it. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you president koppel. i agree the comments of fellow commissioners and generally supportive of the project as well. i did just want to ask to department staff to get a little more global picture of trends, do we have a general idea of how many of these requests we have been seeing to convert above ground retail spaces into office space? is there a way to get a global sense of total square footage converted? >> thank you commissioner chan . i don't have the numbers in front of me. i know that a lot of these applications have been coming in. there's certainly some high

level discussion given the number coming in. there might be additional information on the numbers but we do have a number. we haven't in recent years granted very many of the conversions. they were on the smaller side of things but we have recently seen an uptick and the need to convert spaces that have become vacant. we do have a couple applications that have been submitted. not virgin records but i think forever 21 site and we are trying to think of creative ways to occupy the spaces and not just necessarily have it be

simply office use. we are working with project sponsors to try and figure out what's happening these days. >> thank you. i appreciate your thinking. it seems we probably need to have a larger broader discussion about this once we have some numbers and trends to be able to evaluate where things are going. it is difficult to look at one project on its own and helpful to evaluate the big picture as we move forward. >> commissioner chan, if i could add, i think you're exactly right. we have to look at the larger trends and i think even pre-covid we were seeing trends that retail was very difficult. i think we have to look at as commissioner moore pointed out, residential is permitted, it's

not necessarily an option we see project sponsors pursue on upper floors. maybe understanding what it is about the building types and size and floor plans that is leading to more requests to convert to office or residential. it's something on the work program. there's clearly -- you know, union square, as a retail district, it's something we have to look at. i think it is going to be more post-pandemic. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to ask one additional question. that is, this project is being permitted for office today, is that irreversible decision or

could it be returned to the original use. the reason i'm saying this, i consider this particular building in good stewardship, the fact that act is a tenant in the building, i am just concerned that by turning it into office and coming in like a piece on a chess board, can they be reversed in the future? >> so commissioner moore, in a zoning sense, no, it would not preclude other uses in the future or request for other types of conditional use other than office. in a physical sense, there would be improvements associated with the office but those are likely not to be so extensive to retro fitting to a retail, sales,

service or other type of use in the future. >> so i'm looking for -- i want to pick up on a comment that commissioner chan made. has a tenant been identified or is this speculative approval today. >> we have no lease out with anyone. we were hoping to just grow our list of prospects in the hopes of filling the space. >> a stacking diagram accompanying your application today and i notice there's quite a bit of unoccupied space in your building already that could be used for office.

why is the application in front of us adding more vacant office space in the stacking diagram indicates there's efficient space for you available to market. >> so great question, we do not today have space for market. we recently had american conservatory theater vacate and we're working with them to figure out status. their lease doesn't expire until august 31st, 2023. but when you look at the stacking plan, you're right, the notes listed, largely vacated. those spaces are leased in a contract but we're having issues with those spaces as well. we hope to -- we obviously hope to fill the spaces. this particular space on the

third floor being direct space with a landlord, we're going to -- we're hopeful, we'll be able to lease it quickly while we continue to work with our tenants and help them. these are tenants that are hurting. they don't want to leave, they're forced to make difficult decisions. we don't know the outcomes of their situations. the only direct space i have at the moment is what you see in gray on the stacking chart. i can't see what you're looking at but if you pull up the slide, it would show you the vacancy that is direct, not just on the ground floor and on the second floor, but also of course the space in question which is the third floor. and there's been a number of references to whether or not we have a tenant ready to go. we do not. we don't have a tenant ready to

go but we know by opening up the opportunity to lease to either retail or office, it will give us a much better chance. there will be many more prospects to try to recruit to tour the space. >> thank you for the explanation. what we all forget is obviously tenants because of covid not occupying the offices still have to pay rent but basically are forced with no income coming in at all, to find a way to hope they can return. these are very difficult times and i appreciate the thoughtfulness in that situation. thank you. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> a couple of questions for the project sponsor, i believe it

was the one you submitted, there was a previous office tenant in the space. is that correct? >> that's right. >> what caused them to leave if you're aware. it seemed it happened before the pandemic. were they looking for a bigger space, did they leave san francisco, are you aware? >> they were purchased by salesforce and moved. >> okay. there's that. and i noted there was a jeweller -- you had shown the space a couple of times and people didn't move forward, looking foreground floor space primarily and a jeweller was going to be there which would be primarily office. are you concerned it would still require office use for the jeweller to be located there? >> it was a little bit of both. it was more that they didn't pursue the space. but there was some concern that

it wasn't enough actual retail use space, use of the space. >> to qualify as a retail -- >> right. yeah. >> okay. so i think my fellow commissioners have made a lot of great comments that i agree with. i'm very supportive of the project, although to commissioner chan's point, to think about the bigger picture of union square and in particular, seeing the act vacate the floors, hopefully they're able to find places in the city to occupy when we can have in person arts activities. so just thinking carefully about how we go about these for office on different floors and the future of this part of the city, it is concerning to think about

the number of vacant office spaces and how or why or when they will be filled. looking at the vacancy rate in the city, your client is confident office use will be preferred during this time or wanting to have more options, it is hard to see how office seems better -- i see due to the third floor location but office seems like a hard sell at this point as well. can you speak to that. >> it may be. that's a good point. it gives them flexibility and goes to the reverseability question, it doesn't mean it's automatically office and will always be so. they're not sure, they're going to find out as the market comes

back. it is different than the office vacancy numbers we think that are market wide. this is a relatively smaller space in that regard and more specific and so we think it has a good opportunity as an office tenant but that may not be what happens here. >> is that a motion? >> sure. i move to approve the project as proposed. >> second.

>> commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded. to approve with conditions on the motio (roll call) passes 6-1. commissioners that will place us on item 10. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. the property is seeking

conditional use authorization for demolition. the subject property previously contained two residential units and underwent an unauthorized merging. new management and ownership, the current proposal seeks to reinstate the two units, restore the properties and provide off street parking and use of open space for each of the units. the department received correspondence from two community members about the timeline and site conditions. neither had objections to the scope or use. and both were supportive of the property being brought back into compliance. i received an e-mail moments ago regarding to findings number 6 under the residential demolition

findings. the project does protect the relative affordability of housing. the department finds the project to be necessary and desirable aligned with the goals and policy of the general plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood of the district. for these reasons, staff is supportive of the proposal. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. the project manager has a brief presentation as well. >> thank you. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation. you have five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for all that you do.

we're here to help rectify the unfortunate mishaps made by the previous owner. the reasons unknown to us, the previous owner demo'd way too much and this resulted in a number of planning violations and other complaints from other departments. our clients purchased the property knowing they had to address these first and now we're here requesting to have the project fall back on the initial track. by our encouragement, they are going above and beyond and do a restoration at great cost.

you probably see historic details and brackets in the corners here but there was not much else on what was already demo'd. it had all been stucco ed over probably in the 60s or 70s. we worked closely to replicate what would have been there originally helping to bring some charm back and increase the number of historical structures to how special our city is. most importantly, returning to construction promptly. given the financial burden they accepted to take on, we respectfully ask that you help us expedite the remaining steps to return to construction as

quickly as possible. no doubt the neighbors would be delighted to see this blight turn into another san francisco jewel. thank you for consideration. >> thank you. we should open up for public comment. members of the public, this is your time to speak to the matter. you have two minutes. >> hi. i just want to comment on this in the context of my tuesday e-mail and my general public comments from earlier today. if you look on the packet on page 25, those are the demo counts done to bring this back up so you could approve it today. and i hope to take a moment if you can to compare those to this project with the two i sent in

earlier. the first one i sent in, project one, that was an a-rated building. the second one, project two that i sent in my tuesday e-mails, that had a tenant in it. that's all i want to say. just to compare and contrast. looking at the numbers. i mean the numbers represent the building but they represent the issues that i think you need to deal with in terms of the whole section 317 demolition. calculation, adjustment issue.

thanks. take care. >> members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star 3. >> hi. this project is -- i mean looking at the project, it's only two units and i believe that the planning department should encourage the developer to build as many units as possible in this zone. sort of in line with the temporary controls passed by the board of supervisors, the planning department should encourage the project sponsor to build as many units as possible. the fact that it is only two

units seems to be in line with the planning commission's previous attempts under dennis richards during the cua process when they had done something wrong. i believe this was a misguided position from dennis richards to punish people during the cua process. the cua process for 317 shouldn't be used to punish developers. it should be used to determine if appropriate land use given the conditions of the lot as they exist today. the remedy for illegal construction is for zoning administrator to refer to the city attorney and district attorney. the planning commission asking if it was referred, but as planning commission, for the cua process, this should be about

what's an appropriate use of the land and not trying to waste the land as a way of punishing the developer. thank you. >> thank you members of the public. final last call. commissioners, public comment is closed and is the matter is now before you. >> commissioner tanner. >> question about discussion of possibly adding an adu or third unit as three are allowed on the property, not withstanding, i'm thinking there's probably limitations in terms of size of

where the unit would go. i don't know if there's enough access to light and exposure on the ground floor to have an additional unit. if you could speak to -- if that was discussed or a possibility. >> i can probably answer this one if you like. so perhaps it is not obvious, there was already a lot split before. on what used to be a larger lot, now there are actually three units. the lower level appears to have a garage in the front that is almost entirely subterranian and i don't think it would meet exposure requirements. >> so if there were to be another unit, it would need to be vertical or something like that. just looking at the plans, there

wouldn't really be a way to accommodate an additional unit without further variances. >> so as the project sponsor mentioned, this site has had previous projects. it was subdivided, the current lot that we're looking at is substandard now because it was subdivided and the other piece is already developed. so we have a substandard lot, the useful open space, they did a variance for that, if they did any vertical or horizontal construction, they would probably need a rear yard variance since it is a substandard lot. and although there's only two units currently in the structure, they are considered family size units. >> how does that compare with the legislation that is at the

board recently that passed regarding the unit size and things like that? >> it's my understanding that that does not apply to this building district, although i'm not entirely familiar with that legislation. maybe someone else can jump in. >> it doesn't apply here but i think your question is consistent and the kind of unit size that would trigger a cu in that case was 2,000 square feet. >> that's correct. >> excellent. thank you. i am -- thank you for answering the question. i'm glad to see the project coming forward and glad to see the restoration as much as we can do, fixing the bad behavior of the previous owner. i'm very supportive of this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very supportive of this

project. particularly family sized units. it's commendable. i would like to ask the architect or miss wilber a question, it has to do with the deck on the west side sitting on property line when we normally hold back -- without seeing this project in context, it's hard to see but generally we prefer decks -- balconies to stay off property line. >> i can speak to this. the project dates back to 2013 and maybe those guidelines did not apply then. it was the effort of the planning department to basically restore the project to where it was previously approved almost

in its entirety. >> we have the understanding of privacy of buildings, so that's why we like to hold back -- you're sitting right on property line and there is concern people standing on the edge would be able to look into adjoining people's homes. has that been investigated by planning, are there any comments? >> we're looking at blind walls in both conditions. >> okay. thanks, i'm in support of the

project. >> commissioner imperial. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. seeing no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the matter with conditions. (roll call) the motion passes 7-0. that places us on item 11. this is a conditional use authorization, are staff prepared to make their presentation? >> yes, i am. >> okay miss campbell, you have the floor. >> great. it looks like my camera is not working.

i'm going to go ahead with my presentation. good afternoon commissioners. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to establish doing business as the academy. in the upper market street neighborhood commercial transit district which requires a conditional use authorization for any project which proposes a bar of use. the project sponsor the academy is a social club which has occupied the space since march 2017. the club is membership based and offers many services including art shows, limited live entertainment performances, discussion group, game nights, receptions, catering and wine tasting. the proposed use will allow

general entertainment used to seek a type 57 liquor licence and type 58 catering permit. the hours of operation will continue with 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on wednesday and thursday and 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. friday and saturday. they also offer a barber service open to the public at the front of the tenant space in about 100 square foot area. the subject property is located in existing two story over basement commercial building on market street. the bar use is proposed for the first and basement level with the general entertainment use. the existing outdoor activity area is approximately 500 square feet. the department has received two

letters of support in which members of the public expressed support for the proposed bar use and continuation of general entertainment use as a benefit to the community. one of the letters was received after the publication of this packet. the department received one letter of opposition for the project by the homeowner's association of 151153 sanchez describing the condition of a permanent liquor licence may contribute to additional noise in the outdoor activity area. the staff recommends approval for the request. the project promotes the continued operation of an established locally owned business and contributes to the viability of the overall upper market street neighborhood commercial transit building

district. the district is well served by transit. the project meets all applicable requirements in the planning code. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available to answer questions and the project sponsor is present and available for questions. thank you. >> thank you miss campbell. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, hi. this is nate borg. >> you have five minutes.

mr. borg we cannot hear you or your partner. >> but you can't hear paul when he's speaking? >> no. >> he is conferenced in on the phone like we were advised to do.

>> what we really found lacking was the idea that you would be able to go to a place and interact with other people and not necessarily have to buy stuff you don't want or drink drinks you don't want. we came up with a new motto which is a community organization to play games and hear speakers and engage with people in a way that wasn't sort of loaded with sexuality and you could interact with people and meet people in a different manner and that was the birth place of what the academy is. i think you're probably looking at slides to see what we created. this process in particular got

started because in the occasions we did have alcohol service for the wine tastings, events or when we had numerous fund-raisers, you know the cost of the permits is high and the paperwork requirements are high to do catering and stuff like that. they suggested a type 57 licence that we should apply for. which we did. we have spoken to the police department and permitting and they were in support of it. we spoke to the neighborhood groups in the area, which have all voiced support and so then we decided to move forward and present it and that's why we're here today. we're not attempting to create a new use or do something different than we're already doing. we're here to stream line the process so each and every time we don't have to book through a

catering and get approvals each time we do an event of any kind. our goal at the academy is to be a hub for the neighborhood. we worked extensively with the aids foundation, with market street youth which holds meetings with us. we are overall like reason for being is to promote history and culture which we do through neighborhood history walks and so forth. and this would just simplify the process and give us the opportunity to create a place where people can gather together and interact together. my partner nate is here. we were able to reach out to the person who sent the letter of complaint and nate will address that. >> hi. so yes, the neighbor who is

represents the homeowners association, we spoke with him on the phone and we talked about wanting to address the concerns of course. completely valid. there were a couple of existing conditions from the previous cu that allowed us to use the outdoor space. this neighbor in particular is talking about the outdoor spaces. not about what our business is as paul described. the couple of conditions we already had were the 10:00 p.m. curfew, which is not related to covid. we have a 10:00 p.m. curfew for any activities in the outdoor space. there's just certain days of the year like pride and new year's eve and halloween we're allowed to go until midnight. that was one of the things that the commission approved as well.

we're also not allowed to do amplified music outside on a daily basis unless it is a special day like i mentioned. in addition, we spoke about things we can institute that will hopefully alleviate concerns about noise with the neighbors. one being a decimal meter that we can constantly monitor and we're alerted if it exceeds a certain level. and then we have staff that are always greeting members and guests when they come in. they obviously have a lot of -- extensive speel they give to guests right now related to covid and social distancing and it would be easy for us in the training to add something related to keeping quiet and making sure we are respectful of neighbors in the outdoor space

at all times. so, those were the issues we discussed with our neighbor and we're happy to take any questions. >> thank you. that includes the presentation and members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then 3 to enter the que. i see one member of the public. >> hi, can you hear me? >> we certainly can. >> hi, i live about 50 feet from the academy. i'm just here to voice my support for the academy and the endeavors they are trying to continue. to paul's point that he spoke about, everything that the academy sets out to be, they have achieved. they've been an important part

of my life and an important part of my brother and sisters. they truly are a community organization group and a fun and social group. i came to them because i live on this block and i was literally walking by and they have become a really important part of my life. as far as the neighborhood, this block, the 2100 block is dead. i think its death is supported by empty lots, driveways, even pro-covid, this block was really struggling, leading to the struggle of church street, no longer being the social and retail hub it used to be. the academy draws people from all over the city, in fact all over the country, i have met them there myself. it is civilized, it is quiet, social and unique and we should all support them. i'm here to voice my support as

a neighbor and member. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> i remember this project from previous years on the commission. glad to see it is doing well and glad to see the store fronts and businesses in the upper market district are doing well. commissioner moore. >> i remember the projects from previous meetings with the planning commission. i'm in full support. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing no additional requests to speak by commissioners.

on the motion -- (roll call) that places us on item 12. this is a conditional use authorization. please note on september 17th, 2020, after hearing public comment, they continued it to november 19th, 2020, and then subsequently continuing the matter to today's date. commissioner tanner you had not yet be seated on the commission in september of 2020 and so in order to participate, you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials.

>> yes, i have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> thank you for that. this is the second hearing on this matter. project sponsors will be limited to a three minute presentation and public comment limited to one minute. staff are you prepared to make your presentation. >> i am. thank you. >> go ahead ashley. >> good afternoon commission. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t wireless facility at 590 second avenue with 10 panel antennas and equipment as part of the network. antennas and ancillary equipment will be screened within two

closures. on september 17th, 2020, the san francisco planning commission continued the cu a to november 19th, 2020, and after hearing public comment and further continued to this day. commissioners requested that the project sponsor conduct a second round of outreach to property owners to determine if other viable locations could meet the coverage needs and or meet a higher preference site for section 8.1 of telecommunications services guidelines.

the sponsor identified the site as not a good candidate and explained why it was unfavorable than the proposed design at 590 second avenue. i would like to note the sponsor did conduct an initial outreach prior to commission's request and application submittal that is detailed in the staff report. the proposed project has been designed to be -- has been designed to minimize visual impact and comply with the design of the neighborhood and subject building. maintaining compliance with public health and fire as best feasible. it will not approve unless they

show location site or other preferred location site in the geographics in the area. show by clear and convincing evidence what good faith efforts to secure the preferred location sites were taken. explain why such efforts were unsuccessful and demonstrate that the location for the site is essential to meet demands in the geographic service area and applicant's city wide network. to date, the department has received three letters of support and more than 40 letters from the public in opposition. much of the opposition is concern over radio frequently, design and noise. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to section 209.2 and 303 to allow installation of a wireless telecommunications facility.

facility citing guidelines and objectives and policy of the general plan. the project will enhance the ability of the city to protect property from effect of fire or natural disaster by providing communication services. and the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to adjacent property in the community. this completes staff's report. the project sponsor is available to share presentation and answer questions. thank you. >> thank you ashley. we should let the project sponsor speak. mr. turner. i see that you are logged in but i don't have the ability to unmute you.

let's see if i can look up your phone number. okay, project sponsor are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, we are. good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. it's tammy blackstone from at&t. thank you for hearing about our proposed project again. we have been trying to fill this gap in coverage for a long time. you probably received a letter from at&t legal describing the journey but we have been working really hard for two years closely with the planning staff to design a site that is as low impact as possible. there have been redesigns to address neighbor concerns and planning staff recommendations and we know there are tenants

still opposed, we hope the commission will understand this site will serve all the residents in the neighborhood and we have revisited every potential building over the last two years and worked to develop a low impact design to meet the coverage and capacity demands of the neighborhood. we respectfully ask for approval. i'm going to turn you over to our project manager and we have others here for projects about network and health concerns. take it away derek. >> thank you planning commission for the time to speak on the site. this site represents an at&t coverage gap and all properties are residential. unfortunately there are no commercial. we have gone through several redesigns and along the way with correcting city's preferences

and taking into consideration the neighbors next door and their concerns. every street was walked with our rf team and we tried to expand the search ring. there are approximately 72 properties in the search ring. only 18 have non pitched roofs. (please stand by...)

>> it is unheard of. we've looked at every site in the city. none are on the edge of the building visible to the north, looming over our home with full radiation. why do we have guidelines if nobody has to follow them, if they can just do what they want? there are two sites to the west, there are many to the east. there are many sites in san francisco. if we are forced to move from our home, we will lose 30% of our value, and no one will even by. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. you've used your time.

>> hi. this is going to be a blight on the neighborhood, and this entire process has been for our family how much more devastating if it went through. [inaudible]

. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. that is your time. >> please don't do this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi. my name is brook tiern, and i live at 614 second avenue, just a few doors down, and i want to express my strong opposition to this project. it's my understanding that the safety of these kinds of antennas are not completely understood. i have two young kids, and i believe this is an unnecessary danger. my two kids are ages four and one, and i think this kind of exposure at younger ages is probably even more serious. i'm also concerned about the blight, and i do understand the property values decrease about 20% with the installation of this antenna.

this proposed location is not a tall building, so it won't hide the antenna very well [inaudible] in a commercial district. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star then three to enter the queue. okay. you have one minute. >> commissioners, my name is david green. i live to the north with my wife and daughter. the screen on the northside is going to add 6 feet to the 44 feet of the building. at&t has asserted they can't relocate it on the roof, and i believe that they can. they said that they have made every effort. they have not. they have not moved it back or

made any effort to reduce the impact on us. the guidelines require [inaudible] and i request that you turn it down on those grounds. thank you very much. >> hello. my name is julia. i'm calling to voice my position to this project. there is no clear and convincing evidence. to say that it is needed for emergencies is ludicrous. it is out of scale with the neighborhood, it is intrusive. it has a huge negative impact. it is out of character with the richmond, and most importantly, it is opposed by the neighborhood. i strongly urge you to follow the wishes of the neighborhood, vote no on this project at 409 second avenue.

thank you for your time and stay safe. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, final, final, final call. okay. commissioners, seeing no one else wishing to speak, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have a question for staff and the city attorney. city attorney is present, correct? yeah, i see that he's on. so i am loathe to approve a prevalent southern location unless we have no other choice, and we'd already asked them to go back and take a second look. they have done that, but i would like to know what the legal grounds are upon which we have the right to turn this

down, given that it is -- seems to be regulated not only by traditional conditional use standards but a state of federal law. so if you could just articulate for us what the grounds are that are available to us for turning this down, and then, i'd like for staff to comment on whether or not there's evidence to support that. >> sure. thank you, commissioner diamond. i'm not sure there's enough time to go into telecom law. any commission decision needs to be based on substantial evidence, and we would have to have the basis in the record, which staff can more -- get into more detail of to make a

finding that would withstand any sort of legal challenge. there are a number of challenges, but i believe the issue before the commission today is if the conditions satisfy the requirements for conditional use authorization. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so what are the conditions we should be focused on for conditional use authorization? >> thank you [inaudible] and commissioner diamond. so the findings that we would be able to make in order to not approve is if we felt the

applicant did not show enough evidence that they did their due diligence to find [inaudible] or other preferred location sites in the areas? they have done that. they included this information with their alternative site analysis and with their second outreach. they provided clear and convincing evidence that they did reach out to publicly owned, like, city owned publicly owned park areas as well as various private properties, and they explained why other alternative sites would not be viable, and then, they stated that there were various criteria in this specific geographical location

. >> commissioner diamond: did you work with them to see if they could move facilities on the roof to a less concerning location that the applicants spoke of? >> yes. they said they tried to [inaudible] as well as ensuring that the antennas would provide service. [inaudible] while also maintaining our citing guidelines. >> commissioner diamond: do those include moving the antennas farther away from the property instead of just putting it on the collect? >> yes, that's correct.

>> commissioner diamond: so there's no choice, it has to be in that location? >> that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: okay. i'm interested to see what my fellow commissioners think about this very tough decision before us. >> president koppel: so waiting for other commissioners, i will say that at&t is often here, facing criticism for other projects. we sent them back, and to my knowledge, they've done everything they ca to accommodate, so i'm in support. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: you know, what this commission can do

with cell sites perhaps can be directed in questions a slightly different way to the city attorney, and should staff want to voice their opinions, they can, also. so some of the issues that have been brought forth relates to health hazards. i'd like to separate that portion of the discussion away from the conditional use issues of location. perhaps the city attorney can bring forth the litigation that has occurred with respect to

looking at the e.m.s. emission as a health hazard. and then, the second question related to that is is that cell companies have severely litigated both the city and other jurisdictional issues throughout the state. do you want to address that, austin? >> sure. thank you for the question. the issues have been well established that radio frequency emissions and e.m.s. are regulated by federal entities, by the f.c.c., and they have set forth certain standards. the initial standards, i believe, were adopted in 1996, and most recently, they were

updated or reincorporated in 2019. so the city is preempted or unable to regulate based on health concerns stemming from those types of emissions, and so i appreciate your direction here or your question to separate the two issues between the health and the siting. i don't believe i can give you a summary of all the litigation and administrations that are happening in the world of telecom. that's beyond my expertise, but that's something we could brief the commission on if you would like in the future. >> president koppel: anything more, commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: not at this point. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i am

concerned about, obviously, having that strong opposition for civic, health, and other reasons. on the other hand, i'm asking myself public safety is involved and so is the need for coverage that it has to be more and more reliable as covid forces all of us into more different ways of working. i am torn, however, given that we have been in similar battles in the neighborhoods, and seeing that at&t, i think, has tried to do the right thing here, i am inclined to support this. >> thank you. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. there was concerns about the

access to sunlight. perhaps the planner or at&t can clarify or describe the kinds of actions that they did when it comes to this complaint or kind of issue? >> sure. i'd like to defer to the sponsor as they were in direct communication with a different neighbor about relocating with the antennas and the screen. >> clerk: project sponsor, are you able to comment? >> yes, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> yes. during the community meeting, we actually took that into consideration along the way, and we moved the screen over approximately 2.5 feet, and we moved the screen down approximately 3 feet. we reduced the capacity of the

antennas on those two sectors, and we tried to minimize the sector count and just the space in general as much as possible, and that's pretty much what we could do to keep the site still, the coverage, but we tried. >> commissioner imperial: and when you're doing that analysis, did you get to the point that it will take -- that that will only about -- i don't know, about 2% to the nearby adjacent -- what would be the shadow impact or there is none shadow impact on this so it would help the effect of other residents? >> we took into consideration long-term needs, and we took into consideration the two sectors in one as much as possible, and we didn't have any shadowing. we weren't really looking at

sunlight per se, we were looking at health and coverage needs along with the neighbors' concerns. >> commissioner imperial: and i guess this is my concern. they're not required to do shadow analysis or are they? >> they're not required to do shadow analysis for the scope of work. >> commissioner imperial: okay. i'm also torn, and i believe that commissioner fung brought up a good question when it comes to the health and the telecommunications. and as far as what i've seen from the documents in terms of the radio frequency or level of the frequency that could be described healthy for [inaudible] but at the same

time, you know, there's always concerns about the 4-g or 5-g radiation. i'm not sure even if there would be such -- you know, as to what we know, these things are safe to the residents nearby into the radio frequency, and that would not be in the purview of the planning commission. and i also believe that the at&t also did its due diligence in looking for other sites, as well, and unfortunately, what the planning commission -- we can only decide on whether they did their due diligence and whether this is appropriate for this area. so i am supportive of this in

terms of the public health issue. i think that will be a different discussion, and i'm also looking forward for the attorney city to give us some, you know, cases, previous decisions that were made before. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. what would be the impact if this site was split into two sites? i notice they're in different locations. some seem to be further back from the edge of the property,

some seem to be closer to the edge of the property. would limiting these two sites minimize the impact to the area neighboring residences if it were split? >> cammy, can you speak to that? >> yeah, i will speak to that. so that will not be possible only because the equipment that we need to operate the antenna needs to be located at one single site to operate the equipment. basically, you need to have all the equipment that powers the antenna right near the antenna. so in order to split it into two sites, it would need to power up the equipment and get the equipment by the bay station. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. and then, miss lindsey, if you

were aware at the installation, if we were to approve it and it was able to get installed, would you be able to get any frequency readings to show that the emissions are within the allowed amount? >> thanks, commissioner tanner. yes, so prior to installation, any residents can request r.f. testing be done before installation and testing can be done after the installation, as well. that can be conducted through the department of public health. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and if they were to reach out to you for connection from the department of public health, would you be able to connect them with the right person? >> yes. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you very much. i would -- i think like many of the commissioners, and i want to really acknowledge the members of the public and neighboring residents who have called in, and i know that the

location's equipment for many is not seen as ideal. i don't see any evidence that at&t has not investigated other preferred sites that are higher on the list, and i believe that we're in a position to support this project, and that's where i am at this moment. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes. one additional question to staff. is the level of screening that they're proposing consistent with what we have required of other similar installations across the city? >> yes, the screening is consistent with past projects that we've seen in the past [inaudible] and entitlement. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you very much.

>> clerk: commissioners, i heard a motion to approve the conditions, but i did not hear a second. >> second. >> clerk: commissioner moore, you cannot second the motion. you made the motion. >> vice president moore: no, i did not. i think commissioner tanner was trying to make a motion, but i did not. >> clerk: i'm sorry. >> commissioner tanner: well, why don't i go ahead and move to approve the project with conditions. >> commissioner diamond: and i'll second it. >> vice president moore: and i'll second it. >> clerk: have you good, commissioners. on that motion to approve the permit with conditions -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your discretionary

review calendar. item 13 has been continued, placing us on item 14, case 2018-017283-drp at 476 lombard street. this is a discretionary review. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? mr. winslow. >> i am. how is the commission? is the staff all right? >> clerk: all right. we can hear you, but your video is a little bit slow. >> okay. i'm going to go ahead and turnoff my video because i'm been having connection issues. good morning, president koppel and commissioners. the matter before you is a request for discretionary

review of 476 lombard street. it will result in a 5250 square foot residence, including an elevator, a roof deck, and two parking spaces. the residents of the property to the east of the proposed project, are concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the retained elements guidelines and detracts from and is outside of character of the historic building. it is not articulated to minimize impacts on light, area, and privacy to the adjacent neighbors, and the roof deck and spiral stairs accessing it presents a significant loss of light and privacy. their proposed alternatives are

to reduce the footprint of the third story addition by reducing the set backs on the front and sides and to eliminate the roof deck. to date, there have been four letters in support of the project and four letters opposed. the department's review of this conforms with the review and residential design guidelines of the scale of the street, preservation of light and air, and minimizes the changes to the historical resource pursuant to the secretary of the interior standards. the front set back is set back 10 inches to be minimally visible from the street. in addition, the department's

preservation staff reviewed this proposal and determined that the set back in combination with the height of the existing front parapet adequately maintains minimal visibility to the addition to preserve the resource. it's also important to clarify that the retained elements guidelines that seek to preserve some existing features of buildings that are proposed to be demolished, this is not a building that is proposed to be demolished by our planning code. the roof deck that are solid parapets is set back 5 feet from the adjacent neighbors and over 30 feet from the front wall. this effectively screens the deck from the back wall and reasonably impacts minimizing to light. staff deems that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as the building has been designed to respect the historic resource and the

adjacent neighbors within the context of the residential design guidelines. there are, staff recommends not taking d.r. and approving. this concludes my report, and i'm available to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. that concludes staff presentation. we should go to the d.r. requester. miss bradford bell, you have three minutes, and your presentation is -- >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. you should mute your computer -- >> i'm sorry. what? >> clerk: you should mute your computer because there's a small echo. >> i don't know. it is showing as muted, so i'm not -- i'll use the computer and not the phone. i don't know what's happening.

>> clerk: you have to mute one or the other. >> okay. the computer is muted. i have muted the computer -- you know what? i'm going to step away. maybe that'll help. i don't know why it's doing that. all right. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can just barely hear you now. [inaudible] >> do you have my phone number? >> clerk: sure, let's try that. what's the -- what are the first three digits of your phone number? okay. there you are. okay. i'm unmuting your phone number. >> okay. is that better?

>> clerk: yes, much better. okay. you have three minutes. >> okay. good afternoon. my name is shelley bradford bell, and i'm asking that you take d.r. and not approve the project. the correct plans are not before you, it's a significant north beach statement, and it's not built for the neighborhood. the west lot is a garage, allowing for a larger build. this first meeting was the night before thanksgiving. the second was the first sunday of nfl playoffs, and no further requests were acknowledged in the -- until the d.r. was filed. should you approve, the roof deck should be reduced, and no expansion into the backyard. five, the existing light well is already dark in the lower units.

the new third floor will add to the loss of light. six, the staff requests room dimensions are not shown in these plans. seven, there are environmental impacts from asbestos and lead removal during construction. what are they. eight, red square shows rooms that can be reduced. [inaudible] ten, remove the rooftop. fire code would not allow for more than ten people in the rear yard. it's huge. 11, this is the existing rear yard. all the rear decks should be removed. 12, the north beach context plan and the retained element guidelines should be used. 13, pages in the north beach statement confirm this building is a significant resource. 14, ceqa lists the wrong owner and says there were no known

tenants, but july 12, 1934, supervisor's journal notes mr. lagamaracino requests to reduce his property assessment. ceqa says if it were part of the north beach statement, it would differ in significance. 15, no indication staff signed off on the changes. the shadow studies were not done by a reputable firm but by the architect. thank you, commissioners. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have during deliberation. >> clerk: okay. you have, well, 15 seconds, but that's fine. if that concludes the d.r.

requester's presentation, we should go to the project sponsor. mr. zucker, are you able to make your presentation? >> yes. first, we would like to thank department staff, specifically david winslow, for facilitating mediation as well as director hillis for helping facilitate a second mediation. while we were unable to reach a resolution, their assistance has been truly appreciated. the tannenbaums have owned the property for nearly a decade the proposed outdoor safe will

allow for safe places for the family to gather with loved ones during these uncertain times, which the chronicle says this week may linger for many years to come. next slide, please. the same concerns continue to be asserted, and reasonable offers in compromise are rejected without counter, creating an impediment to finding a reasonable common ground to resfl this outside of this hearing. the tannenbaums have been mindful of the neighborhood and the historic elements of the existing home and from the outset have proposed to retain every single character detail of the home, and the third floor expansion is set back from the front facade such that it is not visible from any public right-of-way. slide four. we acknowledge that there are

some shadows that exist from the project, however, the project sponsors have removed some features from the rear of the home, allowing light and air to reach down to the d.r. requester's property. there's nothing exceptional or extraordinary about the proposed project shadows. slide five. in this case, the d.r. requester has a light well down to the second story as well as property line windows on the second and third story of the property line. respecting those features, the d.r. requester's building, the tannenbaums have a fully [inaudible] and allow light and air to pour down to the light well. that concludes my presentation, but i will allow the tannenbaum to comment if available. i now turn it over to renee the last 30 seconds. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to speak.

my name is renee tannenbaum, and we have owned the home for over ten years. come the moment we saw this house, we knew this is where we wanted to live and retire and make our home for ourselves and our extended family. i am a wife, a mother of three kids, one of whom lives with us [inaudible] leaving him disabled, and using that in the design of our home. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. that is your time, but you will have a rebuttal. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public comment by pressing star then three to enter the queue. you will have one minute.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is linda frank, and i'm speaking today to request that you take the d.r. review and deny this project. 476 lombard is a historic building in north beach. since the historic preservation commission had to put the review of the plan on hold because of the covid pandemic, it stands to reason that the project should have also been put on hold. with all the confusion and lack of transparency around the plans, no one can be sure of the impact of this project. it claims to be a single-family home but is designed as a multifamily multiunit residence. it may even become an airbnb since there's documented evidence that the owner will not be full time residents. it's also clear that the project will destroy most of the building, leaving a token

front facade. the project will see light and air and sun light in the space from the other neighbors -- >> clerk: okay. thank you, ma'am. that's your time. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you very much. >> my name is bill sherlock. thank you for the opportunity to comment. the neighboring house up the hill, 468 lombard, was built with two floors. the middle two rooms on each floor rely on light from windows in the light well halfway down the west

bordering -- i was asked to take photos through the windows of the inner room, showing the existing blocking of light by the sponsor's house. i was shocked by the existing restriction of light. can't imagine what it would be light if 476 was built above the existing roof line or the proposed stairways added. for the sake of the neighboring tenants, please don't allow this to happen. another major issue is the impact to the project on the historical identity. the plans and status hold out that there is no historical impact. they tried to show this with site line drawings -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> hi. my name is lance fulford, and i'm a long time residence of san francisco and have had my mother living with me and my family here, and i would like if the commissioners would approve this project because the city's been losing so many

families, and i've known the tannenbaums for over ten years, and i understand their needs for the mother-in-law and for the elevator for steve tannenbaum. so for the quality and character of our neighborhoods, i would vote that you or ask that you would approve the project. >> hi. my name is dave tobias, and i'm a long time resident of the city, originally from the sunset district. i remember going to north beach with some of my friends to visit their grandparents and family who still live in north beach, and as i walked up lombard to coit tower numerous

times, i almost admired the old world feel and terrific views along the residences all the way up to coit. i feel that the plans for this addition would be in stark contrast to the rest, and -- the rest of the neighborhood and would block some beautiful views and air and light to both sides of the property. i would wish that the planning commission would not agree on this. this does not fit in with the neighborhood. thank you. . >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star, three to enter the queue.

>> hello, and thank you, commissioners. this is maxwell graham at 364 lombard, up the street from the tannenbaums. i've viewed the planned and visited the property twice, and i disagree with what some of the people are saying. it's a positive addition to the neighborhood. it's not overstated, and i've looked at the complaint and don't agree with it. i would urge you to approve this project. thank you so much. >> hi, can you hear me? this is jackie chan. i'm a neighbor who owns a condo

two buildings up on the same side as the building in question, number 454. i'm not an expert on north beach and historical information and all that. all i know that this is a block on taraval hill, and i'm sure that the city has gone through all of the information of what is being permitted and what is not as far as building code, permits, all the requirement and all that, and i believe that the tannenbaum has complied with all the necessary research and information and done all the research and work before they applied for the change and modifications, so i'm in support of the project.

>> hi. my name is michelle, and i'm a fourth generation san franciscan, and i am very much against this project. i think it's out of scale, i think it's out of character, and i think it's going to affect light into the both sides of the building that will affect, i think, a lot of neighbors? and i'm also very concerned about the toxic problems, the asbestos that's going to get into the environment? and like i said, i think it's sad that the character of north beach has changed so much. thank you. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to make your testimony? last chance, caller.

okay. members of the public, final, final call for public comment. seeing no other -- of course. go ahead, caller. okay. caller, i have to take the next person queued to speak. we cannot hear you. >> okay. how about now? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> my name is [inaudible] i've lived in the sunset for over 80 years. san francisco has always been a

city with unique neighborhoods [inaudible] and what i've learned about 476, the renovations [inaudible] there's no room for such a monster of a building in this neighborhood. the planning commission should deny or modify this request. thank you. >> hello. i'm gail maderas, a third generation san franciscan living on lombard street. i'm speaking in favor [inaudible] very much in keeping with the size and renovations in the neighborhood. most importantly, they are renovating this to make it

[inaudible] and that is very rare. i live with m.s. it took me two years to find a house that was acceptable, and we need more houses that are acceptable to the disabled in our neighborhood. lastly, we're losing many [inaudible] and to have a committed couple [inaudible]. >> clerk: go ahead, sir. your line is unmuted.

sir, are you ready to submit your public testimony? this is the fourth time i'm unmuting your line. okay. so we're going to move onto the next caller. >> hi. this is terry rosseau, and i'm calling to say that i'm very concerned about this project. it seems in direct conflict with san francisco's initiative to preserve our historic architecture, so i don't know how this project is allowed to move forward. the building has a massive expansion, including a spiral staircase. i have lived in san francisco

for a long time, but i've recently moved to the east bay. i'm there often, though, hosting gatherings and seeing friends. the fact that this building is allowed seems so out of what we have been promised as community members, and i'm really disappointed that this is moving forward, and i'm hoping that it can be stopped immediately. thank you. >> clerk: okay, so i'm going to try to unmute your line one last time. so would you like to submit your public comment? caller with 415-218, would you

like to submit your public comment? okay. that's it. members of the public and commissioners, public comment is now closed. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> rebuttal, jonas? >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. i got a little frustrated with that caller, and you're absolutely right. we should go to rebuttal. miss bradford bell, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> oh, can you hear me? i'm on my phone. >> clerk: we can, yes. >> okay. a lot of information is provided in the slides for your review during deliberation. staff asked for the third floor to be angled and set back at an additional 5 feet, and it was not done. when did the ceiling height change? were changed reviewed and approved by staff?

what happened to the july 20, 2020 plans? the shadow studies should not be used. the owners live in san diego county, not here. they own five homes, and they'll be living part of the time in saratoga springs, new york. he states, we see how lack of response by the political leadership have allowed issues to fester and worsen. we must show that san francisco do things right and will not allow this project to foster deplorable consequences on a historic property. please take d.r. and deny this project. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> the planning department has confirmed the plans are accurate as well as finding the project is compatible with the neighborhood. to address concerns addressing the actual construction and renovation, the project is being managed by d.b.i., which is the appropriate department to manage the concerns. miss tannenbaum's mother will be living with the family. [inaudible] covid has had on most everyone, and our current reality, which is not likely to change overnight, the project seeks to provide functionally

adequate outdoor space for the family. [inaudible] that concludes my presentation, and we are available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. okay, commissioners. now, that concludes the public hearing, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: i am on board and supporting staff's recommendation on this one.

commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have a -- i have a question for mr. winslow. mr. winslow, could you please explain the need for the spiral staircase in single-family homes unless the exiting corridor is unusual long, that spiral staircase is, in its own right, undesirable. could you give us some indication of why you have not flagged that? >> sure. if you look on sheet a-17, the spiral staircase i think that you're referring to is not -- it's set up 5 foot from the property line at the rear. >> vice president moore: nope?

>> which spiral staircase are we looking to? >> i'm coming down -- >> okay. it would be the plan below that. so that spiral staircase is set up 5 feet from the adjoining property line of the d.r. requesters, and it serves to go up to the roof deck. i believe a spiral staircase is allowed to serve the purpose of a limited occupancy load by d.b.i., and the limited occupancy load i think is ten or under, that is to be determined by the area served. so if this deck, for example, were 500 square foot, that occupancy load would be ten people, and that would allow a spiral stair to serve the occupancy load for the purposes of egress. >> vice president moore: it's quite awkward no matter where it is, and i still think it

potentially has privacy issues. what is bothering to me, more of a general comment, not addressed to mr. winslow is the enlargement of single-family residence by 2,558 square feet without adding another unit. in north beach, where average units are 800 and 1200 square feet, a family home of 5,250 square feet is something i question. i'm interested in hearing other commissioners speak. in addition to that, mr. winslow, isn't it something that we normally hold to a front set back of 15 feet? we have basically held to that many times over the years, and you're saying that 12'6" is

okay here. >> the real criteria is visual subordination or visual ability of the project. in this case, because the roof parapet is so high, it basically obscures the addition even though it's set back 12'10" instead of 15 feet. >> vice president moore: i don't like to argue with you. >> i'm giving the department staff's criteria and the application of that. >> vice president moore: right. again, we have battled with many other buildings of similar importance of making them 15 feet, particularly a category a building, and in my

book, it would say it should be 15 feet. those are my comments, and i'm curious to see what other commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i do agree with commissioner moore in saying that this home being large is certainly understandable with everybody spending more time at home, but i would like to see an additional unit. it seems that there would be space on the first floor. in the rear of the garage, there's currently a guest bedroom. i wasn't able to figure out the dimensions of that room or that space, but to allow a studio or a.d.u. unit while still providing access to the elevator and other items that make the upper floors accessible to the owners and occupants. mr. winslow, was that discussed at all in the review of this project, and can you shed light on any of those discussions?

>> i am not sure if that was discussed in the early stages with the planner, but he is here and ready to talk about that. the room that you're talking about is 24 feet by 19 feet, and there is a bathroom en suite with that. we do encourage property owners to add density when possible. we don't have means to enforce it, especially in this zone, which is an rh-3, which does not fall within the recent controls in r.c. and r.m. districts. >> miss [inaudible] do you have anything to add to that?

>> that's correct. it has been our policy and has been for a while that we encourage an increase in density, but at this point, there's nothing that we can really do, and short of that, we make sure that we get the massing of the building such that it's not having any impact on adjacent residences. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i was having a concern with the set back in the front. i was finding it, at least for the visuals that were provided on the front a little bit jarring and concerned about having both a front deck and a roof deck, and i'm not sure that both are necessary. in regards to the spiral staircase, was there any thought about moving it to the other side of the platform in the rear which would move it from 5 feet set from the neighboring property. has that been discussed at all?

>> i would look to the sponsor for that. >> commissioner tanner: can the sponsor or architect comment on that spiral staircase location? >> the spiral staircase location was chosen to allow the most accessibility for those in the home. after our comments from planning, that was removed, and that spiral staircase was put in so that we can get the rest of the family members up there. >> commissioner tanner: yes, but it seems that it's outside, and it seems like there's a platform that's on, and i'm just saying, could it have been moved to the other side of the platform, towards the other property, and it seems that the other property, as opposed to the d.r. requester's property,

might not be as impacted as the d.r. requester's property because it faces the other street. >> if we push it to the other side, that go to see what i'll call -- goes to what i'll call the open side of the building. if we put that spiral staircase on that side, it would really be visible to the rest of the community, and that's not something we wanted to impose, so it was strategically designed to be put there, and that was why they also included that five-foot set back to the d.r. requester, to be mindful of their property, as well, in addition to the community. >> commissioner tanner: and then, while i have you, can you speak at all if there was any consideration to adding an additional unit in this building? i understand it's for multigenerational living. that's the proposed use. part of the concern i would have is that as the future goes on that this becomes a very

large and very expensive house with just one single-family home as opposed to possibly having an additional unit. can you speak to that? >> you know, i hear where you're coming from and certainly aware of the desire to increase density throughout the city, but in this instance, the home just isn't programatic sizeable to accommodate the needs. the tannenbaums have three children, two of them with children, and one of them will be living with them. the mother will be in one room, the father in the other, the mother-in-law in the other, and the other one will be oscillating between the other family members. >> commissioner tanner: well, certainly the family wouldn't be obligated to rent it out,

but certainly in terms of the city and providing long-term density overall, the daughter could live there or other family members could live in the additional unit and not be rented, but it helps us shore up future density in san francisco. so commissioners, that's my questions. i think there are some items here that perhaps could be addressed but i'm open to hearing from other commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have questions on the terms of preservation. since this is qualified in california register, and looking into the preservation team's comments, i believe this building under criteria 3, my question's about the amount of alteration under the california register and under as it is in

criteria 3. the amount of addition in square footage on third floor is about 3,192 square feet. is that something that, under the historic preservation, that feels like it's too big because the analysis is that it will not create a significant impact on this historic resource. do we have a cap on alteration measurements? >> not per se. i think the criteria is of visibility subordination such that the visual impact is not an impact to the historic structure. the typical means that we achieve that, as commissioner moore and i were discussing, can it be seen from a public

right-of-way? and less so are we concerned about views of it from other private properties. just as a point of clarification, this is listed in our system as a category a building. it's in a survey, a historic survey district area that has not yet been adopted, so i'm not quite sure if that criteria that you're describing applies, but that's in general the criterias that are visible. >> commissioner imperial: yeah. it's not yet been adopted under north beach historic district. but there were comments that if it was within, it would contribute to that district, as well, so there's question of that not being adopted, but

it's also within the criteria of a historic district, so i'm baffled on this. >> so just to speak to that issue, this would need to be analyzed per ceqa for preservation. this is a category a, and it was reviewed by our preservation staff to ensure that it was consistent and that it wouldn't be an impact to it. it was evaluated as such a resource. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you. those are my comments. >> and they did actually make some changes. the preservation planner is not on the call here, but the applicant did make changes in response to requests by our preservation staff. >> commissioner imperial: those are my comments. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? i have one additional question

for either miss aspaugh or mr. winslow. this is a massive project. have you seen the percentage of the demolition? >> well, i can tell you that this is not a demolition on its face because the front, back, and sides are being retained, so as far as 317 demolition, it doesn't even come close, and i will defer to -- maybe claudine, you can answer that question about review from the previous planner. >> and i think that we can also look -- i do know that we also use as a general guideline article 10, i believe, demolition calcs for historic structures, and i don't think -- so we looked at it

from both angles, and it didn't -- it didn't constitute a demolition. >> vice president moore: but you had plans because we don't see any on the subject. >> correct. >> vice president moore: okay. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: based on staff's analysis, i'm not seeing that this meets the standards of exceptional or extraordinary as provided by d.r., so i would be supportive of staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> commissioner diamond: yes, i move to approve as set forth in staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. seeing no additional requests from commissioners to speak, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-3, with commissioners tanner, imperial, and moore voting in the dissent. thank you, commissioners, for your attention and patience. that concludes today's agenda.

>> welcome to the tuesday, february 2, 2021 virtual meeting of the san francisco entertainment commissioner. i am the commission's vice-president. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect entertainment commission members, city employees and the public, the meeting room is closed. however, members and the employees will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the various local state and federal orders, declarations and directives. commission members and employees will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda.

the number is being streamed across the screen. opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via zoom using meeting id86793738048 or calling 1-669-900-6833. if you are using the zoom platform to speak, select raise hand option when it's time for public comment. if calling by phone, dial *9 to be added to the speaker line when your item of interest comes up. you'll be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. please call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, while we recommend that you use the zoom audio or a telephone for public comment, you may submit a written public comment through the chat function on zoom. thank you to sf gov tv and media services for sharing this meeting with the public. we can start with the roll call.

[role call]. >> don't forget me! >> i'm sorry, commissioner. >> here. >> okay, first order of business is public comment. is there any public comment for items not listed on the agenda? >> vice-president, i am checking the audience, and there are no hands raised and there are no comments in the chat. >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. the next item on the agenda is item 2, approval of our minutes for the january 19, 2021 meeting.

we have a motion on the approval of the minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> commissioner thomas? >> aye. >> commissioner lee? >> aye. >> commissioner -- >> aye. >> commissioner perez? >> aye. >> commissioner wang? >> aye. >> commissioner binen? >> aye. did i just miss it? did we do public comment on the minutes? >> no, we didn't. so -- >> i think we should probably do public comment and then redo the vote just so everything's official. >> yeah. >> okay. is there any public comment on the minutes? >> i'm checking, and there are no hands raised in the audience, and there's no chat comments. >> okay. seeing none, public comment is now closed. [roll call].

>> the meeting minutes have been approved. the next item on the agenda is item no. 3, report from the executive director presented by the executive director. >> thank you so much, vice-president camino. it's nice to have you running the meeting. it's a breath of fresh air, although missing your [indiscernible]. this evening i want to share space for some updates relative to the shuddered venue operators program, so there will be a monthly update later in this evening's agenda, and the only other legislative item that i

can update you on this evening is in regard to supervisor hainey's proposed venue fund. the commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the board of supervisors to support during our last hearing on january 19. so this item going to be at the board's budget and finance committee tomorrow. i'll go ahead and keep you all posted as we track this and any other relevant legislation. in regard to our standing item regarding the public health order and our role in implementing the jam program to support the mayor's shared spaces program, as you are all likely very aware, last wednesday, january 27, san francisco's health officer issued an updated version of the main health order, along with updates to a large number of directives, all related to the city being removed from the state's regional stay-at-home order and returning to the purple tier. of greatest note for our group

in this reopening update is the reopening of outdoor dining and the reopening of gym activation permit at outdoor locations. there are currently 126 approved permits for jam that are eligible for use, as well as 17 applications that are under staff review right now. so if you have any specific questions regarding the health order update, there were quite a few updates to it. feel free to ask at the end of my update to you all this evening and either the deputy director or i will answer to the best of our ability. i wanted to thank you for a super-informative meeting when we last met at the end of january. overall we heard a call for our office and our commission to really prioritize what we want to work on and prepare for the

rebuilding of san francisco's night life and entertainment industry after covid-19. so i spoke with both the president and the vice-president, and essentially our plan right now for the next few months is to monitor the rollout of both the second round of p.p.e. runs as well as the shuddered venue operators program funding to our live music venues. from there we're going to conduct another one of those surveys that we did last year that's been used many times over, but at this point is really outdated. it was in may, so we're going to do another survey to essentially capture more data that's hopefully informed around, you know, the funding that folks got relevant to the status of where all of our permitholders are right now. and then we're hoping that that data and information can then better inform our commission's priorities, goals and next

steps. so that brings me to say that that's going to tie nicely into another retreat for us. we're going to do it this time virtually on zoom. as you all know now, i sent out an email earlier, that's confirmed for friday march 26 from 1 to 4 p.m., and we'll go ahead and formalize that with a calendar invite soon dylan's going to be sending, and then we're going to start working on a draft agenda that i'll be sharing with the proom so that -- group so we can engage on what we want to work on at that retreat. so that's what i have for this evening. let me know if you have any questions and happy groundhog day. >> no questions for me. >> okay, since there's no commission questions or

comments, thank you, director weiland. is there any public comment on the report from the executive director? >> i am checking, and there are no hands raised in the participant's list and there are no chat comments. >> thank you. seeing none, public comment is now closed. the next item on the agenda is item no. 4, the presentation on office of the city administrator's racial equity action plan, which will be presented by office of cannabis protector marissa rodriguez, deputy director eugene hillsman and associate director nakesh patel. thank you all for joining us. >> they should all be coming in shortly. i think we've got everyone there. >> good evening. >> i see a lot of familiar faces

on tonight's call. how are you doing doing? >> better now that you are here. >> great to see that, and great to see that our industry folks are busy and on their way up to wherever they are on their way up to. happy to see that. >> director of the office of cannabis. happy to be here this evening and thank you very much for having us. we are here today to share with you a little bit about the work that we've been doing around racial equity and advancing that work throughout the adm, and when i say adm, i'm saying the city administrator family. it's over 25 divisions, programs, and you departments, and you are one of them, and so are we, the office of cannabis. and it used to be that pre-covid we would -- our offices were really close to each other, so it was nice to see director weiland most days, and her staff most days. nice to see you, crystal.

nice to see you, dylan. it's been a while. it is nice to be here. i'm joined today by my colleagues, the deputy director and associate director for oversight. we thought we would make this more interesting and present together so you could not just hear my voice the entire time but hear others as well. there's a lot of information. this report is very long, and very detailed, and we took a lot of time to get to where we are. if you were wondering, well, i -- this was the first time i'm hearing about this, i'm really curious about racial equity and what we're doing as a large department, today we're going to share with you where we've been, where we're going to give you a little context the report was completed the end of december, december 30 to be exact is when we submitted our report to the office of racial equity. in 2019 mayor breed mandated that all city departments create a racial equity action plan. this is ours, and so today

because we don't have several hours, it would take that for us to get into all the nuances of this report and to share all the initiatives as well as all the goals, we run through eventually all of the goals in each section of this report, and we're going to spend a little bit more time sharing the section on boards and commissions, because this is a board and commission. the office of cannabis also has one as well, and boards and commissions under adm are going to engage a little bit differently around racial equity. so we will spend more time on that. just to help frame this a little bit more, there are so far, as far as we know, two phases of this work. the first phase is phase one, which we just did, and that's what this report is about. it's covering phase one. phase one is really internal facing. it's hr heavy, looking at what we can do around hiring, around recruiting, around promotion. you'll see all the sections in

just a bit, and that was sort of a deep dive, which is why it felt a little internal and focused, the work was focused primarily with department heads, managers, the central office for city administrator as well as the budget and planning team. so that's what this work is focused on the rest of this year will be focused on implementing much of this, as well as featured years. phase two we hope will roll this out as well and be more outward facing. all of the staff of adm, community that we impact and the work that we do in that way. so just wanted to give that -- a bit of context so you understand sort of what we're looking at and what we mean when we talk about our racial equity plan phase one. so with that, let's get started. so brief agenda, we're gonna do -- i already did the intro, so you know who you're hearing from today and a little bit of

background. where have we come from and where we're going, you're gonna see what work went into developing this action plan. and then finally we're going to touch on basically every section of the racial equity action plan and their goals. so one of the exercises that we did with the city administrator's team is we brought together what we call our thought leaders working group, and it's comprised of all of the department heads from all of the 25 departments, divisions and programs that make up the city administrator family. every time we met we'd have individuals from all the different departments share out and share with us what their goals were, what they -- what their values were. there was a lot of similarities between departments, but there were some differences as well. this crowd, this work crowd prepared by none other than samantha allen, who i believe is on this call today, really talks to all of these different values, and so you can see that

what matters to us as a department in this word cloud, transparency, compassion, culture, diversity, workforce, sharing out, mentorship, our overall mission is that the city administrator's office is strongly committed to ensuring efficient and effective government services, increasing the city's safety and resiliency, strengthening the local economy, and supporting equity and inclusion and optimizing the city's capital planning and infrastructure. so all of that really embedded in what we are as departments and how we help -- we try to impact the community we serve. so one thing i'd also like to let folks know on this call, there's -- like i said, there's a lot of information that you're gonna hear today. don't worry. you can easily navigate to the city administrator's website and go to our racial equity landing page. you just kind of navigate to the

page, and there you're gonna find the report, the full report. you'll find some other resources. in the first few pages of the report, you'll find a process page and an executive summary. that alone really grounds you in the work and will provide you with additional information. if we cross a section today that you find really interesting, i really, really recommend going to that section in the report and reading up on it. you'll see most of your questions will be answered because we really tried to be very detailed and thorough in the report. the report is about 125 pages, including a couple appendixes, so it is a lot of reading, but very interesting, and i encourage everyone to take a look. am i really echoey? navigate our slides. >> just one moment, everyone. director rodriguez, there is a

good point here in which when these materials are made available to everyone, the top two buttons are links which i accidentally clicked, so give me one moment to readjust. >> okay. that's great, yeah. so everybody on this call will have access to these materials and you'll be able to link pretty easily. >> there we go. >> so a little bit about where we come from. it took about three months to get the report where it is today, and in that time, a very short time, we came together. we were, you know, probably wondering, the office of cannabis leading this conversation today, why is that, well, the work that we do day-to-day with the office of cannabis is really grounded in equity and equity work. we're very passionate about that work. it's a really, really important part of what we do every day, so it made sense that we would lead this initial effort for phase one, and now that it's completed, you'll see kind of what the plan is moving forward. but we had in that time seven thought leaders working group

meetings. those were the department heads that came together to share what we thought was important for this work. we broke up into different sub-working groups and talked about each of the sub-seven sections, and we split up based on what kind of made sense depending on the work that we do. we had over 15 executive leaders leadings, and who was the executive committee? the executive committee is comprised of the members on this call as well as the hr department, members from the hr department, as well as adm central and members from the dock. so that group met a number of times and continues to meet to keep this moving and the momentum moving forward. we met with the immigrants rights commission as well. the immigrants rights commission has created a working group around equity, so it made sense that we would align our efforts with them. one of the mandates is that we would present this before the commission, so the first time we did was in front of the immigrants rights commission,

and given the work that they do, it seemed like a natural alignment. then we had individual meetings with office of racial equity, about six -- over six of those to make sure that we were on the right track and we were getting the work done and we had the right idea as far as how to approach this work. and we attended four of their monthly convenings, all rolling up into this plan, which also went into informing this plan was a survey that was prepared by our budget and planning team. that survey went out to all of the employees of adms, that's over a thousand individuals. we had a very good participation rate and feel very confident in the results, and we used that -- those results to inform our report. so here are the sections of the plan, and as you can see, it's very hr focused. we have hiring and recruitment, retention and promotion, discipline and separation, diverse and equitable leadership and management, mobility and

professional development, organizational -- inclusion and belonging, boards and commissions, and then finally the report also talks about the narrative and the process, and it's those two that i highly recommend taking a look at at the end. so director patel will kick off hiring and recruitment. >> thank you, director rodriguez, and in the interests of time, i will be moving through these fairly quickly. we want to make sure that we leave time for questions at the very end, so if you have any questions, just hold on to them and we'll address them at the end. all right, so with that being said, the first goal for hiring and recruitment that adm identified was to commit to hiring more bipoc employees, especially those new to city government to achieve greater representation within its workforce. this goal was very much born out of our analysis of the data, and the data for adm's hiring patterns over the last five years suggested two things to us. one, that of the new hires to

adm, the majority were new applicants to city government. so they were not transferring in from another department. they were new applicants, and so that's why we wanted to focus on that particular group because it makes up the large share of hiring classes been adm. and then the second fact that the data told us is that over the last five years adm has been moving in the right direction in terms of increasing racial representation within its workforce. when we dug a little bit deeper, we saw that the distribution of hires across race were not necessarily even across the board, and so what we'd like to continue to do is keep focusing on increasing racial diversity within adm's workforce, especially within its city workforce. the second goal is to commit to working with the san francisco department of human resources to increase the representation of black and hispanic employees to permanent civil service positions. again, looking at the data, what we realized is that over the

last five years the majority -- more black and hispanic employees have been hired into temporary exempt positions whereas more asian employees have been hired into permanent civil service positions. what we'd like to see is greater racial diversity across hiring. two more goals that came out, the first was to bring speed and transparency to adm hiring timelines and opaque processes. many of the conversations we had were around this notion that hiring timelines take too long and not transparent, and in an effort to prevent us from losing employees, we want to bring greater speed and transparency to the hiring process, and the fourth goal we identified was to develop more targeted recruitment strategies of bipoc employees to better facilitate professional advancement. this is an initiative that -- it's a goal and an initiative that we're very excited about,

and it really is to ensure that when somebody applies to adm, they are applying with support and there are opportunities for advancement as an incentive to bring them into the adm family. >> here the primary idea is to improve communication to attract and retain employees. essentially to ensure that a diverse pipeline of employees really come to adm, so that's the first goal in thinking about retention, and for most in a lot of the things outlined here really complements some of the efforts in the first section. the second idea is through data analysis, adm will actively seek to identify barriers through employee retention and promotion. the idea is once employees find themselves in adm that the department works very hard to keep them here. the third is to identify

additional pathways to promotion, to essentially ensure in addition to providing professional development opportunities that employees have the skills necessary to access leadership positions once they become available, and as director rodriguez mentioned, if you have specific questions about any of the goals or initiatives in this section, we encourage you to read the report as we go into much greater detail. with that, i'll transition into the next section, which is discipline and separation. so in thinking about discipline and separation, sometimes a controversial topic, the core component of this work is really to implement clearer communication strategies in thinking about disciplinary actions and corrective behaviors, right, for all levels, and really focus on the following goal. the first is to educate and engage employees to help resolve issues at the lowest level possible, right, without escalating to disciplinary action, right? the idea is to identify

potential problems, take action before they actually become serious problems. the -- you can see that discipline here is broken out by race, and with that we'll transition to the next slide. so here some of the content that you see in this particular slide came from the survey that director rodriguez mentioned, so we asked all adm staff essentially questions about kind of opportunities within adm, but one of the questions that we asked specifically were around kind of expectations for disciplinary standards. one of the things that you can see in this data is that there is some room for improvement in thinking about employees' views on whether supervisors essentially hold all employees to the same standard. there are kind of specific differences, particularly among our hispanic and black employees as they are least likely to strongly agree with the standard to suggest that supervisors are

essentially implementing the same standard across races. so that's an area, and based on some of the survey results, we feel like there is a lot more that can be done. and then the next goal is essentially to collect better information and understand separation data for all employees, right? so thinking about opportunities like exit interviews to collect that feedback to make sure that we have a kind of thorough and firm understanding of why employees are deciding to separate from adm, it will essentially provide us with kind of additional clarity, and this is especially important for employees in exempt appointments, and with that i'll transition to the next section, which i believe is from director rodriguez. >> thank you so much. yeah, so also, you know, when looking at this work, important to kind of think where leadership stands and where leadership reflects and certainly diversity's an important part of that. so the goals in this space is, you know, we really wanted to dive in and see kind of what is

reflected, and so you know the good news is over the last five years the city administrator's office has done a really good job at ensuring that our leadership is a reflection of the communities we serve and continues to be diverse. so we want to keep moving in that direction certainly, because there is areas for improvement. we want to increase representation of bipoc, and when i speak about bipoc, i'm talking about black, indigenous people of color in management positions relative to the number of available positions within adm over the next five years. we want to continue to move in the same direction. additionally we want to improve our internal promotional culture to elevate bipoc employees into positions of leadership. director patel mentioned briefly in his remarks, you know, this issue, what it means to be able to be advanced, to start in an organization and what opportunities are there to move up. similarly around leadership opportunities and wanting to

make sure that we are doing our part to keep a diverse pool of leadership opportunities available. and support individuals. we want to increase equity and inclusion within adm central to work with adm hr to increase the diversity of candidates pool for positions. [please stand by]

>> can be difficult to ensure that feedback is getting translated and opportunities to grow are available, wanting to look at this and figure out ways to scale this or employees really do feel like they can grow and continue to work on anything that they feel they need and have access to training and other resources. this is important part of this session. recommends taking a look at the

report to see additional information in this area. thank you. >> here, we have the primary goal thinking about organizational culture of inclusion and belonging, is to really foster organizational culture committed to inclusion and belong. as director rodriguez mentioned, we issued a survey. there were number of responses. we were heartened by the things that came in to evaluate our progress. there's some additional work to be done. according to a.d.m. racial equity survey, 77% of employees agree they felt valued as an individual at work. 70% agreed they felt comfortable expressing opinion, 58% supported feeling and thinking about pursuit of their career

goals. however, there were some racial differences that emerged in the graph below really demonstrates that racial disparity. this variant in races really held across the questions that we posed to some of our staff. if you have additional question about that, in addition to racial equity, the survey is available online. that's the first thing would we're committed to. you heard about some of these topics to create an equity and inclusion lead to improve

transparency and sharing information to create additional opportunities for managers and staff. really support the division leaders as they're thinking about creating divisions specific racial equity plan which take into account the core service delivery and responsibility for each division in a.d.m. that will happen in phase 2 of the racial equity plan. that's something we wanted to highlight in this section. >> with this, we move to the final section boards and commissions. here, before we start, we want to take the opportunity to note mention, a.d.m. as numerous boards and commissions. there's the human rights commission and cannabis commission, entertainment commission, treasure island development authority board.

in preparing this section of the racial equity action plan, we had conversations with members of the advisory groups on many of these committees and what you'll hear next about the goals of the initiative very much informed based on those conversations. the goals for boards and commissions fall into three big buckets. the first is to increase the transparency over the appointment process. i'll speak more about that. transparency is important along two important lines. one to ensure that the interesting represented on the particular board or commission are reflected needs of the community. second part, those who are elected or appointed to those positions represent those interests. diversity and representation along both those points is very important. there was a theme that came up during the conversation with the boards and commission subworking group numerous times.

second big goal falls under the idea creating support systems within boards and commissions and committees to be able to be peer resources. you'll see little bit more how we're trying to facilitate opportunity business leveraging the resources that exist across the seven boards and commissions that a.d.m. has. the final goal, this is along the line of racial equity output. taking and making an effort to incorporate racial equity into the work that the boards and commissions are doing with their communities as well as internally. it's important here to note with the racial equity equity output, much of that comes from the template that was provided by the office of racial equity. one of the measures that a.d.m. identified is addressing the issue of needs.

many of the members the subworking groups identified there's a disconnect between identifying what the interests are that need to be represented onen a board commissioner committee and that actually being conveyed to the appointing entity. one of the goals that a.d.m. has is to identify ways to fill this particular need so there is transparency between the advisory group, the individual who support the advisory group, the members and the actual appointing agency. in the conversations we had for the seven different boards, commissions and that a.d.m. houses they have different agencies. it's important that these feedback mechanisms between the numbers, the advisory groups and appointment agencies are clear and there's opportunity to have feed back there. second mauve that a.d.m. identified is encouraging advisory groups to appoint a

racial equity lead. this was something that was highlighted by the office of racial equity. we've seen from committees and commissions already take this step. as an extension of this step, we would love to support each advisory groups racial equity lead to develop a.d.m. racial equity group, known as the racial equity group. the idea here is for a single group to form across seven different boards and commissions and committees to convene two or three times a year anidous the and discussthe racial equity wo.

there are hand full other initiative. ly go through -- i'll go through them. another initiative is racial equity groups will encourage participation from all advisory group members to participate in implicit bias training. we believe it's really important that members of our boards and commissions have an opportunity to engage in training especially

when part of the work will include racial equity. another initiative is that the racial equity group will discuss the role and presence of racial equity within group's work as i mentioned earlier. another initiative racial equity group will organize events across all a.d.m. groups to convene socially. this is really recognizing that across the seven different boards and committees within a.d.m., they themselves are tremendous resources. you all have a wealth of knowledge. one of most effective tools to leverage to ensure that all members whether they are new or more seasoned members, can learn from each other. the final initiative the racial equity group will take a survey to better understand their role of racial equity within their

work. this is an extension of the racial equity survey that a.d.m. took with its employees. we like to have a similar mechanism where the racial equity group is administering the survey to gauge the temperature of racial equity work within committees themselves. with that, i will believe we are at the end of the presentation. as director rodriguez mentioned, the racial equity work that a.d.m. fall into two phase. phase one is what you saw now. the fuller more, detailed plan is available on the website. we do encourage all of you to read it. phase one is internal and i believe -- inward looking. what we tend to do is to identify what the next steps will be to implement some of the steps that have been identified

within the racial equity plan. ensuring that we're carrying them through. at the same time, this group and with respect to racial equity work, we're waiting on additional guidance about what phase 2 would look like from office of racial equity. once that becomes available and we have a better sense what that work will look like, we'll tackle that as well. as director rodriguez mentioned that work will involve divisions specifically working to come up with plans as far as we understand to inject and infuse racial equity work into the services they provide with the communities then serve. as we wait for guidance, we'll continue to implement the steps we can now and lot of that work will require working with a.d.m. human resources department. with that, we said a lot. we're happy to take questions at this point.

>> commissioner perez: thank you for your presentation tonight. i have a quick question. you rendition -- referenced a.d.m. what does it stand for? >> that's the office of the city administrator. which all our departments are under. >> commissioner perez: my second question, the chart that you showed, showing the bipoc within the workforce and you saw different percentages on different ethnic groups. is the goal to match that with the current population percentage or is goal to make that equalized? >> really good question. i can say that it's not exactly to make it a representation of the community.

it's ever changing. certainly, will be very difficult to sort of reach equilibrium across all sections. i think it's really to make an effort to ensure that we're being mindful of this work. we're being mindful of including more people leadership positions and just giving people an opportunities to advance. making sure people feel included and belong, feel like they belong in the a.d.m. family. all that work i think, put in a good faith effort and we hope that we get a better result. >> commissioner perez: thank you. >> thank you for doing all this work and presenting it to us. it's a huge amount to tackle and thank you for all of this. trying to focus on the

commission part of it and i think it makes sense in terms of figuring out how to incorporate racial equity into the work we're doing. have you put together either draft language around how we incorporate that? especially for charter commission where some of the language around our work is in the charter and -- what are your recommendations in terms of charter commissions for how to adapt this and incorporate it into our work? >> director rodriguez i can take part of this question. thank you for asking this question. it really does show the intention behind incorporating this immediately. we do appreciate that. one of the developments that

happened with the racial equity template provided to the different departments was that it also was evolving overtime. one of the key areas was towards november, december with the board in commission section. specifically change around deactive around the racial equity output that commission, committees and boards can engage in. i'm providing that context saying, we are still working with the office of racial equity to better understand what a racial equity resolution might look like. that will be forthcoming. what we hope to do is with your advisory groups so that departments that you work with to understand what the mechanisms might be to incorporate that into your charter.

there are practical steps that committees can take in general. one of the areas racial equity plan speaks to is incorporating racial equity work into the agenda. if there is or opportunities where you can invite speakers or you can identify work that needs to be done ayou the racial equity framework to advance that work, we would encourage you to work with your advisory groups to better understand how to achieve that. it is relatively new even from the office of racial equity. as we get more clarity some of that information will be providing to your advisory groups so they can work with you. long-term vision is that as more material become available and more strategies become available, how to implement racial equity into your work as we learn from other boards, commissions and committee, we can use the racial equity group as a convening mechanism to disseminate that information.

the grand vision here is that, each board, commission and committee appointed racial equity lead. that racial equity lead then becomes a member of a larger racial equity group that includes members from all of the different boards, commissions and committees within a.d.m. that group in our ideal world would meet hand full time over the course of the year. that's a really good opportunity for the board, commission and committees to share best practices and provide information. as an example, the three of us here, director rodriguez and myself, we work close well the cannabis oversight committee. what we would love to do take what we've learned over the past year about how to incorporate racial equity within our work and share that once it's convened. lot of of this work is forthcoming. the hope is that once we have

the racial equity group in place, the information can be assimilated much more efficiently. >> commissioner wang: thank you. i done my part to ensure san francisco have racial equity frame around its cannabis work. i'm not in the cannabis policy space anymore, glad that is under way. i'm also proud that the entertainment commission is majority bipoc commission. which is great. i realized that i don't know much about the race ethnicity of permit holders. there are probably ways to look at how places of entertainment. we know how they are distributed around the city geographically. we know a lot, i know a lot less

about how they are distributed in terms of the race ethnicity permitholder. if that's something we should be considering or taking into account or creating different types of outreach in terms of particularly like the limited lives permit and so on and change the demographic representation of who is holding these permits. it might be useful to at least do some preliminary information gathering to better understand kind of what racial equity looks like in terms of our permitholders. which are sort of our constituency as a regulatory

body and what that looks like and do an assessment how that compares to the city as a whole. >> thank you, commissioner thomas. i echo everything that you are saying. i'm glad that you colleagues from office of cannabis has come in to provide the a.d.m. presentation for us to even proceed into phase 2. really important to see how everything is structured within phase 1. i do think that in terms of how we can do some preplanning, that will be great to address during upcoming retreat in march. we can nominate a racial equity lead within our very small but

mighty commission of seven. with that said, are there other commissioner comments or questions? >> good evening. first, i see this is a huge list. you guys actually covered a lot of material in them, compliments to the three of you to make it engaging. one thought i did have. lot of people in the city don't know what the city administrator's job does. maybe you guys can quickly touch on maybe some of the larger agencies you guys represent. there could be people watching tonight that see real opportunity here and make this some of those departments you guys represent. just a thought. >> yeah, absolutely. we can all taking turn to remember all of them. >> i know there's a lot. >> medical examiner is one of them, office of cannabis, d.p.w.

they have their own budget. they did make their own plans. i can keep going. if you want to get married at city hall, if you want to do anything at city hall, i'm going to have others -- [indiscernible] treasure island. >> project monitoring division.

they're all different and specialized. there's a lot of overlap. there was a lot of similarity around our core values what mattered to us. we touch all of san francisco. this work is so important that we dug in and engaged and reached out to work with the office of racial equity. this is super important. we are impacting lot of people. we'll continue to that as we start to lookout ward with respect to our staff. we're going to take our time with it. i'm hearing lot of positive things on this call. thank you commissioner caminong

for talking about a lead. any way that we can be helpful, certainly reach out. here you are. these are all by departments that fall under the city administrator's office. everything is highlighted in yellow is quite a lot. >> vice president caminong: than k you so much. great job. congratulations. >> thank you. >> president bleiman: are there any other questions? all right. if you want to do this again. >> all of you will be famous. [laughter] thank you very much for having us today. we really appreciate it. >> bye everybody, stay safe. >> you too.

>> president bleiman: let's open up for public comment. do we have anyone here for public comment? >> i'm checking now. there's nobody with their hand raised. i'm going to stop the screen share. we don't have any one who wants to say anything. >> good-bye everyone.

>> president bleiman: item number 5, update on nightlife, business assistance in response to covid-19 presented by ben van houten, the beard, business development manager for nightlife and entertainment sector within the office of economic workforce development. please bring up mr. ben. >> good evening commissioners. great to be here again. ben van houten, office of economic workforce development. i will try to bring up some slides.

it says i need to quit zoom. >> if you want help, e-mail my g-mail and then i can get it going. >> i updated my mac operating it system, now i'm paying for years of procrastination.

>> understood. >> my slides are generally not going to be too much of a surprise in most respects. i don't want to waste any more of the commission's time. i'm happy to present as is without the slides. we have a few updates to provide on a couple of items that i had updated you all on last commission hearing then also have some new program materials as well to announce. the mayor in january announced a new $62 million plan for financial relief for small

businesses. that includes relief grants totaling $12.4 million, proposed program to help stabilize small business operations, grants ranging from $5000 to $20,000 in amount. the goal here of this program, which will launch in february, is to reach businesses across the city and high need neighborhoods in particular. looking forward to the launch of that san francisco relief grants program. in addition, the mayor relief plan calls for a $50 million loan program. the sf community investment loan is the program aimed specifically at the supporting businesses, especially those who have been left out of existing relief programs including businesses that earn above $2.5 million in gross receipts

annually who have been left out of the existing relief programs to date. more information about both of those programs as they are developed and they are launched will be available on our website, oewd.org/covid-19 where you can find all the information there. the second update for all of you -- oh, thank you maggie. thank you team. the second update for all of you -- the california small business covid-19 relief grants, we talked about this during the last presentation update. at that point, round one was open. round one closed and a number of

businesses got updates but they have been wait listed for the relief grant. which is frustrating for small business owners who are challenged to look for relief across the board. that was frustrating. the second round of applications is open now. these are grants up to $25,000 for small business from the state. any business that was wait listed in the first round, country need to reapply this round. the second round, which is the final round, closes on february 8th with businesses to find out more updates to follow after that. the shutter venue operator grants, that's the new name save our stages. i think it rolls off the tongue less well. we don't have a ton to update on

in terms of the timing of the shutter venue operators it grant program. there's a lot of anxiety and concern among venue operators to make sure they're able to apply in a timely manner. one thing i do want to flag, the s.b.a. did publish an f.a.q document for the program. i would encourage businesses that want to know more about just where the informationing is, where the thinking is now for s.b.a. there's some useful tips about getting ready to apply and some things you can do to register with the federal government, register your business or just be be ready to apply for the s.v.o. grants.

we're all waiting for more information that we can share with the business community. on the local fee and tax waivers, previously i think we said that businesses that had already paid these taxes and fees that are eligible for refunds would need to submit an application to get a refund. they will get an automatic refund. businesses should have gotten a letter from the treasury and tax collector office, letting them know they'll be getting an automatic refund of any fees and taxes that they prepaid. that's good news that's on its way. finally, this is really out of the conversation commissioners you had at the last hearing.

in terms of business permits, i don't think we have discussed the rollout of proposition h. there's been some discussions. please do report that proposition h, save our small business -- initiative that's fully in effect. ton of credit for the planning department for implementing proposition h especially to all the business permitting and speeding up business permitting over the last couple of months. this is a high level bold point list some of the things that are possible now thanks to this ballot measure. part of which is around zoning reforms and emphasis on temporary uses and pop up retail uses. expanding greater potential there. just as the business permitting process for businesses that are permitted in our neighborhoods. really should be much faster for good number of folks.

that's really exciting. it's a successful effort that we're looking forward to educate the business community and time they can save, especially as we head toward recovery and i think it's they're in alignment with the discussions about thinking, building off successes like this. what more can be done around entertainment, permit process, entertainment code process, looking forward to continuing those conversations with all of you in the future. i think that's it. oewd.org/covid 19 has updates on resources and grants and loans and other tools and resources for the business community but happy to answer any questions. my apologies for the technical

delays, i promised that by march, this is going to be -- i'm not touching this computer except to solve some presentation problems. i'm looking forward to it. >> you did great. we figured it out. >> when the grants finally come in, who's going to be the clearinghouse? is there going to be another third party again that review these applications? somebody in your department going to be screening the application? when they them offered before, seem that the third party people distributing these are making decisions. we're really explaining why we were either turned down or what. i'm just wondering, are they considering a more transparent situation or we're back to the

same process. >> that's a really good question. i think highlights the challenges, some of the challenges that businesses are experiencing. you go to a site that is not a city site or a website that you know and you put in your information, i think that is helpful feedback. that is responsive to some of the challenges i heard folks express around the state grant process and other grant processes. i will definitely take that back to our team. this is stuff all still happening it in realtime. i think that to the extent, we do use and rely upon a variety of community partners that we can all collectively work together to better improve clarity and transparency so it really feels like a meaningful

use of business. >> the state obviously in the last round of money, already ran out. we're all on the waiting list. luckily, they're going for round two. that's encouraging. everybody was very discouraged. they thought that was it. they didn't realize there was a second round coming. we'll see. hopefully. cross our fingers. thank god for outdoor dining. that helps. >> absolutely. >> any other comments or

questions? one thing i would like to acknowledge, thank you for making time to make the monthly presentation on our agenda. i think it was a really great addition to have you. thank you for spending your tuesday night with us. >> thank you. it's really my pleasure. looking forward to continuing to work with allful you -- all of you on all of this important stuff. >> we appreciate you, ben. >> thank you. likewise. >> let's move on to public comment on item 5. >> there are no hands raised. there are no comments in the chat. >> there's a ben b. in the attendee list now. that could be our ben v. who was on the call. >> that seems likely.

[laughter] >> it's just a coincidence. >> thank you. seeing none, public comment is closed. the next item on the agenda is number 6, the report from the deputy director. presented by deputy director azevedo. >> good evening commissioners. the enforcement report that has been uploaded for your review has included three new complaints which is in conjunction with the new health order that came out on january 25th. i didn't highlight any of them, there were really none of note. i want to mention that two of the three, one was unfounded, one is being handled by

constituent attorney's office and the current one is under current enforcement review. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. i do anticipate we'll see more complaints coming in now that outdoor dining and activities are allowed again. it was really quiet for the month of december and beginning of january. that's my high level update. we do have inspectors out in the field on the weekends and working late night. we do have coverage. >> commissioners are there any comments or questions for the deputy director? kaitlyn, we look forward to hearing from you during the next meeting. let's move ton to public comment. is there any public comment to

report from the deputy director? >> there are no hands raised and no comments in the chat. >> seeing none, the public comment is now closed. the next item on the agenda is item 7 is the election of vice president. this item allow the commissioners to nominate and elect the seat of the vice president of the entertainment commission to fill out the term from february 2, 2021 to july 6, 2021. >> did i miss something? are we suppose to take action? >> are you interested in running again? >> i was going to nominate dori, i'll nominate her.

>> second. >> to answer the question, yes, it has been an honor serving as vice president. i do think that -- i want to acknowledge mr. bleiman's leadership as president of the commission. just the work that we've been putting in together t especially during the pandemic and showing up for our community here. answer is yes. we have a first from commissioner falzon and second from commissioner thomas. please take a vote. >> did you forget to do public comment? >> we should ask if there's any other nominations. >> okay. commissioners? are there any other nominations? doesn't look like it.

okay, is there any public comment on this item? >> there are no public comments. >> thank you. please take a vote. [roll call vote]. >> thank you. congratulations. >> well done. >> the next item on the agenda is item number 8, the election of the president of the entertainment commission. this item allows the commissioners to nominate and elect the seat of the president of the entertainment commission

to fill out the term from february 2, 2021 to july 6, 2021. >> i would like to nominate ben bleiman to finish out term as president. >> second. >> i'm sorry i'm on the road. i want to say that serving as president of this commission has been a great joy and honor. especially during covid, there's a lot going on, kind of like the duck part where you see what's going on top of the water and under the water, incredible amount of action and movement. just working with staff and working where all of you and vice president, maggie and ben.

it's been really good work. i love this job, i appreciate your confidence in me. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> there are no hands raised. there are no comments in the chat. >> sorry, any other nominations? [laughter] >> i don't think there are any other nominations. >> [roll call vote]

>> thank you guys. great. congratulations. president bleiman. next item on the agenda is item 9. new business request for the future agenda items. is there any item you like to address? >> vice president caminong i had a thought. i like the equity manager. did you want to make that an agenda item? >> vice president caminong: i think we can discuss that more during the retreat. this is within our upcoming session. >> no worries, perfect. >> just to agree with that to

put the racial equity issue on our retreat agenda and just thinking how do we what our baseline is, how we go about setting goals around racial equity if we want to address any of the recommendations around internal resolution and a representative to the racial equity work group and so on. that does seem like that's a good topic for us to tackle at the retreat when we got a bit more time and space to dig into issues. i know what racial equity work looks like in other places. i got less of a sense of how to measure or set goals related to the work that we do. i don't know if there are other entities around the country that

look at entertainment with a racial equity lens that might learn something from. i have nothing in mind. i don't know if staff have any thoughts or any model we can borrow from. >> to say, though, at least with our most recent application, the jam application, we did collect racial demographic information for every applicant for that program. it's something we can consider trying to implement across existing permit holders. we can find a way for that. i wanted to add that in. >> obviously you get into -- i don't necessarily want to make our application process more difficult or try to go back and collect data we haven't been collecting. that's also only way to get a baseline or sense of where the

gap inequities might be. figuring out the best way to tackle that, that is not disruppive or burdensome to our permit holders but give useful information. >> i don't know if this is more of -- what can we do about -- when the health department says, you can do outdoor dining but you can't turn on your television to watch the super bowl game. they're not really dancing or anything. are we as commission to challenge those or do we have to go along with it? it defeats the purpose in the sense. there's still limited capacity. i'm just curious is this

something we allowed to do as a promotion or promoting entertainment, not really promoting entertainment, but it seems like the television thing. i get if you got a d.j. on tv and you're out there promoting. if you're eating and watching, even the news, even watching the election or something. are these kind of decisions made. we know it's based on safety. is it really good for business? i want to put that out there. >> what the current role around outdoor tv with outdoor dining. >> it reads the same as prior

outdoor dining allowances were. which is, it is permitted in the outdoor space. tvsare inside. permitted in the outdoor space and the way it was translated to the entertainment commission was that audio was being amplified. some businesses just take the tout having no volume. they just show a game or what have you in the background. that would not require a jam permit. >> that is still allowable per the health order. >> is there something else commissioner lee to relative? are you talking about indoor tvs? >> i know that walnut creek i saw on the news, it gets confusing. every city is different. >> okay, we're allowing it. >> san francisco allowing it.

walnut creek they're saying, turn off the tv. >> essentially the rules around allowing outdoor amplify sounds including tv, you have to prevent any gathering. that does happen. where businesses either encourage it or it gets out of hand and they have to mitigate any crowding that could happen even over watching a football game. especially the super bowl. luckily it's the 49ers around playing -- >> what about indoor? indoor you can't even turn on your tvs if you want to do indoor. >> yeah. that is right. with indoor dining, it's not allowing tvs because of that gathering element. essentially they wanted to discourage indoor as well. the health officer was just allowing her indoor to be able

to allow for more business expansion and economic growth. in terms of health, it was meeting halfway. i think tvs was something that would potentially encourage more gathering inside which is not good. >> i think, as entertainment commissioners, some tvs -- it's really the control of the venue itself, maybe law enforcement, how we all talking about law enforcement and stuff. any way this commission we can negotiate or try to work out to see how we can help? >> i would say for the specific issue, it doesn't actually -- it's not relevant for commission when we're talking about indoor tv usage. that doesn't require a permit from us. >> i know, all around it's all about small business.

it's nice to watch something while you're eating. >> i would defer to your colleague if they have any >> -- >> what do you think guys? not to have television is -- >> steve, are you suggesting that we would support urge letter to the department of public health? >> not just a letter, we got dome up with some suggestions. maybe some identify ideas how these things can work. we're the industry experts, they're not. i'm not going to challenge them on health decisions. they should listen to us on

entertainment decisions. we're the ones that promote safety and everything. make sure all small businesses do well in san francisco. i know that the health department seems to have the big pull. if we're talking about helping a new business idea and we're promoting entertainment or even business, i think we should think of some best practices that may be the health department hasn't even thought about. they're only thinking one way. i know there's a lot of struggling businesses that can use little bit of suggestion or best practices. i'm throwing it out there. i'm not saying we should do it. i don't know if we can do it. i look around and see we're just happy that outdoor dining is there when we do partial indoor dining, it's going to help. there's nothing to do on the

inside. certain restaurants is fine, but other places, it's kind of boring. just going to eat. i get it. i thought may be there's something we can do. >> i would say, i think that some of that depends on is it a health issue or is it an entertainment issue? it's like plenty of things that would help entertainment businesses but might create negative health interactions or increase risk for people. i feel like, that's the crux of this and the health department is looking at it through a health lens. we can look at it through economic or business lens, we have to figure out what the health issues are and sort of what's the most business can do

without creating health risk for their patrons. i don't know the answer to that. does tv draw people too close together or not. it might be that it doesn't. i think that's a conversation we'd have to have folks at the health department about what was behind their restrictions and what have we seen in practice. >> i tend to agree with commissioner thomas on this. i think that's the lens which we have to approach this. if you have like a list of industry best practices, you don't think has been considered, we can look at them as a group >> there's not much best practices other than keeping everybody apart. it's obvious they don't want tvs that draws in the people.

that's basically what the television does. if the food doesn't bring them in, what else brings them in. obviously gatherings and stuff. but if it's under control like they supposed to be, having a tv on with no sound may be would be better. that's at least a compromise. that's all i'm saying. the commission should be helping. whether they have a permit or not. small business is small business. we're all there to help small business in one way or another. it might not be our jurisdiction. but we are industry experts. it will be nice to have conversation with the health department and talk about these things. other people are suing the government because there's no data before all that money was

wasted money and all these lawsuits. maybe we can prevent some of that stuff. some people are desperate right now. it's something to think about. >> we are developing another survey for our permit holders for folks to take. i don't know where we're planning, when we're planning to launch the survey. maybe we can actually incorporate questions around issues like these. i'm sure there are other things that you're thinking about that could be also included in the survey. that way when we release this data, we'll have the evidence to show this is the demand. >> that will be great. i don't have a clue either. i think it's something we as a group can talk about may be.

i think it's not fair. we don't want to promote anybody getting sick. there's got to be a way. there's always some kind of solution. got to think positive you guys. >> thank you steven. is there any additional comments or questions from the commissioners? okay, let's move on to public comment on this item. >> there's nobody in the attendees list. there's no chats. >> moving on to the final item on our agenda, item number 10, commissioner comments and questions. i would like to propose roll

item 9 and 10 together. [laughter] just to keep us in single digits for agenda items. >> will do. >> okay. all right, thank you everybody. i got to take public comment. is there any public comment on item number 10? >> there are no hands raised. there are no comments in the chat. >> awesome. public comment is closed. we'll adjourn this meeting at 7:03 p.m. thank you everybody.

>> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and

entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of

lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the

49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪)

>> the hon. london breed: here to swear in our next city administrator, assessor carmen chu. you know, i've known her many years. i remember before i was on the board of supervisors, and i watched how she managed the budget process. she ran a tight ship. she kept things in working order. she maintained her integrity throughout the entire process when she served on the board of supervisors, and then, when she was appointed assessor for san

francisco, i was heartbroken because i was looking forward to serving with her on the board, but i was thrilled with her in her new capacity. because of her work over the last few years, the only person who brought that office up to speed and has generated significant revenue for the city and county of san francisco, revenue that we should be putting away in the bank, but we're spending at a rapid pace because of the challenges that our city now faces, but carmen brought home the bacon. she worked hard to make this department work hard for the residents and people of san francisco. she was one of the -- she is one of the hardest working people i know, and she will be an amazing city administrator. people sometimes ask, well,

what does the city administrator do? the city administrator basically runs the city. runs the city, runs over 25 city departments. animal care and control, department of public works, the medical examiner's office. so many departments, so many responsibilities. a lot of the technical work that goes into this, who understands the city through and through. it's a very dedicated administrative role, somebody who works hard for the people of san francisco. she's a great person, she's a great manager, and she's the perfect person to begin the process of moving this department forward and helping to maintain support and public

trust of the people of san francisco. so with that, i am ready to answer in the next city administrator of the city of san francisco, carmen chu. so will you please join me -- [applause] >> the hon. london breed: please raise your right hand and repeat after me: i carmen chu do solemnly swear that i will defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic; that i bear true faith and allegiance to the same. that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that i will well

and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter, and during such time as i serve as city administrator for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: we're going to sign the paperwork right before you begin your

remarks. ladies and gentlemen, the new city administrator for the city and county of san francisco, carmen chu. [applause] >> city administrator chu: thank you very much, mayor breed, to my family, who is here with me today. with oversight of over 20 core functions and citywide policies touching all governmental operations, i am honored by the mayor and the board of supervisors for their trust and for their confidence as i assume the position of san francisco city administrator. public service is a privilege, and with the public health and economic challenges we now

face, there is no more important work. more than 13 years ago, i started down the path of elected office. looking back, it was a big and sometimes challenging role of public servant. but whether it was my first interview, my first election, my first debate, i drew on what was inside. i am a daughter of chinese immigrants who didn't have much when they first came here. they went to adult school every night to learn english so they could become citizens. they saved every penny they had to start a small family restaurant, and they almost never took a day off work. i am that kid who helped out that family restaurant on every weekend, who did homework in

between waiting onible at thats, who didn't have any glue for -- waiting on tables, who didn't have any glue for school projects and used mashed rice instead. i'm the wife of a san francisco firefighter, a first responder, who would give the shirt off his back of someone in need, and i am the mother of a 20 month old. she's very feisty, and she's very cranky sometimes, but even on the hardest days, i want the world for her, and i want the same for every kid to grow up safe, loved, and to be able to dream. i'm also a public servant, one who just wants to make things work better, who believes that when we do that, we have the opportunity to save lives, to create opportunities, and help strengthen our neighborhoods.

i'm so excited to join the office of the city administrator central services agency. you've played a role, and i say thank you. i especially want to thank ken and jennifer for their steady leadership. finally, i want to thank the community, the voters of san francisco, for your support through five elections, and to the team at the assessor's office. i'm so proud of what we've been able to accomplish together, and i'm excited to see what we can do. now, mayor, i'm excited to roll up my sleeves and get to work in this new capacity. thank you for your trust. [applause]

>> good morning,