a great experience because it provides an opportunity to have a better understanding of how government works. >> i think what i've learned so far is that every audit is unique everyday. different learning opportunities. >> the recordation we make in on its i can honestly go home at the end of the day and zack and treated [inaudible] in a better way. >> even of not familiar with what auditing is you should deftly find out. it's been really really awesome he was it turns out there's a whole world of auditing that i cannot open file oriented performance and [inaudible] and that's an exciting. audit is a lot broader than i ever knew before. >> good afternoon, welcome to the remote hearing for thursday february 25th. the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to

covid-19. on april 3rd, 2020, the planning commission received permission to conduct remote hearings. this will be our 43rd remote hearing. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation. sfgov tv is broadcasting this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. call 415-655-0001 and entering access code 187-680-5272. when we reach the item you are interested in please press star then 2 to be added to the cue. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes.

when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost um. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and please mute the volume on your television or computer. we'd like to take roll at this time. commission president koppel? >> here. >> commissioner diamond? >> here. >> commissioner none. >> here. >> commissioner imperial? >> here. >> we do expect commissioner tanner to arrive late today. first on your agenda is considering -- is agenda items

proposed for continuance until april 1st, 2022. item two. prp at 2375 funston avenue. item 3, case number 16. 2214 cuyuga avenue and 3101 allegheny boulevard. proposed for continuance april 29th. item number 4, 468 turk street. a conditional use authorization, at the time of issue answer was proposed for an indefinite continuance. it's being month posed until march 25th, 2021. item 5, case number 2007 at 1145 mission street is proposed for indefinite continue u answer. and item 6, case number 2018-00

sr 63 has been withdrawn. we should open this up for public comment. if you wish to address the commission on any of these items, please press star then 3 to be added to the cue. seeing no requests to speak for members of the public -- i take it back, there is one. you have two minutes. go ahead, caller, you have two minutes. okay, i don't think this person wants to speak to matters proposed for continuance. seeing no additional requests.

now public comment is closed. and the item is before you. commissioner imperial? >> move to continue as items proposed. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue matters as proposed, commissioner jiang? >> aye. >> commissioner dime onned? >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >>. >> we'll place this under your consent calendar. all members are here for the consent calendar and there will be no separate discussion of these items unless an item of the commission, the public or staff so requests. the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar, and considered as a separate item at

this future hearing. 2020-8050 ca mission street. and cua 1385 carol avenue a conditional use authorization. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off and heard under the regular calendar today or a later date. seeing no request to speak from the public commissioners, public comment is closed and the matters are now before you. >> commissioner khan? >> move to approve items 7 and 8. >> items 7 and 8 under your consent calendar. commissioner khan? >> aye. >> diamond?

>> aye. >> fong? >> aye. >> imperial? >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us under commission matters, commission comments and questions. seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, if you would indulge me for one moment, commissioners. i am pleased to announce that laura lynch of the planning department has accepted my offer to join the office of commission affairs as our new manager. so welcome laura. and today is her official start date. once she ramps up, i will be taking some time off, and she'll be acting in my stead. commissioners, department matters, item ten, directors announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'd just like to mention some

nominations 9 mayor made to the historic preservation commission. they were expired at the end of last year. and diane matsuta is serving as a member. as well as chris sherry. currently occupied by commissioner highland in seat 3. there's been no nomination yet made the three no, ma'am nighs are at the committee meeting next monday. seated for next wednesday's commission hearing. >> if there are no questions for the director, we can move on to

item 11. the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> good afternoon, aaron star. this week at the land use committee, the committee considered 542 howard street. sponsored by supervisor haney. the project included donning and height map amendment. the development agreement. the zoning amendment would split from c 30 sd to just the c 30 sd. you heard this item last year on january 9th and voted for approval. taking exception to the idea that section 295 of the planning

code granted the commission the authority to increase shadow budget for parks. the budget is most interested in the willie woowoo park shutdown in chinatown. the item was continued to march 8th, so that the project sponsor could continue community engagement, and staff can provide follow-up on questions posed by the committee. at the full board this week, the six month retroactive extension for the planning commission review that would allow temporary use of hotels and motels was filed as the ordinance was filed by the mayor. so there's no need to seek an extension. that will not be coming to you, at least under the current board. that concludes my report, and i'm happy to take any questions.

>> seeing no comments from the commissioners. we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission for up to three minutes. members of the public if you would like to address the commission under general matters, please press star 3 to be entered into the q. >> hi, good afternoon, this is georgia shudash. i sent you an email on monday february 22nd for my comment for today.

i wanted to send it to you because the documents attached were give tonight commission back in 2018 when only two of the comment commissioners who are now seated were there, so i thought it would be important information for the newer five people to have. with those two attachments i sent with the email, one was the dbi planning stack handout for the april 12th, 2018 joint hearing on demolition. pages 5 to 13 of that document are all info on section 317. there was no mention of section 317 b 2d in that handout which empowers the commissioners to adjust numerical values of the demo caps. the other interesting item was on page 15, it read, building permits for vertical additions are the most common source of

unauthorized demolition. and i think that's interesting, because it raises the question that would have a descriptive or qualitative description work better. for example, vertical and hor zorn tal expansion -- people didn't like that amounting to demolition. should we go back to adjusting the demo calcs, would that resolve the problem with ttd. the second attachment is five pages, it's a memo to the commissioners from that meeting. it is from me, suggestions dealing with demolition, as i said it in the testimony at the hearing, i felt badly that i should have apushed for adjusting the demo calcs more. also attached to that memo is a bunch of emails from 2015, january 2015. to both dbi and the mayor's office. and the planning, i got a really

nice reply from mr. sanchez back then in 2015 after i had spoken during general public comment at the commission. back then. i don't know if you read my email, i'll read one or two lines from that 2015 email. these buildings look like demolitions are a problem, i say why, and it's because there's about -- they contribute to the speculative cycle that fuels the housing market. and they add to the lack of affordability in the housing market. when the developers change the facades front and rear, these buildings may not meet the residential design guidelines. this may seem like a modest problem. they lost their neighborhood of the affordable housing forever.

there is still existing housing in other neighborhoods that needs protection from this insidious remodels. members of the public. last call for general public comment. seeing none. general public comment is closed and you can move on to your regular calendar. these are planning code amendments. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? staff, are you prepared to make

your presentation, mr. starr? >> it should be here. i'm having trouble with the camera. >> i don't see mr. sanchez logged in. >> he's in the -- >> you know what, i'm sorry you're absolutely right. let me pull him out of the attendee list. there he is. you should be able to unmute your mike and make your presentation now. >> am i here? >> sweet. i'm back in the room i needed to be in. today i'll be presented an ordinance proposed for adoption, the ordinance would amend the planning code to update cross-references and make sensitive revisions to clarify

or simplify code language throughout various sections of the planning code. commissioners, as you recall, staff was before you on january 25th of this year, seeking initiation of this ordinance which you granted. the planning code amendments are being proposed for the following two reasons. one with the planning amendments, minor type graphical errors or other omissions creep into the planning code, these should be amended. to comprehensively recount here. the cleanup proposes such changes such as omitted references to newer districts. including additional clarity in zoning tables regarding controls on intermediate length occupancies. clarifying the dwelling unit mixed requirements. and noting exemptions for the movie theaters zoning control table.

commissioner staff has also been made aware of additional publisher driven commissions to previous ordinances, in an ordinance -- ordinance number 126-20. held amendments to the van ness market residential sud. so staff was made aware of these changes very shortly, and these are the same nature of the ones before you, that you see now twice. so the staff recommendations is for the commission to adopt the ordinance. and this concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

seeing no members of the public. the matter is closed. >> i have a few questions. i'm in full agreement with the first two under which collections of roi's. i do not consider the nonsubstantive revision. and i am wondering why we would not be engaging in a broader discussion on it, including being filled to background and necessity? that would be my question. >> for those that don't have the document in front of them, this gets into an area of eviction.

some say has guided more than a decade of planning commissions, and sensitivity to two issues that are quite problematic in the city, and to change that without further discussion would be difficult for me. >> did you need someone to address that before i move on to commissioners? >> that is a question to mr. sanchez, to anyone on the legal side, city attorney's office to help us work through that issue with more knowledge and more background. >> i can provide a couple quick comments. this is stemming out of a couple court cases that were noted in the case packet now twice. the city is precluded from

making changes. the proposed changes are intended to bring the code into conformance with these court cases. this change is in line with the spirited ordinance, which is to rectify the planning code, not dealing with any substantive policy matters. >> deputy city attorney austin yang, i would echo what mr. sanchez has stated already. you know, i had not drafted this code ordinance. in general, the city needs a reasonable basis to consider or demand certain types of

information. and as mr. sanchez has correctly stated, there are certain limitations on the city's ability to take certain actions when a landlord has exercised their rights under the ellis act. so in this instance, we would need a reasonable basis to look at and demand that information. this is not to say to commissioner morris, a broader question, that tenant history is not relevant. tenant history is something that could be relevant to the planning commission's determination. our advice is focused on the impact of an ellis act eviction. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. commissioner imperial? >> thank you.

this question 4 for attorney yang, just following up on commissioner moore's conduct as well. what happens, if this is coded. i'm trying to see the implications in this alignment of judicial divisions become encoded to planning. what would you advise for us in the commission in terms of looking into situations wherein this history of ellis act. and at the same time, trying to reach our goal that we have -- we also look into social equity equation. and i'm trying to understand the implication of being embedded in the code. >> sorry, i was muted.

i -- you know, i should have added that because of the impact of the recent court decisions, in the sense, the language related to ellis act is inoperative. we can't truly implement some of those words in the code. so that's why it's included as part of this cleanup in terms of judicial alignment. i would say that if the commission is interested in the important issues of social equity, tenant history. then there are -- i believe that -- and maybe staff can elaborate here, i do believe in certain instances, the commission is provided information from the rent board. it's in a more holistic packaging, it's not limited to

suggest ellifact the commission is able too consider the rental history based on certain code provisions. >> thank you. my only concern on this. and i think it's because as of now, us in the planning 2ke79 or in the planning commission, we don't necessarily have tools. and you can even say a red board may not be as well. rent really prevents us to consider issues when it comes to displacement or in this kind of tenants rights issue. as of now, planning department -- i mean, someone -- we are not equipped or we don't have also planning codes amendment, and planning codes embetted that the provide more tenant protection. so this is my concern in this --

embedding this code into the 89 the ellis act that is not -- being aligned to judicial decisions, just because based on court decisions. but we're not seeing it holistically in our goal as well, and also, the tools that we have, that makes us to protect more tenants. so those are my concerns. and i would like to hear other commissioners on what they think. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. >> okay. i'm wondering if city attorney or staff could help to clarify for me. under the proposed legislation would the commission be able to consider no fault restrictions. and we're striking the ella fact that the commission could take

into account? >> director hillis, did you want to -- >> no, go ahead. i think the answer is yes, but -- go ahead. >> yes, that's right. that's correct commissioner khan. this is reflecting the state of the law, and our office, we have an obligation to advise all city departments of developments in the law. and that includes some limitations on the local government's ability vis-a-vis the ellis act. other no fault evictions are not necessarily included in that group. and the commission could be able to consider that history. >> okay. thank you, along with tenant history that you mentioned as well.

those are my questions for now. >> i am in favor of staff's recommendation and would entertain a motion. commissioner diamond? >> question to the city attorney's office. if i understand correctlyp the revisions are narrowly confined to the ellis act so that the code is consistent with judicial opinions on restrictions on limitations on use of the ellis act, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay, with that, i would move to approve as proposed by staff. >> second. >> if there's no further deliberation from commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning -- these planning code amendments. on that motion, commissioner khan?

>> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner imperial votes against. that will place us on item 13, for case number 2021-000541 pca. this is an administrative code amendment. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, thank you. veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is the seqa appeals ordinance which was co sponsored by the mayor and supervisor haney. i am joined by the environmental review officer who cannot respond to any questions you may have later. and also, we have sarah jones

from the san francisco municipal transportation agency, she's here to speak on the item on behalf of the mayor's office. go ahead and invite miss jones to share a few words, and i'll follow up with the staff presentation. >> thank you. miss flores. sarah jones, planning director, hearing in the trenches from the department's view of this proposed ordinance. so essentially i -- as miss flores described in the staff report, there are two main components to this proposal. one is a little bit of an increase in what city departments can go forward with, when a seqa appeal is pending, it gives us a little more ability to advance projects that we need to do in situations when

a timely response is needed to an issue. or when advancing them is going to help the public and it's easy and worthwhile to do the work. even knowing that it might be changed. so, you know, those are the reasons that sfmta and the other implementing agencies are enthusiastic about this. i see my cat has gotten involved in the discussion, but some examples of this would be sometimes sfmca needs to come in and do a tweak on the street, maybe there's a point around collisions that buses are getting into or something like that, or just what's called a q dump to help buses move. and those kinds of changes, while we don't ever see appeals on them, those are the kind of changes we would want to maintain our ability to go forward with in a timely way, so

that we're not subjecting the public to delays and things like that, waiting for their buses. you know, another example would be establishing a slow street, which was the impetus for this ordinance in the first place, we were being prevented from putting in these completely reversible types of changes on streets that were really desired and really necessary in the context of covid. some of these changes would allow us a little more flexibility to do that while an appeal is pending. the other change that's being proposed, it establishes a higher threshold for filing seqa appeals on certain projects from certain departments. we at sfmpa take ceqa and chapter 31 extremely seriously,

as does the planning department. we go forward with extensive review, we don't get a whole lot of appeals of our projects. i think thanks to the good work of the planning department. but when those appeals do happen, they're very time-consuming, and very costly for the planning department and for the sfmta. as you know, the city charter establishes sfmta as an autonomous entity with its own board that is largely independent of the board of supervisors, this was done in an effort to ensure the fundamental function of the city could operate somewhat outside of the nature of the political context. there are certain types of approvals that are subject to review by the board of supervisors, and the threshold for bringing them forward for review is the same as what's proposed in this ordinance.

50 signatures from the neighborhood. or sign off by five supervisors. so what this ordinance is doing, it's kind of setting a similar threshold around ceqa for when someone like this coming to the level of the board of supervisors. under the current condition, having determinations appealable to the board of supervisors by a single individual can really have broad implications for our work and for projects. and also creates a path to the board of supervisors for review of mta's work that's not fully aligned with what the charter is putting forward. so what this proposal achieves is some consistency in the roles and responsibilities of the mta board and the board of supervisors, while at the same time, still maintaining that avenue for the board of supervisors to exercise it's

authority to hear ceqa appeals. that charter reason is the reason why this higher threshold would be applicable to the port and sfmca. this is being proposed by the mayor and supervisor haney to apply in those circ emsubstances where the board of supervisors by charter would not be the decision making body. and so, you know, to try to achieve that alignment. i will turn it over now, but i'm happy to take any questions or comments. >> thank you miss jones and commissioners. miss jones provided a detailed overview of the ordinance and some of the background. i'll go ahead and do a recap and reiterate the proposed amendments to the administrative code. the ordinance would allow certain projects to proceed while an a350e8 of the project

determination is pending before the board of supervisors. so this means that other city boards and commissions outside of the board of supervisors would now be able to proceed with project actions for public projects, for which their respective commission or department head demonstrates the project meets the following criteria. safety and health measures necessary to protect the public. public employees, or public property. the second kree tear ya relates to activities lasting no more than approximately 6 months. and the last criteria is any reversible action that does not involve physical construction activities or limited to additions that can be easily removed without damaging the same. and the ordinance also amends the appeal requirements for public projects sponsored or approved by the sfmpa or

properties under leases for the port commission. appeals on >> this concludes staff presentation and again, the team is available to answer any questions, thank you. >> thank you, veronica. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to

this matter by pressing star and 3 by entering the cue. we have several members of the public requesting to speak at this time. you will have two minutes. >> my name is john, i want to speak in strong support of this ordinance. we're in a climate crisis that makes us toxic and orange for months every single year. transportation is our largest and fast growing source of emissions. frankly, bizarre. both california, environmental quality act. public transit improvements are one of the best uses we have for our environment and quality. as the informational packet points out, almost all the appeals of transit projects are denied. serve no purpose, which is

delaying much needed transit ordinance. i ask you to allow our public transportation system to be more flexible in serving our transportation emissions. thank you, have a wobderful day. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is janice lee. we thank supervisor haney for the introduction of the ceqa appeals process. we have worked closely with the supervisor as well as city staff, we want to express our strong support for these changes that are before you today. there are a lot of good reasons why you should pass this legislation. i have a laundry list. first, this will be a good

project, so we can let city planners do what they do best. design safe streets that make it easier for people to bike, walk and take transit. the recent appeals that went before the board of supervisors could better respond to covid related needs, were all defeated with 11-0, this includes food pantries. it's clear that those are abusing the ceqa project. the appropriate place to oppose projects is at the point of approval at the board. furthermore, a new policy approved by the board of supervisors allowed them to review projects, which is a replacement for ceqa. that new policy is provided an -- [ bell ringing ] >> this legislation is superimposing more legislation

on to other projects. we think this process will be more democratic, and hope you move forward on in today. and appreciate your engagement on this. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jordan lane. i'm calling to strongly encourage all of you to support this proposal and move it forward. the appeals in the fall that prompted this legislation were certainly some of the most egregious examples of the abuse of process i've seen. emergency measures that would helped thousands of san franciscoans. we're all held up for months due to the appeals of two people. one of whom competed that their reason for filing was to convince sfmta to change bus schedules in in his area. despite that, dealing with the appeals, costs more than it cost to implement the programs in the first place, these were programs

that were repurposed public space with signs, posts or street names. more over as the staff report showed, these are by no means the only examples. 92% of the appeals were rejected or withdrawn. i think the proposal before you would be a huge step forward toward making this process a little more fair, to most san franciscoans, and i think the question you have to ask is whether you think san francisco will be able to address the ongoing crisis of public health currently in front of us, and future crisis as they happen when they come up, when one or two people with unrelated grievances can double the cost

however, if you feel there are problems with the ceqa process in san francisco. there needs to be a larger conversation to discuss the modifications to it, thank you for your consideration.

>> thank you. this is the public last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star then three to get into the cue. seeing no additional requests to speak, the commissioner's public comment is closed and the matter is before you. >> thanks to both miss flores and miss jones, great information, definitely in support of the item today. >> commissioner diamond? >> i want to thank staff and the public for their comments. i think the proposed solution is a great balancing of the incredibly important needs of our public transit services with the policies underlying ceqa and irwould move to approve as proposed. >> second. >> commissioner moore?

>> i would like to get a slightly better understanding about the frequency of appeals. how many have been upheld and how many have been denied? just getting a feeling for the magnitude of this. i know there could be arbitrary intervention by filing a frivolous appeal. i would like to hear a little more about the data and the background. in addition to that, i would like to know exactly the meaning of the 50 votes required where that number comes from. >> thank you commissioner moore, so i do just want to go over some of the data and the met tricks for the number of appeals

times, which means 2015 and 2020. i recall a member of the public citing a number, but looking at the staff report now, i see the formatting is a little confusing. i want to clarify for you today. between 2015 and 2020. there were a total of 97 appeals filed. of those, 53 were denied and 8 were upheld, the number actually withdrawn was 34. this data was pulled by the department in recent months. it should be fairly accurate. we don't really fully know what will come for the future appeal. >> the 97 appeal dealt with public projects regarding sfmta, et cetera? >> no, commissioner moore.

97 represents the comprehensive number of appeals that were filed. we do not have that granular data for which types of projects, which appeals were related to those projects. a couple expertise -- i would like to invite miss jones to speak about this. thank you. >> yes, thank you. the -- so over the last several years, the sfmta. until covid, the sfmta has had less than one appeal per year in the time period since chapter 31 was amended. i was -- precipitated this was in a short time period we had a

half a dozen appeals files. that were proposed. as some of the speakers noted. those projects specifically were the flow streets, which were there several phases, multiple phases were appealed. some of the street loading and street closure permits, which were actually implemented by the request -- at the request of the city's emergency operations center. some of the transit service changes and temporary emergency transit plains. we had appeals all at one time

that came in. the ceqa determinations were upheld as they had been for the other ceqa appeals that had been filed. some of the same individuals have been regularly behind all of our appeals. i'm not sure i answered all the questions or -- the 50 signatures. that was established in in the context of setting out the board of supervisors ability to review certain approvals done by the mta board. the charter has authorized the

board of supervisors to take review of certain mta board approvals, that was established about 12 years ago, it was only a couple years ago, the board of supervisors acted to set that up. what they set up for that was that -- what would trigger such review would either be the 50 signatures or several supervisors signing on to it. with the intention that this was meant to bring to the board of supervisors attention. they were broader concern and impact than one individual. that's the precedent for this specific numbers that are in this ordinance. tieing it to that overall structure in 2017. >> thank you for the detail.

i have a little difficult time of the exact extent of frizz loss filing. i agree with comments made by the sierra club that they are a valuable tool to hold people's feet to the fire. i'm curious to hear what other commissioners have to say. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. i have a question for miss jones and miss florez. the legislation is like, it's for a temporary structure it lasts for no more than 180 days. it tries to mainly target for sfmta. in the legislation, it's also --

it also focused on other agencies as well. such as airports, public utilities commission san francisco public works and rec and marks department. can someone give me a background why other agencies are being quoted in his legislation. >> i can do that. thank you for that question. i can see it's a little bit con 2350uzing. the portion of the legislation you're referring to has to do with the period of time after an appeal has been filed. but before it's heard by the board of supervisors and a decision is made. so what chapter 31 says now is that essentially once an appeal

is filed. all further decisions and actions may stop until the appeal is solved. i will ask that the city attorney correct any inaccuracies i have in what the existing exceptions are. but it's essentially an exception for a -- an immediate hazard. we can go forward with things to remedy that. what we can't go forward with under the current legislation are changes that would not have any impact on the environment because they're temporary or they're really easy to reverse or something like that. or they're something that's necessary to remedy a threat to public health or safety or to

public property that doesn't rise to the level of being an immediate hazard, but is still a necessary thing. the way chapter 31 is written now, it kind of prevents us from going-forward with that kind of step. the position that puts us in is, we can't then put in some soft flex posts to protect a bike lane or something like that. and that's kind of the issue that this change is trying to remedy. that's something that is applicable to all public projects, that's why all of those agencies are listed out of just giving a little bit more ability to go forward with immediately reversible necessary changes during a time that an

appeal is pending. the recent situation with a large number of appeals. and a large number of very urgent and important projects being affected was extremely disruptive within the mta and extremely disruptive -- a big issue for us in terms of our ability to take action to do what was being asked of us to schedule the work. this piece of the change would be enormously important to us to get the results. it's less effective and will not have any long term effect. another question too for me is in terms of the supervisory

board, seems to be focused on port commission. looks like it. can you give us an example in the port commission where it was also disruptive, or what kind of example that we think the ceqa became an abusive tool. >> i'm going to allow the city attorney to respond on that as to why. >> commissioner come poe from the city attorney's office. those were two kinds of projects, the port maritime leases. and certain sfmta actions that the board under the charter and for purposes of sfmta also the transportation code doesn't otherwise have jurisdiction over the project itself.

and so the board is not the decision making body. i think miss florez mentioned that already. i don't know if there have been maritime leases under appeal. i'm sorry, i don't have that information at my fingertips. but the underlying premise for port maritime leases and those sfmta actions. because the board doesn't otherwise have authority over the project. this additional step would be required of having 50 supervisors bring a separate seqa appeal to the board. >> thank you, miss stacy.

for me, it's how compelling the ceqa appeal for the project -- and i'm aware of how the sequel appeal is being abused. are we taking out some of the voices especially when it pertains to the closed streets. it sounds like the closed streets where it's preventing the food distribution social services, that's the kind of -- i'm thinking of -- when it comes to these agents. that are being labelled out, what are the services, and what are the voices are we taking out out of this appeal? i am -- i think i am in support of this, i would like hopefully

the work to consider more on the findings. where it would also protect social services and also protect voices that will not -- that will also be affected around this -- i don't know about that kind of language, that's the kind of, i would hope the board of supervisors also think about when it comes to this project. thank you. >> commissioner chen? >> yes. i am generally supportive of this legislation, ceqa has been around for almost 50 years now. it's never been intent for providing a process and public safety.

i think the way the legislation has been crafted is the scope in the way i'm comfortable with. having to devastate the strong public safety. there's a time limit that leads to actions that could lead to irreversible damage. i wanted to follow up on president imperial's point, given all the pertinents, i think one additional criteria, i might suggest is specifying whether there's a strong project demonstration for racial and social equity basis. if the project can be evaluated, those are the most impacted by covid, and would especially

benefit from covid and recovery efforts. >> did i miss a second. i believe i heard commissioner diamond make a motion. >> i did the second. >> you did. if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendation. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> the timing of the motion, is it appropriate for me to vote? >> i thought you were here earlier. >> no, i just arrived just a moment ago. >> very good. commissioner khan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond?

>> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> and commissioner president koppel? >> aye. >> that motion passes 6-0. that will place us on item 14 for case number 2016-008515 cua 1049 market street. a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation. >> yes, i am. >> good afternoon commissioners. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to allow the removal of six legal live work units and 77 unauthorized dwelling units. the six story office building located in in the downtown zoning district. the project comes to the commission paz a result of the settlement agreement approved by

the board of supervisors. included in your commission packets for your information. this facility was to create affordable artist housing. while most of the tenants have left, 13 remain and will be offered leases in the newly created interest greated units. the project sponsor has been working with the city and tender loin housing district. and we are pleased to be able to bring it before you today. generally speaking, the project includes 15 new restricted dwelling units. all located on the second floor. other upgrades will provide access to the second floor. mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems to apply the life saving code.

no changes would be made to the exterior of the building along the market street facade. to date, the marketplace has not received any comments. the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general money. although the project results in a loss of unauthorized dwelling units. it will create 15 permanently affordable dwelling units. which is a goal for the city. i would like now to introduce amy bogart who will start off with the sponsor presentation. she will be followed by steve from the tender loin housing clinic. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions should you have any.

>> i'm sorry. i'm having a little trouble unmuting miss bogart. i see her in the attendee list. but for some reason i cannot unmute her computer. let me check to see if she has a phone number opinion. >> there she is. if you can unmute your television, there's an echo. >> you should be -- [ interference ] >> would you prefer your phone number? unmuted your phone.

>> okay, can you hear me? >> we can thank you, sorry about that, you have five minutes. >> my name is amy bogart, i will be speaking on behalf of 1049 market street, llc. the project before you is a culmination of three years of hard work on behalf of the project sponsors, the tender loin housing clinic and the team at planning and dbi. the project is a result of a notice of violation issued at the subject property in 2013. following the notice of violation and subsequent litigation, the project sponsors saw a solution that would maintain the building principally committed, commercial use, while adding an affordable housing component to the property. the project sponsor and the tenants represented all sat in

the judge's chambers and collaboratively designed the project before you. as was explained, the project would separate the building into two separate parcels, with the name parcel being used for commercial and retail uses. and the residential parcel being used for residential housing for artisans. if approved, the parcel would be managed by the tender loin housing clinic. after the project was agreed to. the project sponsor set out to affect the project's design. the department of building inspection worked collaboratively with the project sponsor to make sure these requirements were met, and graciously made themselves available for countless meetings throughout the entitlement process. a preapplication meeting was held at dbi where dbi, the project sponsor went over the plans for the project and made

sure the building met all egress and building and fire requirements. while i do not want to speak for anyone else involved, i think it is safe to say we are all excited to be at this point in the process. the project if approved would legalize 15 affordable housing units, and avoid the relocation of the 13 existing residential tenants. as a mixed use project, the project is consistent with the mid market neighborhood and support's the cities general plan by improving the relationship between the housing and commercial industry. it is for these reasons the project sponsor encourages the commissioners to grant the conditional use authorization before you. i would like to now give the floor to steve collier who is on

the line of the tender loin housing clinic for further comment. thank you. steve, are you there? >> steve collier, tenderloin housing clinic. i've been the attorney for the 13 remaining tenants at the property as well as other tenants there who have left since 2013. this project is the result of a very complex but well thought out settlement of litigation between the project sponsor and the tenants. that would potentially have resulted in the removing of the tenants from the property and the lack of any residential

housing in the building which had unpermitted residential occupancy? an office building. because of the settlement and the efforts made to design the project the second floor will be permanently affordable housing sold as a vertical subdivision. using funds for the mayor's office of housing. to the tenderloin housing clinic, nonprofit. offering purposes of rehabilitating and maintaining this 15 -- units of affordable housing -- [ bell ringing ] it's important to understand that a lot of the tenants lived

in this property were and are artists, musicians, artisans, writers. because it was an affordable place for people like artists to live in central san francisco which has high rentses. the unpermitted nature of the dwelling allowed for artists to move in especially when the neighborhood was considered at one point blighted. now, we're able to make permanent housing for these artists. they will have submitted some statements on their behalf to the commission via audio clips that were downloaded to the secretary. and also, our available to speak today and present here to speak.

a few of those will -- a few of those tenants will speak today. >> thank you, mr. collier. >>. >> that concludes the presentation. members of the public if you wish to speak to this matter, you need to press three and you am be placed into the cue. when you hear your line has been unmuted. that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon commissioners. can you hear me? >> we can. >> good. i'm naomi cooper, i have lived at 1049 market street since 1998. i'm glad to be in this building, since affordable housing is hard to fine. i'm a writer, i have a studio without windows, so it's helpful for me to be in a quiet space where i can have fresh air without opening a window to the disturbance of street noise.

this helps me work and sleep better. as a senior who no longer drives, i need the convenience of this neighborhood with four grocery stores within walking distance, and good access to public transportation. especially for getting to writing classes and different parts of the city. it's advantageous to share space with this particular group of tenants. especially during the pandemic. we've really supported each other. in many ways, my life will be so much better if i can continue as a resident of san francisco and 1049 market street. and i want to express gratitude for everybody whose worked so hard to make this project possible. thank you. >> hello. can you hear me? >> can you hear me?

hello, my name is shondra, i have been living at 1049 market street since june of 2004, i'm a long time employee of the community oriented rainbow co-op in san francisco. i moved to 1049 as an artist and rainbow worker who never had a big enough and private enough space in which to adequately pursue my love of creativity. while at 1049 i performed at some open mics, greatly expanded my musical composition portfolio of guitar and instrumentals. and i self-produced my first cd and posted music videos on youtube on shondra redding. i'm currently taking a zoom class with a private teacher, and i love to walk just a few blocks to watch and support the street musicians. i have in addition turned a hobby of photography into a

prototype book of san francisco photos of our wall art, landscape, events and people. which i have shown to 80 people and two book stores, most of whom are eager to buy the book. i love to write poetry and lyrics and to draw futuristic landscape architectural schemes that i dream up. in closing, without the affordable rent and the diverse neighborhood in which i live. i could not believe -- and i want to thank the housing rights activists, numerous media press outlets, city politicians, our attorney steve and last but not least, my cotenants who have allowed me to work so hard to stay in the city and at 1049 market street. peace and love shondra. >> members of the public, last call for public comment. okay, seeing no additional requests to speak. commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is before

you. i take it back, there is another request to speak. >> i have some statements from some of our other residents. >> you already spoke ma'am, so that was your time. if you have additional comments from other members of the public who are not hear, you can submit them via email. commissioners, that will conclude public comment. and the matter is now before you. >> i'll be supporting the item today, and would like to hear from other commissioners. >> commissioner moore? >> i commend everybody who participated in this project for the incredible amount of creativity. i'm really proud and wholeheartedly support it. >> commissioner imperial? >> i'm also in full support, i would like to thank the staff,

the city attorney, and housing rights activists and everyone involved with this process. i'm happy to see what happens to this, and i would move to approve of this. commissioner tanner? >> just want to echo my fellow commissioners, proud of the city, the staff, the creativity, for this project. thank you for steaking with it. and glad that we can reach this agreement today and memorialize it with the action of this commission. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional requests, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner khan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial?

>> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. we'll place us on the final items on today's agenda, numbers 15 a and b. case number 20189-016808 shd and fnx, 321 florida street. >> can you make me the presenter? >> i was just doing that. >> good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. the item before you is a request for large project authorization pursuant to planning code sections 329 and 843 for a project at 321 florida that includes the construction of a

nine story, 154,000396 square foot mixed use structure. containing 47 offstreet auto spaces. 128 offstreet bike parking spaces. and 1336 square feet proposed to be provided to a nonprofit arts organization at no cost. the project includes 23 below market rate dwelling units, including 14 below rate units. the remaining 45% of the inclusion airy requirements of planning code section 415 will be met through the payment of the affordable housing fee. the site is currently developed with the parking lot, and to the left a rental car facility. the project is utilizing the statements, california government code section 6519 to 6518 and is afforded at 35% bonus of residential floor area.

through the density bonus, the project is requesting a concession for open space, and waivers from height limit and ground floor ceiling height. a variance from useable open space requirements and the eastern neighborhoods mixed use neighborhoods would incur -- the ceiling height requires additional floor area. the findings of eligibility are included in the large project authorization for approval. the project design has devolved over the course of review by the permit advisory team and with conversations with neighbors and neighborhood groups. the reorg was maintained at a code compliant 25%. and the design has resulted in a contemporary design with bulbs, detailed metal panels. the project sponsor continued to work with united to save the

mission. on the design, including up to this week, including yesterday. and the anticipation of some additional changes to incorporate additional color and a lighter color pallet. the project sponsor has some additional detail to provide in their presentation. the department reviewed the potential imfact for the project under ceqa and found on january 21, 2021 the project is eligible for streamlined review. in that it is consistent with the development established for the site under the eastern neighborhood's plan, and would not resolve the project or significant effects in the eastern neighborhood planned eir. the project also requires adoption of findings, related to -- with the recommendation of the rec and park commission, that the net new shadow caused

by this franklin square park is not adverse to the use and enjoyment of franklin square park. the proposed project would result in net new shadows falling on the park. adding approximately 2 million 400,000 square feet of shadow and increasing the shadow load on the park by 0.34% above current levels, resulting in an increase in the total annual shading from buildings, from 2.08%, to 2.42% of the total annual available sunlight for franklin square park. the new shadowing would be year round, most pronounced in summer and spring and late afternoon hours, and would fall on the western third of the park and cast new shadows on the park entry, a children's play area and adult fitness area. the new shadow caused at the

period of highest extent which is august 9th and may 3rd at 7:10 p.m. on january 21, 2021, the rec and park commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this shadow motion. finding the net new shadow does not have an impact on franklin square park. they met with neighbors of the project, representatives of neighborhood groups and friends of franklin square park. this outreach has resulted in modifications to the project such as increased lines, providing a code compliance in your yard. instillation of a community mural, containing a landscape architect and funding the play ground upgrade instillation. community driven design updates. donating the entire ground floor states at no cost to a nonprofit

arts organization. the project sponsor has an agreement with united save the mission to address other concerns with the project including some additional design changes. the department has received some comments in opposition to the project with nearby neighbors over the over all size of the project compared with adjacent structures. the shading of nearby residences on bryant street and the parking ratio provided, they have also received letters in support of the friends of franklin square and nearby residents. in conclusion, the project provides for 168 new dwelling units, including 40% of those units at 2 or more bedrooms. the policies of the general plan and the requirements of the urban mixed use zoning district, the adoption of findings for eligibility for the state

density bonus, adoption for the shadow motion finding that no adverse impact of the use of franklin square park is permitted. and adoptions for ceqa. this concludes my presentation. i will be available for questions. >> thank you, mike. the project sponsor your computer or television -- there's a strong echo coming from your end mr. mcdonald are you with us? >> can you hear me? >> we can. you have five minutes. >> okay, great, thank you. good afternoon, president koppel, commissioners, my name is mark mcdonald, i am the principle with a local san francisco development firm, it is my distinct pleasure to present for your review 321

florida street in the mission. the next slide, please? >> for over a decade, the development fit closely with neighborhoods across san francisco from ahead valley to dog patch in the marine ya, to develop high quality housing and deliver meaningful community benefits. next slide, please? >> 321 florida street will transform an existing parking lot into a vibrant mixed use project that will bring much needed housing to the neighborhood. it will add 168 units of housing with a good mix of studio and two bedroom units, suitable for families. next slide please? at 321 florida street, we partnered with mission neighborhood organizations, including united save the mission, mission housing development corporation, friends of franklin square park and a

community art stabilization for us, to design benefits for the community. next slide please? first we will be providing 23 on site pmr units, we have signed an mou to make a contribution of $2 million for the acquisition of 2675 folsom street to develop up to 125 units of 100% affordable housing. as well, we will be paying the 3.8 million dollar city density bonus. second we are planning to donate our retail space at 321 florida to the community arts stabilization trust. for community art use and to help support mission local artists.

we are providing financial and volunteer support to the friends of franklin square to help with capital improvement projects at the park, as well as upkeep and maintenance. fourth we'll be partnering with mission local artists, and funding a large community mural on the south side of the building to showcase for cultural significance. we are partnering with sweet pea's preschool our neighbor to the south to fund, design construction of their play art improvements. we are collaborating with our neighbors to understand and mitigate impacts of our building, including 25 foot set back between our building and their rear yards. we have extensive analysis of shading on our neighbor's solar panels, so we can identify

workable mitigation, and we plan to continue this dialogue. in terms of outreach, our project enjoys broad support from the community and neighborhood. we have strong endorsements from the friends of franklin square, the san francisco action coalition. and over 200 neighbors who have signed the petition in support of our project. we ask for your support of this project today, as recommended by the planning department we believe the city can be proud of 321 florida and the many benefits it will bring to the mission neighborhood. thank you for your consideration of this project today. i would like to bring on leonard scavo who will present the design. >> good afternoon commissioners, and thank you for having us. i'm very excited to be working

on 321 with pm development. the site is an interesting site, it's situated on florida street between 15th and 17th. what's really exciting about the site is the technology throughout the site is a combination of not just industrial commercial warehouses, but also sprinkled in there is some new residential building. it's very interesting to find how these two can work together on this unique slight. presently the site is an empty parking lot. it's a surface parking lot, and, you know, again, we're not losing any housing here, we're including 158 units. so it's a positive move for san francisco to do this. and it's a very welcoming residential area.

to give you an idea of the context, there are some large industrial buildings as well as some -- on bryant street, some residential buildings, it's interesting to see how the newark tech tour is starting to combine the idea, like 1800 bryant is trying to combine the idea of industrial and residential together. the idea that we started to initiate is really bringing that residential and industrial into the building. we felt this may be a nice way to take these two and blend them together and come up with a unique opportunity. next slide? what's also interesting about the site is that down bryant street, it's a downhill slope.

we're able to incorporate a nine story building and have a 25 foot set back. so allow open space and private gardens for some of the units. as well as creating open space at the higher levels which we'll discuss. next slide please? this is the ground swell playing. one of the things we're challenged with here, we have a vehicular entrance and also a transformer. we've book ended those at the two ends of the site, and in the center of the site, we've incorporated the residential lobby, retail art space as well as some units on the ground floor. we will activate the ground floor as much as possible. as you can see on the backside of the site, we have 11 units that have private [ bell ringing ]

>> sorry, it's been more than five minutes. please fingish up. >> this is a typical ground floor -- at the fop of the building. >> we have to cut you off. we've given you a couple extra minutes. we have to cut you off. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter, by pressing star then three to be entered into the cue. you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon, thank you for allowing me to speak today. my name is oriz. i am a member of the carpenter's local 22. i'm speaking in favor of the 321

florida street project. the development has committed to using a signatory general contract. this mixed use residential project will bring 169 rental units. a minimum of 31 will be on site, affordable units. will provide me with an opportunity for the train. i will need to advance my career to become a journeyman carpenter. i will work to provide me with the necessary benefits and income to provide for myself and my family. i am in full support of the development project with the community benefits and access to commission to support the development as well. thank you for your time.

>> this is mila gentile. i've actually worked on a couple different projects with this group. the most recent is the geneva car barn and powerhouse in district 11. i'm in full support of this project for a variety of reasons. not only is cast an excellent partner, but supporting the arts and nonprofit organizations in the city is so incredibly important. organizations are running out of space and are being squeezed out of the city. the arts are incredibly important part of the livelihood of artists in the city. and certainly they bring liveliness to the community as well in this -- going into these

post covid times. i feel that arts and arts expression and opportunity to heal from all of the trauma that has occurred over the last year will be incredibly important. especially for communities of color and the lgbtq community. i'm in full support of the project and hope that the commission will agree. thank you. >> good afternoon planning commission president koppel and members and director hillis. i'm the ceo of community arts stabilization trust. cast is a nonprofit that brings together the collective power of community, private and public leadership and funding to few ard permanent space for arts and culture. we've raised $40 million in philanthropic support and low

interest financing, to acquire four buildings across san francisco. all cultural centers, including as you heard from mila just before me. the geneva car barn powerhouse. three of which are open and serve an estimated 95,000 people a year, with contemporary arts and arts education programs. over the past six years, cast real estate community have shifted from leading with real estate to leading with our primary constituency, the artist. we've shifted to a community centered strategy which -- where artists are at the center of our work, and shaping how we navigate and develop real estate. a strategy that brings together community artists and members in a series of communications for engagement, deep listening, trust building and council. cast is in conversation for them to contribute 1500 square feet

of ground floor for culture and community uses. if that happens, we look forward to working in collaboration with artists, culture barriers, culture workers, such as united save the mission and neta to develop a vision and space that centers in the preservation of brown and black culture and community. and in the cultural and economic prosperity in the mission district. thank you. >> my name is cliff barger, i live about a mile from the site. i'm a renter, i'm excites to see projects like this one that replace things like parking lots with large amounts of homes for people who live in san francisco. this seems like a great project. very accessible to public

transit and open space, and i strongly support it. thank you. >> i've already spoken. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is richard brown, i'm speaking against the 321 florida street project. for the past 14 years i've been a resident of an apartment building on bryant street. our building runs just to the east of the proposed florida building. all the residents of the four apartments in this building have access to our back patio and garden that runs adjacent to the proposed florida building. this patio is a little sliver of solace that i can escape to

since i have noisy bryant street on my west side, and in this green space that we all are able to experience in the back, we're very fortunate to have -- even in the late afternoon early evening, we're able to sit with the sun setting to the west and enjoying the sun. as everyone knows, it's a citizen of san francisco or fog city, we become possessive of our little piece of the sun when it is out. with the development of 321 florida in 2018 when i heard about this, i was disappointed because i knew the quality of life for myself would be diminished to some degree. at the time, it was proposed as a seven story building on the other side of my backyard fence. i eventually accepted i couldn't change everything, we did need

housing in 2018. i questioned how bad that's needed due to covid. however, hearing now the developer wants to increase the building to 9 stories, i question whether we will have access to the sun at all. especially since most of the sun we get is as it moves to the west. i also question whether any of these -- those people that have spoken in favor of the project would like to experience what i will be experiencing without in sun in my place of residence and in a green space i've learned to enjoy and been fortunate to enjoy. i would urge commissioners to reflect on how they would feel and vote against the proposed project. >> i'm a nearby resident, i am thrilled the development will be

at 321 florida street. franklin square park cleanup, i'm thrilled about the community benefits that acme this production. the large amount of affordable housing. commitment to work with the friends of franklin square. i'm supportive of this project and i hope the commission is as well. thank you so much. >> murial aliza speaking. we've had conversations with neighborhood groups around san francisco, and find this concerns everyone. the shadow study to the project does not include the cumulative effect the nine story plan will have on the neighbors, including existing solar panels. on behalf of the neighborhoods, i'm asking to request a study initiated to determine the best method of existing solar systems, and offering my time to

join the task force if that seems like the best way to move forward. san francisco needs to considering how to mitigate the impact of shadows due to new construction. we're imploring local authorities to do something now before state laws may go into effect, threatening the single family homes where most solar powers live. as illustrated by the response -- owner of the solar panel, affected by the nine story plan received. she requested documents from her contractor, due to extended shadows. the contractor refused to help and threatened to charge her with any losses they incurred as the result of any project. we understand that the developer was not so terribly productive, so we requested the commissioner

consider adding support from the developer to the conditionings of the approval for the project. this is a problem that could be solved with more stringent regulations, or a possible mandate requiring contractors to support the systems they sell, by supplying updated analysis when requested. contractors who comply may be give ing special recognition or some kind of approval rating. the government helps the solar industry through a series of programs set up to entice buyers. once the instillations are appreciated, for the contract to assign. the systems can support and protect the sun. >> thank you, that's your time. >> local communities to set up protections. >> commissioners, i live two blocks from the proposed 321 florida development and am on

the board of franklin square friends. i support the 321 project because it adds housing to a neighborhood that's extremely well served by transit and walkable and bikable. it's great to see the market rate units exceed the minimum requirements. as a member member of friends of franklin square, i agree the proposed project will have a greater impact on the park fan negative, and support the development for the following reasons, it will become home to many residents who will become new park users. since these new residents will live in close proximity in the park, we believe they will be invested in advocating for and improving the park. 321 florida does create a shadow on our park. our understanding is that the net new annual shadow will increase by only 0.34%,

predominantly in the late afternoon and evening. and the majority of this new shadow area is currently shaded by existing trees. the developer of the project has been meeting with our group since 2019 as the project has been progressing, and it's proved to be a collaborative and transparent partner. they have voluntarily pledged to support the square through service hours at the park cleanup days, and a donation of $25,000 for improvements. friends of frankly square support this project and i hope the commissioners will also support this project. >> hello planning commissioners, my name is bobbiwise and i own a business, pet supply company. in may of last year, we moved into a new project at 607 florida and opened a neighborhood pet shop, which has

been an interesting development opening a new retail business during covid. the neighborhood has been accepting of us, and we're thrilled to be in the neighborhood. my business being a pet supply business relies heavily on neighborhoods for the traffic and serving our neighbors that are in the surrounding areas, we are in favor of 321 florida project, because any new residents and new vibrancy that's brought to the neighborhood is wonderful for our business. and being a long time participant in the neighborhood i originally had a warehouse at 375 alabama street in the mid-90s. we sincerely hope the project goes forward. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, fellow commissioners, my name is

octavio martinez, i am a member of the local 22 for over 18 years. i have been at university for 36 years, the project will create much needed jobs, that pay living wages and provide opportunity for local apprentices to begin and continue their career in construction. the project sponsored dm development is to ensure that 321 florida is a welcome addition to most residents and neighbors. the proposed use residential development will replace an unutilized surface parking lot with 169 new rental homes and a minimum of 31 affordable units. activating much needed housing

and neighborhood survey burn fits. artists who occupy the grounds, community art space, rent free and the designs of to create a 92 foot mural 321 florida street will provide new market rate and affordable housing. center community benefit. i encourage your support of the project, thank you for letting me speak.

>> go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon, i live in the mission district. i'm in full support of this project, i enjoyed the way it plans for the full range of housing needs in the city of san francisco and especially affordable housing. i often walk by the area with my husband as we enjoy all of the wonderful amenities and businesses in the neighborhood. i'm well aware that this project will help new residents easily rely on public transportation including walking and bicycling for daily trips. it's important to promote housing for children as this project does, and it encourages the sufficient and suitable

amount of rental housing opportunities. including permanent affordable housing that will be designed in this unit. i think it's wonderful that the project is respected to receive a silver green point rating. and be an all electric building. i think that's wonderful. and all of this -- all of the community conversations that have been provided by this developer, is a strong sign of the investment of the community by encouraging you to support this project as it stands, and i hope that the benefits of having 169 new families coming into the area will far exceed the sacrifices that have been described today. i think the overall benefits far outweigh the risks. please support the project today. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the action coalition. two points i wanted to make in addition to our letter which was submitted. first of all, the continued conversations with community members and the idea that there's going to be efforts to perfect another site for 100% subsidized affordable housing, in addition to what their doing is fanning taftic, that creativity and getting to the place where the community is supportive of the inclusion airy housing. along with a project that is feasible and can get built is really a sweet spot. we are thrilled with the recent developments.

co-hosted and shared with all of you previously. more than 200 people signed that petition in support of the project. and a little over 40% the last time i looked, it was 91 people identified as neighbors as mission residents. there's strong support for the project as well. and we ask that you move the project forward here today. >> good afternoon, president koppel, members of the planning commission, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. i'm the lead field representative right here in san francisco. i represent approximately 40,000

carpenters in california and here in the city of san francisco. carpenters submitted a letter of support for the development. and i'm putting my voice to that support. the development not only has a history of working collaboratively, they have a proven track record of actually builds their projects once they're approved. we know that san francisco has become increasingly unaffordable in recent years, both to newcomers and long term residents. this is definitely a step in the right direction. right now we are facing an uncertain economic environment. the development has committed to the use of a general contractor. health care, retirement benefits, and local opportunities for apprentices to begin their career in construction.

we can retain an essential workforce of trained, skilled workers here in the city of san francisco. presenting shadows of new development, the shadows for this proposed development concludes that it is minimal. the developer has pledged their support for franklin square park by voluntarily offering to host byannual cleanups at the park. the carpenter's union fully support's the proposal. we ask that the commission support the planning recommendation. thank you for your time. >> my name is jay and i'm a member of community action. i'm a long time san francisco resident and previously lived just a couple blocks from the site. i couldn't be more excited to see new housing in this

neighborhood. much like the rest of our city needs affordable income. to ensure that current and future residents are able to remain in san francisco, regardless of their income. i frankly cannot think of a better example of the path forward than turning an empty parking lot into over 150 new housing units. we need more homes for people. i strongly urge you to support this budget and thank you for your time. >> hello, commissioners, my name is samantha dion, i am a member of sweet pea me school. my backyard lines up with the

property line at the 321 florida street project proposal. the development has been incredibly collaborative in working with me as my business will be directly next door. and made sure that not only the dropoff times and pickup times of the preschool are not affected, they worked with us to ensure that noise and things of that nature will be addressed. and they have also helped me in upgrading my playground to have a nicer outdoor space for the children to play. in addition to the facts that as a business owner, i've been in that space for nine years. i do appreciate the fact that apartment building next door

will bring more life to the neighborhood and just create a better feel for the neighborhood. they've also -- dm development has also offered to direct families to the school that is directly next door, and they've been incredibly supportive and collaborative to work with. i am in support of this project. thank you. [ please stand by ]

>> -- and we also have three businesses on the street. we are all universally opposed to this project as we became aware that it was going to be a nine-story variation rather than a seven-story development. we requested a shadow study for our neighborhood, and we received that in january, and it was in report form, and to be blunt, it was not scientific, so we challenged that. what i got, in my last conversation, was it did not represent the real world, and the real world being that, on our southside, we already have

a shadow effect in place for many years since high-rise developments went up on that side of the street. but we at least get filtered light until about noon. noon is the time that the sun reaches the western sky, and that's the time that it projects this project will put a full shadow on our homes. we'll be in full dark from that time until dawn the next day. we ask that you approve this project only as a seven-floor variant. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the

public, commissioners, public comment is now closed, and the matter is now before you. it's all yours, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: so i guess i will go ahead and get started. i did have a few questions for the designer, who i believe was

presenting to us. is that correct? >> okay. >> commissioner tanner: are they here? >> clerk: they are, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: okay. if they were available, i just had a question about some of the layout, particularly with the presentation. >> clerk: yeah. if you could share your screen again. >> commissioner tanner: i'm not sure if the slides contained the roof deck, but i think it's really important to understand the request for a waiver from providing the amount of open space required. i think i have my notes that open space is required which

would be the equivalent of about 86 units, which is just over half of the units. it was impressed to see some of the flow of this, so if the designer could walk-through a little bit of what was being provided as far as open space, i would appreciate that. >> yeah, this is glen [inaudible]. i'll take that question [inaudible] with the project, so what we did is a couple of things. down below, we have common areas for the units and on the backside of the building. that's about 5,000 square feet divided into the 11 units, but on the top of the roof is where we have the common open space for the remaining residents, and what we did is we basically divided it into [inaudible]. we included outdoor space for

lounging, outdoor space for working out, an indoor residential lounge, and also a small fitness indoor space. all of the spaces open up to the exterior, and what we wanted to do was not just create one large space of, you know, the required amount, but we wanted to break it up into smaller components. granted, we didn't hit the number that we were required to hit, and part of it is because we've dedicated so much down below to the private gardens, which we felt was appropriate for some of the families that want to move into these projects, so we have quite a bit of indoor-outdoor space. [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: just to follow up on the flexibility of the indoor space. in the openings, do the windows

open up? with the windows, how large are they? if you could give me an idea of that. >> we have what are called glass partition walls that kind of slide and open up, so i would say a good 30% to 40% of the wall is opened up to the outdoor space. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and mr. christiansen, is that space counted as outdoor or not outdoor just to get an idea of the useable outdoor space. >> hi, commissioner tanner. this is michael christiansen. this is not included in the outdoor space. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you for that. what did you have to add, sir? >> i was just going to add, if

you go to the appendix, slide 31, michael, it'll help show some of those spaces. just a few more slides here. next one -- yeah. >> commissioner tanner: okay. >> that kind of shows how we divide that. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i appreciate that. and we did hear the park and rec commission consider the status, and we heard from the friends of the franklin square park. we also heard from some neighbors, though, who are immediately adjacent and who feel that they are impacted by the shadows from the building. can you speak at all to that condition that might be created? >> you know, we're obviously working with the density bonus package, and we've pulled the building back 25 feet.

at the top of the building, we've purposely pushed all our interior space to the front of the building as much as possible and the elevator to the center of the building as much as possible, so we've done what we possibly could. again, it is a bonus -- density bonus project, so they allowed us to increase the height. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and did the shadow analysis speak at all -- i just kind of want to follow up on the testimony, which is there was not any analysis that was provided to the neighboring -- i think it was 19 homeowners or residents that are nearby. i think it was not required, but just repeating what was stated. >> this is mark mcdonald, the project sponsor. we did a very comprehensive

shadow study by a reputable shadow consultant? we did show what that would be, and it is a relatively modest impact to what a shorter building would have, and whether we're building nine stories or seven stories or five stories, you know, there would be some impact to the neighbors, but the incremental impact was very modest going the several extra floors. >> commissioner tanner: right, and it seems like to me the rear yards for the townhome units that are shown on the ground floor would abet the rear yards of the units on the other street. do you know if those rear yards that you're planning will have some sun during certain times of the year or will they be in shadow or what's that condition going to be like there?

[inaudible]. >> we will have shadow, certainly, in our rear yards, definitely, but we will definitely have sun in those rear yards. >> commissioner tanner: great. those are my questions for now. >> president koppel: great. thank you. >> commissioner imperial: i guess i can speak. i have a question to our staff, mr. christiansen. some of the comments were about the solar panel, and are we -- just trying to understand -- i -- you know, the kind of are impact it will have on the solar panels, and are there any kinds of laws that are

protected on that, and do we know anything about the shadow impact and the impact on the solar panels? >> sure, commissioner. so the law, buildings over 40 feet will analyze shadow impact on buildings such as frank lynn square. we don't have an analysis for shadow on adjacent properties. it's -- franklin square. we don't have an analysis for shadow on adjacent properties. i do understand that the project sponsor has specifically discussed this issue with the owner of the solar panels and has been in active discussion on mediating impact. for specific details on that, i would defer to the project sponsor for that, though.

[inaudible] >> clerk: project sponsor, did you have something to add? >> yes. carl hoosier, the project manager, who's been in direct contact with the owner of the panels, can give a status update which has been robust to date. >> hi. i'm cara hoosier, the project manager [inaudible] on what time of day the shadow would be predicted to start on her solar panel at the start of the season, and then she was going to talk to her solar panel and

pg&e to come up with some other information to come up for us. she and i talked yesterday, and essentially, i told her that we want to take care of her so she's not in a bad position with the lease that she has for those. we don't want her to have any negative financial or other consequences, so she and i have a plan to follow up in the next few days and take that conversation further. and essentially, we're just getting down to the details of how to calculate that for her and what her financial impact is so that we can take care of that faster, so all of that's that way. >> commissioner imperial: okay. so it sounds like it's still on going. the only reason why i point that out is because as we are seeing this more -- you know, more projects using a state density bonus, and one project in the yard that has solar

panels in one of the buildings, i can see it can be an issue as we're trying to intensify or upzone a height limit, and what's our precautions for us, you know, in the planning department in order to protect as the state is also trying to protect and also encourage solar panels, as well. so i'm just trying to see the things that can happen in the future and, you know, what the mitigation that we can do in the planning department when it comes to that issue. my -- another question for the project sponsor is that you mentioned about the 2 million

for 2675 folsom street. is that something that's on going? >> we've been in discussion to use some of the funds that would go towards the city's density bonus portable fee, so those dialogues are on going now. aside from that, though, there's $2 million that we've earmarked that we as the sponsor will provide irrespective of what happens with the mayor's office towards 2675 folsom, and we signed an m.o.u. with the mission housing corporation. sam moss, who's the executive director, was going to speak. he unfortunately had a prior commitment and so could not do that, but they're absolutely thrilled, as is united to save

the mission and a number of other organizations because 2675 is a location that they've wanted to develop for some period of time as an affordable housing project. and then we're working in the future on other sources of financing to make sure that project gets built and gets built as 100% affordable. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you so much for that answer, and those are my questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i wanted to take a moment and ask a few additional clarifying questions in addition to the set of questions that commissioner tanner asked. i'm talking about the quality of open space and the

significant less open space than what is required. 168 units, the amount of open space is only given for 86 units. that said, the statement which was made at the ground floor, private open space primarily serves families, i think that's a slight misrepresentation because the 11 units on the ground floor, eight of them are studios, and only three of them are multifamily three- and two-bedroom units. so with units in this complex being very small, i believe that the amount of required open space is insufficient and is exacerbated by the state

density bonus. i have said this before, but the state density bonus seems to be detracting on the quality of the housing that we are building instead of enhancing what we're bringing into the market. together with nested bedrooms and insufficient open space in these post covid times, i think we should be doing better. this combined with the shadow on the bryant street individual homes and the shadow on the common open space beyond, i'm very concerned that this project is not exactly what is correct for this neighborhood. i'd like to ask the architect, in passing, we were told in the introductory comments that

there were brought about a number of design changes that were not presented in today's presentation. would you mind going back to that and describing what the neighbors are asking for? >> clerk: mr. riskov, are you with us? >> i am now. >> clerk: okay. >> and i apologize. i didn't hear the direct question, so i see we're on the design changes. is that -- >> vice president moore: i'm reading through them, and you have not yet sketched out what that means [inaudible] i would

apply that comment not just to the ground floor but to the rest of the building massing. alternating color hard to say because of the inclusion of any of those kind of metals. have you ever sketched that out or are we just supposed to approve that? >> no, we have that sketched out. if you go to the next slide, and this was all done in the last 24 to 48. we were working with u.s.m., and these are all requests that they have made, and we have been working diligently in the last 48 hours to incorporate as

much as we could. this shows the elimination of the bay windows at the base of the overall bay, and what we like about it is it starts to give an interesting pattern at the [inaudible] -- >> vice president moore: that's not what i'm asking. is there an elevation drawing before and after? obviously, i can follow what you're saying but i can't see it because i don't have an image to compare it to. so my question is are the design drawings worked out enough? >> i would say for the overall, not the smaller details about the 18-inch or the

finestration, yes, i think you can make a comparison. if you look at this slide versus the -- a slide further back, which is the opening page slide of the original idea, if you can go back to that, michael -- no, i'm sorry. go to the design -- keep going down. keep going. so right here. commissioner moore, this was a terra cotta-type color. what we've done is we've used a color that we've all agreed

upon and eliminate one bay window all the way across. >> when you say density, you mean in color saturation? i'm not sure what density means. >> well, what we've done is we've created a [inaudible] and what we're going to start to do now is work with the amount of each of those pallettes. >> you're saying one could be 25%, one could be 30%. i'd like to see those drawings worked on. i would like to ask mr. sucre, perhaps, if he could come on. >> hi, commissioners. >> mr. sucre, have you been

fully briefed on this matter already? >> we have not had a chance to fully vet the final design, but the type of changes that have been proposed are fairly typical for what we see after the fact when the project has left the commission's hands, so -- >> vice president moore: so if the commission would approve the project today, would this be a project that could be brought back for the commission for a final design review, even though it would have to be recycled to come back to us? >> yeah, i would say if the commissioners were concerned about the design, you could certainly add a condition just to state that the final design be transmitted back to the commission and/or reviewed by them. it's something that we've done

on other projects, so, you know, we can still certainly advance the project accordingly. >> commissioner moore, we are hoping that the idea would be to go back and work with u.s.m. and create the new renderings that we all felt were appropriate in terms of our discussions. >> vice president moore: [inaudible]. >> so the other discussion is in order to have open space, you need to have a dimension of 15 feet. >> vice president moore: correct. >> and one of the things that we do have which we haven't accounted for is we have an

area that we thought would be an excellent area for potentially a seating area. it's only 8 feet wide, but it's potentially an extra 1500 square feet of extra room that we'd have on the roof, but it would be -- we'd have to ask for an exception to the 15 feet, but we would be able to create another 1500 square feet of open space if that -- if that was desirable. >> vice president moore: i'd like to have the other commissioners kind of circle back to that question and pick up where commissioner tanner left off. i'm curious to know more about what the commissioners think. >> president koppel: okay. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i, too, want to talk about open space and about design. so there are many, many community benefits to this

project. they're wonderful, and i'm happy to see all this additional housing is being provided, and that b.m.r.s are on-site. there are two areas of concern for me, and the first relates to the open space issues raised by commissioners tanner and moore. while the state density bonus allows developers to seek concessions in the amount of open space, the amount of open space being provided is roughly half of what would otherwise be required under our code. while i like the design of the roof and appreciate the indoor-outdoor nature of the fitness facility and the lounge area, what i haven't heard any of the project sponsor representatives talk about yet is the potential additional of balconies. as we just discussed last week in conjunction with the folsom

street balconies. it's something that we've seen really increase during covid, and even if the size of the balconies that you might private don't technically meet our definition for open space, i wonder if you have looked at the possibility or would look at the possibility of adding balconies to a number of the units. would you comment on that, please? >> so one of the advantages of taking on this elimination of the bay windows is we've incorporated [inaudible] balconies on those six bays, so

these are where the glass would open up completely and allow for that experience to occur. they're not full-on balconies like you would experience. >> commissioner diamond: are they large enough for two people to put chairs on them and sit on them? >> i would say no. >> commissioner diamond: i would like to encourage the project sponsor to explore the addition of private balconies that are at least large enough for two people to sit on them so that it's useable open space.

i -- especially as we are seeing increasing, it appears, a number of state density bonus projects, i would like us as a commission and department to be very focused on how we can increase the amount of useable open space, whether it technically qualifies under our code or not as open space. so i would, if the other commissioners are willing, think that we should add a similar kind of condition. mr. christiansen, i wonder if you might recite the language of the finding so that everyone knows what we sought last time? just as a reminder, it's a finding, not a condition. >> yes [inaudible] added that finding to the large project authorization finding related to the provision of open space,

and as an encouragement for the project sponsor as they continue to investigate design for the space of balconies, i don't have the exact language in front of me. >> commissioner diamond: okay. [inaudible] i would be interested in adding language similar to that, except being explicit that it needs to be useable. by that, i mean, you can at least put two chairs on it. and then secondly, while i understand that design changes happen after commission approval, it is hard to know exactly what designs we're exactly approving here because this particular design we're looking at right now seems significantly different than the one that we saw prior to today, and it's making me uncomfortable in my role as a commissioner because i don't know what it is exactly that they're approving. so in this particular instance, i would definitely support

commissioner moore's suggestion that this come back to us for design review, especially as i would like to see more work done on the balconies, and that would [inaudible] that is not to say at all that i am not in fully in support of the size of this project or all of the community benefits. as i said at the beginning of my remarks, i think this is a really terrific projects, but when last-minute design changes come to us, and they were being negotiated with neighborhood groups and the planning commission hasn't really gotten their arms around it, it feels uncomfortable to me to not have a role in approving the final design, so those are my thoughts. >> president koppel: great points, commissioner diamond and commissioner moore. let's hear from commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: i would

support the findings that commissioner diamond mentioned, and i would like the sponsor to talk about the potentially 1500 square feet of open space that wouldn't qualify necessarily being the 15 by 15 that we need but sounds like it could be a provided amenity for the residents. is that something that could be spoken to? i'm not sure if it's included in any of the diagrams that we've seen. where would that 1500 square foot be located, and what would be the quality of it? does the project sponsor want to respond to that? >> clerk: mr. mcdonald? >> the question was about open space and describing it? >> commissioner tanner: well, i think that there was an response that there was an additional 1600 square feet that could be used for seating, but the dimensions of it were

such that it was very narrow and wouldn't qualify as open space, but i'm interested to learn more about what that would be. >> so yeah. if you look at the reframe, there's a strip that goes along the southeast side and returns on the right-hand side. so the upper right hand green strip and the lower green strip, there's a depth there. it's about 8 feet -- it's not the 15 feet that we can utilize, but it's about 1500 square feet that we can use. it could be a dog run, it could be seating. these are the balconies that we've been talking about. we could utilize that space, and, from the code, it's not

the 15 that allows us to call it outdoor space, but if there was a little way that that could all go towards common outdoor space, and it could work fairly well for chairs and tables all along the edge of the balcony there. >> commissioner tanner: how is that area imagined to be programmed? is it accessible? is it not accessible? what is the imagination right now for that space? >> well, because there is mechanical adjacent to that and we couldn't count it as outdoor space by the law, we just left it as a green -- sort of a green roof. but again, we could easily make it accessible, and we could use that number towards our larger number and, again, populate it with furniture, benches, and

chairs, and spread it out again, a dog run along one edge or something. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. so i think my -- i would say to my fellow commissioners if they're interested, i would certainly be wanting that space to be available to the residents of this building. whether it remains a softscape or a hardscape with tables and chairs, a dog run would be an amenity that residents of this building would appreciate. mr. christiansen, i'm eager to provide as much open space to residents as possible, and if this is required to be part of the accessible area, that it's included in today's decision. can you opine if it matters if

it's to be counted towards the open space or if it's not when considered to the roof span? >> well, because of that 15-foot space in order to be counted, if that area were to be accessible, it would not -- it wouldn't change the math in terms of the waiver that you're -- would be providing to the project. you'd still be providing the same amount of waiver? just if the project sponsor intends to provide -- if that can be provided, it's more of an amenity. it doesn't change the technical approval that's before you today. >> commissioner tanner: great. [inaudible] so that was what i was going to see, commissioners. the project sponsor on the

ground floor units, thank you so much, commissioner moore, for pointing that out. is it possible, there would be fewer units overall, but to have more two bedrooms. it seems that it's an important opportunity to have more family friendly housing where the unit looks out onto open space where young children could be outdoors and still supervised by their parented who are indoors. it certainly creates an opportunity where studio, again, could also have a family with children residing there, but a two-bedroom would be more likely to accommodate that. could you speak to a plan with more two bedrooms? i believe the second floor has five two-bedrooms on that side of the building? >> is this a question for the --

>> commissioner tanner: this is a question for the project sponsor. thank you, mr. christiansen. >> i think we should be able to look at combining, yeah, some of the studios and looking at whether there are opportunities to create larger units on the ground floor? we can certainly do that. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. so commissioners, with the issue with the balconies, i'd be interested to requiring that additional 1600 square feet be available to residents on the roof, and seeing more units on the ground floor be two-bedroom units. i'm curious to see what my fellow commissioners think of this. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'm in favor of what commissioner tanner mentioned about the 1500 square feet. it sounds like it will be

accessible and useable open spaces, and i'm also in favor of commissioner moore's suggestion for us -- for the planning commission to review the design as we are doing a lot of suggestions for the design, so i am in general support for the other commissioners' suggestion. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i wanted to have the commission reflect for a moment on the question about balcony. if it is a balcony that allows two chairs, is it a dimension that starts to affect the quality of the unit itself? there is only so much square footage to deal with, and since the units are relatively narrow, in the nested bedrooms, you are losing what is a significant amount of liveable space versus open space in

terms of a balcony. it's not a question, just a comment. the other thing is the ground floor, as i understand it, southeast corner, where we have this additional 1600 square feet, i would prefer that we stay off the property line where useable open space becomes occupied by people rather than just green space that separates us by a reasonable space from the adjoining neighbors. mr. christiansen says there is a reason of [inaudible] open space buffer actually is there and is useful in its own right. the one question i would like to ask and suggest to the project sponsor to consider is we would permit the rooftop gym -- i am wondering if that

particular portion would not be a very good open space? there are gyms galore all-around town, in the adjoining neighborhoods, etc. why does every project have to have a gym when open space, which is what we're critical of, be a better use for the space? i'd like the whole open space discussion reexamined, together with the other changes that i have suggested -- the facade, building coloration. >> more of a constraint that we have, commissioner moore, the only enclosed space that we

have is the residential lounge and the gym that we have with the elevators. what we have is the requirement for the solar panels, and that's the only area that we have to establish the amount of solar panels that we need to get our greenpoints on the ratings. that's why it is [inaudible] at least the roof area. >> vice president moore: and mr. mcdonald, as you're speaking, i'm kind of laughing, actually, and i'm not laughing at you. we are shading adjoining neighbors', and we can't provide open space because we have solar panels. i think it bears repeating what state density bonus allows us to do and does not force us to do. i think that open space is more

important than a gym and the space on which those solar panels sit. >> commissioner moore, that was glen riskov speaking earlier. >> vice president moore: sorry. >> no, thank you for the commentary on the gym. it -- we have looked at kind of the availability of gyms in the near vicinity, and i think in a post covid world, there has been, you know, somewhat more caution in using public gyms, and the idea of having a gym that is limited to a more private or a more limited, i should say, set of individuals is a lot more attractive to folks these days as a way to get exercise and whatnot, and so it has become, you know, a more desirable amenity for folks. and as the space for solar panels, as glen was saying, it

was kind of the one place on the roof that we could put that. and certainly understand the irony that you pointed out, but that was the other reason for it. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> sure. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so i want to respond to commissioner moore's two very interesting points. the first about the balconies and whether or not they are reducing the size of the units and what the tradeoff is and what it would entail. it's a really important question, and i don't mean by my comments to dictate that we have to have balconies that people have to sit on. if that's going to come at the cost of useable space, i want to explore it is what i was suggesting, but i don't know how much more inches it might have to have these balconies

accommodate a chair or two, so i am hopeful that these balconies can be explored. i'm concerned about removing the gym on the top floor. while i am a proponent of neighborhood gyms, you have to pay money to be a member. i'm not comfortable with removing the gym and expect people to pay a fee to belong to neighborhood gyms, so i would much prefer that that gym be kept, rather than expecting that people who want to exercise are going to want to pay membership fees associated with neighborhood gyms. >> clerk: would anyone dare

make a motion? okay. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> vice president moore: i have a question for you, secretary. if the project does not have a motion, it is just automatically approved, correct? >> clerk: that would be true for d.r.s, but for a large project authorization or conditional use authorization, you need to affirmatively approve that by four votes, so

no, the short answer is no, not in this particular instance. >> vice president moore: i would like the project to come back to us. i am prepared to support it in part, but there are, i think, quite a few issues that need to be thoroughly documented, analyzed, worked on with staff, and brought back for further review in full. >> president koppel: mr. sucre, do you have any comments? >> yeah. given the robust discussion that we've had, it would be good to document any of what we've heard in case any of the commissioners were interested in moving the project forward. from what i understand, there was discussion about open space and increasing private open space as well as creating a finding to that effect, that staff work with the sponsor to

explore. there was also discussion about adding a condition of approval to review the final design of the project once we finish review with the community -- >> clerk: i'm not sure if you added the exploration of two-bedroom ground units? >> ah, yes, so the last one would be to explore ground

floor two-bedroom units. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: so thank you, mr. sucre. if we were to adopt the large project authorization and adopt it with those items coming back for final review, it would be an opportunity for us to review those items or do we need to do that now and have it come back before we make the large project authorization? >> no, i think the commissioners can approve it. obviously, if there are additional concerns when the design is brought back, it's always something that we work through with the project sponsors. there is a standard condition of approval.

>> commissioner tanner: and that's what i would like to happen. >> vice president moore: i'd rather move the project because i'd rather have an amicable approval on design rather than be stuck on -- >> commissioner tanner: commission. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so let me make a motion that i think incorporates what we talk about. so i would move to approve the shadow finding and

authorizational finding with the condition being further review and consideration of the balconies with the landing that we previously talked about with a condition that the project come back to us for final design approval with specific focus. there would also be an additional condition that -- i don't know if it's a condition, commissioner tanner, or it's part of the design condition that explores converting several of the studios to two-bedroom units to the extent feasible on the ground floor. >> commissioner tanner: i think that might be a design

condition, but yes. >> commissioner diamond: so that would be part of the design condition. is there anything, commissioners, or clerk, that you failed to mention? >> clerk: i don't think so. if we can get a second, i can restate the motion and what we heard. >> vice president moore: i'd like to ask mr. christiansen, if we convert the ground floor all to two or three-bedroom units, are we providing the right amount of accessibility when it comes to unit types? >> i'm sorry. i may not have understood that question, commissioner. >> vice president moore: a building of this size has to have a certain amount of accessible units. by converting all units now into two or three-bedroom units, are we providing the proper mix to meet that

accessibility requirement? >> i can chime in, commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: yeah, thank you. >> in review of the project by d.b.i., we would ensure that the accessibility would be met in terms of doorways and other parts. any changes under local codes would need to be met, period. >> clerk: and if i understand correctly, the condition related to two-bedroom units on the ground floor was an exploration. it didn't mandate that all of the ground-floor units were even two or even three-bedroom units, if i understand the condition correctly. >> vice president moore: commissioner -- i mean, secretary ionin, i would like to take the two motions for the a and b part of this project as separate motions, please.

>> clerk: very good. i still need a second. >> commissioner chan: second. >> commissioner tanner: i think commissioner diamond is talking, but she's on mute. >> commissioner diamond: are we talking about combining units or is it the same number of units, trying to concentrate the same number of units on the ground floor? >> clerk: the density was not discussed in this discussion, but i believe the intent was not to lose any units but to rearrange them so the family-sized units would have more access to the units on the ground floor was my understanding of the conversation. >> commissioner diamond: okay. >> clerk: so i did hear a second from someone. >> commissioner chan: me. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further, commissioners, from this

vigorous deliberation on this project, there's a request to call the two items separately, but there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt findings, shadow findings, and we'll take that matter first. on the adoption of shadow findings -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes 6-1, with commissioner moore voting against. on the second motion to approve the large project authorization with conditions, that has been amended to include a finding, and i'll just take the verbiage from the 1560 folsom street finding. [please stand by]

>>. >> clerk: committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both cable channel 26 and sfgtv are streaming the information across the screen. public comment is available by calling 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187-836-1885.

then press pound twice. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only. best practices are to turn down your telephone or computer or raid -- radio and speak slowly and clearly. items acted upon today are expected to appear upon the board of supervisors of march 7. thank you, mr. chair. >> chair haney: thank you, madam clerk. just a note on scheduling, before we start, i'm going to call item 1, and then after we hear item 1, i'm going to recess, and we have to finish the budget and finance item

number 9, and with that, we will reconvene the budget and appropriations committee item number 2. madam clerk, will you call item number 1? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187-836-1885. press pound twice and then press star, three to enter the queue to speak. wait until the system has indicated your line has been unmuted, and you may begin to speak. >> chair haney: thank you. colleagues, today, we have before us a board of supervisors budget process

motion for fiscal years 21-22 and 22-23. each year, the board strives to design a budget process with broad involvement from not not all members of the board of supervisors, mayor's office, city agencies, and, of course, members of the public. the goal of this is to delineate the budget process in the coming months, the process for the board to identify and publicly communicate its policy priorities for the budget, the mayor's budget priority, the mayor's proposed priorities, and the guidelines regarding public transparency and decision making. these goals reflect one, rapidly rebuilding san francisco by prioritizing covid-19 recovery for our most

vulnerable population, housing availability and affordable, covid treatment and rent security, and neighborhood stabilization. to stop corruption in efficiencies and waste in city government, and to innovate and fund new ideas and move us away from any failed policies and focus on impact. in light of the on going pandemic, we demand that all departments and agencies justify their expenditures with a data driven covid-19 spending plan that uses the best available data to strategically invest any dollars. these plans must continue protecting seniors and immunocomprised individuals most at risk and affected by the housing crisis. we must ensure the basic needs of san franciscans are met and that our families are stabilized during a period of

tremendous uncertainty. in march, we will hold hearings focused on key departmental budgets that are most interest to all of the board of supervisors. the first two hearings will happen next week of prioritizing the mayor's office of housing and community development and department of homelessness and supportive housing. we will also be promoting budget transparency and outreach in april through outreach town halls, hosted by supervisors which i will be present for. we will make the budget process to our residents and small business owners who may not have otherwise been engaged in the past.

i'm excited to partner with all of you under our shared goal. i know there is an amendment that supervisor mar has, and i believe he's also put himself in the queue. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, chair haney. i fully support our top goal to urgently act to [inaudible] essential to stabilizing our economy [inaudible]

[roll call]

>> clerk: there are five ayes. >> chair haney: all right. this moves to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, we will now recess budget and appropriations committee for three minutes and we will see you all back >> all right. welcome back to the february

24, 2021 meeting of the budget and appropriations committee. madam clerk, please read item number 2. >> clerk: item 2 is a hearing to identify the youth commission's budget priorities for fiscal years 21-22 and 22-23 and requesting the youth commission to report. >> chair haney: thank you, youth commission, for your hard work and advocacy. with that, i will turn it over to calvin quick and sarah chung. >> all right. thank you, chair haney. good afternoon, supervisors, members of the committee. my name is calvin quick. i'm the district five representative for the san

francisco youth commission. i am here today with my colleagues to present on our preliminary budget recommendations for the upcoming fiscal year. next slide, please. so as i'm sure the committee notes, the youth commission is the county's only charter advisory board charged with making recommendations to the mayor as well as the board on the unmet need of the housing of san francisco youth. our purpose is to give you a holistic overview so that you can take the information and make decisions accordingly. next slide, please. >> hello, supervisors. my name is adriana. i am the district seven youth commissioner and outreach officer. so internally, the youth commission has three committees of its own that work on their

own and give policy recommendations. our goal is to give to supervisors, city stakeholders and outline our budget for the 2021 cycle. i will pass it to commissioner vega. >> thank you, commissioner zhang. my name is gracie vega. i'm a youth commissioner for district 8. on february 8, the youth commission held a town hall in which we were able to hear from a completely different view on our city's budget concerns and needs. we held over 1,000

participants, over 200 of which were youth in t.a.y. we had representatives that were able to answer questions that youth had and were able to inform youth. so i'm going to pass it off. >> thank you, commissioner vega. i am commissioner chung, a mayoral appointment and chair of the civic appointment committee. our first goal is to allow the department of elections to continue our civil committee to invest in the long-term health of our democracy. as with the department of children, youth, and their families, we would like to see funding go into services that support both the physical and mental well-being of young people especially during this pandemic where resources are limited without direct contact with schools and community

based organizations that many youth rely on. our recommendations are to make sure that there isn't a financial barrier to getting a driver's license or i.d., denying health services such as covid community services. next slide, please. we'd also like to see dcyf invest into programs that prepare young people for the professional world and prepare tools for financial stability. we'd also like to see dcyf support those who have been disproportionately burdened by on-line learning, so this means funding g.e.d. and college matriculation. we urge them to fund the gap and bridging the ever widening

divide. >> the youth commission is committed to dismantling the prison industrial complex and taking restorative justice throughout our community. youth committing criminal offenses do so out of necessity and we ask for reform in the criminal justice system. the recommendations on this slide were informed by the transformative justice committee's juvenile hall site visit in november 2019 as well as where we see conditions where we believe that the city's values and the best interests of the youth we represent are being met. we think it's crucial to keep young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system in san francisco by provide housing and rehabilitative services for them here so they're no longer relying on other counties so they're able to maintain

relationships in the city, maintain a sense of cultural responsibility and uphold our sense of taking care of our community. we also know there have been reports of abuse of youth in the juvenile justice system, and with juvenile hall set to close, it's just far more important that we make sure juvenile probation services are really truly safe and healing, and i'll turn it over to commissioner zhang. >> chair haney: do you want us to ask questions at the time or wait until the end? i note that supervisor ronen has her hand up. >> supervisor ronen: i'm happy to wait until the end. >> chair haney: okay. i'm sorry. we'll go to the end and then present our questions. thank you. please continue. >> thank you.

i will now go over our police funding such as with redistributing funds to youth who have experienced harm from the justice system. next slide, please. we furthermore urge to cut police funding by at least 50% and reallocate this towards nonincarceral and community investments. young people in our community favor defunding the police. many see the police as a direct threat to their safety and say that they would prefer to have

access to mental health resources. so our recommendations want to ensure that previously incarcerated youth in other communities, especially those with high percentages of black and latinx youth, have the resources they need from mental health, first responders, to youth employment and social workers and counselors. i will pass it back to you, commissioner vega. >> thank you. the transformative justice committee met with the department of police accountability in the fall on the many rights campaign, and we provided them with recommendations on where we felt that this campaign was inaccessible for members of our community, and we want to reiterate that money be allocated to making this campaign more accessible. the transformative justice committee also met with the district attorney's office recently, and our recommendations to them are informed by what they told us about where they see need,

where we see need in relation to our own values and the members of the community that we represent, and what we've heard from their budget presentation. next slide, please. we heard from these families at the youth budget town hall, and we notice in our own community where we see families struggling from the economic fallout of the covid-19 pandemic. it's our city's responsibility to make sure that families are able to feed their kids and send their kids to school and pay their rent and mortgages, so it's important that we provide them with stability in order to do so. also, in light of the pandemic, it's especially important that people feel comfortable going to a hospital, which is why it's important that we eliminate the presence of sheriffs in the city's hospitals. we also know that t.a.y. housing populations are very

susceptible to mental health issues and substance abuse issues, and in order to get them through this pandemic and care for community in general, it's crucial that we provide them with treatment. lastly, we want these entrepreneur investments and resources in order to truly recognize the talents and passions of our city's youth who have been impacted by the juvenile justice system, and i'll pass it to commissioner murphy. >> thank you, commissioner vega. my name is [inaudible] and i represent district four, and i'm the vice chair of the health and [inaudible] committee. so going into our recommendations for h.s.h., firstly, we recommend that to avoid placements after contact with the juvenile justice system, there should be 100 units to 400 units of p.s.h.

reserved specifically for girls' shelters. as we know, the pandemic has severely raised the need for safe channels through social services, which is in we recommend support service resources and at least one navigation center is operated and focuses on districts where there's homeless youth inside. next slide. we urge as a result of the pandemic, we want to highlight the need for t.a.y. specific services to be provided at safe sleeping sites and shelter in place hotels.

next slide, please. as a result of the often confusing coordinated entry for youth system, we want to urge the department to create clearer trails for homeless t.a.y.s, drop-in centers, and just in general easily access a supportive system, so this is why we urge there should be more leniency with problem solving dollars in these access points in the coordinated entry system. and with that, i'll pass it over to commissioner quick. >> all right. thank you, commissioner murphy. just before i go into the m.p.a., it's not in our omnibus preliminary resolutions, but we're supportive of the 30

right now campaign to make sure that permanent supportive housing tenants are never paying more than 30% of their income in rent. relative to the m.t.a., we firstly recommend that they work with the public schools to make sure that all eligible youth are enrolled in the current [inaudible] youth program which does require an application and is means tested. but looking forward, we are recommending the m.t.a. recommend the youth fair, which is not much. it's only about $2 million a year. due to the pandemic, it was postponed, and we are continuing to push for this in future cycles. we have also worked with the m.t.a. to set up a youth

transportation advisory board and recommending a specific person to staff this body, and we are recommending that they fund other school lines to reduce crowding, especially looking ahead to whenever public schools go back to in-person learning. it is important that social distancing will still be possible on those lines. and then long-term, we want the m.t.a. to work with the y.t.a. finally, we are asking that the board itself budget raises to youth commission staff to bring the salaries above 100% a.m.i., so we are further recommending that all departments that have youth seats on boards, commissions, and advisory

bodies provide stipends on for those seats so that youth who cannot afford paid work can be paid to represent their neighborhoods at city hall. that concludes our presentation, and we are happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you. i know that supervisor ronen had a few questions. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. i wanted to thank you for that presentation. you made me feel young again, because i agree with almost everything that you presented, so i really want to appreciate you all. i had one specific question because i've been working quite a bit on, you know, schools -- the school issue and public schools being closed for in-person learning for almost a year, and the community hubs that dcyf has developed as a

way to help youth and families out during this difficult time, and i was just wondering, in your recommendations about dcyf and their work and specifically related to schools, is there anything that we should be doing differently or doing that we're not already doing in order to sort of counteract all the public schools being closed to in-person learning? >> well, i can give a brief answer, and others can jump in. i think that the main thing that we are recommending is around scale. i think it's just the existing dcyf programs are not, like, to scale of the issue. i think where they exist, to

your knowledge -- to our knowledge, they have been working to scale, but that goes back to dcyf providing these programs, expanding them. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. super helpful. thank you for the presentation again. >> chair haney: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney. thank you, and thanks to all of the amazing youth commissioners for all of your work on this in presenting these budget priorities and reflecting really your vision and your deep commitment to equity and social and racial justice. you know, i'm so impressed, and, you know, i just wanted to also just react to, you know, the land use and housing recommendations that are really focused on homeless t.a.y.

youth and most vulnerable young people in our city, so thanks -- yeah, thanks for all of that. and even then -- and then, the transportation recommendations, you know, as well. you know, the expanding free muni to all youth, and -- and -- speak then strengthening the youth -- youth voice within m.t.a., that was really, really critical including staffing forg the youth advisory board. and just wanted to, you know, lift up the 29 sunset improvement project, which that's one project that really has come about in m.t.a. because of the advocacy of young people, you know, at the different high schools. and i want to be actively supportive of that and your advocacy around that, looking ahead. so yeah, just -- i just wanted to thank you, and i'm going to review the recommendations in a more detailed way, and we'll

certainly get back to you. and our district four youth commissioner, i'll get ahold of you if i have any questions. thank you. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor walton? >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. i just wanted to thank the youth commission for all of your hard work. i did want to say a few words, and i want you all to know that i'm excited about the issues and concerns that you brought to the table. we'll be looking at some of those. i am definitely grateful for your support of the programs, and i will continue to follow up and work with you, but just appreciate all of your work and dedication and commitment. and i do support your resolution that you want to be

a part of all decisions that are made about having people here in this city. i think that's important, and thank you so much. >> chair haney: thank you. thank you, colleagues, >> chair haney: thank you. thank you, colleagues, for all of those comments and to the commissioners that are here for your presentations and your work. i apologize. i know i was supposed to be at the town hall that you had, and i believe i was in a committee that went over, probably this committee. i can't remember which one it was. committees are all coming together in my mind now, but i -- i did want to ask you a question that is sort of a broader about how the youth commission works with the board of supervisors, and, you know, president walton just kind of flagged there. i know that you all have, you know, noted the fact that you want to be involved in all the

decision that impact youth in the city, especially the decisions that we make as a board and the fact that you're having comments on each of these departments shows how extensive the expertise and the input is that you can provide. just, like, in a -- while we have you here, in a sort of more holistic sense, i'd love to hear from you all, anyone who maybe wants to comment about how we can better improve, in your view, the input and the partnership that exists between the youth commission and the board of supervisors, and you can feel free to be as honest with us as you would like to be. i can imagine at times you all are discussing and passing resolutions, and you deserve and want it to be considered

and discussed at the highest level as part of your duty is to advise. are there things we can do better -- this is a great process, and i think an example of it, both on the budget and sort of on going policy priorities that exist, how we better integrate your voice and youth voice more generally into our decision making? that's for anybody who wants to take it. or for all of you, you can get back to me. up to you. >> yeah, i can just jump in. i think, of course, listening to the youth commission's ideas and our resolutions. also, i think one way to at least strengthen the quality of our resolutions and our recommendations is if the youth commission has, like, a designated budget staff member specifically because, you know, a lot of our recommendations today here have been kind of

lacking in that sense where we don't have the exact numbers, and i think a budget staff member would be able to clarify that and, again, strengthen our recommendations. >> and to -- oh, go ahead. >> no, i was going to be really quick. just adding on, i think that just continuing to, you know, check in with your appointing -- appointed youth commissioner when wanted, just getting their input on what priorities they see in their district and just continuing that constant line of communication, like, is really important. last year, i didn't meet too much with my appointing supervisor, so i think it's good if our voices are included. i can speak for the commission when i say we'd love to be a part of the budget process and meetings in general.

>> and to add onto what commissioner zhang was talking about, we have been asked in years prior by this committee about costing of our recommendations? we understand that's an important step in being able to actually implement them, and i think our position is absent a budget person on y.c. staff and absent any direction either from the board or another body to either the controller or the b.l.a., whatever the proper venue for getting numbers attached to recommendations is, absent that, it is effectively up to -- like, i'm trying to look up the controller's estimates for past years from salary ordinance, and it all becomes complicated and imprecise, so that is something we would like to work with the board so that way, we can find

our recommendations costed. and just sort of spitballing here, a way to better integrate the youth commission into the process. as a whole, i think because we are a commission, as you've noted, we make recommendations for a large number of departments, and so i would also urge the board when the board gets to going through department by department, that the board actually look, when you're having presentations from departments about their budget in june, that you're also -- when there is a youth commission sort of section on -- we don't have stuff for all departments, but we have for quite a number. when there are youth commission recommendations on there, to either have that as part of the process or something that supervisors are at least taking into consideration when those presentations happen. i think that that would also sort of improve the ability to

have a discussion when the budget is actually being decided upon on how to integrate these recommendations into the budget. >> yeah. i would just add briefly that some of our work is limited because we can't represent the whole city because we're not paid, so if you were to support a charter amendment that would allow there to be stipends, our budget recommendations would be more whole, and the ones that are on would be able to put more energy and more time into the work that we do into these recommendations that we're making as well as paying staff more. this is kind of -- we mentioned this in the presentation, but again, our work is not as thorough as it could be because we -- staff isn't being paid enough. and then, also, lastly, i would

just say that when we hear legislation and we give recommendations, kind of engaging us on that, asking us why we made those recommendations, whether we chose to support the legislation or not or not have an opinion on it, that would be mine, so yeah, thank you for that question. >> chair haney: yeah. i think those are all -- i'm sorry to put you on the spot, but those are all very good answers. i would say in response to one of your questions, calvin, it's the controller and b.l.a., it's that they're able to devote some time in response to you all, i think that would be more

valuable to you than a budget staffer directly because really what is going to allow you to take some of these recommendations and make them really part of the budget that, you know, putting some numbers and specificity to the proposals would really help, and i would say that, you know, part of that comes from you all taking some of these general proposals that you have, all of which are really important and guiding for us, and maybe you choose it or are in the process, but three to five that are just like we really want to see this in the budget or oh, these are the top ones for youth commission that we can make sure that are sort of centered in the conversation.

as all of the supervisors said, they're all helpful and we will be visiting them, but also knowing which ones are your top ones would be great. i think the other comments, how we take recommendations that you bring forward, whether it be legislation or recommendations in the hearing, making sure that we address it specifically and providing space for it and making decisions more directly with it in mind. as the new budget chair, i will make sure that i do all of that, as well and make sure that i give a specific eye towards that, as well. i hope you'll hold me to that and making sure as certain budget items are coming up, making space for it in the

suggestion. and my staff, i hope that you are regularly engaged with them. so those are some of the things -- i don't have any specific questions about any of the individual items. i think they're definitely, as other folks said, something we should keep in mind and focus on as each of the departments come forward, and i hope you'll hope us do that and that we find other ways to have a stronger connection and partnership, and, again, it's -- this is my -- i'm having direct dialogue in this way with the youth commission in a formal setting. i thought i would take this time to thank you all and make a commitment not only as the budget chair but as a supervisor i think we can do better in integrating your tremendous leadership and knowledge and expertise into all of the work that we do as a

board. colleagues, anything else, questions, comments before i turn to public comment? yes, calvin. >> yes, if i may. just two further things. i really appreciate your commitment to figuring out how we can better integrate youth commission into the budget process. while we're on having the youth commission on for specific items, that would be great. and belatedly, someone brought up when we have legislation referred, we frequently make recommendations, and i believe we've -- the last few items we've made recommendations on, we've worked with the board to make amendments that support

those recommendations. the back line is me and commission staff, not any attorneys, just trying things there, we do not have dedicated city attorney staff, either, so it does not need to be very much, but that is also a way that we can more fully sort of bring proper proposals to the board when the commission is making proposals relative to youth. and the last thing that i would just reemphasize if there is a ways for the youth commission to be involved in the june process, where we go through departments, whether that's being in meetings or some other format, i think that's something that we definitely want to work on. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much for that, and we will work together on all of those things. anything else from any of the commissioners that here with us, or supervisors?

i don't see anyone. madam clerk or mr. clerk, i see a couple of clerks with us here. is there any public comment? madam clerk -- there you are. madam clerk, is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. currently, there are two callers listening and one in the queue. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. please unmute the first caller. >> my name is ulte johnson. i'm a social worker and behavioral health clinician with d.p.h. i'm a member of d.p.h. must divest. [inaudible] between sfdph and the san francisco sheriff's department and allocating these

funds for our health care workers and patients. our research cupped with data on use of force shows that bipoc patients are disproportionately targeted by sfsd and avoid seeking care due to the presence of law enforcement at d.p.h. we don't need sheriffs, we need skills clinicians who can provide care. if these changes were to occur, we've identified three scaleable items that could be implemented in the upcoming budget cycles. to include increased staffing ratios to allow nurses, medical assistants, and eligibility workers the ability to respond to crisis situation does. sfdph can create a healing irmt video for our patients, i urge

you to support the budget priorities of s.f. youth commission and remove sfsd from d.p.h. thank you. >> clerk: if you -- thank you for your comments. mr. chair, this completes the queue. >> chair haney: great. thank you to the person who called in. public comment is now closed. any final comments from our commissioners or supervisors? i don't see any. all right. well, we will -- we will definitely look forward to working with you all in -- throughout the next few months in the budget process. please do be in touch with me and if there's ways that we can revisit any of these recommendations more specifically or partner in any other ways, i'm all ears, and you have my commitment as the chair. with that, i believe that what we are going to do is i am going to need a motion to file

the hearing. >> supervisor mar: so moved. >> chair haney: moved by supervisor mar. is there a second? >> president walton: second. >> chair haney: seconded by president walton. can i have a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are four ayes. >> chair haney: great. we will note the vice chair's absence. it's been a long day. madam clerk, are there any

other items in front of us? >> clerk: no, mr. chair. >> chair haney: great. well, thank you so much to all the commissioners and supervisors, and thank you, madam clerk, for your great work today and your team's work. this meeting is now adjourned. thank you. >> today's special guest is dr. andrew tanner. >> you're watching "covid with covid-19". today our guest is dr. andrea

tanner at san francisco's command center that is located in the musconi convention center. she's here to talk about the city's high volume vaccination sites and san francisco's vaccination efforts. dr. tanner, welcome to the show. >> hi, thank you, it's good to be here with you. >> let's start by talking about the high-volume vaccination centers and the new mission neighborhood center. how many centers are we setting up? and where are they located and how many people will they be able to vaccinate? >> so we're setting up three high-volume sites. so we tried to locate them in some of our highest prevalence neighborhoods that are easiest to access. so we have one located here at musconi center at the south of market area. another at city college of san francisco which is in the oceanview and ingleside neighborhood. and the third one that is coming down the pipe is our produce market that is in bayview.

so as far as the number of people that we can vaccinate, we are hoping that once we have adequate vaccine supply we'll have the capacity to vaccinate over 10,000 san franciscans a day combined across san francisco. as i'm sure that you have heard in the news and other settings, vaccine supplies have been a big challenge. but our goal is to try to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place so that when vaccines are available that we can -- we can get it into arms as quickly as possible. we also though have some other sites in addition to the large-volume sites and the mission neighborhood sites, for example, set up in an effort to expand the vaccine access across the bayview as well as the other neighborhoods with the highest infection rates for covid-19. and it does have limited access to health care services. so that site, when our vaccine increases, we may expand to have 200 to 400 vaccinations a day.

and we have through the department of public health a network of community clinics and neighborhoods across the city that are providing vaccines. so we're trying to give people as many options and in whatever way is comfortable for them to get vaccine when our supply increases. so we're trying to have a menu of options available so that we can get people vaccinated as quickly as possible. >> i think that the city college location has a lot of capacity as well, right? >> yes, they can do 3,000 plus and right now it's limited by the vaccine supply. but, yes, it's got the capacity to do quite a few patients. >> that brings me to my next question, where are we getting the vaccines from and who is providing them to the state and to the city? >> so a really good question. so it's distributed by the federal government who procures the vaccine and it goes to each of the states. the states then distribute the vaccine to large multicounty health systems. so kaiser permanente and the

university of california, and the remainder goes to the county health departments. and those health departments then can disseminate to other -- to other entities. unfortunately, we don't determine how many vaccines we receive per week, so while the supply is still very low, the state has been determining our allot mament. that's based mostly on population size, and somewhat on the number of health care workers that are registered as working in that county. but we take any of the vaccines that we're offered and we're hoping that the supply will pick up soon. >> do we know how many residents have been vaccinated so far? and as we move forward, how are people going to know when it's their turn and how to go about making an appointment? >> yeah, so the health department and the hospitals and clinics within san francisco have administered over 130,000 vaccines per date that that is a significant portion with those with second doses. this is a higher number than the

state recorded number of san franciscan residents who have been vaccinated so far. because the majority of people vaccinated to date have been health care workers in san francisco. and more people work here than live here, we have a disproportionate responsibility for vaccines relative to our population size. as far as knowing when it's your turn and how to get an appointment. we have set up a website at sfgov/getnotified and people can check their priority status, so based on your age and type of employment. and sign up for an email or text message when your priority group is authorized to be vaccinated. there will be links to sites where you can make an appointment. as we get more and more sitings online and as our vaccine ramps up, that's the area, so sfgov/getnotified and you can see what groups are available. right now because the supply is so limited, there can be limited

vaccine appointments but keep checking back and as we get more and more supply, and more and more appointments will open up. it is though for us and for the system in general important metric to track how equitably the vaccine is deliberated to ensure that it's going to neighborhoods and populations that have experienced the highest prevalence of mortality. and the highest prevalence of mortality and our interventions for the covid-19 response has sought to intervene to try to reduce disparities in health care. so we are anticipating that these efforts are going to help us to advocate to receive more vaccine quickly from the state once the systems are implemented. >> can you pick which vaccine you get? and do you think that we'll be using the johnson & johnson version shortly? >> so currently there's two available. one is made by pfizer and the other is made by moderna and they require two doses each.

and the johnson & johnson is the newest to apply for authorization and it is being evaluated by the f.d.a. obviously, we have to wait for the f.d.a. to give it an emergency authorization before we can give that vaccine. but it has so far in the data that has been reported has been shown to be very effective and only requires one dose, which is great. so all of the vaccines are distributed to local entities and we don't get to pick which supplies are distributed to us. they make an allocation and we receive whatever they give to us. so in an effort to make sure that we have as many appointments available as possible, we just assign -- as you register, you original for the appointment and whatever vaccine that is available is the one that you would receive. the good news is that all of the vaccines have been shown to have great effectiveness in preventing death from covid-19 as well as great safety protocols. and on a personal note i work also as an emergency physician at san francisco general and i received a second dose of the vaccine and i have not had any problems, which is great.

i had a little arm soreness and that was it. so, you know, i think that we're very excited that we've seen such good results with the vaccine so far. >> well, that's excellent. well, as we wrap this up, do you have anything that you would like to share with our residents about vaccines? >> yeah, so my hope is that all of our san franciscans are learning all that they can about the vaccine and preparing themselves to get vaccinated. i know that it can be a scary thing to do something that is new. but there actually is very good data available about the vaccine and so i'm hoping that people can learn about this, we are trying to help to put out information around the vaccines so that people can make an informed decision and get vaccinated as soon as vaccines are available and their turn comes up. as an emergency physician, i was not in the very first group vaccinated. i think that i got my vaccination appointment a few weeks later, but as soon as my turn came i jumped on it. so i'm hoping that others will

do the same. i do truly think that this is our ticket out of this. and i know that this has been a long road. and everybody is tired. san francisco has done really well throughout the pandemic, thanks in large part to our citizens. and the people listening to science, and wearing masks, social distancing, doing all of the things that science and public health experts have asked them to do. i think that this is -- this is our way out and i'm just very excited. i wish that everybody had their vaccine yesterday, but we're getting it as soon as we can. >> that's great. have been helpful information that i hope that has shed some light on our vaccination program. >> i think one of the hardest parts has been, you know, how -- how the supply issues that we just wish that we had, you know, we wish that we had all of the doses on the first day and we could just give them out. but i'm hoping that that will improve and hopefully, you know, this will be behind us soon. >> i hope so too. well, thank you once again for

coming on the show. >> thanks, it's good to be here with >> president lopez: great, thank you. i want to thank everyone for being here today. we are excited to continue to come together and wanted to be clear about our priorities which are centered around three important areas. returning to in-person learning, budget stability and continuing our anti-racist practices. we look forward to that work together with partnership and collaboration from all of us. let's get