>> [inaudible] >> i can commit to san francisco's what? >> you can commit [inaudible] >> no. i can't commit that. all right. thank you. >> welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing -- remote hearing for april 1st, 2021. on february 5th, the mayor declared a state of emergency in 2019. the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely until the end of the

shelter-in-place. remote hearing. sfgov tv is broadcasting live. comments, opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415) 655-0001 and entering access code 1871702412. when we reach the item you are interested in, please press star then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is up. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and

please mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take role at this time. [roll call] thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is proposed for continue wans to april 15th, 2021. 532 jones street. this is an amendment to existing conditions of approval as proposed for approval and

600 south. and item 4 case number 2016-000302 drp, 460 vallejo street. and so we should open up public comment. members of the public, if you wish to speak to any of these matters proposed for continue wans, now's your opportunity. seeing none. public comment is closed. and the matters proposed for continuance are before you.

>> president: commissioner. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing this on your consent calendar and all matters. are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call of the commission. in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and removed. item 5.

and 2285 jerrold avenue. and item 7 case number 2020-006303 cua at 2201 pole street. commissioners, before i open up public comment or the opportunity for the members of the public to ask that these items be removed. when we do take up the matter we should take up five and six separately. and it might be easiest to take up item seven after we recuse commissioner diamond. members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star then 3 to request that these items be pulled off of consent. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. commissioners, public comment is closed and the matters are

now before you. >> commissioners, just to be clear, i need to recuse myself because of a financial interest i have some at&t stocks in corporate. >> and just for your benefit, commissioner diamond, you do need to file a form with the ethics commission i believe it's ten or 15 days even for those matters that you are not present for. if you are absent on a day in which we would consider an item and you need to file the form. anyway. go ahead. >> commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i was going to approve that we move item 7.

>> president: first we would need a motion to recuse commissioner diamond. >> secretary: thank you. on that motion item 7 [roll call] >> commissioner: the reason i did that was according to the city attorney's office, this kind of financial recusal isn't subject to a vote of the commission, but i'm happy to vote "yes". >> secretary: oh, okay. >> commissioner: may we ought to check with the city attorney's office. >> secretary: i will follow up with the city attorney's

office. [roll call] commissioner diamond, you are now he or she recused from item seven. >> president: and i will second commissioner tanner's motion to vote on item seven. is that correct? >> commissioner: yes. >> secretary: great. thank you, commissioners. and item 7 for powell street. on that motion [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner diamond, you may now rejoin us for items five and six. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: i'd like pas

>> commissioner: as we are voting for other tools and finding financing or inclusionary housing or affordable housing. i'd like to see whether or not that applies to us in any form or shape to us in san francisco. that's all. thank you. >> president: [inaudible] >> commissioner: can you hear me fine? >> yes. that's better. >> commissioner: i have a follow up to director as to

regarding sb30. what's the status of that and when it's ever going to have a presentation or something in terms of the implementation of the sb30 especially when it comes to continuances. so i know if perhaps, if there's a time line when the planning commissioner can have some sort of presentation on the sb30 local implementation, that would be great. that's all. >> as we do, every year, we're tracking the bills. many again are kind of related to housing issues. so, you know, it's a little tricky because these work their way through the process, some fall off and get amended significantly. so i'm happy to schedule in the next couple of weeks or months to have a discussion or just to

give you a briefing on those bills. >> commissioner: yeah [inaudible] . sorry. >> president: commissioner imperial. i don't think it's your audio. i'm muting commissioner to remove that static. >> commissioner: we've heard comments about the clarification and continuances and we continue to have continuances. i think it's good to have an immediate clarification on that so that we are, you know, implementing the ab30 for our jurisdiction. that's all.

>> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i just want to bring up something we've talked about before but with continuing occupation for cannabis dispensaries. i mean, it's certainly great to see empty store fronts becoming not empty anymore and to be providing more equity in the distribution of cannabis dispensaries, but i am concerned that we're kind of repeating ourselves, i don't want to equate cannabis with cigarettes. but cigarettes used to be sold everywhere and now we have diminished the number of locations where cigarettes are sold. same thing with alcohol sales. trying to diminish the amount of alcohol sales in locations. i just wonder are we as the commission and if anybody on the board is thinking about having actual caps for

different areas of the city. we can distribute to equity and still have so many. those challenges in the industry in terms of saturation and, also, i just worry at some point we'll be kind of rolled back and telling folks they can't renew their business license or they can't have their business anymore because now we decide they're out of fashion and it's too many in the city. it's hard to make a decision just on each cannabis dispensary. we can certainly look at the merit of it. but i still feel at a loss for thinking kind of comprehensively about the distribution of cannabis dispensaries across the city and i don't know if other commissioners share my concern, but i guess i'm looking, director, to understand what we can do at this level. obviously, the board would have to create caps or any other type of refinement to the location that dispensaries can be allowed. so would love to hear if other

commissioners are tuesday in this and as a directive what we can do on this commission. >> director: commission imperial. >> commissioner: i think we've had that discussion before and we have brought that up in terms of the racial equity of the make-up of the cannabis retail and even with the office of cannabis itself the question about equity. i think right now, we have a cap of about four applicants that can establish a cannabis retail and i think that's a good question for office of cannabis and also for us to look into the racial and social equity make-up of it and what kind of cannabis retail are we -- you know. in plans, we always talk about

the use and not the user. but if we're talking about, you know, a big corporation will be that something is considered as a form of equity even though we have scattered it somewhere. it's a good type for us to look into it. but, yeah, i do share your sentiment, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner, we can schedule a follow-up. the rules are relatively knew on cannabis retail, but there are limits on where retailers can go. there's the zone in kind of the response, the radius around schools. you know, they're kind of educational facilities and there's the clustering which have limited where retailers can go and so we can show you where they have gone and where

applications are and invite the office of cannabis back to talk about this globally again. >> commissioner: thank you. [inaudible] >> commissioner: i do share commissioner tanner's concern that particularly during this time with the large vacancies and sensitive commercial corridors that admitting too of them would produce what i call the starbucks phenomenon. many years ago many thought starbucks would be the cure for urbanity and it's so much a different way. i'm just going to leave it at that because we're not supposed to have discussions about something that's not on the agenda. i'll leave it at that.

>> director: thank you for that, commissioner moore. there is a member of the public raising their hand. and allow them one minute. >> hello, this is shannon getty. i'm not sure if i'm on. i'm calling from outside of san francisco at the moment. >> you are. we can hear you >> wonderful. first off. i was on a list to be contacted about this matter about a year ago. and i did not get any notification. i actually just heard through another retailer on the block. i have two children, they attend school in the area and they're private schools. >> director: i'm going to cut you off. i was afraid the commissioners may prompt some comment to the project on union street.

are you talking about the project on union street? >> yes. >> director: the project on union street, you'll have to wait to submit your public comment for when we call the item later on in today's agenda. commissioners, if that concludes comments and questions, we can move on to department matters. >> good afternoon commissioners. one i sent an e-mail about a ribbon cutting that you can stream. it's the first installment of the excelsior street scape pilot project which i think many of you have heard about it. i believe commissioner tanner,

you worked on when you were here in the department. there's a public space art installation that's being installed at mission and geneva. we partnered with youth art exchange as a part of it comes out of our excelsior mission structure. so take a look at that. and i also wanted to let you know as we move closer to the yellow tier, many of our staff are receiving vaccines, we are working with the permit center staff and dbi staff to plan for in-person services in transitioning from, you know, the entire process to over-the-counter to in-person services. so we'll be updating you on that more in the coming weeks and that's all i have.

thanks. >> you're muted jonas. >> secretary: ma'am, are you here to speak to the union street case. >> yes. >> secretary: as i mentioned, you'll need to wait as we call that matter later in today's agenda. commissioners, that will place us on item 11 for review of past events. there is the report from the board of supervisors. there's no report from the board of appeals and there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. however, we do have a guest appearance from the environmental review officer and an update on her hearing. is ms. gibson with us?

>> yes, i am. and, i am trying to start my video. let me know when you can see me. >> secretary: we can. the floor is yours, lisa. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to report on a decision i issued pertaining to an appeal of a prior determination i made regarding the recreation and park department's observation wheel. i'm presenting this to you because chapter 31 of the administrative code requires that an oral report on this type of decision be presented to the planning commission at the next possible meeting after such decision. as you may be aware, the observation wheel is part of the recreation of park department's golden gate park 150th anniversary celebration project. the feel is located in the

music concourse and located in the national register and california register golden gate park historic district. it was originally proposed to be in operation for one year, that is the wheel and was recently proposed to be in operation for a total of five years. back in december 2019, the planning commission offered an exemption for the original project. the finding was based on substantial evidence in the record that the findings that the state legislature determines could not have a significant effect on the environment. further, we found that no exceptions were triggered that would make the project ineligible for a categorical extension. at that time, operation for the wheem was proposed for one year although our determination was not determined on a dependent of operation. the department determined that

the four-year extension would not constitute a substantial modification to the project that requires re-evaluation section 31i. those are the local code requirements that elaborate on the state california quality requirements. there was no information at that time in the record demonstrating that the original approved project met the definition of the substantial modification as found in the code. on february 19th, 2021, kathryn howard filed an appeal of the planning department's no substantial modification determination to the e.r.o.. i'll note this was the first such appeal that has been filed. this type of appeal is allowed pursuant to the administrative

code. this is not an appeal of the sequence. in addition, the code notes that appeals like this shall not delay or suspend any permit approval or other discretionary approval authorized in the change of the project or suspend any construction activity. returning for the subject of my report on this particular appeal, on march 11th, 2021, i held a public hearing for the appeal the challenge substantiate. the appeal primarily raised concerns related to the nighttime lighting of the wheel. an additional four years of operation would have significant impact on historical resources, environmental resources, and other topics. on march 25th, i issued a determination that upheld the department's initial determination that the revised project does not constitute a

substantial modification. the department determined that the project meets the secretary of interior standards for the historic properties and that impacts related to historic resources would be less than significant. the project required a certificate of appropriateness which was approved by the historic preservation commission. regarding biological resources, the department reviewed biological assessments that were completed for past projects based on substantial evidence the department determined that the nighttime lighting of the wheel would have less than significant impact on biological resources including nesting birds. that concludes my report and i'm happy to take questions. >> secretary: thank you, ms. gibson. there are no questions for the environmental review officer. we can move on, commissioners to general public comment. at this time, members of the

public may address the commission on items. except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, will be afforded with the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes and when the numbers exceed the 15 minutes, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to discuss the general comment. and through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> hi. good afternoon. it's georgia shootis. i sent you an e-mail yesterday afternoon that relate back to events back in december 2015, a meeting which was followed by analysis of a sample of major alterations in the valley. and i attached a screen shot

from the minutes of january 7th, 2016, where it was found stated by former commissioner richards that at least two of the projects had exceeded the demo counts. if you look at the scans that are also attached with the photos. all of them demand questions. following that, there was a training manual issued in two thousand sixteen that showed two of those projects. so i guess those were the two that exceeded the demo counts. later you have in 2016, that went away. just like the peskin legislation went away. so what's left are the demo calcs and i think the ability to adjust them, to reduce the value which has never been tried should still be looked

at. so i hope you have a chance to read the e-mail and look at the pictures 2015, but things really aren't that different. and i'll just add, there was an article in the chronicle at least online about the changes to the alisac and talking housing. and he was talking about real housing, but i think that's true of all housing. thanks a lot. take care. happy easter. happy passover. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzy row with neighborhood counseling. first off, i just want to thank commissioner imperial for bringing up the issue of sb30 to do an informational for the public and the commission to find out what is -- what constitutes a continuance, who

can play for this and whether or not a project can be grandfathered. this is really important. it was almost a year ago when we had a project before you at 35352 san jose and i vividly recalled it was mr. ionin who correctly pointed out that the number in these hearings was getting dangerously too close to that five maximum that's been stipulated by sb330. so it is of utmost importance, this is a year and three months after this legislation has been put in effect. it's about time for the city of san francisco to issue what their interpretation of the law is. last year, this time, i believe it was april 15th or 17th when the case of this 357 was before

you, there were a lot of confusion as to what institutes continuance and, this year, we still have the same issues. so thank you, so much commissioner imperial for bringing this up and i sure hope to hear from the staff one of these weeks when they give us this national and implementation recommendation of this policy. thank you. >> secretary: okay. members of the public last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak. we can move on to your regular calendar. case number 2021. this is a conditional use authorization. on march 18th, 2021, after our hearing in closing comment, we continued this matter with

today's date. and, through the chair, the project sponsor will receive three minutes and members of the public will have one minute as this is the second hearing. staff, are you prepared to make an update presentation? >> yes. thank you, jonas. good afternoon president koppel and members of the commission. to document the demolition 1,315 square foot single family home. the project which was received in 2019 included horizontal the existing structure was constructed as a single family home and the house was raised 7' and the 12 by 4 addition was

constructed at the front. in 2019, as part of the review, the building was evaluated for historic context and was determined it was not resource and was classified to category c accordingly. the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of two and three story one and two family building a complaint was filed with the planning department on november 4th, 2020. and the department of building inspection shortly thereafter. d.b.i. and planning staff conducted to verify the violation. a notice of enforcement was issued on december 20th, 2020,

and in january, 2021, a notice was filed. the commission continued conditional use authorization to the public hearing on april 1st, 2021, with the direction to revise the plan to provide a second unit on the site. since the march 25th hearing, the project submitted revised plans which include a 456 square foot studio unit and a two and a half bath unit on the second and third floors. the department recommends approval with conditions as the project will provide two dwelling units including a studio unit and a family-sized unit with no additional changes or modifications to the previously approved building envelope. the department also finds the project be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood

and not to be detrimental to persons aadjacent in the vicinity. i will now introduce the project sponsor. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> secretary: thank you, linda. mr. rogers, you have three minutes >> yes. can everybody hear me? >>? >> secretary: we can hear you fine and your presentation slides are up. >> great. thank you. thank you very much, commissioners, for the continuation of this hearing and i wanted to start out my presentation by just addressing some potential misunderstandings from the last meeting so there's no confusion going forward. the house that was permitted by the planning department and the building department through a pretty lengthy design review process where there was no discretionary review filed is

exactly the house that was being constructed and the house that will continue to be constructed if we're approved. there was absolutely no additional square footage added. there was no change in set backs and no change in the building height. rather, the reason that we're here now is there was an error made by the general contractor and not following the general procedure when there was structural work that needed to be replaced. as well, i as the architect made some errors in doing the demolition calculations and the corrected z version is what is in front of you now on your screen. the vertical plains are no longer an issue. what became an issue are the horizontal plains and i made the mistake of counting the attic floor as a horizontal plain and that should not have happened. what did count as a horizontal plain was the sloping roof

which i find interesting and a little confusing and nonintuitive and this is consistent with george's critique of the demolition process in those thresholds. however, going forward, next slide, please. going forward, my clients considered the commissioners' request and initially they wanted to provide an adu instead of a full second unit. but after further consideration, they've decided that given we're in an rh2 zone and given the city's shortage of housing stock a second unit would be appropriate. a second unit that has its own private entry and rear yard access. next slide, please. my conclusion is that this compromise is something that suits both my clients and the

city. it providing a viable second unit to the housing stock. and going forward, i certainly learned a lot about the demolition process and those formulas and would not repeat my mistake and i'm quite sure the contractor would not do the same. so we ask that you approve this project and allow my clients to continue so that the family has a place to live in the city. thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes the presentation, we can go to public comment. this is your opportunity to address this item by pressing star 3 to be entered into the queue. again, through the chair, you will have one minute. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzy rem. in one minute, i cannot get into all the details and all the, you know, issues that we need to look into. but all i want to say is that

if this general contractor has made a mistake maybe on this item it needs to be noun because i believe that the new law that was passed in the city that's going to try to punish the repeat offenders should apply in this case. and also, i think the best way to take care of demolition is to make sure that the building department is involved in reviewing the plan. a couple years ago or maybe last year when it was said that planners are not engineers. if you have engineers from g.b.i. to work with you maybe you will be able to assess if a remodel is a remodel or it's tentative on down to demolition. that's the most effective way to deal with demolition as opposed to the demo calculations which can always be changed.

thank you. >> secretary: thank you. >> hi. in a minute, i just have this question about the demo calcs. and it doesn't have to be answered. i wrote a whole bunch of questions because i really thought about this whole thing, the whole hearing last two weeks ago. this is georgia. if the demo calcs were originally submitted are extraordinary. i've never seen anything like them and i think mr. rogers kind of acknowledges that. they're very weird demo calcs. so i guess my question is if the demo calcs had been adjusted or reduced from 2009 to now, does he think that would have helped him or would that have made it a different project? to preserve some more of the housing that was there.

the house looks pretty good. i'm done. thank you. be well, be safe. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. seeing -- there's always one. go ahead, caller. >> hello. i apologize for interrupting. i don't really know how to use the system. are we talking about 450 off farrell street. >> secretary: we are not talking about that. you need to call back in two weeks. members of the public, final last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no requests to speak.

public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i have a question for mr. rogers. mr. rogers are you there? >> yes. i'm here. >> commissioner: it obviously is quite small and while there are studios of the size that are proposed, i was wondering why you are stringing kitchen, closet, and bath in almost the opposite direction of how it would be useful for it to appear larger living space. the kitchen at this moment sits right behind a wall with no natural light followed by a closet and a bathroom which has access to the outside light.

but on the other hand, a bathroom is closed by doors from the rest of the living area. if the kitchen would fit into the space of the bathroom, the kitchen and living room are complimentary uses because dining room and living room kind of flow into each other and i'm wondering why you didn't take advantage of that that makes the unit a little bit more livable? >> yes. thank you for that input. the reason that it's configured the way it is is that we were trying to not make drastic changes from the previously approved plan, and given that it's a concrete slab there was already infrastructure put into that slab for the plumbing. that's as far as we got on the construction report before it was halted. i agree that your idea could have merit, but it would be quite difficult and expensive to change and i'm not sure the

benefit exceeds the cost there. we're trying to make the best use of the l-shape configuration that we're left with and given that it's a studio unit, i think it works pretty well as it does now. >> commissioner: i understand the argument you're making. i believe for the commission, it's important to see that we get the best units and best living space as possible, but i do understand your concerns of not wanted to do that. thank you. >> thank you. >> secretary: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. well, first of all, thank you for adding a second unit, a full unit on this, you know, on this property. as a commissioner, i really appreciate that.

my only concern is that the size of the square foot which commissioners pointed out is something that would adhere for a studio size. but it's 406 square feet while we have a.d.u. coming up which is the twenty-six hamilton and that one's like 800 square feet. so, you know, i think this is more for you as the project sponsor and also for the planning staff when we're looking to, i understand for the project sponsor it's the cost that's the issue here, but for the planning, we're thinking in terms of the size that is livable and equitable. so i do have some concern on the size of this unit because

it is quite small compared to other units we have seen as well. i would rather see a bigger part where the garage is probably some part of the garage will be probably part of the unit as well. but that's my comment. thank you. >> can i address that? >> commissioner: sure. >> i wanted to remind the commissioners and i appreciate the comment and i agree that more square footage for the second unit would be preferable. we do have a pretty modest sized lot and we also have maximized the building envelope. so there's really no more square footage that we could take for this unit outside of encroaching into the garage space and the situation in this neighborhood where the onstreet parking is very difficult and we don't feel that the second

unit would be rentable without an offstreet space and the garage is as tight as it can be for two cars so it's harder to make it any larger with the confines of the code. >> commissioner: thank you for that comment. yeah. that's what i was kind of thinking in terms of the garage as to how many cars will be parked in here. thank you for clarification that it's for two-car parking. excuse me? >> one for the rental unit and one for the homeowners. >> commissioner: yeah. but for the first floor, that would be for one car parking. right? >> correct. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> secretary: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: i first have a question for director.

week in and week out, this project seems to be a case in point. ms. rom made a suggestion about how to avoid that going forward and i'm wondering what the plan is internally to address this issue so that we can avoid problems like there going forward. >> we have talked and expressed and she's expressed those same questions. we've got to find, you know, if we're going to require a [inaudible] for a demo. >> commissioner: director, i'm really having trouble hearing

you. jonas, i don't know if it's my end or director >> i also cannot hear very well. it's like every other word. maybe if you turn your video off. >> secretary: yeah. it's not just you, director hillis. it does appear you're having issues. >> i'm happy to jump in. just to respond to that, so in terms of the comment that ozzi e made, one of the challenges we've had with reviewing d.b.i. is that most of these permits okay as site permits. they're architectural drawings only. structural drawings are only approved by planning. and then they proceed in the aaddendum process. so the solution we've employed

over the last few months which i believe tvs last week is that when projects are within 5% of triggering demo, we are sending a letter to d.b.i.s both in terms of their plan check, their structural plan checkers so it's on file for them whenever they're submitted as well as the department of building inspections inspectors. so when they're out in the field, it puts everything really close. its and that whenever a contractor is hired, they get a copy. so we're really doing all of the due diligence on the informing side so there's none of this at the 11th hour in the field and sort of a lack of knowledge. that's the primary strategy we're employing now. in addition to that, we've implemented internal policy that whenever within 10% of triggering demolition, we require staff to review every project with either myself or the zoning administrator so we

ensure there's zoning at the staff level. >> commissioner: thank you. that was very helpful and i'm really happy to hear in some detail on what the strategy is going forward and hopefully it will work. with that, i would like to make a motion to approve this project. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i second that motion and i did want to comment following up on commissioner imperial's comments and commissioner moore's comments about the a.d.u. i initially looking at it i was interested in having more of the garage space becoming more inhabilitatable by reducing the amount of the parking space. i do want to also be sensitive to the concerns of the owner and also, i'm happy to hear

that the ideas to have i think it would be tandem parking, but parking for both vehicles. mr. rogers can you explain if there would be parking in the garage. >> yes. that is correct. one for the primary unit and one for the owners. >> commissioner: if the garage were to be reduced, you know, how much does that mess with other mechanical or systems? i noticed there's hot water heater, other things that are located in the garage space and i'm wondering if that depth is also needed to accommodate some of the items at the garage level? >> yeah. i appreciate the suggestion of trying to take over more garage space. we do have a typical situation where within the garage are the heating and hot water systems, trash receptacles for the two units and also the required

bicycle parking. so there's a fair amount that needs to go in there and it would be really difficult. there wouldn't be any other place to put all of that stuff without removing more living square footage somewhere else. so it's a tricky one. >> commissioner: okay. i understand that. so that's commissioners, i am support and seconded by myself to have the project be approved as is. >> secretary: that includes commissioner deliberation. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter on conditions. on that motion [roll call] so moved. commissioners, that motion

passes 5-2 at commissioners imperial and moore voting against. placing us on item 13 for case number 2020-007565cua 1336 chest nut street. staff, are you prepared to make your present egs? >> yes, i am. thanks jonas. >> good afternoon, commissioners. chris may. you have before you the demolition of the existing 2,287 square foot single-family dwelling and a at 1336 chest nut street. use and authorization is required to & to allow a dwelling density at a ratio of one dwelling unit within 1000th. the proposed building measure

is approximately 4,zero. the project includes one, one-bedroom unit on the ground floor measuring at approximately two hundred ninety-two square feet. one three-bedroom unit on the and one three-bedroom unit on the fourth floor measuring. common usable open space in the rear yard. 386 square feet. 141 square feet of private open space on the fourth floor and 485 square feet of private open space on the roof deck. the existing building has been determined not to be a historic resource and there are no history of any evictions. the proposed project is code compliant and is not seeking any variants to the planning

code. the department has received two e-mails in opposition to the project, one from the owner of the adjacent building at 1334 chest nut street. his opposition centers around the height of the building and it impacts on his access to light, air, and privacy. while the other nearby resident claims that four-story buildings are out of character for the neighborhood. the department received one e-mail from an adjacent neighbor 1249 francisco street who raised concerns with existing tenants on subject property holding loud parties in the rear yard. in light of this new information, the section 317 findings have been revised as the existing building is tenant-occupied and that the project will result in a total of three rental units plus one owner occupied units. the project sponsor will go into more detail. the department finds that the project is on balance,

consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will add three dwelling units thereby bringing the subject project permitted by the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, mr. may. mr. hennessy, you will have a 5-minute presentation and let me just find you. sorry, mr. hennessy, it does not appear -- let me see if i can find your phone number. there you are. okay. mr. hennessy, you have five minutes. >> thank you. and i will have elmerson quan, the homeowner speak first. >> thank you. we're emmerson and jennifer

quan. as we've all read, there's critical shortage of housing in san francisco and we're trying to do our part by taking an underutilized place. we're hoping to live in the top unit once the building and want to continue being in the city. throughout this process, we spent time going over our design with the design team to come up with a building we can all be proud of. michael hennessy has done well with the job. thank you again for considering our project. >> thank you. this is michael henderson of the architect of the project. thank you for bringing up the first image. we're proposing to bring this property in the greater conformance.

we're seeking to create a four-unit residential building to provide three more units to this property. and the owners of the property intend to live within the upper units. as can be seen in this first image, this is a single residence surrounded by multiple family units. and the inclusion of this sequence is for determination that no historic resource is present. the removal of this residence will allow for a new building that will be in greater conform answer with the district. please bring up the next image. this is a section through the proposed building with the street on the right side of the screen and the rear yard to the left. it contains a garage. the second, third, and four

stories have one dwelling unit and contain three bedrooms per unit. to provide increase to the mid walk open space. the roof deck is provided to the upper unit for private open space. so please bring up the next image. this is an imp showing the walk space of this property. [inaudible] including a very large [inaudible] on the neighboring property 1334 chest nut. this image also shows the scale of the existing single family residence on our property in relation to the multifamily residents in the neighborhood. next image, please. this side shows the proposed building with the street on the right and the yard to the left and we responded to comments from the planning staff, residential design team, and

neighborhoods with the following modification. there's both floors of the proposed building on the neighboring property. landscape planters have been added as well as the roof deck to provide privacy of the deck to the neighbor to the east. the penthouse has been moved from the east side of the building to the west side. the proposed light well along the east side of the building has been made wider to bring more natural daylight into the neighboring units and then addition, a light rail has been added on the west side of the building to match a very small light well at the building. next image, please. at the front elevation, we

worked with the residential design team to create an found on adjacent buildings. some of the features that have been incorporated include a bay window, that is a common feature on this block, cement plaster is used as the primary exterior finish related to the surroundings. and the windows have been reduced in size and switched from aluminum to wood. metal cladding that we originally had on the first floor. we originally limited the first floor to neighboring buildings. entering to the building has been made more permanent and utility panels have been removed from the building. in conclusion, i just want to

thank you for considering the conditional use for the removal of the existing building as well as providing a new building. [inaudible] and sits well within the neighboring concept. only. >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> i'm available. thank you. >> secretary: members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star, then 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. >> hello, can you hear me? >> secretary: we can. >> great. i'm here representing beau june, the owner of 1334 chest nut street. the proposed plan shows there's going to be a deck. but that extends all the way to

the deck of 1334. 1334 deck has a door slanted facing towards 1336, that's the only way for 1334's living room to have light, air, and having the balconies adjacent to each other creates a security risk as well. someone could easily jump from one balcony to another. it's horribly dangerous. 1336 bawl balcony is just below. the owner of 1334 spoke with mr. hennessy about what to do about this and mr. hennessy suggested building a tall glass wall that could block anyone's access to 1334. he also suggested planting trees, but these aren't good solutions. the trees are going to propose

risk if there's an earthquake and if it's extremely windy up there. as well, no other buildings near in the marina district have balconies next to each other. none of them have trees on the upper floors. as well, i have a problem with the roof deck. the roof deck gives 1336 anyone the penthouse a view into the bathroom of 1334's master bedroom. this is just extremely awful. this is infringing on the privacy of anyone in the bathroom of 1334. we suggest that the -- and, also the bathroom of 1334, doesn't have a vent. the window has to be left open. 1336 should move their penthouse deck to the southern -- >> secretary: thank you sir.

that's your time. >> secretary: when you hear that your line's been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello? >> secretary: yes. go ahead, sir. >> can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. we can hear you. your time is running. >> okay. i'm 1334. i'm the resident of 1332, 1334. so their bathroom, their roof deck is really [inaudible] or the level. i took the photos and sent them to you and they can see clearly in our bathroom. anything they say they're going to build something tall or a tree, i don't know. anything is possible and i took some photos of all the

neighbors and none of the neighbors have anything higher than their roof deck fence. and i'm looking at the stairs next to the elevator. the elevator is to the south side, southeast, they have stairs there too. maybe they can build a roof deck there so it will protect us like privacy too. and they have a lot of decks and especially the front patio, i think they should have to cut down the decks to only one bedroom to the west side. so, you know, we can keep the privacy. no other marina district, they have a deck to deck to each other's house and i just want you to consider this and i know that they're making it beautiful and nice and everything's good. but i still think they should consider the neighbors, you know, so we can have the light and privacy and air. i really appreciate it,

commissioners. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star, then 3 to be added to the queue. >> i'm sorry. i made a mistake. >> secretary: thank you. commissioners, that will conclude public comment. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner: in general, i'm in support of the project. i would like to see what other commissioners report.

>> secretary: commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i'm also in support of this project. i'm pretty impressed by it. i think these are some of the things the commission has been talking about and wanting to see is adding more density. not only the three units, but also the a.d.u.. i applaud the amount of outdoor space that's provided in addition to their rear yard. i have a question for mr. henderson or mr. quan, is that going to be shared. i'm assuming most of the rear would be share amongst all the units. is that correct? >> correct. this is mr. hennessy, the rear yard will be shared by all the units. >> commissioner: okay. and then i'm not sure, mr. hennessy, or mr. or ms. quan if you want to incur to your tenants. will your tenants be offered a return. i do believe some laws that the

tenants have the opportunity to return to that unit. so if you could explain the history of the tenancy and explain why it seemed that it was owner occupied but it's not. i would appreciate that. >> yeah. the property is currently tenant occupied. when we acquired the property, we did not know how long this was going to take with the pandemic and everything. we had to, rent out the property and so the tenants currently have a one-year lease and, you know, for the project itself, when it gets approved, you know, we will basically the tenants will need to move out before starting the project. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. i appreciate that understanding. and then the only comment i had, i'm not really much of a design critique person.

i do hope other commissioners would offer some comments. i do get disturbed about the dark coloring of the exterior. is it gray? is it black? can you explain the dark coloring. the eye of the beholder in terms of preferences. i'm just curious to understand if that's gray or all black and how that rendering on the cover page of the plan what that could be for the exterior of the building >> sure. this is michael hennessy. it is a cement plaster, the lighter gray on the left and right of the building, that's intended to be relatively light to correspond to the adjacent buildings. the darker panels are more in the dark gray rendered maybe a little darker than what we would anticipate, but we are trying to define the base as a different material which you'll see on the neighboring

buildings and pretty much on this block, the first level is defined different from the upper levels. so that was one consideration. and then the vertical articulation of the bay and the horizontal coreness, we thought of changing that from a light gray to a slightly darker material. that would explain the balance. >> commissioner: thank you for those comments. i'm in support of the project. >> secretary: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: i'd like to echo all of commissioner tanner's comments. i agree with all of them. i just had -- i'm supportive of this gentrification. it's exactly what we're looking for. i did have one question for the architect on the unit on the second floor, it's access to open space. if i'm reading the plans correctly, the back yard is available to everybody. the ground floor unit has direct access to the back yard.

the upper two units, the third and fourth floors have their own private decks, but the second floor unit has very awkward access to open space. it has to go down the stairs into a joint corridor and into the rear yard. am i understanding that correctly? and have you looked at ways to provide more direct access to open space for that unit? >> yes. thank you for that question. so, you're correct. currently, the access for the second unit is through that exit passageway corridor to the rear yard. there's some history here. originally, this was a three unit building and that unit behind the garage of the first floor was part of that second floor unit and we had internal stairs going from the second level to the first floor and then out to the rear yard.

we have since decided to make that a fourth unit which we felt planning would be more supportive of that, the clients were interested in making this a four-unit building and that eliminated that stair from the second floor down to the first floor. we ended up with a one-bedroom at the first floor and if we brought an internal stair down, it would pinch that to probably a studio space, and so we were really trying to maximize the square footage for that lower first floor unit. and so that's how we resulted with the stair and the access from this corridor to the yard. >> commissioner: there's no way to provide an external stairwell? >> i mean, if we're able to

provide a stairwell. if it was an exterior stair that carved into that first bedroom, we feel that would be an unfortunate move. >>. >> commissioner: so is this an issue that can be explored during the design refinements of this stage of the project to see whether or not that's probable. i wouldn't want to condition the project on it, but it seems like it would really enhance that second unit if it's possible and i quite agree, i wouldn't want to remove internal square footage. >> yes. i think that's something we can continue to work on. i would just want to make sure that any exterior staircase would not be projecting into the yard which i don't think it is because as the architect

said, we asked the project sponsor to pull back the rear of the building. so they originally were proposing to go right through the yard. i do believe there's some wiggle room there. >> commissioner: thank you. and one additional question for you. the comment from the anybody about the decks being so close to each other. could you address that point? >> yeah. i mean, he's correct. there are some decks are adjacent to one another. they should look at the site. you both see that the project sponsor has added some built-in planters on both the third floor and fourth floor directly adjacent to that one neighbor to act as a buffer which the planning department felt was an appropriate treatment to help maintain some privacy between those decks. >> commissioner: okay. so i would be prepared to support the project but i am interested in what the other commissioners have to say.

>> secretary: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i share commissioner diamond's concerns about inequity of open space. i was going to bring that up on my own. i was trying to phrase the challenge a little bit differentially. it is a second unit which can either go up or down. the first floor unit has a very large amount of open space, it has the balcony on the fourth floor and has the exclusive access by gate to the roof deck of forty-four square feet. that is for one unit, 485 square feet of open space. i consider that with the second unit really only able to go two flights of stairs. and i'm wondering why the second unit cannot share the upper roof deck because the stairs can be continuous and that's just an organizational

way of making the use of open spaces garden as well as roof deck. i live in a 3-story apartment building where i live on the second floor and i have to walk up two flights to walk to the common shared roof deck, however, they have a view and that makes up for walking up two flights of stairs. there are other ways. i believe that adding an external stair to the rear yard maybe an idea, however, it would impact the lower unit which has some in the rear yard. and so i would kind of say maybe make that particular open space less usable with the stair coming down and overshadowing that particular garden. these ideas i would like to see more equity in terms of how the

open spaces are used in this building. otherwise, your ideas are good. the design and everything's fine except how we can maximize the use of the open space. thank you. >> secretary: commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i just want to stick with the open space for a moment. i appreciate commissioner moore's comments. i was wondering about, can it look like from the report 52' of rear yard required, but 57 has been provided and so there is a little bit of space before they encroach and i would even be open if that is more than just stairs, but a small deck or seating area, but to commissioner moore's point not wanting to add too much shadow to the lower unit. so certainly not kind of a very wide deck that's going to provide shadow to where it's going to be getting its air from that.

as many of our rear staircases have a little bit of room. i think that would be appropriate. but i think that's another interesting solution. i think there's a benefit to having proximity so that unit can walk out of their own unit and have their own space. but i do want to echo the importance of figuring out how that second floor unit can have a little bit of its own private space or some type of a small rear deck, but then provides access down to the rear yard. and i also want to confirm i'm reading the plans right, it looks like the level where the decks are, are pulled back from the neighboring buildings a little bit and so they're not right next to the property line. is that correct? am i reading the plans right or do they go from property line to property line? >> on the east side, there are

planters, bufferings. we were reacting to the neighbors' concerns there and on the west side, the decks do extend to the property line. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> secretary: commissioner moore, did you have something else? >> commissioner: yes. i've said this many times before when it comes to roof deck or property and property line. i personally believe it only works if the railing is held inbound from the planter rather than the planter creating the buffer. should the planter not be as well maintained. planters don't do anything. i believe that putting on the roof deck, a railing, and having a planter outside the railing is the way to handle it. that, indeed provides the privacy. it doesn't matter.

you are the these planters would create an addition am 5'. i think 3'. to keep the roof deck edge away from the neighbor. and i would like to incorporate that in our motion as being one way to modify the project. >> commissioner: if you make that motion, i will second that. >> commissioner: yeah. i make the motion to approve the project with the modification of the roof deck planters with the roof deck being held back so that the planters are outbound, 3' of the roof deck. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. there is one more request for public comment. commissioner chair, should i

open up public comment again? >> commissioner: yes. >> secretary: caller. >> just to clarify, this is not a question or answer period. >> okay. i think the -- they have stairs next to elevator, they can bring that up and the decks over there for public, for everybody. having one deck just for the owner, that's not fair. >> secretary: sir. i believe you've already spoken on this matter so i'm just going to end that call, commissioners. i apologize. it's hard to keep track of phone numbers. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with the condition that the roof deck planters be moved outbound of the railing. and commissioner moore, did i understand correctly, you wanted them not just outbound of the railing, but pushed out

3' from the railing? >> commissioner: no the railing should be 3'. so the planter can be outside. >> secretary: understood. so the condition on that motion would be for the railing of the roof deck pulled in 3' and the planters placed outbound of the railing. >> commissioner: correct. >> secretary: on that motion [roll call] so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us on item 13 -- i'm sorry. for item 14 case number 2017-011827cua, 26 hamilton street. staff, are you prepared to make

your presentation? >> yes. i am prepared. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of kimberly derande. to demolish an existing family residence and construct a new single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit within it. the project proposes a new residence that will be three stories tall, with approximately 3,926 gross square feet. consisting of one 3-bedroom dwelling unit which is approximately 2,four hundred square feet. and 1 off street parking space. there is no current tenant occupying the property and the department has not received any public correspondence on this proposal. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general

plan. the new building, the proposed new building is designed to keeping with the development pattern and neighborhood character and we recommend approval with the associated conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. i think the project sponsor should be par of the hearing and we do have a presentation.

jonas? >> secretary: hello? >> hi, jonas. >> can you hear me? >> this is wing. >> is this wing? >> yeah. i think they lost us. >> let me share my screen. i need jonas. >> oh,. i gave them to rich hillis. there we go. sorry. >> all right. >> secretary: there we go. mr. sucre, you should have the

access. >> give me a second, wing. >> no problem. >> secretary: your slides are up and you have 5 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, planning staff. my name is wing lee and i'm the architect of the application. thank you for your time reviewing this application today. i will be giving you a very brief presentation of the proposed project. next slide, please. the subject property is located in the northeastern side of the university mount area. within the same lot. there are a number of existing buildings that are three stories in height. as you can see on the slide. next slide, please. subject lot size on hamilton

street is 25' by 120'. between silver avenue and sillman street. the two story structure has approximately 1,200 square feet. next slide please. when we first started the project back in 2016, it was supposed to be a major renovation and similar to the earlier application because of the lead time it may involve report and all that and also the demolition calculation, the owner decided to, you know what, it may be better off just to completely demolish the existing building. and there are a couple reasons for that and the reason i stated it was the longer lead time and another reason is the

existing building has a actually has two alleys on the north side and the south side. along the north side, the width of the alley is about 3'. and along the southern side of the alley is about 2'. so it's a real challenge not real challenge to rectify. it's not fully optimized. and that's the existing floor plan ground floor and second floor. for example, ceiling height of the ground floor is less than the minimum requirement.

next, please. so these two pictures show the alley on the north side and the south side. next slide, please. that's the front of the existing building on the right and the back to the left. next one, please. so the design is a single-family dwelling with an a.d.u. unit and the ground floor. the ground floor will have a one-car garage and the a.d.u. unit. next slide, please. so basically it's a three-story building. as i mentioned before, the ground floor will be the garage and plus or minus 838 square foot a.d.u. unit.

the second and third floor will be the primary unit and the area of that unit is approximately 2,450 square feet. all floors will be occupied by the owners and this could be the trend for the multi-family or multi-generation housing project in an urban setting. the grand mom will be the king the a.d.u. onto ground floor because of the limited mobility. the owner mr. and mrs. lynn with their kids will be occupying the second and third floor. so you're looking at the ground floor, the garage and the comfortable one-bedroom a.d.u. unit with one and a half bath and the half bath is mostly for

grand mom's friend if they want to hang out in the unit, they can use the half bath. through the bathroom is basically the second floor, the common area, if you will, kitchen, dining, living room. next slide, please. >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. the commissioners may have questions for you after we accept public comment. but, at this time, we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to adjust the commission on this item by pressing star then 3 to be added to the queue. you have two minutes. and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that means that's your indication to begin speaking.

caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners. public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i was wondering if the project sponsor could pick up the review of the design that he was just i think wrapping up.

i'm not sure if we can bring the slides back up, rich. >> wing, are you back there? >> yes. i'm here. >> so i have sharing on the screen the proposed third floor and roof plan. >> yes. >> commissioner: can you just explain what we see on the proposed first floor or the top floor on the roof plan? >> okay. i'm sorry. i was in and out. we have to point out one thing, the third floor mapping is showing 15' setback from the front which is correct. the file in the san francisco planning website is showing

10'. so we actually, the residential design team member so that the mapping of the proposed third floor would be less intrusive. >> commissioner: okay. >> and then the third floor basically is showing a two-bedroom suite for the two older kids of the owner. >> commissioner: okay. great. and, then if you can explain for the unit on the ground floor, the rear yard, does it go directly into the rear yard or is there kind of its own little patio and then there's the rest of the rear yard? i was trying to see if i can understand that in the plans? >> there are two planter boxes. >> commissioner: right. >> those are more like a buffer

or screening element. >> commissioner: what's the dimension from the rear of the building to the planter boxes? >> i believe it's 3'. or 3.5'. >> commissioner: okay. is it possible to move those back a little farther? because i do think it's nice to have a delineator of kind of a space for that a.d.u. and then the rear yard is shared and part of it being that i think this project is really great. i think it's somewhat of a model project and i'm happy to see a sizable a.d.u. on the ground floor. but just in the future, if your client is not the owner and occupant of it, just how to make sure these are good spaces that work together living on the ground floor of that unier dwelling that owner would have

a their own space. would it be possible to move those planter boxes back to do some more room for the ground floor a.d.u.? >> thank you for your comments. we should be able to move it up to 5' or 10' and just to clarify, the rear yard will be accessible by all occupants of the dwelling units. >> commissioner: sure. great. thank you. those are my questions and comments to make a more dedicated private space for the ground floor unit. >> thank you. >> secretary: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: commissioner chan, the way i read it, it looks as if the lower unit has a 12' level garden with the planters in the middle and then it rises by two steps and steps

up to the rear yard. so i think the delineation will be 12' is sufficient and the plan is to create a spatial definition. do you see that drawing i'm referring to? >> yeah, i see that. that's kind of what i was trying to understand is how this is braun up between the more private and the more shared space. >> i'm in full support of the project. i think it makes by the use on its own. and still fully well dimension to generous a.d.u. and i wish i would see more of them. i am in full support of the project. i think it is a good example for a multi-generational home and i think we make a moment to be approved.

>> commissioner: second. >> secretary: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. i'm also in support of this project, but i do have some question and i just want some clarification in terms of the tenant history. looking at in our pact which is on the left, it looks like the former tenants back in 2016 filled out this. it looks like a rental information questionnaire, but to really state, i'm wondering as to how the tenants. >> as you can see, the

condition of the house, of the existing condition is not great and there was a point that the owner purchased the property i think back in 2017 or 2016. the tenant has been living there already. so they were trying to negotiate the rental of the owner, the new owner which is the current owner by the rental board or association of realtors to document on their standard features so that's part of their negotiation documents per se. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. it looks like there's nothing that happened. i'm more in curiosity as to how

the tenants lived area, but i am supportive of this and happy to see these kind of units. i'm ready to make my vote. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us on item 15 case 2019-017356cua at 1861 union street. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> secretary: okay.

the floor is yours. >> [inaudible] >> secretary: go ahead. sorry >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 202.2, 303, 303.1 and 725 to allow the establishment of a formula retail-cannabis retail use. the project proposes to open a cannabis retail use within a 361 square foot commercial vacant space. the proposal involves interior improvements on the base level. no expansion on the existing.

modifications are limited to installation security cameras and sign adjust which will be under a separate permit. medmen is a retail business. approximately 151 commercial retail store fronts on the ground floor. 3,061 feet. about a thousand linear feet is vacant. if approved, the project would increase the concentration of formula retail spaces to 13.2%

and the concentration of lot frontage has been increased to 18.5%. the project complies with additional regulation of that retail business. the existing cannabis retailer is 0.65 and the closest [inaudible] is about .22 miles away. there are no substantive uses defined within 600' of the project site. the nearest school is 900' away. and the recreation center about .3 miles away. the equity applicant is [inaudible] . under police code section 160 -- 1613, the applicants also have to approve the locations at three pending locations at

[inaudible] and this location at 1861 union street. july 24th, 2019, which people attended about the business retail operations, security plans. a virtual meeting on february 26th, 2021. and now a question about security and possible side of the project. to date, the department has received 17 letters in support and 7 letters in opposition of the project. in support of the project, the union association. the professional operations of medmen. that cannabis is legal in the state of california. the importance of revitalizing retail and lack of cannabis retailers on union street currently.

opposition of the project said potential impact to children and families in the neighborhood. previous businesses that made operational promises which were not kept. the kelt business cannabis. and the negative mixing of late night alcohol consumption and cannabis. and possible increase in crime. the department finds that the project is unbalanced and that the project meets all typical requirements of the planning code. a new type of retail business increase of access to cannabis projects and supports the city's equity program administered by the [inaudible] cannabis. the project is necessary, designable and compatible. this concludes staff

presentation. the project sponsor is here and has a presentation and we are ready to answer any questions about the presentation. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. project sponsor, you have a 5-minute presentation. >> thank you. in a few minutes i'll introduce tray court. the medmen and we're also pleased to have with us malcolm white, the applicant and the proposed union street application. before i turn it over to tracy, i did want to just make a couple of quick points. can you show the next slide? first. i want to point out that the proepded architectural treatment is very thoughtful to the existing neighborhood.

really, the only change to the existing store front would be the addition of an identifying sign for the business. the building would just be cleaned up and brought back to life. and also i want to point out that formula retail use in this location is entirely appropriate. the neighborhood currently goes to mixed uses including retail use. this -- the addition of this store would be just a small incremental. it's important to recognize that the union supports this project because it will attract customers in the district that accommodates everyone. >> thank you, cj. good afternoon afternoon. my name is tracy mccourt. i'm medmen's chief administrate

officer. medmen is a state of the art cannabis retailer based out of california with the proven track record by operating consumer friendly and responsible facilities for cannabis cultivation, manufacturing and retail. we understand that the health of the union street corridor is important to the neighborhood and believe we will add a vibrant, unique, and safe presence to the corridor. we're proud to help advance city, state equity cannabis. and both of our proposed locations in san francisco. we're proud to supporting to ensure his personal success and the success of our retail locations in san francisco. although, we're a national brand, we don't take a national approach to our stores. our footprint in the bay area will include two stores in san francisco, one soon to be open in emeriville, and one soon to

be open in san jose. and, of course, the community like the annual union street festival and much more. the formal support of the union street association. with that, i'm going to pass it over to malcolm for him to introduce himself and address the partnership in greater detail. thank you for your time, we welcome your questions and humbly ask you for your approval today. >> thank you, tracy. >> malcolm, can i ask claire to advance the slide show two slides. thank you. >> thanks, tracy. thank you. good afternoon. my name is malcolm joshua white. i'm the ceo of our supposed union street store. i was born and raised in the mission district. i knew since i was a kid. [inaudible] after making bail, i flew to

new york to recruit my losses. began working with me to build our business together. my father and i were imprisoned at reicher's island. when i was released and came home, i learned i played a significant role. given my advocacy on equity. shortly after he was released from jail, my father unexpectedly passed away. i hope to share with him what we had created with our shared visions together and incidentally today is my father's birthday. the sacrifice that has led up to this point, my journey from the cannabis seller under unfair drug policies. it's my driving force. this partnership with medmen allows me to build on my dream. as ceo, i look forward to

running our store making san francisco first. i look to improving our budgets, and generating both opportunities. i'm exciting building out our team. i look forward to hiring local residents. most importantly, i look forward to having a community impact and being known in our neighborhood not only for selling equality and distinctive products, but for being engaged as a true partner. i'm excited to be a san francisco business owner. and for the opportunity to help other businesses. i thank you for your time and i humbly ask you for your approval today. thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes the project sponsor's time for presentation. we should open up public comment. public comment will be limited to one minute. members of the public need to press star, then 3 to be

entered into the queue. >> secretary: when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your cue to begin speaking >> i'm a life long resident of district 2 since 2002 and my family has been in the area since the 19 twents. i strongly encourage you to support of the medmen project. it will bring much needed foot traffic to our corridors and union street during these times of transition as san francisco looks to remain its growth from this pandemic and this will bring the positive foot traffic and bring other merchants and businesses to the area. i strongly encourage you to

support this project. thank you. >> my name is bran goodwin founder of the san francisco social club. we encourage the expansion. we encourage the 1861 union street cannabis dispensary project. we have worked with malcolm quite a bit. he's an important part of the san francisco project of equity applicants, the owners of cannabis companies. malcolm's story with much experience in the unregulated cannabis market is exactly the type of individual that we want to encourage to enter the new legal cannabis market. he will be a beacon for others

to the main stream retail operation. there's no retail cannabis operations. it should be the retail for the city. we want people to walk. >> secretary: thank you, sir. that's your time. >> hi, my name's eric kingsbury. i just wanted to speak in support of medmen. i have lived here for eight years now and the and i also am a big fan of the fact it will bring additional security to the corridor. i know there's a lot of concerns about break-ins to commercial properties and i believe they will make sure

union street stays safe and get some more foot traffic and turn into one of the thriving corridors of the city. thanks so much. >> hi, may name is alex meatcham. i live and work and see the benefits like medmen can bring. i know that medmen stores are original draw will bring foot traffic leading to more people coming to patronize the great stores and also i'm excited that medmen will have a security team and hope their customers follow the law and monitoring. these boots on the ground are crucial for making connections while also serving as a set of

eyes. help bind communities together with on-the ground security and it's through that lens. thank you. and how they run it is strong, and i support the project, and i expect them to do the same thing in union, so i am in full support of the project.

thank you. >> hello, my name is roly. i'm a san francisco resident. i've worked with malcolm over the past five years. i totally support the union street location and i'm looking forward to playing a part in the equity program here in the city. also i visited two of the medmen shops in los angeles and both locations had super tight security and overall operations were proper. please vote yes to support the union street project. >> hello, i'm devin johnson, and i live actually two blocks away from the proposed site and i'm calling in to say that i am opposed to the project. i and others on my block are trying to raise kids in the city, and we are looking out for what's best for them and for our families and our neighborhoods, including but not limited to health, wellness and crime avoidance. medmen will install a retail

store in our neighborhood. it is selling or it is actually an addictive and damaging drug. although they may be able to control what happens on their site with security, they really don't control what happens after someone purchases and leaves the site. if you disapprove or don't approve this project, there are still many, many ways that people can get marijuana, medical or otherwise. there's many dispensaries that deliver in the city and app-based companies that will deliver in 15 minutes. at the national level, marijuana is still an illegal drug. it's got negative impacts on memory reaction time, general cognitive behavior, but especially damaging effects on the developing adolescent brain all the way through the late 20s, which is well -- >> you're out of time. >> hello, commissioners. my name is jane gaito. i live around the corner from

this proposed site. i live on green street. i also oppose this project. i echo many of the things that devin johnson just said. i also want to point out a few troubling concerns. the first is that, yes, you -- the union street corridor is full of stores, bars and restaurants that contributes to the vibrancy of it, but it is already a problem late night, and marijuana mixed with alcohol is not going to be additive to the problems that we are already facing on union street, and while medmen does screen people on the way in, they have no control of what happens on the way out, and it's already a problem, and i urge you not to make it worse. the second is despite many of the people calling in support, i want to say that medmen has not been ethical in the way they've run this planning process. i have attended the in-person meeting. i had a lengthy conversation with them, with my negative

comments. none of that is reflected in their submittals to you. and the process depends on the ethical participation of all. and finally, if you're going to approve this h i urge you to severely restrict you -- >> that is your time. >> hello, commissioners. i'm a born and raised in san francisco. i'm working -- street for six years and have worked with malcolm on numerous projects. they have all went well. he is transparent with his work and works with the utmost integrity. i have been to medmen dispensaries in l.a. and seen where they will be in san francisco and i'm 100% sure that it will lift the community. it's huge for equity applicants to be the c.e.o. of a retail show on union streets, and i've seen what medmen does as far as security and uplifting the community around it. the stores and businesses will benefit greatly from medmen being there, and malcolm also

being there in charge of everything. as far as the dispensary, you know, really keeping an eye on all the patrons that come in and out, i have seen that they are adamant about the people leaving with any products as well and making sure they are not used on site or anywhere near on the block. i'm in total support of project 1861, and i hope that everyone here can also get behind this and push it so medmen can be in san francisco. thank you. >> hi, this is shannon getty. i've lived in the neighborhood for over 25 years. we -- just like the previous caller, i did not get any notification, even though i had been a participant in the june hearing, and madmen has been very opaque about this whole process. as a matter of fact, today i'm away with my family, like many

people in the community, this is a -- you know, this is the thursday before easter holiday. i tried to get in touch with the principal of the marina middle school who was also opposed to this last year and also the principal of svdp, and the timing of this, at the very least it should be continued. marina middle school is a public school. they should have a voice, especially when they are coming up against a capitalistic, you know, public company. this company has deep pockets, and it's just not fair. it's not equitable that the rest of the community doesn't have a voice in this process and procedure. i understand they are trying to increase foot traffic. we're all for that, but this is not the kind of foot traffic -- these should be debated a little bit more -- >> thank you. that is your time. >> hi, my name is latticia yang. i live a couple blocks away from

the proposed site and was also attending the february 25 meeting hosted by the -- which is in strong opposition to this project. unfortunately malcolm white was not part of that meeting. i was very inspired by his story earlier. i want to be clear my comments are about medmen and not mr. white. we have significant safety concerns which i won't go into because of lack of time, and i am dubious about the fact that medmen can follow through on the promises it's made in its good neighbor policy. this company is a horrible financial situation, and we usually don't talk about these issues, but i think it's relevant in terms of their ability to follow through on their promises. as of the end of december they are 400 million in debt and only $7.5 million in cash. they have been flashing assets and selling them, cutting staff. there's been turnover in their leadership team, and so i'm really concerned that they are not going to follow through on all these promises, and no one has discussed the financial viability of this company. so i'm very concerned on them actually able to -- you know,

their ability to be good neighbors to those of us who are going to be the ones here and living through the consequences. thank you. >> hi, my name is sarah mier. i'm a san francisco resident and i've had the opportunity to work with malcolm in several different capacities. one of them is actually in doing community work, and i hear a lot of the comments about -- and i also am aware about, you know, the cannabis industry and the potential that it has to shape the next generation. i do want to say, though, that, like, ultimately this is san francisco and i feel like san francisco is at a point where it really needs a jolt of energy to kind of revitalize it, and i believe that this is kind of the -- both the economic and kind of like vitality and progressive nature of this city, and i really think that because there's an equity applicant involved in the situation, san

francisco and the integrity of what it means, and this is a kid who was like a latch key kid that ran the streets and knows what it means to be a kid in these streets and wants better. i do support this project. i support medmen and teaming up with malcolm white, and i support malcolm white and his endeavour to make the city just a better place for our kids to come, yeah. >> [indiscernible] one of them is actually in doing community work and -- >> if you could mute your television or computer, caller, you have one minute. caller, did you want to submit your public testimony? >> yes. >> okay, your time is running. >> i would like to oppose the

location of this particular establishment. there is a public school just several hundred feet away, and i'm a resident of the area. my family and i with young children, and we personally do not think that this is an establishment that young children in this particular neighborhood should be exposed to, both from a clientele perspective and also the idea of it. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star then 3 to be added to the queue. you have one minute. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, my name is diane.

i am the former president of the san francisco -- democrats. i used to work at the mayor's office of neighborhood services. i was also the vice-president of san francisco women's political committee, and i would really love to see more vibrancy in the neighborhood. i've lived in district 2 for seven years now, and i've seen businesses come and go, and right now we need to be supporting our businesses and our merchant corridors, and medmen would bring vibrancy and improve the commercial shopping on union street, and i would love to see that installation there, and i fully support their efforts. thank you. >> hello, i am a resident of this area, and i strongly oppose bringing this company in. i think that with the public school system right around the corner this is not appropriate for children to be seeing, just

a few hundred feet away, and oftentimes people bring out the marijuana and you can just -- you don't know if it's a cigarette or what it is. i don't think it's appropriate for kids to be seeing this. i think that as a neighborhood that we should be supporting small businesses in the fact that bringing in restaurants and companies to exude this vibrancy and not bringing in marijuana dispensaries to exude vibrancy. it's not the kind of thing that we want to bring into this neighborhood. i strongly oppose and i echo everybody else who opposes. their points are also very strong. thank you so much. >> okay, commissioners. that concludes public comment for this matter. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> so before i call on the other commissioners, i'd like to at least just voice my opinions.

i think a person like malcolm is ideal as an equity applicant for this location. we touched on even earlier today at this hearing about geographical equity, and we have been approving these dispensaries very often on the east side of the city, south side of the city, and it's important that we equally spread the access to all neighborhoods, especially the west side of the city and the north side of the city. so i could not be in more support today. there's no on-site consumption proposed, and so for those reasons i'll be supporting today. commissioner fung? >> question for staff. ms. feeney, in total, how many dispensaries have been approved? >> in the whole city? >> yeah. >> let me look that up.

i do not have that fact immediately. okay, here we go. i'm looking up the cannabis retail map that is available online from the planning department. we have 11 that have been approved, and a number of other ones that are actively under construction.

19 are under construction. >> you're saying there's only 30 have been approved? >> yes, for the -- from the cannabis retail map. so this is -- this application doesn't necessarily include existing medical centers. yeah, that's going through the process now. >> yeah, i'd be interested if you could send it to the commissioners the total number that have been approved. secondly is how many are in application? >> i do not know. >> okay, if you would also send us that information also.

thank you. >> commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i do have a question for mr. white, if you're still on the line with us, the applicant. i wanted to understand more -- from the materials and the staff report, it seemed like you have interest in possibly four dispensaries or retail locations which is allowed in the city for an equity interest applicant to have interest in four. you stated you would be the c.e.o. of this location. can you explain your interest to this application as opposed to the other applications. like, is this your primary place of work? i also understood there's only two stores that will be medmen. i'm just trying to understand kind of the constellation of dispensaries that you'll be participating in and the degree of participation and the specific location. >> correct. so over the past -- i mean, the process of getting up to this

point has been pretty arduous, but over the past three years medmen has been very, very, very generous, and per article 16, they have been really open book about giving me centralized technical assistance. so i've been in and out of los angeles shadowing their gms. i spent a week shadowing -- of venice street, venice location and a week shadowing their beverly hills location and just getting my kind of general manager and [indiscernible]. that's going to be my pretty much, yeah. pretty much what i'm going to be doing. >> the locations that you would be the equity applicant for, is that accurate or has that changed? >> yeah, that's not -- that's not -- that's actually not -- there's -- that's not completely up to date and accurate.

actually there's just one more location. that would be the -- so there's two other locations. >> and they are all medmen locations? is that correct or no? >> two of them -- one of them is in flux. i have to -- you know, these things are kind of -- it's in motion, but two of them are solidly medmen. >> and one of them is this one and the other one, and then you're going to be involved in both of those medmen locations, and possibly some other ones, but it's kind of evolving is what i'm hearing from you. >> exactly. these are the only ones that are, like, yeah -- >> and great, i think you said in your presentation you'd be involved in the day-to-day operations of this location for sure, if it is approved, and kind of running this store. is that right? >> yes, that is correct. as you can imagine, there's going to be -- it's a lot of responsibility, so i'm hoping that i can have, like, delegated help. >> i hope you aren't running it by yourself. >> day-to-day managers.

>> exactly. >> but as high level as i can get on the ground every day, yes. >> okay, great. that's really helpful. and then what are the hours? i don't know if this question is for you or for some of the other folks who on the line from medmen. what are the planned hours of operation for this particular location? i know the state law says 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. are allowed -- or 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. are allowed, excuse me. what are the plans hours of this location? >> jess, are you available to take that question? >> yeah, hi, commissioners. i'm the svp and coo at risk city strategies, the local public affairs consultant that's been on with the project team and with malcolm since october 2018. so we were hoping to seek the full hours of operation that are allowed by the office of cannabis for this location. >> okay. >> which is -- >> which is 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.? is that correct? what are the hours?

>> that's what the state law allows, but i believe, trace, if you want to jump in as well, i believe we would be looking for 8 to 10, the full hours that allow. i think 6 a.m. would just be a little early. >> most of our locations are 9 to 9. we would be looking for somewhere in that range, yes. >> okay. so 9 to 9 p.m. we heard a lot of public comment about the outreach to neighbors and dialogue with neighbors. i don't know if it's the public affairs team that handled that or if somebody from the project team can respond to what type of meetings and what frequency were held and what conversations if any were held and any attempts to address the concerns that were raised by the folks who called in today. >> hi, commissioner. this is jess again. thank you for the question. so we have a local outreach team of san francisco residents that was running outreach on this project for the greater part of a year and a half. our team obviously when submitting the conditional use application went door to door to

every merchant on the union street corridor, at least three times. we did the same obviously when we had to submit the updated linear square footage. in terms of the residents and the community, we went above and beyond the mailing radius requirements. we did a thousand feet fo all of our neighbors to try to be as inclusive as possible. as one of the callers mentioned, we hosted an in-person community meeting that was pre-covid where we had a number of attendees. you know, obviously a mixed bag, as you've heard today. there's just [indiscernible] opposition in the neighborhood that exists to cannabis. we did our best to do an open house format where we had medmen representatives and malcolm from every facet of the store to talk about operations to talk about products to talk about design to talk about our community involvement and our outreach there to date. specifically we outreached to the main neighborhood associations and met also with the golden gate valley neighborhood association that was mentioned at the end of january. when we found out about their

opposition, and i know clare has this from the planning department, we immediately sent, you know, our note of response hoping to find some times to meet to see if there was a way that we could earn their support, which you know is obviously our endeavour here. unfortunately they didn't get back to us before the hearing. the president said the ball was in his court to get back to us to meet, but we shared with them our good neighbor policy that is required by the city and the office of cannabis, and i just want to reiterate for the community, it's really important for us to be a good community partner here. literally in the good neighbor policy malcolm's cellphone and personal email and address is there, and i know from the community there was some [indiscernible] about another former retailer that came into the neighborhood as you heard that fell back on some of their promises. and we are required by local regulations to get this good neighbor policy approved and we still welcome feedback through this entire process to make this project as strong as it can be. >> okay. and then fiz ms. feeney, can you

explain what is the mailing radius? i know some folks said they didn't get notice of this hearing. when do we notice and what do we notice in regards to cannabis dispensary in regards that were formerly retail? >> so the standards are for the commission hearing, so any item that comes through the commission has the same level of notice. we send a letter to within 300 feet. >> okay, great. so that's the radius, and so just for folks who maybe didn't get a notice, that would be why you didn't get a notice of this hearing if you're not within 300 feet. that's what we do as a department, my understanding, and so that's not really the applicant's responsibility or even their determination of what that radius is. so just want to put that in the record there. okay, well, i will offer that i am supportive of this project. i do understand the sensitivities in this neighborhood and the other neighborhoods expressed.

i have had pleasure of living here in this area about six months. when i first moved to san francisco. and i certainly can understand also the challenges that union street has, union street has had challenges, and as a retail corridor predating the pandemic they were having a high vacancy rate, and so i do think this is an important addition to that area. i thank you, ms. feeney, for your great analysis of the saturation in terms of what's in the area and really breaking down what's nearby. i do want to -- for all the folks who called in, first, thank you for calling in and making your comments. if you do have feedback, i think the actual regulations in terms of how closed these types of uses can be to schools or other sensitive uses, that authority rests with the board of supervisors. i certainly encourage you to reach out to your board of supervisors, to supervisor stephanie, to let her know of your concerns regarding the radius, if you don't think it's big enough in terms of being around schools or parks or other areas. i also do want to encourage you that if you feel at any time

there is a violation of the terms of the allowing of this cannabis dispensary to operate, that you should report that violation to the city, and i know even if you report it to planning and we have to get it over to office of cannabis who may be responsible for adjudicating it, don't hesitate to report it and we through our enforcement team can get that to the right body in the city. so if you do notice violations, we have heard on the record that they want to maintain their good neighbor policy. they have their written good neighbor policy, and if they are not abiding by that, that isn't what we want to see, and we have heard that is not what the storefront would want to see either. so those are my comments, commissioners, and i am happy to turn over the floor i think to commissioner moore perhaps next. >> commissioner moore? >> this is one of the tough places to really figure out of how to help it over the last three decades it has been very carefully curated and supported

by the adjoining neighborhood associations, and as far as i know the union street association has probably gone through the most severe challenges from first being the first neighborhood corridor with boutique shops that were successful and then other neighborhoods modelled themselves after union street. as we said earlier in commissioners' comments, letting the oversight 3,000 plus square feet raises questions for me particularly the stores on union street have always kind of shown themselves as very small boutique enterprises. 3,000 square feet is a very, very large store, and i am concerned that the -- retail occurrences of the store will somewhat disrupt of what union street used to stand for. i would have liked to hear from

the golden gate neighborhood association their concerns in more of a particular form. i did not hear anybody speak. i also would have liked to hear a little bit more precisely of how the union street association is supporting this particular venture. i am of two mindsets on this, and i'm curious about other commissioners' comments. >> commissioner diamond. >> i am in full agreement with commissioner koppel's comments that he made at the beginning of our discussions. we have been approving these projects on a fairly regular basis, and i don't see a reason to distinguish this from the others that we have approved, particularly because it's not a consumption lounge. and i do very much support the idea of geographical equity.

i don't want to create a cannabis district in one corner of the city. i think it's important that they are spread around the city. we recently approved a couple on the gary street corridor in the center of the city, and i am in support of this proposal and would make a motion in favor of it. >> commissioner imperial? >> thank you. i'm just also want to echo other commissioners in terms of as of this project i am entirely support of this cannabis retail. however, i am -- you know, share other sentiments of especially commissioner fung and commissioner tanner and commissioner moore in terms of the saturation and also the data that we have. i understand that we're still working on this, but there is a policy, i believe, question in

terms of -- such as the square footage of the cannabis, the formal retail definition for a cannabis retail as well. i think that's something that needs to be explored. how do we really support the mom and pop cannabis retail business owners. i think when we talk about equity, those are the questions that i would like to see for the planning in how they uplift the cannabis equity, not just geographically, but also in terms of business. but as of now, i am supportive of this as well, and i would like to move this approve this project. i would be ready to vote. somebody already seconded it. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with

conditions. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner tam. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and we'll place this under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on today's agenda, no. 16, case no. 2019- this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, thank you. happy april fool's day, commissioners. [indiscernible] before you is a request for public initiated

request for the discretionary review [indiscernible] sorry, jonas? >> mr. winslow, as is customary, your wi-fi is not behaving appropriately and i apologize, you took the time to put on a tie today. we'll have to kill your video feed so that we can hear you. >> very well. let me start over again. can everybody hear me adequately now? >> indeed. >> very good. thank you. happy april fool's day again. staff architect. before you is a public-initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2019.0510.0311 to construct a two-story horizontal rear addition and a third story vertical addition with front and rear roof decks above the existing second floor to an existing two-story single family

house at 2335 funston. the project -- the requester is concerned -- i'm sorry, the dr requester arthur lane of 2365 funston, the adjacent property to the immediate north of the project, is concerned that the proposed addition would be out of character with the scale and pattern and massing of the block -- building and rear yeerd as well as create privacy impacts from the second floor roof deck and side yard windows. the proposed alternatives are to limit the footprint to its current location, set back the third floor further to minimize the loss of sunlight and privacy to the neighbors. eliminate the deck on the second floor and design windows higher than eye level to allow privacy.

there have been no letters in support or opposition to this. the department's review generally supports the code complying rear horizontal expansion. the rear deck is modestly sized and set back six feet from the adjacent neighbor to ensure reasonable relationship with respect to privacy. the quantity, size and locations of windows vis-à-vis the adjacent neighbor's windows do not create additional privacy impacts, and the vertical addition is set back 15 feet 10 inches from the main front building wall to be minimally visible and retain the appropriate scale relationship with the predominant two-story context. and the first story and second story rear addition set back from the -- of the lot line to modify impacts to the neighbor to the north, the dr requester. however, because the dr

requester's building to the north is shallower than the proposed project, staff finds that the third story massing extends well beyond and above the adjacent neighbor at the rear and would cause an undue impact to light and privacy. therefore, staff recommends design modifications to conform to the residential guideline related to building scale at the rear by reducing the extent of the third floor addition at the northwest corner by 10 foot 6 or a width of 6 feet to provide adequate relief for the north neighbor while also reducing the roof parapet height to the minimum required for a curb. therefore staff deems there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances present and recommends taking discretionary review. this concludes my presentation, and i believe the project sponsor and the dr requester have presentations ready. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. we should hear from the dr

requester first. mr. lane, you will have three minutes, but i guess i need to find your phone number first. there you go. mr. lane, you have three minutes. >> you can hear me now? >> we can, and your slides are up. >> okay, thank you. thank you and good afternoon. my name is michael lane. i live at the reasons 2365 funston to the north of my neighbor at 2375. this home has been in my family for three generations. the first item i'd like to address is the proposed windows on the north side of the my neighbor's design and the proposed second-floor deck will create privacy issues for me as they'll be able to look directly into the bedrooms and bathroom of the second floor of my home at 2365 as well as the bottom story windows. i'd like to note here that the slide images were taken at 5 p.m. and don't reflect the

issues of reduced sunlight, which i'll be discussing next, as the sun was already setting to the west and not affected at this time by the structures. so moving on, the proposed first story windows are not an issue, and here on the first slide you should see that this is a look at the west-facing wall of my home. these are the first and second story windows that are susceptible to the issues of security. next slide, please. this slide should show the north wall of the current structure at 2375 as it relates to my home and yard. next slide. the current structure has a second story window -- i'm sorry? next slide. this window already looks into the south bedroom of my home. i discussed this with renters in the past who have kept it shuddered, but when open it looks directly into my bedroom. this shows how the current window, even part of the edge on

the north wall, is already an issue. additional windows further to the right of this window will obviously be an issue moving forward. next slide. the proposed windows and deck would have even more direct line of site into not only my south bedroom but the bathroom and additional bedroom on the second floor, as well as the lower story rooms. some of the proposed corrections i could think of would be taking away the third floor or putting in elevated awning windows on the second story that would be above eye-line level, and either no second story deck or further setbacks south of the second story deck or possibly putting in a structural wall or visual block on the north side of the deck to block out the sightline. the second item is the proposed change to 2375 will increase the height of the house by 9 feet 9 inches and the depth of the structure will increase by 8 feet 8 inches. the combination of these factors will significantly decrease sunlight to my home and yard. the proposed extensions will

leave my home in darkness until the end of each day. the proposed correction i could think of is no third floor or reduce the massing and the size of the third and second story, which is the vertical and horizontal addition by some significant amounts so it sculpts the building in a way that allows light to come into my home and yard. and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, mr. yip, you will have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. >> yes, my name's kenny, and i'm the principal designer of this project. this presentation is regarding permit no. 2019-015-785 and the project address is 2375 funston avenue. from the design perspective, my proposal meets all development standards and the requirements

on the city's design guidelines. the plan was approved by the city's planning department in october 2020. on the dr requester's point of view, i realized three of his major concerns after my studies. one, privacy, two sunlight blocking, and three, property depreciation. the dr requester is a next door neighbor of my client who owns 2365 funston avenue, but is not living there as i received the report from the planner. the dr requester claimed that he didn't receive the notifications but his family members did. so here's my response to the dr requester. first, privacy concerns.

we can see clearly on the site elevation drawing that there are only two hung windows on the front half of 2365 funston avenue south elevation. can you go to the [indiscernible] thank you. so i [indiscernible] bedroom windows. nevertheless, we can use translucent windows and frosted windows on our north elevations if necessary. secondly, for the sunlight blocking concern, we can see that all properties on the funston avenue are east/west oriented. the sunlight blocking is a minor

issue in terms of the number of windows on the neighbor's house, and also the property's orientation. also it's seasonal light. so i don't have to -- i have to disagree with the dr requester's point of view here. and finally the depreciation and appreciation of the property are another topic of our presentation. so i cannot speak on behalf of the property owner. and thank you very much for your consideration and now back to the host, please. >> that concludes the project sponsor's presentation. we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then 3.

you have one minute. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am a neighbor of this remodel project and have lived in the neighborhood for 17 years. as was just mentioned by the dr, a larger footprint to especially the height of the remodel is out of character for the neighborhood. most houses on the block are two-story buildings, typically two-bedroom one-bath homes. the plan for this house is much, much larger than that. although i'm not as impacted by my other neighborhoods, the height and extension would impact my sunlight and view of the sky and impacts my privacy as the windows on the north side would look directly into my master bedroom and patio and backyard. i would ask that the height and extension be cut back. this project has three car off-street parking and at least one space can be utilized as living space. i would strongly prefer any windows on the north side to be

opaque glass or be clear story windows. that's all i have. thank you for your time. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. if there's no additional request to speak from members of the public, dr requester, you have a -- through the chair, you have one minute for rebuttal. >> i guess that would be me. the only rebuttal i would have is the -- what the contractor said that the sunlight would not be affecting my home. that isn't true. like i said, the sun does not go directly overhead. it does come at an angle and the third story and extension of the second story at all times of the year would leave me and my backyard in darkness until late in the day when it finally got

past the home itself. it's affecting my west side of the home. the south side would not be affected as he said, but it's the west side that i'm most concerned about when it comes to the light. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> i have no comment at this point. >> excellent. commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion of this matter. public comment is closed and rebuttals have been performed. the matter now before you. >> commissioner diamond. >> mr. winslow, do you have a diagram that shows the change that you're recommending? it might be easier to understand

it if we had something -- >> yes, jonas, if you could allow me to share my screen. >> let's see if it works, mr. winslow. is it? i'll give you the privilege. >> let's see if it works from my end. let's see. okay. let me just enlarge this for a second. so can you see my screen, the plan of the second -- third floor? >> yes, we can. >> yes. >> okay, very good. let me zoom in on the northwest question . . . view -- the

graphic version of the recommendation to sculpt the building in relation to the dr requester's property. can you see this red line outlined here? >> yes. >> that's the area that was recommended in the staff report as being reduced in order to ameliorate the issues of privacy and sunlight as well as the building scale at the rear in relation to the dr requester's property. it's approximately you can see 10 foot 6 from the rear wall going back to what is essentially the wall of the walk-in closet, and then an additional 6 feet -- and not just 6 feet from the northern side in, which would require -- if that were to be retained, would require some reconfiguration of the bathroom and walk-in suite with that bedroom, but could still retain

the functionality of that bedroom in some form or another. >> so just to make sure that i understand this, so the dr requester's house would be on the screen on top of this house and this house -- >> correct. >> and this house is to the south, so by cutting out that notch, more sun gets into the dr requester's backyard? >> exactly. >> okay. thank you very much. >> and likewise, that window -- the window that protrudes past that's on -- essentially it's not on the property line. it's on the side setback, but it's a window at the top of the screen within that notched would also be removed or relocated from a place that is susceptible to, you know, impact vis-à-vis privacy. >> and are you proposing anything about the deck? are you saying it can stay the way it is, the deck on the left? because this notch now cuts out a portion of the building that used to be next to the -- >> correct, i guess the -- the

lingering -- the loose thread here would be that if this recommendation were taken, then this would be roof area at that same level as the proposed rear roof deck on top of the second floor, and the question would be whether or not that roof area should be allowed to be roof deck. i would suggest it probably would be subject to the same typical response that we made, to buffer it to 3 to 5 feet, if at all. and it could remain unoccupied roof deck and the existing proposed roof deck to where it is now and call it a day with respect to the roof, where that notch is proposed. >> okay, thank you very much. so to the rest of the commissioners, i think that mr. winslow's suggestion makes sense. i am curious to hear what you all think, and especially about what we do with this area, whether it becomes roof deck or unoccupied area if we all decide

to go with mr. winslow's suggestion. >> commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i think i would say this is a great suggestion. i am supportive of it. i think they would have to reconfigure that bedroom or perhaps even eliminate the bedroom or adjust it some way to have the third bedroom if that's a priority. i would be more supportive, i think, unless -- open to persuasion, to having the roof deck that is there stay and have the area to be unoccupied, but certainly if we do have the portion of what would now be the roof to be a roof deck, certainly setting it off by at least three if not five feet from the side, which may put it, you know, into an area that could be an awkward space for the deck if you are having that much reduced, and so you know, perhaps it's a passageway to the larger area of the roof deck. i was curious we did hear some

requests for frosted glass on the side of the house that faces north. and just was wondering, it seemed like the project sponsor was also open to having those windows be frosted. is that something that is an option that i would suggest the architect, if you can speak to your willingness or your client's willingness to have the windows be frosted, i see that could be a way to continue to help the neighbors get along, and i would be open to adding that as a condition of this project. so the project sponsor or architect can speak to the frosted windows being acceptable or not. >> yeah, it's acceptable. >> okay. >> and also use -- window. >> do you have a preference? >> i prefer transom window. >> okay. >> let's hear from commissioner

moore. >> i am in full support of staff recommendations without any additional deck because the deck in that location would cause other privacy and potential noise interference problems. and so i am in support of staff recommendation [indiscernible]. there's plenty of space in the building to adjust this bedroom, still make it fully functional, and i think it is [indiscernible] in terms of what is recommended here. >> commissioner fung? >> i'm willing to go along with everybody else. however, i would point out that this particular case and the circumstances they represent is no different than everything else we've seen and have

approved in the past. the house adjacent to it, to the south, extends much farther but is one story shorter. the house that is in question by the -- represented by the dr requester is much shorter than the other homes there and is two stories. any addition to this building on the third floor is going to impact some of the sunlight and to the rear yard, but this case is no different than everything else we've seen. >> commissioner diamond? >> mr. winslow, commissioner fung raises a good point. what are the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that have led you to make this recommendation? we need to be able to justify it in those terms. >> yeah, thank you.

it is typical for us to ask for sculpting against a shorter neighbor. it's not scientific, but it's pretty clearly intuitive the way we approach things when we look at the massing of buildings in this condition where there's a deeper building to the south. this subject building, and then the property of the dr requester's building to the north, which is much shallower. we kind of apply a rule of averages, so to speak, and that the massing, higher -- more massing can go against the deeper building. it's not impacting anything, and then we start looking at the massing and the cone of vision, if you will, to the shallower neighbor, including solar angles, visual -- you know, sight lines, and so it's very common for us to ask for notches adjacent to shallower neighbors to mitigate the sheer massing against, you know, a big building next to a short building. so exceptional circumstances

are, in this case, we should have asked for this at our initial design review and recommended it to the project sponsor before it got sent out for 311 notification. we missed that, and we caught it in the dr process. >> i see. thank you. >> i would entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> i make a motion that we approve the project with modifications as proposed by staff. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. >> i just wanted to stipulate the commission did talk about the roof deck and that it was not anything mentioned in my staff report. did you want to add that in your motion? >> i did not. i did not see the benefit of that. >> thank you, commissioners. then there is a motion that has

been seconded to take dr and approve the project with staff's recommended modifications. >> sorry, commissioner, just to clarify, i think that mr. winslow was making that suggestion, commissioner, because if we do have that roof area, i think it could become a deck. is that correct, mr. winslow? or would it not be able to be a deck? >> i was agnostic on that in my recommendations, commissioners. you took up the matter about the possibility of that roof deck and had discussed it, so it should be some resolution on what that roof should be should be included in your motion, just for clarity's sake. >> if we had sufficient open space for the project, which we did before, i do not see the necessity to add it, given that it's still in the location that is sensitive to potential impact on other neighbors. >> right, and so i think my question would be in order to prohibit it from becoming a deck area, do we need to have that in the motion explicitly to

state -- >> yes. >> you would need to say it's an unoccupied roof area. that's what the notice will be. >> well, commissioners, just to be clear, i mean, you can have that on the building permit application, but that doesn't preclude it from submitting a building permit application in the future and adding a roof deck at that location. so if you want to prohibit a deck, then you should simply state that there is no opportunity for a roof deck there now or in the future. >> secretary, i thought it suffices if we have the architect add unoccupied roof. that i thought would preclude -- >> that only pertains to the current building permit application, and unless you make a condition that says that roof area is prohibited from becoming a roof deck, then there's no record of any restriction imposed by the planning commission. >> for practical reasons, i would like to say that and make

comment like that, amend the motion to include what you just said. >> very good. then, commissioners, on that motion -- seconder? >> excuse me, mr. ionan, i want one more clarification. commissioner tanner had some discussion with the architect about the windows, and it wasn't clear to me where we landed on those windows on the north side. are some windows going to be transom? are some going to be frosted? or none of them. >> i did not hear that as part of the motion. >> neither did i, and i didn't know if that was something commissioner tanner was dropping or wanted to include. >> i -- second that idea, so i was okay with dropping it. i don't -- if other commissioners don't see a need, it sounds like there's openness, but -- >> i thought the architect was agreeing to transom rather than full translucent. >> he did agree. >> he did, but we didn't put it in the motion. it's not in the staff recommendation, so the roof deck

prohibition and the transom windows on the north side would need to be added to the motion. >> can we be clear about which windows need to be transom windows? there are a number of windows on the north side. i don't know which ones -- could the architect tell us which windows he was agreeing to make transom windows? >> yes, i believe all the windows in bedrooms. >> in the bedroom windows, okay. >> yes. >> that's pretty clear. >> okay. so it sounds like we did amend the motion. did that happen? did the seconder approve that? >> yes, i am in agreement with the modifications of the motion to include those conditions. >> and the seconder? is the seconder amenable?

>> is that me? yes. >> mm-hm. >> thank you. okay, commissioners. then there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr approve the project with staff modifications and include a prohibition of a roof deck and recognizing the project sponsor's agreement to include transom windows for all the bedrooms. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> just a correction, mr. secretary, that would be transom windows on that side only, not all bedroom windows. >> correct. >> right. thank you. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commissioner and president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously

7-0 and concludes your hearing today, and i am pleased to inform you, you all get a week off for the spring break holiday. >> thank you, jonas. >> thank you. >> all right. we'll see you on the 15th. enjoy. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, march 25th meeting of the public safety and neighborhood

services committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar and committee member matt haney will be joining us. and we're also joined by supervisor melgar for item number 3. thank you to john carol and i'd also like to thank sf gov staff for this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> i do. for one thing i want to note that, mr. chair, in order to protect the board members in the 2019, the chamber and committee room are closed. this precaution is taken pursuant to all local federal state and local orders and directives. committee members will attend the meeting. if they are physically present in their committee room. public comment will be available for each item on this agenda, both san francisco cable channel 26 and

sfgovtv.org. you have an opportunity to speak and provide your public comments on today's agenda by dialling by phone (415) 655-0001. once connected the meeting i.d. is 1874560963. press pound. when you're connected. you will hear the meeting discussions ongoing but your line will be muted and on listen-only. when your item comes up, press pound followed by star 3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. best practices are to call from a quiet location to speak clearly and slowly. everyone must account for potential time delays and speaking discrepancies we may encounter during the live streaming. alternative, you may submit

public comment in either of the following ways. you may e-mail me john carol. my e-mail address is john.carroll@sfgov.org. you may submit your public comment by paper by mailing it to our office at city hall. city hall 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california 94102. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. can you please call item one. >> clerk: agenda item 1 liquor license 496-14 street.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this hearing should call the public comment number which i will repeat. (415) 655-0001, enter the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. press pound and then press star followed by 3 to enter the queue if you wish to speak on this hearing. mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. we're going to first hear from the san francisco a.d.c. liaison unit. officer sellenson you're here to report. >> yes i am. good morning. bar part time if it's approved this allows an on-sale beer and wine public premises. there are no letters of protest or letters of support. they're located in block 403

which is considered high crime. 202 is considered high saturation. alcohol liaison unit recommends with the following conditions that a petition shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering persons adjacent to the property as depicted on the a.d.c. and no noise shall be audible at any nearby residence and as of february 3rd, the applicant had agreed to those above listed conditions. >> supervisor mar: great, thank you officer sell nenson for that. i would like to see if the applicants would like to make a remark. >> sure. justin dillal here.

along with my colleague jeremy castillo here as well. we are extremely excited to be opening a bar in the mission in san francisco. it's been a dream of ours for a long time. jeremy and i have both worked in bars in the city the last several years and, yeah. kind of crazy opportunity due to the covid. a lot of shutdowns that happened. but we're super excited to have this opportunity to do what we've been wanting to go for a long time now. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and you're agreeable to the recommended conditions by the a.l.u.? >> absolutely. we're 100% committed to working with the neighborhood to make it a positive place for everyone involved. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. colleagues, unless you have any remarks, why don't we go to public comment. mr. clerk, are there any

callers? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. for those who have already connected to the meeting by phone press star followed by 3 to be added to the queue if you wish to speak for this item, agenda item number 1. for those in the queue please wait until you're prompted to begin. those watching on our meeting through cable channel 26, if you wish to speak on this item, please call in now by following the instructions on your screen. i will repeat them. dial (415) 655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. mr. chair, just for a moment while i check. we have no callers in the queue. >> supervisor mar: thank you.

public comment is now closed. i understand that supervisor mandelman is supportive of this transfer in his district. so given that, i would like to move that we direct the clerk to prepare a resolution determining that this license will serve the public convenience and necessity and that we send the resolution forward to the board with positive recommendation. mr. clerk, can you please call roll. >> clerk: yes. i will prepare a resolution finding the public needs and necessities will be served and on the motion by chair mar that that motion will be recommended. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. thank you mr. dolezal, and good luck with your new business. >> thank you very much.

>> supervisor mar: mr. clerk. please call agenda item number 2. >> clerk: agenda item 2. liquor license transfer. located at 845 market street will serve members of the public that wish to provide public comment on this hearing should call the public comment number which is still (415) 655-0001. meeting i.d. 1874560963. mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. welcome back officer sellnenson to represent the report on this item. >> okay. bloomingdale's has applied for a type 21 license and it's proved to allow them to provide an off sale general premise. zero letters of protest. zero letters of support. they're located in a plot 210

which is considered high crime. high saturation. the tenderloin station has no opposition. a.l.u. approves with the following condition. no distill should be. no wine shall be sold in bottles or containers less than 750 milliliter. beer or malt beverage should only be served in prepackaged multi-unit quantities. number four, the following alcoholic beverages should not be sold in quantities more than three individual containers for sale. that would be beer, malt beverages, and malt liquor products. pre-mixed wine products commonly known as wine coolers and premixed distilled cocktails. and they shall monitor the area under the control to prevent any loiters on the premise.

and, as of yesterday afternoon, i received an e-mail from the a.b.c. licensing rep that the applicant had signed those above conditions. >> supervisor mar: thank you, officer, for that report from the a.l.u. is the splint jacquelyn hercshfield here to make any comments? >> yes, sir. i'm here. can you hear me? >> supervisor mar: yes. we can hear you. good morning. >> good morning. on bhaef of bloomingdale's requesting recommendation of approval from the safety and services committee. as well as the planning department and the police department have granted their approval. we are looking to enhance, you know, the high end shopper's experience at our locations. we currently, you know in our home section provide

accessories, high end wine and bar accessories and we would like to provide high-end alcohol as well. for a one-stop-shop type of situation. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> we will comply with conditions. we have agreed to that. sorry. >> supervisor mar: great. yeah. thank you. thank you for that. colleagues, do you have any questions or remarks? if not, why don't we go to public comment. mr. clerk. >> clerk: thank you again, mr. chair. we're checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. i will repeat the routine. if they're interested in giving comment on agenda item number 2. you will dial (415) 655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of

1874560963. press the pound symbol twice and then press star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak if you wish to speak on this item, agenda item number 2. hang on just a moment, mr. chair, child i check one more time. and i'm seeing we have no callers in the queue for this item, mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: thank you. public comment is now closed. colleagues, i understand supervisor haney, in a you're supportive of this transfer? >> supervisor haney: correct. >> supervisor mar: so i would move determining that this license will serve as public convenience and necessity and that we send the resolution forward to the full board with recommendation. mr. clerk, can you please call role. >> clerk: yes. i will prepare a resolution that the necessities will be served at the direction of the

committee and at the motion of chair mar will this item be recommended to the board of supervisors. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. also, thank you officer sellmanson for your work and your presentation this morning. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar: please call item number 3. >> clerk: agenda number 3 is the city's reimbursement practices and maximizing funding. including but not limited to mental health med-cal administrative activities.

members of the public please call (415) 655-0001 to enter for public comment. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. thank you, supervisor melgar, for calling attention to this important issue. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much supervisor mar. i'm so excited to be in front of your committee for the first time. thank you supervisor stefani and haney for providing us the opportunity to hold this hearing. what i am hoping to achieve today is for the board and the public to gain a better understanding of the city's medi-cal reimbursement practices and how we are not taking advantage of every available state and federal funding source for mental health services. at the board, there has been a lot of attention focused on the

mental health crisis for many of our residents and the monumental efforts under way with mental health sf, thank you supervisor ronen and haney. i think we can all admit that after a harrowing year, we are facing a parallel pandemic with a mental health crisis. for all of us maintaining mental, physical, and social well being. how we as a society, we will address our collective trauma. we are receiving increasing reporting of young people visiting the hospital due to suicidal thoughts or suicidal iduations. there is a deeper challenge to

provide comprehensive mental health services to our children and youth specifically. so when i learned of prior board hearings and the california health report that san francisco was leaving millions of dollars on the table in medi-call reimbursements, i was pretty floored. every dollar we have claimed means we have left funding to impact support for children and our youth. that's not something we can live with. not when services are underfunded as is and when these services make such a tremendous difference in the lives of children and families. one of the components of the community school model that is the foundation of the students' rights initiative that supervisor ronen and i have been working on is mental health services. both preventive and treatment available to young people and families at our public schools. youth organizations such as

chinese progressive associations youth mojo have been working on this issue for years. it successfully got the school board in 2019 to pass a resolution to create schools as a space for student driven healing, transformation and growth and bring more resources into the schools like pr counseling. the youth commission is also watching this issue very closely and offering incredible insight on how to ensure responses that are led by youth voices. i look forward to future discussions about building out a comprehensive mental health system for our youth and children. today, i want to focus on the technical aspect of funding and administrative support systems. so i'm really excited to share this that many efforts are under way and i want this board to be active partners to lift up and support this work. today, we have alex briscoe who is the principal of

california's children trust. also, the department of public health and our own budget and legislative analyst office presenting. i want to note before we start that some of the department and agencies we requested to be here are not present today because their direct billing goes through the department of public health or dcyf. the san francisco school district was unable to staff today but their work will be covered and they are a very crucial partner in this work. through chair mar, i would like to start with the presenters and ask that we save our questions until the end after we all present and i am very excited to ask alex briscoe the principal of the california's children's trust to begin his presentation.

thank you. >> thank you supervisor melgar. i wonder if i can have the screen share activated help. that's activated. thank you. so i'd like to begin by acknowledging the many public sector leaders who've made today's presentation possible. in particular, the department of public health, the all children all families coalition, dclyf, hsa and numerous others. and, i'll ask that the elected officials and others listening take a deep breath. i had a mentor who said to me we have the most complicated descriptions for the things we understand the least and there's probably no more winding road and difficult public sector administrative challenge than medi-cade. california devolves the vast majority for understanding and accessing these funds to the local level and it's really

complex and difficult. and i will without doing too much on my background, i have directly worked in and built. i've been an emergency social worker, worked in schools, directed and designed mental health services for children. and for seven years, i was the health director in alemeda county. i worked having to work payroll. so i have the deepest respect for drew, dr. cofax and their team. this is tough stuff but a great opportunity. with that, i'm going to jump in. i'm going to move quickly because i have about 10 minutes. i'm going to give you some of the detail. i'll skip it because supervisor melgar nailed it. there's something going on with kids. it's not just them crazy kids. there's actually real data. it's a uniquely difficult time to be a young person. if you didn't believe that before the pandemic, you probably believe it now. and we could spend the next

weeks discussing why. is it 400 years of structural inequality? is it the availability of social media platforms on mobile devices beginning in 2009? is it a wealth of value that equates with merit? the answer is all of those things have made it an extremely difficult time to be a young person. and i'm going to take you through the map of medi-caid. and then i'll name the four projects that we have initiatived. and i'll finish with a couple comments about some statewide reform which hopefully will make your work easer. first, supervisor melgar's comments the lives of children something happened. twice as many kids in our culture have tried to hurt themselves. there's a 100% increase. while length of state meaning the numbers of days you spend

in the hospital decreased across our health care system for all disease burdens. it increased for pediatric mental health. young people told us. we actually asked them and they told us since 2005 they have self-reported need and it should come as no surprise, despite our progressive rhetoric as a state, we rank among the worst states in the nation in terms of access to mental health services. only 5

across our state. san francisco outperforms this data by about a percentage point. san francisco is about 6.5% in the number of children who touch the system. the good news is you guys do better than the state. and we project as you all know that this number will increase meaning the number of working poor families that are falling into poverty is growing significantly. hopefully the stimulus act will

impact that. and you always have to aggregate this data by race. 81% of those 6 million children are nonwhite. the suicide rate for black children is twice that of their white peers. so if we make -- if we have committed to making systems healing centered, it's just not a question of the mechanics we're about to talk about. it's not about getting that few million dollars here and if i million dollars there. we have to acknowledge the impact of structural racism on poverty and the social and emotional health of children. it's not like all of a sudden twice as many kids got that logical. more than half the children who attempt suicide have no diagnostic history at all. hopefully, the resources we're

about to talk about can contribute to that reimagining. i'm going to skip this slide. supervisor melgar did it better than i did it. go team. we suck clinically. we are seeing dramatic increases in utizization. whatever you call a crisis. that's what we're in now. oakland has seen a 100% increase. things are tough. so i want to teach you medi-caid in one slide. the underlying financial structure is always the same. and this is what i would ask elected leaders to hold. i'm not going to ask you to hold every piece of business transaction that drew and his team have to do. but you can understand the basic concept of it because every dollar includes these two pieces. every dollar includes the

federal dollar and the state or local dollar. these have technical terms. the nonfederal dollar is called federal financial participation. but you can distill every medicaid structure to this structure. you can think of it like a pot of gold sitting in dc. you get a dollar if you put up a dollar. the rules are different for each transaction. the ratio can be different. every dollar, every expenditure has a local and a federal match. so i would invite elected leaders and those listening today to be c.p.e. hunters. think of yourself as someone who's always looking out into my network of expenditures and say where am i spending money on low income people. this is the formal definition from the department of health care services c.p.e.. these are all fancy words to mean a federal match and a local expenditure.

let's talk about how that federal dollar flows through the states and counties. how does it show up in the lives of children and families. the first and biggest way is the health plans. in san francisco, you're a two-plan county that's the san francisco health plan and anthem blue cross. the school districts can bill medi-cal directly. really important the state plan amendment was just passed that expands their ability to bill. community health centers. health 360. and also your own san francisco health network are all federally qualified. they get an enhanced reimbursement. the public health department itself can claim for case management and administrative activities. we'll talk about that today. public hospitals have their own way and the regional center. these are the seven different ways and not all of them are within your control. some of the health plans are

directed by the state. some of the regional centers are surround the local health systems. the challenge for children and families is they don't care about these lines on the map. for them to negotiate these multiple systems who continually struggle with lack of resources, lack of accountability between and among them, we really struggle. and, again, it's nobody's fault. if you want to ask why are we where we are given that we have the fourth highest tax base in the nation and the 38th most spending, this is why. when everybody's responsible, nobody is. if you think of these thing, our children, our families trusted us to meet with key stakeholders and identify opportunities and we did. and we were able to secure a philanthropic resource. 26 family resource centers received more than $15 million.

so they received first five more than safe and sound and we analyze every single one of their budgets and the department of public health. and we developed a strategy. the rest of the frcs will come on board july 1st. it's a massive collaboration with all of your players. it's very much a pleasure to work with so many people aligned and this will produce about a $15 million to $16 million expenditure ongoing. what's really important to note is if you can't reduce the amount of money you give to the frcs because any time you reduce the funding you spend, you reduce the claim you get. are you with me?

we've been really clear that these dollars have to be considered on top of existing investments, not as a mechanism to reduce your existing investment. with that said, the next project we identified with ocof was the children's center. the most prevent interaction is in the first three years of their child's life. they go 12 to 15 times. we structurally deny access to services to the mom. you can only bill once a day. so we work with the state and fed. plus being adopted around the

state. also, we're working with san francisco unified school district. they have over 105 social workers that are not claiming medicaid. they're also getting a flood of money for school re-opening and other sources. we anticipate almost $100 million of new revenue will come into the school district, but it will be one time. so teaching and working with the school district for those kids who stop showing to up to zoom. everyone is aligned there. there's big opportunities. we've been working with the department of behavioral health services division to look at the opposition. associated with the 1135

waiver. that's the federal disaster declaration that changed some of the rules of medicaid for the duration of the pandemic. there's opportunities for year department of health under that waiver. there's also opportunities to claim for administrative opportunities. these are defined as different direct services like health fairs like engaging communities and services. we will begin a direct charge long winded way of saying that if you divide all four of these projects up you end up with somewhere between $6 million and $10 million revenue. these are all conservative efforts demonstrated.

so in conclusion, this is what we call the trust for frame work solution. how will we reinvent mental health. so overtly anti-racist. we will figure out how to get more money because we're not spending enough. we will change the nature of the benefit. that's the new benefit we created with the state. so that we can promote justice. thank you for having us and again, thank you to all of the public and private funders who are supporting our work. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. i'm wondering if there's any questions before we move on to the next presenter? >> supervisor mar: i don't have any questions, but i just really wanted to thank mr. briscoe for this really

informative presentation and, yeah, just highlighting yeah, such an important issue and work that's happening and then more specifically the need to maximize us to maximize the federal funding that's available to us to really address the needs here in our city. >> supervisor melgar: i worked in a nonprofit agency that provides a substance abuse order. one of the great things about the work that you're doing is the capacity building that you are providing for the department in terms of being able to, you know, train the

trainers. to understand some of these issues and i am wondering if you think that the staffing infrastructure that we have currently with the four project is adequate to be able to make this work sustainable in the long run. >> well, i think i need to defer that question supervisor melgar, to drew and his team. yeah. i think it is. and i think actually that the skill and will is there. there is, you know, first of all, i need to say i'm a san francisco constituent. so i love living here. and, sometimes what it's meant is that we've funded things that in other jurisdictions, you have to claim for and so that means it's as much unpacking the kind of history of progressiveness as it is any kind of capacity issue. drew, charlie, sair, marleau and team are all excellent.

they know this work as well as anyone. historically, there hasn't been energy and pressure to get these dollars. yeah, again, so i don't see it as a capacity issue. i just see it as a almost focus issue. in terms of the staffing necessity, i think we need to figure that out. >> supervisor melgar: okay. thank you so much. i know when you were in alemeda county, you were tenacious about getting the reimbursement dollars when other counties made an effort. and i am curious how you went about, you know, building the system's culture because that sounds to me like what you're saying. it's not so much a capacity issue. it's sort of a culture of wanting to do it. >> first.

i need to say my mentors, vanna chavez who has since passed away. she grew up in a trailer in hayward, didn't have a college degree. and she used to say to me you have to hustle for medicaid as hard as poor people hustle for rent. and i feel that same energy from drew and their team. everybody's super open and they want to do this. i think if you ask where that culture came from it was from the people who taught me this work. >> supervisor melgar: i love that. hustle for medi-cal dollars. so that pieces out perfectly to welcome drew morell from the department of public health who will present on that department's efforts. >> thank you.

>> supervisor melgar: drew, are you with us? >> how's that? i unmuted myself. thank you supervisor melgar. thank you, alex. i appreciate this time to kind of talk through. i think i would like to level set and make sure it's clear. like i'm really speaking to the behavioral health portion of alex's slide. the california children's trust and the engagement they have with the city right now. the target for my presentation today is the behavioral health portion of it. particularly on the f.r.c. side and additional claiming opportunities. but the presentation today, the focus is on what we can do for

behavioral health claiming both in mental health and other opportunities. i appreciate the time to speak to it. it's an important, somewhat technical issue. sometimes people are bored by it but i'm always excited to speak to it. and i'm excited. i'm happy to be joined by fara aremond. let's go. here is an overview of the overall neighborhood health budget. it gives the flavor of the spending on the and authentic then on the right is the revenue sources. we're really talking about the medi-cal reimbursement here and our administrative and other costs that have sometimes

exceeded the state limit of allowable amounts. now, all of this is a big caveat for 1920. i think alex mentioned there was a waiver by the governor to lift the cap for the duration of the covid public health emergency. so we're really dealing in a different world this year with not having the same limits on what we can claim for administrative and other reimbursements and that's really meant a world of difference. we're still preparing the cost report but we expect it to be about a $3 million difference for d.p.h. this year. inclusive of that or external to that, we continually work on optimizing our revenue and claiming practices. for direct services, the focus it has been to continuing to enroll clients in medi-cal, improve our screening and enrollment practices.

we look for any opportunity we can for direct billing including peer services. outside of the direct treatment services, we have taken this year with alex's prompting a really targeted review on how we can better leverage our claiming opportunities for administrative costs. that includes utilizization that often falls into an admin and claiming diversity bucket. in addition to that, we're reviewing and this is really where alex's work is directly involved. opportunities for mental health medi-cal claiming, this is a particular claim that says if we have the support of a time

study or otherwise can say it's 100% of effort, we can claim cost directly to the state. e.p.h. had previously participated in that program and we ran into challenges starting in 2016. so i'll speak to the challenges. and this is where we have like a friendly discussion when, alex, i appreciate the work and the partnership. i do cringe a little bit when we talk about a federal match guaranteed. it's not guaranteed that we have a federal match. we've had the experience of state audits that come six and seven years after the claim has been submitted and they find that there's a gap of 15 minutes in a particular employee's time and we are subject and lose the money six

years back well after the money is out the door. that being said, that time study requirement was something that the state chose to implement in 2016 to say there's a new requirement for both to allocate their time in the clinical codes and allocate their time with d.p.h. mh.m.a.a.. so this is really where we're challenged to implement mental health maa is to find ways and there are ways to claim under mental health maa without

having to time study. in addition to the time study requirement, there are claims and that is some of the work that alex referenced was outreach. so there's particular type officers outreach that would be qualified ungd mental health m.a.a. that we are reviewing right now. we're reviewing the top 10 contracts that hold outreach dollars and trying to find areas that we can pinpoint mental health m.a.a. in one particular point. that would be for us to claim for that under mental health m.a.a., fund it without the need for a time study. the challenge there is the audit window. we would be in a position of claiming funding a contractor, and then holding on to time records for that contractor for six, seven years and waiting to see for audit risk.

i think that's manageable, but it does put some pressure on a choice of basically an audit deferrell or audit risk threshold. all of these are manageable. this is what we're working through right now with alex's help and i think happy to take any questions. appreciate the time. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. so much, drew. i know how challenging it is to work with the state and the medi-cal and thank you so much for all your diligence and trying to get every penny that we can. i know that -- i had heard that you were working on developing a new app to figure out how to do billing in an easier way for providers. is that still happening? are we leveraging some private funding to do that? >> i think that's one of the elements of alex's work and

that would be to the extent that we do have a time study app that helps when a clinician or a contractor engaging from the mental health m.a.a., but before we get there, we're at a stage where we may not need a time study. if we are able to find activities be civil service or contractors that are dedicated to a particular mental health. in those situations, we just direct charge and there's no need to time study because 100% of their time is dedicated to that. in that case, the state has a different threshold for what document nation is needed for mental health m.a.a. >> supervisor melgar: also, for this board of supervisors, we can convince the state to not require this anymore

because it's not a federal requirement, right? >> that's correct. it was a choice by the state for implementing mental health m.a.a. in 2016 and i hope to convey just how much their different choices at the state level have an impact on what we can claim and what we can't and that's really born out both with the lifting of the waiver this year going from 15% to 30%. that emergency action by the governor really changed our claiming dynamic for 1920. and this implementation plan, you know, when that was chosen introduced a time study requirement that was really prohibitive for us continuing with mental health m.a.a. this is all changing the document requirements and working with the time line for audit reimbursements. i see is very much in line with

the cal efforts which is just in general to make it less complex and less time burdensome for locals that the state is pursuing. >> supervisor melgar: well, thank you so much, drew. and i think, you know, i'm not going to speak for my colleagues but i think we are all very interested in making sure you're successful in that we can raise as much money as possible to support this work. thank you. and so next through the chair, i would like to invite fred russo and carl fatell from the budget and analyst office to talk to us about those efforts. >> okay. thank you. chair mar, members of the committee, and supervisor melgar. i'm fred russo from the budget legislative analyst office. i'm going to speak today about our review of current efforts

to increase medi-cal reimbursement for behavioral health services. i do have some slides. i will share here. and, are those showing up? >> yeah. we can see it. >> okay. great. so supervisor melgar asked our office to do a review of medi-cal administrative costs and reimbursement practices and the city's behavioral health services division of the department of public health and the background of the question was this information that supervisor melgar mentioned and the other counties had been increasing their reimbursement

through this mechanism called mental health m.a.a. or medi-cal health and administrative activities. it's a charging mechanism, reimbursement mechanism. so just the background on that fiscal year 2018-19. only 12 of 58 california counties filed claims using this mechanism. as mr. murell mentioned, san francisco discontinued claiming against this in fiscal year of 2015-16. but we did find that alemeda county had began claiming and this is when alex briscoe who spoke earlier was there and they increased their mental health m.a.a. reimbursements from $3 million to $17 million annually betweenen 2004 and 2014. going after the mental health

m.a.a. dollars. the reports we showed got an increase statewide from $17.9 million in fiscal year 2017 to $41.7 million reimbursed in fiscal year '20. while that sounds good, it's a small number of county that is are claiming. in fiscal year 1920, for example, los angeles county only got reimbursed $4 million and obviously their administrative costs are significantly higher than that. so there's a general reluctance to use this mechanism by counties. alemeda county being a great exception and we're interested, of course, in can what occurred in alemeda county be replicated here. very quickly for context, the behavioral health services budget and drew mentioned this also. but we are looking specifically

at the mental health side of behavioral health services and not including substance use disorder in this discussion today. so for fiscal year 2018-19, $316 million. drew had an update for more current years but we wanted to focus on this so we can track through how the reimbursements have worked use the that year as our baseline. and, on the revenue side, here we show the total of the $316 million again and you can see the federal financial participation which you heard referenced earlier was about $91 million. the state money that's shown here which is realignment in two versions and mhsa and mental health services act funding is shown there in the three rows and that all together amounted to

$133.9 million or about 42% of the revenue services and the county general fund is a big piece of the revenue sources for san francisco more than you find in many other counties in california because the city is committed to providing general fund revenues beyond what is required for medi-cal reimbursement. quickly, this is just a pie chart and it shows the breakdown and this is showing the county department of mental health provider network. you can see kind of the breakdown here mostly state and federal resources. and, here, this shows the community based organizations in san francisco general hospital. similarly, there's a big chunk for federal and state. but what we also see here is the general county funds and work order money about $70 million in fiscal year 2018-19. so a lot of that is directed to our community-based contractors

who provide behavioral health services. i won't go through this. i think it's been discussed in detail, but just generally back to this idea of the federal government provides a match of the 50% level of cost. so between the state and the federal government, the city is eligible for this one-to-one match of our costs that are incurred using the state and local funding and then matching it with the federal financial participation. and, this chart is just showing how certified public expenditures work. it's pretty straight forward. i think it starts at the local level, goes to the state, funds are matched, and the federal government provides the 50% match. and then it tracks back down to our department and the direct service providers be they either contractors or to the department itself.

so the behavioral health services division can claim medi-cal reimbursement through four basic services. direct services is the bulk of it. that's charging for or claiming reimbursement for costs that are incurred in providing services to medi-cal beneficiaries. then there is a mechanism called general administration and, through this, the department can claim an automatic 15% on top of the or on the direct service costs that are eligible under medi-cal for services. so all kinds of administrative costs like outreach and contract administration, planning and policy development can be billed through that mechanism. a third is quality and utilization review. but it's also performed by

clinicians and others in addition to providing direct services and other tasks that they perform. and then finally, this fourth mechanism mental health m.a.a., which we've talked about, this can be claimed in addition to this 15% general administration and there are certain categories of activities that are allowed under that that were also allowed under general administration. but there's a reason to claim both and i'll get to that in a minute. the key to all of this is behavioral health services cost report. this is a very complicated reporting system that tracks staff and contractor activity by activity and modes so that they can determine whether or not certain staff costs and contractor costs can be claimed for medi-cal reimbursement. on the general administrative costs, and that's the second one shown in the box here where

there's 15% of costs that can be claimed. what has happened in san francisco in recent years is that the actual eligible cost exceeds 15%. and so, in that sense, some money is being left on the table because only 15% can be claimed. now, some of that could be recovered through mental health m.a.a., but as we mentioned, san francisco's department is not claiming mental health m.a.a. and hasn't been since 2016. so there's the potential for additional funding for behavioral health services we conclude and this is after we've spoken to drew and some of the staff people in behavioral health services and looked at some of their documentation and also interviewed alex who's working with them. alex briscoe from c.c.p. this is the type of activity that can be reimbursed as i mentioned previously. so how to increase the

reimbursements. there are a lot of these categories that can be shifted. right now, there is staff and contractor time spent on what's called mode 45 activity which is medi-cal speaks for certain administrative activities. but it's not eligible for financial participation or reimbursement. this could include, for example, outreach. but if it's outreach for people for nn medi-cal programs, it wouldn't be reimbursed through the current mechanism. but medi-cal outreach can be reimbursed under mental health m.a.a. and that's right now included in that 15%. but it can also be claimed under mental health m.a.a. so the idea would be to shift those mental health activities and claim mental health m.a.a. and allow other act its that

are not being reimbursed to be claimed through the 15% general administration mechanism and/or mental health m.a.a. because both mechanisms allow for reimbursement of the same activities, but the 15% general administration mechanism allows for more activities to be reimbursed than m.a.a.. they can be moved in to m.a.a. that allows for the department to claim some of these costs that are not being recovered now because they exceed 15%. in addition, there's a strategy that can be employed and alex mentioned this so i won't go into a lot of detail which is if the contractor's direct charge for some of their administrative activities, that can be reimbursed and it doesn't require the extensive time studies that are needed to fully utilize the mental health m.a.a. mechanism. so this chart is sort of

showing what i just described and it's shifting a lot of the activity into the mechanism that allows for reimbursement of those particular activities and tasks and taking full advantage of these two sources, the general administration up to 15% of direct services cost and then mental health m.a.a. which allows for additional reimbursement that's being obtained now. we intended to come up with what might this actually entail or what this could mean for additional revenues because i think drew made the point quite strongly and we're certainly sympathetic. this is not just easy of filling out forms, there is a time quality requirement which is time tracking by staff and contractors that isn't being done now. it would be an additional task that they would have to take on. there's an administrative cost to rolling it out and making

sure it's done right and ensuring that, you know, an audit down the road will not show that, in fact, some of the funds that were claimed and reimbursed have to be repaid to the federal government. so but putting that aside just to get a feel for some of the numbers, on this 15% cap of what's left right now, we estimate about $3.2 million could be claimed and that's just the funds that are over the 15% cap that aren't being claimed right now and this is a portion that potentially can be reimbursed through federal financial participation. and, by the way, that's -- i think we're being conservative. we believe there is probably more and you dig into the cost report as alex and his group and drew and his staff are doing now as they start this analysis that's under way. on the contractor side, this

is, right now, we have about $286 million budget and that's from fiscal year '20 for contractor time. that includes some of their administrative costs but they have a lot of administrative activities that aren't getting reimbursed because they aren't claiming against the mechanism like mental health m.a.a. and they don't have the 15% general administration reimbursement in the same way the department does. so contractors have some opportunity here. we just came up with an estimate to give some feel for the magnitude and this is based on the assumption if the contractors are spending like say 5% of their time or costs covering unclaimed administrative time which we do not think is an unreasonable assessment, that would translate into about $7 million in reimbursable costs and the portion of that could be and maybe could be reimbursed to this direct charge method that i described a minute ago that

doesn't require a time study to the extent the contractors do implement a time study mechanism the funding reimbursed could be probably higher than the $7 million. but this is just to give some feel for the magnitude and to address the question of is this worth doing. whether it's a time cost study or burden staff and what we would be obtaining in additional revenues. this shows that the $3.2 million that we estimated for potential additional reimbursement based on the 15%. and, here you see there's $25 million that was incurred and identified in administrative costs for the department, but only 12 -- or $9.6 million of that was

reimbursed to the federal financial participation. whereas, $12 million or $3.2 million more could have been if that was all claimed and reimbursed using mental health m.a.a. in addition to the 15% cap. i've talked about the contractors and other staff as well and the potential there. it wouldn't require time to stud to do at least some partial claiming for their administrative costs, but it won't capture all the administrative costs. so the good news about that is there's even more potential to be reimbursed. the bad news is it does require implementing time study. on the horizon, the federal waiver and other speakers that mentioned this where the general administrative costs can go up at least for a year starting in 2022 from 15% to 30%. so that's certainly good news. we'll allow for increasing the federal medi-cal reimbursement

for department costs and we know already that they are more in the neighborhood of, you know, 20% or more of costs that have been identified it probably will not be difficult to get the full 30%. and, then the initiative that's under analysis through c.c.t. and the department will certainly aiming at increasing medi-cal reimbursements and we're optimistic about what we understand what we're doing that there's potential there. and, finally, the cal aim initiative will simplify medi-cal claiming requirements in the future and that's certainly good news for the department too that has to deal with this complex reimbursement process on a daily basis. we did provide some recommendations and thought that just given the complexity of this and the difficulty of tracking medi-cal revenues, we thought it would be wise for

the board to request the b.h.s. report back on a 6-month basis or so on how this analysis is going, what changes are being implemented such as time study requirements and what kind of results are occurring as hopefully medi-cal reimbursements increase as the changes get under way. >> supervisor melgar: excellent idea. thank you so much, mr. russo. thank you for the presentation and the recommendation. >> thank you. >> supervisor melgar: so that's it for our presenters. chair mar, we do have dr. faraman here from the department of public health. i do have one question for her before, you know, we close this up if that's okay. dr. faramond, are you here with us still? >> i'm here. thank you supervisor melgar. hi everyone. >> supervisor melgar: i was wondering if you could tell us

a little bit what efforts are under way to ashrine and coordinate the system of care centering children and youth and, you know, i know that when we spoke, you have some ideas about what additional funding if were available you could use for this. >> yes. thank you, supervisor melgar. hi everyone. thanks for having this hearing. i want to start by -- i will get to your question, supervisor melgar, but i want to just start by say echoing what supervisor melgar said at the beginning of this hearing. there's a lot of focus on the mental health. and as you can see in drew's presentation, the children and family behavioral health services is a small fraction of the budget in compareson to the rest of the system. even though we are a smaller system and children and youth and families is a smaller population in san francisco, it's really important to invest in children, youth, and families to prevent them from

being target populations in mental health sf. so i really appreciate this effort to identify for resources and support to invest in the children and youth family system of care. i have to say, we do have a robust mental health. i can speak to the specialty mental health system that i oversee. there's a lot of nonspecialty services that happen in primary care and other preventive efforts, but in thinking through the specialty mental health services, we do have a robust system and we have really tight partnerships with the school district, child welfare and juvenile probation. there are a lot of efforts to reenvision the care. board of supervisors close juvenile hall work efforts. there is a lot of efforts around thinking through a continuum of mental health care

from prevention all the way to sort of a secure and detention facility that is going to look different than the current one we have in place. so there's a lot of efforts where we are aligning our systems and thinking through a continuum and there's a lot of effort and focus with the school district between dcyf, the school district, and children and youth families. i just wanted to take this opportunity to pitch. i know i mentioned this to supervisor melgar. i just want to put out into the ethos while i have this platform that two of the major needs we have right now as a behavioral health system for children and youth family, especially this past year, the increase in acuity of youth the increase in referrals, intense management, wrap around support, hospitalization stays, contact with our crisis system, acuity is through the roof and our top two needs are three beds for a crisis residential type of setting, like a 2 to

3-month stay. beds are hard to come by. all younger kids get placed out of the county and those are for short acute stays and the residential beds are also really hard to come by and they have to be system involved. so the school district or child welfare has to do that. if we have a two, to three-month bed stay that would be one top need. just $1.1 million and then the other top need is substance use. if there's anything that we're really lacking in our system, it's substance use treatment and the needs are increasing. so we need to expand outpatient providers, get a residential bed and $2 million would help us with that. i also just want to say at the

state level we're really a model of san francisco county for our behavioral health services, for our use of our data and in our agency partnership and with the school district child welfare and k.p.d. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much for all the work that you do. chair mar, i'm wondering if any of your committee members or yourself have any questions for the presenters about this issue? >> supervisor mar: thanks again, supervisor melgar for calling importance to this hearing. actually i did maybe have a question either for mr. murrell from d.p.h. or mr. russo from the d.p.a. for this issue that was heighted. it seems like there's an opportunity for us to get more reimbursements through medi-cal and through the state for

administrative expenses for these very important programs. but then the -- there's a question of whether that extra burden on tracking those hours and reporting is worth it. so i'm just trying to understand this issue a little bit better and so for d.p.a. and mr. murrell. i understand from a.

>> chair mar, if i can just direct that for a moment, the data we have shows $17.9 million claimed across the state so definitely there's been an increase. more counties are claiming it. but i have to add, alemeda county is about half of that. so they definitely can be the leader which tells us can be done. i think more assessment should be done about what they did specifically. luckily alex briscoe used to be the director there. other counties have done it as well and increased their reimbursement, but not at the level i suspect of their actual costs but there's an uptick in it and resistance to it as well for reasons that have been

discussed this morning. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i think i noticed from your, mr. brazir from your presentation, you mentioned on the horizon there is a federal waiver that will allow us to increase the administrative -- allowable administrative reimbursement from 15% to 30%. so basically doubling it. >> correct. that is i believe and probably mr. murrell can confirm this, i think it's a one-year deal. it will be great to catch up but it's not an ongoing arrangement. >> it's actually extended for the life of the public health emergency. so it was initiated effective in march 2020 and has been ongoing since then until the governor declares the end to the public health emergency. >> supervisor mar: do we have an estimate how much that increase from 15% to 30%

allowable mental health administration expenses means for the city? >> yeah. it's a little tricky, but preliminary for 19-20 we think it netted us about $15 million in the initial cost claim. part of the difficulty is managing that estimate between our initial claim which is due in a week on march 31st for '19-'20. and reconciliation that comes five years after the fact, many of the costs count against the admin and others and counted as direct services which allow more cost to go to admin and other and we're playing with the 15% cap. but our initial estimate is about $2 million to $3 million

in '19-'20. >> supervisor mar: thank you for all your work on this. and supervisor melgar for your attention on these issues. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, chair mar. i think that i will also hope that we can, as a board support the work in a meaningful way. >> supervisor mar: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, char mar and through the chair to supervisor melgar. thank you so much for this incredibly important hearing. i care so deeply about the mental health of our children and the issues around substance abuse. i definitely want to partner with you on anything i can. i also want to again call attention to the recovery summit working groups recommendations around youth

programming and what we should be doing more for substance abuse programming for youth and the question we don'thave to get into now and whether or not the funding in question today is what exactly can be reimbursed in terms of the youth programming on substance abuse issues whether or not that can be used for absence based programming with full blown, you know, not just harm reduction which is obviously extremely important as well, but whether or not we are allowed to match public dollars when it comes to absence based programming. i also had recently met with a lot of addiction doctors from ucsf and this was a conversation we had as well and i want to do anything i can to help on this issue and again, supervisor melgar, huge fan. thank you so much for this

incredibly important subject and for pushing what we need which is the matching dollars and of course the programming and thank you to all the presenters as well. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor stefani. for making the connection to that. it's really important hearing you held recently. and let's -- supervisor melgar, i don't know if you have any final further remarks. >> supervisor melgar: just thank you supervisor mar, chair mar. i just want to thank alex briscoe for being here. i'm really excited for what we're going to do together. i want to make a special point of thanking maria stew, the director of children, youth, and families and our children our families counsel for leading this effort for bringing alex in, for having

the vision and the foresight to elevate the mental health of children and, thank you to drew murell at the department of public health. marleau simmons, dr. faramond, the department of public health and of course to fred russo and carl for the budget and legislative analyst. so in closing, i'm hoping, chair mar, that you would be willing to continue this at the call of the chair so that we can check in as mr. russo had advised us to do on this ongoing work and to see if we can make progress. thank you so much for the time and energy. >> supervisor mar: thanks again, supervisor melgar. and, yeah, i'd be happy to make that motion after public comment. mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line for public comment? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we're continuing to work with the department of technology for caller who is want to

comment on this hearing. for those who want to speak on this item, now is your opportunity. please do so by calling the following number. (415) 655-0001. after you've dialed the number, please enter the meeting i.d. which is 1874560963. press the pound symbol twice and then press star followed by 3 to enter the make a motion t

excuse supervisor haney. can you call roll, mr. clerk. >> clerk: on a motion offered by chair mar to excuse supervisor haney. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are two ayes. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and i move that we continue this hearing to the call of the chair.

>> clerk: on the motion offered by chair martha this item be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair stefani. [roll call] >> clerk: two ayes once again. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor melgar. and all the presenters. we look forward to seeing you back at the following hearing. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 4. >> clerk: agenda number 4 is an ordinance amending the police code's require peace officers who request a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. and to apply the california penal code pro vision penalizing violations of different types of restraining orders. parallel to gun violence restraining orders issued by an out-of-state jurisdiction. members who wish to provide public comment on this agenda

item please call the public comment number. (41) 565-5001. i.d. number 1874560963 and press pound. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor stefani, for your incredible leadership and dedication to the issue -- the extremely troubling and serious issue of gun violence in our country and especially coming after, you know the past week of just more tragedies. so thank you so much and thank you for sponsoring this legislation. the floor is yours. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair mar. i really appreciate that. obviously, it's been a very trying time. not only did we have the mass shooting in atlanta and boulder, but there were other mass shootings that weren't as publicized and it's just tragic that this type of violence

continues to happen in our country. it is very emotional. it is -- it's angering. it's so many things and you know we just have don't to push and use everything we possibly can to combat gun violence in our country because the american experience here is unique and it's one that we must do everything we can to erase from this on our country and i just thank you for those remarks. i'm turning our attention to the ordinance before us today is the expansion of our local law here on gun violence restraining orders. i know you know what that is. i will say again that gun violence restraining orders they're also known as red flag laws and they empower house hold members or law enforcement officers to petition a court in order to temporarily remove a

person's access to firearms before they commit violence. we know in many shootings that there have been signs and warning signals to family members like the one in isle vista in santa barbara where my dear friend richard martinez lost his only son. then, the family called the sheriff's department, their son had written a manifesto and they just had an inkling that something bad was going to happen. there was nothing they could do. they could not remove the weapons or do anything, and, unfortunately, lives were lost. so our first g.v.r.o. was passed in california in 2014 and luckily, i was able to pass a version of that in 2020. that allowed us to create this new tool which is a civil tool, not criminal. and it allows the san francisco police department to prohibit or join an individual from

owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving any firearms or ammunition when that individual poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injure to themselves or to others. we know now that the need is greater than ever. we were just hearing about mental health in the prior hearing that the -- that suicide and mental health is something that is plaguing our children and not just children. obviously, i've had an increase in suicides in my district over the pandemic. and, also, we're seeing a rise of violent threats from right-wing white supremacists nationally and locally. here, shootings in san francisco are up 62% from 2019. and the problem is getting worse. in quarter four of 2020, actually, october through december, shootings were up by

219% from 2019. we've been in extended lockdown. it's put an incredible strain on our residents' mental health and the intensity in number of calls into the suicide prevention hotline has absolutely increased. so the ordinance before you today takes advantage of recent changes to state law that allows localities to strengthen our existing gun violence programs. this ordinance enhances our current programs in two ways. one, officers are required to serve and file g.v.r.o.s with a court in a reasonable alternate of time. now reasonable is defined as no later than three days after issuance. and, two, it allows san francisco to treat gun violence restraining orders issued in other jurisdictions as if they were issued locally. this means that we will not have to file a separate gun violence restraining order if

one has been issued in another state. in addition to expanding our program, these changes will update our local law to conform with california state law. i do have a minor nonsubstantive amendment. the amendment adds the phrase "in coordination with the city attorney's office" in three places. additionally the title on page 1, line 5 has been changed to "as specified" rather than "no later than three days after issuance." despite this minor change, it remains in the body of the ordinance. so if you have any questions, the city attorney's here of course. i have invited commander raj and sergeant patrick sway to present and answer any questions about the program or the proposed changes and i just want to say to commander viswan

and sergeant bay, thank you for your service. we all know that in boulder, officer eric talley gave his life to protecting others. he was the first on the scene and he didn't lose his life. he gave his life to protect others and he had seven children and i just know every morning you all do the same and i can't thank you enough for the service that you provide to san franciscans. so, commander viswany if you'd like to present now. >> thank you very much and good morning. thank you for your support, supervisor stefani. members of the public safety committee and members of the public that are joining us. my name is commander raj vicswanny. within the investigations division, we have the crime gun

intelligence unit and that unit specializes in gun crime. they interact with local partners, federal partners, state partners on reducing and tracking gun violence and gun crime. and, within that unit, sergeant pat specialty in addition to going out there every single day doing search warrants, getting guns off the street, he is the department's liaison for gun violence restraining orders. he manages the program, he trains and he also interacts with the city attorney and makes sure that the gun violence restraining orders are at least reviewed and filed correctly. i apologize for -- i will repeat some of this stuff here. i'll try to be very brief on

it. okay. did that show up? >> yes. we can see it. >> okay. so i'll quickly go through the definition of gun violence restraining order as the way the police department sees it in our policy and our bulletins. we do have bulletins and training that dictate gun violence restraining orders. so basically, it is a temporary gun violence restraining order that the officers initially file. it evaluates the person and looks at if they are an immediate threat to themselves or others and if they're in danger of causing public, causing personal injury to anyone by the use of a gun, access to a gun or purchasing it. like i said, it is a temporary order initially and what

officers look at is there are other less restrictive ways and, of course, that somebody has already prohibited this order wouldn't apply to that. this is for generally people that fall within that gray area and that gray area's really important because and this is very timely to boulder, colorado, and a lot of these mass shootings or these shootings that fit into the gray where somebody really doesn't have a criminal record. they don't necessarily have mental illness to the point where they're 51/50 but family members are concerned and that's actually been expanded. so i'll go over some of the background. so ab14 in 2016 authorized the courts to allow police officers to use the gun violence restraining order as a tool.

initially, it was for law enforcement and certain members of the family that generally live with the subject that we're going to get the restraining order for. since then in 2019, ab61 expanded that and actually work place environment expands it to workers, co-workers and schools. if somebody has a concern in those different locations, they would get authorization from their employer or notify their employer before they seek a gun violence restraining order. again, the purpose of the gun violence restraining order is for the officers initially to take and seize the guns and issue the person a 21-day order preventing them from access to guns and purchasing guns, but what it does allow, it allows the person to stabilize and

there is a due process where the court can actually review what's going on. and they can have family members testify. they can have people that are concerned that basically testify. in that, so the one other thing that ab61 triggered is ab12. so initially, it was a one-year ban that a permanent gun violence restraining order can restrict. that has now been extended for up to five years with the option of every year the person can petition for the order to be reviewed by the courts. so there is a built-in due process. and, these are rare, just to let you know that somebody has to legally be able to have a gun for us to use that. but like in boulder, and i used

this with just i wanted to tell you that i don't know all the details of boulder, but what i do know is something like that, if that was to happen in san francisco and we knew that ahead of time, this would definitely be appropriate to be able to prevent that person to purchasing that gun and if he already had a gun and allows us to see and evaluate what's going on. we do train our patrol officers that this is a tool. what they do look at is they do look for a firearm nexus either into threats or access to it when they interview family members, witnesses. does this person have the up of a legal gun or are they in the process of trying to get a firearm or possess it from somebody else? they'll collect the evidence, video, they can directly file

the gvro with the judge or they can go to the cgic unit. the second role in this is our investigations bureau. they will investigate after the fact and get an exparte gun violence restraining order if that is necessary. if for some reason patrol didn't think it was necessary, investigations can seek it. they also work with our crisis intervention team. if there is somebody with access to firearms that is showing some type of mental distrust or some type of concern our c.i.c. unit can initiate that. of course the city attorney's office and liaisons helps us file and some cases even track the order through court and the court's role in this is, of course, the evaluation. i've already covered everything

on that. so, as far as the gun violence restraining orders, the type of incidences would be something like a road rage incident. the states would have side shows. a lot of the side shows, the guns we're recovering are illegal guns. if somebody did possess a legal gun that was theirs, we would seek a gun violence restraining order against that person. so somebody discharging a firearm in the air and they were detained, that shows they were in police disregard for public safety. we would probably seek a gun violence restraining order and have the court evaluate if it should be permanent. and, of course, any kind of credible threats to workplace or schools. if we run the person and find out they have firearms and the threat is credible, we would seek the gun violence restraining order.

patrick faye who is also online, patrick, if you can chime in. if you can give us an example of a recent case that we have sought gun violence restraining orders. >> yes, sir. good morning everyone. one case in particular that came to mind almost immediately was last year, in the early spring, officers responded to an incident that it was two neighbors. it was for lack of a better term an escalating argument that had gone on for over several months. the argument started with a verbal argument banging between walls for people to quiet down. at one point, the subject in this case came out holding a baseball bat, got into a further argument with the neighbor and then the final incident was that person came

out and said i'm going to kill you. spit in the face of the other person. officers responded out. after interviewing multiple people in the building, this gentleman who possessed an older firearm but that was not registered, other neighbors had seen him with the firearm. and due to the diligence of the officers, they were able to establish a firearm nexus, obtain a gun violence restraining order. our night investigations unit came out and got a search warrant from a judge and we were able to search that person's residence and seize the firearm. it's a pretty clear cut case as you see escalating arguments that most likely they probably prevented an incident from rising to the level of actual gun violence. >> thank you very much. there was another incident

actually in supervisor stefani's area which was somebody was doing donuts in the middle of an intersection in a truck, and that person was shooting a firearm out. the officers got the plate, they got the location of where he was at and they made a traffic stop and seized that firearm. i believe with that one, we also applied for a gun violence restraining order because it was a illegally owned firearm by that person. just to give you an update right now. last year we had eight. this year so far, we've had one. and, again, we continue to train our officers on this and we're going to actually expand the training. we currently are using this state video for training. we're going to actually do our own video and highlight different circumstances. i've also been in touch with

lieutenant molina of c.i.t. and i remind him that we do have the access to gun violence restraining order resources for the c.i.t. unit. he just says that recently, most of his contacts are people that are already prohibited. so he didn't need to seek that. he was able to seize the firearms without it. and, before i close, again, i wanted to thank supervisor stefani on just highlighting gun violence in general. it is definitely a problem in most metropolitan cities. san francisco has seen a 390% increase. to give you an example, year-to-date, 2020, we had 10 shootings. this year, 2021, we're over 50. so just to highlight where everything falls.

just last night, officers were in pursuit of somebody with an assault rifle and they recovered multiple guns last night. so it is -- we deal with it daily and really appreciate your suspect. thank you. the if there are any questions from anybody. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, commander. that was very helpful. yeah, i mean obviously gun crimes in san francisco, they need to be taken seriously and a three hundred ninety% increase is absolutely unacceptable. i do have one question for you. what is the biggest obstacle to expanding the usage? i'm very happy to see that we've gone from one to eight and i know you're working extremely hard on educating everybody and it takes time. and, again, i thank you for the attention you've put into this and same with sergeant faye.

so just wondering if there's an obstacle to expanding the usage of the pandemic or anything like that. >> and i actually talked to sergeant faye about this that do we have more people that should not have firearms that are displaying some type of threat that it could escalate into gun violence. what i was told was during the pandemic, it's still going on, but during the initial year of the pandemic, they've had a few of them. this year, they haven't had that many. most of the gun violence we're seeing is a lot of illegal possession of firearms. they're either [inaudible] used by members shooting at each other. but i will continue to champion the availability and the tool. and, as you know, any one of these incidences could be a

mass shooting. so just having that tool is really important. and i think as new officers come in, this is something i think we'll have to keep continuing because it is still fairly new to san francisco. so it is something that we're going to continue to check. i want to start in-person training where they actually go station to station. we're just waiting for all our officers to be vaccinated and everything and then we're doing more in-person training. so that should be happening within the next two, three months. >> supervisor stefani: thank you so much for that and i think people need to know too that last year was a record number of guns in this country was purchased. 50 million to 70 million i think and there's already 400 million guns in circulation and, also, you know, we see at

the federal level a background check bill still not being able to be passed at this point in time even though 90% of americans believe in background checks on gun sales and i don't think people realize that 28 states do not require background checks on all gun sales. and those guns move over state lines and i said yesterday or two days ago at the board meeting what happened in gilroy, the gilroy garlic festival. i cannot get the image out of my mind about that little 6-year-old jumping in a bouncy house and losing his life because of a gun that was purchased in nevada which wasn't allowed here in california. so this is serious. the fact we have more guns in circulation. we're coming off a pandemic where we just had a hearing about the mental health and the trauma that so many are experiencing. this is something that we

cannot ignore. and, again, i really cannot thank you both enough for the attention you're giving it. when i went to the san francisco police department originally to pass this, the first ordinance in 2020, you know, you were -- everyone was so great and we really appreciate the thought that you're giving to it in terms of going station to station and getting everyone educated because everyone needs to know about this tool. and not just police officers, but we need to let our hospitals know, we need to let our c.b.o.s know that this is something that can be utilized to protect someone from taking their own lives and to protect someone from taking the lives of others. so thank you again. and i also want to thank my legislative andy mullen. so thank you, andy. >> thank you everyone. any other questions?

>> supervisor mar: yeah. i have a question. i want to thank commander vaswanee for implementing the gun violence restraining orders here in san francisco. yeah. i had a question around you said there were eight gvsos in two thousand twenty and one this year. i was just curious whether any of those involved were a result of a request from a loved one or an employer or school or were these most or all resulting from just a police investigation of like a side show or things like that. >> no. these were police investigations. so an actual family member can go directly to the court to petition it. these are all police generated.

>> supervisor mar: got it. yeah. do you know for gvso's that are more initiated by loved ones, what the numbers are. >> i don't know what the numbers are, but what i hear from just the is that the type of incidents are where family members go get one would generally be dementia, where somebody older has maybe firearms that they've purchased over the years, but now they're in a condition where they really should not have a firearm because mentally, they're having challenges. they'll get a notice from the doctor or they might even ask the doctor to participate in

getting a gun violence restraining order. so most family instances are that. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and just my other question with -- so the gvsos that are issued through this ordinance that supervisor stefani really has led on through law enforcement, these are temporary? for one year? >> they are initially 21-day temporary. the court can make them permanent to one year. they have the option to make it 1-5 years depending on the gravity of the case, what type of threats they were. you know, like a neighbor dispute can continue over years so the judge can make that determination. some of them, the judge might decide it's a shorter order, but it gives the person time to stabilize, get treatment, get

help and then state would have to come back to the court to remove the order. >> supervisor mar: got it. thank you. thanks again, supervisor stefani, just for your leadership on this and in sponsoring, you know, the first ordinance, that created the framework for the use of gun violence restraining orders and through law enforcement and now this ordinance to sort of further strengthen it and clarify it and align it with state laws. i would love to be added as a cosponsor. why don't we go to public comment. are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we are continuing to work with maria pena from the department of technology to bring in public commentors who wish to comment on this ordinance. for those watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or

streaming through sfgovtv.org. call in (415) 655-0001 following that into the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. press the pound symbol twice and then press star followed by three to enter the cue to speak. while we're waiting for our first caller i'm going to note that supervisor haney returned to this meeting and has been here since 11:29. ms. pena, can you bring us our first caller? >> hi, my name is ruth bornestein. i'm part of a leadership team of the san francisco chapter of united against gun violence. we are very much supportive in gvros in general and these amendments in particular to enhance the process. so thank you, supervisor stefani, for bringing it and,

supervisor mar, for now cosponsoring. i do want to add that it was really, as a brady member but also as a citizen of san francisco, it was just wonderful to hear commander viswanee speak about this and also learn more about the sfpd's effort. so i'm glad i was able to join and hear all of that and i thank all of you for your attention and work on this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much ms. bornestein for participating in the discussion. there is another caller on this item. caller, please go ahead. >> thank you. committee members, my name is barry pearl. my wife and i are also members

of the san francisco leadership team of brady united against gun violence. and, as ruth indicated, brady united supports efforts nationwide to adopt and implement red flag laws such as the one adopted by california and san francisco and we support the efforts to strengthen and further implement the gun violence restraining order as proposed by supervisor stefani. my wife would also like to briefly talk about her own experience and how if such a law had been in place at the time it would have certainly helped her situation.

>> anymore callers on the line? >> no more callers in the. >> i do want to thank ruth bornestein who's done so much work with brady to make sure we don't have gun shows who i've honored at the board before. thank you to you both. again, we need people like you to keep going on this issue. so, yes, so, first i would like to move the amendment that i've handed out and that i spoke of in my opening comments. >> okay. >> supervisor mar: mr. clerk, please call roll.

>> clerk: [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes on the amendments. >> supervisor mar: supervisor stefani would you like to make. >> supervisor stefani: yes. i'd like to move the around ordinance amended with a positive recommendation by the board. >> clerk: authorize that the ordinance be recommended. [roll call] [please stand by]