to unrao, and it might seem like too -- unroll, and it might seem like it's too late, but people are going to fight to keep their beloved venues open, and as a band, you're going to be okay. [♪♪♪] >> to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this live. for opportunities to speak during public comment are available by calling (415) 655-0001. and access code 187 663 2592.

when we reach the item you're interested in commenting on. when you hear 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 almost 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. commissioner chan is on lee

until october. item 1 case 2013.1535cua-02. jones street. a request to amend the conditions continuance june 24th, two thousand twenty-one. item two, case number 2017-014833env, 469 stevenson street is postponed to june. items 3a,b, andc for items 014833enc, at 469 stevenson street for conditional use are always proposed for continuance

to june 24th, 2021. item 4, a discretionary review has been withdrawn. finally, commissioners, under commissioner matters item 7, case number 2021-004810crv, we are requesting another continuance to continue working with organizations for two weeks to june 24th. i have no other items for continuance. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to any of the items proposed for continuance by pressing star then 3 to enter the queue. through the chair, you have one minute and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, good afternoon. it's georgia shooters. my only comment is that the

rules and you're reducing or proposed to reduce the time for dr from 7 minutes total, 5 minutes to speak, plus the 2-minute rebuttal to 3 minutes total. and my suggestion is that you also, that the fee is also lowered by $250. >> secretary: thank you. we are only taking public comment on the items of continuance. >> thank you. >> hello. sue hester. i'm thinking the calendar for 6/24 is overburdened and i wish you to go through it. you have a hotel. you have a joint hearing with rec park starting at 10:00 in the this morning and 469 stevenson street and now you have the amendment and commission rules and all those are on that calendar as well.

so i'm just looking for you to look at your calendar for the 24th. i think you have too many things on it. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. last call on public comment for items that are continued. seeing none. public comment is closed and matters proposed for continuance are before you. i'm sorry. there's one more person requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> hi, i was actually hoping that i was going to be able to speak about the great highway, but the system put me in to you right now. i apologize. >> secretary: okay. very good. commissioners, public comment is closed. and the matter's proposed to be continued are before you.

commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: move to continue items as proposed. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: seeing no additional requests to speak from if commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to continue all items as proposed. on that motion, [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. under commission matters, item 5, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for may 27th, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star, then 3. seeing no requests to speak. commissioners, public comment

on the minutes is closed. and they are now before you. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: move to adopt the minutes. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: on that motion, [roll call] so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. and that will place us on item 6. commission comments and questions. seeing no requests to speak from commissioners, we can move

on to department number item eight. >> one, i just wanted to advise you that we've had two meetings now with the equity counsel which is advising staff on the implementation you passed. i've had good conversations that the meetings so far have been introductory and getting to know each other in what we all do and considering priorities where the counsel wants to address things. what their priorities are to take on and those are housing and budget in our work priorities, etc.. so we'll come talk to you more and give you briefings as we move forward. i also wanted to let you know that july 1st is when we'll expand services the permits that are 49 south van ness,

we'll be going back to precovid. i also wanted to let you know that our front line team is meeting with dbi and their inspection staff to brief them on issues around and our rules around demolition. so i want to thank our planning team for taking that on and kind of bridging dbi and our various rules around demolition. and then, i just wanted to let you know, we don't have any additional information. we've seen a lot on re-opening, but no new guidance on when we are able to go back to city hall for live meetings. we anticipate that to be sometime in the fall, but that's subject to change and we'll keep you updated on that. and that's all i have.

>> secretary: thank you, director hilis. item 9, review of past events. >> before shared paces came u. we treated to a confusing discussion. to start the shared spaces hearing, the shared spaces team gave a followup presentation to answer some of the questions raised at the hearing. last week, also had a significant amount of public comment. supervisor melgar had a list of amendments they wanted to make. for the most part, they were similar with passing travel. signs on when to notify people along with any relevant information pertaining to disability access. that would remove planning from

the shared space its program. his amendments would also prohibit the disclosure of curb side public spaces and require one bench of curb side shared space. the committee divided up the amendment based on those that seem to have universal report and those did not. chair melgar then continued the item to june 18th, a rare friday land use committee meeting assess tated by the land use. the categorical exemption used. the subject permit was to establish a limited restaurant use and a evacuee cannot retail space. the planning commission heard this item as a discretionary

review on march 25th of this year and approved the building application with conditions related to it language, access and affordability. the appellants contended that the project does not qualify for cpe and the missionary plan in that it does not guilty protect legacy businesses from displacement and gentrification. the response was of the ceqa standard for cpus to apply. not a cpe. the project would not displace existing business because the retail space is vacant and finally displacement and socio economic impacts. and the project were that the project will displace other

businesses and gentrify the neighborhood. and ultimately determine that ceqa is the right tool for addressing the issues of displacement and gentrification. she then made a motion to uphold the determination which passed unanimously. and that's all i have for you today. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, mr. starr. if there are no immediate questions for aaron, the board of appeals did meet last night and considered two items that may be of interest to the planning commission on behalf of the deputy administrate. 26 irving street to allow a fourth floor vertical addition to the apartment building. the staff in july of 2020 and took d.r. with staff

modifications. concerned neighbors appealed the permit to the board of appeals which upheld the decision and denied the appeal on may 19th, 2021. the rehearing request and the decision is now final. the second item is for property of 271/7 avenue. the planning commission considered this as a public initiative in july of 2019 along with the d.r. alteration permit on the adjacent property of 2517th avenue. at this hearing, both permits for the requirement that a preexisting bay window be restored. the bay window had been illegally removed by the property owner. the planning commission did not approve the new construction project. the department noted that the commission considered both permits and issued d.r. action

memos for both items and also noted in the minutes of the meeting and the other appellate reached an agreement with the permit holder to revise decks at the rear of the project and request that those plans be adopted. the board has heard multiple previous appeals on this property and, again, expressed concern and frustration with the permit holder's previous work without permit. to adopt the revised plans and added a condition for approval requiring that the bay window be restored before certificate of final completion is issued for the new construction permit. seeing no questions for members of the commission, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest in the public that are within the subject matter of jurisdiction. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the items reached in the

meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes and when the number of speakers exceeds the limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking and through the chair, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. again, this is georgia shootis. i saw three slides on tuesday and it's interesting because i didn't walk by this place and discover it. i discovered it last august 2020 during the pandemic and it was a comp on a real estate web ad showing as sold back in 2017 for $6.2 million. the original sales price in 2014 was a lot less. i think it was $1.4 million or

$1.7 million. anyway. it doesn't matter, it was a lot less money and my point about this, i was intrigued because of the price it sold for because that's often a sign of these extreme alterations because they're so expensive. so, anyway, as i said, it fit the pattern. there it is as it was originally and there's some numbers there that it was and it has all these things according to the pin it's got expansion that's horizontal and vertical, the facade and the work you can see there and i just wanted to send it to you. it's not in knowy valley, but it's close. it's in district 8 and i guess i would say that the price of the flip was a $4 million difference and the alteration from it was valued under $500,000 and there are no published demo counts by the way and i think it's an ongoing

issue as i guess director hilis just made reference too he's going to be talking to d.b.i. but the demo counts need to be adjusted regardless and i hope you look at the photos that are on the screen there it is. i can see it on my screen. take good care. be well, be safe. bye bye. >> linda chapman. i won't be here to comment on the item that's coming up on your agenda next, but i want to talk about the importance of general conditional use, not just being overcome, particularly the parts about having a negative impact on the immediate area. there had not been a high-rise built since 1978 and that was

up at bush and taylor. the planning commission had unanimously turned down that project because they felt that it was totally unacceptable for that part of the neighborhood. unfortunately, the district supervisor had an interest in it and he told us and had it overturned, had the planning commission overturned at the board. okay. after that, we got our height limits down eventually to 65'. in the interim, we had to fight a number of high-rises. we stopped them all. none was ever built and then, a few years ago, you started approving mid rises in the 65' area west of van ness and finally the austin which is 130' i suppose in the 165' area. well, if you can consider the wind impacts on knob hill and shadow and stuff, you would

realize that this is an area where we just cannot afford to have high-rises because of wind. even if they were not demolishing the lower buildings that were rental buildings such as what was going to happen on knob hill. the hotel over on van ness generates horrific winds down pine and california and there are other places on knob hill where i'm afraid when i'm out that are going to be blown down. very seriously. now, you've authorized the austin. right across the street from where the winds come down from from the hotel and also probably from the -- from pine towers where i was terrorized just trying to cross van ness, to be caught in the winds there, i thought i was going to be taken down in the street. >> secretary: thank you, that

is your time. >> i'm sorry. i joined the meeting a little bit late, but have you heard anything about the project on stevenson street or is that yet to come on the agenda? >> the stevenson street project, sir, has been continued to june 24th. so it will not be considered today. >> good afternoon. i'm calling on behalf of the residents of 5871 and 5873 mission street a complex condominium. and we're calling in opposition of a potential permit to be issued for a potential dispensary at 5801 mission. you know, we're residents of multi-generational elder and working class families with children. that particular block where they're trying to open a dispensary is literally right next to a church, a christian

center, that serves as an afterschool program for nearby neighborhood children as well as a food bank. it's got a tremendous amount of foot traffic through it to board the 14 bus and it's awfully used by our elders for their daily bus on the sidewalk. with that additional traffic and additional sidewalk made up of people going to the business would only make it more difficult for people to pass through. there's also a bunch of essential businesses on that particular block where double parking and additional traffic on the block would make it pretty much impossible. >> secretary: i'm sorry, sir. i need to interrupt you. i just realize this matter is coming up later on today's agenda. so you'll need to call back

just as soon as i give you the ball. >> i will provide additional information with the housing accountability act and planning discretion when we viewing these projects. the state density bonus law was established by the state of california in 1979 as an incentive-based program for providing on site affordable units. the program has certain eligibility requirements, namely, the project must contain five units or more. it must be residential or mixed use and it must provide affordable units on site for a period of 55 years. if those affordable units are also counting towards san francisco's inclusionary requirements, it must remain affordable for the life of the project. state density bonus has three components. the density bonus, incentives

and concessions, and waivers. the amount of density bonus is dependent upon the number of affordable units and the level of affordability provided in the project. if you provide more affordable units, you get additional density. in order to accommodate these extra units, a project may need relief from certain code requirements. this relief can come in the form of incentives and concessions or waivers. so what is an incentive or concession? an incentive or concession must reduce the cost of the project. they can be development standards and can include such planning code requirements as open space, height, and ground floor ceiling height. the number of incentives and concessions is limited between 1 and 4 and this is dependent upon the affordability in the project. let's consider an example. ground floor ceiling height. reducing the ground floor

ceiling height may reduce the overall height of the building. affecting the construction type and thereby reducing the cost of the project. it's extremely limited in discretion and can only deny an incentive or concession if it would not have a specific adverse impact on public health, or safety on the california register resources. so what is a waiver? [please stand by]

. . . >> the bulletin also deals with how we process state density bonus projects. the commission must look at the public health or safety as defined by state law and the findings are not discretionary. theres a an underlying entitlement, like a conditional

use authorization or that one and the process remains the same. however, the planning commission discretion is extremely limited. finally, state density bonus does not effect the ceqa review. so how does it effect with the affect the housing accountability act? it was established in 1982 and limits the local jurisdiction's ability to deny the code compliant and the housing accountability act recognizes as co-compliant and even with waivers and incentives. and projects only have to comply with housing activity act and be residential and consist of two

two units or more and budget to fines up to $10,000 with the recent amounts to the law. most state densely bonus projects that we are seeing are projects that is subject to the housing disability act. then it is extremely limited because it is subject to the housing and accountability act unless there is a specific adverse impact. >> in addition, we have density

bonus projects where less than 2/3 of the area is devoted to residential areas and those projects are not protected under the housing accountability act. so what discretion is there if the housing accountability act and some include and remember that discretion an is limit and we continue deny the concessions and waivers on public health safety and deny a project with the general presentation. i am definitely available for questions.

>> with the conclusion of the presentation, press star 3 to be added to the queue. once you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speak. >> caller: this is sue hester. this wasn't really too hard and i asked to continue this item to another hearing to look at all the things that were presented today. including miss connor's presentation as well as the issuance of the area.

and i would suggest that you need to have some informed comment from the community and they have been reduced by the state density bonus, but you wouldn't know it because it is not part of the presentation. allow the community to give presentations baing to the commission on the law in san francisco. and i think you will observe it. thank you. we deserve it. thank you. >> and good afternoon.

cory smith. with the presentation and to know that the bonus law is a very powerful tool with housing and to deliver affordable housing around the state with combination with other state laws is additive for the city in terms of building homes for people. a couple of points one member of ours brought to our attention to the director's bulletin the new rules regarding the height on base project when calculating the density bonus. we had two thoughts to that. on the one hand, the consistency is absolutely appreciated and we are always on the sign of consistency and the rules being known for projects because that helps create certainty.

on the other hand, that could potentially be likely with the overall number of units that are capable to be built with the density bonus project. and the others to piece of this to move forward is not at your discretion and doesn't involve the state's density bonus program at all, but we would prefer the local density bonus program be more attractive to project sponsors than the state version. i realize the legislative body is not prioritizing the maximum amount of subsidized housing and that is consistent with their policies. that is the way that ewith would love to see the city go and reduced process and ceqa reform and a variety of other ideas to

make that more attractive. so just food for thought and thank you for taking the time. >> good afternoon. i agree that sue hester said that we could have had the presentation already and we could have looked at it. the only thing is that they are all market rate units. that is a date law. what can you do? that is state law.

our awe you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. okay. there is one more. you have two minutes. go ahead, caller. >> hello? >> yes. >> caller: yes. i am calling in to remark about the race and equity in planning. >> that item is coming up next. we are currently on the state density bonus law. commissioner, public comment on this item is now closed. it is before you. this is just an information until item. no action of yours is necessary.

>> a commissioner tanner? >> thank you very much. thank you, staff, for the presentation. i did have a few hearings and i wonder if you can explain about how affordability works and it is not necessarily a one size fits all project. and the density bonus include on site affordable units in some capacity. that's correct, right? >> that is a requirement of state law. >> they all that. >> what can be different from my understanding is they may not have the percentage of units and so it may be a lesser percentage

that do have on site units. and what we do inside and they don't have that number of units and that is according to the percentage and site and charge a fee? and maybe explain what the fee is charged on that we do charge for if it's on just the bonus units or the whole project and how the structure works. >> and this is also in response to one of the public's comments as well. when you get the bonus and to be with the affordable credit. and in a kay, you are essentially getting the fee or applying the fee on the bonus units. >> for example, if there is 10 # o units, 20 of them are affordable on the 80 remaining market rate units in the project.

is that kind of how it would work? >> the fee will take account of that bonus square footage and is accounted for and on the remaining section. i appreciate the state density bonus laws and implication and the stress or spirit which is to spur more housing production and across the entire state of california. we have a big state here. and the jurisdictions of different sizes with legislation to acome the with the robust

where i get really concerned in and light and dwelling access if there are with the waivers and light and air is access to have a waiver from and in terms of bedrooms having a window and to a certain size area from what

can be waived or incentivized or conceded away? >> that is a great question. with and we have seen open space as an incentive and concession in some of the eastern neighborhoods areas. and if you don't meet that requirement and typically the building with the density bonus units is naturally larger. and it has to kind of expand into the areas that would otherwise be kept clear. however t building code has its own set of regulations for light and air. and so they regulate in terms of the size of the bedroom and the window. and making sure that there is kind of that minimum floor level of life safety issues and

receive a concession or concession. >> thank you very much. so what i would like to see is working with the department working with d.b.i. to provide a ceiling between us. look at the light and air and next to the public health and safety. when we look at the planning profession and the roots of planning coming out of public health a lot of where our profession comes from and the goal of planning is to help provide a that may not be put into the code of framing for health and safety and the roots of where they come from and over

a century of planning to provide safe and healthy places with access to light, air, and open space. and i would like to see the department understand connected to health and safety. and this is not an effort to have on site affordable. and in the market units and for the next 100 or 200 years and however long the buildings are around. >> commissioner diamond? >> i want to second the concerns on light, air, and open space. i deeply appreciate the goal for

on site affordable units and think that is an incredibly valuable goal we all share. so i believe that light, air, and open space requirements have their routes in as commissioner tanner said 100 years of history to avoid the tenement type spaces and the current codes may have have explicitly linked the light, air, and open space standards to public health and safety objective standards, and i believe that it would be appropriate given the new reregime and the pandemic has only underscored the incredible need for access to open space

and take a step back to work with the building department to see what the concerneds are for light, air, and open space that are routed in health and safety concerns. so we do have an objective standards and are presented with projects and can they go to zero? i would like to make sure we have the objectives in place to avoid that concern and we are clear about what is required for health and safety concerns. >> i share the concerns of the

commissions to ultimately become slightly more nuanced because the same density bonus and the downside is the circumstances which are applied is vastly different. the majority of the people in california do not live in city. and the impact of these state density projects we have some projects granted that they are quite detrimental to adjoining buildings and occur in already built-up neighborhoods and the affects are more detrimental tan can be expressed and there is no

possibility for us to use discussions, so getting to my point, i hope that as we are moving into increased use of as a tool even in san francisco and there is pushback and demand for further refinement of state density bonus in urban versus suburban areas. >> commissioner tanner? >> no wore ris. i typed that right when you were saying that. >> and i wanted to ask director hillis on the feedback to have the department related to light, air, and open space amongst other items and i would add into

the open space to think about the relationship between the buildings and our streets and sidewalks. and they are with the san francisco impacts and can effect the real safety concerns for the travellers. and is this something that the department can take on? >> absolutely. what we want to do is talk about scope and expectations. you made a good point about where the confluence of the building code and the planning code and this further requirement and health and safety standards. we get it in a focus that looks like light and air in open space

and we have a presentation on calendar to talk about the the rules and spaces. and let us think through the approaching scope in that hearing is if not earlier. and we can come back to you with a scope that can work to address some of the issues. we get the concern and obviously that is kind of grappled with internally as well. >> this is advertised as an informational item, and we couldn't take any action today. >> i don't think we need a resolution. we get what you want to do. let us go back and do some thinking about it and come back to you with more specifics. >> commissioner moore. >> as we are clearly seeing challenges at the state density bonus brings to the practice, i

would like to remind us that the discussion on social and racial equity needs to be brought into the discussion as well that adds an additional burden because we are just in the beginning points of making that a more binding consideration for everything we do. and layering it into state mandated law is more difficult, but i would like to create that challenge that we start talking about. >> an i want to underscore the sense of urgency around the objective standards as a result

of what seems like and asking for reduction and the sooner we can understand how to directly link, the better off we will be as we look at the projects. >> the challenge is going to be tying our standards that we have or that we may come up with tying them to public health and safety. and that is going to require some work to do that, but i think we can. >> okay, commissioners. we can move on to item 11 for case 2020-960420oth, sent erg and planning on racial social

equity informational presentation. quite the lead-in. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? claudia, i think you are muted. >> can you hear me now? >> we can indeed hear you. >> great. i am connected via phone. having trouble with the wi-fi earlier. and we will be sharing the presentation and given my wi-fi challenges. thank you, christine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. claudia cohen, department staff, joined by coworkers to support the presentation and answer questions. [please stand by] .

staff from our team came to talk

to you about the housing recovery strategies work program and further work on life and work spaces strategy will come before you later this year. i will touch later on the presentation. updated phase 1 plan, it deals with our internal operations such as hiring and we thought it was important to start internally to speak the same language. requirements and july of 2020, we issued and submitted to the mayor's office in december of last year. the left hand box shows the topics in the 2019 version you adopted and the right hand box shows the new topics required in red fonts and these are not meant to match. the purple topics on the left were not in the phase 1

template. we may put them in the phase 2 but left them in the plan to make progress. regarding feedback on the plan likely this summer and we'll update and finalize it after that. at the bottom of the table on the right, there's a commission section that includes a goal, objectives and actions for the commission. next slide please. so we got input from commissioner chan and a couple of commissioners that have been incorporating to the goals. if you have feedback today or after the hearing on the goal, we can incorporate it on the final version and we have been working with staff to implement the actions, incorporating language and intent in the rules and regulation, the item you continued a little earlier today during the hearing. this is a snap shot of where we are in implementing all of the plan actions.

there are over 100 of them and each becomes a project with a scope, timeline, schedule and need for resources. it is significant work >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. i want to remind you that we have spanish interpretation. if you could slow down. >> thank you for the reminder. the ongoing actions i want to explain a little bit. they're ones that for example the department already does as part of our business. one example might be the office of racial equity require departments to have internship programs to provide opportunities to young people from underrepresented backgrounds and so we are looking at the process for how can we do better recruitment and really reach more young people

to enter into the fields. commissioner chan has been working closely with our training coordinator to launch a high school internship program. i think it launched this summer. we're very excited about that. by later this year -- next slide please -- we plan to provide a more interactive real time page rather than the static table. office of racial equity report on measures for the office of accountability. this is what the website would look like to monitor externally and internally. clicking on one of these would produce additional information on progress and data. we'll update this quarterly. in addition, just as director

hill said earlier, she will be providing quarterly updates during directors report for the equity council and other items. we hope to have the web page launched by the end of the year. initially fall to test drive it and by the end of the year externally. and i want to provide an update on phase 2 that we launched in 2019. we haven't stopped that work but we slowed it down for two reasons. first, covid-19 interrupted community engagement and secondly, office of racial equity hasn't started phase 2. they have primarily indicated it

will be due sometime next year. we'll likely see direction later this year. we want to inform you how we propose phase 2 to current realities. as part of phase 1 you have adopted this vision on your screen. next slide. office of racial equity has a plan with mission statement and my comment on the mission statement and we got feedback from director hill. when additional data would inform the goals and objectives for phase 2 and we develop the metrics and accountability. thank you. and then if you can click on the next button. our initial prepandemic approach focuses on organizing this, what our core work areas are what we

do. information to the public and regulatory review work and policy, legislation and plans. this is the organization we shared in the memo last fall. next slide please. in light of the pandemic, your equity resolutions and make this process more acceptable to the community, we propose to provide areas that people can relate to. your equity resolutions with -- if you can click on the next couple. and the data would be augmented by the current economic health and social crisis are having in the city and community. the data is helping to inform the development of key questions

that can guide the actions we develop so we hone on the core equity issues. for example, how can we use the information for the marginalized communities. how can our plans address racial and social equity. what are the neighborhoods that need attention to address current needs and historic equities or legacy of exclusion. and transformational and systemic change. next slide. finally, we are still waiting on direction -- while we're waiting on direction for phase 2 and when residents have more capacity to engage, there are missions we have through the various hearings that are priority to community members.

we're making progress on low-hanging fruit items. under the regulatory review work, we're going to undertake an audit to see how the code can better advance racial and social equity. the next one, regulatory impact analysis is something you talked about a lot at commissions training, how does it work with each project. it's difficult for the permit applications, especially the small ones to have analysis. this will attempt to tackle guidelines and address that

issue. analyzed with the equity impact assessment tool and planning work. we're working again on our general plan incorporating racial equity and environmental justice. and staff are working to engage with the cultural districts better through review and address the critical issues. finally, next steps. we -- through the end of 2021, we're going to continue with data collection and mapping. we will meet to discuss the equity resolution, the phase 2

approach i just went over and hear from priority issues and initial data we collected. we'll continue to go through the general plan work and we hope to finalize phase 1 when we get feedback and continue to make progress on implementing all of our work. and i just leave you with some final thoughts that we would love to hear back from you. if you wouldn't mind skipping that slide -- any feedback you have on the proposed commission goals and if you think the proposed approach for phase 2 can provide us on a path on our equity work. any additional key questions to address core equity challenges and other priorities that the commission feels we should

implement sooner rather than later. that concludes the presentation and we're available for questions. >> thank you for the presentation. i'm going to ask the interpreter to remind our spanish-speaking members in the breakout room that if they wish to submit public comment, they will need to leave the teams call in id and call in to the web-ex platform. there will be an interpreter for you at this platform. (speaking spanish)

>> good afternoon commissioners. we appreciate the planning commitment to the advancement of racial and social equity.

it focuses on critical changes to structures and challenging planners to unlearn their euro centric academic training is key but it's not enough. we're not seeing indications that planning will change its priority. in order to make real progress towards building new systems that lead toward real equity, it has to challenge itself in marginalized communities. today planning is basically a team of permit expediters coaching developers to force the maximum number of luxury units. we need to create a land use plan for maximizing affordable

housing on every privately and publicly owned site and prioritizes the needs of small locally owned businesses and figures out how to locate community based public health facilities, quality public education, beautiful parks and other amenities. this is a vision of the city that actually does planning, real planning for real equity. we encourage planning to take a look at what equity is and what equity is not and we look forward to continuing to work together on this defining issue. thank you. >> hello commissioners. we are part of the coalition and we are glad that planning is starting to think about racial and social equity, something that is really fundamental in realizing planning.

it must be present in the process itself to create a racial and social equity plan. top down planning which is inequitable and draws on policies that is inequitable cannot work from the inside out to address its own problems so it has to be defined, created and directed by communities on the ground that have historically and continued to struggle against a planning department that harms the community. planning has not engaged community during this past year as they have continued along with this action plan, stating community engagement was paused during shelter in place. as planning describes in the memo today, the only public discussion they have held has been two informational sessions during planning meetings being held at the same time. there was some outreach done with filipinos during shelter in

place but we don't know what was done with that input. and next steps seem vague, resuming the next stage of community engagement. there needs to be a clear plan for how communities will drive the changes for planning so those impacted by racial and social inequities have a meaningful impact in this relationship. thank you. >> hi, i'm with the mission collaborative and we appreciate the resources planning has committed and we are excited to have this opportunity to be in dialogue with planning on this critical issue. racial and social equity is important to me, as an undocumented immigrant it is easy to overlook the experiences

deemed invisible by the nation state. we are human beings. 2020 was a good process but the action plan features the mission area plan 2020 model house that it can center equity in its work. we have need to -- it didn't move the community any closer to be in control of the land or land use that has been in 2020. throughout the plan there are mentions of inclusion as a core strategy to lead to greater

equity. we hope you take their advice as it goes to phase 2 of the plan. thank you. >> hi commissioners. i'm with the mission collaborative, a program of the services and member organization of the rep coalition. we appreciate the resources

towards racial and social equities and we're excited to have the opportunity to be in dialogue with this critical issue. racial and social equity is important to my community which is the mission to inform policies that would not further displace nor marginalize our community. the history of the planning department practices and policies in the mission have resulted in negative impacts that have displacement and how -- we are not seeing the planning changing priorities and orientation. in order to ensure that equity is a reality beyond planning offices, essential questions need to be asked. one, how will the vulnerable and marginalized communities lead

planning, land use and development. two, how will we envision and create a future led by low income communities rather than business plans for profit developers. three, how do we stop displacement and change internal practices. we are concerned our communities will be forced out and priced out by the time planning has taken the long road towards making staff more diverse and changing other internal practices. we appreciate plannings efforts to change the systems and culture. thank you for your time.

>> hello. i'm from the west side tenants association, a member organization. as a life long resident of the richmond district, i have seen many changes to my community. my grandparents came to this country in spite of racist immigration laws and forced into a ghetto they made into a community. only to be forcibly taken it from and incarcerated in concentration camps. when they were released, their homes were physically destroyed by the city and forced to move into the richmond district, a working class neighborhood of single and multi family homes. i have seen this district transformed into one dominated by renters, many living in corporate-owned apartments. at the heart of this, the

callousness of the system to use racism to achieve it. we still see the practice of it and the ongoing impact. while i appreciate this framework from planning, i fear it is all talk and will not be followed by action. when i follow the money and see that the budget for planning is derived from fees paid by for-profit developers, it is hard to see how anything that comes out of the department will be different from what my people have experienced for over a century in this city. there's a fundamental contradiction between the creation of affordable housing and profit of developers. we have materially defined who the master is. until planning removes this conflict of interest, i do not have faith that meaningful change to the communities will

result. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. as a former land use planner, i want to bring to your attention, implementation is the key here. we have had great plans in the past but we always fall short of the communication. i want to bring it to the city of san francisco's attention. how then could the city justify for the elimination of the

african american population in this city. i think it's an issue that all of us needs to bring to the forefront and ought to be a measure so equity and racial measurement of criteria. i think the city has an obligation more than ever now to rectify the injustice. and so we're going to look at this plan and know that you're putting together all these other groups. that's fine. but i think what is going on on the ground now, some of us that know about how the city works as far as planning and also involving the community, we're going to be helping to assist you in the implementation of the plan. and i want to bring to your attention to the plan. it's a good standard for racial

equity inclusion, the planning department is still putting this plan on the shelf. we would like to bring that forward and use that as a model for the racial and equity plan. thank you for your time and look forward to working with you later on. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time today. i'm with people power media, a member organization of the rep coalition. changing the culture and practices of the planning department is super important and we recognize this is challenging as well. we appreciate planning taking on this task and can appreciate some of the efforts you all have made so far. however actually achieving equity requires investments in

low income communities. in order to ensure -- how do we envision and create a journey led by low income communities and their needs. what are we going to do to stop while planning is taking its time to change internal practices. we're really concerned that our communities will be forced out and priced out of the city by the time planning has taken its time and engages in this long process to make staff more diverse and changing other practices while ignoring the issues at the heart of why our communities are suffering. planning needs to look at the priorities and move towards having low income communities

and bipoc leading how we grow. >> i'm with richmond district rising. since 2005 i rented single family houses. i have lived with musicians, artists, people from all over the globe sharing meals and conversations as we share the space together and i have hosted community garage sales and raised chickens and a son and given lots of garden goodies to neighbors and friends. since 2005, i have been housing vulnerable as eviction laws don't work the same for single family houses. and like many friends and neighbors, i have been forced out of the city, too.

i'm calling today and i hope the planning commission can replace systems of inequity with systems of equity. this will help families that look like mine to be in san francisco. as a black single parent, i should be able to live where i choose and in a way to serve my community the best way i can. this is inclusion in action and not just a buzz word. i hope our comments today will guide planning in phase 2 of this racial and social equity action plan. we need it. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners.

we appreciate the resources and we're excited to have the opportunity to work with planning on this critical issue. as the senior tenant, i identify with the vulnerable community of low income renters and when it comes to planning's stance on issues related to tenants, we're not seeing that planning is changing its priorities and orientation. the department has not devoted any budget or resources to educating and training staff on tenant issues. including the san francisco rent ordinance, procedures and policies of the rent board that intersects with planning issues and updating the commission on state laws that affects the decisions they need to make. nor has planning allocated any

staff. planners and commissioners -- we're concerned our communities will be forced out and priced out of the city by the time planning has taken its long widing road towards making staff more diverse and changing other internal practices while ignoring or deprioritizing the overhaul of the orientation away from taking cues from for profit development and reorienting priorities to having low income communities lead how our communities will develop and grow. how will vulnerable and marginalized communities lead

planning, land use and development -- >> thank you. that's your time. >> okay. (please stand by...)

in the social problems our community is facing. it's important to talk about these matters because, or communities presented some request that we're not even accepted from the city and it is important that those projects are address the and that we received that response from the city. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is la. >> reshmi: a with united to save the mission and member of the we don't see this change or other changes that prioritize fighting

anti genreification in this phase and it doesn't give us confidence. for year, it's not just in our residential planning and business planning as well and the corporate centers have been served and developers and other large corporate interests and it leaves all chasing mitigations as were displaced and the length of the time of the bureaucracy, just ensures that we won't be here when anything is put into place and typically it's so little so late. we also have a lot of concerns about transparency into the planning process for our communities' transparency when meetings are held behind closed doors. and these decisions are being made behind closed doors and planning gets with corporate interests and other folks and city governments.

decides what the distilled information is going to be that they're going to share with communities and so, our communities would like to see more transparency and more open meetings and we have a plan by planning to use a state density bonus and then we're seeing is this big push to use it for group housing and those group housing numbers, they don't even count. they don't apply towards reena and we're not building the type of housing affordable housing that are needed by our bipoc communities and these group housing projects using state density bonus are being pushed in our bipoc communities and take upland and space that could be used for affordable housing for our families. thank you.

>> hello. >> yes. >> caller: my name is virginia marshal i'm a long time educator here in san francisco. i want to thank the commissioners for the resolution on equity, however, as i listen and watch the powerpoint and read the documents, i don't know how it would make my family and my friends and my col in my community better. i do appreciate that you are looking at various areas such as housing, education, and jobs, et cetera. i do like the idea that you have an summer internship for our young people. globally, i don't see how this is going to improve the number of african americans in the city, the number of filipinos in the city, latinx in the city, i

don't see how this is going to help educators who work so hard to have affordable housing in the city. i hope that you will work with (inaudible) likely the one who talked about they have a plan coming out of bayview hunters point. how will you make bayview hunters point better. the whole city will improve so there's a lot of work to improve. it's a good start. especially across all of the city departments to make sure that they're hiring different folks from our various ethnic groups. i don't know how i would get a job in a city department. i hope this would help me but i doubt it. it's a good first start. thank you. >> caller: my name is gabriella

ruiz and a member organization of the rep coalition. race and equity is important to us because we have seen firsthand how inequitable planning has had an impact on our low income communities in san francisco. i sit in meetings with stakeholders who are eager to have a seat in the table and be involved in the planning that happens in our neighborhoods and so we're excited for the opportunity to change the bureaucratic culture and involve more community members in this process. the rep coalition appreciates plannings efforts dating back to 2016 to plan and implement concrete and measurable changes to the planning department. changing the culture and practices of the planning department are incredibly important and as detailed in this draft action plan, challenging as well. by partnering with community based organizations, bipoc professional networks, reentry

programs, usfsd and community colleges, planning will cultivate a diverse pool of candidates when it's hiring. we appreciate the planning's efforts to change its systems and culture and we hope that it will take all of the comments shared today under advisement as it proceeds with phase 2 of the racial and social equity plan. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: hola. i'm going to ask we speak in short intervals so the interpreter can do a better job. go ahead, ma'am.

maybe the interpreter to prompt her to speak. [voice of interpreter] i suppose she's not hearing me. >> clerk: that's too bad. we'll take the next caller and maybe we'll try her back again later. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is evan grant with the african american arts and culture directing and a member of the organization of the coalition and we appreciate the resource to the advancement sable and social equity and planning and its practices and we're excited to have this opportunity to be in dialogue with the planning on this critical issue and racial and social equity is important to me personally because i never had

it and my parents never had it and my grandparents never had it so what a better time to change that narrative for the african american community. resource allocation is very essential in this matter. i female, or we feel, it's important that the planning commission prioritize their budget and itemize resources to keep our disadvantaged communities and our residents in their homes being intentional and itemizing funds for that effort. i yield the rest of my time.

thank you. >> caller: loraine petty of affordable housing for seniors. >> the intentions could make a difference are people long excluded from the planning process and exclusion brought by a failure of planners and developers to have sincere two-way communication with community members in vulnerable areas and staff, train, et cetera and i'm glad for you and versus on conduct outreach but what i don't see in the report, is a recognition that communication starts with the original language used in crafting the survey questions. the statements, and presentations. if something is unintel able, or bias, or even intimidating in english, it really doesn't

improve with translation. i also don't find in the report enough emphasis on outreach to those without computers and low income families and seniors snail-mail has to be employed and every meeting must accommodate telephone participants. without these efforts the gap between planing and vulnerable priorities will never be bridged, planning staff has not made a good start what with plans to reduce public input at commission meetings. reports are good but real action speaks louder. thank you.

>> i'm going to secretary going coop ask theinterpreter it people in our spanish room to migrate to this platform if they wish to submit their public comment. is our spanish interpreter here? [ speaking in spanish ]

>> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm with community united for health and jury advertise and we're member of coalition and social equity is important to me personally and someone has grown up and from my parents or for my mother specifically, i think it's really important to have language participation and so it's really difficult for monolingual speakers to be able to participate actively and hear the healing and i asked that you make it acceptable and language and i think that's a good step

towards equity and also, if you can make the voices hearst community members, and here in over 1,000 letters were signed and handed to the commissioner without a response and our possible solution is to acknowledge to all concerns addressed by the community. thank you, very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is gulab and i'm with the mission and a member of the rep coalition. about what do i say about why it's important to me. it's everything in my life in this urban environment. it's part of my environmental impact. i'm really appreciative of the fact that u, you know, the resolution was passed last year

but it took the death of george floyd for us to have this conversation into week on implementing racial and equity in our planning process because it if is with public safety and whether it's there needs to be a lot of work that has to be done and i'm glad that the planning department is taking their steps. really working with the community, really working with those who are closest to the pain because they are closest to the solution. thank you all for taking this step and we're looking forward to seeing more done in phase 2.

>> hello, my name is ramone garcia and equity (inaudible). thank you and say the framework for social equity and racial diversity has been (inaudible) and across the state and the point of racial and social equity is that systemic policies have kept us limited in our access to opportunities for education and economics, stability and equality and so we're talking about changing those policies for access for everybody and reinvesting into

the community. so with this social equity programming is designed specifically to do that and to recreate access to education and economic activity and i want to make sour that a look a taken into making sure that this program is part of this and it's helped to stay and create the impact that was intended in the social equity programs number one and they are given to the community groups that have been doing work in the community and to give access to economic opportunities, training, reentry and all those things that systemic racist policy and the war on drugs from our community and so, that's my feel and i appreciate the time.

thank you. >> good afternoon, eric from latino culture directing and we're a member of the race and equity coalition. we appreciate the attempt to insert the race and equity lens to all planning, but many of us feel that focus groups and policy statements in the past have not brought any closer to true equity. the mission dripping latinx community has suffered tremendously in the last 15 years under san francisco planning policies. this must be truly led by community of color with lived experience for solid outcomes. the eastern neighborhood plan and mission area plan took over seven years to develop with many community members at the table and involved and the end developers inserted the water that watered down the communities input in change last minute by planning. the mission area plan was a polished statement shelved and that is bauerly referenced to. the last inex community cannot survive with grant policy and status quo.

we hope this will lead to true, equitable outcomes, thank you. >> yes, this is david elliott louis, long time community member. i want to make some specific suggestions about improving racial and social equity. the on screen access code for getting into this public comment is incorrect. i'll say it, the correct code for people trying to get in its 187 663 2592. 187 663 2592 and it's not being shown on the screen and you are showing the wrong code. maybe you can correct that. regarding improving racial equity, i think this a specific suggestion. i have a set apartments or units set aside at 20% a.m.i., i think that would be really helpful. also, to have educational

programs aimed at the bipoc community to learn about how to use low-market rate housing lottery. some communities know how to use the housing lottery but a lot don't. there's more public education about how to a ploy for a below market rate apartment. regarding improving social equity, i'd love to see a requirement for publicly ak one of those are required in every new development and publicly accessible and a great way for residents to mix with their communities. also, require water fountain access, open to the residents and the community and publicly accessible restrooms. they would all improve social equity. thank you for your time and attention. david elliott louis.

>> good afternoon, my name is charlie with a member organization of the rep coalition. institutions rarely are able to afford themselves from the inside out. real change requires strong accountability measures and strong partnership with stakeholders who are deeply impacted by the practices of the planning department. it appears ensil ary and divorced from the external outcomes that arise and the practices inside the agency. it seems to me the process should actually be flipped. the planning department should collaborate with community stakeholders and community organizations who are rooted in our diverse communities, to identify and define the external impact we seek to create. one that is rooted in racial equity, affordability, community voice and leadership and healthy development without

displacement. when we unite on that vision, the hard work of internal institutional change needs to follow. with very clear metrics and benchmarks to achieve the external impact we have identified. if we start with internal practices first, like the planning department is doing, without clarifying what we're working towards, then we undoubtedly will not achieve the urgent and material change that is needed to stem the tide of displacement and vulnerability that defines black immigrant, indigenous and people of color communities in san francisco. thank you for your time. >> hi, this is (inaudible) community organizer with home rise. i want to weigh in on this subject. [please stand by]

>> secretary: okay. they hung up. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star 3 to be added to the cue. seeing no additional requests to speak for members of the public. the public comment portion of this hearing is now closed and it is now before you, commissioners. this is not an action item. it is only for informational purposes and we have one more person requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator:

>> translator: and we presented the difficulties we were having and also the displacing. and they didn't have any impact because the committee didn't even accept the application. the request for a hearing in the community. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: so that we could create a more open space for the community to be heard. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: about the contending projects.

>> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: we needed to have reforms and answers through all the needs of our community. >> [speaking spanish] . >> translator: the latin community, the black community, and the indigenous communities. >> [speaking spanish] slanz have to be heard in respect to the developments and housing in our city. thank you. >> secretary: thank you.

>> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: my name is maria consala and i would like to participate in the sense that we have not had the opportunity to be heard, to participate in our own language. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: this year and in the past years. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: all the people that don't speak english, we cannot participate. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: in meetings where only english is spoken.

>> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: because we cannot hold that dialog. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: where opinion is not heard or taken into account. the solution. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: so make sure that all the hearings are presented in the five languages that are more important to the city. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: so have a dialog and so that our voice can count. >> spanish. >> translator: thank you very much for your time and may god

bless you. >> good afternoon commissioners, kelly hill with united to save the mission and part of the rep coalition. thank you for this work and thank you claudia for all your service to the planning department through the years. urban planning and urbanization has been linked throughout our history. the turn of this 21st century, its scope and scale have accelerated. these changes have been backed by massive influxes from developers and investors. they've also been promoted by municipal governments from market regulator to market facilitator. this is where we need to make even bigger changes going higher up the ladder. what if we can separate planning revenue streams. that separates the money coming

in. prioritize those that as well, this department should acknowledge the need for citywide gentrification plan. that goes hand in hand with the kind of disparities we see. when i look at some of these large area plans like the hub, i see the immediate impact where we know those jobs, those spaces are typically filled by residents and they're planned out of our cities all together. the hub plan is systematically replacing them with market rate projects with little to no mitigations. let's all keep working together. let's kind of innovate on ways we can really make this something that really comes through. thank you.

>> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: good afternoon everybody and thank you for your time. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: and i belong to the community for justice and health and social. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: a member of the coalition red. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: we invite the planning commission to visit our neighborhood >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: and our mobility

of all the people with low income >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: your department of planning is not creating real solutions that are realistic >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: and that can be of benefit for the community. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: i suggest that you make some decisions that are very important and affect people of low income. >> [speaking spanish]. >> translator: we need to take into consideration the needs of

the low-income people in our community. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. okay. commissioners, public comment on this matter is now closed and it is now before you. >> president: thank you so all the interpreters and thank you to all the members of the public that chimed in. initially our department has been making huge priority of this program, so i'm glad to see where we're at today. >> secretary: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you, president koppel. and, first, i want to thank the

staff for working on this and to continue to have a dialog with the community and also with many speakers that came here today are numbers that have been really familiar with the history of community planning dates back from the neighborhood plan to the mission map and even some people even to the central soma plan. one thing that i guess is my question to you, ms. flores in terms of the collaboration with community stakeholders, many of the question seems to be that there is hesitation or perhaps, i would say, you know, doubting the process. how do you think and this comes into questions of the implementation of the racial

social equity plan and that it's undertaking under the space. from your experience with all of the plans that you have done too, what would be the difference this time in terms of community engagement process? i think you're muted, ms. flores. >> apologies. i'm on my phone i forget to unmute the other device. i think there's definitely a fundamental question in all of this work. i think the lack of trust is understandable given the history of early exclusion in sort of our planning work. so it's definitely important for us to think about how are we going to kind of really give teeth to this process and do it differently. that's one of the reasons for

forming the equity counsel, but it's not obviously the only thing. we are in the process of defining specific community engagement strategies how we're going to work with the community differently, how we're going to partner and also, i agree with implementation is credit goal. implementation and really reporting on how we're making progress kind of very publicly and visibly. that's one of the critical things. >> commissioner: thank you. i understand that this racial social equity plan is very new. i mean, this is new to san francisco and also in other cities as well. in terms of the staff training within the planning department, how are we prioritizing the senior management level in terms of training, in terms of

community engagement process and also as i read the memo, there is some reflects the kind of culture that we have where the senior management and nonsenior management may have different perspectives about their work on racial and social equity and i think that speaks a lot on how we work with our community. the planning department may think we're working on racial and social equity and the community does not see that. so i think that something that's really in terms of the culture within the planning department reflects in the culture, how we do the community engagement and, i think that's something i would like for the department to prioritize that the training should be expanded and strengthened in the senior level management and how, i mean, you know, that actually

coincides with the community engagement process as well. i mean, that's kind of like my addition into this -- into what you're proposing in terms of the resources that we would like to allocate because that would speak a lot in terms of how we are doing the community engagement process not just in terms of listening, but how were we really incorporating them into planning commission goals and if there's something that i would edit or strengthen the planning commission goals, it's not just representation of voices, but in solution of different voices. i think that's more stronger than not just representing. so those are my comments and um, there's a lot of actions that still need to happen and i'm also looking forward in all

of this, but also if the planning commission updated in all of this. thank you. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you so much, ms. flores and all your work and all the community members who have called in and, interpreter, thank you for your service. i want to just second commissioner imperial's inclusion. i think that's a stronger word that might strengthen what we're trying to achieve. i wonder, ms. flores if we can talk about the community engagement and a little bit of the sequencing, understand that the pandemic kind of may be shifted some of the priorities, so we went to like the covid recovery and applying a racial equity lens to that. as we're looking to open up and it seems like the office of racial equity is going to be providing direction to all city

departments, what can we do now? what do we have to wait for? help us understand the sequencing between now and the end of the next year as far as the phase two. >> sure. i do agree with one of the speakers that we should have done a better job circling back when we launched in 2019 to let people know that we had positive practices and what were the next steps and it is a little bit vague and partly because we are waiting for direction from the office of racial equity. i would say in the next six months, the priority would be since the general plan updates process is under way with not just the housing element, but the transportation safety

community element, that's kind of the next phase incorporating racial social equity as well as environmental justice into the plan, in some ways, it works to sort of have, to wait a little bit longer for the direction. the general plan kind of underpins and guides the plan we do and we look at the language to do findings and able to point to policy. that will be our first priority and so if people want more information about that working group for environmental justice, we'll provide a better sort of linkage on our web page and once we get our deadlines and our time lines from the office of racial equity, we can be a lot more clear in sort of the next phase on this actual phase two document. >> commissioner: okay. >> i think we'll also circle

back with them so we can let the community know clarity where we're going. >> commissioner: great. thank you for that and, perhaps, on that note can you talk about the equity committee. but also can members of the public attend the meetings? and do those groups have decision making power? are they recommending staff and just kind of a little bit of understanding how those groups are meant to function? >> yeah. i'll turn it over to merriam for detail on the counsel and i can follow up with the e.j. working group. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. thank you for the questions, commissioner tanner. just to follow up on your previous question, part of the effort that we're trying to address, there are more than 40 equity plans from each of the

city departments and it isn't reasonable to expect that our community leaders will be responding decently to each equity plan. so part of our effort in what claudia has been working on and director hilis is the coordination of the community engagement across city agencies. a lot of the work is also being coordinated through h.r.c., the human rights commission and the round table where we have participation from 200 community leaders in attendance of about 40 to 60 community leaders on a weekly basis. equity advisory counsel, it's a small group of community leaders that were identified through a lengthy process of consultation with some of you, commissioners, with other city department directors and with community leaders. it's a small group that is deliberating or beginning to

start the deliberation of key projects that can push the needle on a specific equity actions. they are advisory to staff. they have not been appointed. they have -- they do not have decision making power. they have been convened to inform you, to inform the commissioners, to enform our city leaders on what the perspectives are on the ground and we're going to be discussing this next week what's the schedule and the priorities. this is the group that will be meeting once a month for 18 to 24 months. >> commissioner: and ms. flores will talk about the environmental justice working group. that the counsel, when you say they're going to be deliberating projects, what comes to my mind is maybe two different types of projects. one of you saying what's in the

department's's kind of purview. we talked about bayview hunter's point. are they advising kind of what neighborhood or are they even doing maybe more grabular or generative to disburse the flight of african americans in the city. let's figure out what the project is. can you help just put a little color on what they'll be deliberating when you say project? >> sure. it's the latter. what you have discussed. they have deliberated so far on what are the key issues and there's access to land and housing. that's the key priority. there's access to jobs and wealth and there's access to community resources. there are also the more instrumental pieces. how to bring community voices to the table and how to inform

decision making and so it's in relation to those issues they have put at the table that we're identifying what are the key projects that can address us the most -- those issues the most. our planning budget and the communication strategy and i don't know if director hilis would like to add to that. we have not settled on the schedule, on the key efforts, but it's exactly what they have said. we're trying to identify planning, but also departmental perspective. >> commissioner: director hilis, did you want to add something? >> it's how we engage our work like the housing elements.

>> commissioner: great. i'm really glad to be discussion all agree amongst themselves which is part of the purpose of having a diverse group and that you have mull am perspectives. but that can also help when items come to the planning commission that we can have that flavor of where was the gamut of perspectives. so we can have that in the mix. so i'm really glad that that group is getting going and anything we can do to support, please do let us know. ms. flores, did you want to talk about the e.j. working group and also if folks attending the meeting can listen in and how folks might participate in that? >> yeah. certainly. so we form the environmental justice group over 40 interest forms and so this group is also about to launch.

we're definitely conscious of the fact that there's an equity counsel group and e.j. working group and senate bill 1,000 was very clear on requirements we have to meet in the general plans in terms of really having community involved and how we define environmental justice and developing a very specific e.j. map and so we thought it was important to have like a focus conversation on e.j. there's also several different city agencies so it was important to bring the expertise of both community agencies but also community agencies like the department of environment and the department of public health. and, they're going to develop the work what we're calling frame work which is a higher definition of environmental jgs. one of the priorities for

environmental justice and the racial equity plan that will inform the specific policies to incorporate. i will definitely circle back with my staff, but it's not a closed group, but we definitely can figure out how to engage and listen and participate. there also could be focus groups. there was capacity to join the working groups. if they want to do surveys and we also just finished some engagement. >> commissioner: that's great. i want to thank you all for the work. i'm glad to hear the office of racial equity is helping lead our whole city because i think there are certain goals and many of the really big ones where it truly will be interdepartmental and the private sector.

it's going to be all hands on deck for some of these goals thinking about reversing displacement trying to mitigate or even present any displacement and gentrification. those big goals, we should tackle them as a city. we should put them out there we can do that and it will take more than just planning department for sure to effect that change and more than just the city alone. i'm happy to see they'll be some overlap. because i certainly want to see planning kind of take on a big goal that we just don't have the resources alone to' capture and that effort hopefully can yield across departments and those can be things we're working on as an entire city. i don't have a solution to it. so it's one of those big hairy problems that we'll have to keep working on as we each keep working together through our planning commission work and communities working together which is just that the challenge of what planning does and how planning has been set

up and maybe there are ways we can change it, i really would love to see from different models, maybe other countries. you know, our planning as some callers noted, really a function of processing applications. that's at least where we live these days. we have long range planning. i am an individual property sponsor, i want to do something on this particular part of this city and they come to us and say can i do it and what are the rules and so our fees do come from those applications and in parts, we do that to have the person who's asking to do something. be the one who's bearing the cost of it as opposed to that general fund which all san franciscans are paying for that processing of that application. so it is kind of a fundamental challenge layered on to chopped

it up, sold it on the private market for the commodity and that is how we buy and sell land. so those are kind of bigger in which we are part of. in sort of what can we do. thank the community for their presence and lots of suggestions which are also written down and thank you for your time, ms. flores. >> secretary: through the chair, i'll just interject, i'll just remind everyone we are interpreting the hearing and so if we can slow down our comments. i know it's difficult but at a

courtesy to the interpreters. thank you. >> are they also going to discuss the definition of equity? are they the first group that will tackle on that and how will that process go. there are those comments by the public in terms of the definition of equity itself >> yeah. we started with the definition that we inherited from the government alliance of racial equity and i think the office of racial equity sort of refined it and had the definition on the website. you know, we do want to have

not just the counsel, but the community engagement process to weigh in what does that mean for planning specifically and so we will start with them. we also through the general plan vir thul events, we had a listening session and that's one of the questions we asked so we definitely want to hear from folks specifically. i don't know if you wanted to add anything to that. >> commissioner: so that means, the final project of equity it's all vetted yeah.

that's a good question. so and the decision for. >> i would suggest that for the definition itself and i really think that it should come from the you know, but it would be good for the planning commission to hear how that planning process went. the way i see this equity is accountability for the planning

commission thank you. >> secretary: okay. commissioners. if that concludes your deliberation on this matter, we can move along on your regular calendar to item 12. case number 2019-017761cua at 4234 24th street. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation. >> yeah. >> secretary: okay. the floor's all yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. bridget hicks, planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning codes section 303 and three hundred

seventeen for the demolition of a one-story-over-garage 3,6070-square-foot single-family home. 5, 556-square foot. the project is located within the rh-2 zoning district. first i'd like to note and i addressed an error in the staff report on the existing square footage. existing gross square footage as 3,670 square foot. the existing square foot is 2,470 square feet. the project proposal is an 800 square foot lot and 114' deep. the projects would remove an

existing 2,470 square foot home. the existing home was constructed in 1907. during the environmental. properties in the area are generally developed two to one story buildings. the subject exhibits a great variety of architectural scales. the units will be of similar size to each other. 2,211 and 2,212 square feet. each unit will have two bedrooms and a flex room that can be used as a study or a bedroom. and one vehicle and one parking

space each. we'll access the real yard for open space. the department has received one and that will reduce the amount of green space and questioning the need of the stair penthouse. the department receives an additional letter. in the northwest site to respect the adjacent neighbor's access to light, air, and privacy. this space is labeled as laundry unit 2. on the second floor plan on sheet a or 2.2. noting concerns.

the department finds that the project is unbalanced and with the of an existing single family home. will provide two family homes with the net increase and the number of bedrooms. the overall scale, size, and materials is consistent with the subject blocks. the department also finds the project and not to be decremental the project sponsor of the presentation and i will pull up those slides now. >> i believe i am. am i on?

>> secretary: you are. your slides are coming up. >> okay. i'll try to make it faster. i'm earl wife the architect on the project. the subject property important there is a full story from the sidewalk to the rear yard that increases. so we're keeping the mass of this building three stories. another important thing about this property, as we're looking at how we're approaching it, is the neighbor to the left has a cottage in the rear slide. keep our roof line similar to the east. in addition to exposing the stairs, we have two entrances

on the side you have separate entrances and that allows us to push the doors back. we're trying to taper the doors front and keeping massing very consistent. these three buildings are actually the lowest. the whole idea is to keep a consistent flow. next slide, please. this is to kind of under what we're dealing with. i realize that the 45 degree angle view from adjacent properties is very important. next slide, please. as you can see here where we project beyond the neighboring properties, we're set back 5'. we're set back significantly in the rear and it's also

important to note, next slide all right. you can see the horizontal tapering. in order to try to lower the mass in the rear of the building, we're using a pitched roof because we can use really low eaves. i think they're like 7' and that reduces the impact to the neighboring buildings. this is two doors down looking through the diagonal corridor created by this neighboring cottage. next slide, please s. this is

actually a view from inside the house. really what they're going to be looking at is the neighboring cottage two properties away. between the western building and their rear cottage. as you can see the first floor universally use privacy glass in there you can also see as we've stuck back there. next slide. we did a shot sometimes because you need to see, well, nothing on the computer model in

inclusion, we have upped the roof heights and lowering the front. we horizontally tapered the front. we horizontally tapered the rear. we've added more square footage than what is there. the existing building has we're not going that much further beyond it. this should also note that 800 feet is under ground. both respectful to the neighborhood and is addressing concerns. i want to thank miss hicks for all of her help on this project and i thank you for your consideration. if i have any time, i'd be

happy to answer any questions. >> secretary: thank you, mr. weiss. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star then 3 to be added to the queue. and, through the chair, you will be afforded two minutes. hi, i hope you can hear me. i am the aforementioned of the property. i am in favor of this project. i'd like to thank bridget hicks for doing a nice job in sort of reeling back the original months or proposal to something that's a little more reason able. i am the one that requested the cutback be increased and just to clarify, i had requested that the second and the third

floor be cut back to match the cut back in my house. what's not apparent in the drawings provided by the architect is the fact that there are two windows right at that cut back in my house. so by matching the cut back in the proposed project to the cutback in it my house, it grately mitigates the impact of light and air flow in my house the proposed cut back would be 25 square feet on the second and third floor. it's less than 1% of the entire project. so i think that's pretty reasonable. so finally, just a completely different topic on the subject of equities, i would like to make sure that indeed, that we end up with two units as opposed to the original one

single family dwelling and to ensure that this is a home for two different families, rather than turning into one giant monster house. so thank you very much. >> hi, it's georgia shootis. i sent a letter to ms. hicks and to the commissioners on the 4th of june and i just wanted to raise some questions about the design of the project. was there something else that could have been done and i did two examples of a pair of flats that are immediately adjacent to the east. just a typical two bedroom flat. those are condos next door as well and which this project is supposed to kind of a speck project. could have been something like that. or could it have kept the house

and put a cottage in the back and kept that breezeway between. that's kind of the template you have for your i know you don't deal with excavations. during construction and i guess if you looked at the pictures, there were a lot of trees there and the greatest source of tree canopy in the city is private rear yard open space and i

think that needs protection too and i agree about the unit thing because i've seen a lot of take good care. bye. thank you. >> secretary: okay. members of the public. last call for public comment on this matter. when you hear that your line has been unmuted. that's your indication to begin speaking. >> okay. i want to speak about this sensory on the mission. >> secretary: no. ma'am, i'm sorry. this is about 24th street. so you'll need to call back again. >> hi, this is josephine.

one way or the other, i support building more housing. so i would think that the accomodation has been enough that we need more housing. >> secretary: okay. commissioners, public comment is now closed. and this matter is now before you. >> president: commissioner mar. >> commissioner: i have a question for the architect if he's available? >> i am available. >> commissioner: thank you. i was looking at your plan and since there is no accessible roof other than going to the solar panels, why can't the penthouse not be eliminated and just an access hatch being introduced. i think it would do the project

a lot of good to not have the penthouse on top of it. >> we can certainly address that. one of the problems that we run into is with the green roof initiative that it can be solar panels or a green roof. we'd like to do a green roof up there and you need access for that. if this is a big deal, we did purposefully locate the penthouse in the center of the property, so it really isn't [inaudible] by anybody. that was the -- >> commissioner: i appreciate that thought, however, even a green roof can be accessed via a access hatch and actually preferred. i'm sorry. there is a conversation in the background that i don't think at this moment is part of what

we're talking about. but we're getting back to the stair penthouse, i would prefer the stair penthouse to be eliminated in order to keep the general [inaudible] of the adjoining buildings and let this project be. i think it's well conceived. the other question i have from the unit two bedroom, would you need a ladder to come out of the courtyard in order to get you toed garden for fire exiting? >> it depends on the type of construction. if we do this as a type three, which essentially the property line walls are noncombustible, then the escape and rescue window requirement is eliminated. >> commissioner: okay. at least you are thinking about that. >> absolutely. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a little joke, but on

number 82.1, i'm finding a tile fixture sitting in the capriway to unit two. i suspect that's a complete. i looked at it and it completely threw me until i realized that probably you push some button that moved into the entryway. >> yeah. unfortunately, they like to do that. >> commissioner: i thought that was very cute. i am in support of the project. i think it's well massed. have you all thought about what the adjoining neighbor's asking to extend the notch another 5', that would mean moving the laundry room. i thought about that, but what it does open is that obviously your client may want to add a window there which would defeat the purpose of having the notch

being where it is. >> that is correct. >> commissioner: have you talked with them about it? >> really, this is the first time this has come up. i would be happy to speak with them about that. i obviously can't give you an exact answer without speaking to my client, but he is a very reasonable person and especially with your comments on the penthouse, if it's a deal breaker, it's out. period. >> commissioner: i love the notching and i see the department often very strongly supporting it because it creates that extra little little privacy and that extra amount of air movement. i would love to have that conversation had between the two of you, but there is more to it than commissioners i'm speaking for myself saying you

need to do this notch. there are pros and cons to it and i can see both ways. i would like to see you pursuing another conversation with the next door neighbor. >> that will be my next call. >> commissioner: okay. thank you very much. for the rest of my colleagues, i'm in full support of this project. province commissioner diamond. >> i would support commissioner moore and it really does seem to change the character of the house and sticking up. so i too am supportive of the project but would like to see that penthouse eliminated. >> commissioner: commissioner diamond, would you also like to

support a conversation. >> i don't want to include that in the motion. what's more pare mount is the elimination of that penthouse. >> secretary: commissioner diamond, was that a motion? >> commissioner: yes. it's a motion to approve with the modification to remove the penthouse and replacement with the hatch as proposed by commissioner moore. >> commissioner: second. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i will be in support of that motion. i do want to ask the architect if you quickly respond about the use in the future. i'm happy to see it's having two units that are so carefully and well designed to fit in with the context. do you have any intent of your client to occupy?

>> absolutely. they will be condos. and, as soon as they're condos, you would have to get a new building permit in order to do any kind of conversion of merger. and the reality is, two equally sized units make a lousy combination because you end up with a bunch of small rooms and people looking for a house that size, they're looking for these giant interior spaces. >> commissioner: thank you very much. and i have a question from the member of the public and my understanding is that hopefully neighbors and you can continue to work together in terms of monitoring any vibration or anything happening during the excavation. can you just speak to that briefly. >> absolutely. and i also highly recommend anybody that's watching this and not speaking to contact me directly. you can do that through the planning department. now, currently, oddly, actually

for the vintage of this house, the entire footprint which goes back almost as far as we're going is excavated already. so we would need to remove the existing foundations and walls and get those up to current code. we will be going back a little bit further, but at that portion of the building, we're set back a little bit. so i don't anticipate -- there's certainly no kind of pounding or drilling, it's just a different sensibility with engineering these days and we always have the engineers on call and they make frequent site visits because quite frankly, the owner, myself, nobody has time for excavation to go bad. it's just unacceptable on all levels. >> commissioner: great. thank you for that. those are my comments and questions and i'm happy to

support the project. >> secretary: there's no further deliberation. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions including a modification to eliminating the roof penthouse and replacing it with a roof hatch. on that motion, [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us on item 13 case 2020-007152cua. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. thank you. >> commissioner: the motion passed 6-0, not 7-0. >> secretary: thank you for that, commissioner.

i keep miscounting with the absence of commissioner chan. 6-0. ryan, are you prepared to present? >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is the conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 2020 within a vacant ground floor space. the site is located within the excelsior outer neighborhood and the 40-x height and bulk trikt. it requires a conditional use authorization. the location complies with the 600 foot rule established under planning code sex 202.2. the cannabis retailer is

approximately 3,143 feet away from the street. and the nearest schools are san francisco christian school, approximately 791' away and long fellow elementary school approximately 1,006' away from the site. within the general vicinity, are our kids first, an afterschool program, then's language services, a language school and chiquitos peace school. these schools are not identified under the planning code. however, in response to the proposed cannabis store is designed to shield products from the street while maintaining transparency of the facade. along with a strong security presence and staff monitoring the store front. at packet publication, the department receives 43 comments expressing support which

includes those from the business owners on the outer mission street area. since packet publication, the department has received four additional comment expressing support and seven in opposition. the letters of support as an operator and backed the businesses to local hiring. the letters of opposition expresses concerns with traffic, sidewalk complications as well as use to cannabis products and rise in crime. under code section 1613, an equity applicant is permitted to have an interest in up to four locations in san francisco. the equity applicant has two locations. heidi hanley previously operated a medical cannabis dispensary located at 24

mission street which was closed after the lease of the space was terminated by the property owner. the project complies with zoning and the policies of the general plan provides new business by actively current vacant space. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. the application has a presentation to make and i will hand it over to them. >> secretary: thank you. i don't see the project sponsor's name appearing. so hopefully this is his phone number. project sponsor, are you with us? >> this is edward. >> secretary: great. okay. your slides are up and you'll have five minutes. >> hello members of the commission, thank you for your time to do. slide two please. my name is heidi hanley and i'm

here before you as a verify applicant to present my project at 5801 mission street. i wanted to start with a little bit about myself. i am a mother of two and a wife. i'm mexican american native san franciscan and group up all k-12 grades in district 12. i'm an army veteran having served eight years and i also have over 14 years in the cannabis industry. here in san francisco being one of the first women cannabis dispensary operated in the city. i have a short time line here showing the key facts. at the grandfather dispensary, we were allowed to move forward to obtain a medical cannabis. january 1st, two thousand

eighteen, we had the privilege of becoming one of the first dispensaries in the city. unfortunately, relief was hit with a blow in early 2019. our landlord experienced a federal and supporting a cannabis tenant. after legal fight, we had to close our doors in december, two thousand nineteen. the eleven years prior to closure. this slide is a letter of support from supervisor matt haney. until legal cannabis in 2018. this support letter is from the head of the cannabis program. slide 6, please. relief has always been about community. from the beginning, we have provided discounts to veterans. we've supported many cannabis

advocacy groups. at releaf, we became family and we provided competitive pay. members of the commission, i'm here before you today with industry experience, community focus and extremely excited to make a difference by coming full circle to operate and provide opportunity in the neighborhood where i was raised. and i'll present to you the project sponsor that. slide 7, please. >> thank you, heidi. during our outreach, we decided to hold an additional volunteer meeting to address concerns about our project. we wanted to highlight our plans. to reduce crime and traffic, we will enforce a strict, no double parking in the community. we'll keep the sidewalk free from everyone. we will enforce a strict no loitering policy. to address youth access, there will be no consumption of any

cannabis outside of the location. and, lastly, there will be no owner when you pass odor when you pass by this location. >> it will bring a beautiful, clean, with a great education base multi-linguil customer experience. as a condition of our license. we will bring the district's first compassion program which will serve the unmet need of free cannabis products. we will continue to such as local hiring, merchant benefits and community events. next slide, please. beyond our words, the photos that you see here last weekend. we have the neighborhoods first customer appreciation day to support merchants.

many of whom were hit hard from the pandemic. and since this shows we are invested here and we look forward to bringing forward responsible and supporting the merchants in the neighborhood. >> thank you. i wanted to extend a huge thank you to the commission. we look forward to your decision and a heart felt thank you to all the supporters through this process and throughout the years. we look forward to providing safe and affordable access to relief in the city. >> secretary: great. if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll each receive one minute. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your

indication to begin speaking. >> hello, commissioners. my name is 0 den camilla and i'm calling on behalf of residents. residents of multi-generational elders and working class children. we're going in opposition of the dispensary at 5801 mission street. it's a sidewalk that's regularly used by elders in our community for their daily walks several times per day. children and families attending businesses on the block. it's also used heavily by pedestrians. the dispensary will be right next to the christian center that serves as a worshipping center that serves. the preschool and day care centers are also in the

immediate area as well as essentially businesses on that block. the double parking, the additional traffic would only expedite the issues we already have in the neighborhood with the spike in crime. gun violence and robberies. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david goldmanment i'm the president of the san francisco chapter of the cannabis merit and i'm also a homeowner and resident in san francisco and i've lived here since 1973. i'm calling in support of the project. one way to judge a potential cannabis retail applicant is to look at their track record. how well have they run any businesses in the past and i can tell you for a fact having lived here for a long time and having being involved in the cannabis community for 20 years that the relief herbal center

and heidi ran a wonderful operation. i've also gotten to know ed brown over the years and i know that they will run an exemplary business. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is julie sampson. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. we can. >> i am a member of the san francisco christian center. i have attended there for about 30 years with my daughter and it is my respectful request that this dispensary not be permitted to operate in the area because we have a school. we have children coming in and out. we have peoples' families that would not be benefited by having the dispensary at that location. so i respectfully request on

behalf of my church and my family that this dispensary not be allowed to operate there. thank you for your attention. >> hi, yes. i'm a spokes person and a lifetime member of accurate axis member of san francisco. to give a voice to san francisco medical cannabis. peacefully upon recognizing that land use decision should be given back to the rightful stuarts of this land. thank you so much. to the court. >> secretary: go ahead. you have 30 seconds. >> i still have 30 seconds. >> secretary: yes. >> okay. this small businesses family run and as a mother who's raising a family in san

francisco, i prefer a family run cannabis club that caters to the local people of san francisco and upholds our values. i was homeless for almost two decades and while homeless, releaf took care of me. they were fundamental in helping me hold on for dear life. if that's not worth giving a chance, then i don't know what to say except let's do the right thing for the community. please approve the project at 581 mission street. >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is mike cohen. i just want to let you know i've known heidi for many years and her record speaks for herself on mission street and i also want to point out that this will be a good retail, a new retail business for that store front because right now

it's an empty store front. it will also pay decent paying jobs and have local hiring for local people. it will be a good community partner and they will be an asset and will improve that block. i highly recommend that you approve this permit. thank you so much. >> hi, my name is ryan miller. marine corps veteran and born in san francisco. a lot of the community support that releaf is known for. one community that hasn't been mentioned is the military veteran community. no one has been more supportive like releaf's herbal cooperative. we've served the most vulnerable portion. elders, transfolks, folks along the spectrum of housing insecurity and substance abuse and our work would not be

possible without the generosity of releaf. enthusiastic support of this relocation. thank you. hi, this is josephine and i'm speaking for 200 families in the neighborhood. the story of four or five in the one-mile radius and we still absorbing the preapproval from 2017. our community, the asian community, the chinese community has not received a notice. there's no outreach to our community. there's two community meetings. none of the are from our community. we've only heard about this last night and because our community does not need this. this neighborhood has 76% families, 56% asians, we don't need a business that disrupts our community and it's not

something we need. it's going to gentrify the neighborhood, it's going to make it harder to afford in here. we have opposed mcd in this neighborhood before. we didn't know about this. that's why you have three or four or five oppositions on file. we don't need anymore of it. we need family services -- >> secretary: thank you, ma'am. that's your time. >> hi. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. we can. >> okay. my name's david tan. i'm living in 5801 mission street. no mcd because around here, the school, the church, a lot of

the mcd is local for everybody here and we only. i'm finished. >> secretary: go ahead, caller. >> hello. my name is sandra bacon and i'm a representative. [inaudible] >> secretary: go ahead, ma'am. >> [inaudible] >> secretary: ma'am, are you still with us? >> yes. >> secretary: go ahead.

>> [inaudible] >> secretary: ma'am, are you still with us? >> yes. >> secretary: are you done? >> hi. my name is sandra bacon and i'm representing releaf, 100%. i came to the veterans health when i was a member of access of love and operation evac and they were in the community that i was in. so i will give them two thumbs up on the veterans side as far as the army. navy, and national guards reserve and mission. thank you. >> hello. >> secretary: yes. >> can you hear me? >> secretary: yes, we can. >> hi, my name's mary barnett and i'm calling in support of

releaf at 5801 mission street and i believe they have the right. and affordable access and the team relief has many years of experience and that's it. >> hi, my name is ramon garcia, local social equity business and original equity group. i've known heidi for a long time. releaf herbal has been a pillar in our community. there's never issues of violence or any kind of issues. she's a resident and a native of this area. so there is no gentrification.

we're talking about allowing equity to be able to have economic freedom and equality. so, heidi has been a pillar in our community supporting compassion, education, and equal access and should be allowed to operate this dispensary in the neighborhood. thank you. >> hello, my name is virginia marshal. i'm a long time educator here in the school district of san francisco. i am a 1,000% against this dispensary. our kids first is one of our premier low-income afterschool programs. you name several other preschools that i had no idea existed there. the board who recommends, the committee, the staff members who recommend approval of this dispensary should all be

ashamed of themselves. our children should count and our children should come before the dollar. please, do not approve this dispensary. thank you. >> hello. hi. i own [inaudible] on the 5800 block on mission and i'm calling to strongly object this proposal of this project. i strongly object to it. according to your own planning code, section 202 no dispensary should be established within 600' of schools. all private and according to the presentation there are several schools that are within

600' of 5801 mission. i encourage to vote in this proposal. >> secretary: yes. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is robert parker. i live in the crocker amazon neighborhood which is walking distance from the proposed location of this cannabis store. i have a 16-year-old daughter who uses or desire to use cannabis against her parents wishes. studies document that cannabis has negative health consequences physiologically in terms of impacting peoples' brain and socially and

psychologically in terms of increasing and react appropriately to stressful and challenging situations. so we should be doing all we can to discourage and prevent cannabis use among teenagers. i also attended a panel discussion consisting of eight high school students who all informed the parent in attendance very candidly since cannabis became legal, cannabis use among teenagers is greatly on the rise. >> secretary: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been a cannabis policy shaper for two decades and at more than 30 permit hearings,

but never before have i been speaking in the position of a prior next door neighbor. my community center was located at 1260 mission and it is with no hesitation in my heart i support the relocation permit. i on a daily basis witnessed a well run. every merchant and nonprofit in our immediate area had a great relationship with this family run cannabis club. as an advocate for fair policy and city hall, releaf was present and helpful and granted one of the first city permits. releaf is of historical significance to san francisco and in our balancing act of equities, this is the first

latina owned dispensary. releaf -- >> secretary: thank you. that's your time. >> hello, my name is lionel ripkin. i am a long time supplier and vendor to releaf and throughout the time i have known heidi and her staff, they are well educated. they provide a great deal of health for under privileged patients. they care a great deal about their patients and they're always looking out for their community. they take care of their surrounding area, they're great people and i would highly recommend you supporting this relocation program. >> hi. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. we can. >> i live in the neighborhood

actually within -- my name is carol gensei and i have to say while i applaud this veteran single mom trying to make it in the business. on mission street, it's horrendous when it comes to double parkers and dangerous drivers and really with the addition of this business, it will attract and i don't mean to sound unpleasant, but it does attract some unsavories and while i can imagine they ran their business really well, i'm not certain that that's the case for our location. the neighborhood is more than likely different than the landscape of their previous location. please, we have a lot of families and family services in the area. we would really just support them somewhere else, just not in our neighborhood, i'm sorry.

>> hi. support them. [inaudible] >> secretary: go ahead,

caller. okay. we'll take the next person. >> hi. my name is deliah fitzpatrick. i'm speaking on opposing to the cannabis site at 5801 mission street. this community has the highest rate of youth and seniors residing in the area and the neighborhood does not need another cannabis club. at our kids first, we have to alter the way we walk our children from the local schools. we are within 123' from this cannabis location. there are -- we are a licensed child care provider and there's two blocks from the public and private schools. there is a liquor store, a taxi parlor, and a bar across the street from this location.

and, also to note that through all the preplanning meetings, there was no accommodations made for any of the cantanese, spanish populations and i would encourage the planning department to down to 1,000' from a local school. thank you. i appreciate your effort. >> hello. >> secretary: yes. >> my name is gregory mills. i'm a retired air force veteran i'm speaking about the dispensary on mission street they treated me for the five years i've known them and they

supported me very well they treated me very well. thank you. >> secretary: go ahead, caller. all right. we'll take the next caller. >> hi, my name is crystal. i'm a resident and a mother and i live on the same street within walking distance of the proposed location. my children attend school at the christian school. historically, the school has no playground available. historically, they were allowed at chalmers playground, but during covid, now, we are no longer allowed that playground.

they must be out to this location. to daily city, basically, to lincoln park. it's already an unsafe situation. we already heard from our kids first that they must walk children from school and change their course to avoid. and you just know this is going to bring a certain amount of loitering, a certain alternate amount of odors and things and we know there will be people that do not loiter in that location, but they will be walking around the neighborhood and just putting up all of this. and i just ask your permission to consider the people who actually live here and our concerns and the safety of our children. >> secretary: thank you, thanks your time. [please stand by]

raised in a understanding that cannabis is used to rethese who struggle with pain, sleep, anxiety and other things. my mom is a pioneer in her field and i'm proud of her and her accomplishments. please approve this location so we can support the lives of the people who rely on cannabis medicine. thank you.

>> dough want to submit your public comment. >> are you talk to go me? >> my name is denise and i've been a member of the access of love for 15 years and i was one of the first people that we had a community center next door and we had i have into communities about it so i hope that i hope they grant their permit to operate it. they deserve and they have earned it. they're good players. please, give please give them a

permit the neighborhood likes and so, please, please and give them a chance. they belong in the neighborhood. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the former president of the outer mission merchants residents association and i'm a 28 year receipt department of the amazon out of mission neighborhoods and i owe piece this project in the outer mission excel see year we have throw existing mcds and located here. the fourth one is not needed. directing 11 and the exceler has

the largest population of seniors and children in youth and we totally oppose this project. thank you, very much. >> hello. >> caller: hi, my name is pastor of san francisco christian center and we've been in there for over 2060 years in the neighborhood and we've seen the difference, a lot of people are calling in and they're talking about support and we're in the neighborhood and we get to see what has gone on with the many cannabis dispensaries we've had. we have a school. we've worked so hard over the years to improve the neighborhood as much as we can and with our after school programs, feeding people, and

again not a lot of people are living in the neighborhoods who is really speaking and people are in support but we're completely against this coming into our community and we're trying to improve it and so we trust that this completion will take another look to see what is really going on and with 509 fourth dispensary where people of color are the being pushed more in our neighborhood than anywhere else. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, my name is alexander and i'm a bayview native and i am support of the advance program equity programs and they're each in the neighborhood and with support of

myself who identifies as a veteran and the support of the community over the years and substantial to so many people and low income and housing and secure and elders and i am in strong support and verbal. >> thank you. >> >> good afternoon, my name is selena martinez and i want to thank you commissioner for taking my called and i'm a tenth generation san francisco and my family has been in san francisco for 425 years. i'm a veteran and operation of be back. relief really is there in san francisco and their impact on the community would be no

different than any other small business and in fact (inaudible). they're not a liquor store, they're not a change store, they're providing a positive service so i healey support. thank you, so much. >> yes, good afternoon, thank you commissioners, my name is ivan walker and i am also another pastor at the san francisco christian center. that is in the same block. i also live on 66 oliver street which is six houses from this proposed business and i'm standing ardently against this proposed cannabis dispensary and it's a proven fact that the other dispensaries in the 5200 block of mission there's been a accident increase in robberies and i will quote from captain

woon who i have a close relationship with. he says in the 5200 block of mission we've seen an increase of auto break ins and robberies since the dense pens res were open so i'm a san francisco native, born and raised in hate ashbury in the 70s and i was a heavy marijuana user at one time and with that knowledge it does more damage than good and it brings an element into the neighborhood that we do not want here. and we have said this over and own again in our prior meetings and miss hiedi does not live in this neighborhood and we don't want you here in this neighborhood. thank you. >> my name is daniel lee. i'm living about one block away from the dispensary.

from the san francisco social club. i'm calling in support of relief. is it i'm a medical patient and

medical cannabis patients and you go back 10 to 20 years there were few options for one of us and relief was one of them. i don't think anybody says there are too many coffee places here or there's too many restaurants here and the truth of the matter is, that, it's not true what people are saying about crime. it's the opposite. every study is shown crime is decreased. every study is shown that kids use around those dispensaries are no different than anywhere else. these are just stigma myths. please, support hiedi and say yes to this dispensary. thank you. >> hello, catherine, tired marine, proud member of

operation evac and thanks to this dispensary helping out operation evac, we need this opened again. we've been really, we started out meetings there. they have compassion in their hearts for disabled people and a lot of the places haven't picked that up yet. my point is yes on this and i grow with everybody. it's the same as with any other business and there's no people outside and they even have security they hired. so yeah, a couple of them. the just one. so yes, this needs to be approved as soon as possible and i don't understand why they're being ostracized. catherine, thank you, very much. >> hello. my name is gregory and (inaudible) on behalf of and i'm

calling you for the relief and 5801 mission street and i believe they are the right chose for the right neighborhood because it's affordable access and the relief that has many years of experience and in the community and provide ways for the community and family are in it and the environment will and areas benefit for more surrounding businesses and provide the medical and relief environment and work bringing all right, thank you.

we'll take the next caller. >> good afternoon, aaron jones. an easterly year caller was discussing negative health impacts of cannabis use on youth and i would add that local information from local high schools students indicates that cannabis use among teenagers is greatly up since legalization of marijuana in california and also that cannabis products have become much easier for teenagers to obtain in large part because of the accessibility of cannabis shops and the ease of having a regular till or even a stranger going into to you there's if he question that increasing the availability and proximity of

cannabis products throughout city increases the use of cannabis among teenagers which is a negative. legalization has signaled to youth that canada is not considered unhealthy undesirable or a big deal and adding retail cannabis shops around the city sends the same message. i believe that is the wrong message to send to our youth and i stand strongly oppose today this application and to any proposals that would add more cannabis stores to our city and the local community. thank you for your consideration. >> hello, can you hear me. my name is david hooper in opposition to the proposed cannabis store at 5801 mission street and i have attended both of the zoom meetings and i saw

no support from the community and i awe actually only opposition from the community to this proposed cannabis dispensary and i would also like to note there was no effective effort to engage with the asian, chinese filipino community in this community and it was noticeable and i would as like to it's a parent that people from the former site feel strongly about their relationship with this cannabis store. we have had two on mission street at the 5200 block that have been nothing but a headache. under these circumstances, i would say that it is incumbent upon the commission to deny the application for conditional use. thank you. >> thank you, that's your time >> hello, hello.

>> my name is alex and i live a block away from the proposed site of 5801 mission street and i'm here to voice my strong opposition to a cannabis dispensary in this location. a few years ago, you might recall that we were in front of the planning commission opposing 24 club on my block and now we're here again and opposing another dispensary on the adjacent block. at the time, the commissioners voted overwhelmingly 6-0 that we did not need another cannabis club in this part of the city. the dynamics of directing 11 haven't changed we have the high percentage of residents under the age of 18. the big concern of course is the location. nobody is saying that hiedi would be a bad operator we're just saying this location is not ideal. we're on the same block with

salt of latch key kids, travel back and fourth between the christian center and long fellow and of course the san francisco christian school. so the one thing we ned to ask ourselves is, when it it comes to equity. equity throughout the city. we don't have it. they always come over to d-11. [ speaking foreign language ]

this is lisa, long time d-11 resident. dear commissioners, please donna prove this pot club at 5801 mission street. our district has placed to buy pot and this is clustering them in our neighborhood to be nearby the county line. we have a disproportionate number of socioeconomic pressures to deal with and we do not need any additional ones. this one would be across from a church with a very active youth program and one of the most positive things about the neighborhood and a pot club is not a good neighborhood for a church. this is not a deia issue this is about money and since they can do business on-line, why do they even need a storefront. listen to the neighbors who will be affected by this and not to

the relief advocates who don't live here. please, do not approve this pot club. we do not need and we do not want it. thank you for your consideration. >> hi, my name pastor matthew one of the associate pastors at san francisco christian center and also strongly oppose having the dispensary on our block. as many people have said, we have enough already in our neighborhood, especially in close proximity already let alone so close to one of the biggest after school programs in the city and two other schools tells the many youth programs that we have at the church and i hope we can listen to the actual people that live in the neighborhood and serve the community. thank you.

>> thank you, commissioners, that concludes public comment on this item. the matter is now before you. we have a late request. you have one minute. >> i guess they changed their minds. the public comment portion of this hearing is closed. >> good question for staff. four or five years ago i recall us hearing a number of the (inaudible) they were contested and remember on sensories and the directing.

>> directing # 1 had a cap imposed on the number of medical cannabis dispensary locations before it was dispensary use and it was removed when the city adopted the standards for adult use.

>> i want to thank everyone for calling in and tremendous track record of unfortunately no no fault of the applicants unable to operate that dispensary anymore. the concern that i have for this dispensary somewhat similar to last week with the proximity to the preschool but different in this case in that this has been front on to mission street and the after school program, i think it's another preschool or language school nearby and within the 600 photo radius and just outside of it is a private school is a public school and

the chalmers playground which is adjacent to the school. >> when i think about this dispensary to our sensitive uses and the tote tal tee of the uses and the direct adjacentcy it gives me pause and i'm not sure i can support this dispensary at this location. those of my comments. >> remember asking a question when i first joined the commission about whether or not

we held the line at 600. and was told that it really is, you know, we have 599 you follow one side and if you are 601 you fall on the other side. i'm having a hard time distinguishing this case from all of the other dispensaries we have approved. i understand there's a great deal of opposition from the neighbors but there has been on other projects as well too. i'm trying to understand why we wouldn't approve it in this case when we have others. i would approve. i don't see a reason to distinguished it from the other approvals we have granted. perhaps we have other ideas how we could extinguish it. >> thank you. i do actually find the findings adequate. in terms of public comments, in

terms of cannabis access to the youth, i do think that the cannabis facilities that are, in a way, regulated and in a way, restrict that access -- if it sounds like that's the main concern, also of the many people in the public. and i do and also from the last week, i believe it was last week. hearing or two weeks ago hearing in terms of the preschool and the idea of the preschool not being part as the school is because they are able to be accompanied by a parent. [please stand by]

it does need a little bit of a refresh because it's a couple years old. the city controller's office found that there was a general decrease in property crimes in the immediate vicinity of cannabis store front at the same time we experienced a general increase city-wide. and the report notes that this is likely due to the fact that these are incredibly regulated uses that have security plans, that have security on site, that have cameras. our new am indication -- applications will include a

review of the security plan by the san francisco police department and crime prevention unit as well. anecdotally, there may be discussions about it, but in terms of looking at actual police reports in property and violent crimes, that data has shown a general decrease. not a massive decrease. it was a decrease of 2%. >> i think that's a significant number and i very much appreciate that in the context of this particular case given that the message that was given by you on of the testifiers who spoke was certainty there was -- [indiscernible] cannabis location. i am in support of this and i like to add a shoutout for this being the first woman-operated cannabis business from what i hear, is that correct?

>> i believe it's the first latino-owned cannabis retail. >> and the first latino women-owned business as well, correct? >> it is specifically by a female latino. we did -- we have had a couple. obviously, the cannabis industry, like many is a little male dominated. but the first that the planning commission approved was at 820 van ness and she's operating and it's a great store. >> i want to particularly support that aspect of this application. and i'm calling it out particularly as minority woman owned and i'm in support ever the project.

>> it will be interesting to see whether caps come back or not. there are caps on other uses. liquor stores, restaurants in the city. i'm not sure of the genesis of the discussion, but historically moved along this path and, therefore, there is no cap. however, i am symptom pathetic to -- to what the neighbors have brought forward, that they live in the neighborhood and i'm supportive of their position. if there is no other motion, i'm going to move to deny this conditional use on the basis that the criteria has not been met. >> second.

>> wouldn't that have to be a motion of intent because there is a second -- only a motion of approval of the conditions in front of us today? >> that is generally the case, commissioner moore, however, we have been accepting motions for disapproval when the maker of the motion verbalizes the findings associated with the reason for the disapproval. i know the city attorney's office prefers an extensive list of findings that they can then support in defense. commissioner fung, did you want to articulate any additional findings? >> commissioner fung: no, i think i'll stay with that. >> commissioners, if i can try to elaborate.

my understanding from commissioner deliberation is that the finding that commissioner fung made intend to not be met, might be 303w. there is a section of that finding that talks about the compatibility of the use with other uses in the vicinity. would you -- if we -- if that motion were adopted, would that be the finding that we would adopt as disapproval? >> commissioner fung: yes, thank you, mr. christensen. >> i also heard, michael, the concern possibly over saturation in the general district as part of that concern. commissioner fung, is that something that could be added to the motion? >> yes, that would be my concern also. >> very good then. commissioners, there is a motion that has been second to

disapprove the conditional use authorization based on findings that the application does not meet the conditional use findings necessary to be approved and oversaturation in the district and that the use is incompatible with the other surrounding retail uses in more specific area. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner diamond: no. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner moore: i got lost. no. >> commissioner koppel: no. that motions fail with diamond,

imperial and moore and koppel voting against. is there an motion? >> approve the project as recommended by staff? >> second. on that motion then commissioners to approve with conditions. >> commissioner tanner: no. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: no. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners tanner and fung voting against. commissioners, that will place us on -- or under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on the agenda. number 14, 311 jersey street. discretionary review.

mr. winslow. >> thank you, jonas. staff architect. before you is a public initiated request to are discretionary review of building permit application of 2020-990332drp to construct a third story vertical addition with a roof deck above an existing single-family home. the d.r. requester is christine beaudro, resident of 327 jersey street who is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential guidelines to design buildings to be responsive to the overall neighborhood context and minimize impacts on light and privacy and design the scale and form of the building to be compatible with height and depth of surrounding buildings.

in addition, she does not believe that the designed roof guidelines are compatible with those in surrounding buildings are met as well. the proposed alternatives are to remove the roof deck, provide a continuous roof and remove a window in the laundry room to preserve privacy into her windows. to date, there have been four letters expressing support for the project and one letter of opposing -- opposing the project. the department of review found that the supports of the project as it also conforms to residential guidelines. the roof deck retains privacy to the adjacent neighbor's light well as it is set back five feet from the property line and the location of the neighbor's light well windows at the first floor renders the view angle virtually

impossible to see to and from the roof deck. therefore, staff deems there are no extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. i'm here to answer questions and i believe the requester has a presentation. >> thank you, mr. winslow. d.r. requester? you have -- >> hi. do you have my slide presentation? >> your slides aren't quite up yet, so i won't start your time. as soon as they are up, i will let you know. >> okay. >> i'm sorry. you're waiting for me to make you the presenter. there we go. my a-- good afternoon,

commissioners. thank you for hearing my view. i own 327 anniversary and have lived -- jersey and have lived and worked here over 10 years. my home is adjacent to those who purchased their house in 2017. this is prime example of clean victorian row houses built in the late 1800s. the ensuing 120 plus years some renovations but still maintain the scale. the size and scale is from the roof deck is not -- with the character of the homes. [indiscernible] while blocking light and significantly adversely impacting privacy of neighbors. the photo shown is taken from the backyard of the neighbor immediately behind the project site. existing skylights on the adjacent home and backyard.

the quiet we've enjoyed for decades will be impacted by the creation of a fourth story roof deck and use of these decks exacerbates sound transmission and will intrude on not only my privacy and quality of life, but my neighbors as well. a photo was taken from the neighbor's bedroom window across the street. adverse impact will be experienced by those surrounding the project as well. the sight guideline would expose people through the skylight, and other areas of the front yard. noise levels are exacerbated. and the sound corridor such as the street act as meg phones which intensify sound levels. evening light from the use of a roof deck would adversely impact neighbors as well as myself. further, there are currently no

single-family victorian homes in the vicinity with a roof deck and certainly none visible from the street or adjacent home. the heightened scale of the roof deck would overshadow and dominate the surrounding homes. the commission would be consistent in denying the roof deck as they have with other d.r.s and most recently at 308 duncan street. the roof deck does add height and bulk to the project. with the existing backyard, this represents open space square footage similar to the surrounding home. we have multiple public parks within a 15 minute walk. the neighbor's privacy concerns and preserving the character of the home can be addressed with a larger second story deck which the owners have outright refused to consider. the commission -- protecting the residential preservation of the character of the neighborhood.

unless the commissioner wants to set a precedent for roof decking on homes. my last opposition is the window -- installed in the proposed first floor laundry room. with this you'll see the living room area. there is no window. no control to ensure these are left open or not -- >> that is your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. mill brath, are you with us? >> i am here. can you hear us? >> we can. you have three minutes. your slides are up. >> thank you. my name is dan mill brath. my wife and i have lived in san francisco over 15 years. four years ago we moved into our house at 311 jersey. we love our house and our neighborhood and we hope to stay

here to see our girls graduate from the public school system. we want -- create for our girls share a converted living room. we want access to outdoor space with visibility of the surrounding city where we can host family and friends. this shows the current house on the left and this is the design we presented to the neighbor last year. our current design is on the right. throughout this process we have been sensitive to our neighbors and their concerns. we feel the d.r. unfairly minimizes the many changes and concessions we've already made. we listed them here. most notable is the roof deck is half the size it was in the original plan. it's set back five feet on each side and sits behind the cable roof no longer facing the street. our architect has worked for the city 20 years designing over 150 homes, including more than 35 in

noe valley. [indiscernible] to also keeping true to the esthetic of the current building and those around it. to better understand the impact -- renderings. this is a view from across the street at street level. as you can see, the new upstairs is consistent and in character with the houses. the top of the railing is visible, but the impact is minimal. this is a view from directly across the street. from here, the deck is completely hidden by the second story roof. this photo is of the back of our house from our small backyard notice our neighbor's current deck at 309 jersey in the upper right. this is a rendered view of the same. we believe this new design is modest, functional and consistent with the rest of the existing home. while our deck is certainly visible, it is not more

obtrusive than the larger deck next door. this last view shows the view from above. we're a family. we have no plans to have large parties on the roof. we just want a large outdoor space large enough for our needs. we've been respectful and made many compromises already. despite coordinated objections by a very organized set of neighbors, we believe our plans are modest and consistent with the neighborhood designs. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on this matter, you need to press star to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll be provided with one minute. when you hear the line is unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello, my name is patricia.

i am resident of several houses up from the proposed construction. born and raised in noe valley. seen many changes including roof decks and other decks. i absolutely understand the frustration from neighbors as we've been under near constant construction on our block alone in the last two and a half years. i just support the project because i believe we need to support families who need to expand their homes in order to stay in the city. please support the project. >> hello. i live on the south side. we've lived in our home for 52 years. a roof deck would be out of character and would allow view into our yard. i was recently diagnosed with

cancer. i spend most of the days in our yard inside the privacy of our gazebo which is covered on all sides except the front that faces the back of their property. the privacy has been a difference during my cancer journey. it provides a crucial part of my mental and physical health condition. for over half a century, my family has been accustomed to our privacy without intrusion from a third-level roof deck view. i thank you for your time. >> my name is pat. as you all know, i'm a licensed structural engineer, but i also happen to live in the city and live about two blocks away. my family lives a block away from this. my father, my nephew, my children. i want to testify that there is no neighborhood pattern for roof

decks. i know the neighborhood very well since i lived in it for 38 years. i'm not aware of any roof deck and i'm very concerned about creating a place where roof decks would be acceptable. they're not acceptable. my daughter has a number of children. there are so many parks around. a deck is not required. thank you. >> hello, there. my name is roger mcdonald and i live my wife directly across the street for -- since 31 years. and our serious objection is to the top one of two roof decks. it is directly across the -- in sight with our front bedroom. that's unacceptable invasion of

privacy. they plan for another roof deck, why put a roof deck way up on top? on the scale with the neighborhood, white noise and noise pollution. i really do encourage the extension of housing to accommodate the family and children, the concessions made were not made in response to the neighbors, but rather to those required by the planning commission. so, in some, the roof deck way too high, way too invasive of property all around. >> hello. my name is john. 367 jersey. i'd like to make four points.

one, 363 was the roof deck was removed for the very same reasons that it was out of character for a victorian building, problems with privacy and noise and light. and i also think the proponent to think about the safety of his children. we live in a neighborhood that's just downstream from twin peaks. very high winds all the time. i don't believe -- i looked at the plans, i don't believe this roof deck is safe for the children. and i know that's what he wants to use it for. so i think you should think about have the proper evaluation of safety made for young people who could be blown. you can walk down jersey street and be blown down the street. on the roof, the vortex that comes from twin peaks is excessive. thank you.

>> hello. my name is tristan. i own 309 jersey street since 2001. we renovated making many compromises for the neighbor's privacy and light and maintained the appearance of the neighboring home. it can be done, but instead of doing so the project sponsor makes false claims to justify the deck. noe valley victorians do not have roof decks visible from the street. from height and appearance to privacy and noise issues, the roof deck adverse impact is enormous. the 3d has been manipulated to show the peak of their roof lower than my roof when it is higher and the roof deck would be higher still. it will be visible from every point on every side of the street. the deck is not in context or

scale with the buildings and i -- removal and replace it with a gable roof like adjacent houses. i'd love to address the -- [indiscernible] possible. thank you. >> thank you. last call for public comment. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, ms. beaudro, one minute rebuttal. >> i would like to read some of the comments on their visuals. they are deceiving in that the elevations are -- the roof will be higher than -- roof and mine. and then the roof deck will be higher than that. again, when you're at that elevation, it exacerbates any kind of sound and dims your view. people are saying, you can't see in, but you will be able to.

so, i'd really like you guys to be consistent in your decisions around rooftop decks. thank you. >> you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> is it possible to put the slides back up and advance to slide 12? roof decks are common. there are over 60 decks within a four block radius. next slide, across the street, construction is under way now on jersey. one slide back, please. the plans shown here include a similar but much larger deck. this was approved last year by the city with no d.r.s. regarding privacy, a roof deck at the center of the house would provide no more visibility into neighboring properties than already exists from other

neighbor's second and third floor windows. the picture here is the relationship of the roof deck to the existing skylight next door. with five foot setbacks, the top of the -- ceiling in each room. the neighbors across the street, the sight lines are the same of those from the windows, except they're set 12 feet from the back. finally, concerns raised by the impact of lights does -- sun shines from the south. minimal new shade. the roof deck itself -- side will have no effect at all. in summary, nothing about the plans rises to the level of exceptional extraordinary requirement of the city. >> thank you. if commissioners have clarifying questions, they may call upon you later. but for now, commissioners, that concludes the public comment portion of this hearing. and the discretionary review is now before you.

>> i will be expressing my support for -- commissioner -- >> mr. winslow, is the roof deck compliant with the design review guidelines? >> yes. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> when i look at an old neon sign that's working or not working, i feel the family business that was in there. >> since 2009, citywide, sf

shines, has supported businesses and sites like the ones that receive new neon signs. >> you know, sf shines is doing an amazing job to bring back the lighting and the neon glow of san francisco. >> sf shines is such an amazing program, and i can't think of another program in another city that gives matching gunned funds to store owners, mom and pop owners, and if they've got a neon sign, they've really got a great way to advertise their business. >> this is a continuation of the sf shines program. >> focusing other neon signs is relatively new to us. of the seven neon signs, we've invested about $145,000.

>> a good quality sign costs more, but it lasts infinitily longer. as opposed to lasting five years, a good neon sign will last 15 to 20 years. >> in san francisco, the majority of neon signs are for mom-and-pop businesses. in order to be able to restore these signs, i think it gives back to your community. >> part of the project has to do with prioritizing certain signs in the neighborhood based on their aesthetics, based on their current signs, and base on the history. in the time that we've been here, we've seen a number of signs restored just on eddy street. >> there are a number of signs in the tenderloin and many more that are waiting or wanting to be restored. i have worked with randall and

al, and we've mapped out every single one of them and rated them as to how much work they would need to get restored. that information is passed onto sf shines, and they are going to rank it. so if they have x budget for a year, they can say all right, we're going to pick these five, and they're putting together clusters, so they build on top of what's already there. >> a cluster of neon signs is sort of, i guess, like a cluster of grapes. when you see them on a corner or on a block, it lights up the neighborhood and creates an ambient glow. if you havy got two of three of them, you've created an atmosphere that's almost like a movie set. >> some of the hotel, we've already invested in to get those neon signs for people to enjoy at night include the elk hotel, jefferson hotel, the verona, not to mention some

we've done in chinatown, as well as the city's portal neighborhood. >> we got the fund to restore it. it took five months, and the biggest challenge was it was completely infested with pigeons. once we got it clean, it came out beautiful. >> neon signs are often equated with film noir, and the noir genre as seen through the hollywood lens basically depicted despair and concentration. >> you would go downtown and see the most recent humphrey bogart film filled with neon in the background. and you'd see that on market street, and as market street got seedier and seedier and fewer people continued to go

down, that was what happened to all the neon strips of light. >> the film nori might start with the light filled with neon signs, and end with a scene with a single neon sign blinking and missing a few letters. >> one of my favorite scenes, orson welles is chasing rita hayworth with neon signs in the background. >> i think what the office of economic and workforce development is very excited with is that we'll be able to see more neon signs in a concentrated way lit up at

night for visitors and most especially residents. the first coin laundry, the elm hotel, the western hotel are ones that we want to focus on in the year ahead. >> neon signs are so iconic to certain neighborhoods like the hara, like the nightcap. we want to save as many historic and legacy neon signs in san francisco, and so do they. we bring the expertise, and they bring the means to actually get the job done. >> people in tenderloin get really excited as they see the signs relit. as you're driving through the tenderloin or the city, it pretty much tells you something exciting is happening here. >> knee an was created to make the night more friendly and advertise businesses. it's a great way of supporting and helping local businesses. >> there's so many ways to improve public safety. the standard way is having more

eyes on the street, but there's other culturally significant ways to do that, and one those ways is lighting up the streets. but what better way and special way to do that is by having old, historic neon signs lighting up our streets at night and casting away our shadows. >> when i see things coming back to life, it's like remembering how things were. it's remembering the hotel or the market that went to work seven days a week to raise their money or to provide a service, and it just -- it just -- it just

>> thank you to i think the members of the board of supervisors joining us today. i see superintendent safai, budget chair matt haney, supervisor mandelman. thank you for joining us as well as our treasurer, our assessor recorder torrez, the district attorney bodine, and i'm not sure. i think agot all the elected officials here. thank you so much. good afternoon to all the community members, the city staff, elected officials, i can