>> hearing for thursday, october 28 2021 and those meetings require everyone's attention andpatience . if youare not speaking, please commute your microphone . sfgov tv is streaming mishearing live and we will receivecomment on each item on today's agenda . comments are available by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering access code 2486 151 4664.

when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to , please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your linehas been unmuted that is your cue to begin speaking . each year will be allowed three minutes and when you have 30 secondsremaining you will hear a chime indicating yourtime is almost up .i will announce your time is up and take the next person . our practice is to call a quiet location, clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your televisioni'd like to take role at this time. commission president koppel . [rollcall] thank you commissioners. we expect commissioners chadand

diamond to be absent today but we do expect both to return in november . first on your agenda is considering items for continuance, 33971 epa the dwelling unit density exception for corner lot in residential district plan" amendment proposed for continuance until november 15 2021. items 2 a and b case number 2019 02 611 cua, 5116 third street a conditional use and variances proposed for continuance december 9 2021. further commissioners on your regular calendar items 9146 cua at 247 upper terrace conditional youth authorization expecting to be continued to december 9 2021. and under your discretionary review calendar , i'm sorry,

misterwinslow was it the 19th ? >> 1857 church street. >> item 11 a, 2020- 008529 the rp, the review portion hasbeen withdrawn . the item 11 b for case 2020 008529v ar, 1857 church street the variance project will need to be continued to the next zoning administratorsvariance during . no other itemsproposed for continuance . we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of the items proposed to be continued by pressing star 3. when you hear a line has been onmuted that will be our indication to begin speaking .

>> caller: this is after marx and i would have 1125 upper terrace and if for continuance at 247 upper terrace is granted please require that the project sponsors meet with the neighbors as agroup . i also request this item be given an indefinite postponement rather than thursday, december 9 because the parties can have the opportunity and i want to quote from the poll on a specialuse district text .thorough assessment of proposed large-scale residences that could adversely impact the area . this takes time. we need something later than december9 . there are many neighborhood concerns. the total square footage of 4081 gross square feet is a massive project for this narrow street. can the project be reduced in size? there is insufficient use of

space. there are questions regarding excavation which threatens the neighborhood home. with planned excavation the tree will survive? it doesn't seem as if would. removal of parking garages are of concern because of scarcity of parking. there aremany neighborhood concerns that need to be addressed . for a thorough assessment please continue the matter for an indefinite postponement. thank you. >> this is david penn calling in on behalf of theproject sponsors who i represent . we are the project sponsors are happy to continue this item as a neighborly gesture to engage further with the neighbors. the project, while the special use district was really

established to prevent the demolition or expansion of existing housing into a much larger housing while not providing any increased density or number of dwelling units, this project as you all well know proposes the demolition of the garage to provide brand-new housing to the city and tothe neighborhood and family size units . but just to reiterate the project sponsors are happy to engage with the community and we are working with supervisor madeleine's office to assist us in the community and the neighborhood and this engagement and we would like to continue the item to december . the project sponsors have been

in the process for some time and are eager to get the definitive direction from the commission . thankyou . >>. >> caller: do it now? hello, this is edwin marx. my name is evelyn marx and i am the present owner of 251 upper terrace in san francisco which is directly next to a proposed building project onlot 45 . i am deeply concerned about the proposed project on lot 45 at 247 upper terrace because it would impact me and my property tremendously in a negative way. notto mention the impact on the entire community of upper

terrace . >> clerk: i need to interrupt you just one moment but we are taking the matter of continuance on theproject so public comments need to be related to the matter . >> caller: so do we forget that until december 9? >> the proposal is to be continued until december 9. >> caller: thank you sir. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment on items proposed tobe continued, press star 3 to be added to the queue . >> this is georgia, i'm just curious because of this continuance thing in sb 330 . i mean, this is a confusing thing that i think is before the commission and for the public on these projects being continued. since the project sponsor apparently requested the

continuance , does this mean this ring doesn't count and we're starting from scratch or is this going to count asone ? i think that needs to be because it's confusing to the public and raises a lot of questions. ask i'll listen on thephone for my answer . >> caller: this is esther marx at 125 upper terrace and again i'm asking for the continuance if granted to be an indefinite postponement because of the many issues. >> you have the opportunity to speak already so we will clear the board and then invite those persons who have not yet spoken to the items proposed to be continued, press star 3 if you have any furthercomments . i did receive word from miss connor that projects for the

sponsor is requesting a continuance do not count towards the hearing limitation. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public public comment is close and the items proposed for continuance are before you . commissioner tanner. >> moved to continue all items as proposed. >> second. >> commissioners to continue all itemsas proposed, commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. >> i will continue item 2b to the december night. item 11 to the december 1 variance hearing.

>> clerk: thank you administrator. commissioners that will place us under commission matters for item 3 adopting tenants for october 14, 2021. we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to th minutes by pressing star 3 . seeing the requestto speak from members of the public public comment on the minutes are closed and they are now before you . commissioner imperial. thank you commissioners and on that motion toadopt the minutes .[roll call vote] >> clerk: so moved, that passes unanimously.

placing us on item 4, commission comments and questions. and commissioners, if you would indulge me for one moment before you get into your particularcomments , i wanted to introduce a proclamation from the planning commission for one kate herman stacy that will be retiring from her post very soon. and if i could just share my screen. i don't know how to share my screen. after all this, i've always had staff do it. i will forward it to staff and have them put it on while i read it to you. >> you can share. >> clerk: i can share now? okay.

that will tell uswhat the problem was . there's a proclamation now and if i could just read it into therecord . that whereas the mayor and board of supervisors will proclaim october 29 21 kate herman stacy day and whereas she never expected the time spent waitressing would prepare her for dealing with difficult situations in public places and whereas after graduating from the university of chicago law school in 1985 kate began her illustrious career of public service in the city attorney's office in 1989 and whereas since 2007 kate led the land-use team with intelligence, integrity, empathy along with her signature calm and eloquent demeanor and whereas as general counsel to the planning commission and planning department kate advised

numerous commissioners, five planning directors, by five zoning administrators and five review officers and whereas he earned the respect of all those whom she works and particularly that planning commissioners and planning department staff whereas enough paper between multiple chambers in city hall have crossed kate's desk and whereas after 32 years her thoughtfulness, creativity and wit will be deeply missed and whereas she has truly left her mark on the form a san francisco leaving the city in a better place than it would have without her influence. now therefore be it resolved the san francisco planning commission in recognition of the exceptional and extraordinary contributions to the city and county of san francisco by one kate and stacy issues this proclamation in her honor. commission president koppel i believe you have some words

followed by director fung. >> president: as i've been on this commission for five years now i'm back then couldn't have imagined what i would have seen and heard since then. so also to you. i can't evenimagine what you've seen and heard through the years and decades under your service . i wanted to thank you for properly on renting some new deputy city attorney's to help fill the void. it's going to be some big shoes to fill so i appreciate the fact that you brought on mister yang and everything will pretty much keep running smoothly because i'm sure you can't just put anyone in this position so i wanted to thank you personally for making that transition easy. selfishly i'm extremely jealous and i'm already counting my years even though it's not anytime soon but enjoy yoursel

, your free time. you've earned it and congratulations,you will be missed . >> a few kate, huge thanks to you for all you've done. for me, congrats on your retirement. i've had the good fortune of working with kate for i think two decades now. as city employee and asked the planning commission and now a director i can say without doubt she is one of my favorite city employees and i think many of the planning staff would show that just because she's a fellow wait staff person as well as the university of chicago grabbed she's just great at what she does. her advice is straightforward and practical and you've all seen herin action here . she is smart and dedicated but the most important thing is she's just fun to be around and makes our job more enjoyable.

any meeting with her is fine but weget to answer which is always great but i can go on . you know the giants have an award which they give to players who don't just do their job well but our outstanding people so if the city has had a willing, maybe we create one, the kate stacy award but thank you kate for everything you've done for us and we love you. and i think kate other commissioners want to talk but kate wants to say something as well >> go ahead . >> director koppel and planning department, i can't tell you how much i appreciated, here we go. working with you all and i feel this enormous fence of gratitude for the many years that i've had the privilege of

being able to work with so many dedicated and talented and creative people. this department is filled with so many impressive planners who tackled not only complicated problems, try also cutting edge approaches that push the limits and definitely push us as attorneys to think hard about our advice to becreative with you .this commission works hard every single week. the amount of work you do and thoughtfulness and intelligence with which you approach often very difficult cases and difficult zoning problems is impressive to see every week and i feel so lucky to have been ableto be a part of it . i respect and appreciate how much you try to keep pushing us forward in search of something better to make san francisco a better place and to keep sort of rolling with the changes on

trying different policies and solving tough issues. i love the hopeful attitude that we can do better that the whole department shows in this commission and director hillis and jonas, you all continue to be optimists that we can do better and in san francisco mostly we do. we are really at the forefront of so many issues that we in turn affect other places and that you concern and care for not only the city but the world has beena really wonderful thing to be a part of . and for 32 years i have loved working with the departmentand commission and you kept it interesting and challenging an never dull . thank you for caring so much , for including me in what you do and solving your plans, your problems and all of the problems that we face as a commission on a weekly basis

and at the planning department on a weekly basis. it's been an incredible two years and it has been so satisfying to be able to work with all of you and ijust send up and in august appreciation for having been part of it . so thank you. >> president: commissioner mar. i think you aremuted . >> city attorney stacy, she shows who she really is. it is the smile on her face but also sometimes i miss in her voice when she speaks for us. i have admired her when those dumb questions isometimes answer , she always brings understanding and kindness but

let me recommend to all of you if any of youare subscribing to linkedin , pull up kate's profile. there is a remarkablebeautiful photo on there that speaks about empathy . i wanted to have this on the screen today but it takes too long. follow-up linkedin and look at that and when you see that photo you know what kate stacy isall about . thank you katie. you have been a true asset to the team. >> commissioner fung. >> as the one here who has worked with kate thelongest , it's goneover three decades . thanks very much kate and good luck in your next ventures. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> maybe i'm the one with the shortest in this role so i'll follow up commissioner fung.

i've had my share of of work with city attorneys and i think what that you are part, you and your team are that you are not just sayingwell that's risky, we can't do that . you're saying how might we do this in a way that could limit the city's risk and achieve the policy objectives that we have. i think that attitude is what sets san francisco apart from other cities and allows us to push the envelope and sometimes we get it wrong or at least courts tell us we do but we figure it out and it's been great to work with you even as a planner and here as a commissioner your reputation precedes you in many instances and many rooms and i think in all in a great way i am sure thatwhen we think about public service , you are the type of public servant that is inspiring that we can be do really amazing things on behalf of the public and i hope you

feel so proud of the work that you've done and the other lawyers i'm sure you've inspired and counsel and help to serve the city as well. good luck and best wishes in whatever endeavors that you chooseafter you retire. >> commissioner imperial . >> i will miss this day. i didn't know that but in a short matter of time that i've worked with you i again just like others you set a good role. and good advice for us in the planning commission. i always look up to your advice as well and when you give advice, you give us not just the two scenarios are different scenarios that we have. and it's really tough and i don't know how you all do this with tackling different policies and how it may affect outcomes with us but again,

thank you for all the service you have provided to the city and you're one of the people reasons why the city is great. >> thank you so much. you are so generous and kind and i look forward to your great things from theapartment and from the commission . and i know kristen jensen also love working with you all and i know the team loves working with the planning department. you will continue to do great things together. thank you so much. >> thank you kate. if there are no nothing else from commissioners we can move on todepartment matters.item five . >> good afternoon commissioners. two announcements, one i wanted to let you all know we are officially back in the office next week starting november 1 so that's when we start with

our staff being in the office at leasttwo days a week . and possibly three days but it's our first time occupying 29 south bend and that's why you are looking forward to that. i wanted toannounce to another staffing change . adam garrett many of you have known and you've seen here at the commissions. he's leaving us.he's not going far though. he's going to the port to be their direct deputy director of planning for waterfront resilience programs. he's done with planningfor 19 years . all within our citywide planning division and as you know like kate he's passionate about what he does and thoughtful. he's been involved in most of our long-range planning work from climate resilience to managing our city design work to developing a better streets plan to connect sf so he will

be sorely missed but he will be close by and working with us on our resilience work. so congrats to adam and those aremy announcements for today if you have any questions . >> for this, i know you've been working with the climate resiliency group . if you have any prospects of replacements for that. >> we don't yet. we're eating with or i'm meeting with the citywide team to go about their work. i mean, i'll say also which i should have mentioned again, it's a bit of a tough budget year. so we've got the revenue numbers in for october which we thought were on a more positive trajectory but turned out to be fairly poorcompared to budget so we looking at it even being $10 million shortfall this year . so filling vacancies is difficult. i'm meeting with the citywide

division and looking at work programs to prioritize work but clearly that isimportant work that we will continue todo . so . >> i hope we still can continue to work through the planning department. >>. >> commissioner tanner. >> i have one question and first i'll ask adam that advice but with lots of planning a lot of things are happening there so definitely it's a great place to have a skilled planner. i was curious, it seems like sometimes when we're getting folks calling in the continuance is confusing for folks. i don't know what people see on the screen at home.would it bepossible to have a slide that lists what items are being continued folks can read along with it ?

just to improve the communication because it seems people are confused and they hangout because they don't understand what meeting it is or what's happening with that. some people realize we're not going to catch anybody but i was curious if youcould give insight on that . >> it comes up on the screen but your idea of sharing the screen that lists the continuances and the items that are up for continuance is something we can do especially now that jonathan is fully adept at sharing his green. >> thank you director. it's certainly something we can consider and possibly work with sfgov tv to have the ticker note continuances. so let me put my offices brain trust to work on that and see what we come up with. >> i don't want to make my

work, just trying to see if we can helpful to little bit. >> that concludes directors announcements. we can go to item 6 board of supervisors. there is no report from the board and historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> erin star,manager of legislative affairs . first the land use committee with supervisor romans ordinance i would update the city's inclusionary program to among other things ensure that the tenure of the market rate unit and the bmr units in the same development match. commissioners you heard this item october 14 and voted unanimouslyto recommend the ordinance to the board. the latest hearing that are about five public commenters all in support of the ordinance . there's among thecommittee members was very positive and supervisorasking and melt are all requested to be added as cosponsors .

committee then recommended the other to the full board . next the committee considered supervisor chance ordinance that would repeal article 12 . you heard this item on october 14 and recommended approval modifications modification you propose was amended the definition of manufacturing two and 32 excluded from the definitionof production or assigning of the true assisted with well i guess exportation. atthe hearing there was no public comment . kelly's rostrum wanted to incorporate the planning commissions recommendation . but wasn't able toget the amendment strapped in time the item was continued for one week to allow those americans to be finalized. the vote to continue the item was passed unanimously finally the committee considered supervisor haskins orders that would require conditional use authorization to change the use of the laundromat .this item appeared in front of the planning commission october 14 and on order to recommend approval with modification .

the proposed modifications include one to revise laundromat definition to require washing and drying as part of the services to to amend the ordinance to approve more quantifiable agreements. supervisor asking incorporated the second to provide stability to planning staff in analyzing this finding did notinclude the modification to revise the laundromat definition to require washing and drying as part of the service. through the hearing there were six public commenters all in support of the ordinance . after public comment there was no significant assessment but supervisor melgar didn't have to be added as a sponsor.the committee then forwarded the amended ordinance to the full board. the full board thisweek supervisor haskins forbids noted controls in chinatown north beach and oak street at the second read, supervisor mandolins , mandelman's ordinance that would extend the sunset dates for cannabis retail and health planning

police codes passed on second read . supervisor weldon's ordinance that would delete life sciences and medical special use district after its first read. supervisor mandolins ordinance that would prohibit the loss of housing services to add a sensory dwelling unit . the appeal for 35 ventura avenue to reach november 9 but the board did take up the appeals of the eir from 469 and the proposed project would demolish the existing surface parking lot which has 176 parking spaces and replace it with 495 dwelling units, 4000 the ground floor retail and envelopeground parking garage. the project would provide 73 affordable dwelling units . the pellets were represented at the hearing by johnoverly . in their appeal statements we found the department could analyze technical issues in the initial study rather than the eir and the department's

reliance on state and local code and dvi review process. they believe the findings to be inadequate and disagrees with the departments included in the historic resources impact. risks of other projects can potential to result gentrification and displacement and the appellant disagrees with the planning commission's decision to rejectalternative that would have resulted in less than significant impact . in their remodel the department pursued each of these assertions point by point citing building code standards on the report. notably they also responded to the facts technically under the purview of cqua. stating while some displacement may occur is not a natural result of gentrification and many factors influence resulting from this development not supported by the available literature on the subject.

there were six speakers in favor of the appeal including heritage and someone on filipina and in aproximally 14 speakers in favor of denying the appeal . midmarket coalition, founding action coalition, san francisco building trades council, the filipino community development organization and sf senior power during the hearing supervisors disagreed with the department and city position on the standards of eir adequacy and raise concerns about displacement and displacement analysis for the project . several supervisors did not agree it was adequate to rely on state codes . questions were raised about the historic resources impact analysis and concerns were raised about the alternatives for the significant impacts identified in the eir. there were two votes on this issue and the first was to deny

the appeal and the vote failed on supervisors haney and safai voting to uphold. because we're all saying goodbye to kate stacy, i can't tell you how much the legislative team has relied on kateover the years and i like to say thank you for your service and all the help you've given us over the years .best of luck . >> thank you mister starr. if there are no questions from members, we can move on to general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on item of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction . with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address th commission will be afforded with the item in this meeting. each member may address the commission for up to three minutes . if speakers exceed the 15 minute limit public comment may

be moved to the end of the agenda. members need to press star 3 to be added to the queue.you will receive two minutes and when you hear that your line has been a muted that's indication to begin speaking. >> caller: this is sue hester. i want to acknowledge kate stacy as well.members of the public depend on kate stacy's to give honest and impartial advice on planning issues to the planning commission and other commissions in the city including the board of supervisors. thank you kate. we really appreciate yourhard work. secondarily , there was some board meetings last night and the planning department one two cases or two appeals. one was a matter that's been reported to the planning commission 2722 february 27, 2024. street which the owner was trying to make and run around

the planning department and the planning commission and you should get a report on thatfrom the zoning administrator . the other case that was at the planning commission was a variance is a case that has not yet been to the planning commission because the owner was attempting to do a variance without filing a building permitapplication . even the rule of variance first that was 408 412 portland street. those were unanimous decisions from the court of appeals. i just wanted to be accurate. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. this is georgia. the commission should please continue the discussions that

have emerged recently during various objects on the importance of the rearmament block open space. my email comments for today include two projects from the past few years showing a foreign actor that has obliterated the national excavations. that would only expand the house but spread out into the remainder of the lot beyond the 45 percent line and all the lot lines of adjacent properties. this causes the loss of a natural rearguard replaced by his retaining walls and so-called patios that adjust more cement with the drain. right now i have a project across the street that i sent photosin illustrating this loss . it's a huge cement box that will hold one subterranean uni . not only is there loss of a rear yard but the energy and waste of materials used will

this unit is extraordinary and exceptional . as the number of dump trucks use the hallway the soil is over 1000 cubic yards the soil has been gone. this is a very bad temper that has negative effects due to the loss of the rear yard as well as cumulatively on the open space. please continue to have these discussions on the commission on the rear yard open space for projects whether they are lega demolitions or extreme alterations in the residential neighborhoods please ask your staff to consider this as well and good luck to mrs. stacy and everybody have a happy halloween and take care . >> this is jeff bassi here. i'm calling in support of the cannabis store 3415 california street.

>> this is general public comment foritems not on today's agenda. that item will be coming up in the regular calendar meeting . press star 3 when we call that matter. members of the public last cal for general public comment again for items not on today's agenda . to confirm press star 3. seeing no additional requests general public comment is closed and we can now move on to our regular calendar commissioners for items seven . case number 2020 item 05729 cu . this is a conditional use authorization. mister may, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes i am. good afternoon commissioner president. i just would like to congratulate kate stacy on her upcoming retirement . it's been apleasure working with you and i wish you all the best . you're going to be missed.

commissioners you have a request for conditional use authorization to permit the demolition of the three-story single-family dwelling measuring approximately 11,051 square feet and the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling entering 9341 where feet with 1a dumeasuring 799 square feet . the project proposes to parking spaces at approximately 2185 square feet of usable open-space on several terraces for both the principally permitted unit and a du. conditional use authorization is required for the removal of the zoning district. the subject property is located within the conservation area which was established by the planning commission in 1996 to protect the local street from environmental degradation. in accordance with the commissions resolution establishing a conservation

area the project will employ several best benefit practices including planning to avoid disturbance, avoiding the groundwater sources by minimizing excavation, reducing low-impact landscaping, installing sedimentation runoff and a pump to deliver sewage to the city system.these measures have been confirmed by this commission and storm water control plan and will be further explained by the project sponsor in their presentation. and environmental planning staff is on hand to answer any questions you may have regarding these properties. the department or sorry, the project was reviewed by the departments design review team where it was noted the proposed treatment with vertical siding is not in keeping with the character defining features of the eligible is the district. while preservation staff have determined the subject property is not a contributor to the district staff would recommend a condition of approval the

sponsor continue to work with planning staff for a treatment that better complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. commissioners and the publication of the staff report that apartment has received one additional letter of support in the neighborhood 24 25th avenue apartment finds the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the plant and the local street conservation area. although the project result in demolition of an older more naturallyaffordable dwelling the project closes the addition of a du which will add to the city's housing stock . the apartment finds the project to bedesirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions .>> thank you . >> we are here. >> good afternoonmembers of the commission, this is glenda fine . thank you for taking the time to review the conditional use approval for the demolition of

the single-family home that is considered a non-historic resource . we are proposing a smaller single-family home for our client and his two young children trying toraise their family . we have the support of the two adjacent neighbors, the one to the last and the one to the south at 25th avenue. and we are have been into medication with the neighbor at large. as you can see in this diagram the site is large and the lot measures around 26,432 square feet or 0.6 acres. the main impetus for new construction is to build single-family house that has less square footage and to add and a du. it's the buildable area allowed by the planning code to arrange the current structure for the footprint of 8311 square feet and the fund will have a

footprint of 5963 square feet leaving 78 percent of the lot as open space. with the intention of creating a continuing the presidio. the proposal has not only a much smaller footprint but also uses reduces the area by 20 percent from 11,002 9321 and adds a adu of 81 square feet. like number three we aim not only to reduce the footprint of this existing building but also to reduce the high home as a single-story structure. versus a three-storystructure allowed by the planning code . the slide in blue is an envelope of code with the average height of 30 feet . the orange is existing average height of about 15 with a

minimum of 15 and a half feet and a maximum of 17 and then the proposed 15 feet in and five inches. on slide number four is a slide that compares the existing at the bottom and proposed at the top with the intentionally moved the garage to be more in line with the driveway and paving areas. on the side as giving access to the garage for the neighborhood kids to play. on slide five is a view of the house existing at the bottom in the larger context of the neighborhood. in the slide number six, we compare notable neighborhoods of 890 designed by joseph with forklifts.

they have the opposite exchange of the neighborhood and 890 spaces within the park in the same way for interfaces to that studio. on slide number seven we compare seacliff with 535 designed by jade margaret highlighting the massing and the detailing of the exterior material. on slide number eight is something that is we want to present a small change that would not include in your packet and was the result of a easement. this easement was not recorded in thetitle of the property and we were only made aware of it when we first brought it up . stated here it's a small change to the easements. and we basically movedit to the north . it's in the orange, it's the

outline of the buildingthat you have in your current packet . in the orange areas are the areas that we are proposing is subtract and in blue are the small areas we are proposing to add for a net add 28 square feet and we submitted this change to the planning staff and confirmed it will comply with the code and should you be inclined to support the position of these requests, we will provide plans for final review. any questions. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes our presentation >> that means we should take public comment . members of the public this is youropportunity to address the commission on this item by

pressing star 3 . no requests tospeak by members of the public. public comment on this matter closed . >> i don't think the sponsor is taking this too far. this is a neighborhood that does accommodate larger houses and we call on commissioner in. >> thank you. i'm curious i have aquestion for the project sponsor . are you planning for the adu to be rented or to be used for a family member? just curious. >> we anticipate excuse me commissioner, thisis dan . we anticipate that the adu will be used by a family member.

>> thank you so much, that's my question. >> commissioner moore. >> codecompliance building is also approved . >> commissioner tanner. >> i had two questions, one about the adu to see if you could describe a bit how the access to that building would be, that part of the building with her. family members are great and maybe in the future as a family member we don't know. just how the persons living there would get in and out of the topography of the building. >> can i have slide number two? it is basically at the lower level of the level and the access is through, is facing the east part of the yard so to have a separate path onto the adu. >> that is my only question.

i would support this project as well. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this item and just for clarity, i heard they were requesting modification . >> that's correct. >> so you are proposing a modified project . >> the motion is to improve the modification. >> very good commissioners. on that motion then to approve this project as modified by the project sponsor withconditions, commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] >> so moved, that motion passe unanimously .

for the benefit of members of the public that were not with us earlier item 9 or 2.7 upper terrace has been continued to december 9 and the discretionary review of 1857 church street has been withdrawn. commissioner that will place us on item 8 2020 090 5915 california street. this is a conditional use authorization . staff is prepared to make a presentation. >> yes i am. >> first off i'd like to wish stacy a happy retirement and say thank you. good afternoon members of the planning commission . the project is for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 29.2 03 to allow the demolition of the

building 1279 square-foot one unit two story residential building under construction. >> a 5389 square-foot per unit, four story residential building that has been an rn one residential mixed use district . project five is located within the other richmond neighborhood and surrounding development consists of a single and multi unit residential building in the immediate area consists of 24 story structures on opposite blocks consisting of residential and mixed-use buildings. the proposed residential building will contain three dwelling units. the first and second floor residential units will have approximately 1600 and 29

square feet of floor area. the third floor residential unit will have a proximally 1100 and 83 square gross square feet of floor area and fourth floor residential units will have approximately 950 square feet of floor area. the project includes residential units and two-bedroom residential units with optional parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces. the project provides proximally 1051 square feet of open space from the rear deck and rear yard. the project as nice as the team on the residential guidelines. the project sponsors have visions that have been made in their slide presentation. today the department has not received public comment in supportof or in opposition to the proposed project . the department recommendation

is for the project is approved conditions as indicated in the commission and just to know commissioners there's a correction on the report which the project sponsors applied t that . the current occupied existing building since april 2021 and not april 2020.so this was a great dissertation andi'm available for any questions . >> thank you sharon. >> mister long, we find you. mister long, are you with us. >> i am here, sorry. >> clerk: do you need me a ton your phone often marks just a

second. let me find your phone.>> can you hear me? >> you have five minutes. >> sorry about that. president, this is john long, architect for the project. maybe have slide one. this project removes an existing market risk category single-family house with the new three unit larger rate . the proposed project would meet the long density zoning which is three units. slide number two please. this is project for families between the two story commercial building on the corner towards the east and a three-story to unit over garage building towards the west.

slide number three please. the existing house on the 25 foot by 90 foot lot is approximately 1497 square feet. existing house has two bedrooms and a single-family house and there is no evidence that the single-family house has been subject to rent control. the building presents a 28 foot wall with small second-story mike wells to the east and the west property has a 31 foot property line.slide number four please. this shows the rear fagade of the adjacent building to contract with the property. slide number five. this is our rendering comparing the proposedproject with the photograph of the existing building .the new four-story building will contain three units and three bedrooms and is

located on the first two floors. the two-bedroom unit will be on the third floor and the smaller two-bedroom will be located on the fourth floor. these units designed to be naturally affordable and the garage allows for three classify spaces. slide number six. this would show close-upof the entryway which we have modified to with wall to increase exposure to the street and a more welcome presence . slide number seven please. this slide shows the view from california lookingto the east . slide number eight please. and the view from the corner of california and 21st. i will briefly go through the plans of thebuilding . slide number nine. the first floor contains the three-car garagethe third bedroom of the three-bedroom unit . slide number four. this is the second floor of the three-bedroom unit that shows three bedrooms in the rear,

sorry and two bedrooms in the front and the living room at the back . slide number 11 please would be the third floor containing the two-bedroom units with smaller living room and also mohler deck in the back slide number 12 contains the fourth floor which is a smaller three-bedroom unit 900 square feet. slide number 13please . regarding that neighborhood alterations we held a pre-application meeting on may 14 2020 and had a follow-up conversation with the property owner and tenants occupyingthe upper upper flat . further requests for the rear fagade was reduced to the rear fagade to impact the adjacent debt. there wereother no other comments from any neighbors . we also during that time if they asked us to modify the 12 foot pump out on the back so slide number 14. we also removed the proposed

fifth floor roof deck and minimize the shape of it so this shows a comparison between the original proposed deck and modified version. slide number 15 please. so the zone encourages density and recognizes gentrified housing and the proposed building use in sizes consistent with the neighborhood as it is a mixed-use family building on commercial retail services. proposed project adds housing to the neighborhood thathas historically been limited to units . the demolition increasing in size is required to allow parking. the architecture of this proposed project respects existing developments acknowledging adjacent three-story buildings with the three-story second map and day windows. the fourth floor down toward the street minimizes the

appearance of the building. the project meets all requirements necessary to grant conditional use authorization under section 317 planning code and is consistent with general plans and design guidelines. position of new family-style housing that is affordable and appropriate in a neighborhood that is lacking housing will benefit san francisco and meet its greeting bowl. i am available if you have any questions . >> iq. that concludes your presentation we should put it to the public this is your opportunity to address this item by pressing star 3 . seeing no requests to speak from members of the public public comment on this matter is closed and the item is now for you . >> commissioner tanner. [roll call vote]

>> i want to thank the project sponsor for bringing this item to us . i want to thank them and it's a project that we need more of in san francisco and we need to think about this in context hour of our discussion on the density that we still want to see versus some of the things that we may be concerned about seeing with some of the other state laws put into place so thank you and we can put that into our for a future session about this, building still retaining some of the eir. i think it can still be instructive for what we might see and certainly for some of our forward competition. i want to ask the project sponsor we saw in your brief questions that came up from neighbors when you met with them. it seems like you were able to resolve someissues . for you also able to resolve the light well and if you could kind of explain a little bit about that i knew there was

mention of style and perhaps in the adjacent properties and perhaps you could help us understand how that challenge may have been resolved if it was. >> i think we can hear you. >> do i unmute? >> you are on you did. >> yes, we had really good conversations with the landlords of the building and also the tenants . i believe that accepted the fact that ... >> you still able to hear me? sorry about that. what i was stating is that the they agreed that was okay for that to be removed and there was no further discussion about putting the skylight. i think their main concern was

just making sure that the rear fagade aligned with their fagades because the planning code does allow our building to go out another further i believe three or four feet mentally and it was going to rectally affect their debt so they were verypleased with the fact that we were willing to work with them on that .>> i'm glad to hear that they were able to come to a solution and if you had a number of comments that were written and what you had with those meetings it sounds like they've been addressed at least pace on the lack ofcomments that we're hearing from neighbors . so i will be happy to be supportingthis project today . >> thank you. >> commissioner more. >> i'm happy to support the project but i agree with commissioner tanner that this project serves as the prototype of what we'd like to see for unit size as well as the very sensitive treatment of the rear walls by stepping back and leaving sunlight and exposure for adjoining buildings to the

south. i've found it a agreeable project and approve. >> i have a question to the project sponsor. i believe he's also agreed with commissioner tanner when it comes to discussion of item 9. one question to the project sponsor is for the existing tenants. i understand they are in agreement that they will lead by the end of this year. i'm wondering as to what kind of notice that you have put to them and if it ever returns to a rental market, then the tenant should be notified of their rights. i'm wondering if that's something that you as an owner discuss with the tenants regarding those issues or whether that's why for us in

the planning department should be aware of differences to. >> commissioner imperial, the owner of our planning department i believe is on you tears i hope you can join us but again i'm trying to work withthe technology so arthur, are you able to discuss this ? >> i am. >> commissioner the intention of the tenants is they are searching for ahouse . so they were made aware of our elements and told us that they need some time to look for a house in san francisco to purchase. we haven't, we've given them the way to, you don't know the timing so in terms of their economy and when they plan to

leave.>> again, just for the planning department i think it's also good that even though the owner or the tenants are looking for a home ownership in the future i think just to be consistent in terms of knowing just cause protections for the tenants . but i thank you for that statement and answering. >> thank you. >> if there's nothing further wehave a motion to item and this item to be approved with conditions as amended by staff . on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote]. >> that motion passes unanimously 520 and will place

us on item 10. for case number 2021 item 009 three 5415 california street with conditional use authorization. >> yes jonas, thank you. >> afternooncommissioners . sorry about that. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant planning code section 202.2 03 and 713 to establish a new kind of associated storage space doing business as elements seven within the commercial space of a one-story building at 3415 california street in the lower village shopping center. the site is located within the neighborhood commercial shopping center sbs zoning

district and the ncs district requires conditional use authorization or establishment of canvas. the location complies with the 600 foot rule established on the planning code section 202.2 and the closest other approved cannabis retailer is 1530 feet away from the site at 2845 jerry boulevard. the rules are 150 parker avenue presidio hill school, san francisco university high school, claire elementary school, wallenberg school, doctor william elementary school, which are greater than 4500 feet away from the site and additionally there are other sensitive locations which are the kids on camera tv acting drama school, miller rachel nursing school, the little school and the russian

hill school which are all again more than 1000 feet away from the sitethese locations are not identified as schools under the planning code .however in response to context with the proposed leaders while remaining transparency along with a strong security presence and staffmonitoring the storefront . the project is not authorized for on-site smoking for vaporizing cannabisprojects . the proposed hours are9 am to 8 pm . the project is proposing minor tenants augmentation such as storage and bathrooms. the project is also proposing that willbe under the accepted site . the department has received a total of26 letters in support and one letter in opposition . letters of support encourage the revitalization of the bridge including safety security presence and the business models for health and education such as elements

seven plans to rain. the letter of opposition expressed concerns about smoking of cannabis projects in the vicinity of the site and additional security issues that the business might bring. and section 1316 and equity applicant is minitab interest in up to four locations in san francisco. the applicant has other locations, these locations at 4001 after street have been 84 street and 1541.3 are currently under review. in summary the project complies with the zoning and policies of the general plan and provides new business by activating current green space and complies with the city's equity program. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i am available forany questions . the applicant has a presentation to make and i wil hand it over tothem now . >> thank you, project sponsor

are you with us . >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, this is joel flack from elements seven and i'm here with chante . i want to mention that for your benefit. excellent, thank you sir. german i might just take five minutes to do a brief presentation and then maybe i can join your questions. a couple of sections i want to run through. really talking about our visions for the site and how we treat our workers. some of the community outreach we're going to do and we can go into our operationalplanning . and i believe if you could advance another slide please. this is based out of san francisco, we have a diverse team of people in los angeles

but they're also located to the san francisco about18 months ago . actually just they started to meet out of losangeles up here. everyone has very different backgrounds . my background is marketing for 11years in asia . i worked for a large international media and content company and i gotinto cannabis about four years ago . chante who is the social equity applicant owns 51 percent of this business. as a 20 year history in the hospitalityindustry in san francisco . currently works just around the corner on the project site as well as he worked and the financial district for many years. next slide.we have a lot of really good solid retail experience across traditional

retail so our head of retail is jen. barry and jen spent 15 years in anthropology and has worked in cannabis for three years with nick and me, helping us on systems and experience and then as i said i was with tessie for 11 years on grant park and we worked with themfor another five years . looking after sales and marketing. existing retail operations, we have operations across several locationsin california . the two predominant stores today are i think rio dell which has been in marina which is down in the monterey castro villa area just two hours. they're very compliant,

exceptionally wellrun . i'm very proud of the design standards. we are very focused on using data and analytics to understand what our customers want. next slide. i have great relationships in the industry and with other bodies. us cw is a partner ofours . united food and commercial workerslabor union , out of california, we work closely with them and with ucla, we did a project a couple of years ago with their school of management students and i'm really proud of the relationships with cannabis which are both university groups that we represent . americans, latinosand hispanics . next slide. ongoing engagement we know we held two public meetings and we areholding the second one today to address , discuss the concerns of local residents and business owners. i would say the first public meetings were 50-50 on the

negative andpositive's . on the negative comments we addressed most of it frankly was fear and concern and some reeducation of the cannabis industry. we talkabout safety and security , loitering. no consumption on-site. and just this overcomes a lot of the concerns of the local plan. we offered the commissioners to talk about reeducation programs. we've done some work with local business owners from laurel village that came to our sister location in berkeley and we were able to see how the business is run and then we

also proposed in the events that we were successful trying to enter into some sort of minimum standard with the village merchants association to talk about parking and security and other factors. we absolutely want to be held accountableby the local community . next slide. we want to develop a cannabis wellness lab. some of the regulars we've got. some of the local concerns that we obviously addressed in every location we want to go into. we'll look at parking. i think is that my 30 seconds? >> that is your time actually. commissioners may have additional questions for you after public comments. members, this is your opportunity to address the

commission on this item by pressingstar 3. when the light indicates you have been unmuted that is your cue to speak . we will each have three minutes. >> caller: this is jeff riley calling and in support of the cannabis store at the california street. i'm a regular shopper at laurel village and definitely support the idea for this store. laurel village i think needs fresh businesses to revive the mall there. especially after the shutdowns and several restaurants going out of business. and i cannabis store would also avoid neighborhood folks having to drive across the city to get other neighborhoods toget the medicine . and basically from what i see on and 17 is putting together a great business with a stick and

is wellness center and is going to create a neighborhood advisory council to address neighborhood concerns and keep the business aligned with the needs of the committee. it's going to bring more safety to the neighborhood with good outdoor lighting and security staff which can be discreetly positioned inside the door. and regular patrols through the village without uniformity. cannabis store will open up in thelaurel heights neighborhood eventually . so it may as well have a well-run business with a good business plan taking that slot and heading back to the community. i also heard that element seven is planning to donate money back to the community taking advice from their neighborhood advisory board on where to put their donation dollars to support the needsof the surrounding community .

element seven is also going to provide training, fair wages and career opportunities for their employees . also addressing the concerns by adjusting their business model based on community feedback they've already made several changes to their plans based on previous feedback so i will always be a supporter of underprivileged as well as black and brown communities so i support it wholeheartedly. thank you. >>. >> my name is scott marengo, canyou hear ? >> we can hear you. >> i'm calling in support of the dispensary in laurel village. my family has lived on street for 20 years and the laurel hill co-op preschool, washington hi, alice on you and

we feel that a couple of things.one is the management of this organization element seven is a very professional, professionally run organization. they're going to have good emphasis on security, on education. and also i want to say that the equity of representative sean he deluca was involved. i've known him for many years and he is a longtime sfresident , aresponsible parents and certainly a really good human being . so to just on the character side of things i'd like to support that man. thank you. >>. [inaudible]

>> i'm not sure but i'm having difficulty with the comments. i can barely hearthat you are on a .>> i think it's somebody that's gotthe tv on the background . >> color, are you with us? go ahead. >> and i on now? >> you are. >> when it is kathy denton and i'mpulling for the laurel heights neighborhood association . this project is in the laurel heights shopping center and at the community meeting okay, i'll try to close the computer. that should do it.

it's not me. i close my computer. can i continue? >> clerk: yes. >> the community meeting project sponsors said they would provide roving private security. and they even said they would have them be in plainclothes to fit in with the family-friendly character of laurel village. so i'm kathy devon chelsea from the laurel heights improvement association and we request a condition of approval that they provide this exterior private security and that it be a mandatory condition of approval beprovided during operating hours which is what they said they were going to do . as you know there have been some burglaries these type of operations and their summary today only indicated some kind of podium security. didn't talk about this writing private roving security they

said they were going to have so association does not have a position against the project but we would appreciate a mandatory condition of approval thatthey provide the exterior private security during operating hours . >> thank you. >> caller: my name is natalia thurston, i'm an attorney and i've been a familyattorney for 10 years based out of san francisco . i just most recently worked as a typical support consultant for the san francisco office of cannabis with josh black and the elements 17 and i've been working with them for the past six months or so with just an sf equity applicants and i'm calling in to support their

dispensary on laurel on california in laurel village. i have found. >> if you're part of the project teamyour opportunity to speak . >> i'm not part of the project team, i'm just calling to support the project . as somebody that's has worked on other projects with josh black and his team and i've found them to be very reliable and knowledgeable and experienced so ithink they would be rate operators for that location . that's all i wanted to make this comment to support their professionalism and the experience thati've had working with them on otherprojects . so thank you very much . >> thank you, members of the public on call. seeing no additional requests to speak public comment is closed. the item is now for you

commission. >>. [roll call vote] >> i am in support of the project. it would be nice to see a storefrontbeing filled . i'm in support. >> is that emotion?>> motion to approve. >> no further deliberation. seconded to approve this matter withconditions, on that matter commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously, 5 to 0 and we will place this under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on today's

agenda . number 12 casenumber 2021 -00267 erp . 4763 19th street for a discretionary review for benefit of members of the public and dr reflectors and sponsors the dr requester is provided three minutes and the project sponsor and that there are multiple clusters in this case will be provided with case a six minute presentation time. members of the will have 12 minutes for comment and dr requester's and project sponsor will receive a oneminute remodel mister winslow . >> thank you. good afternoon president, hold, vice president moremembers of the commission. david winslow planning staff architect . i also want to say congratulations to kate stacy who sage advice and professionalism were delivered

with grace and fostered our work. congratulations on your new life and retirement. before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of buildingpermit application121 .0217.4759 . to remove a two-story portion at the rear of an existing building and construct a two-story horizontal addition to an existingtwo-story over basement single-family home . the new rear position would be set back from the last and eas property lines . the project would increase supplies of the existing residents from 2395 square feet to 3100 48 square feet. the site is a 25 foot wide by proximally 74 and a half the lateral and a slowing lot containing an existing two-story single-family home which is categorized as a

potential resource built in 1910. and it's flanked by two-story houses over basements on 19th street. there are three dr requester's. the first john car 56 eagle street, resident of the property to the southwest of the proposed project was concerned that the project will negatively impact midblock over open space and cause loss of privacy. the second requester james conti of 50 eagle street resident of the adjacent property to the south is of the project is concerned it is uncharacteristically deep and tall in the context of other buildings that define common midblock opening space and due to their depth the projects will impact privacy to midblock open space. specifically the project does not conform to the residential design guidelines allowing and

depth to be compatible with existing sales and articulate buildings to minimize sunlight. the third requester matthew marquis 4769 19th street resident of the adjacent property to the immediate west is concerned that the projects impact on street parking and the vehicle accesswould negatively impact public safety and health .and that the proposed addition would also impact the midblock open space. the proposed alternatives are to eliminate the upper floor of the addition. to date the apartment has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project . planning departments review of this proposal confirms the support for this project conforms to the code and residential design guidelines . it's worth noting the original plans for 311 erroneously depicted the required rearguard

line and proposed projection extended yacht that allowable open area. project sponsor was made aware of this and modified the design to be compliant with the rear yard. this change was we noticed to the immediate neighbors for a 10 day period. in yourpackage the original plan and corrected version are included for comparison . section 136 25 a of the planning code allows two-story productions with five foot wide side setbacks to extend beyond this required rearguard dwelling.the rear extension in this case does maintain those five foot setbacks. which also helps happens to be coincident with the residential design guidelines illustrated in design height and depth of the buildings to be compatible with existing scale at midlife open space incorporating these

side cutbacks. due to the topographyof the subject property that is lower than all three adjacent dr requester's , the project allows the upper access to light and air and access to midblockopen space . it's also worth noting the dr requester's property also extends deeper into the rear o their lots and would be allowed by today's planning . the windows of the proposal are sites located not to present undue impacts to privacy and there was an allegation of undue or unwarranted permits or additions occurring in the past. staff was not able to find any record of past illegal work and if there were illegal work that was brought to the apartments enforcement team. therefore in light of all these circumstances, staff deems there are no acceptable or understood exceptional

circumstances inapproving the project. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer questions . >>president: thankyou mister winslow. we should take the first dr requester mister hammond . are youwith us ? >> i am . >> president: three minutes. >> can you pull up slide one? >> i've gotten an here. can you hear me? now you can hear me. i apologize. i just need to turn off my phone. okay, now can you hear me? >> clerk: we're going to get a echo .

>> can you hear me without an. >> we can hear you fine. >> i got an on my end but i will work through it. can we start the timer, reset thetimer please ? >> clerk: i just started it si . >> my name is stephen hammond, counsel for matthew marquis. he lives next door to the project. slide one as you can see shows the dwelling which is the project in mister markey's home right to left.he does not object to the project sponsors loweredtwo-story extension . the objects only to the projects third top story rearguard addition because it will leave his property feeling blocked in and cut off from the mid- block open space. note the matthews rearguard addition is limited to one story and the uphill neighbors

visualaccess to midblock open space. regarding matthew's home , note the lower story windows and glass doors which provides a strong source of light and air tohis kitchen andmain living area . slide to please . this shows the view from matthews kitchenmain living area. the french doors to the left are the main sources of light . it is particularly troubling that the project sponsors submitted drawings omitted the existence of the master bedroom and windows instead showing this area as mere effects with no habitable space below. slide three please. the graphic shows how the project is out of scale with matthews property and would extraordinarily block matthews visual access to mid-block ope space and leave his property blocked in . project sponsor made specific dimensions of this graphic but beyond dispute is the third top story was would unreasonably

leave matthew boxed in and cut off from the midblock open space. matthews kitchen, main living area and master bathroom would lose all visual access to the midblock open space and related lighting air. next slide please. the residential design guidelines is physically page 25, 26 and page 5 provide midblock open space and the project should be compatible with existing buildings to the scale of the block open space and not leave theneighbors feeling blocked in . this graphic shows how the project is out of scale with the property next door. whether it exactly represents the project dimensions it indisputably shows with accuracy will i set the midblock open space and how matthews property in red would be locked in and lose visual access to the midblock open

space. it further shows matthew's home in red respects the uphill neighbors light, air and visual access and downhill midblock open space in contrast to the project does not. in conclusion, matthew asks fully third top story of the rearguardaddition be eliminated . he does not object to the lower two-story rearguardaddition. thankyou for your time .i'm available to answer questions . >> thank you. i am now going to turn to mister conti. mister conti, are you with us? >> i am, canyou hear me ? >> i am and for the benefit of thecommissioners and members of the public , mister carr has designated mister conti as his representative so you have six minutes.

>> thank you very much, i have been at 16 eagle street where i've lived for over 25 years as the property directly behind 47 230. the proposed backyard expansion clearly violates the design and construction guidelines laid out for the department residential guidelines. it such as privacy, white and scale. furthermore the approval process has relied on information that had been correct. next slide please. guidelines on page 5 are there to ensure that the scale is compatible with other buildings that respects the midblock open space but maintains lights to adjacent properties and protects privacy and the modifications make it compatible with the surrounding context to help alleviate these issues. nextslide please . my main issue is privacy.

a proposed three story rearguard expansion would significantly reduce the capacity of the master bedroom in my property to eagle street which is behind it but also greatly affect the privacy of 60 eagle street which is owned by sam roberts has been there for over 50 years who has an application with a 90-year-old who sat long time resident of theneighborhood . the winslow's proposed extension would be in front of my bedroom. currently the third floor of the building is 41 feet from my bedroom and over to the side. a proposed expansion would bring thatseparation only 19 feet . this would be a 40 percent reduction in space between the building and result in the proposed windows be brought front and centerdirectly into my bedroom window . i would add this is another

indication of the planned space being two inches under control which is yet another error to the plan supplied. next slide please. this is actually an indication of what it would look like. the current view from my bedroom window, the proposed use would deface that older plan and nowthe windows wouldbe brought almost 2 feet closer to my house . next slide please . the other issues of midblock open space which the caller and i talked about quite eloquentl . we have a tightly packed neighborhood and with the midblock open spaces there's been enjoyed by all neighbors for 40 years. homes have been built or expanded to get everyone visual

effect. the proposed extension greatly eliminate the view of the green reach on the open space. next slide please. the transition is on the downhill slope and on both 19th street and eagle street there are no front yards. the topography was built so they face the midblock opening. that's the only green we have. across the street from me is a retaining wall because of the steep slope. during the pandemic outline visual access to the spaceis more important than ever. next slide please . you've seen some of these pictures before but these are ones that indicate how much green space this addition would block. next slide please. again, the proposed backyard

expansion violates the guidelines of privacy according to mid-block open space and scale. for me the main issue is to severely impinge on issues of midblock open spaceto scale. next slide please . as mister hammond said we all understand and accept the owner's right to remodel and expand his property but we all would request one compromise. at the top floor of the rearguard extension be limited eliminated.it would protect the quality of life for the neighborhood while allowing the owner to expand . in addition to maintaining privacy this would at least address the issue of access to mid block open space as well as neighbors issues of life and scale. next slide please. i have to say this and maybe it's politically incorrect that we been at this january 2021.

we tried to work with the applicantsand the city and neighborhood bore and everything else you tell us to do .the applicant has ignored or misrepresented issues that affect the neighbors and even for instance line of sight is an important issue to me and in our august 12 zoom meeting with mister winslow and the architect mister winslow says it isn't an issue and the architect assessed line of sight. we offered to have the residence at eagle do whatever they want to do this and in the passage you see no line of sight representation. maybe that's an oversight. maybe he's trying to avoid something that we believe now this procedure isclearly flawed . we seem incorrect plans presented to the commission and

approved by the commission. we don't understandhow that happens . and we try to participate in the process but we're trying to claw back of the complete that the planning department presents us and our questions are often ignored. we have tried hard. we had to go after the second 311. thank you very much. >> clerk: mister ni, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am the project architect. the project is the rear addition project following the planning code and design guidelines. i have our first slide showing that what we add to the building and also from the

situation of the lot what i would note is there's a lot of existing nonconforming situations for the subject building and also for the building that you can see almost no compacts. next slide please. as i mentioned the city building has some existing nonconforming issues so let me propose the design be proposed to be moved this portion which is showing on the part to be moved. that's including the existing building and also three-story portion which is two stories from the rear. by doing this it creates the existing nonconforming to meet the current plan code and residential design guidelines.

next slide please. showing the proposed building we believe it's not accurate and misleading. so we do provide 3-d models, use the same angle to show what it intends to look like from the neighborsbuilding. next slide please . that's the building that we calculate an initial hearing on these photos you can also see that the building absorbs the applicant which is of a much higher grade level. our new property only is on the floor level you can also see the role of the property line 3

stories high around the wall on the 50 eagle street block the light for the 60 eagle street. again, both 50 and 60 eagle street buildings are sitting on a higher grade than the subject building. nextslide please . this is provided by the applicant. nextslide please . this is our rendering showing the proposed building. although you can see we actually also removed the part of the building, the existing building on the property line 247 69 19th street, we believe this setback provides better

lighting and the condition to the neighbors. also by the way we mention the windows. we added back because in the beginning when wemeasured the building , we cannot even see the level of the 4769 19th street because of the great difference. it's almost like a half story lower than the adjacent building next slide please .this rendering shows the same around the building rear of 60 eagle street.again, it shows that impact on applicants picture. also please note that the proposed addition provides code

compliance with the setback. this looks like three because the photos were taken i believe pre-code to the rear parking lot. that's a compound situation. next slide please. this rearrangement shows that the buildings on both sides adjacent buildings with adequate setbacks. next slide please. we also show that about lighting and privacy concerns. i think once the applicant mentioned about the site line analysis. clearly what was mentioned that you wanted to show what does that look like at about the

beauty of career. actually commissioners when you join the 84.2 and also 4.4 you can see the levels actually have higher grades. but yes, i know i'm out of time so i will resolve hereand i'm here to answer any questions . you. >> clerk: thank you. thatconcludes project sponsors presentation. we will go to public comment . this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak publiccomment is closed and we should go to remodel . mister hammond, i'm going to unmute you. go ahead, you have one minute. >> thank you very much.

i live at 4757 19 which is the opposite side of this property from mister marquis. when we purchased our home 32 yearsago , the yard in the mid block area was a majorreason . we put on an addition after buying the house that we really carefully designed to extend back to the distance, the same distance as the neighboring building so as not to intrude on the space . and since then other people have in the same thing to maintain the space. the proposed addition next door to my house projects a third-floor deep into the lot and as i think you can see not only from the dr peoples drawings but also general drawings. it reduces the open space or the present from its current

extent. because of the fact that it's extending the third floor of 4763 back so far . it blocks light and splits the open space into 2 small spaces. basically it's breaking the block in half. i thank mister ni for showing his renderings becausethey demonstrate the massive intrusion into the middle block on this project . thank you. >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing noadditional requests to speak , i take it back. go ahead and call her, you have 1minute . >> caller: my name is fran roberts andi'm a 95-year-old .

i live at 60 eagle street which is behind the proposed property and am i coming through? >> clerk: we can hear you just fine. >> caller: the line of sight of the third story is exactly in the line of sight of my living room window which is on the gate and we will be like noseto nose . >> we can hear you.>> even though i'm in a one-story house because of being my patio doors don't hurt anybody. but the third story of the proposed structure is being high is in direct line with the window that i have, before by

window. and there's no way of looking out my window without looking directly in the face of that third story. >> clerk: final. >> my name is robert cartman, i've been in business for five. my only comment is thisprocess is ridiculous . there's no reason the city should empower homeowners to fight each other on this. i think you should just eliminate the ability to offer discretionary review on rear yard extensions. i think the planning commission should actually take the time

to clear such frivolous matters and focus on real issues of inequityin san francisco . not squabbling over how much of the building your neighbor has holes with that. >> iq. >> can you hear your line has beenunmute that's your indication to begin speaking . go ahead. >> caller: hello. i am a neighbor just to the left of the proposed remodel and just wanted to reiterate some of the frustration with this process. we have been trying to have our concerns be heard.

we don't feel as if they have been heard. this is ahuge intrusion into the space . it will impact all of us will impact the quality of the neighborhood and it doesn't need to the this. >> clerk: final, final last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star3 . seeing no additional quest requests to speak from members of the public we will go to remodel. mister hammond, you have one minute. >> the afternoon, this issteve hammond, thank you . with respect to the articulated rear wall that the project sponsor showed in the demonstration, there's a knock on either side of the rear wall which provides articulation.

so it would be better to have no articulation into stories so that their rear wall is just a solid line and eliminate the top floor rear yard extension. that way you could recapture them of the spirit lost as a result of the norear top floor extension . by not having those articulated notches on the lower two floors. i would also like to point out that with respect to the removal of the project sponsor discussed a significant portion of that which is the dilapidated shed is uninhabitable that was represented to be part of the house .but now it is just a crumbling outhouse. that had to be demolished. because it was. >> that is your time commissioners .

mister conti you have two minutes. we can hear you.>> the other thing i want to say is personal again looking at the computer generated things which i've never seen before, i can only look at them and measure them in terms of the size of the number of panels on the fence in picture. and those computer-generated images are again a misrepresentation of what the size of that would be andhow hard it would project out . again the property has been complicated. there have been so many errors that have been approved and that have been approved plans by the planning commission. and we tried to come up with solutions. again mister hammond has alternative way of looking at it but the top floor of the existing extension would pretty

much solve the issues for all surrounding neighborhoods and maintain the integrity of the building . thank you. >> thank you, mister need you have a one minute. >> so the last two slides for the last slide. hello. [please stand by]

>> the only discrepancy that really came to light was the incorrect measurement of the rear yard, and you can see that both into the reference to the

later set that went up for notification. to my knowledge, that's the only discrepancy and was allowed to go out to the public. >> commissioner tanner: and we hear some representation that what went out to the public was misleading. i didn't find that to be the case. did you find any indication that renderings that went out to the public were misleading between the proposed buildings and the neighboring property? >> i mean, nothing stands out to me that we're misrepresenting anything. >> commissioner tanner: okay.

i would move to take d.r. >> president koppel: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there's a motion and a second to not take d.r. and approve the project. on that motion [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, and that concludes your calendar. should we adjourn in miss stacy's honor today?

>> i think that's great. thank you. take care. u. during the coronavirus disease emergency members will be meeting remotely. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period by calling

(415) 655-0001. then the access code 1875839526. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star three to be added to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit your public comment by e-mail by sending it to ocoh.con@sfgov.org and it will be forwarded to the committee and be part of the official file. please note this meeting will be recorded. >> thank you so much. it is october 28th, 2021. we will now call this meeting to order and we'll start with roll call if you could, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call]

>> all right. we have quorum. so we'll now move to public comment. at this time, is there any public comment on items not on the agenda? >> give me one second. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. access code 1875839526 then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line

up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please note that you have three minutes. can we get our spanish interpreter, please. >> translator: [speaking spanish]. >> clerk: great. thank you. and i was notified that our cantanese interpreter is having trouble get on the line. i will give it my best shot if

there are any cantanese. i do not see any public comment. >> okay. thank you so much. we will now go to approval of our minutes from september 21st and also from september 29th, 2021. is there a motion? >> commissioner: i can move. >> would you like to move one of the minutes or both? >> i can move both of the minutes. >> okay. is there a second? >> i'll second. >> okay. it's been seconded by member andrews. is there any discussion? hearing none. can we take this by acclimation. is there any objection? actually, we do have to call the roll. >> clerk: i'll also do public

comment at this time. members of the public who wish to call public comment on this item 0 should call (415) 655-0001. a symptom prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please note that you have three minutes. spanish interpreter, please. >> translator: [speaking spanish]

. >> clerk: great. thank you. and, again, sorry for our cantanese interpreter. if there are cantanese speakers, i will go ahead and try my best as well. let me check the attendee list. currently, there are no public comments. >> thanks so much. we will now go to roll call on the minutes from the september 21st and september 29th. >> clerk: [roll call] >> chairman: all right. so the minutes are approved. we'll now go to item four which is on teleconferenced meetings on september 16th, 2021, governor newsome signed ab 60

during a state of emergency if the circumstances of the emergency and that is pretty much it. is there any discussion on this item? so this is procedural if we want to still be allowed to continue with our virtual meetings. we need to consider this every 30 days. >> sure. can i say something really briefly. can you submit? right. so here's sort of a time line of the state of emergency. san francisco continues to be under a state of emergency and the mayor has prohibited public policy body including our city our home oversite committee in

person. to mitigate the and the last able to do so. you've fulfilled to bring transparency while minimizing health risks. so the next is the actual resolution and i don't know, chair williams, do you want to take it back. >> chairman: all right. this is the resolution and the state of california and the city remain in a state of

emergency during the covid-19 pandemic. the ocoh oversight committee have considered the state of emergency. social distancing and other social distancing measures and settings and conducting meetings of this body in person would present imminent risk to meet safely in person for the next 30 says, meetings of the ocoh oversight committee will continue by teleconferencing. we'll provide an opportunity for members of the public to address this body and otherwise

occur in the constitutional rights and members of the public attending the meeting. and be it further resolved that a controller's office staff the oversight committee and i believe that's right. we'll now open it up for discussion to the committee. and this is procedural. we'll need to do this every 30 days until we begin meeting in person. so this will be before us again next month. all right. hearing no discussion, is there a motion to approve. >> i can move to approve it. i move to approve the resolution making findings to allow teleconference meetings.

>> chairman: thank you, member friedenbach is there a second? thank you, secretary. >> secretary: members of the public should call (415) 655-0001. access code 1875935826 and then pound and pound again. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. you have three minutes. spanish interpreter. >> translator: [speaking spanish].

>> secretary: great. and i see that our cantanese interpreter has joined. >> translator: [speaking cantanese].

>> secretary: great. thank you. checking attendee list. i do not see any public comment. >> chairman: all right. we'll go to roll call vote. [roll call] . >> chairman: all right. sot resolution is approved. all right. so we will now move to item five. department of updates on our city our home funds and programs. i will now turn it over to staff. >> just sort of framing of the updates, i know people are eager to know about

implementation and about spending. we're working to align some regular reporting to you on spending. and to align it with the existing financial project at the end of this fiscal year and then sort of correspond, i think this economist has said they want regular reporting on this and so we're really taking that seriously to figure out how we can do it. to track spending against the actual and also to track the addition of the units or beds that are being added to the system of care as well as the units of services that have been delivered so we can provide a picture of sort of what has been spent and what

has been provided with the materials sort of in addition to the materials of the spending. we're going to continue doing at least quarterly with verbal presentation with the committee. and then and year end just to make sure that we're continuing that projections are available in february. february are when those are being firmed up, right. and we can bring that back. i believe you received one of those last year in february and one of the outcomes is reporting is going to be sort of the next piece of work to be added. i have sort of collected your

responses to a form, maybe six weeks ago about what you'd be interested in knowing in terms of performance and outcomes reporting. so we're working with departments to align their data collection to be able to report oven those things and that will continue to be part of the data with the officer. so just in the interest of time, i'd like to move ahead, but we can come back to this if there are questions people

have. >> i just have one question. how does this relate to the dashboard? >> right. so dashboard right now is financial and so the progress report will be added to that. so, yeah, the idea of having some sort of dashboard. it's a visual representation of the data i think is what i think is that you what you mean when you say dashboard? great. >> chairman: great. any other members have questions? all right. so i think, jessie, do we want to move to the presentation from d.p.h. or did you have additional things? >> yeah. i just wanted to provide you on a quick update of the

additional allocation. we've been able to compensate people with expertise for their time. there's not a lot to report particularly because there are negotiations happening. but this is there and we're hoping to be able to have some support in place to be able to compensate people with expertise for starting data collection in december. >> i just had one question. sorry, i can't. just on the outcomes, like having the beds and, you know, number of treatment slots and that kind of thing is really important, but i think it's also going to be important for us to have the human element, like number of people served. i think the big picture is like people who have experienced homelessness. so i think that's kind of an important element. so anywhere we're thinking

about this, i want to center -- just thinking about how to center unhoused people themselves in the whole framework. >> yes. and programs like this doesn't reflect sort of order of importance. it's more like order of when the information will become available. so first of many will be spent. the capacity will be added and then service will happen, right. and so, but, yes, members of people served the demographics of those people, sort of the outcome of that service or stay or whatever it is, whatever this service happens to be where people exit to. i think those are all important. i think everyone is aligned. >> okay. thank you so much. >> chairman: great. any other members? if not, i think we'll

transition. >> yeah. >> chairman: okay. so i would like to invite director kirk patrick from the department of public health. so welcome. >> good morning members. thank you for having me. we are working towards the more technical and budget based actual reporting that jessie described. in the interim, i will give you an overview of our progress to date. so these are the main categories that i'll touch on today. our street-based services, residential care and treatment, case management and care coordination and some additional focused programming. so there's three core street-based service programs that we are working on at d.p.h.. the 1 is our street overdose

response team called sort that launched in august. since its launch, sort has handled over 300 calls of which over 200 have included in overdose. it will expand in 2022 to include more teams. it will be through c.b.o. contracting. our street crisis response team now has six fully operational teams providing 24/7 city wide coverage. will tentatively launch in early 2022. we do have a public dash board available. they're key performance indicators available in this website so you can see the progress and the number of people as sc.r.t. is serving and too. we are in the hiring process for the key clinical positions to expand the behavioral health

and physical health support for that program. for the other component of overdose support, i'm really focuseded on our low barrier treatment and prevention services. our contracts, amendments are under way for key response and prevention services. about $5 million for low threshold and continues to be management as well as office space. agreements are in place with ucsf for the addiction clinic service expansion support as well as contingency management. those are well under way. next slide. for our residential care and treatment programs. we have reported previously on some of this progress, but just a reminder of where we're at. we are actively pursuing

buildings with acquisition for the significant one-time funding we have to meet that goal to support the expansion of our residential step-down beds, our boarding care beds, as well as crisis diversion services. we've reported to you previously, we have successfully contracted for our high level long-term care facility placements. that includes 12-month rehabilitation center. and we've had great success in placing clients in them and so much in fact that our partners at the hospital have shared that this is greatly relieved the backlog of people needing placement in emergency services and we are working to quantify that and we'll come back to you all. but at least we are seeing the impacts of these contracted expansions.

summer rise, our drug sobering program is well under way to open in the next couple of months, building permits are in progress and final operational planning with cbo contractor is underway. this is available publicly. the website is at the bottom right. we update this monthly. it is a densely packed dash board, but what it does do is it does provide project milestones, the little blue and grey boxes within each program as well as opening time lines. this represents the approximately 350 funded beds as well as two additional programs, humming bird valencia and enhanced duly diagnosis that were punding but we're still working on. but this is a 400-bed expansion

that we're working hard towards implementing. for anyone to see the progress on implementation on each of these programs. next slide. for our case management services and care coordination efforts, we are nearing the final design phase and hiring for the launch of our phase one services which include the goal of clearing our existing waste service. the office of care coordination and health workers dedicated towards followup and care coordination for our street crisis response team clients launched in april and are well under way. we are hiring for key leadership and transition

management. next slide. for our intensive case management expansion, contract amendments are under way to expand the number of contracted case managers. we're also in the planning phase for our intensive case management for additional focus and culturally on grunt case management services. that planning for rfp is under way. care coordination. we are supporting the intensive case management programming with hiring as well as building and the creation -- sorry, the design phase of our patient outreach team towards our mental health center, the behavioral health access center. i'm sorry. i have so many acronyms in here. i was trying to be concise. even for somebody who tries to avoid those. i apologize for those. our behavioral access center,

our pharmacy expansion of services and hours is nearly understand way. we will be increasing access into evening and weekend hours nearly doubling our hours starting in january, 2022. the critical capital improvements as well as hiring to make that happen are complete. so we're ramping up to make that happen to allow people to come in and receive next slide: so hsh as well as housing providers. we have hired temporary nursing staff to permanent supportive

housing and we're under way hiring permanent staffing for that long-term. we have taken the community process with our partners. we've received feedback that's important to but really have a better sense of behavioral health services. one point i wanted to address but isn't in the slides, i know that in a prior meeting, public comment was raised as regards

to d.p.h.'s 30% rent cap legislation. their department is reviewing the impacts and has been over the last months. for d.p.h.. for the advanced implementation in many this current fiscal year like it was for hsh. we have a much smaller psh portfolio. dph is still committed to supporting our providers and implementing our program. we're working to see if we can advance it ahead of that. we'll need a little more time to do the due diligence. we'll report back to you as we work with our providers and the mayor's office on this analysis. with that, i'm happy to answer

questions or however the chair or jessie would like to proceed. >> chairman: thank you, director kirkpatrick. we're going to go to our next presentation and then take questions after. thank you for your presentation. it was really thorough. welcome. >> thank you so much, chair, and committee members. it's nice to be with you again this morning. similarly to kelly i'm going to take questions at the end of the presentation is the

following dollars allocated for s.i.p. guests is under contract and services are being delivered. we've also launching our prevention work in partnership with mohcd and have begun or have allocated resources to our

partners in providing those resources. next slide. the mayor's office of health and housing retention in subsidized housing. most of these services are under contract and the housing retention strategies are in development. we'll move on to shelter

resources for and then the safe parking programs. state lands commission and we are beginning the infrastructure that all the work shortly and are in the contracting phase with the provider. so we're hopeful we'll have the vehicle triage center open in the next couple of months. in terms of housing, we're so excited about the work that we have been doing to apply our more permanent supportive housing as i'm sure many of you are aware, the board has authorized the acquisition of three psh sites and with a total of over 237 units of new housing, we have identified target populations for each site and have issued our

provider selection -- our provider solicitation. it's posted z all on our website and will be closing in mid november. so i encourage providers to check out that opportunity and, again, very excited about moving forward these three acquisitions in partnership with the community. additionally, on the our city, our home housing funding investments, obviously, the acquisition of the diva including some portion of the dollars and that added 338 units to the housing portfolio. we've also work ordered the $2 million from ocd to serve families and overcrowded sros over to mohcd and they have updated that as well. flexible housing subsidy pool.

the expansion of this intervention is under way. we are in the planning phase for the 750 slots for adults, for families, we are doing provider outreach and we are estimated -- or we are anticipating the start of this new investment in 2022. i think something that the committee will likely be pleased to hear is that we're increasing the subsidy amount. and then we are in the process of amending the contractor at the cross roads to expand their flex pool. continuing on housing, on to the next slide, we are implementing the rapid rehousing program as funded through our city, our home. the $1.2 million for workforce

services and expansion of the expansion of housing for rising up which will serve more than 70 young people than originally assumed. i know there's been lots of discussion in the community although i'm not sure how much at this community are on the emergency housing and so i did want to just take a minute to share information about the ehv program with the committee. emergency housing vouchers is a really unique opportunity through the federal government, through the american rescue plan and through h.u.d. to offer approximately 900 new vouchers in san francisco and these will function similar to like a section eight. they will be administered by the housing authority, but in partnership with hsh and one of

the differences between this and a traditional section 8 is while it's time limited, it cannot be reissued. so it's critical we work with our providers that will be housed because after 2023, we will not be able to re-issue the vouchers. as we work with the housing authority to develop our plan and priorities identified three key priorities we want to keep up by targeting people who are literally homeless and decreasing flow homelessness by targeting those at risk.

the ehvs are wonderful. we're super excited about that. of course, for their own stability and well being, but also if folks do fall out of these vouchers, we won't be able to administer there them in the community and providing support services is a good part of that work. the last slide which is also on housing and the ehv, as i mentioned, this represents a huge. there's a really good opportunity. these vouchers don't include

services that many households will need and so hsh is looking to pair these with flexible funds to make sure we can provide the ongoing stable station services so that households maintain their housing and we're looking to leverage investments to increase the number of house holds that can be served overall with the vouchers and the service dollars from the flex subsidy pool. so i will stop there but just to the chair we can do questions. >> chairman: thank you. we'll open it up to the committee. i don't see any of the virtual hands yet. >> for some reason, it won't let me raise my hand. >> chairman: no worries. >> i'm so sorry. it's a strange situation.

okay. so basically i've got some questions i don't know if we want to cat georgia them. so, emily, if beer using the support services, isn't that going to mean we're going to have less subsidy if we weren't able to combine the 900 housing choice vouchers with the number of housing. i mean the 900 vouchers, the overall number will be

decreased. we're going to be able to fill in subsidy dollars to extend to cover more house holding. i don't have the exact numbers yet because we're still working out the increase. >> yeah. but that's not my question. we were counting on 900 you plus the plex full subsidy and if we're moving it over, that means a decrease in numbers

overall. we need to use prop c to leverage and expand and not do it this way. i'm really concerned. >> so as you know, member friedenbach, we didn't know about these vouchers and to provide the wrap around

services. without the services, we want to ensure that people remain stably housed and that's a big investment in year one. did you have additional questions? >> yeah. so we got the three acquisitions moving forward. i wanted to make sure those are obviously you've got to go through the application process, but the idea is to have home key dollars for each of those and is there other buildings that we're going to be applying for to take advantage of the home key dollars as well? >> absolutely. so we've already submitted the

home key application for sorry the addresses get jumbled in my head and we're in process on the other buildings. we want to make sure that we carefully time the applications because of the time lines related to any capital and making sure we get through the capital projects in time. so we're trying to be very strategic, but we are absolutely intending to apply for home key dollars and we're continuing to do key due diligence on these properties. we are not backing away from our goal of 800 to a 1,000 units. so this is again just the first

group to move forward. >> so you don't have an estimation on how many subsidies we're going to lose from the flex pool? >> okay. i feel like it's not really, yeah. yeah. it's a little frustrating because we're going to -- i mean, it sounds like we're not going to do as many that are authorized. i'm not going to count the federal dollars so i think that that's kind of an

interpretation. from a homeless person's perspective. they want maximum numbers. >> absolutely. the dollars are going to so i'm hoping to have the numbers in the next couple of weeks once we have the exact estimate. >> okay. thank you. i'm going to hold on the behavioral health stuff as we circle l back around for kelly

i just want to make sure that all the reports see that so the way we achieve that is to

enthat folks serving in homeless organizations are in the program so we ensure we're serving the community in an equitable way. >> okay. so i want to make sure we especially when the numbers are solo city wide. i want to to some extent, but

it seems like there's going to have to be a pretty heavy lift. so i want to make sure we're putting that in and similar for mental health. we started talking about this last time and i noticed they do this a lot of places, but i think the reality which kind of came out in the meeting before last because it's hard and so brett last time mentioned we've got to have pay equity.

i know everyone wants the prison ones. you've got huge amounts that you have to pay back and so if you're coming and looking at a job that's paying like 75 -- i don't know what the jobs are paying right now but i can imagine we definitely have to make those jobs attractive and i think at the end of the day, it's going to be pay. so i'm just wondering once the rubber meets the road, we need them at any place where there's

emergency shelter. i'm not saying that's all the department's everies are limited to, but i'm saying we did identify this as a i'm wondering what's the plan z our contracts what providers are needing to meet those needs and i will say, perhaps more broadly to this issue.

if i know we are looking specifically for case management. and we know that it is an issue across kind of the portfolio and dhs generally. >> so, again, to me, that's not, you know, it's like okay we have intentions to look at it, but i don't really hear any solutions. i'm not trying to be critical because i know this is difficult, but what i am trying to do is say that we have to have more than intentions. when i was at the navigation center, i mean, the standard rate and we had high rates was like $50,000 for a case manager. you know, if they can't make more than $50,000, hell, my

practicioners make more than that and so i mean, i just when you're dealing with people and such a heavy load and complexy of problems, you've got to have people all the way in there and pay them enough to where they don't have their own problems and so pay equity, it's garbage. i mean, we know that, it's just not good and these jobs particularly when you're working with poor people, the pay is horrible. especially for what we're asking people to do. so i guess what i'm saying is at some point, we need to do more than that. maybe i'm overstepping and it's not ocoh's role, but if we have a behavioral health component, ocohneeds to look at how we step up and make sure we're tracking people to this field. my experience as a provider for a whole lot of people that are out in these streets, meaning

actually living on these streets is that the mental health issues are skyrocketing and no one is really looking at this, right and there's no help and so it's like how long are we going to say this before we actually catch up and put some things in place. so maybe we look at that as part of our retrieve or something and i don't think it's just dph's alone, but at some point as a city, we have to recognize that what we're paying these people to do, case managers and mental health clinicians, like wages are garbage. $40,000 to $60,000 as a case manager. it doesn't make sense in san francisco. i don't know what we're paying mental health clinicians? is it over $85,000?

>> i i don't know off the top of my head, i apologize. but i think to your point, what we do and having a concrete way to address that is key and we definitely need more specific responses and i do think there is a broader conversation as you mentioned kind of across the city as relates to our cbo pay for the many contracted services that we have as a city. it's both across the board. >> thanks kelly. first of all, i couldn't agree with you more there's real urgency and for us to expand in other services, we need a well paid for work. [please stand by]

mental health. >> we to understand what the gap is and do it because what i truly believe is that we have what i am seeing on the ground we have people suffering from economic homelessness, lost

jobs, weren't able to pay rent. another group that is suffering from severe mental health issues. i don't see a lot of help, if any, for those folks. it is deep. we have to do something. at the rate we are going i don't see anything happening for at least 10 years to reach people on the ground in a consistent way. i don't know who that would fall under. if we could figure out what are competitive wages, what is competitive wages for san francisco and what the gap is. i think that would be a good starting place. >> thank you so much. >> is that a reasonable request to figure out what that is? >> yes. i want to acknowledge the department is tackling this. not alone. we think it is part of our work.

parallel committee and umbrella of mental health sf where we are working on strengthening aggressively strengthening the continuum of care including care coordination and we see that and work force is one of the pillars in mhsf and we are working on solutions for that. among the things you mentioned we are trying to tackle that. >> i just want to be clear. not a criticism. this is hard. i am trying to make sure i use my position and my experience to support this. thank you very much. >> thank you, member miller. this is hugely important. i think behavioral health liaison to continue to track this piece and work with the

department of public health. i will go to we have member ledbetter and member andrew. >> thank you for your presentations. i appreciate it. i love that slide. it is great to see. we are going to get the updates about spending and al location. we are very interested in seeing what that equates to in terms of number of people housed. i haven't looked in a little while. i don't know if the tracker for rehousing is back up or if those numbers are available to us. that is my first question. second question. i look forward to understanding the pairing of service dollars

with vouchers a little more and hopefully it falls in mind with the intended allocation. more broadly we are going to move through the year and have understanding reallocation, need for creative use for the funs and i am wondering from the committee perspective we might need to go back. what is the process for the department to come back to us and say this is what we said, this is the total amount, what we signed. now we have this opportunity. would we have that discussion? the fair housing fund. i know you are not on camera.

>> thank you, member ledbetter. i assume you are referring to shelter-in-place hotel rehousing? yes, i can update you we have housed over 700 people in the shelter-in-place hotels. we are de mobilelizing those hotels between now and it started over the summer through next september with a strong focus on ensuring people do not return to unsheltered homelessness and that they move into stable housing. we have been making steady progress towards that goal. we de mobilized seven hotels, rehoused 23% of the people out of those hotels. 66% of folks have been moved to vacancies to consolidate people

as we are able to bring the hotels down. i believe it is less than 2% have returned to the streets after having multiple offers of housing. we are proud of the work we are doing. we want to speed up the process. that is a focus of ours. we have been implements new policies to try to get those housing places moving as quickly as possible. >> for your other question, member ledbetter, i will return to jessie for updates on expenditures. >> i want to be clear my question when the departments need to come back to us to make significant changes or things

that differ from our original authorizations, what does that look like? >> i don't know what that looks like. i know that at least quarterly updates. we have had conversations. when those things happen, how can we get them into the quick way if it is not quarterly update. i do think it is a topic of conversation. as far as like i feel like part of your question is about reallocating how did that happen? that is part of my learning curve right now.

>> thank you. one thing i would love to look closely and come back to us the rapid rehousing versus. [indiscernable] i think we have a significant cliff. i imagine our placements are not as successful currently. i would support what we can do to support getting more people with longer term health and human services. >> thank you, member ledbetter. members andrews then member friedenbach. >> thank you, chair williams. a few things i jotted down. i know we are going to at some point later in this meeting and certainly in retreat next we can discuss the role of liaisons and

such and bringing more clarity to the role and value that they can bring and elevate to the committee's work. i wanted you all to know. i meet regularly with behavior health services, and these are the conversations we are having around pay equity and pay and wage parity. overall nonprofit sustainability. specifically, member miller in key areas of geographic areas of san francisco that have historically not been paid attention to to populations of people that you named and for what exactly it is not only for homeless population but for those disproportionately impacted by behavioral health issues. it is african-americans, black,

generally black men. we need to call it out for what it is. to understand that there may very well need to be more than just the intention of being culturally appropriate. what does that mean? i don't know that and i will add myself to it. walked up to what does that really look like? how do you meet folks where they are in a harm reduction culturally appropriate way? it is not so cryptic and kind of deeply embedded that we have to work hard to. i think we need more intention to do it. more intention to do it means you have to value that person enough to want to do. attribute resources to do that. i will sufficiently step off my soapbox on that one. we can do better with and push

it more towards intention from intention but into the subsequent actions to support it. as i think about mhsf, there is a lot of things good coming out there they are talking about the work force. member miller is right. where is the pipeline. what is the interest, desire to want to step into this work? we are competing with ourselves, with many other things. if there is a unique challenge in providing services and being in the nonprofit sector in a very wealthy professional town, compared to other towns we live in that have different blends of commerce. we are in many ways two sides of

the same coin. it is very difficult to hear the surpluses happening at the state level and local level that are in the billions of dollars. here we have these conversations that feel a bit out of not abundance but scarety. i encourage us to move from scarcity to abundance. there is enough for everyone. we have to put intention behind that. i will put on my co-chair hat. hsn is taking this seriously. wage parity. we have meetings to figure out the options we believe are available to us, pulling ever lever and twisting every screw to think outside the box. what are the ways we feel we can

address this in a permanent solution? is there a permanent solution? if we don't we will be hat in hand every year. that is no kind of prestigic planning. anyone who manages budgets knows that is no way to manage the future of some very critical services to the community. last thing i would say is you know there was that hearing cosponsored by supervisor ronan and haney on non-profit sustainability and a lot of good information we shared. at minimum away in which we all recognize that we are living the same stark reality. i feel like there may be an opportunity for either or both supervisors to join one of our meetings to hear more about what they think in terms of their

intentions and next steps that they feel they could take in their respective roles. though are just a few thoughts i had in the conversations we had. i want to thank kelly and emily for great presentations. very helpful and for your remarks. thank you. >> thank you so much, member andrews. for our retreat equity is our north star. having a conversation around all of this with equity and racial justice lens is so important and i am excited to have that conversation at the retreat. member friedenbach is next. >> thank you so much. i wanted to follow up on a question with hsh around we had expenditures back in december around having subsidies for

bayview hunters point. i don't think we were ever updated where those subsidies are. there was another subsidy for families with kids. i would love to find out where that is. that was one of our efforts to tankgibly address the equity issues and ensure people were being served. we also had some subsidies in this investment plan around making sure that folks outside of the safe sleeping villages were getting access to subsidies. i am not sure where that is at. there might be some on the the horizon. >> thank you for the question. for the bayview subsidy we are

drafting the solicitation. i think we anticipate that being ready early next year. i don't have any more detailed timeline. that should be in process early 2022. >> thank you. there is stuff around behavioral health. some of the stuff around decision making and prioritizing, you know, i think for this body that was a big priority. as much as that can be moved as quickly as possible. for behavioral health, a few different things there. the behavioral health access

center, i believe 1380 howard was tabled. not sure where that is at. some questions around overdose. if prop c is paying for the ambulance. i think the ambulances were responding to overdoses and the money is going to the street medicine to expand response. overall comment on this. i appreciate the dashboard. this is awesome. i have been looking at it pretty regularly. i really appreciate transparency there. one of the things i notice again in this theme of priorities is that it seems like in terms of moving forward the department's priorities are around the streets, response and the lock beds and in terms of timeline

priorities much lower timeline for community-based beds that i think from my perspective are the things really going to be helpful in terms of stabilizing folks. street-based responses are all most like a circle that you are going in constantly. if people continue to be out on the streets and are re-traumatized over again they require crisis response. overdoses continue if there is no place to stabilize. i want to get response on the thinking around that in terms of timelines. >> thank you. i can speak to the timeline for the at least the treatment beds. in terms of it is a balance between procuring new beds and facilities in the city takes

time. we are actively pursuing buildings to have those community-based programs like board and cares and managed alcohol programs. the locked beds move more quickly because we are able to procure out-of-county through contracting. we do recognize critical importance of maintaining and expanding our community-based beds. it is a priority. because the other beds move faster do not mean they were higher priority they happened on the pipeline faster given the logistics we recognize the importance of those beds and are working very hard to get those online as fast as we can. you mentioned a question about ambulances and street-based response. in regards to the street crisis

response team and their model every response? >> not as much. the rigs look very expensive. >> i have been getting feedback from folks on streets. i don't that was the best choice there. that is water under the bridge. there is an ambulance element and you know ambulances are responding to overdoses. i know that part of it was on overdose response. i am wondering if prop c is going towards paying fire department for the ambulance response? it seems like that was something already in existence. i am always worried one of my

pet peeves is trying to make sure prop c funds are not supplanting. i am bird dogging that, so to speak. >> i appreciate that. we know very much supplants is a line not to be crossed with prop c fundings. i am aware of that. i don't imagine these were supplanting. expansion with fire. we can circle back on the component with ems. i am fairly certain they are not supplanting. we can connect on that for you. >> thank you so much. we are going to document these follow up items to share with the department. we are at time. thank you director kirkpatrick and director cohen for

presenting and for being an ongoing conversation with the committee. thank you for your time today. we are going to now move to public comment. i will turn it over to the secretary. >> members of the public to comment on this item call 415-655-0001 code is 875-83-9526. pound and pound again. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. system will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted to begin your comments. you have three minutes. >> spanish interpreter, please. speaking spanish]

>> cantonese interpreter please. [speaking cantonese] >> thank you. i do not see any public comment.

>> thank you. one hand raised. let me get this caller. >> this is bill hearse. thank you for the opportunity to offer comment and to hear the updates this morning. i did want to share from the provider perspective. we are seeing a significant slowdown in the approval of contracts for this fiscal year. i know that much of the mayor's office of housing funding that is from previous years has not finalized contracts. providers have not been able to invoice since the beginning of the current fiscal year. this new funding which is

supposed to fund an expansion to activities has not been folded into contracts yet. providers don't know what the new funding is. we do not have a path to begin hiring new employees to do this work, and the timeline will be much abbreviated. this is a significant challenge for the contractors. i also wanted to say that i am still not clear on where some of the housing subsidy funding that we received in the ad back process has landed. i know there was new funding for housing subsidies for people living with h.i.v. and aids. there was funding for seniors and people with disabilities.

i have heard that it has landed with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. normally that would be administering through the mayor's office of housing. sometimes it has been funded through dos, but i don't know where it is. i don't think it is available. as we learn from member miller, there is a crisis out on the streets. real mental health crisis on the streets. it has been a crisis for as long as i can remember. we want this funding to hit the streets as soon as possible. i also haven't heard a lot of discussion about the layering of subsidies on bmr units which i have always thought was a key strategy to make mildly affordable housing deeply affordable. those bmr units are often new

accessible units which are of particular interest to people with disabilities. that is it for me. thanks for the opportunity. >> thank you, caller. >> we do not have additional callers. >> thank you to the public commentator. we will go to item 6. discussion of the liaison structure we approved at the last meeting. we have a couple of things to get clear on for this item. we have a decision grid in front of us, decision tree in front of us. first i want to point out what took place at the last meeting on this item. immediate needs liaison we voted to retain this role with a different name. we need to get chair fiction on the -- clarification on the

goal. are we keeping same members in those roles? for the immediate needs we will develop short term proposals for release of funds. this is one of the goals for the first strategic investment plan. we have the 2019 immediate needs allocation for our community impact accountability liaison combined with the impact communication liaison role. we voted for that. we need clarification for the goals to ensure transparency and accessibility of committee activities, engaging stakeholders and to provide support with recommendations, outcomes and planning for our system modeling investment plan liaison we combined with data officer role. we need clarification on the name of the role and if we want this to be an officer versus

a aliaison role. strategic investment action plan including outcome targets and progress. we have threely say on rolls -- three of the liaison roles stayed the same. i hope that makes the decisions we need to make for this item more clear. we will open it up at this time to the committee for discussion. >> let me know if you want me to take this down.

>> i see member friedenbach. >> we suggested this at the last meeting. we wanted to change immediate needs liaison to respond to the zip hotels to emergency shelter which is what it is in the budget process. we would change the name of the role. i don't know if we go around to see where people want to be placed. i want to point out that the shelter category is lower workload. i would be open to staying in that or if there is a heavy workload in another category that it would be helpful for me to switch because i would probably have more time on my hands. i am open either way.

we need to change the name of this role. >> thank you. can you make that a motion, please. >> yes, i move to change the name of the immediate needs liaison to the emergency shelter and hygiene liaison. >> second? >> i will second it. >> do you think there will be a number of motions we want to take notes on all of them. >> we could do it that way as well. it is up to the committee if we want to take these one by one. >> i can put my motion on hold for the moment or withdraw my motion? >> we just need to have the

package. >> i will make a note of it. >> all right. i guess we could go to the members if there are comments around a particular role. i see member andrews and member miller. >> thank you, chair williams. i wanted for everyone on the call it may be important to benchmark where we are. can we have a report out on the membership of the committee at the moment. we have some open positions. i wonder if there is any inter play between those open positions compared to who is the designated member. we can go through naming the liaison or renaming them if we

are compelled to do so. i am wondering if we should stop short in the fact we are not fully ripe as a staff, as a committee. we are staffed but a full membership committee. >> member andrews right now we only have one position open, the system modeling data officer position. i heard exciting news that the controller's office and mayor's office are working on new appointment. that is in progress. right now we have one open. system modeling and data offer. it is important to hear from folks in these rolls. what are you thinking? is there interests to move to other roles? that is an important part of the

conversation today. >> thank you. >> i am happy to stay in the role if that is agreeable to the committee. >> i agree that it should be focused on emergency shelter. my concern is that you know, i can no longer officially participate, i don't think. my organization actually runs the emergency shelter. with that being said, i am concerned because there is so much controversy around emergency shelter. i also think there is a -- i'm

sorry. my dog is playing with this thing and it is loud. it is distracting me. i had to sit back because of the controversy. it is extremely confusing to me. i have really come to certain realizations about what is going on. i don't really think that as a city or even people who are involved so deeply in this issue that we are looking at what is happening. for example. the occupancy rate or vacancy rate at safe sleeps are like zero. i can go on and on with other

statistics. there is something going on. i won't get into it right now. i am not getting into controversy. i think that it is important that we start looking at the trends that we are seeing in realtime on the streets right now. we have to be able to address them correctly. i guess what i am saying is that on the one hand i can't because of any kind of formal bias be on this committee but at the same time i feel like i am touching it everywhere all of the time. i think it is important that these issues are brought up. i am not quite sure how to do that. i just want to make sure we are looking at these issues if we are talking about emergency shelter or know away i can participate in a meaningful way

as opposed to kind of on the side when we have meetings and say my two cents. anyway. >> thank you so much member miller. >> i am hearing from the committee, i heard member friedenbach say she is fine in the role of immediate needs to emergency shelter and changing the title. from member miller she would need to step back because of her role in administering services. i am hearing from member andrews that he is still interested in remaining as behavioral health liaison. is that correct? i see member ledbetter. >> thank you. i have not said conflicts or no conflicts. i am now officially unconflicted

member which is much easier to think about than before when it was quite a delicate dance, i think. i was asked the same questions of the behavioral health and emergency shelter. [indiscernable] i need guidance around how to do the -- the knowledge as providers will say unconflicted. the same questions member andrews and member miller might come along with a conflict. [indiscernable] i would love to stay in the prevention role. i also would love to see the

systems get going while we wait for new appointments. i would volunteer myself to temporarily be in that role to move forward. we have a lot on the agenda for the needs assessment. either both or one, whichever works. >> thank you, member ledbetter. i am hearing you would be open to serving in the system modeling data officer role temporarily serving in both with diversion and prevention, is that correct? >> yes. i would vote for keeping the officer as the chair and vice chair. you are very intentional about that. >> do you have a title in mind for this officer?

data officer. you are saying system models is part of that and different name for the officer we can say data officer. member ledbetter. [indiscernable] i don't think there will be data analysis. that comes from our staff. to the general public it might be a little strange. systems models is not clear. that is the method we will use moving forward. [indiscernable] i would love to hear from community members.

>> member friedenbach. >> i like this idea. to the earlier point we don't know who is going to be appointed in the two empty seats. i think we can alling knowledgee major loss. that created a huge void. i really appreciate the officer from julie. i think about our membership. she has background in doing modeling and working on that bigger picture stuff. i think that is a great idea. i really support that and appreciate that. it is quite a lot. >> thank you. i am going to check in with jessie if you are capturing

these points for the overall motion. we had a number of things. >> i am a little unsure of the e things discussed. immediate needs. changing to emergency shelter and hygiene. keeping data officer? is that where we landed? >> it sounds like there is a planning officer is something member ledbetter is interested in serving in that role data and systems modeling planning to planning officer. sounds like everyone is okay staying in their role and member miller is stepping back from shelter hygiene liaison role. >> one thing that we are thinks is that for the liaisons to

really think about a draft work plan for each of the roles and we have the retreat to gather more information for the work plans and finalizing this piece at our december meeting is what we are hoping for. to be transparent about that. we can go through each goal for each position today. we want to empower the liaisons to pull together a draft for each position and work with the committee over the next month or so. i see member andrews. >> thank you, chair williams. i wonder to member ledbetter's point and thinking of member miller and myself. i wonder if it may be helpful from a legal housekeeping perspective to have deputy attorney at the retreat to just

do a refresher on the ways in which we identify real or perceived conflict. i think we did that when we were actually doing allocation and prioritization. that would be helpful. the challenge is and this is hard for people to say because a lot of times we don't step into the courageous space of being modest sometimes and sometimes we should. we have worked so long and hard in this work. the subject matter experts are in the room. it would behoove all of us to draw on their knowledge and expertise knowing we sit here in our bridge to our community in many ways. how does one do that? basically walk through this very

fine type rope. i think we all do our best to make sure that is true. it is hard to get a bright line on how to be 100% conflict free and at the same time i think we all benefit from each other's knowledge and expertise and understanding. just thought it may be helpful. >> we can bring in city attorney to our retreat for brief overview. we have a lot to accomplish with the retreat. it is helpful. there is a treasure trove of expertise on the committee. i agree we want to be able to provide that expertise that is why we are here. thank you, member andrews. member ledbetter. >> i want to talk about what gives us the ability to really

communicate no matter where we it is in the system is to focus on the model. it pulls it away from contract allocations or direct conversations about contracting but focuses on the need and what is the community-based need? i found that very, very helpful to approach it from that point of view. [indiscernable] we can use that as a safe place to really access all of the expertise of the members. >> thank you so much, member ledbetter. it will be great to go back to member friedenbach. you originated the motion now we have a few different additions. would that be okay with you?

>> yes. >> jessie can state it. >> i wrote it down, too. you will be more articulate than me. >> the motion is to change the immediate needs liaison to the title emergency shelter and hygiene liaison. also, to change the name of the role data officer to the planning officer. another piece of the motion is that member reggio, friedenbach and andrews and ledbetter would all like to stay in their roles to that designated member.

member miller would like to step back. there is also member ledbetter volunteered to serve at this time. >> it is not that i want to step back. i don't want complications. i want to be able to use my expertise in a more helpful way but i don't want to be on the front page of the chronicle with a weird scandal. that is what i am saying. >> member miller will step back to avoid real or perceived conflict of interest. was there also asking people to pull together a draft of the

liaison pole? >> that is the motion. >> that's correct. we will be working on finalizing the work plan throughout the retreat until the december meeting. >> that is everything i have. does that match what you have, member friedenbach? >> yes. i will move to forward the motion. >> second? >> i have one question. do we have the vacancy in emergency shelter will member friedenbach stay there. >> member friedenbach stays there. >> i will second. >> seconded by ledbetter. >> additional discussion.

>> the reason that people think it is strange i put the word hygiene in there. part of the language in the section of the funding is funding for showers. we didn't fund that last time, that is probably something we want to look at. i just wanted to make sure everybody knew that. >> we will go to secretary for public comment. >> members to comment call 415-655-0001 access code (187)583-9526. pound and pound again. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted to comment. you have three minutes. can we get our spanish interpreter, please.

n speaking spanish] >> cantonese interpreter, please. speaking cantonese].

>> thank you. checking for hands raised. there are no public comments. >> this is the day for computer issues, i think. >> chair williams.

perhaps if you keep your camera off we can hear your voice. >> can you hear me. >> yes. >> i apologize. we will go to roll call vote on the motion. >> member andrews. >> yes. >> vice chair d'antonio absent. member frieden back. >> yes. >> ledbetter. >> yes. >> miller. >> yes. >> chair williams. >> yes. >> all right. the motion passes. we will continue working on this through december. thank you everyone for all of your work. we will now move to item 7. before we get to proposed agenda items. a couple announcements. regularly scheduled november meeting is canceled. we will have two special meetings retreat on wednesday november 3 and thursday novembeo

noon each day. we will post agenda tomorrow for those meetings. we will partner with united states inter agency coordinating council on homelessness for feedback on wednesday november 17 at 5:00 p.m. it is a general session for providers and stakeholders are encouraged to participate. there will be away for people with expertise for a gift card for $50. they will take place over zoom. we will have only 50 participants. the flyer will be coming out soon with more information. we would love committee member support with recruiting participants. i will work with staff to get that sept out. i wanted to flag those changes with the meeting. any questions before we go to

proposed agenda items? >> the 50 people are going to be unhoused and each member present? would we be taking up spaces from other people if we participate? >> i mean if folks want to participate please let me know. we have the 50 slots for those experiencing homelessness. proposed future agenda items. >> i think maybe my earlier comments as we think about this whole pipeline of how to strengthen and sustain, recruit and retain the work force and about overall non-profit

sustainability. it would be good to hear from some of our elected in that regard what their strategies are. i mentioned the hearing a few months back. cosponsored by supervisor haney and supervisor ronan. i am sure there are some strategies coming out of the mayor's office as well. it is just i can't underscore what member miller said enough. it is just we can have all of the resources available to us and if we just don't have a work force to deliver the services we are just sort of spinning our wheels. i want to say a word about that. point of process. that was the recommendation for our future agenda item for presentation. i also just wanted to get the process on the development of the agenda for the retreat, too.

i chair a few other associations. i want to make sure we are living within the values of community input into the process and i think people have an opportunity to reach out. i wonder if we can more as we move forward formalize that and even have a session that involves the membership to develop a retreat. we will be able to get to all that we need to get to. i just want to throw that out there as a potential future opportunity for the retreat. >> absolutely, member andrews. for the retreat we are just based on our past conversations more time for specific items. looking at investment plan, needs assessment, racial equity, where we are at.

i encourage all committee members please reach out to myself andvis chair d'antonio. we want your input based on our past conversations. >> sure. thank you, chair williams. i believe the restreets are times to gig -- retreats are times to dig in more deeply around be the work that is before us. thank you for that. >> thank you so much. any other future agenda items before public comment? >> go ahead member ledbetter. >> i would love to see a presentation around the prevention steps. i appreciate the caller who called in sharing we are

concerned about the dollars out the door but the prevention proposal had a lot of interesting cases to it. we have never had a real chance to hear about the exciting work that they have been doing through portfolio in the past and this funding as well as through the expansion of prevention system. i would love to hear some detailed proposal on different be strategies. [please

press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comment. please note, you have three minutes. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish]

>> thank you. cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese] >> thank you. checking the list now. i do not see any public

comments. >> thank you, secretary. thank you also to our interpreters. i will now entertain a motion to adjourn? >> i will move to adjourn. >> so moved by member friedenbach. >> i'll second. >> oh, thank god. i thought we were going to be on here forever [laughter]. >> you can always count on me. [laughter] >> seconded by member andrews. is there any discussion? all right, seeing none, secretary, can you call the roll? >> member andrews. >> yes. friedenbach? yes. >> ledbetter? yes. >> williams? >> yes. motion passes and we're now adjourned at 11:33 a.m. thank you, everyone. >> awesome.

>> secretary silva, can you please call the roll? >> yes. [roll call] madame chair, you have a quorum. >> that brings us to our next item. >> item number 3, announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices in the meeting. item number 4, approval of minutes for the october october 5 regular meeting. for members of the public,