>> thursday, january 6, 2022. happy new year and for those members of the public celebrating orthodox christmas tonight and tomorrow, merry christmas. remote hearings require everyone's attention and patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming live. we will have public comment on each comment on the agenda. opportunities to speak on each item on the agenda are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2486 636 0086. when we reach the item you are

interested in speaking to, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will have up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds ringing you will hear a chime indicating your time is up. when your allotted time is reached, i will alert you and take the next person. best practices are to speak clearly, slowly, from a quiet location and mute the volume on your tv or computer. [ roll call ]. >> thank you, commissioners. first on your agendas is consideration of items proposed for continuous. number 12021-008810 cua for 1520

lyon street and item 2 for 2740 mccallister street, a conditional use authorization is proposed. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on either of the items being proposed for continuance by pressing star 3. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to start speaking. >> yes. i live across the street from the intersection at sky line and scout and it is my understanding they want to permanently close the great highway from skyline and scout. and my neighbors and i are --

>> sorry, i'm going to interrupt you. it sounds like you're speaking to the only regular item on the ocean beach climate project. >> yeah. >> you're going to have to wait until we call that item on the regular calendar. you'll have to press star 3 back again, please. >> this is steve williams. i am calling about agenda item 10. a continuance was requested on that item as well. i forwarded it to the commission about an hour ago after finding out new information from the cal hall -- >> mr. williams i'm going to interrupt you only because that

item has not been called for the commission's consideration. but i suppose if the commission chose, we could take up that matter now. but if [indiscernible] -- wait to make your request to continue when the item is called under the discussion review calendar. >> okay. as i said, i forwarded it. >> okay. last call for comment for either of the items proposed to be continued. again, you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and the items to be continued are now before you, commissioners. >> regarding the item number 10, if someone from the planning staff can explain in terms of the matter of continuance

whether the kal hallow association needs to be informed. >> i don't see the zoning administrator here -- there he is. >> are we considering this item now? >> well, i think the commissioner has a question, but it hasn't been called. >> just briefly on the issue that was raised today is that the planning code mandated that the cal hollow association review that project with the design guidelines, however, that is not a requirement of the planning code and the resolution adopted a couple of decades ago

from the planning commission only states that the department and the commission should consider those guidelines when reviewing projects. there's no requirement from the commission or the planning code specifically that projects go to that association for review and comment. >> thank you. >> if i may, i understood the argument slightly differently. i never saw anybody challenging what you were explaining. i saw people commenting on having an agreement with each other to keep each other [indiscernible] that between people who work with each other have legitimate requests. if you go by and not agreed that we talk to each other, that is a valid thing to bring to our attention. i'm not for or against it. but that has a basis for a

request at least to me. >> and just to speak to that, i did clarify that to mr. williams that as a matter of a project being required to be continued because it didn't meet a code requirement, that wouldn't happen today, but his [indiscernible] they could make that argument when they came to the commission to request their continuance. >> which we would hear then later in the program when item 10 is called. is that a yes? >> that would be the appropriate course of action unless you decided to take up that matter now. okay, commissioners, so as previously stated the matter of continuances are now before you. >> i move to continue items 1 and 2 and [indiscernible] item

10 today. >> second. >> okay, commissioners, if i understand that correctly, commissioner we're continuing items 1 and 2 and hearing commission 10. on that motion to continue items 1 and 2. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and we'll place this under commission matters for item 3, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for december 9 and 16, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from

members of the public, public comment is closed and the minutes are before you, commissioners. i take that back, there is one person requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> i'm having difficulty hearing. it's not very clear. what item number will the great highway ocean beach project be? >> that item will come up under the regular calendar and it is item 8 and the only item on our regular regular so we will be there very shortly. commissioners, the minutes are before you. >> i only want to ask the secretary in the course of minutes last time around we also had the discussion of the calendar being revised. is that being reissued? as many. >> the hearing schedule? >> that's correct. >> yes, i will send all of you

that. i apologize for not having do that sooner. >> thanks. >> you read my mind. >> thank you. >> almost every thursday, guys, almost. i'll take a motion on the minutes. >> move to approve both sets of minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us on item 4, commission comments and questions.

seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to item 5, case number 2021-009977 crv. again, commissioners, we need to authorize every 30 days through adoption of a resolution to continue remote hearings. i will say there seems to be some promise in reconvening in city hall in person. there seems to be some indication of an effort to get us back in there by the end of february, for us that would mean the first hearing in march. stay tuned because as always things change at a moment's notice. yes, we should take public comment for the remote hearings. any member of the public wishing to speak to the resolution authorizing the remote hearings

for another 30 days, press star 3. >> hi, happy new year to everyone and merry christmas. i think that as long as your remote hearings go on -- and frankly i'm pessimistic. i don't think it will be. who knows. anyway, i think as long as you are remote it would be good to have the full amount of time to hear from both public and project sponsors and developers, as written in the rules for the commission, especially coming up in the spring you have some very -- and even in the next couple of weeks you have some important hearings on housing policy and legislation and rezoning and the housing element as well as the usual programs. as mr. ioin always gives us

these good instructions, when you call in to speak slowly and clearly. and i think it would be good to have the full three minutes for public comment and five minutes for requests and 10 minutes to cui people, et cetera, et cetera. thank you and i hope you will consider that. >> okay, seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is closed and the resolution authorizing remote hearings for another 30 days is before you. >> thank you for running great meetings heading into the beginning of our third year of doing remote hearings. this is something we never thought we would do but here we are. we've had comments about some of

the difficulties different folks have. i think some of the departments try to adjust them. one of the things related to hearings and preparation is some folks have trouble accessing documents or plan -- >> if you could move a little bit away from the microphone. we're having reverberation from your headphones. >> it might be the disconnect from my headphones. can you hear me now better? >> it's slightly better, but still an echo. >> is this better? >> yes. >> one of the comments is about trouble getting e.i.r. documents or view plans. i wonder if you could share with us what folks need to do if

viewing online doesn't meet their needs and other things if folks are having trouble getting in contact with the planner on the project. i don't know if director hill wants to mention that for myself and the public listening. >> for my end for any member of the public viewing plans with difficulty or looking at e.i.r.s online, they are always able to come down to the planning department, either schedule a time or drop in. our offices have been open for several months now to members of the public. clearly it's always better to make an appointment just to make sure we can have things available, but we do try to provide those as much as possible. some applications are only

submitted electronically so there are no hard copies of those plans, but as far as i know there are a good number of plans of projects that come before you are in hard copy that can be viewed. >> okay, great. >> and obviously getting ahold of a planner, the best way is e-mail, but our phone system will ring on your individual computer. you can still talk to residents and constituents. >> i also hear over the course of the holidays it's hard to get ahold of people. >> certainly this time of the year it's hard. i just wanted to bring those up today. i total support the resolution. maybe if there is some change in the future, i will not hold my

breath unfortunately, but hopefully we will be back together in person soon. certainly if members of the public have other ideas how to improve the hearings, i am open to that and the staff. we're into our third lap of this. i think we do a pretty good job with the challenges that we face. >> i would like to pick up on more time. again, this is a question of judgment. i often find in public comment someone is in the middle of developing a thought or a community presentation and there goes the bell and abruptly ended and sometimes people are not able to come back and ask questions. in personal hearings, three

minutes would be better. i would be prepared to give three minutes as long as they stay relevant and not just air. it is a two-way street. i feel like two minutes are not always enough. i'm curious what other commissioners think about that. >> do i hear a motion regarding the remote hearings? >> just to respond to commissioner moore. two minutes seems fine to me for public comment. i think we do good if the presentation gets cut off we ask

follow-up questions. >> sometimes it is harder for the public to come back and complete their thought. >> yeah. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt the resolution extending the remote hearings. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us under department matters, item 6, director's announcements. >> happy new year, commissioners. as you probably heard, most of our staff has returned to a work-from-home mode at the

direction of d.h.r. for the next couple of weeks post holiday. but i do want to thank our team that works in person, those at the public information counter in serving the public at this time. i also wanted to highlight as part of the city's connect s.f. network, the strategy has been -- you had an informational item on this in october of last year, the strategy outlined on the programs to meet existing and future needs in this city. primarily strategies are around maintenance and repair, getting our system working better, delivering a five-minute transportation network in modernizing and expanding our rail system. you can find that report on s.f. connect website. and our land uses and housing element play a big role in this

work and we're planning a joint planning n.p.a. hearing. this is between housing and transportation and the basis for our transportation element update. thank you to our team that has been working on this and the m.t.a. transportation authority. i want to thank the current planning and housing team for the scramble to update our bulletins and applications. s.b.i. will have another hearing this month, but it took room work to update our information. they will report on applications coming in. i don't think we've seen any yet, but we will keep you posted. that is my report. thank you. >> thank you, director.

if there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item 7 review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report. >> the land use committee did not meet this week but the board did and held another hearing on the emergency declaration of the tenderloin. this was not a planning hearing. staff is preparing a formal response to the supervisors' questions. there will be an informational hearing before this commission on january 20 to update you how the commission is fulfilling their obligations through the break. supervisor safai created a charter project for those residential units with 25 or

more. that is in excess of what is required by the planning code. those extra units would be there for occupants earning no more than 140% of a.m.i. the streamlined process would be available for the projects. this excludes projects that demolish existing housing or historic resources. the proposal would limit the charter review for eligible projects. the proposal would allow eligible projects to receive certain modifications to planning code, allow limited design review by the planning department and require ministerial approval within 180 day it is of submittal of a valid application. since this is a valid [indiscernible] you can hold an informational hearing on the matter if you so choose. that is my report for you and

i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. starr. the historic preservation commission did meet for their first hearing this new year. the only issue is they also amended their rules and regulations to include a statement that reflects the racial and social equity endeavors of the department in their rules and regulations to satisfy phase one of the racial and social equity plan. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on now to your -- excuse me. to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items.

with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. again, members of the public, you need to press star 3 and you will each have two minutes. >> hi again, it's georgia shootish. i sent you an e-mail on sunday and i also talked about it before the break about the water bills and why do i talk about the water bills? i was disappointed by a couple of things. all of the articles over the holiday about the pending projects and then the chronicle article on tuesday that was in tuesday's paper about projects and socket site has two more articles. all these projects are pending

and it seemed to resonate with me because of the idea that the debate about the housing shortage. most of the article talked about market rate housing. seeing the quote which was compelling, the three projects in the district that are not fully occupied. it resonated to me and something i talked about. i think i started talking about it a couple of years ago, but whatever. that to understand occupancy, building all this stuff has been built. cities built a lot of housing or what looks like a lot of housing. that's great, but is it occupied full time or a place to stash cash and that is the underlying rumor. it seems you could look at the

water bills or conjure up the study to look at the water bills and see what the occupancy is. that's about it. i hope you read the e-mail and the links. take care and have a wonderful afternoon. be well, be safe. bye. >> if we're going to continue to do remote meetings for another couple of months, please planning department staff, without and he happensing you need to have training about where to sit in relation to your microphones because it's really hard for the public to hear you. when we're at city hall, we can wave and get your attention somehow and we don't have the problems. but the problems are really intense right now because planning department staff members without exception all up

and downthe chain from the director down need to pay to being audible because the you're not audible right now. thank you very much. >> okay. last call for general public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, general public comment is closed. we can move on to your regular calendar item 8 case 2019-020115 env for the sfpuc ocean beach climate change adaptation project. this is the draft environmental impact report for your review and comment. please note that written comments will be accepted at the

planning department or at the e-mail address of cpc.oceanbeacheir@sfgov.org until january 24, 2022. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> the floor is yours. >> i'm asked to open system preferences. i'm sorry. i don't know why it's not sharing.

>> julie, we going to let josee share her screen. let her know when you want to go to the next. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, josee. >> happy new year. i'm julie moore, planning department staff and environmental coordinator for the ocean beach climate change adaptation project. the item before you is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report for draft eir for the proposed project. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comments on the accuracy and completeness of the draft eir pursuant to the environment california act or

ceqa. the proposed project is located at the south ocean beach an approximately 1-mile part of the pacific coastline. chronic erosion of the beach along this stretch has damaged beach parking lots, storm drain facilities and the great highway and threatens underground wastewater structure. in addition, it has constrained public shoreline access and recreation. the project design represents the long-term strategy for addressing erosion challenges at south ocean beach while removing rock and rubble from the beach in compliance with the california coastal commission permanent and a legal settlement agreement. this is based on the vision of

the ocean beach master plan and the adopt canned policies of the western shoreline plan. the plan would manage retreat, beach assurance to preserve and enhance public access close to recreation and scenic resources while protecting the infrastructure from damage due to coastal hazards. this project is a multi-agency initiative. additionally, there is involvement or coordination with public works, sfmta, the national park service, the federal highway administration and the u.s. army corps of engineers. the main component would permanently close the great highway between the boulevards to public vehicular traffic,

reconfigure the access from the san francisco zoo parking access. it would construct a buried wall to protect existing wastewater infrastructure from shore erosion, remove pavement, rock, and sandbags, rubble and debris, reshape the bluff, and plant native vegetation. it would construct a multi-use trail between the boulevards, install a beach access stairway, coastal access parking, restrooms and provide beach nourishment or sand replenishment. this slide is a typical cross-section showing the existing lake merset tunnel currently located beneath the great highway. there is coastal trail at the top left adjacent to the seat

wall. the inset depicts a service road and multi-use trail. this section also shows the current grade in the dashed line at the top and the project's final grade of sand above the slope stabilize layer, showing a wider and more gently sloped beach in the future. the rendering on the left depicts the project from slope boulevard looking south with the plaza and restroom in the foreground. the coastal access stairways at various sections are visible at the proposed parking lot. now i would like to provide you with a brief summary of the draft eir. it found that the project would have significant and unavoidable impact related to

transportation, noise, and biological resources. transportation, the permanent closure of the great highway south of south boulevard would reroute vehicles on to scout and boulevard adding a half-mile per trip which as 2.5 million miles traveled per year. no feasible mitigation is identified. noise, the vehicular traffic would result in significant levels of noise on the boulevard. mitigation could be speed reduction, new traffic signals, and/or street design. the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. biological resources.

sandy bluff and south ocean beach are used by bank swallow as a nesting habitat. this breeding area is one of the few coastal breeding locations in southern california for the state-listed endangered species. the eir calls for mitigation including educational signage and fencing which could protect the birds. however, there is no known feasible mitigation to replace or otherwise compensate this breeding habitat. the eir concludes that the impact on the bank swallow habitat would be significant and

unavoidable without mitigation. the study also identified that construction-related impacts on noise, air quality, biological resources and pail yen tol ji kal. under the no project alternative, there would be no change to the roadway, rubble, or existing park surface parking lot until affected by erosion. no shoreline protection or coastal trail would be constructed. periodic things would be implemented and the wastewater infrastructure would remain

vulnerable to coastal hazards. the increased beach nourish alternative would be similar to the no project alternative, except the revetments and rubble would be removed and there would be a limiting of further erosion. the wastewater infrastructure would still remain vulnerable to coastal hazards. as an aside, the photo below is from the army corps of engineers beneficial use project which put sand there this past summer. the eir analyzed a conventional alternative, such as this photo of santa cruz. this would remove the rubble and revetments. this would require three times

more sand in order to maintain a sandy beach. the fourth alternative analyzed abandoning the lake mersed tunnel and replacing it with infrastructure, this would include removal of rubble and revetments. construction of a parking lot and multi-use trail and similar sites in the project. without shoreline protect, the city would need to close the great highway and additional wastewater infrastructure located further east of the lake mersed tunnel would be vulnerable. in comparison, all four alternatives would reduce the impact of the bank swallow habitat and three of the alternatives would reduce the bmp and noise impact related to

diverted traffic from great highway closure. with removal of rock and rubble revetments, the bluff is anticipated to erode over time resulting in future habitat loss and roadway closure. the inland infrastructure alternative includes removing this as the unprotected bluff erodes. today the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and the accuracy of the information in the draft eir. for members of the public who wish to provide verbal comments, please state your name for the record, speak slowly and clearly so the planning department can

respond. comments will be written and transcribed which will respond to all relevant and verbal comments in the comment period and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. the draft eir for the project was published on december 9, 2021, and extends to january 24, 2022. those interested in commenting on the draft eir in writing may submit them to me at cpc.oceanbeacheir@sfgov.org or mail them to me at the address on the screen. all commenters who provide their contact information will receive a notice of availability of the

response to comments document, also known as the final eir, when it is published. if you are providing verbal comments today and you wish to receive this notice and want a final hard copy, please provide your contact information to the e-mail address above or call me at 628-652-7566 and leave a message with that information. this concludes my information. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on the accuracy and adequacy of the environmental impact report, please press star 3. i would like to stress that we're not taking comment on the project itself, just the accuracy and the adequacy of the environmental impact report. through the chair you will each

have two minutes. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to speak. >> our house is right across from scout and skyline on lake shore. my neighbors and i are really against the rerouting of traffic through there because when the great highway is closed for clearing sand and other issues, the traffic is backed up for a half-mile, the drivers are honking and cussing and yelling. there is a lot of noise and the intersection can't handle the load and it's gotten a lot worse in the last 15 years. in the last 35 years plus, that intersection has seen pedestrians killed and fatal car collisions. if as a last resort you need to

rout traffic there there, i would recommend a roundabout because signals and stop signs don't work. as an alternative, when i was a kid, the traffic from skyline used to go between tungston and the zoo or where the treatment facility is and the handicapped center. it went out and came out near the sewer plant. as one option, you could route the traffic through there or at least keep one lane each way open. in addition to that, i can't understand over the years that the city of san francisco and the park service has not built a

seawall such as the one in the middle of the great highway. we were starting to lose the great highway in the 1980s and mother -- >> your time is up. i will remind members of the public that again we're taking comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the environmental impact report, not the project itself. >> i'm with the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf. regarding sand replenishment on this project. the 800 pound gorilla is the commercial sand mining in san francisco bay with the sand used for construction purposes.

the u.s. geological survey has conducted modeling of the sand coming down being transported through san francisco bay and out the golden gate bridge. sand mining around angel island and alcatraz changes the sand transport patterns. this has exasperated erosion and in other places build up. the sand mining issue has been brought to the attention of the commission. i would courage the planning commission to conduct an informational hearing on the sand mining issue. thank you.

>> i and many other citizens are opposed to the adaptation of the managed retreat. this is a method for city agencies to perpetuate another land grab at the expense of the [indiscernible] emergency evacuation plan. there are 20,000 people who use this highway and their needs are being ignored. people need this road to conduct daily business and living life in the city. [indiscernible] there is absolutely no need to close the road right down to motorists. in fact, i would say there is a

greater need to protect this road. we have already started by reshaping the bluff and providing long-term nourishment and remenishment. it will be far more expensive to close the road than to protect it. there are numerous recreation venues in this area. it cost $200,000 to channel [indiscernible] -- there is a complete lack of transparency on these closures in the city. over 15,000 people signed a petition to keep the great

highway open. please don't ignore these needs by closing the highway. thank you. this road is a major commute route. it's a way that the people of the west side have to evacuate during emergencies. none of that appears as far as i can tell in your eir. in fact, i have read through almost every document you have beyond eirs and no one has made a case for the road and existing

road or automobiles are contributing to coastal erosion. there just seems to be an assumption. there is no data, science, research showing that coastal erosion is something being abetted by the presence of this road or automobiles. why is this road and these automobiles being removed in total disregard of the needs of the people on the west side? is it there are other options available to you. for example, instead of having two lanes north and south bound, you could have one lane north and south bound and move it closer to the treatment plant. at the current rate of erosion that would buy us at least another 25 years of usage of that road. why is that not explored? the aerial overhead, that access in the middle could be used as the road connecting to skyline and you wouldn't have automobiles going so far out.

they could cut through the middle. why isn't that being explored. somehow for cyclists and pedestrians to have a trail. why wouldn't a bicycle path also be threatened by coastal erosion and yet you're talking about putting in a bicycle path instead of maintaining the road that you have when you could put a bicycle path next to the road by redesigning that with a little bit of creativity. please, do not take away this road from people. thank you. >> thank you for your work on the draft report. i have not reviewed all of the documents yet, but i have identified two potential concerns with the accuracy and completeness of the record.

estimated in the draft plan 2.5 million miles per year is underestimated. this figure is calculated using only 73% of the current traffic volume. the calculation ignores the additional b.m.t. that will result from the other 27% of the traffic volume that will use longer routes such as sunset avenue. this additional b.m.t. should be added to the total in the final e.i.r. even though the plan concludes there will be an increase in the b.m.t., it does not talk about the greenhouse gas emissions that will have a significant impact on the environment. it does not seem possible it could not generate additional greenhouse gas emissions. this matter should be addressed in the final e.i.r. thank you for your time and

consideration. >> thank you. last call members of the public. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> i've been reading secret documents for over 40 years and i want to say this is one of the most interesting documents i've read in those four decades. this is an example why ceqa continues to be important for

these projects that have multiple goals. in particular, it really demonstrates the benefit of the alternatives analysis and how each alternative has varying impacts and mitigation measures with respect to each of those goals. i particularly appreciated the disclosure about what's likely to be the case based upon what's currently known when acknowledging the uncertainty that still exists in the science. i really want to compliment staff and all of the e.i.r. preparers in creating a document, including the response to the questions raised today that will assist the decision-makers in ultimately making a decision where they understand the trade-offs that are involved in their choices. with that, i just wanted to

have -- i do have a couple of clarification questions i hope would be addressed in response to comments. the first is i find figure s3, the same as 2.6, which is the same figure ms. moore put up at the beginning of her presentation somewhat challenging to read, especially in the e.i.r. it's very faint, hard to tell the dash lines from the straight lines. there is not enough labelling. there is a circular symbol which i assume is the tunnel, but it's not labelled as tunnel. just sort of simple things that would make it easier for the public to understand that cross-section. on page 20 in the summary of mitigation measures related to noise, there is a sentence that refers to compliance with the 9

dba and 10 dba standards and i think more explanation is necessary as to what would trigger or what the difference is between those two numbers relative to existing sound. i think a couple of more sentences of -- would clarify that section. section 2.#, the markers for the trail point to the plazas at both ends and i assume the trail is the green line which goes from one parking plaza to the other one, but there is no legend indicating that if the green line is supposed to be the trail, there should be a legend

that indicates that. in section 2.7.3, there is a line that describes the role of this mission. it says two purposes. one is [indiscernible] which is self-evident and the other has a note general plan referral. i think it would be helpful if you could explain in more detail what exactly it is we're doing with respect to general plan referral, what is the subject, what part of the general plan, when does that take place. i think more explanation would be helpful in demonstrating to the readers of the document what the role of the commission is with respect to the e.i.r. thank you very much and again my compliments to the staff in producing a document i think really was very challenging to produce because of the complexity of the subject but will be fascinating to read and

helpful. >> okay, commissioners, if there is no further request to speak -- >> i would like to echo the preparation of this draft e.i.r. there is a lot to be learned for everybody. what i would like to see and i'm not sure we're hitting the sweet spot, the national environmental description and future ways to restore protected seems to be not as conclusive as i would like it to be, plant material, additional planning, including knowing a little bit more about a sandbank swallow.

i have no idea what this animal looks like. i think it verves more description if at all possible. otherwise, i'm very impressed by what is in front of me here and that would conclude my comments. thank you so much. >> seeing no other requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to discretionary review calendar for item 9 case 2021-010563 drp at 192 to 196 laidley street. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow. >> good afternoon, members of

the commission. david winslow. this is the discretionary review for 2021.0929.149 85 to replace an existing rear deck and stairs in kind to an existing three-story four-family house. the subject property is concerned that the proposed [indiscernible] adjacent to the requester. further, that the spacing of the posts creates a safety hazard. the proposed alternatives are to remove the posts closest to the

back door and increases the space to 48 inches to provide adequate space to navigate through them. there is one letter of opposition to the project and no letters of support. although the planning commission has routinely directed staff to work out problems that impact livable and respond with mutual agreeable solutions, this is not a land use issue that the planning department regulates, either through the planning code or other policies. there is a recommendation not to take discretionary review and concluding. this concludes the department's presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you.

>> d.r. requester, you have three minutes. >> thank you for hearing us out today. if you could jump me forward to the second slide. as david highlighted, the main two issues are the footings proposed in the structure block our access to our laundry room. the second issue is the post in the middle of the structure require us to navigate through the middle of the two posts and will create a hazard for us accessing our laundry room. we created an alternative set of plans which was proposed by the structural engineer. for some reason we've rejected those plans in favor of the one submitted. i'm not sure why. we also know that the post in the middle of the structure can be made wider. we've been advised that there is

no building issue widening the post to give us better access to our space and preserve the open space outside of the house. the core of the issue comes down to fixing the retaining wall. if you could jump me forward two slides. so the problem here is we have this retaining wall sagging 18° and where the red dot is where they're proposing adding a new post. i think you can see that putting the post there is far from the get-go. putting it there jeopardizes the structure to begin with. our ask is to move it wider which is fixing this retaining wall which neighbors have written about. if you could jump me to the last slide. other procedural issues, the

applicant is asserting to be the president of the h.o.a., but has held on to power for the third year without following our h.o.a. guidelines to reat a time between units. we are the next president in order and should be driving this project. next, we emphasize the deck is getting longer. we don't think that this conforms to planning guidelines. it also takes away the only gated area for children to play in and doesn't limit the livability of the property. it will make it difficult for us to carry anything into the back

room or laundry room which is a daily access need for us. thank you for hearing us out. all we're asking is they make the posts a little bit wider so we can access our laundry room. if we have to fix the retaining wall because of that, that's the deal of being a homeowner. >> thank you. we should hear from the project sponsor. >> can you hear me? >> we sure can. you have two minutes. >> not three minutes? >> sorry, my apologies. >> thank you in advance for taking the time to hear us. we would urge you to adopt the staff's recommendation to deny

the petition and approve the permit. this is an internal h.o.a. dispute. the project sponsor is the homeownerers' association of which mr. palthuck is a member. the disputes were voted on and when the man bought the unit, he knew that this project was in process and there was an in-kind replacement in foot. the owners of 192 laidley street engaged the structural engineer. this is not something properly before the commission. with that said, i would address the issues. this is a four-unit building built into a hill. the top unit is occupied by a single family. there are two small units on the ground floor and my unit is in the middle. access to the top floor is via miguel street and there are two

points of entry. what you're looking at in this picture is the bridge from the yard which is sorely in need of repair. in this picture -- maybe it's gone. all right. in the photos it shows the supporting beams are rotted and cracked, the structure shakes and it is not safe for the occupants nor any firefighters in the event there were fire and somebody needed to be rescued. the engaged structural engineers called for a design for an

in-kind replacement and we chose that for purposes of cost and simplicity. the initial proposal was for four posts, reduced to three sets of posts. that's why we're here for discretionary reviews. the questions are, are there any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would justify denying this permit. if there are none, this permit should be approved and the petition denied. the petitioner makes arguments about the location of the posts and a safety hazard and it's all predicated on this notion that the walkway is a patio that services their unit, but, in fact, the walkway is common area. no unit has special rights to that walkway. h.o.a. voted and decided to use the walkway for purposes of

safety and not for convenient or design. the post closest to the door will not [indiscernible] -- showing that moving the post -- >> thank you, ms. ross, but that's time. just for the record, i paused your time when david's shared screen went blank. >> thank you. >> you will have a one-minute rebuttable. i see no members of the public wishing to speak. d.r. requester, you have a one-minute rebuttable. >> the only thing we would say back is we don't think the patio

is on our issue. we think it's unsafe to allow construction to continue given the state of construction around the building area. we want them to fix the area to make it suitable to holding this bridge. once done, they could widen it it wouldn't change the style or anything about the deck. thank you. >> you have a one-minute rebuttable. >> we're not here to talk about the retaining wall. what we don't want to do is create a condition causing the retaining wall to move.

we believe that the recommendation should be followed. >> thank you. that concludes presentations and rebuttables. the public comment portion of this item is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> it's too bad that folks can't come to an agreement at this development, but i agree with staff and the project sponsor that the matters before us are not really matters that the planning commission has jurisdiction over and i don't find any unusual or extraordinary challenges with the project. i will hear from the commission more, but i would be making the motion not to take d.r. on this project. >> i call on commissioner moore.

>> i would like to expand on that thinking. i am very surprised this matter is before the planning commission. this is not in our jurisdiction to consider, other than a dispute between an owner and an h.o.a. which is different to start with. since this requires a permit, would a permit appeal be the right way of handling this? i think as an h.o.a. participant, you can apply a decision the board makes in form of the appeal, but nothing else. >> correct. there's nothing that prohibits anyone from filing a discretionary review. in my opinion, the best would be

the board of appeal. >> thank you for affirming that. i share the commissioner's opinion. if there is nothing extraordinary in this particular situation, i'm in support of the h.o.a. basically having a say over common area decisions. because that is a decision by those who live there, that should be something that i would acknowledge and support and no d.r. needs to be taken, which mean call the question. >> there is a motion seconded not to take d.r. and approve the project. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 7-0. we'll be placed on the final item on the agenda number 01 for 2016-008167 drp at 65 normandie terrace, also a discretionary review. >> thank you. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is a discretion review for building permit application 2021.0901.7599 to rectify and legalize the construction of the exceeded building permit to add an elevator, alter the northwest elevation, remove walls on the second floor, remove old

perimeter railing and replace with glass. the scope of work in building permit 2021.0901.7599 to abate the enforcement case 2020-010614 enf includes reducing the height of the elevator shaft to 40.11 feet above curb its originally approved height, reducing the height of the roof to 39.9 feet as measured above the curb, removing and restoring the lower roof areas, as it was determined to be inconsistent with the planning department's deaf nation, restoring the wall at the south exterior elevation on the roof level to its original location towards the north five inches, and replacing all decorative exterior elements to an existing four-storey

single-family house. this exceeded the building permit to add an elevator, and remove the walls on the second floor. the scope of the work -- that's redundant, sorry. the scope of work in this b.p.a. 2021 that abates the enforcement as mentioned includes reducing the height of the built portion of the roof to its originally approved heights as measured above the curb and restoring a lower area of the roof as it was inconsistent and the basis of approval in the original permit. the building is a category a historic resource. the d.r. requester, the resident

of the adjacent property to the immediate south is concerned that the proposed fourth floor addition is in excess of the code. once non-complying features are removed, they cannot be rebuilt. the roof and facade was removed in its entirety and rebuilt in contravention of the planning code. his proposed alternative is to bring the building into compliance with the height limit. to date the department received three letters in opposition to the project and no letters in support of the project. the planning department's review of this proposal confirms support for the project as it attempts to rectify a project that conforms to the planning code and the residential design guidelines. planning department enforcement staff, in coordination with d.b.i. spent a considerable amount of time in the last year

addressing the issues. planning department staff worked with d.b.i. to conduct site visits, reviewed several draft plans and coordinated with department staff to review compliance with the planning code. the project sponsor arrived at the proposed permit to rectify the process. the original permit submitted in 2017 proposed a complete alteration of all floors, including expanding the roof with an elevator and a dorm. it also lo youed for windows and stucco to be replaced. elevators are allowed to exceed the allowable height limit, however, the proposed dormer that was subsequently determined

not to be categorized as a dormer, but rather an expansion of a part of a compound hip-shaped roof which was above the height limit. therefore, that part of the roof has to be rebuilt to the existing or below existing footprint and height of its prior condition. the project was properly noticed per section 260 and subject to compliance with the residential guidelines. [indiscernible] and the work that exceeded the permit was issued with a notice of enforcement. the permit that's under appeal right now 2021-0901-7599 was applied to correct the violations by proposing to reduce the elevator to its

previously approved height, remove the previously approved dormer mentioned above, reduce the height and extent of the portion of the roof which were built beyond their previous footprint and height and reduce the other elements to at or lower to previous listing. and to document the extent of the removal of the planning code. the current permit proposes to add proportions to the roof and 4 inches lower as well as lowering the height of the elevator to 6 inches to its originally planned height. the planning code allows these structures to be repaired if it does not increase the degree of non--compliance. for the sponsor's calculations, the work did not exceed thresholds.

therefore, staff deem there are no extraordinary conditions, recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. i'm joined by a member of the enforcement team who has been working hand and glove over the past year on this. we're happy to take any questions. >> mr. chang, we had a mark thomas listed as your representative. are you going to be making the presentation or mr. williams? is if. >> mr. williams is going to present as well as mr. thomas. >> very good. >> mr. williams, you have three

minutes. >> [indiscernible] -- >> mr. williams, i was instructed by the commission to have this matter today. you could argue for a continue ance. >> i understood that the continuance would be heard first and if it was denied it [indiscernible] -- as stated [indiscernible] -- the first slide show on the [indiscernible] -- photo photos microeconomicing this violation -- >> [indiscernible] --

>> you've got two microphones that are unmuted, either your phone or the computer and it's creating an echo. i would suggest that you remedy that so the commissioners can hear your presentation. >> we can let him start over. >> sure, of course. mr. williams, you've muted your computer, but the information we received indicated that mr. mark thomas would be making the presentation and a different phone number so i don't have your phone number, mr. williams, to unmute if that's your preference. >> they're using the same number listed as mark thomas. they're in the same location. >> unfortunately that number doesn't appear in the attendee list. so i'm going to unmute you,

mr. williams. is there a phone number you would used? >> is this working? >> it is, but because you have two devices unmuted or close to each other, it's creating an echo. >> is the echo still there? >> i'm going to restart your time and you have three minutes. mr. williams. >> is the echo gone now? because i can't hear it. >> it seems to be slightly better. let's try it if you say you've turned off your phone. >> the first slide shows the slide and the [indiscernible] left there. this is an extraordinary and

exceptional case because of the [indiscernible] voluntary demolition of the structure. we have photos confirming those violations that were taken by staff. surprisingly the staff [indiscernible] the code is super clear on this issue. the second question. inspection 188 c, it says if you voluntarily -- structures above the height limit can be repaired, but not if you voluntarily take those structures down first. that's what happened, you can't put it back [indiscernible] how far above it is above the 30-foot height limit on the facade and those were

demolished. they were told in the initial project review not to touch the structures over the height limit. they say the planning code simply doesn't allow for you to take the structures down. they were told this over and over and it was in the planning department. the planning department grew them a picture and created a four-page plan set drawn by staff illustrating the roof structures that cannot be touched or removed. despite all of these admonitions, there would be extensive demolition at the

scene and that was confirmed [indiscernible] -- documented by d.b.i. more than a year ago, where they spelled out the exact percentage. the planning issues and notice of enforcement is exhibit a. the staff and the sponsor has not put that in front of the department or the commission and that's exhibit a to our brief. the structure was out of compliance and demolition and reconstruction over the height limit and it's easy to see at the facade. slide 6 -- that slide 5 shows the demolition view north. slide 6 shows the demolition of the facade and then slide 7

which shows it completely reconstructed. i put tiana tam's photos -- [indiscernible] -- >> [indiscernible] -- >> mr. enbridge, you have three minutes for your presentation. >> thank you chair and commissioners. [indiscernible] remodel their home. this is at 65 normandie terrace. this shows their home preconstruction on the right and the home of the neighbor requesting d.r. on the left. slide 2 shows the state of things today. yes, this an extensive remodeling involving demolition and replacement of the third and fourth storeys.

those were approved by planning and d.b.i. without objection by the neighbor [indiscernible] -- the mistakes involved a small amount of extra demolition to address height conditions without first obtaining permits. that was improper and the planning staff came down on the family. [indiscernible] the elements shown in brown were removed and the elevator penthouse in green was to be added. the removal of the features improved the situation for the neighbor. the bottom depiction is what it will look like once the project

complete. the slight lowering of this. this is not about exceptional or extraordinary impacts on the neighbors, there are none. this improved the views. what this d.r. is about is a neighbor hoping to capitalize on the errors by having the commission require that the entire top floor of the home removed. this home has the stood in this configuration for 84 years and the roof line will look substantially the same when completed. [indiscernible] -- they all

believe the revised plans adequately address the plans. the family incurred tens of thousands of dollars in fees and lost a year on this project. because your staff and the b.a. dealt with this appropriately and no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, please do not take d.r. and let the family complete their project. i can respond to any questions including the code interpretation [indiscernible] -- >> thank you, mr. enbridge. members of the public, this would be your opportunity to address the commission on this item. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue.

through the chair, you'll have one minute. >> my name is steven chong and my family and i live directly behind the home at 65 normandie terrace. i just discovered that the cal hallow association wasn't [indiscernible] -- i request that you give an opportunity to the association to consult. in addition, my understanding the family still have their original home in the east bay and they're living there. the reason they moved to this home is so the daughters could attend a certain high school. it's not like the family doesn't

have a home. >> last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, mr. williams, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> i am an architect working on this. i would like to point out some errors in the plan. in the approved site drawings issued to the neighbors, the height of the pre-existing lower flat roof structures were 309.2 feet and 309.9 feet respectively. we would like to make sure that these numbers are adhered to and these are from the project

sponsor's own plan. and this drawing, the height of the existing -- the height of the room, we would like to make sure that is adhered to as per the neighborhood-approved drawings aligning with the adjacent flat roof i just talked about in slide 9. we appreciate these suggestions being implemented in order to fully comply with the terms after the abatement. thanks. i'm available to answer any questions and i can turn over any remaining time to mr. williams. >> you don't have any remaining time. mr. enbridge, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> to mr. thomas' point, he's

misleading the commission in a plan trying to show the [indiscernible] by surveyor, by your staff and d.b.i. and they presented no evidence to show that those calculations are inaccurate. in the code section [indiscernible] -- he's actually referring to [indiscernible] but should be referring to 188(a) which says a project that is not complying can undergo a change as long as it does not undergo [indiscernible].

>> thank you. that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. it is now before you, commissioners. >> [indiscernible] -- i believe this project should be further described. i think this project should be further discussed, but i find myself in a great deal of comution and contradiction about what is rightnfusion and contra about what is right.

i'm completely open to look at this package, whatever way is the right way, i personally don't have any ability to put it on the right or the wrong. this is a project that has multiple violations. we are being asked to approve something, but i personally don't believe i have the correct tools. it doesn't matter who interprets what. i believe there is too much background including very expensive staff work about how this project has evolved. i want to leave it at that and i'm basically uncomfortable sitting here today to decide on this project. that is my personal opinion. thank you. >> could the zoning administrator please address the

code compliance issue and interpretation raised by mr. williams and countered by mr. enbridge. >> i will rather simplify this a little bit. again, this is a very substantial remodel originally, basically replacing all the exterior stucco and windows and doors, all the roof shingles and some other actual portions of the walls on the fourth floor that are partially above the height limit and went overscope which triggered where we are now. the issue regarding co-compliance is the planning code in several places references what can happen with non-compliant structures and it basically states that they can be moved, repaired, as long as

you're not creating a new non-conformity, but there is the section that does talk about when structures are demolished due to a calamity or an act of nature that they can be replaced even if they are not complying. it does say that such a structure cannot be voluntarily razed and put back. >> you can take the spectrum literally on either end, which is that you can't replace the structure and the other is you can do everything, but take down the final piece of material which is not razed or fully demolished. this is something that is a case-by-case call over the

years. generally we are pretty strict about structures over the height limit and we look at all the proposals in context, in the relevant context that they're being proposed under. as the project sponsor mentioned, this project originally came in proposing to do more about the height limit and there was a lot of work with staff. at the end of the day, there was a decent amount of replacement work that was permitted above the height limit, including a good deal of the wall structure for that fourth floor, the roof shingles, et cetera. so it is a case where is this on higher end of the spectrum and how much is removed and replaced above the height limit. can it be permitted under the code? yes, it could. if we determined that could not happen, that would not be in front of the planning commission today. >> thank you.

[indiscernible] -- i do not think that we should take d.r. and i move to not take d.r. >> because we were in the continuance hearing earlier, this does not need to be heard by the housing association.

>> correct. there is no planning code requirement or planning commission requirement that any specific action relevant to this project be taken by the housing association. >> thank you for that. my only thing, since this is still with -- this is the project in the cal hallow area and it looks -- i do have questions for you. i think it is still in the good space for the project sponsor to reach out to the cal hallow association. we have asked the project sponsor to meet with the neighbor, especially at this time with the cal hallow if not

well informed. it looks like from the e-mail that there is some communication, but no presentation really happened. i would actually more adhere to a continuance so the cal hallow association be given more time to look into it and it is more of a community process which i think should be respectful of what community voice should sound like. i will put a counter motion to continue this project. >> although there was a motion

to not take d.r., the motion for continuance takes precedence. we should take that up first. commissioner moore, did you have additional comments? >> actually, i wanted to comment that i found the drawings indicate lg ing how it was modified is interesting, but i believe that getting community buy-in because this was a very controversial project and i understand certain administrator's position about case-by-case interpretation, that i think there should be a meeting of minds. i would like that whatever the solution is [indiscernible] should be discussed with the neighborhood support.

>> there are two motions on the floor and the procedural motion will take precedence. on the motion to continue, did you have a date in mind? a month. >> is mr. steven williams still available? >> are you there? >> yes, i'm still here. >> in terms of the cal hallow meeting, how do you proceed in their process? >> you know, i think that -- i could be communicating with the vice president of the association and she said she couldn't make the access code

work and she wanted to call in and speak on this fasting -- more on this matter. i think that they would make themselves available to fully understand the project. it has never been vetted before. >> thank you, mr. williams. >> for a month. >> very good then, commissioner s. >> on that motion. [ roll call ].

>> that motion fails 3-4. the original motion on the floor was not to take d.r. on the project as proposed. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-3. commissioners, that concludes your first hearing of this new year. i'm looking forward to seeing you all in person at some point, but until then, enjoy the rest

of your afternoon. [♪♪♪] >> how i really started my advocacy was through my own personal experiences with discrimination as a trans person. and when i came out as trans, you know, i experienced discrimination in the workplace. they refused to let me use the women's bathroom and fired me. there were so many barriers that other trans folks had in the workplace. and so when i finished college,

i moved out to san francisco in the hopes of finding a safer community. >> and also, i want to recognize our amazing trans advisory committee who advises our office as well as the mayor, so our transadvisory community members, if they could raise their hands and you could give a little love to them. [applause] >> thank you so much for your help. my leadership here at the office is engaging the mayor and leadership with our lgbt community. we also get to support, like, local policy and make sure that

that is implemented, from all-gender bathrooms to making sure that there's lgbt data collection across the city. get to do a lot of great events in trans awareness month. >> transgender people really need representation in politics of all kinds, and i'm so grateful for clair farley because she represents us so intelligently. >> i would like to take a moment of silence to honor all those folks that nicky mentioned that we've lost this year. >> i came out when i was 18 as trans and grew up as gay in missoula, montana. so as you can imagine, it wasn't the safest environment

for lgbt folks. i had a pretty supportive family. i have an identical twin, and so we really were able to support each other. once i moved away from home and started college, i was really able to recognize my own value and what i had to offer, and i think that for me was one of the biggest challenges is kind of facing so many barriers, even with all the privilege and access that i had. it was how can i make sure that i transform those challenges into really helping other people. we're celebrating transgender awareness month, and within that, we recognize transgender day of remembrance, which is a memorial of those that we have lost due to transgender violence, which within the last year, 2019, we've lost 22 transgender folks. think all but one are

transgender women of color who have been murdered across the country. i think it's important because we get to lift up their stories, and bring attention to the attacks and violence that are still taking place. we push back against washington. that kind of impact is starting to impact trans black folks, so it's important for our office to advocate and recognize, and come together and really remember our strength and resilience. as the only acting director of a city department in the country, i feel like there's a lot of pressure, but working through my own challenges and barriers and even my own self-doubt, i think i've been

try to remember that the action is about helping our community, whether that's making sure the community is housed, making sure they have access to health care, and using kind of my access and privilege to make change. >> i would like to say something about clair farley. she has really inspired me. i was a nurse and became disabled. before i transitioned and after i transitioned, i didn't know what i wanted to do. i'm back at college, and clair farley has really impressed on me to have a voice and to have agency, you have to have an education. >> mayor breed has led this effort. she made a $2.3 million investment into trans homes, and she spear headed this effort in partnership with my office and tony, and we're so proud to have a mayor who continues to commit and really

make sure that everyone in this city can thrive. >> our community has the most resources, and i'm very happy to be here and to have a place finally to call home. thank you. [applause] >> one, two, three. [applause] >> even in those moments when i do feel kind of alone or unseen or doubt myself, i take a look at the community and the power of the supportive allies that are at the table that really help me to push past that. being yourself, it's the word of wisdom i would give anyone. surely be patient with yourself and your dream. knowing that love, you may not always feel that from your family around you, but you can

>> the city has undertaken a pilot program to hook up private privately -- owned hotels. >> the community members say this is helpful for them especially for the seniors and families with kids from seniors being able to connect with the family during the pandemic and too watch the news has been really helpful during this time where they are stuck inside and are not able to go outside. for families it is important to stay connected to go to school, to get connected so they can submit resumes to find jobs during the pandemic.

[speaking foreign language] >> challenges that might seem for the fiber in chinatown is pretty congested. the fiber team found ways around that. they would have to do things such as overnight work in the manholes to get across through busy intersections, and i think the last challenge is a lot of buildings we worked on were built in the early 1900s and they are not fitted with the typical infrastructure you would put in a new building. we overcame that with creative ideas, and we continue to connect more sites like this.

>> high-speed internet has become a lifesaver in the modern era. i am delighted that we completed three buildings or in the process of completing two more. i want to thank our department of technology that has done this by themselves. it is not contracted out. it is done by city employees. i am proud and i want to take a moment to celebrate what we are doing.

>> the hon. london breed: good morning, everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed, and i want to thank you all for joining us here today to talk about public safety on a whole other level in light of the challenges that our city continues to face. you know, this has been a problem that has persisted in the city for sometime now, and the fact is that things have gotten worse over time, and i want to thank a moment to appreciate our public safety officials today, some of whom you will hear from in a short moment, but thank you to our police chief, bill scott, for

being here, our fire chief, jeanine nicholson, our sheriff, paul miyamoto, our director of public health, dr. grant colfax, our department of public works director, shireen mcspadden, and our district supervisor, ahsha safai. in recent months, we've not only seen a rising number of criminal behavior, especially in the tenderloin that has become far too normal and cannot continue to be

tolerated. all of our workers, our residents, and everyone who visits our city should feel safe no matter what part of town they're in, and i know that san francisco is a compassionate city. we are a city that prides ourselves on second chances and rehabilitation, but we're not a city where anything goes. our compassion should not be mistaken for weakness or indifference. today, we're announcing a series of public safety initiatives to create a city that is safe and turns the tide on what we have recently seen in san francisco. and to be clear, what i'm proposing today, and what i will be proposing in the future will make a lot of people uncomfortable, but i don't care. at the end of the day, the

safety of the people of san francisco is the most important thing to me, and we are past the point where what we see is even remotely acceptable. the first of these initiatives is the tenderloin emergency plan, which is already underway. during covid, we showed what this city can do when we unify our efforts and we work together collaboratively. tlou our emergency action, we protected the health of the city, and san francisco was a national model for addressing covid. we saved lives. and let me say this: the tenderloin needs an emergency response, period. i spent a lot of time going to the tenderloin and have seen what's happening.

we made a significant difference, but now, what i see is far, far worse. while there are still issues of needing to get people off the streets and into housing, and there are also very important urgent safety issues. last week, i met with families from the tenderloin. their stories are heartbreaking. just imagine if you had to walk your kid down the streets of the tenderloin every single day with people shooting up, selling drugs, and because the sidewalks were so packed with people, you had to walk out on the street in incoming traffic on a regular basis. you've got these brand-new playgrounds where you don't even feel comfortable walking your kids to play in them

because of everything they see around them, where you don't feel safe. the unsafe streets, and the dirty streets, and when i say dirty, i mean the feces in the streets that department of public works will clean and have to come back just hours later. we can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. we need to be different, to act with urgency, and to be aggressive in countering these problems, and this is why i've

directed mary ellen carroll, the director of emergency management, to lead our multiagency coordination on this effort, bringing the coordination and urgent responses that we brought to covid this year. in essence, a covid command that will be a public safety command that will be specifically targeted at the tenderloin community, and i'm going to have mary ellen carroll walk-through the details of what this means. our priorities are focused on issues of drug dealing, private crime, public drug use, safe passage and accessibility for the people who live and work there, neighborhood cleanliness, housing resources, emergency medical calls, and we will be tackling illegal

vending. in the short-term, that means taking actions like fixing the lights, adding additional lighting in very dark areas, dealing with the trash all over the neighborhood, but it also means coordinating with the police and sheriff's office on felony warrant sweeps, which have led to the arrest of 23 individuals so far with outstanding warrants. these are some of the people who have been holding this neighborhood hostage, and our criminal justice system has a responsibility to hold them accountable. when the police make an arrest, the residents of the tenderloin should not see that same person back on the streets the next day dealing drugs right in front of their neighborhood. the next stage of this plan will roll out next month and continue for at least two months after that. the second stage will continue

the progress made earlier on the law enforcement but interventions and connections of services to people facing evictions and other challenges, but to be clear, we're not giving people choice anymore. we're not just going to walk by and let someone use in public daylight on the streets and give them choice of giving them to the location we have identified them or going to jail. this will involve outreach workers, social workers, police, and community workers working together, offering wraparound services at a new linkage site where people can start treatment, meeting people where they are, being the compassionate city that we are, but not tolerating the mess that we've had to tolerate.

the final phase of this project involves keeping the streets safe for everyone who called the -- who call the tenderloin home, and promoting safety and neighborhood support. this also includes long-term partnerships with community organizations and residents to maintain the improvements made during the crisis operations phase. the key will be to never let the tenderloin go back to what we are seeing today, to not go backward, to move forward, to feel and see a difference. but public safety isn't just about the tenderloin. we know that there are issues all over this city. our second initiative is targeting the illegal vending on our streets that is

incentivizing the break ins and robberies like the ones we have seen at stores and small businesses throughout the city. and you know what's the sad reality before i was even an elected official, everybody knew whatever they stole for cell phones, laptops, anything you steel in the city, you take it down to the tenderloin, and there's somebody waiting to give you cash for these items. i want you to know, these are not just victimless crimes, and these are not just property crimes. we're seeing stolen vehicles, physical violence, and the use of weapons. today, i'm introducing legislation to disincentivize theft by making the resale of stolen goods on the street more

difficult. it will mandate highly visible posting of approved vendor permits to make it simple and easy for inspectors for proof at any time and if they can't produce it, we will take action. it will allow the department of public works to associate with law enforcement. if there is a need to move an individual who's not complaint and the ability to confiscate goods. these are basic but important actions, and i want to thank supervisor safai for cosponsoring this legislation. we also need know that we need to give our officers more tools to effectively do their jobs. in 2019, the board of

supervisors passed a law that effectively limited officers' use of camera feeds for certain situations. for what happened in union square, they could not. when there were multiple robbery crews hitting multiple stores, they could not access those cameras, which is ridiculous. think about that. you're in an incident of severe looting, aurofficers are not able to use that other jurisdictions -- our officers are not able to use something that other jurisdictions use. we need amendments to clarify that officers are allowed to access these cameras when needed to address critical public safety issues. there is a balance to be had, i know, but right now, if our

officers cannot use cameras during a mass looting event, then that policy is out of balance. we are actively working on those amendments, with plans to introduce it in january, and my hope is that the board will support changes. lastly, we're increasingly asking our police department to do more. they're working overtime to address these challenges, including responding to the rash number of retail thefts, and expanding a number of deployments through our tourism deployment plan so when come here and support our economy, they feel safe, and they want to return, and we change the

narrative about what people say about san francisco. and focusing on auto burglaries to make significant arrests on prolific crews. they've done all of this -- our officers are committed to doing the work, and they're committed to keeping us safe, but everything they've been doing over the recent months and everything we've going to ask of them in the coming months before we pass a new budget is going to require more overtime funding, and it's going to require more police officers.

my budget office is currently working with the san francisco police department and the chief to understand what the needs will be to get us through 2022, and i will introduce a supplemental to ask this board for the resources that we need so that the deployment that exists now will not end after the holidays. the deployment that we're starting in this city needs to be permanent. as we are preparing for our budget, we will ensure these resources occur, including academy classes and overtime, are in place as part of the budget, and i will introduce that as part of that budget in may, but we cannot wait to continue some of those actions now. some of those actions are underway immediately, while others require significant action and legislation, and there will be more work on this

front. taken together, they can make a real difference on our streets and on our city. i want to recognize our police officers and their commitments. vacations have been cancelled, time off has been cancelled. it's been all hands on deck, and at the end of the day, what has made the most significant difference to address public safety is, yes, we've made investments in social service programs, yes, we pushed for reforms to our criminal justice system. we will continue to do that, but when a line is crossed, people have to be held accountable for the crimes they commit in our city, and that's where our police officers have been critically important to our ability to do so. thank you to sheriff miyamoto who has been a real partner,

and i'm looking forward to working more with allowing our sheriff's departments to work off duty. at the end of the day, i know this sounds like a lot of different things. i know this sounds like more and more promises that may not materialize, but i want each and every person in this city to know this work, and what we are going to do to turnaround how people feel in san francisco is the most important thing to me. this is a city that has a

population of under 1 million people but has a $12 billion budget. the people of this city have been extremely generous with providing us the resources to make a difference. and now, the priorities we need to make must be to protect them. when you are in a room full of people, i would say probably anywhere between 90 and 95% of folks could raise their hand and say that either their car has been broken into or they've been a victim in some capacity or another. that is not okay. that is not acceptable, and it's time that the reign of

criminals is over. it happens when we are less tolerance of all the bullshit that has destroyed our city. we are going to turn this around, and this is the most important thing for me and i know leaders of public safety in this city at this time. with that, i'd like to introduce our police chief, bill scott. [applause] >> thank you, mayor. good morning. let me start with this. the people in our city who have been impacted by crime, by quality of life issues such as open air drug usage, street vending, some of our issues with unhoused population that lead to trash on the streets and needles on the street and

things like that, these things have to change. now from a policing perspective, let me tell you what you can expect from the san francisco police department. first of all, enforcement of drug dealing and drug dealing offenses. it's little consequence that we've arrested 600 people in the tenderloin alone this year. it's little consolation when you're still seeing drug dealers on your block day in and day out. it's little consolation when we seize four times as much fentanyl as we did last year, and we still see open air drug

use happening day in and day out. and here's the point to all of this. we will continue to make arrests, and we will make more arrests, but there are areas in this city that need constant 24-hour patrol while we make those arrests. this is what i'm hearing over and over and over again, and i thank the mayor and our elected officials who are here with us for introducing the line because this police department will draw the line, but we need the resources to do it. and let me go in a little bit more detail how this works, because i'm going to speak

about our officers. they're asked to go in and do their job, make an arrest. they're in the station, writing reports, booking evidence. that has to be done. while they're doing that, that corner, nobody is there, and when that's happening, we can't afford to have a neighborhood where that happens. i've been out with those officers. i've walked those blocks with them. they make an arrest, they're out in the field. 30 minutes later, i go back, and it's like they've never been there. there are places in this city where we need constant police presence. and let me be very clear what i'm saying.

i'm not saying unconstitutional arrests, i'm not saying brutalizing or excessive police force. i'm saying we need to be out there, and that takes time, that takes money, and that takes resources. when i ask an officer, what do you need to do your job, the answer is usually two things: we need enough people to do our jobs the which we've been asked to do it, and we need to be supported when we do our jobs the right way. as your chief of police, that's what i'm asking for. i'm asking for the resources to do our job like we need to do, and i'm asking for support for our officers when you ask them to do the job the way they should do it. police departments all across this country are facing hiring challenges. this city is no exception. we need to have an environment

in this city where people want to come to work here and be police officers. that doesn't happen without support, and mayor breed, thank you for your support on this. we need the public support, they need my support, and they deserve that if we're asking them to do a very difficult job. so i'm going to go into a little bit more detail before i introduce mary ellen carroll to the microphone. open air drug deals, open air drug dealing, we need consequences. listen, i'm here to talk about what we can control, we, the san francisco police department can control. but when we are using drugs, and some of people that i'm talking about, they have substance addiction issues, they need medical assistance to get through those issues.

we have to be compassionate about that, but being compassionate about that doesn't mean we turn a blind's eye to what's happening on the street. the criminal just system has changed. a decade ago, possession of a small amount of heroin or crack cocaine would land you in jail with a felony, but it doesn't mean we can't be compassionate. it doesn't mean we can't rely on medical and health care resource to have a balance of health care treatment and enforcement. we've struggled with that, i'll be the first to admit it, but that day is no more. we will engage, we will engage consistently, we will offer up services. the city and the mayor and everybody standing here in front of you are working on a

plan to do just that in the very, very near future, but at the end of the day, at the end of all of this, people will not be allowed to smoke meth, to smoke fentanyl, to inject heroin in their arms in public spaces, and it's very important that we are consistent and that we sustain this effort because to do it for two weeks is not going to help us long-term, and again, it takes resources, it takes a commitment, and it takes a desire to sustain this effort. this department will own its shortcomings. we're not a perfect department, even though we try to be that. but i can say one thing, that the commitment is there. given the resources, we know we can have better outcomes than what we've seen, and we can

have consistent outcomes. we want to be held accountable for those outcomes, i want to be held accountable, but we need the resources, no doubt about it. using technology -- i've been doing this job for almost 33 years now. if we can't use the technology we have in a way that protects civil liberties but still protects the crime and the criminal issues that have been disclosed, then why do we have it. if you are the victim of a violence crime or the owner or a store keeper that had your store looted, it's little consolation to say, yeah, we can get the video after you've

been victimized. yeah, there's value do it, but we need to do better. we have to do better. and lastly, we've seen what happened in our city on union square on november 19. it's not the first time it's happened, but we saw the nature of it happening, and we saw it happen every where else. i'm here to tell you that that increased deployment made and continues to make a difference. again, seeing it with my own eyes, walking it with officers. and i've seen it all over the city, but in union square, after the world was set on edge with what they saw, the people that have to go there and work every day, the people that have to take transportation to go there, the people that want to

go there and shop, that have to look over their shoulder, worried that 50 people are going to run in the shop with knives or guns or hammers or whatever they have to run in the shop, it matters to them, so we need to sustain this effort. so you have our commitment. i want to thank our elected officials for supporting this effort. chief nicholson, fire chief, sheriff miyamoto, and many others, dr. colfax, and others.

we can do it when we do it together, and we have the support and the resources to get us there. so thank you, and with that, i'd like to introduce mary ellen carroll, the director of our department of emergency management. [applause] >> thank you, chief scott, and thank you mayor breed. emergency management provides coordination in times of crisis, and today, as you've heard, there's no more significant crisis than what's happening in our streets and especially in the tenderloin.

during the pandemic, san francisco demonstrated what can happen when we work together. at the mayor's direction, the department is going to collaborate with our community partners. over the next few months, the team will implement a multiphase assessment approach. the first phase is already underway. through meetings with community stakeholders and residents, we

have developed an understanding of the challenges that we have to address. enforcement and the disruption of criminal activity to guarantee safe passage in our community. during this phase, social workers, clinicians, community partners, and resources will work in concert to offer wraparound services at a new temporary linkage site. when it's established, it will

allow services, and at the same time, as you heard, law enforcement will be present in the community. our response will operate with the same level of urgency, coordination, and focus that was so successful during our first against the pandemic. the final face of our interventions will focus on transitioning to a sustained operation that will help keep the streets safe and accessible for all who call tenderloin home. this phase will include long-term partnerships with our community or with community organizations and residents to maintain the improvements that we will achieve during this

crisis operation response. the tenderloin is home to families, local businesses, nonprofits, immigrants, seniors, and young professionals who all deserve a safe and healthy place to call home. last week, as the mayor spoke, we met with the first group of san franciscans, and they demanded that the city take action so that they no longer have to live in fear in their neighborhood. through our effort, the city will stand with mothers who want their children to get safely to and from home and school and the playgrounds and the parks. we will stand with merchants

and neighbors, and i want to thank mayor breed for her leadership, and at this time, we will introduce our sheriff, paul miyamoto. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. these recent incidents, this recent uptick, all of the things that have been discussed here by all of the previous speakers, have created a citywide public safety concern that the san francisco sheriff's office is prepared to continue with the solution and provide services and support necessary to make sure that our collective efforts are not just a flash in the pan, are not just a temporary solution, but something that is long-term and sustainable. i think it's very important to recognize that we have city

leadership here, just as with the pandemic, the city leadership is here to address the problem of safety and public safety and as a public safety official, as an elected law enforcement public safety official, i am very grateful for the collaboration and the coordination not just between the electeds and our city government in addressing these concerns. we are going to be redeploying services that we have in place to help address the immediate concerns in the hope of creating a model to be sustainable over the long-term. our staff will be working them,

and we have over 800 [indiscernible] we will continue to do so in this new model to address these concerns, to finally say no to some of these problem that's we face, and our support that we provide is compassionate mitigation of these challenges. we don't just work as law enforcement deputies in the street, we don't just work in the justice system with justice involved persons, but we're there with them for long period of times, in the health care facilities. we establish relationships, and relationships we hope to leverage in reaching out to people and making sure that they have support and access to

services, as mary ellen mentioned, as the chief mentioned, as the mayor mentioned. our commitment is what you get from us at the sheriff's office, and in collaboration with the rest of city leadership, we look forward to this. our staff members, people that have been dedicated to public safety for their careers, it was mentioned by the chief that a lot of us are working overtime. we're understaffed, we're underutilized, and we're working overtime to get things done. the commitment that we have

here, we have to make sure we have what we need. thank you, madam mayor. >> the hon. london breed: thank you. that was a lot of information to process, and we'll be providing additional information through our communications team, and at this time, are there any questions? question? [indiscernible]

. >> well, that can be answered in two parts. first, we have to stop what's going on, with the understanding that there's a possibility that it's going to displace somewhere else. in the area of the tenderloin, we sort of know where those are. we have to still be present in order to not let the problem repopulate as soon as we leave. i wish we could be everywhere in the city, but there are a lot of areas that need our attention. when we're out there, the

people aren't selling drugs where we are. they see where we are, and they wait for us to leave. but if we're on the next block, or we go to the next block with them, we've -- you've got to understand what we're dealing with. this is a very transitory drug market. people who want to sell drugs, they know there's going to be plenty of demand, and we have to disrupt all of that, while at the same time, we have to predict where they're going to go next, and we have to be waiting on them. this is a humbling experience,

difficult experience, but it can be done. so resources, and understand that we have to do what we say and say what we mean. we're not going to arrest everybody in one day, we can go there and make 20 arrests right now, and there's going to be 20 other people that come right behind them, and we realize that. that's why we've got to be there when they come, so that's part of the strategy. [indiscernible] . >> the hon. london breed: well, i think at the end of the day, the arrests will be made by the

police department, with the hope that our district attorney will prosecute those cases. and accountability is not always jail time. it's some sort of punishment that's appropriate to the crime. when we talk about criminal justice reform, maybe it's someone in their first offense. do we think they should just be let out and the charges dismissed? no. there could be a layer of community service or things that they're required to do as a result of committing that crime, and currently, there are challenges with accountability, and my hope is that the d.a., who we are definitely trying to work with, will hold the people that the police arrest accountability. we will, in every single instance of arrest, put together a report that is clear, that makes it clear in terms of what was actually done, and what the specific

offense is. and our hope is that in light of everything that's being done, that the maximum charges in every one of these cases are what the d.a. goes after. there are things that we want to do to reform this system, this is an industry. the car break-ins, the theft and the looting, it's not only how many are happening, it's how violent they're becoming. [indiscernible]. >> the hon. london breed: i have conversations with him

regularly about everything that happens in the city related to charges that we hope he will impose. we have a relationship where we have conversations about many of those things, but as you know, he is an independently elected official, and at the end of the day, you need to ask him what he plans to do. [indiscernible] . >> the hon. london breed: so i will say that, you know, when we talk about the number of stabbings, the number of shootings, the number of physical assaults that are occurring, unfortunately, our ambassadors and all of these other great services that we have, they're not equipped to handle those things. and in fact, some of them have

put themselves in harm's way because of it. so too many people are crossing a line, and it's time for us to make a change, and that's where law enforcement comes in. [indiscernible] . >> the hon. london breed: to be clear, when those funds from the police department were redirected specifically to serve the african american community, there were no cuts to the number of officers that we had in the department. there was really a goal of, you know, making some transformative changes with law enforcement and make it go clear that we are going to invest in people to avoid them even being involved with the criminal justice system in the first place but also make it clear to the criminal justice system that we are going to

reform to help those that are disproportionately affected. an investment is necessary as a result of it. [indiscernible] . >> the hon. london breed: so part of what's in the plan is giving the opportunity -- say, for example, department of public works, they are the enforcement leg of some of the illegal vending, but at the same time, we need to open the

door to collaboration. we are still working on building that trust, and i think, unfortunately, we do have people who, under no circumstances, are they willing to work with our police officers. and from my perspective at this point, it's important that we have nonprofit agencies and people that are nonsafety personnel, we need them to develop relationships with the people who need to protect our city because ultimately -- and i'll tell you an example of one of our persons who was out there, working to be that voice, and sadly, he was stabbed. so we have those situations that occur, and ultimately, when the crime occurred, then

everyone wants help. is we have been putting in action with all of the decisions that they've been making, and what we're seeing in terms of our use of force cases this is where we are and this is what we need to do. >> we have a united group on our incident management team on

how to approach these problems, but what we've been doing the last few weeks is sitting down, negotiating a solution, and moving forward, and that is part of the approach. we'll be reviewing on an every single day what our operation plan is for that day and then looking at what will happen the day before. this allows us to be agile, it allows us to adjust. we have to be successful. we are coming to the table with a set of tools and tactics, and if it doesn't work, we will sit down again, and we will adjust. [indiscernible]

. >> so the balance with the drug usage, particularly when we're dealing with people that are addicted, we can't ignore what our health officials are telling us what works. i would venture to say that the vast majority of the people that we're talking about have some sort of substance use disorder. what we're going to put into place, what director carroll has talked about, we have to listen to the science and the experts, but at the same time, we can't just allow people to

use on the streets. if we're constantly talking to people and getting them to the right locations, we should given them an opportunity to do it. we ask someone on the street, if they want to go services, skm they say yes, and we see them on the streets again, we're not asking again. then, it becomes enforcement. possession, use, those are misdemeanors, so the law still allows them to be cited out. let's say they're cited out,

and a third time in the same day, the law allows us to ask for a detention based on the likelihood that the offenses will continue. all of those processes that i talked about will be put in place. we have to be consistent, and it goes back to what i was saying, and i'll say it again, it takes resources. when we're not on the streets, we see the activity that we're trying to address, and can't address it if we're not there, so while we're in the process of enforcing, we have to replace those officers are officers that are constantly in the streets in some of the most challenging areas, and that's been a tremendous struggle because i'm telling you, if you go, and you've seen this in

action, it's a revolving door. the consistency of deployment along with compassion, offering services, giving people a chance to engage in those services, but we have to be consistent. you're smoking crack on our streets, you're smoking meth, no, that's not going to happen. we're going to engage. you may not be arrested the first time, but we're going to engage. we have to rely on what works from a clinical perspective, but that has to be balanced, and it's not an easy solution. >> that's all we have.

thank you. thank you. >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys.

>> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a

picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot

of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

. at now. >> president: then, in that case, i will call tonight's meeting, the january 3rd meeting of the san francisco redistricting task force. welcome, members, staff, and happy new year to everyone. mr. caroll, could we proceed? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. please allow me to begin our meeting with a few brief announcements about how the public can access our meetings. first,