tv Police Commission 21016 SFGTV February 13, 2016 2:00am-6:01am PST
pacific avenue mcd the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exits a non-conforming use the project sponsor is seeing e seeking to continue the noifrm and in addition the proposed development is adjacent to and will negatively impact the lives and air of 21 remain properties with a minimum of 3 to 6 and more units in each building so setting a preenlts that will impact the neighborhood and the neighborhoods liveability a brief background pacific avenue mcd kraeltdz zoning controls to meet the desires of the neighbors those controls relieve the present and planned density
recognizing that our neighborhood it unique and praurmentd low scale character of buildings 3 stories or less and one of the densest the city the snapshot use of development that will disrupt the neighborhood besides density what benefit does that design bring to the neighbors the pacific avenue mcd requires a 45 percent rear yard setback of a maximum height of 6, 7, 8 feet or less the project sponsor is arguing that retention the walls around the property will exempt the prop if the prevailing code this argument should - states a non-conforming
use and any structures occupied shall not be extended whether the proposed development is determined to be non-conforming or not the prevailing code should require the building to be brought up to code and pacific avenue is a trillion wide this 3 times the normal width of 20 to 25 foot wide and the wide it perimeter of block one 85 the massing of 40 feet the massing at 40 feet mid block it is e gregarious and should sho everyone - we're asking please
destine a building more consistent with the pacific avenue mcd it is an option and it is a feasible option we request you deny the required variances and enforce the codes required for this low the three request to maintain the neighborhood light our air and open space that is the community fought for in 2007 and was passed by the board of supervisors and the planning commission i thank you, very much. >> calling four speakers in support of dr requester
(calling names). >> commissioner president fong and honorable commissioners thank you for the opportunity i'm awning a awe draw next door to the mid block warehouses i used to live on mccormick but one of the mid block warehouses i'd like to focus on the pacific avenue mcds rear yard the legislation that passed in 2007 creating the mcds required a 4 percent rear yard setback that may seem large but the requirement was consciously developed with the pacific avenue corridor between polk and
- the subject property is one of four warehouses or garages between go blocks in addition other buildings including the variance the 45 percent requirement was created with an eye to the ultimate development of those properties allowing for growth in a way that opens up the inner block providing life enrichment committee for oil neighbors that is an exception to the rule with the garages and accepting the project sponsors argument to render the speak up on pacific avenue mcd i respectfully ask you not pass this for the mcd mr. and mrs. please accept you are request
for discretionary review and deny the sponsors request thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please a >> good evening commissioners my name is norm i'm the larkin neighbor i'm the representative for the neighbors of larkin street many or elderly and can't come they've asked me to speak on their behalf and signed a letter of opposition my family has lived on pacific avenue and larkin street in fact, both of my family's will impacted by the project and many neighbors on larkin street that has been there for 2 or more generations my even family has been there 3 generations my family is trying to have homes for generations to come as cultural to pass the
homes to each generation larkin street neighbors have currently a 25 foot wall behind them - the proposed project as represented will have a 6 to 5 foot wall we're on the down sleep slope of the property we'll have a concrete wall and the harrison courtyards puts people a lot of on behalf of the neighborhoods this creates a noise issue being above us the project being above us gives the effect of a louder system mounted on a pole with the sounds downward a 45 setback will amplify the noise
please give us the sixth district of 45 feet thank you. >> good evening commissioners, i own the property on the southeast corner of the project site this is going to be the second brand new building on the block after you are building this is went through dr hearing 5 years ago you took the local recommendations regulations with don't intent we provided 45 percent rear yard and then the residential lot and built blow the lot and retained the side yard and sixth district to match the other buildings we let the
sun and light into the back of the buildings buildings on the setsdz of ma cardiac arrest this didn't measure up to what is polk on the site we just heard about the blocking the light of the back of the buildings on larkin the shaded area represents the new building twice the height it is extend backwards and creating that slot between buildings here is a visible view of a red area the building to be built that has the height and width and blocking all the windows on larkin street one thing that is very important to us the rear yard open space the south part of the block here as reasonable rear yard open
space because of the two warehouses buildings and only three or four percent open space that has permeable soils the unique feature of the block because of the mccormick alley the center the rear yard space where the two warehouses building is important because it is the only place to extend the rear yard to the front and the back of the building on larkin, hyde and ma alcoholic their 90 degrees if that structure will be compromised did plans are not accurate they show an exception the back and rear yard w asked the project sponsor not to do
development the open space a in center the building area we don't feel the design of the front facade office that much of the old building it is a static building. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good work my name is michelle i'm a property owner and a membership the pan in a a sixth involved in the development of the pacific avenue mcd spent many long evenings sdukz what the neighborhood wanted and work with the planning commission the contents the non-conforming use
was of great discussion we knew that would impact. >> ma'am, for clarity our speaking on behalf of as an individual; right? >> an individual yes. >> the consensus thought is of the non-conforming units of the group was that any non-conforming building that was significantly revised dense fizz height or exterior calls needs to meet the pacific avenue neighborhood commercial district requirement this final product was thoroughly discussed asia vetdz and depraved in 20074 by the board of supervisors and i'm requesting that the commission oppose this project as it didn't meet the pacific avenue mcd requirement that were
legislationed in 2007 thank you >> commissioners i'm betsy in that narrow alley moourng lived there. 27 years i ask you respectfully deny the variances for this proposed design you've seen this 1459 is unusual the internet and unusual having two buildings of the sized of 1469 that intersect two mid block so we concerned about today is not just the impact of 1469 but a precedent that will be set for others roadhouses warehouses the area
of that great scale i wanted to show you a couple of pictures this is looking at from the all alley. >> this is looking from within the alley back towards larkin street where i've drawn the line is the back of the 7 and 9 mccormick going straight across as you can see the promoted part of front of that project goes right here and this is the current height of the building the county those buildings on larkin will be plaintiff's next in order those windows will be blocked that is going to be blocked and the light in in this building their
concerned about life enrichment committee to show you our suicides we're on the opposite side in 1419 backs our lot and this is our view and we've made the most of it is the same height as the building of 1469 this our current light of this building this is another building on hyde street so keeping this height of the existing building is going do block credible light we're never going to get that rear yard benefit in order to use that as not public space but the open space there we'll be a privacy fence going up not only noise potential but also we're
going to lose yet more light if we put a fence and going to go out and look at it straight up and sometimes seeing the sky from where we are thank you. >> commissioner president fong and members the police station my name is kathleen i'm chair the housing and zone powering is russian hill association we've submitted and letter in support of discretionary review we want to bring a couple of things to to your attention so this is an opportunity attire the neighborhood it to make a positive contributions to the 22
residents that surrendered unfortunately 9 plan didn't rise to the challenge this i guess we just- the pre19 to sanborn map we sent around to you this looks like 16 structures in that area and those structures sheds i don't know what they were were and calling your attention the open space that is around the perimeter the fact that the post earthquake apartment particularly those on larkin had a lot of light and air in 1920 the areas consolidated and unfortunately at that time, no provision for light and air considerations for light and air so what is a this is the perimeters
fortunately it was on this second story high so not a lot of blockage it didn't cause that much problems for the people on larkin jonas if you can do the overhead okay. you or. >> not an unusual situation mr. madden kooushgz within the blocks that are of the same mass that are posed for development and looking to you for direction 5 years ago the refraining community association was in meeting with the commission and trying to to save the garage we lost we told you i remind you 80 such garages of that massive site and most of them in district 3 the focus on this projects are request you look at
the impact on larkin we have people who's property abuts the windows are 6 feet 9 inches the massing and maybe up to 10 feet those people will be looking at a 50 foot takeover we quasi thank you courtney your time is up. >> good evening commissioner president fong and members i'm ralph an architect in is an rose and a long time firstborn of robin and many months ago robin asked me to interpret the disdain and salute it against the. >> sir if you were rained our
opportunity to speak was the 10 minute presentation, however, a 2 minute rebuttal you may use. >> as a friend and to help robin and others to understand what is proposed and as i'm a formal chair the design review braid boarding the city of san radios that's i understand. >> i understand but if robin tucker is representing at her request our evaluating the project. >> let's continue you speaking. >> okay. thank you. >> as an architect i believe in development and i believe in higher density i think the site is appropriate change
higher dense i think what is really at issue here is what andrew touched on the chapping in an non-conforming building and adding housing units within the rear yard set back i think when we spoke to the developer his comment was to not time to remove the rear yards but those minor inconvenience is a - that improves the liveability and the fact that building is a 3 site long building and is being promoted and 4 stories casts a shadows open pacific avenue it
will reduce the amount of light and air on the street and casts a shadows on the northern properties pa so pacific avenue has two travel lanes and 1 parking lane a building of this mass is over onerous and with that, i would ask you to give me and ask the developer to come back with a more predicament building a great opportunities to help heal the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> i have been more speaker cards in support of the request you dr requester. >> thank you all thank you for your time obviously be partiality i'm gabt my thoughts i've lived at 1864 larkin apt 4 for that 20 years and around the corner the larkin and pacific
although it didn't directly impact my view or light i must say an vince convenience is subjective term and historically i've seen a small home across the street with a yard become a single-family home, of course, it is is not a large encroachment of the condos in the space that will roam for parking and take up i understand my building that will be you see people come outside in their bluecoats but take that building and it is a structure and turn it into luxury condos is unnecessary and unhonorable i
know that is the physical boundary there was a long term neighborhood residents it highly overstates our neighborhood and takeawa takeaways from the value of neighborhood. >> okay. any other speakers in support of dr requester? >> sure. >> leave them right there. >> put them right there. >> any other speakers in support of dr requester okay project sponsor.
>> good afternoon with reuben, junius & rose representing the project sponsor this code can't be what we read from the planning code to the extent it is unclear the planning code says is zoning administrators job to make sure that is needed to pacific avenue and the mcd zone was created 9 years ago and amended on 13 occasions but what the code says today in this case no ambiguity what the code is intending to provide on the overhead if you look at the actual section one 34 it is
intended to sure the continuation of the established mid block open spaces the 2007 rediscovering rezoning is those originals in our packets and they talk about for instance, preserving the character neighborhood and the code section for the specific mcd protecting the rear yard patterns and i've pulled up a dictionary the word preserve to maintain something in its state and protect to preserve something no where the code does the the president of the rear yard setback talk about creating an open space mid block open space where one didn't exist on the overhead american people area of the site we do not have an existing mid block open space
where the property is if we increased the building envelope our the volume within the 45 percent rear yard yes, we'll be asking for something that is inconsistent with the intent but this is not the case we have an exist building, however, we're not increasing or enlarging it within the 4 to 5 percent rear yard, in fact, we're doing the opposite the mid block area we're lore lowering by 10 feet so in short i mean are we preserving the existing setback pattern like the code calls absolutely we improving the existing conditions nothing here inconsistent with the intent of the code with respect to the rear yard the same 9 years ago
it was 65 and now 45 we're proposing the height that the paramount if in neighborhoods ems to the architect now. >> good evening, commissioners james planning architects the greenest building is already builds as you may know on the pacific avenue site it is occupied by concrete and industrial buildings that covers the lot by withholding. >> sfgovtv the overhead. >> those are a good continue condition to keep tons of concrete out of landfill that had been under the termslessly drive to the neighborhoods we begin at pacific avenue for the 45 percent setback line as
you can see by the materials we plan to use high quality materials for the streetscape we have setback walls 5 feet and for the neighbors privacy few fargo windows and those are at clear story height will be frosted next, we have an open green space people 25 percent of the lot depth located on the raffle 10 feet above grade and kit it down and possible up to 10 feet and have the small industry at the rear housing and two more units i don't understand the 45 percent line no part of new construction of the parapet walls the neighbors have been live with will status quo be a round of applause if you look at the shadow studies you'll see at
the rear no other shadows casted by the neighbors to the left and right of property thank you very much. >> calling for speakers in support of project sponsor (calling names). >> good evening he live across the street on pacific avenue we have been there 6 years and the structure is right cross and a lot of windows facing the property in question
there is two components that we'd like you to consider in your decision one is would actually happens the evening and at night in front of those buildings to be honest it is disgusting we see prostitutes, we see homeless people that have to sleep there, there is a lot to be said for making change i very much understand the concerns but the change is necessary to clean up that neighborhood from those unwanted incidents we actually have to go so far to install a security system to get rid of graffiti on the wall and clean up the front porch quite a bit from urination and i'd like
to add one thing to that is we too on the other side on the north side will be impacted by losing views we enjoy but we believe that this space on pacific avenue that is currently used doesn't make sense and actively it is a beautiful neighborhood the neighborhood playground run and a lot of new stores and changes ideal i'm sorry but we believe that make sense to have 7, 8, 9 units to provide the housing we desperately need from the neighborhoods that is out dated so thank you for considering question. >> thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioner president fong and members my name is dean beach i'm on his partner we live across the street from the 1469 we've lived there 6 years and as mentioned at least ones per month drug dealers and prostitutes and homeless cabinets that is sad and at times pedestrian urinating or defecating in front of the building on our building and i'm sure some of the people the room that opposite this project hsa have seen that as well 24 block is primarily residential daycare believe with
that will not e radicals did problems but improve the desegregate of the neighborhood we hope you'll for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commission my name is geary nelson a retired architecture if usf i live the district i'm pleased for the support i've managed many contradiction projects over the last 20 years there were built by the gentleman's construction company i consider his work to be the highest quality i'm impress that the design and scale of the project that is appropriate and as i understand makings for the surrounding neighborhood i encourage the commission to approve as opponent i'm a certificate california's
disaster professional the assessment project matt haney i have train it inspect building after an earthquake when the next year earthquake occurs the city should think encouraging projects to be built as soon as possible i would note in yesterday's he chronicle supervisor peskin supported the 62 housing units two blocks from this site over a huge story in the lombard site he said our biggest imperative is building homes. >> good evening. i'm chris i'm a local retained and business owner in the strict
district i want to emphasize one we heard about those chairs that are mid block and they're from other era out of sync in the walking streets hard to run a business 16 thousand square feet building we talk about the size in specific while the alternative having trucks trying to back into a motion and a second garage it is not conducive we'll see the warehouses hang that is a key part, and, secondly, by changing from an impersonal warehouses that closes at 5 o'clock we deal with the walking streets and the restaurants we go to becomes a hole the community as we walk by this and this takes away the holes and probably the one thing a paul it was ingenious with the
design actually an architect wouldn't think of taking an existing sit up and not changing the rear yard or enforce to the residents not putting the building it is massive and he's gone over in great detail how to tuck in two residential units to the folks they won't know that is in there and to tear that down to move the massing up a level the makings will go someplace if you don't put units you'll move them forward and this is really ingenious the way that is creating for the rear yard thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners
my name is robin i have a small business on pacific avenue over the last 10 years i want to say i'm not in favor of that development i've worked there and come in late at night and fixing computer all hours having a warehouses has been out of place in the on the street we do so all kinds of nevada razor activities and camtc if in at least there is stuff happening i've been unhappy with that building being used the way it is i look at the plan but the the gentleman had about what they'll do i believe that is well-designed i think that will fit still within the character
of the neighborhood and enhance it to be a better place and actually have street front business there also so the block that will more as a small business owner i want more traffic on the street that's it thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have a small company fwlars design we we were looking for a space last summary and having difficulty finding one and had an opportunity to meet
paul and peter and paul generously made it possible to move in on a temporary basis on pacific avenue and make your products it is a custom - he helped us with the move and refine the space and helped us build the machine beyond our skills that allowed us to make our production and he's a terrific, terrific guy the family is wonderful to us and we hope you'll approve those plans. >> is there any additional public comment? >> in support of project sponsor. >> okay dr requester two
minute rebuttal. >> i think he was talking two loud before some thoughts please we welcomed do project as long as it respects the neighborhoods neighbors the chu family and the family they've asked you to say appear before you tonight on behalf of them norman on behalf of the the larkin street families and also new construction is not a solution to criminal eradicating social problems minimizing construction is not a reason to build any inappropriate structures the code sections that the
sponsors rental unit on the face they appear to be well and, in fact, those of us who were working on drafting the code sections and of the legislation that later become pacific avenue mcd i think are in a very good position to comment about what that legislative intent the exclusive summary in our inpatients says that the zoning controls are intended to preserve and to enhance the neighborhoods yards to open up the space and in addition it says their preempted controls we knew they would be misdemeanor but not intended to be modified to allow for construction that
is so massive at the fronts of the building we come up with the building thank you. >> project sponsor you have two minutes. >> thank you so i am not i want to be clear we don't disagree we believe that we are consistent point objectives the pacific avenue limousine we're eliminating a chairs and if you put up the overheads adjacent in yellow are 5 lots in the 31 units those 5 lots are the same size we're proposing 9 units which is on a lot of 8 thousand plus square feet and not including the stimulant will be other than positive the height is 40 feet
which is exactly what the zone said and many of the other buildings provide across the street at 1424 pacific a project that allows the rear and the 4th floor tavrj the setback to 25 percent that an in a has no objection a demolition that on one mccormick people objected and exclaimed about the construction from the demolition unlike 1424 pacific not adding volume in fact we're reducing it unlike mccormick this construction related impact so sum up we're eliminating the warehouses and add 9 new unions
without actually adrc any volume within that 45 percent rear yard and that is was it calls for it calls for preservation of existing character not enhancement the rear yard but the existing mid block open space that didn't expectatiist can pass this around that is right here and available. >> thank you. >> that portion the hearing is closed. >> allison park i've spent a lot of time and appreciate the project sponsor and also the dr requester i made two separate visits i got to see it from the prospective of the site itself as well as the residents of the dr requester so i have a real good prospective on what exists there i think the first one i
promised the dr requester and everyone involved we'll get specific about the dimensions maybe ask the project sponsor attorney/client privilege to examine correct me if i am wrong and have questions i'll ask the staff to intervention the whole building is one 36 inches it as wide long building and what i understand is that the project is supposed to - the 40 foot parts of that will extend back 75 feet and after that that is going to be a 35 foot area that is brought down 20 to 10 feet and then the rearmost 26.5, 6, 7 feet remains the 20 feet now i
may have to ask the project sponsor they can claim additional feet is that 40 or 55 feet how high is this building actually will be in front. >> it is 40 meet obviously a typography so on pacific avenue but this is the mid .40 feet with a 4 foot parapet and, of course, pafb is this way the western part of the project is the letter part and lower than from the ground. >> that's correct. >> it is certifying that's the key part the same the midsection your are. >> bringing it down do 10 feet how high is the parapet. >> the mid-portion once the -
the 4 line and the main building front building stops we have a approximately 35 foot deck we currently have an elevation approximately 20 foot evaluation and lower the roof 10 feet and have the size and those are from the floor of the lower level 7 feet 6 inches to match the structural beam that rinses within the building a horizontal beam that is where that machlz up this is why. >> you're saying the wall think one of the seats is 7 foot 6 from the ground you from the elevation. >> i'll take your word for 17,
6 this is what it is. >> this is is interior the building if you walk insides the building see it so right here this is where it is going to be lowered this will be the roof if you look at want structural beam that we're going to cut it down if the midsection to keep this structural beam here that also going to be - the elevation and an additional. >> the equal will be 7 foot by the middle section 10. >> the impact as far as light and air and a portion of that and movpg back to the back 20 feet i assume your saying exactly within the height and not raising anything. >> that's correct it is a the a parapet that remains at the 20
foot elevation. >> so that answers a lot of questions you mentioned to me, you have as you go back 80 feats on the eastern part of the building begins and setback to 75 feet if it's a correct. >> on the overhead again so, yes when you start from the front thirty feats a 5 feet setback with an court and a image here and another setback that repeats on both sides. >> yeah. i was talking about the east side but also on the west that first thirty feet on the west is not have the 5 foot setback; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> that's the part that concerns me looked at the map that was given by one the dr
speakers it looks likes places on larkin street as you approach pacific some of them face pacific avenue; is that correct over and over the amending between 1469 and the larkin street buildings. >> i believe they all - they all face. >> sanborn map maybe dated is it wloolz they face the other directs. >> there are some that face specifically. >> all right. let's assume they face that or have significant space so the one part that might be of concern a 6 foot 10 inch separation between 1469 and buildings on
larkin. >> it is more than 6 feet. >> 6 foot 10 inches. >> excuse me. the people in the audience can refrain from speaking out if the commissioners ask you a direct question you'll be given an opportunity to speak. >> so, anyway let's assume it is 6 foot 10 inches so the portion of your building that goes back the first 75 feet will have a larger impact instead of three now it will be 40 feet and so that will be more of an impact on those building on pacific not all of them you're cutting down part of midsection you're having less than of an impact than before the middle so
the section if the first 75 feet may have light and air i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i like the project is cleaver and provides 9 units they're big units the neighbors does have an impact they may lose view but not light and air the guys on the west he may have impacts to loyalty that's where i might be supportive of the 5 foot separation the frnlt part of building that will provide more light and air to those units at the fronts of the first few units on pacific that he move on larkin as they move back from pacific motion of what i have to say as far you know, i think you know it is good to
build something i disagree building something sdpoo good doesn't drive out the bad. >> if you have activity you're less to have less crime it is not before us but as far as the rear yard situation i'll defer to the zoning administrator but it sounds like we're not adrc anything new we're basically convert that that is back there now not adding anything into the existing rear yard but a conversion changing that from industrial use to a housing use commissioner hillis. >> so i am not first of all, have an issue with taking this this and converting it into residential unit it is a good
idea i agree with the continuing to use this as an industrial building off in the middle of this residential block doesn't work i don't know. i don't feel the design the building rose to the challenge of the site i think you know you've emigrate american people industrial building with all lot coverage that brings issues to some of the neighbors because they're facing this kind of model the back with the 20 feet wall the neighbors accumulated that but it seems like you added on a typical residential project that maximize 80 so you get from the front no indication of this industrial building or what was there it is kind of takes away that character and puts in a typical residential building but
the back go saddle them with the industrial 20 foot high wall i think that design wise it could have been respond more to what is there either you have a great lot to build onion that what came out of the responses well, i have concerns for some of the neighbors on larkin and that you know again they're now facing the wall and adrc going floors for the first two buildings there on larkin. >> so again, i have a - not a problem with the project but the execution wasn't quite what i would want to look for on that site again, i think i if you walk by a vacant lot and building a four
story residential building but roach the rear yard and come apply that the 45 rear yard setback or vice versa keep 9 rear yard and take down the walls to allow for life enrichment committee or neighbors to see into the open space pr and try to retain the industrial character maybe sixth district that from larkin street i don't know. i have the answers but i don't think what i'm seeing in front of us responds to the challenge that you have on that lot so i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> i'm not to agree with commissioner hillis this was the old location and it is times for this to be i absolutely building that residential use is the right
choices given that building but i feel that commissioner hillis thought about maybe being a little bit too aggressive i think that is creative there is go bundle of units in the back but for me not much consideration for the neighbors on larkin street and unit number 9 and i think oh, 8 and 9. >> so the main building up front no consideration. >> a little bit of light to combo that rear of the larkin units i'm smart enough not to try to design i don't have the stills skills but still obviously to maximize and get some unions to make unions 8 and 9 smaller and pinch that a
little bit. >> supervisor scott wiener. >> it is interesting you're starting to removing that it was totally groovy it is a dated building i've lived if this neighborhood for the last 44 years and it is used to be just desserts practices to go we're - the con dessert place that makes wonder breadon dessert place th wonder breado dessert place tha wonder breadn dessert place tha wonder breade dessert place thas wonder bread and . >> i think i'm picking up on what one of the people said a building out of sync not as an industrial building it is the size and where e where it fission a 67 length an
impossible building to redesign in a residential building the sites with the width of 68 or 7 feet give us a great ability to design housing at its best in a neighborhoods with the right height in a neighborhoods e go to do it in a way that sth this commission has challenges the one project i'll reform you the methodist church on larkin and clay we managed to put the. >> (speaking chinese.) and that's one of the shortcomings of this project we don't want to support elevated open space on top of a garage particularly when the garage itself didn't meet the requirements on to pacific pacific is as opposed to be designed with active commercial footage and in the back was
supposed to be creating open space in scale with the surrendered department to your attention after the accident toil one the commercial space on the east side of the project is hardly recognizable partial the center the entrance of the garage is the emergency pedestrian requirement for the units the rear and above and on the other side is an under sized lobby that sits next to the 4 foot wide liveable breezeway between the adjoining properties that is where the project starts to unravel to the design would do we don't really have 9 recognizable again storefront right now the storefront is a space going up whoops we lost
the commercial and then the lobby which should be invite recognizable lobby it operationally is subordinate to the width of the year ago door plus the emergency door this is not what we want for residential to side to be distinct from a lively island of streets of commercial space that indeed has qualities like the past people really want to go to i'll take that further and agree with your outcomes commissioner president fong this is sub standards units because their assessed from the second story going down to an undersized courtyard so small determined by the offer sized terrace on the front see side of
the rear side of the building complicated to understand wasn't woob in the interest of this project so take it on and look at the vacant lot i'll suggest any open space the parking is predictable even partial footprint put into the basement in a stacked version that's supportable and the ability for a deep lot put dwelling units with proper exposure and connections to american people open space could set this up for d and create a project that needs a larger set but potentially produces for units an incredible amount of waftsdz space i like to direct your attention to a and see how
the exit requirement really look at this they're like long snakes by which the whole thing looks like a rabbit hole sorry about the negative word but really fighting with residential design where a little is more compact additional achieve the same things plus a better building and i think first and foremost i accountability it i stood on the roof and looked at the parking lot to the detriment to almost 22 other buildings nearby there is something which i think this project needs to respond to i think that should respond to it can respond and a lot of sites i'm just basically i'll suggest you continue it and send
it it out with a lot of support for redesign and have it come back. >> i'll ask a question are you suggesting to do this properly to suggest demolishing the existing building and starting if scratch. >> the building is out of sync this particular building and it's rent less size covers the lot not for a initiative housing site you can't achieve that. >> i'm going to request the project sponsor is trying to avoid a demolition by all means it is trying to work with the, of this existing structure. >> may i answer the demolition will be a year impact to the neighbors in a big
way the air quality and the structure time probable 67 most to a year all the utilities exist the building that was the big feature we're going to adjust some of the side walls. >> so just to be clear at the most is from the stand point you'll prefer not to demolish and with work the existing structure. >> yes. >> e thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i get the narrative i met point project sponsor completely understand the green aspect and the cost saves i even though in the dr requester and understand the concerns they had the first question the zoning administrator the section within a-1 rule it looks like we're changing that building in a significant
way does that trigger it more xrients or bringing it into experience. >> the structure is not performing with the codes from a integral prospective not increase the non-conforming so they were proposing to expands to be to a rear yard variance but the code says we have structure that is located the required rear yard that didn't have and your invent first degree the non-conforming structure that requires a rear yard variance and this project is the densification of non-conforming industry we're proposing is reducing some of the normal reducing the size of the backyard to they're dropping down the courtyard that prides the open space from a mass
structural prospective they're not - from the use prospective their increasing the dense first degree. >> will that trigger the fled to bring this that into come a time night. >> this didn't in and of itself require. >> i with all the commissioners when i quacked awe from the meeting the other day was that the first the walls between the larkin street and the building building on the one side of ma comic this was a concrete wall for parking and the courtyards 7 feet or of
creates a not liveable situation because of the parking this will be a better project to put the parking underground and leave a 10 foot wall between you and the neighbor that makes it marrow liveable and much lessen american people impairment that is impacted by this i think this is the other kind of smoking gun what the scombb g the recommendation on the unions in the backyard sxhoeltd into the front provides a a presentation and is use abilities parking by sub congratulated. >> can you speak into the mike. >> it should be sub grade and
stacks we're recommending with the minimum assess and preempt for the moved and seconded open space new constructions for the - that to be is a smoking gun and something i'm not support the project as given staff's recommendation with the concerns that have been expressed i want to move to continue this to something that manuals we'll come back with something that fits into what we need. >> one classification the previous considerations have additional commissioner makras the rear yard and the consideration promoted two additional stories from the back of that at the 20 foot level without itself previous plans
they're a little bit lost. >> some of those there is so much information so i move to continue the project to may - >> may 12. >> may 12th. >> second. >> okay. if we should do that give the project sponsor a clear direction commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i sunshine have thoughts first of all, ask staff i've heard that the units count cannot exceed 9; is that correct or not correct and that's correct the unit count that is permitted by the - is one. >> 9 units. >> one units for every one thousand square feet of block area we rounded it up.
>> that settles that is all the units it is well done we want to get those larger units that had been good to continue with the 9 units then i think there is a sounds like many of the commissioners are looking to establish the open space at gray that might involve roving part of the back building and would not have to be 45 percent because there is already a possible of a surveillance that could have growth u brought down the second first floor and modified open space so i can't say for sure the zoning administrator will opine but some of the back might have to come down that one suggestion parking below grade is a possibility it opens up more space for a living structure on the ground levels it didn't center to be stacked it is on
this 9 units if you go to the expense that area below you can get 9 parking spaces so and then the other issue about the larkin buildings i would say whatever is over there should not be any higher than the existing walls you know if you go up other 40 feet like a 5 feet setback or some sort of setback away from there if you choose to leave the wall that i think that that setback adjacent to larkin street should extend for the entire 75 feet in my opinion and gaining the street with the subterranean so keep the frame of the building except for the back part of it, yes project sponsor do you want to responds.
>> as far as the subterranean parking. >> without demolishing you can approach the sub transparence parking the demolition we're trying to avoid. >> that may not be a suggestion that may work if you keep the building we'll cut back the rear walls and what you are suggesting to put the two units together with the front building; is that correct. >> correct. >> but change the two units foot back and apple up for the benefit of the light the light is from the south so i think it was miss stated they said that mccormick will be affected by
the presence of the new building the light from the other side. >> i was there that opening the middle was a good suggestion but sounds like there it seems to me interest on the part of commissions to have open space at the ground level. >> put the open space in the back i don't - >> yeah. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but that might be the wisest way to side that and work within the envelope but still be a pretty good sized envelope okay. thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so for me i'll give two distributions and have been need be but i think one will be
preserving those two units the back and covet the massing the back a at least where the two units but the courtyards and the parking cutting down the graded make that more a court the neighbors will not experience the wall but the makings of the wall at the front to come down and respond to what was around larkin street by a demolition where you kind of comply that the rear yard 4 feet that is going to lead to additional massing the front by looking at it like you were developing a vacant lot here of this size so you i am not i'll go either way but where it is at knowledge to thought about of these. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate everything
trying to weigh in and shape the building i think the building needs to be shorter it needs to confine a massing by which the space can be on the ground the unit design and well proposed unite will determine quality of the open space and how to meets the demise the ground floor up the building on the east side and west side should open 5 feet not stick out that much given it is 3 blocks next to each that is the way to deal with that the garage lobby and retail should be completely reconsidered i think that the garage and the blank door the garage entry might move to the west side because that is the lowest part
of site with more units and deal with setting the rest of the entrance so you set the garage entrance back the secondary entrance is not on the side but don't need the doors next to each other the retail entrance has to be clear of the stairs you want as much of a window of a retail space sorry in thank you and i think there is a lot to play with that is a huge building the units are large enough to make some kind of decision that didn't entail the design and maybe be better when you splitting looked at the design and it is possible. >> commissioner vice president
richards and i guess question for ms. tucker you get something acceptable from a live ability you think you can do that come up two a couple of designs with mid block with the open space and the open spaces the rear a southern percentage of the yards would you borrowing to d do that. >> we have met and that's an open invitation i think we need to look at - how can we accomplish what the commissioners said and if that make sense meet with ms. tucker.
>> please come to the microphone. >> i think that would be wonderful. all the neighbors i would last week to make one comment go ahead >> it is not about me it is about the neighborhood and the neighbors. >> sure. >> so meeting with me is. >> so have so speak to the neighborhood good this is great i called the project sponsor and said i talked with ms. tucker i think we can make this work and come up with something we can approve and not take dr. >> mr. t. >> thank you. i wanted to speak to the variance request a little bit for genes for the to variance requests in front of me one important 9 use of existing structure as for
residential the rear yard generally supportive of that obviously that can change because of the expect of the using some of all the portion the existing backyard for residential use i'm supportive, however, the other was for the balconies and because those are for the required to meet the minimum open space requirements for the project i don't feel like meet the test of what was for the surveillance because of the options for me but the variance aim generally supportive of and obviously any new design that comes out of the commissioners suggestions we'll look at that separately. >> jonas. >> continue to may 12th. >> yep. >> very good a tenant-landlord to continue to may 12th with
directions. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and zoning administrator, what say you? >> >> continue the variance hearing until may 12th. >> thank you commissioners that place us on item 16 for case at 36 avenue
>> project sponsor i'm sorry staff. >> dr requester good evening planning commission devine southwest team leader subject property in 14 thirty, 36 after the project was continues from two earlier dates the project is horizontal and vertical rear violation to include a family regime and two bedrooms and then additional master suit the area the rh1 residential district and district as single-family residences the concern about the residential unit being added into the subject dwell and the
amount of soil excavated and since 24 continuation that was further determined the project is not presenting issue on the surrounding property with the existing residents and no additional environmental review and the building design is function as a single-family residences and furthers any concerns regarding soil is or soils stability is under the purview the department of building inspection the residential design team say it is consistent with the design team and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and dr requester please. >> i wanted to hand in materials some additional
letters and these are additional materials proposed for the dr proposal for the commission. >> i wonder is commissioner moore going to be taking part if in this it seems unreliable 0 reasonable without one of the commissioners available. >> she maybe the back watching she's quick to catch if you want to start and anything important she'll have a - have 34 feedback. >> start now. >> commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm steve of the fox law enforcement we represent the longest residents of the house immediately setting the project center the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ♪ case clear evidence that the property project is not intended
or designed to be a single-family home but rather designed to create a illegal unit or a three bedrooms short-term rental the project sponsor intended from the start to create a second units and the project was designed this way the owner saw the neighbors i have sworn affidavits in your page in in addition the additional plans shown at the preoperative meeting a kitchen a second kitchen that and a laundry room on the second level that was intended to be a second units the pardon didn't change the only change to the original plans to erase the kitchen counters and determine a laundry on the letter room the second launders room took to a closet
on the original plans were modified and remove the second washer drier the launders facilities were relocated to the garage and the mosaics puts the launders facilities so they can be used but think upper and lower accepted unit remember this is an rh1 one unit is allowed and adrc implicating to that part of garage makes that easy to add an illegal kitchen this is fifth story bedrooms is larger then than the residences on the block i want to introduce if you can turn on the overheads red the center is the size of this units as compared to the average size or so of the
surrounding block now under the approved plans it is extremely easy to convert all it takes to close the door between the upper and lower units it is a closed stair state police it is an access to the strait the lower units as a bath and powder room and a large family room where the kitchen was on the original plans the lower units can assess the washer and dryer the garage level makes it easy to add an illegal second kitchen the planning department has additions that can a - those policies railroad for the
properly applied i'd like to i've passed out some proposed conditions of approval but the conditions will within to cut back the size of the unit by 6 feet it machlz the adjacent property that there illuminate within bedroom with a 45 bedroom house, and, secondly, an n s r to restrict the addition are conversion is to a second units and stack take steps if a quasi units we ask for short-term rentals rental use this could potentially be considered a hosted amusements is the expire three bedroom lover floor to leased out 365 a requester we didn't believe the tennis of the city and the commission to have
three bedrooms to have rented out thank you very much >> speakers if support of dr requester. >> thank you, commissioners my name is my name is a form neighbor i'm submitting - >> ma'am, are you part of dr times then our time to aspect was or speak was those. >> you can submit the testimony if in writing. >> any other speakers in support of the dr requester if not dr requester please. good evening commissioner president fong and commissioners if i can get the overhead please. >> just to orient you to the
site this is the project sponsors house this is the dr requester here so as you can see the context that is probably the smallest house on the block and there's nothing in terms of of a vertical addition here this is a 20 foot highway in a 40 foot zone in vertical addition proposed that will remain the same height all the addition at the rear that will extend beyond the dr requesters highway the rear by 5 feet it was reduced starting out at 15 the project sponsor reduced to 5 knocked out 2/3rd's and we think that is reasonable
here's and renders that show us the addition this guess taking the place of a roof deck here now it will be 5 hundred square feet and as you can see here it extends 5 feet part of the yards dr requesters house and this is their objection that will be flush with the neighborhood next door which is also an important to illustrate the context we're going flush with that. >> incidental there is a lot of miss pz of the play out of two floors and perhaps this is led to some of the dr requesters confusion
this is the remodeled ground floor it will have a garage here you enter will be a playroom there or will be 6 people initially the house that will rise to 7 i'll go through how the bedrooms lay outs you enter a playroom and child's bedroom that is important christopher two bedrooms and for mr. lee's apartments that live with the family now and will continue to live with the family now we go upstairs there will be a master bedroom for mr. lee and his wife and another bedroom here for the child's hayley and a studies fire mr. lee he's an engineering that will be his study for 6 people a modest
number of bedrooms if we have another child they'll plan the household will be getting small for them so there's nothing here that is nevada raz nephros no. >> it is modest as i stated the lee's made good gentlemen's tursz by eliminating the horizontal addition and deleted a staircase at the rear the building as requested the fronts
of the home had been preserved as is no variances here there was nothing, nothing presented by the dr requester that amounts to an streerd circumstances the project does nothing more than bring the lee's home to a neighbor's to the south and north and remain a full story shorter than the adjacent neighbor to the north any impact on the neighbors is so small as to be negotiable it was reviewed by others and approved without any restrictions the staff has recommended the commission not take dr and the staff report as
notified overview noticed by mr. washington it didn't present any issues to the property or the surrendered property. >> mr. silverman thank you very much. >> other speakers in support of project sponsor. >> any speakers the project sponsor not part of project sponsor team. >> dr requester a 10 minute rebuttal pursue thank you commissioners i'm keep to short it is latest i want to say if rebuttal mr. silvermans explanation was interesting but the first we've heard it the
words he said this was intended to be a two unit building we're not macro feel up i also want to note the guideline is not something that was offend by the project sponsor by the planning staff so the good neighborhood gestures i want to say the record is clear that this can easily be originally stated it is intended to be - it was designed it be a two unit with minimal changes the plan e racing a kitchen the point is that original the president was stated granted speak to the project sponsors current course but the reference was clear that was the original
intent the building was modified and it would be stooerld easily to bring this building to a two unit building and so i ask the commission to consider this and to look at changes that that we suggested reasonable conditions so we'll provide more thank you very much. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> the postage arithmetic will speak. >> okay commissioner president fong and commissioners thanks for spending the time i want to
correct the dr representative there is no tension for to project to create a second unit it was misunderstood the elderly in law they living downstairs have a problem clemg the steps so some convenience and so they could prepare food for themselves and baby-sit the skids stay downstairs and also by looking at the chart the house it not over 3 thousand square feet the total of the house is one thousand square feet with the space probably runs about nine hundred one thousand maximum so the house is about 2 thousand square feet
that's all the living space i don't know how they get the idea this is a 35 hundred square feet house to okay that's the things i want to add >> hello commissioners. i'm hadden wife and i purchased the house in july of 2014 with full intentions of occupying the entire house we have too young children and we need the infrastructure space my mom and dad south africa can stay and we wanted to. >> sir - sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed. and commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he guess a question
for probably mr. washington. >> there are how many bedrooms on that bottom level inform the back and that was said to be a playroom. >> there's three bedrooms on the ground floor. >> on the ground floor so i guess for project sponsor if you have the ground floor is for the patterns that live there so grandparents why are there so many bedrooms. >> you need to a couple and speak into the microphone please. one bedroom for each grandparent and one for a child and next to that is the playroom the children's playroom upstairs the master bedroom and one bedroom for a child's with the study there.
>> and the laundry room was american people is bottom floor; is that correct? >> yes. >> and no laundry on the main floor. >> only one so because you have on the become anyway those are my main concerns and within master or two bathrooms is that one or. >> two. >> within full a bath on the bottom. >> yeah. i don't know i don't see any problem with an n s r to prohibit a legal unit second unit but so the connection there's a separate entertains
entrance tattoosntertains entrance tattoosins entrance tatto entrance tattoosentrance tattot ground floor. >> if somebody can turn the machine on it is hard to read an existing doorway a regular doorway exiting the garage door that doorway is state law e stating from the center center of the diagram a door by the stairs from the outside and then cross the hallway which is you know a few feet wide to another door it is the entrance into the lower units it is essentially a entrance to the lower area. >> the case could be made the grandparents have trouble with
the stairs but get them in from the ground floor. >> it could be an explanation but facilitates that. >> i have question about the connection between the two floors is there a door or that connection. >> not an open connection a stair that i can't tell you as doorway at the upper and lower ends the closing off of one of the doors is is a separate area for the units and . >> yeah. this is. >> and no internal connection. >> that's usual project sponsor you want to answer some of the questions i don't know, there are separate doors. >> sfgovtv go to the docket.
>> i wanted 0 connect first of all, that was the beginning and after that we saw the vision this is the latest floor plans what's the changes from the other back here the addition and also no direct connection from the street to here the side building goes to the garage so there is no decree connection from that living area and also an internal survey up here so the outside and go up
the stair so an internal connection. >> ongoing thank you commissioner hillis. >> so for discretionary review we've got to determine if there is exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and south american the back no addition will kind of go out 6 feet and experiencing a change that didn't necessary rise in my mind to exceptional or extraordinary to condition our neighbors space or any kind of san francisco house in a units space is that's our issue i mean, i don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary what they're building is fine people have upstairs and downstairs and certainly an additional units call dbi and complain and see if
there's an additional units but to try to reconfigure that anybody can put walls and doors and address additional units did not rise to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances so i'll move not to take dr and approve as proposed. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate what you just said i can't be sure i only second-guess but it does raise a question this family would sell the house would be exactly can they'll do tail sell the highway an indication to center doing that the typical indicators and mr. washington will agree they're there ensue in this case, i be given kwhat family
are planning it do no reason for us to second-guess the house they'll put an extra restriction on the title the expansion by itself is intent to support the larger family that's the on thing i can think of because otherwise i think we shouldn't be taking dr commissioner hillis if you'll be amenable to expanding that the rh1. >> that project move on to another owner while find. >> as take dr to do. >> given an rfp zone - >> i don't see the i mean, we should do that on any rh1 i don't again may make people feel better but don't nothing if you
want american people alternative motion feel free but if there is no commissioners, on that motion exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. >> i'll second that motion i guess the question would be on the short-term rental issue could we put a condition on app applicable laws have or have to covered. >> your conditioninging things in place that's already the law. >> rh1 is already the law. >> could we walk in and get an over-the-counter permit for the kitchen. >> they can't. >> only if the codes if someone came in into a rfp with
the intention to add a second kitchen not a member of the department that will say you can do that again upstairs and we'll - we don't add a second kitchen. >> it make sense that the case to the zoning changed to rh2 we want to make sure that is a second single-family dwelling. >> i think that the refreshed my memory is odd you have to go through a large family room to get into the bedroom at the back in the things are designed and instead to surface the bedrooms so i would be supportive of an n s r and move against the motion if it fails i'll make a motion to take dr saw second. >> question should this is to comply and there is a second.
>> so we have to i can make a motion. >> yeah. >> i'll take dr and put a notice of special restrictions to emphasize the fact a single-family dwelling and remain that way in the future. >> just to clarify a condition the zoning changes to rh2 they can't have a second unit. >> well it is double u doubtful that will happen. >> just to be clear that will put. >> supervisors make a motion to put a motion it is limited to one unit under the current zoning as you that's the n s r only one kitchen only. >> second.
>> sorry that's a motion. >> there was a second. >> small business call the question. >> can clarification i was not contrary on the motion what the n s r is for is it for their loudly to have the zoning laws or something else. >> the n s r is go by director rahaim explanation a single-family residences and you can word is better but there's only one kitchen lout if a single-family residences. >> the motion to limit it will to be loud under the zoning. >> under the zoning classification. >> is that fair. >> it is really the same. >> as what the zoning allows.
>> okay there is a motion that has been seconded and to succumb apply with the speed limit on that. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and require an n s r to state that - on be allowed to, what is allowed under the current zoning. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and mr. brooks so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you in general public comment i have no speaker cards general public comment tonight not seeing any, general public comment is closed. and the meeting is ,
>> >> can you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> president loftus, i would like to call roll. >> please do. >> commissioner president loftus, here. >> commissioner advice turman, commissioner marshall, commissioner dejesus, commissioner hwang, commissioner mazzucco.
you also have police chief suhr. >> i'm going to propose we move item no. 3 early i did -- in the discussion on our agenda and put it under, chief, i know you are going to give a presentation on the item. >> next item. >> public comment. general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks, to the commission, whole and not individual commissioners or
department or occ pes nell. under police commission rules of order, during public comment, neither police or occ personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel. should refrain however from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. public speaker: i grew up in the south and the attitudes of the cops in the south were pretty horrible. when i was coming up, a black man couldn't walk the streets no matter how hot it was otherwise you would go to jail. my concern is to whether or not in the south there is known to be a confederate rule and i have noticed the same attitude here in the north with the police officers
having that southern mentality. i was wondering if it was some sort of way of judging who gets to put on a blue uniform. if they are allegiance with the confederate flag should they be enforced or given the responsibility to enforce the law that they fought against. you know. they don't believe that all men are created equal. should you actually give them that rule where they have to go out and enforce the law and then put on a blue uniform. i don't believe they have the respect for the blue uniform if their ancestors were wearing the uniform. they put this uniform on and they disgrace that uniform. that is my comment. >> thank you. next speaker. >> public speaker: good
evening, my name is michael pet trellis. there could be no relief for the mayor regarding the murder. yesterday several people were arrested protesting the mayor. the mayor has to get out of city hall and hold town hall meetings. he is not going to be able to be an effective leader by hiding away from people and going to events at fancy hotels and avoiding the anger in the community. i want to thank the leaders who have come out and who have set an example for the mayor to follow. i have to repeat it. mayor lee get out of your
office and hold town hall meetings now. the second item i want to address. can you show on your screen. this is the website for "not on my watch" this is an effort to confront prejudice with the department. it tooks a public records act request to find out that this website and other social media is costing taxpayers $16,000. $16,000 has been spent on this social media campaign and you are not disclosing the cost on this website. it is not enough. for you to think that social media, okay, you can stop showing that now. it is not enough to make-up for the lack of town hall meetings with mayor ed lee. this is all pr that
you are putting on the web. it's not going to lead to justice. the last item i would like to mention has to do with my demand for the past 2 months. that you developed for the department for regulation from social media. i heard from michael in the week that the regs he's drafted for you he wants to present in march. no date was given for when that could happen. there really needs to be this public discussion about the departments use of social media because we are finding out with this not on my watch website, it's costing taxpayers dollars, our dollars. i want to know how you are spending your money and with a your rules are guiding your social media because you are not being fair with how you regard mugshots. thank you.
>> thank you, next speaker. good evening, clyde, welcome. public speaker: let's go to the heart of matter. how long are we going to talk about this? hey, mary woods is still here. when was the last time you saw someone get killed by a taser? you haven't. i talked to you today. brooklyn. steve is a good neighbor in new york. i said how many times have you used the taser in new york? thousands. how many people are killed in new york? >> common sense says you are not going to taser a 90-year-old
woman? why don't we have them? c'mon people. would it have worked? i don't know. but it's a lot better than that that gun. public speaker: from the foundation and from the participation for the last percent in review. i want to speak in particular to the town hall meetings that you have organized per district the one in bayview and some of the staff attended the one in the tenderloin. it is a good intent . however the police presence was
overwhelming. there is a signature and by the time we were finished we were told to vacate the room now. this is not sufficient. as you remember there was a study of policing in 2009 and mark was holding town hall meetings, but at the end she was doing the briefing and she would use an analysis of all those readings and what were the trends that were important. this is what you should do and to see from you a briefing and one of these sessions and analysis. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. public speaker: my name is harry.
i have lived here for more than 30 years. this is the third time that people have been trying to introduce. i find it in comprehensible. when you vote, when you read the news, when someone was tasered or someone seriously damaged, that's on your conscious. all of you need to act and stop pretending there is not a problem with this department. the police officers association should not be running san francisco's police policy. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, next speaker. public speaker: good evening, my name is johnson.
i think that life and these are failures in the police department. what i have seen are totally no one talks about the real thing. and i think this needs to be directly in kind with the police department where that do have disabled and they are inclined with dyslexia and i don't think it's been studied in the police department. i think some of our police
department have been not underneath positions for that. we had a really good in 2001 and they stole my passport. now i'm going to revenue to get my passport back. i found out a little later and it would be a lot better because my mathematics is really weak. i'm a lot more improved because of the city college and the police department. i know that i have been
dropping weight but really healthy lately and really involved with heavy equipment on my back. i'm automatic in engineering in college. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. good evening, ms. brown and welcome. public speaker: again, my name is paulette brown. i would like to use the overhead as i always do concerning my son, aubrey
abrakasa. to this day, his case isn't solved. i worry about the disparity and race is -- racism of our children's cases not solved. steinle's case was solved. why isn't our cases solved. i always bring up mario woods. i understand, i am with his mother. i understand how she feels. i have been on the battlefield for the last 9 years. it will be 10 years, a decade this year on the 14th of august will be 10 years since my son's murder. i always come with pictures of my
son. because i don't want another mother to go through what i did. i had to watch my son in a casket. i relive this everyday. this is a picture i have of my son. after an autopsy. he has a mother and father that raised him well. i had to walk across the stage to receive his diploma. this is what mario's mother has to do to receive his diploma. this is not easy for us. i bring this up because i want justice for my child. i say that all lives matter. all lives matter. black lives matter too, but i want
justice for my child. i have been coming here bringing up the awareness not just for my son, but for all mothers and fathers suffering in silence and mothers and fathers that don't want to come out and speak. i stand for them. my purpose that i got into this is because of my son. he was only 17 years old. a young boy being shot down by community violence. we want the same justice for our children that you are giving to every person. i'm a taxpayer. i want the same justice for my son. i don't want to have to see, i want to get rid of these pictures. i don't want to keep carrying these pictures. i will do this until my son's case is solved. i want his case solved.
>> if anyone has any information on aubrey abrakasa, please call police. public speaker: i want to address the police commission if i may. i have a couple questions and i will be out of the way. the police commission of a shooting. i want to know from the police commission can that be possible? >> in public comment we are not able to respond to questions. you can ask a request and we'll take it
down. >> it's not a question. the public wants a demonstration. a taser gun. how is it used that you will command that and for a new to bring somebody down and kill him. why not use a taser gun. >> did you have public comment? >> there is limitations to what we can say as to public comment. tonight it will be discussed but we are not taking any action tonight. >> thank you.
next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: i don't think i have time to do everything. i hope i have enough time. i have been watching you on tv for a long time and throwing stuff at the television and decided to come down and see if i can offer anything. i wanted to compliment the commission on your work and most recently commissioner hwang for that you published in the san francisco chronicle. i think it was very good. i come to you as a former city planner and director of civil rights commission and affirmative action.
these notes that you see here start to talk about a contextual division of policing that started since slavery. i started as a form of police planning as an absolutely connected function to city planning, goals and values. when police officers essentially blue collar workers, no pun intended when they are acting in an environment tell people who belong here and who doesn't belong here and acting on that ideology, i have listed some issues that i hope you pay attention to additional data to review. this the important on who gets killed by whom, what zip codes they
come from. the police ought to be living in the community. that's a 50-year-old requirement. some officers come from areas i won't name them that are known racist communities surrounding san francisco. are they impacted by where they live when they come across that bridge. i mentioned police here. let's say anytime a white person shoots a person of color that it's a mental breakdown. when it's black on black it's criminal. let's assume that. we need some attention to the health and mental health to the officers including a large number of domestic abuses cases in police homes and they come on to the job. you know all about that.
before you get to a shooting policy, you ought to know what you are doing. here is an edge weapon used on an officer. that man is alive who did that. the question is why? what were the factors. >> thank you. next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: thank you, my name is andrea. with brooklyn cop watch. our police department does not have tasers.
some part because of the example of san francisco. i was very impressed with outside of the bay with the reasons for san francisco not having tasers. i have to say it's astonishing. what horrible it is to be on your agenda. how disingenuous it is to look at the death of mario wood to look at the lack of taseers. that is not what killed that man. what killed that man was an incredible lack of sensitivity to the value of black life. that's what killed him. and it's a deeply rooted culture in san francisco. i have been coming here for 30 years. we used to protest
in the mid-80s. there is an officer with a swastika in a paddy wagon. he was getting his picture taken and didn't know why the worthiness of the picture. he didn't know that swastika was inappropriate. what's happening is the department of the police is so deep rooted in the culture in the department. it's going to take a major overhaul. if you want to improve relations in this community you have to fire those officers. you have no absolute understanding of what real community safety is about. and you are dominating and controlling and damaging and harming this community. you are inappropriate to
leave in 2016 this modern urban city. i would also say this: that just yesterday another study came out about tasers that when employed they disorient. they interfere with the cognitive function. when officers deal with them, that officer is compromised fundamentally. if you put any weapon into the hands of a racist, it's going to be used in a racist way. i don't care what you put in their hands, if there is not a respect for human life, you are going to have a bad outcome. police commission, don't consider this item. don't even talk about it. it disrespect mario woods and his family. thank you. [ applause ] public speaker: good -- i
was going to say i find it offensive and obscene to maintain that tasers are being considered now in order to reduce the possibility of officer involved shootings or in custody shootings. research across california that after tasers were introduced there was a huge increase in deaths in the first year, in the second year decrease, still it was 150% more than when before tasers were introduced. what's even more obscene about this
is that all across the countries regular police training say in a situation when an officer or somebody else's life is in danger, you do not use tasers. you use guns. and the reason for that is because from the cops viewpoint, tasers are only 75% effective and they don't want to have the 25% chance that it might not bring somebody down. so their training is that in a life or death type situation, they use guns. so, to tell us that police are having tasers is going to reduce our being killed is just the an obscene lie . it's also, so how will tasers be used? 80% of tasers used across the country is used against
unarmed people and many of them if you go on youtube, you see instance after instance of people being tased when they were handcuffed or hog tied or both. so tasers are not going to reduce in custody death. that is going to be another way to terrify us into submissions. if police can't regulate guns, who is to say they are going to regulate tasers. they are a dangerous weapon. i have a heart condition myself but i look like the hale and hardy person. no police would ask me whether or not i have a heart condition before tasing me. it's absurd to think about it.
what we really need instead of tasers what we really need is justice of course. what we really need is a crisis team that can go and talk to people and calm them down. i worked for a hospital for many years. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker? public speaker: my name is nancy. i'm a san francisco resident. i work for the law. when i found out the taser proposal was going to be discussed here, i took off early. it's unfathomable to me that
adding another weapon to an arsenal that police when they are out of control is going to solve the problem. it's going to exacerbate the problem. i don't think it's a problem with police training. i believe the problem is with the policies that allow the police to draw weapons for people who have mental health issues, people who are down and out. i work in this neighborhood. i'm with the freedom socials party. we see what happened. it's the result of the economic down turn that's forcing people who used to have jobs to become homeless, to become out on the streets, to become potential victims of police violence and abuse. that's not right. this is not the city that i want to live in. i think instead what we need
to do is to have an elected police review board that is run by civilians because i'm sorry, what we have here doesn't have the power necessary to make the changes by electing people, our own peers to stand for and be able to investigate independently and have the power to have independent investigations as well as the power to fire and discipline police officers if an investigation comes to that. we want a jury of our peers, we want also bodies of our peers that can help ensure that anybody who walks down the street, no matter what their color or mental health status or sexuality or immigrant status is not shot at in fears for their lives. that's not right.
it's kind of plain and -- simple. we should also elect a city prosecutor who is independent from the city attorney's office and the board of supervisors. that independent person is important to be able to be more objective. thank you very much and i hope you take it off the table. thank you. >> next speaker? just a point of clarification, there will be no action taken on these use of force policies that the department will be presenting their request to this commission. just so everyone is clear.
public speaker: hi, this past april my son who is black was coming home with his friends who are also black. the officer approached their car and harassed and violently attacked him. because the pro bar, the occ is not able to discipline and the only recourse is a civil lawsuit. the aclu has filed a lawsuit on his behalf. i did everything in my power to give my son every opportunity. he was not in trouble and went on to a university. in the final semester, the sf p.d. traumatized us and had a major impact in our lives. i have never heard 1 story of police violence to any of his white peers. but the san francisco police department have made police
violence a right of passage for people of color. i have seen sfpd kill half breeds. i never feel my son is safe when he is out. san francisco police recently beat a black bicyclist and black kids filming a video. after the citywide celebration they beat a black man on the city streets. last year a mother was harassed by cops and they pulled out her hair extensions. something needs to change and tasers are not the answer. racial profiling and excessive use of force against community of color has to stop. the last of police accountability has
to stop. we need to repeal the police officers bill of rights that shield violent cops from prosecution and keeps them on the streets. a civil rights investigation, reform needed are an over all of the sfpd pro bar and the p oa. we need to evaluate performance and look into factors such as excessive force claims, arrest for resisting arrest and arrest when charges are dropped. you know which police officers regularly harass them but these never seem to be heard or inform in performance evaluation. currently there is not out there to help victims and families of police violences. i have gone into extreme debt for medical and damages for
psychological trauma if you live in areas of a community where there is violence towards people of color. >> next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening, my name is roger scott. a teacher at city college. i have been there for 40 years and also on the executive board of the american federation of teachers for a time. i also served in the army and i'm in the peace corp. i have been arrested a few times for civil disobedience but never faced any serious charges. i consider myself a friend of police officers and have law enforcement people in my family. i believe police officers should be well trained, well paid and well equipped, but i don't believe they should be equipped with tasers. they are obviously dangerous weapons. if anyone in this room doubts that, i will convince you the world
is not flat and we have a nation of equality. to confirm other volatile situations, i believe police officers should wear vest to protect themselves. it's my opinion that police officers who killed mario woods should be prosecuted for what i regard as a summary execution. if the officers had shields and used them judiciously, i believe mario woods could have been disarmed. i don't know the poa personally, but maybe i should thank him for his insults and ridicule for those who want justice. i disagree
with him on many issues but i do share the views like law enforcement officers and everyone else. like those ideal with at the city college don't deal with the workers and they should have some allegiance to workers. i believe that all people including the police officers facing serious charges should have adequate representation and should be afforded due process. however in the mario woods killing, they violated those five officers in my view violated his due process and violated his human rights by taking his life without justification. the other concern i have and it's a major one which i believe is one that you don't have the power to act on. the right of is self defense has limits. if someone throws a rock at me or threatens me with a knife or club but isn't close enough to do serious harm, i don't have the right as self
defense to kill that person. if i did, i would be prosecuted. in fact, jeff darchi said recently, if i killed someone in cold blood, i would be prosecuted. police should be held to the same if they take someone's life, they should be prosecuted. >> thank you, mr. scott. next speaker? public speaker: good evening. my name is karen flesh man. i come here tonight to speak on behalf of the coalition but to speak from my perspective as a mother, as a citizen and lifelong advocate for young people and social justice. the culture of san francisco calls for a very different way of
policing than the one that we have today. right now we have the worst of both world's. we have a high degree of lawlessness and open use drug use in our streets and a high level of homeless in our streets and a total lack of empathy and accountability in our police force and use of force and over policing. i work in the bayview and i have observed police action there on a regular bases and they are very disproportionate and very rapid response. it's a very context to someone that happened to mario woods can occur. chief suhr, under your leadership we have ample examples of systemic racism. it's time you take
accountability. someone has to take accountability in your department in order to change the culture of your department. it's great that there is an investigation but we need answers now. when 911 happened, you do a complete investigation of what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again. why is that so controversial, why is that so bizarre that we can't execute a comprehensive independent investigation of what happened in the mario woods case. then we need to convene the best minds of the bay area. we have brilliant people here and let's gather them from the business community, from the youth of element community, from the justice community and let's completely redesign the way we do policing in san francisco to reflect a unique community and our values. let's implement restorative
justice, mental health first responders, mental health care, addiction treatment and workforce development so people have an opportunity to participate in this economy with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. why do we have such enormous unemployment and job lessness in our communities of color. i urge on you this commission not to just think of mario woods and his family, but consider the young people who filmed his shooting. they are standing there going home from school on the bus and they took out their phones and filmed that and they put on the internet for their peers to see that. what will we do if we allow that to happen and don't take immediate action to address that. >> thank you very much.
next speaker? public speaker: good evening commissioners. my name is david elliot louis with the health board of san francisco and most importantly, i'm part of the cit working group mental health working group and cit trainer, crisis intervention team that help police deal with behavioral crisis. i'm here to report to you that we have made good progress which will hopefully deliver to the chief soon and we have already e-mailed commissioner, president loftus a copy. this is a work of many. i have worked on this. marion office of complaints,
mayor's office of disability, commander sullivan, lieutenant mario molina. it's a community police effort to come up with this. we try to incorporate the best of the report. we looked at all of the chief's bulletin use of force considered 5.01 and 5.02. i think we've come up with something that you will find helpful. we hope in your commission hearing that you will have the highlights of this new structure of how it works in the department and some of the actual tactics, including tactical position but rather than rush in, firing back away to get help, slow it down. this is in conjunction with best practices called by perf
that police executive research form that i know the chief traveled to learn from. i think we have something helpful to learn from. that is why i light a candle. that is a better way. i want to take note that chief suhr has been very supportive of cit and the department and bringing forward all the recruits now. there is training and including shoot, don't shoot scenarios which is helpful. this is new stuff and helpful stuff. there are positive changes happening in use of force and a new working group as well looking at use of force that will enforce community input at community levels and work with our
own cit mental health and working group. i think the department is willing to make changes. chief surf is supportive of these changes and we hope the community involvement shows a way. thank you. >> next speaker? good evening, mr. miller, welcome. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. the fact that tasers are being reintroduced tonight by chief suhr as a use of force option is crude. the people of san francisco stood up four times in the last few years and said they don't want tasers. yet, this abusive chief and his abusive department have decided to reintroduce this. it's a slap in the face of the community of san francisco. to answer when was the last time someone was killed with
tasers. fact of the matter is in palo alto last year about 9:50 p.m.. a person with schizophrenia disorder was killed. i should also add in the beginning of the year january 26, 2015, in san francisco county jail, alvin haynes died and document have yet to be released but admitted by the court that deputies altercation with the inmate definitely seems to be a likely possibility. we don't know whether tasers were involved in that incident. the cases of tasers do go up when we talk to you. the reported number is 916 and that number again is always low because it doesn't account for in custody deaths which are quite often covered up for fraudulent medical terms for
sudden is in custody death syndrome. let's look at the fact that this no account department has been successfully sued for the misuse of tasers years before anyone near being allowed to have them. the city sued for this because of the abuse at the hands of san francisco sheriff's deputies and san francisco police including jessie serna. that's already happened. in 2007, united nations declared it a torturous device. there is more to say on the matter. the fact remains that mario woods not dead because police did not have tasers, he's dead because of
a brutal department and civilians. if we are talking about modifications to the use of force policy there have to be modifications that have humanity in mind and not further militarizing our law enforcement. public speaker: hello, i'm here on the mario woods murder. it a problem. we don't even use guns in london for example. it's an enormous city and they don't
use guns nor a taser. i don't know why we feel we have to be so aggressive and militarized here. there is so much skill and compassion that can be done. this has to be like involved 100 times. it has to be the first thing we do instead of something in their pocket that maybe come out because their guns are always the first, it feels like. i know that not all cops are bad, but it takes a few. there is always the danger thing because it's not gone. every police officer can be texting like that. i don't trust any of them anymore. i stop and watch every police officer encounter with everybody if i can. even if that person called the own cops for their own sake. everyone needs to be protected from the police
now and the last thing they need is another weapon. public speaker: my name is tony. i'm here for all of those affected by aggressive police force. we need police reform immediately. we need to get rid of officers who are responsible for use of force immediately. the officer that executed mario woods should not be on a paid job right now. they should be in jail. there is all these statistics by
tasers. over 100 people are killed by tasers. we don't need san francisco to be responsible for more deaths by tasers. i want to share this story sent to me. it's a video of an incident in a latin america country. i don't know which one. but there was a man who was emotionally unstable with a machete in his hands and waving a large machete around. this is a 6-minute video. within about a minute or two, about probably 8 or 10 yellow jacketed police unarmed surround this man. but they don't come inclose. they stay at a far distance just watching carefully, thought fully, cautiously to see what this man is going to do.
they are trying to assess the situation. they didn't shoot him down. he was a wild man and doing wild circles. as they stood in the distance, circled the man, they waited for a moment. you can tell they were professional police unarmed. occasionally there was one or two of them, but ultimately after 5 or 6 minutes, one of the officers was behind that man and caught that moment and rushed it and caught that man from behind on both elbows and the other officers came in and put him on the ground and no one was killed. there are so many millions of choices that san francisco police could have done the day mario woods got killed. it's shameful,
chief suhr that you came out immediately what was done. it's shameful that you are still sit ting in your uniform. you should -- listen to the people. the mayor needs to fire you. >> next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. public speaker: i would like to direct my remarks to the audience here. this is san francisco, all of us. these will be pointed out here with extreme focus that greg suhr is trying to detective the residents of san francisco into thinking that the murder execution by sfpd of
mario woods is an issue of an imperfect a legal police policy of use of force directive. a slick performance behind closed doors with public relations consultants tailoring a carefully styled production for the cameras. it is no different than what he had to say about the an acquiring of tasers of the sfpd. he stated the use of tasers would have prevented the death of mario woods and would the use of night sticks done the same thing? immediately after the murder of mario woods that he was hit three times
with a beanbag. he like end that to be hit at 450 miles per hour. mario woods was already incapacitated. he could barely stand straight and told us mario was pepper prayed and sure enough half blind. any teenager at that point could have walked up to mario in his risk with a 30-inch nightstick, standard police equipment, end of conflict, no 40 bullet discharged by rabid gun flinging cops, no tasers and the son of glen woods, alive but bruised. take a look at the video. does anyone see one intelligent well trained cop? not a single
one. would greg suhr look into the camera and tell the residents of san francisco and tell the people that what happened was good police work. i don't think so. murder is murder. deflection of murder is the police method. don't be fooled by public relations consultants that have been standard police equipment and by taxpayers of san francisco against their own best interest. remember, good police work is self-evident. >> thank you. next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: my name is jackie garza, a san francisco resident. suppose it's solution to
deadly police shootings. it's an -- apparent intent to focus away from this tragedy. to give police tasers, chief suhr and mayor lee should be reviewing this. this will lead to more arrest and prosecution. adding weapons for officers has had no effect on the number of officer involved shootings. a 2009 ucsf shooting showed an increase in such shootings. tasers are dangerous and
painful and have you heard it's contributed to over 600 deaths. this has caused excruciating pain and paralyzing muscles and causing destruction of bodily functions. stop this madness. >> thank you. good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening, i think the chief has to take responsibility for the murder of mario woods. you are responsible here. that's why we have a police commission
to take control of the police department. they don't control you. these orders are laughable and insult -- because you don't enforce them. you must not escalate the violence. you must reject wholeheartedly the tasers. they will do nothing to improve the safety of san francisco's citizens nor the police. they will only increase the disrespect the people have for the police because there will be also accountability than we already have. the biggest problem we now have is the lack of accountability for the murders the police perpetrate, the racism the police perpetrate. i urge you to reject tasers
completely. and look at the money and how much money would be spent to buy these weapons. i read this order that you are passing out and i'm guessing it's written by the taser corporation, a very wealthy corporation that has a lot of money to spend that enforces the use of lethal weapons of torture on people nationwide. >> thank you, next speaker. public speaker: good evening. jennifer, director, i want to redefine the use of force and use the standard of use of force what our community standard is on use
of force. however we are really discouraged that as we move away from using force and sanctity of life that at the same time an introduction of yet another weapon comes to the table. it really calls to question the entire intent of moving away. in intuitively people might jump to electronic weapons use of response, that might make sense, but in reality, it doesn't control shootings. you have to look at the independent studies because so many are not independent. a 2009 study found that fatal shootings of police doubled after the department adopted tasers. it stays above what it had been before tasers. tasers kill also in custody deaths. this is especially true for vulnerable people.
after tasers got introduced, sudden deaths increased by 500% then it went down 150 higher. there is a lot of reasons for this. this weapon must be used in close range. they are rarely used on armed suspects. they are used on bodies that have to be removed by medical personnel. most of you know this already. they are connected to tasers international. we have a really big opportunity here and it's birthed out of tragedy. we have this moment for true systemic change in the police department. we have a movement that would not only result in keeping officers safe but keeping members of the public safe. a movement that can
transform police to justice. but introducing the electronic control weapons slaps back into justice. it knocks the wind out of change. please, take it off the table. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening and welcome. public speaker: thank you, good evening commissioners, my name is shannon. a cofounder of 123 to replace ed lee. i have police officers in my family. some of whom i would consider the good ones. i want to put that in context for my next commentary. i will light you up. these are the words that brian said to
sandra bland said to her with a taser before pulling her out of the car which she afterwards committed suicide. i bring this up because we clearly have a police force as evidenced by the shocking and outrageous text message that we know about now and e-mails. we have a police force that needs to change and not with the tools in their arsenal, but aside -- rather the tools that are given them to handle the stressful situations they face. i think one of the most important things is that right now the labor practices of the police department are in humane. you just had our entire police force on daily duty for 3 weeks.
that is in humane. that is asking for problems. you have to start looking into the labor practices to looking at what are the mental health challenges that are in a cultural and endemic with the police force. i outlined several points including implementing a mindfulness base production program which has been well documented to increase the quality of life for first responders, but also to help them make better decisions in crisis situations. none of us know what we would do when we were faced with very difficult stressful situations. so i honor that those are difficult decisions to make.
and it's absolutely imperative that you give police officers the correct tools to deal with those situations. not more tools to escalate with them. >> thank you. next speaker? is there any further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening. i'm a san francisco native born and raised here. is several years ago in a planning commission meeting for a direct act of protest, a friend of my joked that the sfpd was a special case. he said in san francisco, we've trained our police so well that they come out to you and say, excuse me sir, i will be your arresting officer today but i appreciate if you don't make me carry you for the die in. i have acupuncture on my back. that a bond can be developed
between a protester and police. this is especially tragically true for the people of color. the sfpd is in fact for the exceptional police department for many san francisco communities. many san franciscans watching from chicago, baltimore and new york and watching the mario woods video, san francisco is not any different. we have the same model of police force as the rest of america. we need rapid change in san francisco and tasers should not be a part of it. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment. can people lineup if there is anybody
else who want to speak? thank you. good evening and welcome. public speaker: hi. i was watching a show on nhk japanese television and a great program called "from the ground up" about policing in the community. one of the things i found really helpful was that they wore blade resisting gloves and i did look that up and apparently they are easy to get. they are often used in factories where people are using to get their hands cutoff and things of that nature. now i know that someone can get stabbed but it's possible to have the gloves that can possibly go up
the arm and approached with a shield and then possibly pepper spray. i know pepper spray when i have had it in my eyes i can't see. i have to ask this question, i want to know whose gun is in san francisco's back right now in whose gun is in your back, chief suhr? something going on in the city. mr. o'halloran, if you are, i read the article, are you? i'm sorry. you look like him. i'm so tired of coming here. i was asked if i had a
job. i just got my record expunged. i find it insult that that one of your officers asked me shouldn't i go to bed so i can get up to go to bed early in the morning. it was 7:30 p.m.. i'm upset at how we were treated at the protest. i have had an officer put his baton into my breast uch -- up against the wall for no reason at the ed lee inauguration. i am tired of seeing black people murdered on the internet. i am so tired. i am angry. i want to be home with my
husband. after a hard days work in the kitchen as a chef and the officer says what kind of a chef are you? i said a raw food chef and he said, that's easy, you don't have to cook, do you. >> good evening and welcome. public speaker: hello, my name is arlene. i agree with all the issues of tasers being brought up. i believe officers have to be trained for discrimination. police need to be trained in deescalation of situations. they shoot to kill. everybody is shooting at once. first thought is guns guns guns. i don't believe in putting another weapon into the hands of police. one thing i haven't heard since i have been in this room is what
concerns me very much personally. i know a few people who are in their 30s and 40s who have pace makers. if you tase somebody with a pacemaker, they are dead. you can't tell if somebody is wearing a pacemaker just like you can't tell their health. tasers are very dangerous. 1 person described all the things that could happen. if you tase someone with a taser, they are dead. i absolutely reject this use and the culture of the police in this country have to be restructured.
thank you. public speaker: i guess the contention of use of tasers is bad. you might as well shoot me dead. i have already made my will out. i would rather be dead than to be physically and permanently injured or psychically injured where i would loses function and ability. i think this situation also goes to some of the police officers in scenarios when they are being tased for practice. they sustain career ending injuries.
and so it's a misnomer that these weapons are somehow safe, that you can tase someone and then the victim will be able to go to starbucks and get a latte or something. i just think that when you look at the statistics saying this is a torture device, the excessive use of this weapon whereas officers don't normally tase the person once. they will tase them, 2-11 times. they will tase a person continuously when you look at the records, the documentation. hannah she was tased 11 times. there was $8 million.
tase of death, the increase usage of weapons where he thinks she's grabbing a weapon and they grab another one. it's too much of a problem. if they would have surrounded him with shields and stopped him, we wouldn't have this problem, but you tell me you don't know where your shields are. you can't use them. a nightstick, versus a stake knife. they could have used the weapon that they normally carry with them instead of where are you going to get the
money for this? lee is talking about cutting the budget and talking about more deescalation training. where is the money coming from. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 2, reports and announcements, chiefs report, discussion. this item is to allow the chief of police to report on recent police activities and make announcements. the chief will give an update on the following topic. summary of super bowl, presentation of the department's propose fiscal year 2016-2017 budget and use of force
draft policy. >> chief surf -- chief suhr. i will speak to the item talked about. a lot of discussion has been made into the use of force. deputy chief alley and jean, lieutenant mario molina, spag noeley, michael plat us as well as the district attorney and considered policies from around the country, recommendations, community input from the work groups and on an on. that's just to name a
few to arrive at the new policies that have been presented to you. i will highlight a few things from the different policies. the first policy 5.01 from the use of force. there was copies on the table. the safe gaerding and protecting life. disproportionate ability. creating time and distance before we would get to force. there is a section in here on as you are trying to communicate, there could be reasons why a subject might be non-compliant because of various reasons of diminished capacity. this is but a draft order and starting point for this commission's consideration. we separated out the
reporting into it's own new general order. this was recommended in several of the other orders that we reviewed just for simplicity and to keep them for your consideration separated out. further in 5.02, i might add in the use of force, there are new prohibitions reported specifically i know earlier in the week, the san jose police department newly prohibited choke holds. the new policy prohibits not only choke holds which are currently prohibited but also takes the carotid out of our use of force. and the use of life
emphasizing deescalation, proportionality especially dealing with weapons other than firearms in this particular order is is straight prohibition of firing at vehicles unless the officer proposes and immediate threat by the vehicle, this is consistent in policy with new york city since 1972. that's a new recommendation in this policy and there has been much conversation today in a lot of the trainings that we received back east. there was a referral today about london in the united kingdom about 6% of those agencies have tasers when they are dealing with situations. there are resources that are called for. so in keeping with that, i am not asking that the entire
department get tasers, i'm asking for about 5% of our swat team and our specialist officers be afforded tasers. there is a requirement of this policy that require all of our officers, although they would not be cit officers, they would be required to take that training and they would only be allowed to use the tasers or the conductive energy device when the suspect is armed with a weapon short of a firearm and they would be prohibited from using that conductive energy device on an unarmed is subject or a person who is only a danger to themselves in a variety of other situations. with that, i will submit these drafts to the commission for your consideration. >> thank you, chief, so process point
that i want to make to everybody on the commission and those watching at home and care about this issue. this is a starting point of what will be in san francisco about use of force on this department. this is the department's initial draft coming to us. we just got it. it will be posted on the commission's website. i will ask that we keep to old copies to evaluate the differences to see what direction and what we are here to do tonight is is make sure that the commission has a chance to talk about some things that are important to us. i is certainly have a number of those pieces that you talked about and set out the past forward for how we get to actually reengineering for how we use force. what i will say, chief is seeing the president report
on the 21st century is that policies eat people for lunch. we are going through that. i think it would be helpful to hear from you how you believe the proposal from the department is going to impact the culture of the police department. >> again, all of these policies emphasize doing many other things. the greatest of which is creating time and before resorting to use of force. to that about repositioning in fact just this week, as was brought up again by public comment instead of just having our firearm qualification is now an entire day. in that day is
emphasizing trying to get not to get into a situation where you might have to use force let alone a firearm. it's about the policy, it's about training of the policy. we've already put things in place like the point of a firearm is reportable use of force. it was brought up about the baton. there is a requirement that all officers carry their batons and some in these orders are going to be put out as department bulletins and supervisors monitoring all calls for service with persons with a weapon. the officers responsibilities in those incidents, again all created to cause everybody to slowdown, create time and distance because
the amount of times where an officer has to use significant force or lethal force happens in a matter of minutes. so, for every 5 minutes you can lengthen an incident it becomes that much more practical to disable the force at the very minimum use of force. >> i would invite questions. what we'll do is what we did similar with body cameras. we took a different approach and put together a group of stakeholders to give us their input on the policies and identify areas where it might improve from here. we will be talking to advocates, lawyers, folks who have worked with us in the past to advise us. then we are also going to send that version of the policy to the united states department of
justice. as i indicated last week they agreed around the point around urgency, we don't have to wait for 2 years to wait before that is adopted and that review will also help. we will be be very familiar with these orders. they will likely be different when they come to us. when they come to us after the department of justice has come with their reviews, we will have community hearings where we'll be able to hear from everybody about those recommendations and whether or not their fit for san francisco and after that it will come to the commission for final adoption. depending on how long the department of justice takes, i'm hopeful it will get to where this commission will get to vote hopefully early in april and again the caveat is how long the department of justice will take. that is the introduction, questions,
commissioner dejesus. >> i'm thankful for the public for coming tonight. every time you speak, you give us a lot of ideas. i knew we were going to be reviewing the use of force. i knew that was coming and i know it was talked about sending it to a community for getting feedback. while i'm sitting here and listening to the audience it makes sense and there is a concern that we are voting tasers in. as we are evaluating this, yeah, these orders have tasers in here and going out to the community to be evaluated. a lot of work is going to come back with tasers already included. it sounds like the cart before the horse. the real issue is we want tasers in the san francisco department. where it seems like a backdoor way of getting tasers into use of force. i'm really glad that you are here because i was going along
with this process and this is first time i'm seeing the use of force and clearly it's there. they have an order here which basically has a taser recommendation here for target areas. reasonable effort should be made, which is something a taser international. why can't we shoot lower or shoot in the armor leg or somewhere else. we can't do that with a gun but we are going to do that with a taser. for tasers, we are going to shoot them in the leg, but if we have a gun, we are not going to shoot them in the leg. if we have a gun, officers should shoot in the leg.
and tasers take no liability for killing anybody who is shot. so that's a concern. i really think we need to take a step back by saying are we voting to allow tasers in the department, if we are, if we make that determination. then we go forward with this evaluation. i think it was a wake up call for me. but now i think it's a little back wards. i want to put it out there that i do agree with you and i think this rush all of a sudden to have everything done and we have to deal with the preliminary questions whether we want to arm this department with tasers. that's one thing. i also hear in the press if we had tasers, things might have been different for mario woods.
we have the baton and nobody talked about the baton. my understanding the sharp edge training of the baton is is part of that sharp edge training. we keep skipping over that. if we had tasers what would happen with the baton. a lot of this wouldn't have happened. if we waited for a sergeant to arrive at the scene, this might happened. if we had five officers, this might not have happened. this is to say this might not have happened. i have to say, i have gone to community meetings. i have not gone to all of them. but the community meetings i have gone to, bayview and the tenderloin, the ones that i have gone to, we don't wasn't tasers. when it was asked who wants the tasers and it comes down to the department and the mayor. that's a concern that we are not
listening to the community bringing it forward when we don't want tasers. one of the reasons when we were bringing this up is there is an article on january 28th, in the chronicle where they did this study. it's raw data. 37 actual firings and 204 instances where officers threatened to use their weapons. the data shows that officers were more likely to hold their fire when they were white and 67% of the time when they are were african american or latino. it's in this particular article and i did see it here
basically recommended that if you are going to use tasers that you have a use of force report as you put up here is great. and they should document that. it's concerning to me that these tasers are going into these communities when we already have real serious issues especially facing trust. so, those of some of my concerns. i have also one of the things from reading the tasers when they tase they hold the trigger down. so you are not getting one dose. you are getting six doses and
the voltage. are we going to have trainers disarming this or are they aware of giving voltage after voltage. from the last demonstration that people died because of too much voltage. there is questions about did cars. i do agree with a lot of things that the community said and i'm glad that you have come. your input is valuable. if we are going to have use of force, irregardless if we vote for tasers or not, we should have quarterly use of force reports where it indicates all reports to use and break it down by every community where it was used, in the mission, here or park side, wherever. and really break it down and analyze and when it's
being used, and the race of the person and the analysis whether or not the use of force is complying with the policy or if the policy has to be changed. i think if you look at los angeles has a very thorough use of force report and it's something we are lacking and i think the chief has put it in here and i appreciate that. and we have the data and does policy have to be tweaked or guidance has to be given. those are some of my concerns regarding tasers. i do want to tell the community, i saw these at 4:00 this afternoon. it's the first time i'm reading these here. i just really question whether or not we should send these out as they are to a community
gathering of specialist, public defenders, acou, the police department and everyone getting together and evaluate whether that should be done. >> i never voted on tasers. what we did is we slowed it down and we had community members. many people are here nodding their heads. we had the conversation and reviewed
the data. the intent which is really important here is the reason that i have set up this process is to ensure that we actually hear from people who have strong opinions. it is up to the chief to present this department what he thinks is going to respond to this challenge. he has done that and now it is our job to evaluate whether or not we want to provide tasers in the way it's asked. it seems to me if we put this on next week, commissioner dejesus, for people to understand this, we are doing a disservice to a dialogue that's happened and the fellow commissioners you are very well versed in this, too people haven't had a chance to learn this issue. the process is about seven more weeks but it will involve more input. the intent behind this is that this is fundamentally about reengineering use of force. i think it's a shame that
the only thing we are talking about are electronic control devices. we are giving a lot of credit to a particular company in the way we are talking about. what we should focus on is we have a policy before us. the first thing this policy says is the sanctity of human life t department is is committed to the sanctity of human life led by young people many in public housing in san francisco who stepped forward who said we have been committed to make this better. the opportunity is so much bigger in san francisco to fundamentally lead and analyze how officers use force. i think it's time for leadership baunsd -- because of that and we want to hear
saying, we need to cross-reference it with many of the ideas and information we got from the community forums. i need to hear what the occ has to say about these particular policies. commissioner dejesus did discuss a lot of issues that should be in the use of force portion of this policy. i'm not sure that they are all in there, but i think we need to put it out to the community as well as to other stakeholders to see what they think about this policy. we need to draft it. it's not as if we have time. we need to move this process along. we need to make the change now. let's read the policy and see what
we have here. let's go through the process of understanding what's in here. for the department bulletins generally their not passed by the commission but if it's in the use of force or element or weapon, we have to consider that. well, we have to vote on that. whether or not this fits in with the use of force i'm not quite sure of. i'm sure you have an opinion and commissioners have an opinion and the readers need to understand that they need to have an opinion. let's just read and understand that.
>> mr. marshall? a lot of people asked about mario woods. they asked why don't you have tasers and they say why? and i said people don't like tasers. that's just a statement that i have heard. the way i see this is there is a bunch of things and this is going out to the working group that are new and different and mreernl i want every idea that anybody thinks might, i want every idea in there. they may come back and say they don't have any ideas in there.
they may reject the whole thing and start from scratch. fine, that's okay. but i want every idea in there. and i know the chief and doesn't matter how i feel about it. it's going to be working by a voting group. we are not voting on anything. we are throwing ideas out there. i want to see all the ideas out there. if you don't like it, put a red line through it and bring it back.
we are listening to ideas. that's what we did with body cameras. we had to put them all out here. just god forbid there might be somebody who thinks differently. i know it's hard to imagine. they should be able to also say, yes, i do, that's okay. okay. and that's the way, i think it's called democracy. that's the way it works. can we at least put it out there? okay. you don't like what i said, fine. this is not being voted on. this is being put out to people and we are going to get a reaction. that's all it is. >> we have to have order. commissioner hwang? >> we need to have some
serious discussions around use of force. that's what i was coming to this meeting to talk about instead we have a room full of folks talking about this taser device. i have not been through the previous debates. this is a controversial issue that is going to overwhelm our other discussion around the use of force and the entire focus will be on whether or not to adopt acd. it's such a big issue when discussing that it should be considered separately from the use of force policy. i also think we need to think about the fact that we are already rolling out body cameras which is a new piece of technology for officers. i think we should give officers time to acclimate to the body cameras and get used to the technology before they add something more to the tool belt. i did offer that piece and
my thinking we need to focus on what the department is doing well right now what mr. louis is talking about cit and the rolling out of the academy. i think we need to learn and this is how we are training our officers to deal with the greatest degree of crisis. what can we learn from there to deal with folks in a less crisis. whatever lessons we learned to apply to the general community. i want to think about expanding and learning about, i want to go to this blue program about the academy. that sounds like a great program i'm going to try to go to it as much as i can and explaining things to the
folks so there is a procedural adjustment. as i talked with the chief in the academy. it sounds like the academy is talking about great things and talking about what is happening at the academy and talking about demilitarization at the academy. we need to talk about the current use of force on the policy. because what's on paper, i don't know what is happening on the field. those are things we need to learn about and what we need to do and my biggest concern within the short timeframe, if we are going to consider electronic control devices that it's going to overwhelm our discussion and the level of thinking that we are going to do around tasers is different than the use of force.
>> what is your proposal about moving forward? >> i think we should separate out issues. >> in what order? >> to what we are doing well and focus on the use of force policy but not discussing tasers at this point in time. >> okay, commissioner? >> i just want to thank president loftus and the chief. this has been a very rapid and response to a trajic -- tragic events. this is the sanctity of human life. nobody disagrees with the sanctity of human life. that's what the department has brought to the commission. commissioners have not had a chance to look at that. that is the sanctity of human life.
i have had hearings regarding the use of devices, i have heard the pros and the cons. now the first time i have ever heard is that we would use these devices if passed by the commission only extremely limited situations if an individual is carrying a sharp weapon and not just an individual fighting with the officer and the officer is trained with defibrillators in the car. that is not a bad starting . for discussion. but we have to have that use of force in discussion. if there is anybody out there and we can find another weapon as the tasers and the officers can use, it's not about tasers.
please let me speak. >> point of order. >> if you can find that magic device. you heard from the mental health commission. we have training. we have trained officers, but we would like to have multi-trained and that's the goal. what we need to do is we have to look at each level. we have heard spoken at one of our community meetings. we have a very important part. a use of force is never pretty whether or not it's an officer having to put their hands-on somebody, whether they have to hit somebody, hitting them with a baton and use of pepper spray. there is a delicate balance that we have to protect the officer's safety. nobody brought that up. at what point is there are safety is a concern. we need to balance those things and we need to have
an open discussion to take away from the commissioner had a great line, no need for a diatribe. let's have dialogue. when can we get to the . where we have the right thing to do. this department has moved forward with commissioner loftus and we are taking the steps. work with us and be open minded and see what we can do. i can tell you we have reviewed officer involved shootings and i have to review this and look at each other and say if there was one other level use of force, would we use that tonight. we don't take that lightly. work with us, not against us. >> commissioner, dejesus. >> let me say this, i do want to thank commissioner loftus
because of the concern of the shooting did propel us to action. i did agree to go along with this process. i have to say i saw for the first time the documents of today. i have listened to the community and i am changing my mind. that is all there is to it. i'm thinking we do it in a different way. i just say we do it separately and don't include that part because it's an explosive part and i don't see the community asking for that or the officers asking for that. there is a lot in here, there is deescalation of force. i agree we should serve the taser from these documents. the last thing i want to say is when we put this script together it should be a different working group than we have for the cameras. when we have the cameras we have all of the organizations and we have the
department, the poa, different members for the office for justice and other groups. but this particular one, if you are going to leave the taseers in there, we should have people from the cit work in there i think we should have someone from car in there and life force and black lives matter representative in there. >> well, we've spent a lot of time on an item that we are not supposed to be for discussion today. >> it's on for discussion, but not action. >> it sounds like we are taking the time to argue something that we are not really arguing. my issue
is all the comments are about tasers and not about the document. a lot that was questioned are in the document. if you have taken the time to look at it, probably you are looking at all the pieces and not just one. i think should you be open to reading the entire document and looking at and being able to give your input to everything. like i said if you have other suggestions to what police officers can use in this particular case instead of tasers, bring them to the table. but i don't think you can kill one thing
without looking the entire set of policy because there is the position of looking at people in a different way before you pull out a gun, taser, anything. just look at the policy. i don't think you can look at this policy separately because people are against it. some people are for it. so, i'm sorry, but i feel that we need to ask you to look the entire document before you have an opinion on just one specific area. we want to hear from you and we want
to hear from everyone with an opinion. this just needs a lot of input. >> mr. marshal? >> are you saying because this is a lightning rod. i just want to be clear that the working group and the department of justice and everyone else is is going to be looking at this that it shouldn't be in there because it could be a lightning rod, is that what you are saying? >> essentially just tonight's discussion was around more the use of force is hijacked by one particular element within the use of force which i think merits a separate discussion. nobody looking at the good parts of the policy and other parts of the policy. >> i got that, but are you saying the
working group won't be able to do that. i guess that's all i'm asking. if it was something that could possibly be considered. i'm asking you possibly because there are other things in there that might be a lightning rod and those folks haven't showed up. that's my only point. this is a very narrow position of tasers. it's much narrower than anything brought forward before. i guess i'm looking at the working group, the department of justice, i want to be able to give them credit for handling something like this. >> just to take it in
reserve, when tasers are raised before, they don't say we should look the entire use of force policy because they are separated out. i'm saying let's work on the use of force policy first and not focus on the tasers. i don't think the magic fix for the problem here. i think it has to do with the attitude and training. >> i think the point is very well taken. i think that tasers is a much bigger conversation in the use of force. i think we have to look at the lay of land we are in and as with the conversation with the body worn cameras, process does practices and procedures does matter. with your point there is a danger. if we are not going to talk
about tasers and we are not going to hear what department of justice has to say about tasers and talk about deescalation and then this commission is going to vote on tasers. i think there are some problems in doing it that way, every commissioner has a right to vote no, but once the department has asked for this as part of what we've asked which is a reengineering use of force and the department is saying and you don't have to agree, none of us have had the time to decide whether we agree yet, that their point in order to get the 15 minutes of time that we know could reduce the likelihood of an officer to use this force, that electronically controlled device that would be part of a shield a part of reengineering it. i think i
understand your concern that it distracts from the larger conversation and i would just urge all of us commissioners to use, to be leaders in this conversation and continue to talk about all of these aspects in these orders and we will vote on them one by one and the taser proposal will be included and up or down and everybody commissioner has the ability to say one way or the other. when we have the opportunity of the working group that is going to include young people mental health advocates, i think it's a mistake for this commission to proceed. that is reason we are proceeding as we are and i appreciate everyone's concerns. but i think in order to k