Passing that legislation in the course of implementing this we learned that various city issued devices actually have excuse me, the amendment today essentially provides that the city may retain that use that technology, provided they do not use the face recognition function. We see this consistent to the spirit of the regulation passed earlier. It maintains the ban on the use of Face Recognition Technology and i think supervisor peskin in our office wants to work with the city to exercise our purchase power and try to find alternative devices without that embedded feature. For now, its a stock feature that is impossible to remove, its necessary to preserve the citys standing. Great, any questions . Thank you so much. Were going to open this item up for Public Comment. Any member of the public wish to speak . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. [gavel] is there a motion . Excuse me, there are a number of clerical amendments. I apologize. Theyre throughout and clean up things to make
Shame and more than that harmful to lose that open space. Its understanding open green space and hard scaped. It has an impact again on how people con agre con gra gate ane space and the heat related increases as people are more and more concerned about global warming. And water run off. So again, were in favor of housing and keeping the grown gn space. Thank you. Supervisor yee next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is barbra brener. I am here as a neighbor of the 3333 california project. Im in favor of over turning the Planning Commissions approval of the Developers Plan as currently submitted. I speak in support of building 700 plus units on the site but with the strategy that is less didisruptive. Theres been a pattern of impropriety with the proposal before you. The site would have caused modifications in the design. In addition, flexible retail was never discussed nor was it mentioned in the Environmental Impact report so neighbors had no ability to consider it and respond. The e.
Landmark. Laurel hill gardens cemetery. As well as the cemetery, for San Francisco pioneers u. S. Senators and civil war heroes, its a treefilled park for San Francisco residents. Since i noticed the Historic Cemetery plaque missing from the red brick wall a few years ago, i wondered why would anyone want to erase this history. It made me sad. Well, as a result, it seems that the job of marking and memorializing this important San Francisco landmark has been left to its survivors, the trees. Some of these large, old growth trees are monument to this lost history. In addition to the history, many studies have reported that the loss of large, old trees leads to an over all loss of urban biodiversity. They are critical ecological structures because relative to their size, they are disproportionate providers of resources crucial to wildlife. Its times of Necessary Development and help preserve the landmarks that define your cities rich history. Concern neighborhoods are not anti developmen
Promise that everybody would be able to come back to their units. Promises have rung hollow in the past. It wasnt surprising to me that many residents didnt feel wonderful and really safe based on those promises. Now its going to be the law, the law of the city. That is what it should have always been and thats what it finally will be and i could not be more excited and more proud to be supporting and be a sponsor of this legislation. Thank you so much supervisor walton for bringing it forward. If there are no more comments from my colleagues, we will open sorry mr. Miller. I just wanted Public Comments for our residents. That was what i was about to say, were going to open this item up for Public Comment. Anyone who likes to speak, feel free to line up to this side of the room. Every speaker will have 2 minutes to speak. Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning supervisors. I didnt come here today to speak on this item, but now that im here, i im a resident from engleside and i
Consistent with the policies and objectives of the citys general plan. The appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. Limiting the height and modifications to the reuse Center Buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the types of nonresidential uses proposed. Related to the height of the Center Buildings, the Planning Commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. The project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. A reduction in height of the Center Building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed New Buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility.