To the restaurant. And if that entrance is more than doesnt have direct street access then this doesnt apply. Does that make sense . So you know the big double doors at Cheesecake Factory thats the primary entrance. Doesnt have direct street access so it doesnt apply. As i read this, thats what these words mean. I agree. Might want to go back and talk to whoever at public works drafted it. I agree. Its in the ordinance . Yeah, i mean so. Anyway. Probably none of that matters. The ordinance is different. So why is the language different between these two things brad, our City Attorney . I cant say why its different but there is an ordinance that has the same restriction its just worded differently. It says the prohicks set forth in section 4 shall on prohibition set forth in section 4 shall only apply if it has. Its hard to hear you. The code provides weve been looking at the order on mobile food facilities which is very similar to the code. The code provides the prohibition set forth in subsection 4 which is a 75set radius provision shall only apply if a restaurant has direct street access to its primary access. Very similar. The problem is the ordinance doesnt make sense. A restaurant cant have street access to its own entrance. What it means is does the public have access to the primary entrance directly from the street. Where the restaurant okay. Right. Its written in a way that doesnt make any sense. It does stem from a public works code. If i was standing at the juice bar am i more than 75 feet from this food truck . I believe so, yes. Thats all i need to know thank you. Is there any public come on this item . How many people are here for Public Comment . Vice president lazarus . A few minutes . Okay. First person, come on up. Yep exactly. You have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you for waiting. Good evening. Good evening. My name is emilio. Bay area resident. I for one think its exciting and productive when young people put together a business like this and it should be encouraged by the city, not made more difficult than it already is. I very much enjoy the hometown creamery and support their endeavors. Thank you for your time. Next speaker. Welcome. Doing great. My name is elise. Thank you. I love the hometown creamery. I live on the same block at the main place is at. I really like that they are a Small Business. I know they have really like the footprint of having a mobile food truck is not a lot of cost. It really helps. I dont know why if theyve already got the permit why it would be overturned. Its just really good for them to have a Small Business. We dont want to make it harder for Small Business folks to operate in the city. Especially downtown i think its really cool to be able to have the San Francisco hometown creamery. Its a tiny little cute little truck if you havent seen it in real life. I support ice cream and Small Business owners and i wouldnt want equinox to take that away from them. Thank you. Next speaker please. Fill out a speaker card. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. My name is vanessa. Im a San Francisco resident. And tonight gives me a whole different level of respect for everything that you are doing, given how late you have to be here. I am trying to wrap my head around everything thats been discussed. And it seems like at this point its like half of a dozen egg situation where we are splitting the difference. I would like to see that we are supporting Small Businesses and that we are allowing people in San Francisco especially nontech entrepreneurs to build their businesses and do it in a way that we are being inclusive of people in our community. It seems like we are always kind of pushing one direction and not the other. And it would be wonderful if we could create opportunities for locals to build this business and allow people in our city to have delicious ice cream. So hopefully we can consider this as an option. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you. Hello. My name is noah 30year resident of the San Francisco bay area. Thank you for all the work and time you have put in tonight. My second time, being here i felt a moral obligation to come not particularly happy about being here. Im sure the young gentleman and the daughter arent particularly happy to be here either. Im sure they would rather be scooping ice cream at the shop or i know they teamed up with local charities and schools to create unique flavors for Disaster Relief in the past but they are not doing any of those things right now and ultimately because of a few landlords large corporations like equinox feel threatened by a 1960s vw Ice Cream Truck. I think its absurd. I havent heard one legitimate rebuttal that passes the smell test for why this truck cant be here. So back to what some of the other folks said, i think its really about what you want in your community to look like and reflected and do you want it to be big National Organizations who can send their expensive lawyers here to defend them . Or do you want it to reflect the Cultural Diversity of the residents of San Francisco and support local businesses like hometown creamery. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Okay. Well move onto rebuttal. Mr. Gladstone. Okay. Im going to be very quick. First of all the restaurant lies on a public business to be in the black. Just as much as it relies on patronage from the gym. The restaurant never would have accepted moving in there separate from the gym it has nothing to do with ownership of the gym. It would never have moved in there if it was true that you have to pass by a gym concierge and show your id before you get into the restaurant. And by the way, let me show this here. You walk in from the street. The concierge is not standing there. He is out of the picture and asking for ids over here. You walk in the entrance and you turn right here. And you are not in a long entrance to the restaurant. You are in the lounge area of the restaurant right here. We showed it to you. Its labeled the lounge. Its on the floor plans. Its on the permit which well somehow you in a minute that the lounge area starts here. It is not a hallway to a restaurant far away. If you take d. P. W. To its logical extension it means if we put a restaurant where the he can equinox club is, that would not have direct access to the street because one can come here and go to a restaurant here before one reaches further into the building to reach the equinox restaurant. It doesnt make sense. I also wanted to mention that we went to the permit holder and suggested a compromise. He has other places in the city. There are other places just across the street. We did some measurements across the street of whether he could be across the street. And we found that it meets all the mfs guidelines. Im sure hes a great restauranteur. He has fans. They would only have to cross the street. Its not a big burden. I want to point out that i was involved in the case of phils coffee truck. Whats important to note about that even though its not before you is that situation was a similar one where the mff was within a 75foot radius of the entrance but you had to go up an elevator to reach the restaurant, meaning the issue at hand was the same issue. However d. P. W. In that situation and exclusively said that was direct enough access such that the restaurant could be considered a restaurant within 75 feet. The result of that hearing was that the mff food truck could not get a permit and it moved to a different location. Thats an extreme version of whats happening here. Its much more direct than it was in that case. And we hope that the permit holder will take into account the compromise and would look at the location across the street because the law requires that. Thank you very much. I have a question. Im trying to find the site plan you showed. Did you provide that . Im not seeing it . In order to really understand the location. Because in my mind this hinges on the 75 feet yes. Its not in our brief. But we are going to show it again. The floor plan. You are saying you turn in the door go right or left and its right there. And it seems to not be the testimony of the public works or of the permit holders. I think we should ask public works did they walk into the entrance and get ided and stop by the concierge. My question is the location of the earth bar relative to the main entry. Where is the earth bar . The earth bar we serve food here whats the distance between there . Theres a lounge area here and called out in the permit as the lounge of the earth bar i cant see it. Do you know if that distance is scaled between the entrance and the lounge itself . Thank you for looking at scale. I dont have a scale here. But you can kind of tell the scale by looking at the dimensions that do appear. But frankly again you walk in the entrance. Im sorry, could you look at the television so you can see what we see. Back out other direction. There you go. Sorry. I didnt know you couldnt see. Thats all right. You walk in the entrance here. This is an opening. This is a wall. Where the concierge is at. Heres the concierge desk. Here is the wall. When i walked in and i should ask d. P. W. If they did. You cant go beyond this point because the concierge is asking for your id. Can you show the way you would get to the restaurant . You go in you go in that double door. And you walk down here. You see people at tables. We showed you pictures eating products from just answer the question. The distance. You walk right down there and i cant tell you the distance between here and here. Thats fine. A couple things that are challenging to me. Obviously 75 feet, where are we measuring from, et cetera. But i think whats challenging for me is the way the earth bar is not really signed. So it would seem to me if i were outside walking on the street i wouldnt know earth bar was there unless i was an equinox member or went into the ally as the permit holder say go into a door i cant get into and wonder where is the earth bar. So it strikes me this may be the way to get to the earth bar but it doesnt signal its the primary entrance to a restaurant. Its signed as the entrance to the equinox facility. I have a question. Does the earth bar sell ice cream . We have a menu. Would you like to look at the menu . An acai bowl and Something Else it has smoothies. I think i got my answer from colleague. Thank you. I have some questions. You said the earth bar is not owned by you represent the owner of the building . Correct and obviously the owner of the building and owner of equinox are different. Yes. Equinox is a tenant. A at the. And earth bar is a separate tenant. I dont know if its a subtenant of the equinox. But the code doesnt talk about the relevance of that. Im not sure which one it is, frankly. Okay. Im wondering because you say they are not owned by equinox. They are not owned by equinox. Whether they are a subtenant, i dont know. Code doesnt ask that question. Are you familiar with westfield mall . I am is it your position that the primary entrance of the restaurants by the Movie Theater do you know where those restaurants are . Yes is it your opinion the entrance is the front door of the mall. I dont know where those restaurants are. Do you know where the food court is . The food court downstairs no. I dont. I know where it is next door at the nordstroms. Its underground. Just take my word for it. Is it your position that the primary entrance to the restaurant at the food court is the front door to the mall or instead Something Else . I think if its down in the basement the front door is the front door of the actual well, you know i dont know. I cant really tell you. Because thats not a situation thats discussed in these ordinances. I dont really know. Well, its pretty important to me because thats sort of what we have here. I think you made a good observation earlier that i thought was the best observation about that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. No, you go, no you go so we were told, it was our understanding that when theres a break, thats when its that 75foot no longer applies. So here if you were to step inside and you were at the bar it would be greater than 75 feet once you enter from there. But thats what i wanted to close with is our goal is straightforward and simple. We want to build a contemporary business. We want to create as many jobs as we can, San Francisco. Manufacture as much ice cream as we can in San Francisco and contribute and engage with the community as much as possible. Its imperative we grow our business in order to survive. Weve been open for fouryears now. With continued increases in operating costs and trying to keep the majority of our team members above minimum wage, we are struggling to continue to manufacture our products with the highest standards while keeping our pricing accessible to all demographics. Because we have limited resources we have to be creative. We are a small independent Family Business with no outside investors. Our brothers and i are the sole owners, and we are doing everything we can to keep it that way. Through the bus we have found a unique and creative way to utilize the limited resources we have and put it towards expanding our business in a legal way that benefits the local community and adds value not only to the surrounding areas but also the tourists and cultural experience of San Francisco. Creating a contemporary San Francisco institution is not easy. We request the board not overturn the permit and allow my brother and me to continue our pursuit in growing our business. I would be happy to answer questions. Im very supportive of Small Business. Im supportive of your business. I went to gordos and my daughter wanted an ice cream so we got one. You have a brick and mortar and you say the struggling lost of operation. What about the brick and mortar in that area because they have rent as well as their employee costs . Sure let me finish. Would you like a food truck or an Ice Cream Truck in front of your brick and mortar on ninth and irving . So within the block and a half about twoblock radius there are five other places that have ice cream. And within a block away theres an Ice Cream Truck in Golden Gate Park thats a block away. A little bit farther thats where the parking structure is. Thats almost three blocks. If you cross lincoln. Cross lincoln, because you are at the corner of irving and you are threedoors down where the old mortuary was. If you go to that one block then you go into the park, pass a hall of flowers then you are going to where the parking structure is so its really two and a half blocks. So if you were to have an Ice Cream Truck directly in front of your food truck in front of your brick and mortar would that affect your business and how would you feel if that were the case . I can sigh during our Due Diligence we checked if there were any ice cream operations near it and we didnt find any again, there are other restaurants. There is a easy breezy. There is another place down the street. Those are also brick and mortar. What my question primarily was is you understand how difficult it is to operate a brick and mortar in San Francisco with the health code the restrictions, the rent, the insurance employee costs. And here, you know, the question was would you like a food truck or mmf with your similar product in front of your brick and mortar . So i think as the question was asked the gentleman before they asked if they served ice cream. That would be like asking if there was an acai truck or smoothie place in front of our shop. So if they moved in front of your business, it would not impact it . Thank you. That was the question. It was stated the appellant approached you guys about an alternate location. Did you explore that location . What was your conclusion . We reached out in an email. Last night i got a phone call about whether we would think about that. Its my understanding that would cause us to have a problem with someone else. Exactly. Impact another restaurant . Not impact another restaurant. But it would require us to do a 30day notification again. Weve already went through this at the public hearing at public works. And then it was appealed. And then its two months later. And so if i remember correctly it would require us to restart the application process all over again which we submitted this in december, i think, of last year. And was it the appellant who appealed at the public working hearing as well . Right and the suggestion to the alternate location came prior to this hearing . It was brought up to me last night do you sell anything beside ice cream out of the truck . No, strictly ice cream no beverages. We can do hot cider. But because of theside size of our vw it limits us to pretty much just ice cream. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further from public works . Of course. I was hoping to bring more color on the 75foot from the actual food facility to the earth bar restaurant. So this is a tool that public works uses. Its how we review a lot of these permits and it has a measuring tool. So just as an example, i measured in the line you see here is 82 feet so its shorter than that. If i do an aerial photo. Its hard to see. We need to move it down. Like is it the upper left . Its this line okay, sorry. So that was 82 feet, i believe it was. This is the proximate. But you can see that at 82 feet, it would still be quite short of the earth bar restaurant. I just wanted to i know you had some concerns about the plans that were presented. It does seem pretty clear to us that the actual restaurant in and of itself would be more than 75 feet from the truck. And then just to show again the gap. So as you enter the entrance there and turn to the right there are benches and i believe there was a pro shop that it was called that looks to me like probably around at least 40 feet before you would actually enter the vicinity of the restaurant itself. And then the applicant or the permit holder asserted if they were to go to an alternate location as suggested by the appellant that the process would begin again. Is that true . What part of the process would have to begin again . Most likely wed have to review what the new location would be. If it was just a matter of one parking space then the same notification scope potentially it could be done administratively. But if it were a larger move, we would have to renotify the public per the code. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. This is an interesting case. Certainly can see why there may be some confusion over what is 75 feet from what or where where. It seems obvious to me that it would be hard as a member of the public to know the earth bar is there. And its more than 75 feet from the location of the proposed mobile food facility even if it was a fullon entrance to the street. If the door from the earth bar opened right at the earth bar it would be outside of the radius. Im sensitive because its also a Small Business. I dont know if its a chain but its a business that employees people that has a clientele its trying to reach in order to provide its product but also to provide jobs for the folks that work there and provide what it provides. It doesnt seem to me that its product wise huge competition which i think part of the regulations we have is to prevent the restaurants from competing and digging into each others businesses. Hopefully folks at the equinox want to keep healthy and have the acai bowls. And its not there every day. Its there three days a week so its not in full competition with the earth bar hours. I would not about against the appeal. You would be prepared to grant the peel. The appeal. Sorry. They remove like or similar food from the ordinance or for the approval. Several years ago weve had a lot of mffs come before us and food trucks. And i find it strange that the building is represented but yet the earth bar doesnt have a problem or representation here having a problem. But at the same time fundamentally i am a strong proponent of Small Business brick and mortar. And i think by having food trucks and mffs in that facility, especially in this day and time where brick and mortar are having such a hard time, i cannot support this. I do support their business. I think its a great model. I supported them when they were in front of macys. But in this case i am not prepared to support them. I have a question for d. P. W. Am i correct that on various days and various times there are other food trucks on that block particularly on the north side of pine between montgomery and samson . Im not familiar with other mobile food facilities on that block there are some plenty on pine. [off mic] im sorry. Cant have a member of the public responding. You dont know any other permits for food trucks on that north side of pine . Im not quite sure we had one from we saw pictures. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So i needed to note that. Thank you. Just making lunch plans or never mind [laughter] they just opened up their first brick and mortar themselves. So congratulations for that. I think the only way to make sense of this ordinance and the resulting public works order is to exclude earth bar from it. And the reason that i have for that is because i think that the primary entrance of earth bar cannot be the front entrance of the building itself. It has to be something thats actually at the earth bar, probably the 3 feet in front of it where people stand. Otherwise i dont know that you could read 9 and 9 feet together to ever make sense. And so like the food court at the westfield mall, i think 9 feet applies because its a 75feet requirement does not apply. So i would deny the appeal. Who is going to make a motion . I move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. On that motion. [roll call vote] that motion carries 30. And the appeal is denied. Is there any further business . This concludes the hearing we are adjourned. N. And welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing for thursday, november 21, 2019. I would like to remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. Please silence your mobile devices for these proceedings. And when speaking before the commission if you care to, state your name for the record. I would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] we expect commissioners fung and moore to be absent. First up is item 1 case 2019014348pca exemption from density limits for affordable and unauthorized units. Planning Code Amendment is proposed for continuance to december 5 2019. 1100 van ness avenue, allocation revocation is proposed for continuance. Items 3a and b for case numbers 2018007725var the variance at 244 douglass street is proposed for continuance december 5, 2019 for the variance agenda. Further, commissioners, item 17 for case number 2018012337 saturn street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to december 19. Im pleased to inform you on your discretionary review calendar at 1299 sanchez street discretionary review has been withdrawn. I apologize welcome commissioner diamond. Thats what i was going to say. We really welcome you, commissioner diamond. I think we are going to do really good work on this commission. Does any member of the public have comment on the items for the items proposed for continuance . If you do, please give Public Comment now. Public comment is closed. Do i hear a motion . Move to continue second. Thank you commissioners, on that motion to continue items as positive proposed. [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 50. If the Zoning Administrator would be so kind to condition item 3b. Well continue item 3b to december 5. Thank you. Commissioner, under your consent calendar. All matters listed constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission the public or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item at this oar future hearing. 333 dolores street, conditional use authorization, case 2019015224cuu, 279 columbus avenue. 350 pacific avenue and item 7 case 20196419 at 3234 washington street, condominium conversion subdivision. I have no speaker cards. Do members of the public wish to pull an item off the consent calendar or any of my fell lower commissioners . With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner richards. Move to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items 4 5, 6 and 7 under your consent calendar. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously 5. Zero placing us under item 8 consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for november 7, 2019 and your closed session of november 14, 2019. Do any members of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner pop he will. Commissioner cop pell. Thank you on that motion to adopt the minutes. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously. Item 9 commission comments and questions. Commissioner richards. Just one quick one. We had a couple weeks ago a dr on a falafel store in the castro, 463 castro. I wanted to update everybody. All that hearing, i walked by the storefront the other day and its released again so the flying falafel will not be doing in where we did not approve the project. If theres nothing further, we can move onto Department Matters item 10 directors announcements thank you. Good afternoon. First on behalf of the department, welcome to commissioner diamond. Its great to having you hear. Even though our im together will be short, i have about three months, i will forward to that. Thank you. Secondly, i wanted to call to your attention the memo in your packet from me regarding the excelsior. This came up a couple weeks ago. The commission asked about planning efforts. I wanted to call that out and remind you of that memo and actually also remind you that we are coming up on the budget project. So if there are specific ideas and requests you have we will be bringing the budget to you in january and february. I think as typically required the budget goes to the mayor, i think the third week in february. So we will be bringing that budget process to you in the next few weeks and we can think about this work in the context of that process. Thirdly, im very pleased to announce that my colleague jeff sitting next to me has been given an award by the local aia, that is a very nice award. Jeff is receiving the local government award in the 2019 San Francisco Community Alliance awards program. It recognizes an elected or appointed organizational or individual who establishes and contributes to the development of laws and policies that promote excellence in architecture. Jeff has been working diligently with the local a ia on our procedures and programs to streamline the process and have more transparency and im grateful to see the aia is recognizing his work. So we congratulate him. Congrats jeff. If there are no questions we can move onto item 11 review of past events at the board of supervisors board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission. Good afternoon. Manager of legislative affairs. Canceled last week for veterans day and also this week so theres nothing to report on that. And then at this weeks committee the committee voted to forward the mayors Planning Commission appointment sue diamond, ruining the surprise there. To the board without a recommendation, passed with a 21 vote with walton against the motion because he wanted to recommend approval to the board. Last week the temporary cannabis business permit to your extension passed its first read. And also last week the supervisors considered the ordinances allowing for the development at 3332 alaska street as well as the cu and ceqa appeal. The proposed project is a mixed use project with 744 dwelling units 3500 square feet of he retail and childcare. The Planning Commission certified on september 5, 2019. While the appellant raised 18 concerns the main item was the claim they failed to review potential design modifications to decrease its hoss toric use impact. They assert one of the alternatives should be approved instead of the project. The department maintained the Community Alternatives were considerably like the alternatives discussed and the alternatives could not be built and would not achieve the units desired. Public comment during the hearing centered around concerns of the tree removal at the project site and its impact on Climate Changes and concerns over the type of retail use permitted and the allowable hours of operation. Proponents supported a Community Alternative endorsed by the Laurel Heights improvement association. Regarding the tree removal and how that would exacerbate Climate Change staff and project sponsored noted the project overall would not increase Greenhouse Gas emissions. It was certified by the governor as an environmental leadership project with net zero Greenhouse Gas emissions. The project is a development located in proximity to frequent Transit Service and thus will have lower vehicle miles traveled and supports the states ambitious climate goals. The Climate Change benefits would far out weigh the loss of carbon sequestering trees. The board voted to deny the appeal with the unanimous vote of supervisor peskin absent. The board voted to approve the entitlements for the project. This appeal provided an opportunity for the department to explain how projects like 3332 california are consistent with the states strategies to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. Theres hope this will help Decision Makers and the public to be more informed about Climate Change developments while ensuring the Environmental Impact of traffic, which is noise air pollution and safety concerns continue to be properly addressed and mitigated through the California Environmental quality act. At this weeks Board Hearing both 3333 california street and the extension for the canvas permits passed their second read. Commissioner diamond was appointed to the Planning Commission. And the board is also meeting today for a special hearing to consider an issue of ordinance for the march 3 elections that would place a taxon tax on vacant commercial properties. 4767 Mission Street, the first step in the landmark designation process for board sponsored landmark designations. That concludes my report. Thank you very much. Commissioner richards. Mr. Star, what is 4768 Mission Street . Im not entirely sure. Do you know . Okay. Thanks. There are no other questions. The board of appeals did meet but had nothing of interest for the Planning Commission. The Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday. They did adopt recommendations for approvals. They adopted ceqa findings and approved a master certificate of appropriateness and a master major permit to alter for the academy of Art University which you will be taking up today. And their action enables you to take up that matter today. Did the Community Music center it did. Is it coming in front of us . They did inneed thank you. Theres nothing further we can move onto general Public Comment. I have no speaker cards. The folks who would like to come up for general Public Comment come up now. If you could line up on the left side of the room, that would be great. Thank you. If you would like to speak a Public Comment please sign up and you can come up when your turn is called. This is general Public Comment for items that do not appear on your agenda. [off mic] wait until we get there. Thank you. Go ahead. My name is jerry with the San Francisco land use coalition. Four illegal demolition cases came before us in a single day. Can you hand out the to see dbi problems. Some members asked for an investigation. I support this recommendation. I believe the root cause of the problem is low financial penalties for unpermitted work. I reviewed 1,517 Building Permits issued by dbi over the last four years. You have a summary of my analysis. The average financial penalty issued over the four years was 1,171. Not much of a deterrent when the average San Francisco home costs 1. 3 million. 39 percent of the financial penalty issued are below 295. I reviewed the penaltys dbi issued on some of the more egregious projects that have come before the commission and was shocked to see low penalties or no penalties. Dbi assessed the penalty of 718 to illegal demolition of 49 hopkins a home designed by worldrenowned architect richard. Overhead, please. Dbi did not assess a penalty to the demolition of a 900 square foot home on alvarado street that was to be replaced by a fivestory home. The demolition damaged both homes on either side of the house at 655 alvarado. San francisco is experiencing an emdemocratic of unpermitted work and the an emdemocratic of the planning issue did not issue a notice of enforcement for hopkins or alvarado and the program at the Planning Department does not assess financial penalties. The only example where the Planning Department issued an noe is 25 17th avenue where the developer received a penalty of 254. For unpermitted demolition of a threestory bay and deck parking structure. This is less than the cost of a parking ticket in a bus stop. Can the Planning Commission justify a Code Enforcement process that lacks financial penalties . I hope the Planning Commission will take steps to ensure that building and planning Code Enforcement will be half as effective as the citys parking Code Enforcement. You are responsible for land use in the in the city of San Francisco. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. Im sarah hoffman. The owner of 2471 green street. This is a discretionary review hearing thats been scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission since february of 2018. And its been continued at least seven times since february of 2018. Environmental review, which was a separate parallel issue was completed in june of this year. We had no choice but to file a Writ Petition in superior court to compel a hearing take place so this project can move on to the next stage of the permit process. Even with a lawsuit pending its now been continued again without a vote by the commission to january 9, 2020. We understand that last weeks meeting was canceled. So all the matters scheduled had to be continued. But green street had already been put on the continuance calendar. And we dont know why that happened. So the meeting cancellation wasnt the issue. And the other hearings from last weeks agenda were continued to much sooner dates, as soon as this week or early december. So all this to say this is an important due process issue. Our client has been waiting for a hearing for two years on this discretionary review matter. And we respectfully request a sooner hearing occur without further delay. Thank you. Thank you ms. Hoffman. Next speaker, please. Going hightech this time. Good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. My name is Carolyn Kennedy from the Dolores Heights improvement club. Im here with a request for your consideration today to please ask staff to conduct Impact Analysis on the newlyenacted senate bill 330 the housing accountability act. I made this request on september 19 in Public Comment and your response was lets wait until the bill is enacted into law. Its now been signed. And i think its critical to conduct an Impact Analysis for our city. Senate bill 330 mandates many elements of the planning process including timelines, processes and penalties. It forces administrative approval for many projects. Its a topdown, one size fits all approach to processes in over 300 jurisdictions in california. In my experience top down change doesnt go well. My question for you is what impact will this law have on San Franciscos planning and entitlement process. Im specifically concerned about demolition control appeal processes protection of existing and therefore more Affordable Housing along with rent controlled housing and historic buildings. Ill offer an example of potential impact from mimy neighborhood. The ways in which i think this law can slow dun the process and cause more. We have an acting plan use committee. We review all projects proposed for our neighborhood and attend meetings, discussions with project sponsors and neighbors. We seek to identify discuss and resolve concerns and issues. This activity doesnt slow down the process on the contrary it surfaces issues early on so they could be resolved before they come before this body or even the court. And that was the intent when the process was put in place by San Francisco planning, to have a collaborative process. Whats happened in my neighborhood in the last three years ive found that weve worked to resolve three to four projects annually, and we are a small area, 24 blocks. Thats four avoided discretionary reviews before this body. Multiply our track record by the over 200 neighborhood groups on the Planning Departments project notifications contact list. And it can be a big number. So what will happen if it aboll hirschs this process. My neighborhood abolishes this process . My neighborhood is ground zero. It will stop High Net Worth individuals it will not stop having attorneys litigate. It wont stop my organization from opposing egregious projects that we think have a negative impact on our overall neighborhood ultimately San Francisco. So we stakeholders will not stop participating in the process and opposing projects just because senators oppose appeals. Please provide an update on how senate bill 330 impacts San Francisco and how it will be implemented. It will help all stakeholders remain engaged in the process. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sue. Planning staff, including Commission Secretary, speak into the microphone whenever you speak. You have a tendency to speak among yourselves up there. And you turn your heads, secretary and the planning director as well. And please, if the microphone isnt pointed to your mouth pointed to your shoulder if its pointed to your ear people will assure you. Today im here a case ive been waiting for for 15 years. And its not what happens in the academy of art, shame on you because i will start yelling speak louder all the time. I shouldnt have to do that. Please do that yourself. Correct yourselves. Adjust your microphones if the microphones need some work, let your Commission Secretary know and he can deal with the people who manage this room. Please a grading record on this. I will continue to push. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners. My im registered for a proposed cannabis dispensary at 312 columbus street. As ive mentioned before im in the number two position to be a pending applicant for a cannabis dispensary at grant avenue. Im here today to ask you to inform the Planning Department the cannabis dispensary at 1335 grant avenue isnt suitable for the neighborhood of north beach. While grant avenue is already a congested avenue with narrow sidewalks columbus street has one of the widest sidewalks in San Francisco. It supports the volume of patient. It has minimal issues with Traffic Congestion because its two lanes of traffic going either direction. Our location at 312 columbus street has 2,000 square feet for retail and 2,000 square feet for storage space. Also by having a cannabis dispensary at columbus street you will replace the last club on columbus which is a live nude 18 and up establishment here by our business. We will have a greater appeal toward the neighboring community. The Equity Program was created to benefit those who are disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. I grew up in north beach in subsidized housing. Because we had stable housing i was able to be the first in my family to attend college and merced. And now im hoping to use a career in cannabis to make my community a better place. I would ask you all to really examine each equity applicant that comes before you. They truly embody the goals and the spirit of the program or are they just lucky enough to be able to check enough boxes to qualify . I believe i do both. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . With that Public Comment is closed. Very good, commissioners. Im sorry commissioner richards, did you have a comment on the Public Comment . Yes two quick things first looking at the enforcement numbers im questioning the whole way we actually enforce it. Encouraging bad behavior and paying tiny bits of money later on with this abatement process continuing to not have any fines. So i actually question the whole philosophy on that. Secondly any idea we are on the update on 330 . Yeah, we are working on that right now. We are working both on a complementation process as well as an analysis of what will be entailed with 330. Because it is now law we have to implement that law and we have to change some of our procedures as a result. So we are working on both of those things. We hope to present them to you early next year. Thank you. If theres nothing further, we can move onto item 12 case 2016003351cwp for the racial and social equity action plan. Phase 1 adoption. Okay. So i will beg my fellow commissioners patience in that we decided to do things a little bit differently for this item. Usually a staff presents and then we let the Public Comment and then we make our comments. But for this item i requested to present myself, since this was something that we all except for commissioner diamond, because you werent on yet but we all participated in. And i wanted to just tell the public from our perspective what we did and how we went through it and what decisions and how it colored the decisions that we made Going Forward in terms of guiding staff through this very important work. So for the public the Planning Commission along with the Historic Preservation commission, went through a daylong training on Racial Equity as it relates to planning land use and preservation. So it was led by planning staff. And Claudia Flores and miriam will come up to present after we talk. But also we were joined by staff from the Human Rights Commission folks who have been leading the Racial Equity work, as well as a consultant that specializes in this kind of work. And it led to a very robust discussion. And it was a very good discussion. I think that we bonded as humans. We also got into a space where it was okay to be uncomfortable. I think in our society issues of race and Racial Equity oftentimes make some folks uncomfortable. And having the space to be uncomfortable and still talk about policy issues and make decisions together with the Historic Preservation commission was very good. So the bulk of the training was an exploration of the historic cal federal financing policy issues that have led to racial segregation of communities across america and how today we are making Planning Decisions based on the framework that was designed to be racially exclusionary. And that is exacerbating those patterns. And that in order to undo them we need to take proactive action on a bunch of different things. And so im just going to go down some of the things that we decided to do. And i would really like it if other commissioners who were in this training could talk about what they are experiences were and if they want to add to the list that i have. Because we may have missed some. So at the end of the day what we decided we wanted to see in terms of the guidance we provided to the staff, was a policy statement in the general plan or Something Else, that would have objective standards and criteria related to this work that would help guide our decisions. We often talk about individual projects or even area plans without a lot of the Historical Context about Racial Equity or access to planning information or resources from communities that have been excluded in economically and racially disadvantaged. So that was the first thing we wanted is some clear policy statement. Then we also wanted to have some framework to give project sponsors information about this policy guidance early. So that they would know what we are thinking about how we are looking at their projects and what will be required depending on the demographics and the Historical Data for that given project. We wanted both the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation commission to have some tools in terms of community access, Community Outreach and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.