>> my name is gail and i'm a resident of hayes valley for the past 16 years. formally the president of the hayes valley neighborhood association. i will read from a letter that is in your packet. i am very supportive of the apothecary coming to 313 i.v. street. the owners have shown community engagement and support since their business opened. their business has been a member of the neighborhood association sharing their space with others for community events and providing donations for merchant friendly events. in particular, they provided funding for one of the big bellies showcasing children's artwork for the community. i have come to know them since their business opened. i met the equity partner informally several years ago through my community work. mike has shone through his example how he has overcome adversity and injustice through being men toward and mentoring other young people in our community. through his professional experience and coaching children in our community to learn tennis , he continues to shows commitment to our community and our families. he has proven his capacity to emerge from negative experiences to become an example for a new positive life. this equity partnership is located at 313 i.v. street which will be an asset to the merchant community. their existing business at this location has proven their business practices to be sensitive and respected -- respectful to the community. we want to continue to provide unique retail experiences that reflect cultural change. the apothecary has the ability to provide the same positive impact that their previous project had delivered. i believe this cannabis dispensary will continue -- will contribute to the hayes value merchant community as well as our hayes valley community. through a welcoming access to education for cannabis retail. please support this unique local san francisco equity canada -- cannabis business. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is jim. congratulations, president and vice president on your new appointments. to start, i would really like to just say that i agree with everything the previous speaker said. she details much of what i feel. so rather than repeat any of that, you know, i would rather just talk about the depth of my feelings about this group of people. it has been there for seven years and it has not been a wine bar, it has been a carefully curated gathering place and a significant community asset. how do you do that in a 300-foot -- by creating community. this is what they have done. they have selected a very worthy equity partner. these are people that value relationships and friends and they are lifelong residents. they are everything we're talking about when we are looking at this program. i have every reason to think that one recreational cannabis legislation was approved, this is exactly the kind of group that was dream deaf to entrust this to -- that was dreamed of to entrust this to. they will do everything in their power, just as they have with the wine bar to make this a safe , community supporting endeavour. i could not more hardly endorse it. in fact, i would go so far to say that this one doesn't even need to the restriction on consumption. if this team could figure out how to do it in their 300 feet, even an old guy like me who should be not loving these things would trust them to do it as intended. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is christopher renfrew. i am speaking on behalf of angel and i have worked with them. i have worked for them. i have had the opportunity of seeing them participate in our community. it looks like the new project that they're working on will bring diversity and just their skill set and being really good people, i have seen angel be able to educate lots of people that have worked for her and offer opportunities and always being an inspiring person for business. it's a good thing for the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is john and i am a winemaker on treasure island. i'm speaking on behalf of the character of angel. she is a good friend. i have been friends with her for six years now and she is a type of person who is incredibly empathetic to the point of not just going out of her way for friends, but going out of the way for people she knows. i have every confidence that she can be -- continue to be an amazing asset to the community. she is a great person. if she was opening a business on my block, i would only hope that she could. it's the type of person you want as a business owner and you want as a community member. she is an incredible asset. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you for your time, commissioners. i'm here to talk to my history with mike and their dedication to giving back to the community. we go back 30 some all years. i was always very, very impressed by his work ethic, his dedication to the game. he was one of the kids i coached for a long time. in the time i was coaching him, i run a program, a free afterschool program up and hunter his point at the boys and girls club. in over a decade doing that, he would go completely out of his way to help me, even as a young man when it was maybe uncomfortable at times helping teach peers, you went out of his way to do that because he saw that what i was putting in their he wanted to back up. fast-forward and i have been nothing but proud of seeing mike the work he has done. whenever i'm available to do so, i try my best to go and help because i strongly support their endeavour. going back 30 years now and seeing consistently over that time their dedication to the community, to the kids in san francisco, i have no doubt that whatever good would come from this businesses far as proceeds would also be very thoughtfully doled out and the community would benefit greatly. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for your time. i was born in san francisco and i am also a small business owner in san francisco. i am in full support of the apothecary. i think all of the three members involved in that have displayed a great understanding of the community, a great involvement in their community, and they have displayed themselves to be very model small business owners i think that is what you would want with this kind of business in this community. it is a small community. you need someone who will understand the into troop -- intricacies of it and who has been there for a while and who grew up there. they have an intimate understanding of the neighborhood. they know the business and they have displayed themselves to be a very model an upstanding business owner involving community. i am in support of that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is mac. i have worked in and around hayes valley for 17 years. i own two businesses in hayes valley. the first of which is about seven years old, which is about how all the apothecary is. i met angel and became friends over the years. both of them are really outstanding people. great business operators and great members of the community. as someone who spends pretty much every day of my life in hayes valley as a merchant, i would like to say that the merchants -- the merchant community think this would be a tremendous asset for us and we welcome them in this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is bob and i am -- thank you for having us. i got to know these guys when i was a manager right across i.v. street with the big glass panel. i saw everything that went down on that road. that is how i know them. everyone is talking about how great they are. i did not know them before i introduced myself up one point when i started working there. it's nice to go in there during a horribly stressful day. i appreciate that they are there and they are good people. cannabis is legal in san francisco. i cannot think of a reason why we need to be restrictive, especially with the group of people that have already proven what they can do and be part of the community, and just as a thing, why does it even need to be about the community? these are people who have proven they have opened a responsible business. that is just a bonus and constantly fighting this and going through this red tape in the city when we could all be putting this effort -- talking about the real issues that are plaguing us and using your valuable time, all of these peoples' valuable time when all they are trying to do is open a business when they have proven they can do so responsibly. i know that block very well. it would be a wonderful asset and a good thing to have in hayes valley. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a small business owner in san francisco. i am proudest down here and support my friends. they were born and raised in san francisco and started businesses here for the sole purpose of providing job opportunities to local san franciscans, giving back to their community, and contributing back to the culture and city we love. they enter this permitting process of the planning commission the right away, taking their time to do the due diligence required a never cutting any corners and engaging in the community every step of the way and receiving over 130 letters of support as a testament to their long-term investment in san francisco and particularly the hayes valley community. anyone who has visited the space can attest to the close-knit and friendly atmosphere that they have care spee-8 it. weather with tourists, neighbors , regular patrons, friend, family member, or elected official of different shades who make -- who they consistently open their doors to an offer free space for various fundraising events. they have shown they are good neighbors, and community partners, and responsible stewards of their business. it's no wonder that the apothecary has also been featured multiple times by san francisco chronicle and many others san francisco bay area media outlets. listing at number one as the number one bar because it truly is a pillar of the community. as they move forward as business partners and seek to evolve the apothecary to include retail cannabis, i could not think of more community focused, kind, or deserving business owners. i hope you grant them the license that they need. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is angela. i am the owner of a small wine bar serving the hayes valley neighborhood. i'm here in support of the project. angel has committed herself to supporting small business and it is an integral part of what makes san francisco great. we are asking to operate in a mixed-use zone in the heart of the city. a diverse neighborhood filled with small business, visitors, culture and neighbors. is important to note that both residents and businesses have made a choice to be here. i have experienced first-hand the financial and mental damage just one neighbor can make to try to destroy a small business. angel has dedicated to running a successful business which adds to the fabric of our neighborhood. we asked the commission devoted in favor of this project to keep our neighborhood diverse, awesome, filled with businesses that care about our community and serve those that visit us. thank you for your support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is sabrina. i am a homeowner in front of the bar and future place. most importantly, not only am i a homeowner but a mom of two teenagers and i am strongly opposed of having a drug place on my street. as a parent and as many parents, not only on that street but in that building, we are strongly opposed about having a drug place. cannabis, even if it's legalized , it is a drug. keep in mind that that place is two blocks away from a school with hundreds of students ranging from pre-k to 12th grade. and also a block away from a girls and boys location. in the morning, during lunch time and in the afternoon, we have many, many kids and teenagers walking around and very close to the place. we, as parents and even within the teacher community at school, we are very concerned about having a drug place a few feet away from the school. you will, unfortunately, this hearing is in the middle of the afternoon where a lot of us cannot get out of work to come and expose our opposition, but i'm sure many parents, i'm representing many parents. many parents would be sending e-mails and communications, as well as the school. the school are totally opposed of opening a drug place at that location. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jonathan. i also used to live in the neighborhood. i want to mention that alcohol is also a substance that is legal and has places. i enjoy them both, but i did get to know them well while living there and i have to say what amazing neighbors and community members they were. my husband and i went there frequently and got to know them and when we got engaged, they offered to throw an engagement party for us and of course,, we are planning a wedding and/or kind of broke so we couldn't pay , but they didn't care and it was lovely. i think just that moment some up for me what it means not just to be a small business owner, but what it means to be part of the community. every time i see them it's the same warmth. whatever endeavour they engage in, they will bring that same connection to community and same respect. their space is immaculate, it's clean, they are respectful in terms of noise, i'm older than a look so i care about that stuff, and i have to say, no matter what they engage in, they will do it well and be team players in their community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for your time. i am a small business owner in san francisco. i am speaking in full support of the project. i have known angel davis for over six years now. she is an ideal operator for her cannabis business. she is an honest, direct, and hard-working person. as good as they come. she reflects those values in her business practices. i have worked with her as a purveyor and experienced her goodness as a friend. she treats everyone with respect and thoughtful care. she is actually -- she has a reputation for calling out troublemakers in and around her establishments and works well with our law enforcement officers. she doesn't have any tolerance for anyone disturbing her people whether it be customers, employees, neighbors, or purveyors like myself. her people really encompass the community. she is a deeply caring and good person. she will find the good in almost anybody she meets. a good behavior attracts good people. the community she has built around her businesses attract good people and those communities are full of polite, respectful, and engage community members. her accomplishments and sterling reputation speak for themselves. she has years of experience running successful and excellent businesses. if anybody will do it, angel davis is the best candidate for creating a cannabis business that will contribute positively to the community and the commerce of haze value. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is oliver. i'm a san francisco native and small business owner. i have known the business owners for over 20 years. in that time, i have seen them start a handful of successful small businesses in the city. they have always been considerate and conscientious neighbors to surrounding merchants and communities where they open their businesses. always engaging in the local residents and other small businesses to improve the surrounding areas. so many shops and merchants struggle to make it in the city and don't always have it right. i believe that with their mindset of opening a business in the neighborhood and being part of bettering that neighborhood and serving the community, they have found a successful formula. i urge this commission to support the conditional use application and allow them to convert their business into a cannabis retail. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is alex. i have been working as a licensed certified public accountant in the city of san francisco for many years now. i'm here to speak on two things. one, the character of the couple that has been reflected by this group really is true. it is what i have seen time and time again as i see them in and outside of their bar, but the way they open their doors to people within the community that want to hold events or that want to do things and they can't find support, this group has always had time for that. in addition to that, as an accountant, i have watched them operate their business very cleanly and really be very educated about what they should know and what they should do so that they can continue to run their business very properly. i'm here in support of them. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is felicity. i am also an operator in the cannabis space. i would love to support -- present my support for the incredible team i thank you have heard from everybody. i do want to add an operator in the cannabis space that we do need that type of hospitality that they have known and run for over seven years. i absolutely believe that they are the ones to bring hospitality into cannabis. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i have known mike for 20 years. i have seen him commit and go over and beyond to help the kids in his community. i have personally watched them grow and see how much it means for him to help his community. i have no doubt that if this dispensary is approved, mike and angel will continue to give back they have dedicated -- be dedicated and make sure the business is run respectfully. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is nikki. i am an owner across the alleyway. i have two questions. one is what is the difference between a type a and type b versus a type c that was previously approved? it was hard to hear because people were coming in and out. i don't know if it is possible to ask. i am just more curious what the difference is. and my second question, which i have talked to them about it, and they have answered all my questions, but i was curious if there has been any studies or any facts that we know about in terms of what happens to surrounding real estate property values when these open. i'm not for or against it, i just have questions. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i am owner of a legacy business in san francisco. i have known this couple as friends and small business owners for the past 10 years. they are both extremely professional, very experienced and operate their businesses as part of the neighborhood they serve. i am constantly impressed with their participation not only financially, but with their time in supporting the local community. this city should make it easier for small businesses to continue expanding their business. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is martha. i have known michael all of his life. i am his mother. [laughter] i have only known the others for seven or eight years because they played tennis together. i would really like to see him succeed in this business because i personally have watched him grow. he has come a long way. [laughter] and i am extremely proud of him. they are both willing to give back to the community. i am with the society and when we have fundraisers, i say, we need a couple of dollars and they are always there with it. i will appreciate it if you guys approve this for all three of them. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is alexa. i am a cannabis professional and i am an educator and a consultant in the industry. i got into the industry after being in a car accident and i have used cannabis medicinally for four years for mental and physical reasons and this city and the world needs more businesses that are community-oriented and are wanting to bring education and community around cannabis and to do stigmatize this plant because it really is a medicine and i know angel through working in the industry. they want all of those same things and values with this business. i hope that they are approved. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for having us. i am also a verified equity applicant. i want to let michael know he is lucky to have these guys as sponsors. in order for this to succeed, you need proprietors like them. i'm 100% behind them. i will miss the wine bar, but they are great owners. >> thank you. anyone else from the public wish to comment on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> i will go ahead and say that i like when i see city kids applying to opening up businesses and taking up vacant storefronts, and also the previously incarcerated to come back into society down a couple notches. they are sometimes not allowed to vote, sometimes they are looked down upon, and just another speedbump that this project applicant is overcoming today. commissioner johnson? >> thank you. was great to hear from so many community members about the business and the work that you have done in our community, even before coming in and presenting this application. i would say, you know, a few things. one is that, i actually do think that this is a good location. i love the idea of this space transitioning from a wine bar with a reputation of being an existing business in the neighborhood and then transitioning. i know there are concerns about the local youth services and school nearby, and we have regulations around that for a reason that were put into place around the legalization. i would say that in addition to supporting this application, which i do, i do support the use of the on-site use. i would love for somebody to really break that down, but as i understand it, with a and b., it is -- it will exclude smoking and vaping and just be folks in adjusting and light preparation on-site. >> -- in jesting and light preparation on-site. in the case of this office of cannabis and the department of public health, they require specific smoking room. this site is too small for that of the current time. in order to do type c, they would have to come back before you to expand their space. regardless of that, they would be back before you. >> thank you for saying that. i think the size also comes into place when you think about how people would consume. i think it is fitting. >> commissioner moore? >> seeing a small cannabis retail store having that much support is quite amazing. it is not just the local merchants, it is well-known people coming out and speaking for them and being already kind of part of the career to start with. it's the best combination we could have ever asked for, including, if i may, the support of your mother. [laughter] i think it is it's quite wonderful. >> commissioner diamond? >> i also wanted to give a thumbs up to the mom strategy. [laughter] it is really effective. i would like staff to address the question about the availability of studies and the impact of cannabis retail on neighboring real estate. >> sure. we addressed that in the staff report. and most recently, it will be in the next packets that you get about cannabis. there was a controller's report that was published in december of 2019 saying there was a decrease in crime when there was a cannabis business brought in. the city and the office of cannabis examined all these studies and have found there is a decrease in crime, nothing about property values has been noted, but there -- each of these businesses is required to have a very intense security system and lighting system. >> can you comment on the security system? >> sure. they are required to have a guard at the front that checks ids. you can't even enter, kind of the way about sort of bar works. and there is security cameras. so the plans in your packet shows the addition of the security cameras, and also lighting. the office of cannabis reviews all of that in-depth with the project sponsor to make sure they meet all of the codes. we just kind of look at the placement of the security cameras on the storefronts. yes, there are a whole host of requirements. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung? >> that was an interesting question on any studies. one of the e-mails sent to us from somebody who was against the project referenced some things that came out of denver, but it wasn't clear what they put into that reference from some of these. anyway, it would be interesting to see, just to track to make sure that nothing untoward has happened. in this particular notice, the same as staff, the space is too small for consumption of smoking and vaping. >> commissioner moore? >> move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> nothing further commissioners , there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on this motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. [cheers and applause] ladies and gentlemen, we do have some more items, if you could calmly and quietly make your way out, that would be appreciated. >> that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 15. forty-nine kieran you street. this is a -- 49 kearny street. this is a mandatory discretionary review. >> if you're leaving the room, do so quietly and we would appreciate that. thank you, ma'am,. >> this is my last one. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with planning department staff. the project before using mandatory discretionary review for a change of use from office to medical cannabis dispensary. the project sight is located within the boundaries of the downtown office zoning district. the project proposes to expand an existing medical cannabis dispensary located at 49 kearny. they want to occupy the second floor the existing eight story mixed use building. the existing m.c.d. currently occupies the third floor of the building and is approximately 800 square feet. after this project, the m.c.d. in total would cover 1600 square feet on floors two and three. because the m.c.d. was established under a 2016 building permit, and the planning code has been amended to no longer require an m.c.d., the challenge here is a previous project was issued with an m.c.d. in order to expand that existing one, we have to go through a mandatory discretionary review as opposed to a see you. the m.c.d. would allow -- would only allow for the on-site sale of medical cannabis including concentrates, edibles, and tinctures, it would not allow on-site cultivation for harvesting of medical product. in the previous discretionary review action, the commission placed a condition of approval prohibiting on-site consumption of medical cannabis, for example, smoking, vaporizing and edibles to project -- the project sponsor is not requesting to remove or alter that restriction as part of the permit. no parking is required for the use and no physical changes or expansion is needed. to date, the department has received one letter of support from the alliance for better district six, noting this location is suitable for a larger cannabis establishment. staff recommends the commission do not take d.r. and approve as proposed. there project proposes a new active use to existing storefronts. the district is well served by transit and therefore, customer should not even -- would not impede traffic. it is consistent with the intent of the downtown office zoning district. this concludes my presentation. the sponsors have a short presentation. >> thanks. project sponsor? >> i am the project sponsor. this is an existing cannabis dispensary that has been operating for approximately two years or little over two years currently. the project that is being contemplated is nothing more than moving it from an 800 square foot dispensary square-foot dispensary down to the second floor. we have done outreach to the community and this is actually being done and motivated by the fact that some of the merchants in the area would prefer that there are no lineups in the actual lobby and that this would allow all customers to be able to come up into the dispensary and that's there not be any problems with people out on the sidewalks. he has reached out to the community and reached out to the business improvement district and talk to all the merchants in and around that area and in the actual district, and received an approval letter from them as well. and they have listened to all their concerns and responded to all their concerns to receive that particular letter. the current dispensary has security in place where it has a check-in station. essentially where they have a security guard who checks the licenses. that will still be in place. there is also security upstairs. it is a very discreet location with very little signage, which is what the actual merchants in that particular area wanted on 49 kearny street. he has responded to that and basically done exactly what they wanted as far as that is concerned. he also gives money to the union business improvement district in order so they can operate their security cameras in the area to help security in that area and all around the union square business improvement district. it does volunteer work for the unions on those matters that they would like him to consult with. he has served on some of their committees in the last two years we would ask for your approval in order to do this, and also the operator is here to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much. i don't have any speaker cards. does anyone from the public want to comment on this item? i'm sorry, this is a d.r., correct? i need to talk to the d.r. requester. >> it is not mandated for d.r. there is no opposing d.r. >> okay. >> any members of the public? seen none, public comment is closed. i have been waiting to see when this happened. we have been having some contentious items over office to retail down at union square and i was going to make a suggestion that there might be a type of retail that could fill these places. here we are. office to retail. commissioner melgar? >> that's exactly what i was going to say. i make a motion that we do not take d.r. and approve. >> second. >> commissioner diamond? >> we have no more speakers, jonas. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion did not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. item 17, just in case anyone is here for 16, it was continued. item 17 is 1526 masonic avenue, request for discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of building permit application 201906052567 to construct a new one story with mezzanine artist workshop and dwelling unit at the rear portion of the lot which requires a rear yard variants. the proposed building will be approximately 735 square feet. 20 feet, 4 inches wide by 41 feet and 3 inches long and 21 fe of the roof. the variance was heard on september 205th, 2019. the d.r. requester, residents of the adjacent property to the northwest of the proposed project, is concerned with these met main issues. first, the privacy and enjoyment of the midblock open space are being violated. second, the access to the midblock open spaces being compromised, and that the building scale at the midblock space is not being maintained. and that noise from the proposed use in this location would be intrusive, and that there is an inaccurate and misleading information regarding the existing trees and landscaping pertaining to the project. they are -- the proposed alternative is to build within the allowable area. the department has received one letter in opposition and one letter of support for the project. the department did a review of this project, although not come coat -- code compliant, the residential design advisory team and poked -- preservation staff reviewed this proposal and confirm to general support for this project because, on the whole, it balances the goal of preserving a historic resource intact, while fulfilling the intent of the residential design guidelines related to scale, privacy, and preservation of midblock open space. staff believes that this design proposal brett or preserves an existing historic resource by building in a location that maintains the quality sought to be preferred -- preserved, woman amazing impacts to the adjacent neighbors through a variance that might not be achieved by a code compliant project. specifically, staff found the proposed project enables the addition of the house -- to this house without compromising the historic resource. there are existing structures in the rear portions of several adjacent properties including an eight story building to the immediate northwest and to the rear of this property. siding and massing of this proposed building against the eight story apartment building moderates the scale of the immediate eight story building. the proposed building also reflects the form, scale, in details and materiality of the existing historic resource and is clearly sized to be subordinate to it. the proposed building, because of its size and location within the dense canopy of foliage, has the potential to maintain visual access to the midblock open space. the distance from the neighbors, coupled with the orientation and size of windows and doors, and the landscape buffer provides for visual privacy. however, there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances with this project. first, with respect to noise from the proposed use, the project sponsor provided an assessment with recommendations from charles salter, and acoustic engineer, to mitigate noise from within, but no specific plans, nor guarantees that these will be a perfect -- incorporated into the project has been received or reviewed. and the rear yard is covered with existing mature landscaping it's proposed this landscaping augmented by additional new landscaping, will ensure this project is well screened from the neighbors. though not permanent landscaping is an essential component of the midblock open space that also could provide a visual buffer to the properties. the project sponsor contends great care will be taken to preserve existing trees and provide new landscape to ensure visual privacy is maintained. it would seem reasonable to expect a tree protection plan to be provided as an assurance of this intent and condition of the proposal. therefore, staff recommends this project sponsor provide, for the noise mitigation proposal, a mechanical air filtration system that allows the doors and windows remain closed be a condition of approval and limiting the hours of operation. second, and accurate sight survey of existing landscaping along with a tree protection plan and a developed landscape plan as part of the approval. staff recommend taking the d.r. and approving it with the above modifications. i'm also joined by our preservation staff member. we are able to answer any questions. thank you. this ends my presentation. >> happy birthday. can we hear from the d.r. requester? >> good afternoon. we are adjacent neighbors of the sponsor. we are very supportive of their desire to add space to their beautiful home, but asked that the commission to further modify recommendation to lessen the impact on our home and the neighborhood's protected midblock open space. neil schwartz will comment on our behalf. he is a local architect and a professor at the california college of the arts, focusing on teaching professional practice. he is also the founding chair of the public policy and advocacy committee, through which he has worked with senior planning staff to advocates for the fair, consistent, and reliable application of design review procedures, which we all know is also the department's goal. >> thank you. first, we ask that the commission require the project be relocated to the plentiful and allowable buildable area, while recognizing that both the couple and staff thus far have not been open to this modification. second, we ask any new structure allowed in the required rear yard have a 10-foot setback for landscaping screening, consistent with the stated goals of staff and the sponsor. third, we asked the building be limited to 12 feet in height to reduce the impact on the midblock open space. the second story loft is a nonessential, yet adds over 14 feet to the building's height and negative impacts. the sponsors have declined to consider each of these reasonable modifications despite multiple requests and attempts for discussions. they have made absolutely no modifications. further, we have thoroughly documented our concerns about the validity of the community review process and inaccuracies in the project application. concerns we feel warrant commission attention. staff states the project enables the additional -- in addition to the house without compromising the historic resource, yet this observation ignores that an equally sensitive response could be found within the allowable area, which hopefully you see in red on exhibit 2. this is a historic home on a double wide and extra- long lot with over 2,000 square feet of available building area. the project could be designed in a code compliant location meeting all design review and sequel historic guidelines without even touching the existing home and without any need for variance. in all my experience of the variance process, it's only turned to after planning determines that a code compliant solution is not possible due to some extraordinary and exceptional circumstance. approval of this project would set a new, unfair standard allowing owners of historic homes to build anywhere they choose without first attempting a code compliant solution, as we see here. we believe this precedent would expand the property rights of our city's most privileged, releasing them from the need to follow the basic rules that apply to all other regular homeowners. further, staff states the project is being supported because it mitigates the impact of the apartment building directly behind. unfortunately, this mitigation benefits them solely. the rest of the neighborhood, this two story building only exacerbates the negative impacts of noncompliant structures in the rear yard. staff acknowledges the importance of landscape screening and a proper survey, which we completely agree with. they opted for a 12-foot setback on the opposite side and a 6- foot setback at the rear, yet at the property most in need of landscape screening, there is zero. the zero setback literally precludes achieving staff's recommendations. the permit expediter has assured me repeatedly that with proper landscape screening, the fishers would not even be able to see the project and would grow to absolutely love it after it was built. we are relieved and applaud this intent and simile ask the commission to articulate modifications to ensure the project can meet this communal goal. the sponsors argued there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances that require the project's noncompliant location, but what extraordinary circumstances then also require the addition of a 14-foot, 5- inch tall excretory just for storage? lower structure could serve their needs. this is how their plan represents the existing trees and their application, showing no existing vegetation in the exact location of the structure and stating that no trees will be removed in the project. we compare this to a recent image of the actual sight for a sense of the difficulty we have had assessing the true impact. >> thank you. you will get another two minute rebuttal later. >> thank you. >> is there anyone here in support of the d.r. requester? i have two names. [calling names]. anyone else in support of the d.r. requester come on up. >> good afternoon. i am a longtime resident. i am in opposition to this project. i'm concerned about the midblock open space being compromised and setting a precedent for future projects. furthermore, i am a former owner and we dealt with a lot of residents and we dealt with a lot of harsh chemicals. i had to sell the business because i was getting sick, my employees were getting sick and i would not wish that upon anybody who lives in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is christopher and i'm reading this letter on behalf of david who is a neighbor at 1520 masonic avenue. unlike most residential blocks in san francisco, this block has an unusual characteristic that has not been sufficiently identified or addressed. in the lot behind the house at 1526 masonic is a gargantuan blockbuster apartment building. although documents in their packet refer to it as a apartment building, the documents or techno -- technically incorrect in describing it as an eight story building. there are eight stories of apartments over garage level and the actual height of the structure is nine stories. the sheer size and scale has not been properly represented, evaluated, or understood. but occupying the site and dwarfing all the other buildings in the vicinity, this apartment building must radically alter any notion of a midblock open space for this block. the result of the overwhelming and forbidding presence of this structure is to make what little midblock open space remain all that more precious, not only to the owners of the individual parcels that are above that site , but to the parcels on the entire block including the parcel where i live. they will effectively be a potential and additional residential unit may comply with the letter of the variance. it does not comply with the intent of the planning code to preserve the midblock open space for the beneficial enjoyment of all neighboring parcels. it should also be noted it was highly disingenuous for the project sponsor, through the writing of the authorized agent, to state on their responses of a discretionary review that the proposed cottage does not create any significant impact on the midblock open space. it will make a huge impact on what little precious open space that remains at the construction of the nine story apartment block behind the building. it occurred long after the construction. [please stand by] >> it shows the relative size of the small house in the front and the roof and the massive size of the d.r. requesters' house next to it. they're suggesting we should be using this space next to the house to build additional space. when i first brought this project to the planning department, i spoke to tim fry, who was preservation planner, at the time, and also delvin washington, the team leaders of the planning staff. they thought it was a terrific response to the problem of the -- i'm sorry, i have brand new hearing aids and i have a beeping going on in my ears. excuse me for one second. i'll get used to them soon. the aging process has taken place. let's go to the overhead, please. the location of this at the rare of the lot makes sense to preserve this open space. here is where the d.r. requesters' house ends. this was built as an addition in the early teens. we intend to put screening, five mature potocarpus will provide ample screening such as the windows on the front of the cottage cannot be seen. i'd like to go to the overhead now please. the discussion about the sanctity of the mid block open space is one i'd like to address. i know about it because a blackk away i did a rear-yard structure with the variance right back there behind this very large house on an oversized lot. but not nearly the amount of open space that we have at masonic a block away. a variance was granted to allow it. this is the view from the cottage site towards the main house. now, the tree that you see blocking it coming down from the left, i mean from the right, that is a ginko tree and that remains many of the tree to the right of us will be removed. it was it was in danger of structural failure and removed some time ago but it's waiting for this process to pov forward. you can barely see-through and see the fence there. that is where those potocarpus shrubs are going to go, in a line that will fully obstruct the view of the cottage. so this is the aerial photo. you can see right where my words are. the very small house, that has been lovingly cared for and restored by this family for the last 17 years. their desire is to create a cottage that can be a dwelling unit in the future. quite likely for one of their college-age kids when they return. in the meantime, will also serve as a wood shop where rob and amy and the kids when they're a around, will work on restoration projects for the main house and they also build canoes and kayaks, they're interesting in creating a space to do that in. the recommendations of staff we provide an exhaust fan. we have speck one following the measurement this is his site visit it's not important we go to that. we have a fan that will allow us to keep the doors closed when there's tool usage inside. i think this is a very well-designed project and it's perfect response to the preservation of the maybeck. thank you. >> anyone here in support of the project sponsor? >> hi, i'm reading this letter on behalf of richard magary who is a neighbor. he writes i want to express my support for the proposed zoning variance in the matter noted above and the project we're discussing now which currently is scheduled for a hearing on september 25th, 2019. my support includes application to other san francisco departments including historic preservation, building inspection, fire and to any other city jurisdictions and other entitlements related to the two--storey unit and artist studio on the property. i am 40 plus years resident in the multi-unit building behind the subject property and i also have known the property owners rob and amy since they acquired 1527 ma sonic several years ago and to you're membership in the buena vista neighborhood association, i attended the earlier reapplication meeting hosted by the applicants where they provided detailed information and openly answered questions about the proposed project. i also know they are well-informed of renowned architect bernard maybeck who designed the primary residents on the property. they have shown respect for the building and include this letter and the matters permanent file and in the assure them communicated and all applicable staff in your department to all commissioner's prior to any hearing on the matter and to any appeal panel at the time at that matter that might be considered by them. thank you for considering my comments respectfully richard magari. >> anyone else who wish to respect in favor. >> you have a two minute buttle. >> thank you, very much. i just want to note again that the permit expediter continues to say that landscaping can fully obstruct any view of this project for dorthy fisher. the exhibits we provided are taken directly from the sponsors architect actual drawings as well as my own for the fisher's home and are accurate. it is clear from these exhibits that there is absolutely no possible way to mitigate the impacts, visual i a impacts with landscaping, it's just not true. to be clear, what we're asking is if you can't get them to move the project into their 2,000 square feet of available building area, that's code compliant, we're asking that there's at least a 10-foot property line setback so that we can reach plannings, recommendations and goals for its sufficient landscape screen. we're also asking that you limit the structure to 12 feet in height and prior the removal of the plus 14 feet second-storey that simply create aid double height space and for a storage loft. it's entirely unnecessary to the goals and needs of the project. to be clear, we support the desire to add to their property and would in fact wholeheartedly support a much, much larger addition in it were only located in the available allowable building area on their property. in order to meet the stated goals of staff, we are asking the commission to require the modifications to the project we have outlined in food faith to minimize the very real negative impact on the neighbors in the mid block open space. thank you, very much. >> thank you, project sponsor you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. shorts. if we can go back to the overhead, please. so, again, my words are right in the middle. often happens in my life. here is where we plan to plan the portacarpis to obscure the useable portions of the home. yes, there's going to be a side of the building that has no windows facing the property line. the upper-storey serves the purpose of architect actual desirability. it will be a beautiful space. i guess i have got anything there. i'm going to go to the overhead, please. this is the view from the street. this is the privacy that these backyards have. mr. margrie is the head of the tenants association in this building. he is the one that wrote that letter of support. these people look directly into both of these rear yards. there's screening. you see the trees here. that is the rear of the property. those horn beams will remain. and that will be behind the cottage. it's going to keep the same screening that the fishers now enjoy from the apartment building. i would like to conclude by commenting that i think that the staff has done a really good job driving design and driving a solution to a difficult problem. it's never a good idea to add to the ex tecthe exterior to a neak property like this. it surprises me a member of the public policy committee of the a.i.a. would be arguing against the use of discretion to support good design. i think that the discretion of the department and of the zoning administrator specifically should be used to encourage good design like this. thank you. >> that wraps up the public comment. commissioners -- >> >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff. were alternative schemes shown to staff? >> i'm going to let -- not after my involvement, i'll let you answer that. >> alternative schemes where the project was relocated to the buildable area were provided initially. after a lot of discussion, it was determined that preservation would be in support of the proposed project as proposed today and the alternatives for the proposal adding onto the existing building would require a little bit more extensive environmental review to determine potential impacts to the district resource and so since that wanted to be avoided -- >> there would have been one additional, logical alternative. that is, a new structure that is not connected to the historical resource. yet it's not at the rear of the property. whether it partially extends over the 45% accept back line or not, was that ever looked at? >> it was not an option that was presented, no. >> commissioner moore. >> for us it's mostly important to look as cold compliant projects giving us a direct incentive to support a project. in this case i am wondering, as to whether or not the real code compliant project, some reflecting the applicants' program would even be possible. and then there's certain kinds of things that are necessary and desirable. my question is, while i can understand the need for studio, i can understand the need for two studios, i am wondering as to whether or not the request foray com dating a studio, which is really more p.d.r. use and boat building is appropriate for the side in order -- i'm communicating with commissioners. it's really what we should be looking at. i regret to see in the staff report on the first line that this project proposes a dwelling unit at the rear portion of the lot while there's no indication or delineation how even today or in the future that particular dwelling unit would work. i see a rest room over of a small powder room which i can understand to be part of a work space but unless there's really a full delineation of a future unit this argument is falling short of what is really being asked for here. i spend time in seal-making and boat-making lofts which is a fact that my husband is a sailor and i can fully understand why a loft spaces are there because they do support boat-making. that's just the way. you can go to and find the wooden shop repair and i'm not sure whether or not that, as a use is fully a justification fire non compliant project. i want to leave it very simple. i'm impressed by the d.r. request delineation of many other issues. i clearly see it as you know resolved. i think the interruption or disruption of continuous public open space is very well illustrated. and a diagram that is like here where you see where the red dot it it shows how the flow of the blocks into open space is being disrupted. i am a little bit on the fence about this project because i believe it is asked for more than what good historic preservation requires us to do. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i am actually in agreement with most of your comments. i think that what is unusual about this project is that the historic nature of this house and i suppose and i'm grateful they want to support it and if i have lots of fantasies of what to do with my garage as well. they're not all, you know, co compliant. it is a p.d.r. use as you say, and it does present, like the classic zoning dilemma of having something next to residential that can be a nuisance. in the balance of whether to take discussion ary review and the variance, i would do it for a residential unit. i'm having a hard time with it so i'm on the fence, i support and i'm also talking to the other commissioners and i understand about the screening and it can be done, you know, but i think what we're giving up is not worth it for a two-storey structure that has a carpentry shop but i would do it for housing. >> i couldn't see approving this unit at the back of the property until i had seen drawings that showed me it was really not possible to achieve it in the code complying space. without seeing those drawings and understanding the impact, i wouldn't be prepared to approve a building at the back. if we go to the point where we approve at back, i agree with all the modifications that were requested. i don't understand, i would want to make sure it was useful as an a.d.u. it's fine to have the pottery or woodworking shop. i don't know if we need a two-storey building to accommodate storage or boat-building. it just doesn't seem fair to the apacadjacent owners. that's only if we get to the point where we don't think they can build a code-compliant project. >> i want to make a comment about what mr. schwartz very subtly hint and it's called standard of care. that is how we prepare our drawings, which are in front of us. the fact that there is no really existing site drawing that depicts where landscaping is and i assume it's part of the setting of a mayback building, raises big flags for me. the second fact and it's against care and i know mr. schwartz is teaching and prominent voice in an aspiring architect, it's a section drawing that is a part of our package intentionally laid in a plain which is typical of what you normally do because it creates a wrong impression. those kinds of things make me kind of feel uncomfortable because i think we are being shortchanged in terms of full disclosure but also we're rewarding something which isn't exceptional and extraordinary. and so, i am inclined to continue to be interested in how code compliant with a depiction of what a unit could do although there's no obligation that any kind of unit would be rented or serving the purpose that we normally would like it to be. so i suggest we continue this project and support the issues that this commission seems to be observing and has in common. >> the location of the the building is staking taking a sy different approach from what the permit holders -- this building, however, channels the mid block open space around it in fact and it disrupts the mid block open space and i'm not supportive of this as an approach. i may have been supportive of a partial inclusion beyond the setback line however, as currently constituted there's multiple cry ter wh criteria ths not satisfy for the variance. >> commission melgar. >> i make a motion we continue this item. a month? two months? >> if i could summarize the reasons for the continuance or further study by the project sponsor to summarize some of the things i've heard. namely, looking at code complying alternatives within the buildable envelope and possible alternatives may include some intrusion into the rear yard, as at least an exploration, lowering of the height, possible more robust inclusion of a dwelling unit. there's a kitchenette shown in this and mention was made that you need to see more housing than p.d.r. use. and side set backs from the property line. >> and a landscape plan? >> and a landscape plan, which was also included in my recommendations. is there anything else that comes to mind? >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may ask, this is completely typical to also have the historic preservation commission give us an unformal peek. i would really like to have the seniors so to speak take a look at it. so,. >> as far as getting opinions from the hps rather than senior staff left. i'm not aware of that process but i suspect it could be something that was -- >> if the commission wanted to, you could refer it to the preservation commission and just have the -- >> i would appreciate that. >> you could request a review from the officers of the historic preservation commission. >> did they already look at it? >> no. >> they did not. this is not a landmark building so it's not subject to the review. >> thank you. >> it was significant historic resource. >> right. >> sorry, commissioner melgar. >> wasn't sure what that meant? does it mean that we want to stop the process that we're doing and let them weigh in before -- i just don't want to add more process that is unnecessary. it seems a little arbitrary. >> i can add to that. if part of the case for this is this reference for the building itself, what is the the hpc professional opinion on that and maybe some other ideas about how to achieve its compatible with respect to the edition and location. >> that's not going to hold up our process with you guys. >> we could do it an informal check in with the officers. great. >> the starting point is not to attach to the existing building. why would hpc have to be involved. i don't see any reason for that. we have our own historic preservation staff. >> mr. wind slow. >> i'm not a preservationist. i suspect the real reason is just to have a second pair of eyes on it was the desire. the third -- >> third or third pair. >> it would be in-house staff. >> i thank you you put the word on tra tishness. >> it doesn't seem like there's a hazard to doing so. it can be advisory or help -- >> i personally am confident with existing already involved staff to look at that. commissioner diamond. are we adding time and expense if we're adding h.p.c. staff or whatever level of staff review you wanted from h.p.c.? >> there's a cost but i don't think that it's an enormous amount. >> how about time? >> maybe you would like to chime in. >> if there's a desire to have some members of the commission weigh in in a modest manner less of a procedural formality. check in with leadership would be easily achievable in short order. >> commissioner melgar. >> i was going to say, this is not part of the motion. it sounds like they're going to do it so i was going to ask we move on. >> commissioners, there was a motion and a second to continue the matter but there was no date proposed. how far out do you want to push it? >> >> a month? >> good. >> two months. ok. can we ask the timer how much time it will take to do this? >> march agent. >> sure,. >> >> there's a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter with some direction from the commission. on that motion commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner koppel. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us back at the beginning of your regular calender for item 10. >> i took a quick little poll and we need to take a quick bathroom break. we'll be back veryyour regular m 10 case 2019-023608crv for fiscal years 2020-222 proposed apartment budget and work program. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john ram with the planning department. saving the best for last. thank you for hearing this today. this will be of course my last budget presentation to you. i will be passing the pa don in a few weeks to my successor who will carry this budget through the mayor's budget process and the board process and debra will make the detailed presentation but a couple of thoughts and overview items i want today highlight first. one is that as you will see, we have a leveling off of project applications. we are seeing this year at this point anyway, a light increase in the revenue and we're seeing more projects but they're smaller. so, which often happens in the cycles it's really hard to predict and because of the nature of our fees and the nature of especially environmental review fees, one big project coming in with an e.i.r. application can make a big difference in those kinds of budgets swings so we don't know if that project exists right now but. >> i just wanted highlight a couple of items we put into the work plan. one based on discussions in this room and one that i have propose. one is that there's a half an f.d.e. for it to work on retail issues. this is been a big issue at this room for a long time and we wanted to get a handle and get a better grip on retail -- what is happening in the retail environment and hopefully put forward some changes to the n.c. districts to help implement some of those changes that we all come up with so we are going to start working on that in the next fiscal year. the other thing i wanted to highlight is i have asked our staff to insert an item that would >> i am joined by the management team who can answer questions about the work plan as well. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> good afternoon. president koppel, thank you for wearing the financial suit today. appreciate it. >> money. >> that's right. >> so, i am going to walk through today marriage budget and transparency legislation, our volume, our revenue expenditures and very high level work program. and then the calender and i am and all the other staff are present and able to answer questions. would you like me to wait a minute for the tv to catch up? on slide three, the budgetary focus this year is to prioritize housing, shelter and services for those in need and to promote healthy and vibrant neighborhoods. we were as we have been the last few years ininstructed to have no new position zoos planning is not proposing any new positions and in the budget this year and the financial joint report was recently published and that projects a two-year deficit of under $420 million it's showing slowing revenue growth and because of that, and rising employee costs, and because of that we are being asked to reduce our general fund support by three and a half percent in each year. so the budget transparency legislation that just passes has new requirements beginning this year so in the current year we must hold one public meeting regarding the budget before february 14th. we're complying with this and we had one public meeting at h.p.c. last week and we're here today. we'll be back at h.p.c. the 13th of february so we will end up having three prior to the february 14th and we'll be back here on the 23rd of february. next year, we're going to be required to have at least two meetings. again, we do this already. so it should be not a problem for us. we must allow public comment and collection of written feedback before, during and after the meeting. so any written feedback can be sent to me. it's debra.landis at sforganize.gov. my e-mail is in the presentation and part of the packets last week. and then, the controllers' office will create and maintain a centralized website for relevant budget documents so those are the highlights from the new legislation. so as always, we take a look at our volume and we make our revenue projections based on that. as director ram mentioned, our volume is continuing to be very high levels and our revenue is projected to be slightly lower than it had been when we saw this same high level of volume. really, basically we're on track for the current year to have a steady state for our projection for next year. so that's what our budget reflects. the revenue side in terms of charges for services, which are our fees, we're only proposing a c.p.i. increase so when the memo is written and when the presentation was created, we did not have the c.p.i. number yet so you will see that that fee amount will change and it came in at 3.91% so we'll roll that through and come back with those more accurate numbers in february when we're before you again. so, we were also expecting to recognize about $725,000 of prior year revenue in the upcoming year and we may or may not change that number based on the different tweaks that we are going to be performing over the next two weeks in the budget. and one thing that i did also want to point out is that we are right now in the middle of a fee study so the fee study is really looking at our planning and building permit review fees and this is not impact fees. it's looking at the structure, the process, the policies and the amounts of fees that we charge. so we're expecting this to finish in the spring which means we'll be back with you for any legislation if we propose to make any changes. definitely, i would say in april probably expect to see us back. our goal is to be able to have -- if there's any legislation needed to have that to go in with the budget so that legislation is due to the mayor's office the first week of maying and wand of course we woe to you prior to that. so the grant incheese we're lookinincrease is due toab101 wg development and financing funding so that we could get up to a million and a half for that so we have a pretty healthy grant budget that wore projecting for next year. as always, we need to know what the grant opportunities are mostly going to be for the upcoming year and in the out year, we only budget for ones that we tend to get annually or nearly every year. any out year grants we learn about during the next 12 months we will then, when the out year is the budget year, we will add those in then. in terms of the development impact fees, there's three things that are budgeted here with the planning department and we have our planning costs for administering committee and we have administrative costs for other departments that are involved with it that come through us because we are the administering body and we go outside and gets budget sod much of the funding that is here is going else and agencies that are not city agencies and expenditure is the amount of money and to perform services for them and this is our recovery for those costs of doing projects. you may notice it's going up each year and we talked about this last year. same reasons. number one is staffing. we are all more expensive every year and number two the general support is increasing based on those factors. the people and the new building. so the personal cost. we anticipate this to decrease a little bit to 66% next year and because of changes in contracts, projects and work orders so i'll get to those in a second. the overhead amount is set by the controllers' office and that will likely change at a later phase in the budget after the department phase is finished so we've kept the current year number for now because we don't have control over what that will be and the non personal services is increasing because we are really almost doubling our contract budget and actually we're more than doubling our budget so we'll go from 1.1 to 2.4 million and the next year and so the largest two changes there i.e.r.s and they're costly so we see the large increase in our contract budget. the materials and supplies you can see we have it high this year and it's going up in 2021 and down in the out year and that is because we expect higher costs with the move getting into that a new space. we don't know what they'll be yet but we assume there will be some there. the capital and equipment is a place holder for plotters and this number will also change because this reflects three plotters and we're now anticipating we'll buy one so that will be a little bit lower in the next year and anything $5,000 or more with a useful life of throw years or more so you see one line with tiny numbers and so projects is where we budget grants and funded expenditures and the dough crease in the out year is because we generally budget grants for the upcoming fiscal year based on the wards we expect we might get and those we tend to see annually. the services of other department snow squalls higher because it reflects the first full year at 49 south van ness so again, the rent and the technology costs are what are driving up the services of other department expenses. this is a high level work program overview. you can see the f.t.e. for each division and the total f.t.e. is not changing from the base budget number we have in the budget system and in the moment owe one attachment is the detailed work program so if you have any questions about that we would be happy to go after that after the presentation. i wanted to remind you when we will back. he went to the historic preservation mission last went and we're here today and we'll return february 5th and then we'll return here on february 13th to request approval budget and work program and if you approve it we'll submit to the mayor's office february 21st and in july it's final. that concludes my presentation and please let us know if you have any questions. >> thank you so much. >> if i might, one more comment for the benefit of the newer commissioners. just to be clear the commission does approve and has approval authority of the budget that we do send to the mayor. so i just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. secondly, the mayor collects budget and they're legal ledue by february 21st. of course they make changes to everyone's budget as needed depending on the city's revenue but i wanted to be clear you have approval authority over the budget that we send to the mayor's office. and again, staff is management team is here for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, again. before we get into anything else there's two speaker cards for public comment. george a and christopher peterson, come on up. >> two or three minutes? >> three. >> thank you. i had a nice lilly male back and fourth with mr. jocelyn about the historic resource survey and i'm looking forward to that but i wanted to talk about is on page eight in the packet and it's housing affordability alternative models 50,000 for a contract. and i want to suggest that you could do something that will cost you nothing. which would be to adjust the demo. they haven't been adjusted since they were implemented in 2007-2008. the point of the demo calcs was to project relative affordable. there was a project that had very squishy demo calcs and it was advertised as the most expensive project ever sold, 7-point # million dollars. no view even, as you have in section 317, small b, two large b and 317b to large c that gives you the right to adjust y should they be adjusted. i've shown you things like this. may i have the overhead, please. for the last six years. it's been like that since october. it hasn't changed. so they demolished it. it has a vertical ex pension and expansion.there's a better way n affordable project at that site and it's not letting it sit there but there's other things can you do and i seen the demo calcs but i've seen them over the last few years and this is important for the rh neighborhoods and i'll say justifying the adjustment has what happened in section 317. i wrote you a letter back on june 10th and i make the link between how the za has a just the value in the rh1 for administrative approval of demolition five times in the last few years. in 2013, it was 1.3. in 2014, it was 1.506. it was 1.63 and november 1.9 and 2.2 million in 2019. so that is suggesting to me that it goes up because you assume it won't be affordable. if you have this huge jump you need to print in the rh1 it seems that you need to be protecting the rh2 and 3. with relative affordability and that's what is in the code and you have never had a chance to adjust the demo and it's simple and it's fro. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, i'm a resident of district 7. i was concerned in looking at the online staff report in terms of anticipated city wide planning projects and the absence of reference to neighborhood planning for the western neighborhoods of the city. this is concerning for a number of reasons. number one, just from the affordability perspective we need more housing in this city. from a climate perspective, we need that housing to be along the city's major transit corridors. from a second perspective, the board of supervisors recently designated a significant parts of the western half of the city as prior development areas with the idea that the city would engage in planning to facilitate to allow that increased density. third, if sb50 passes in something approaching its current form, the city will have a two-year window. [please stand by] >> if i may, the last speaker mention the western neighborhoods. in fact, if you look on the work plan on page two of six, we do have a full f.t.e. devoted to that next year as well as money we received in next year's budget to work with a local community organization in the richmond to help with the western neighbors. we are very much going to be focusing on a lot of work on the western neighborhoods next year. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung? >> i have a couple of questions. some related to what i would call format or clarification issues. just a couple related to what i would call workplan issues. as a bit of trivia, though, when i was on this commission before, the annual budget was $5 million and for the staff it was 82. there has been a little change. formatting and clarification question. one related to citywide planning work program. the narrative description mentions as part of the five-year work program five items. land use and transportation, plans and policy, and core functions, but the detail following only has two. >> apologies, the three is from last year's budget memo which was not updated accurately. the two categories we have divided it into now are the first one which is program areas and that is our topics of housing, equity, transportation, et cetera and the second one is core function. we have reorganized a little bit i apologize for the memo not fully reflecting that. it should be program areas and core functions. >> okay. the other point then is in the written narrative, there is no description of citywide administration, which is one of the items. >> that reflects the basic administration of the division with the director and deputy director position and the in ministry to function positions and things like training and professional development et cetera. those types of things. wasn't programmatic. i did not included in the description. >> but the directors' functions there are in a separate category >> sorry, the division, the director of the division. >> okay. >> perhaps needs a little bit of a description to clear that up. there are two remaining for me. why is transportation demand management under the c.a.? >> i am head of child care. the reason that that program is actually the program that monitors -- if you recall, if you step back, we approved the new system for how we do transportation demand management where developers have a menu to pick from to achieve a lower account, if you will, lower vehicle miles travelled. the monitoring of that program is essentially an enforcement function. so we have a full-time position under the d.a.'s office and the enforcement team, which he is responsible for to monitor and enforce that function. it is an ongoing development project. >> there were other enforcement actions, too. >> they are all under the d.a.'s office. the enforcement by code is a responsibility of the zoning administrator. >> thank you. last format and clarification question would be under historic preservation, under the current planning position, that is a significant jump. is there a simple answer? >> there is. it is a significant and numerical jump, but not in terms of actual staffing. what has happened over the course of preparation of this year's work program is we have drilled in with greater detail and with greater accuracy the work we are performing and specifically over the last year, and that division of labor is what is reflected in the work programs. in fact,, even though the number is larger in previous years, the work being done in preservation was comparable with one exception, which is we do have two new positions allocated from last year's budget. some of that f.t.e. is those positions that will be directed towards citywide historic surveys. >> okay. perhaps going to a question on the work plan, if you look under citywide and land use and community plans, it says that in the coming budget year we will also launch citywide strategy and retail strategies. is that correct? >> that is correct. that is work we intend to start for the upcoming fiscal year and continue through. that will be a look at -- i think john mentioned the beginning of this presentation in our neighborhood and commercial and downtown. >> so that is included in the coming year? >> that is correct. >> okay. i think that is fairly important too many empty storefronts. okay. >> commissioner diamond? >> two questions. the first is follow-up onto one of the public comments about the flexibility plans called for. can you talk a little further about how you see that playing out and what the timing is? >> i appreciate the speaker bringing that up. one of the challenges we don't know what that means yet. it has not been clarified, but the concept is that we understand it is the legislation would give cities the ability to rezone in their own way to achieve the same number of housing units that would be created less tight in one area and more height in one area. it is suggesting a two year period. it is not clear. the way the legislation currently reads as it says there should be a plan in place to achieve that equal density. whether that means policy plan are that means zoning, whether that means whatever, it is just not clear yet. and one of the challenges would be if it means to zoning completely is in place, it would be highly unlikely that we would be able to do it in two years because to do a meaningful community process, and to suggest zoning changes and then to do seek well would not be possible within two years. that is actually one of the issues we are raising with the senator's office about that particular proposal because i think we all agree that this is a good idea in theory, but it has to be created and allowed for us to do it in a place that it is workable and that is the conversations we are having. >> even if it is three years or four years, have you accounted for enough staff? it looks like in a norm is task to be undertaking. >> it could be. >> it involves a fair amount of public outreach on top of figuring out what the numbers are that you need to make up for and where they will be allocated in making sure there is community support for it and then translating it does zoning. i don't know if that would be an internal function or if you are thinking your contracting out. i just didn't see it. i don't know what budget year it is either. >> it's all unclear. the challenge we have is we have some opinions about it, would particularly to the west but the mayor has asked all positions not -- all people to add positions. we are in a bind in that regard. it could be because it is not fully worked out yet. and if it does get more worked out before the budget is completed, it could be that the mayor chooses to have positions if it came to be that that was a possible outcome. i think that is a conversation we could have with the mayor and her budget staff before the budget reaches the board board which is in may. that is one of the conversations it is important for the staff to continually monitor this situation so we can be clear if this alternative approach is something that we could actually do. >> it is worthy of at least a paragraph or something in here so the public knows that we are dealing with it. it is an uncertainty, in case we need a whole other budget that we have just acknowledged that there is this big project out there that may require a whole lot of time. >> i really appreciate that. it would be good to highlight it in the memo. we will do it for the next hearing. >> my next question affects page 13. at the end of the third paragraph. something called housing sustainability district. can you explain what that is? >> that is a district created by state legislation. it was put forward about three years ago. creating and allowing cities to designate such a district where there has been a recent e.i.r. adopted. and the board, with the commission's recommendation created a district in central soma. what that means is within parameters defined in the state and the city, it did can designate a district. and housing projects will be completely ministerial. and the city did choose to create a more tight parameter than the state would allow. i believe it's up to 160 feet and because of the e.i.r. and because of the creation of the district, those projects can be approved ministerially. and you have only four months to approve them. to be honest, to be really clear , you will not see projects of 15 stories in central soma if they meet the parameters. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you to all the staff that contributed to the writing of this report. i look forward to just reading this every year and it's really exciting. thank you for all the hard work and putting this together. i want to shout out the west side. i was excited to see the community outreach for four and seven and i said what about district one? i am glad to hear that those efforts are underway, too. one question that i did have is related to the cultural district work. and just thinking about, in some ways, i feel like that is one of the best tools that we have to reengage and engage community and begin the work of talking about housing sustainability in another way, and i am just curious about, maybe this is a larger question about the impacts of 330 and continuing that work, but especially there is talk here of doing a new district. are we doing it and then going to wait until the five-year period is over to implement? how are we thinking about that? or am i confused? >> 330 doesn't specifically address cultural districts to my knowledge. maybe i am not understanding. is a recent legislation that creates new parameters of how we review housing projects and time frames associated with them. >> but it also dictated -- >> maybe the design guidelines. i apologize. >> i'm just wondering what the overlap is and the implications are in the cultural district might be around that. >> maybe jeff can address this, but the basic issue is that if we do guidelines in these districts, they have to be objective during the time that 330 is in effect. it doesn't mean we can't create guidelines informally using them , and it doesn't mean we can't create some guidelines that are more objective in nature, but that is the parameter. it is defined in state law and it is a little tough of a definition but it's something that is quantifiable. maybe jeff can answer that one. >> that is correct. there's a lot of work associated with the cultural district. guidelines is just one product and one tool. that is the only element of that work specifically restricted by 330. >> i'm sorry, but one of the things i will say about the cultural district work, and there's a huge amount of interest in the city. there's eight in the queue right now. one of the unfortunate things that is happening is we are grossly understaffed on the issue. i have been working and talking with supervisors about this because i'm very concerned that we are setting up a situation where it will take three years to get these things in place and to be frank, i raise this issue with the supervisors when the legislation went forward and the resources were not provided. i'm really concerned about setting up false expectations with neighborhoods and communities that we can't meet. >> thank you. that is kind of where i was going with some of this. i am both concerned about our ability to adjust to the potential impact of our findings related to and also staffing around and making sure we are not setting ourselves up. >> thanks. folks are listening in and they can take heed of your concerns and mine. it is an indication of one of the things, if i may, that i have been thinking about since making the decision to step down , which is how much our work has changed over the last 10 years. and in response to changing conditions out in the world and things like t.n.c. and airbnb, and all the factors that have changed what we do, but also, those

Related Keywords

San Francisco Bay , California , United States , Canada , Hayes Valley , Denver , Colorado , San Francisco , John Ram , Pa Don Ina , Angel Davis , Charles Salter , Neil Schwartz , Debra Landis ,