>> -- each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating when your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will indicate that your time is up and take the next person to speak. best practice is to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and mute volume on your computer. i would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. items 1-a, b, and c for case numbers 2019-000494 dnx, cua, and vnr are proposed for continuance to september 4, 2020. item 3, case number 2019-016388 cua, item 4, case number 2019-017022 cua, is proposed for continuance to october 29, 2020. further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, item 10, case 2019-021010 cua at 717 california street, conditional use is requesting a continuance to november 11, 2020, and item 19, is requesting a continuance to october 1, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should go ahead and open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on the matter proposed for continuance, only on the matters proposed for continuance. i will take the first speaker to speak, and you must press star, three to get into the queue. go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your comment on the matters proposed for continuance? okay. we'll take the next caller. >> this is teresa flanders, something for item -- speaking item 19, request to be continued. we are prepared to present an opposition today. >> clerk: okay. thank you, theresa. i'm going to give you one more shot, if you are prepared to submit your public sir? no? okay. members of the public, if you would like to comment on matters proposed for continuance, press star, three. >> yes, hello. my name is pauli marshall, and i'm here to speak to san francisco, and i would like to oppose the continuance because we're prepared continued from last time, and we've scrambled to get ourselves prepared this time, and we don't understand why there needs to be a continuance. thank you. >> clerk: okay. i do see a couple more people here. go ahead. thank you. >> this is steve collier on item 11, opposing the request for continuance. we have organized an opposition and are here today to present it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is mitchell bromer from the san francisco housing alliance, also speaking in opposition to the continuance on item 11. we are prepared and ready to go. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, there are no other members of the public requesting to speak on the matters proposed for continuance, so they are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i move items 1 through 4 and 10 for continuance, and 11 to be heard today. >> clerk: do i hear a second? is there an alternate motion? >> president koppel: anyone? commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i move for all items to be continued, 1 through 4, 10, and 11 as proposed. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. seeing no further requests to speak on behalf of commissioners, there is a propose that's been proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 5-1, with commissioner imperial voting against. >> president koppel: jonas, i'll also continue the -- >> jonas, i'll also continue item 4. >> clerk: thank you, zoning administrator. commissioners, that places us on item 5, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for september 3, 2020. >> president koppel: should we take public comment? >> clerk: oh, i'm sorry, absolutely. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes. if you would like to speak, press star, three. i see no members of the public requesting to speak on the minutes. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: move to adopt the minutes. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on the motion to adopt the minutes of september 3, 2020 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. item 6, commission comments and questions. if there are no requests to speak from commissioners, we can move onto department matters, item 7. director's announcements. >> director hillis: hey, jonas, no announcements today. >> clerk: item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good morning, commissioners. [inaudible] first on the agenda was supervisor peskin's ordinance to allow restaurants to [inaudible] commissioners, you heard this item on august 27 and voted to recommend approval with modifications. last week, the bulk of those modifications were added to the ordinance, but because the item was deemed substantive, the item was continued one week. after some brief remarks, the item was continued to the body for a full report. [inaudible] largely in the industrial heart of district 10 and were left out of larger past rezoning efforts. department sought to rezone them because the m-1 and m-2 zoning designates are outdated. this commission heard this item on august 23 of this year and was to augment an existing note in the table. there was one comment from the public concerned about how this project is being linked to unrelated upzoning. after comment, the land use committee voted to move the item to the full board at the positive recommendation. at the board this week, the board considered the ceqa appeal for 66 mountain avenue. this commission considered this item on february 20 of this year as a discretionary review and voted to approve the project by a vote of 6-0. [inaudible] due to construction on the steep slope. as explained in the department's appeal response, under ceqa, the set of impacts will not to be considered significant impacts. further, geological concerns will be addressed during the department of building inspection's building review process in accordance with the state and local building codes. there is also public comment in support of the project. the appeal request was ultimately denied by the board of supervisors by a vote of 10-0. next, the board considered the ceqa appeal of the revised final mitigated negative declaration or rfmnd for a project located at 3516 to 3526 followso folsom. this project has a long history. the original fmnd was appealed and heard by the board on september 17, 2017. prior to that, there was an appeal of the preliminary rmnd, and the plan -- and at the planning commission on june 15, 2017, and there was a prior appeal hearing at the board on the previously issued categorical exemption for 2060. at the september hearing, even with that review, [inaudible] to the integrity of the pipeline during the construction. by having the proper review and approval by various agencies. further, staff noted that countless other steeply sloped sites in the city are in proximity to pg&e pipeline, including about 20 with active planning applications. planning happens all the time in proximity to pipelines x there are ways to do so safely, despite the valid concerns about pg&e's safety record. the general comment during public comment was that an e.i.r. should be provided to provide people more information on the project and potential safety impacts. at this end of the hearing, supervisor ronen noted that her office had spent an inordinate amount of time on this peappea. she also noted that she received assurances by the director of public works and the fire marshal that this project would be monitored closely by the city. keep in mind that this project proposes to construction two houses on two vacant lots in an urban environment. staff spent over 400 hours on the appeal alone. this case added to the chorus of voices calling to reform the ceqa process. next, the board voted to continue the appeal for 178 seacliff to september 22, which is next week's hearing, and the board passed on first read supervisor peskin's ordinance that would allow restaurants to open on north beach. that's all i have for you today. thank you. >> clerk: sorry. i was on mute. i did not receive a report from the board of appeals, but the historic preservation commission did meet briefly yesterday, and they heard and adopted recommendations for approval of several legacy business applications, specifically, ambiance, the san bruno supermarket, and v val dicole on cole street. if there are no comments, commissioners, we can move onto public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star, three. go ahead, callers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is lisa audrey, and i am a tenant who is faced with eviction. i know firsthand how absolutely terrifying it is to be confronted with the prospect of an eviction, and that's why i'm calling you on, commissioners to remind you that the approval of projects calling for the expansion of existing homes affect tenants like me. chances are that on any given thursday, you commissioners see at least one such project before you seeking approval. this is exactly the case at 350 san jose avenue, where the developer bought a tenant-occupied building and emptied it out and likely bring it to you next week, seeking to replace 12 modest units with seven market rate condos. said developer would not have purchased this property if it were not so easy to boot tenants. and although this developer was not the developer who cleared the building, it is safe to say that this developer would likely have not bought the building at all if there was no incentive to luxurify it without destroying the tenants and replacing them with condos. this system incentivizes the displacement of tenants from their homes. please, commissioners, acknowledge the threat that 64% of san franciscans face and vote to stop another speculator from profiting on the backs of dispossessed tenants. send a strong message that buying a property and kicking out tenants that voting to expand a dlg for astronomical profits will not be tolerated. if you won't reject this project altogether, you can compel this serious speculator with 33 l.l.c.s attached to his name to trim his profits by building much smaller units and requiring that those units be rent controlled. please, commissioners, open your hearts and minds and do just that when 350 san jose avenue comes before you next week. thank you. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? with that -- >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> clerk: you can hear me now? >> clerk: yes, your time is running. >> my name is mark norton, and i'm calling about 350-352 san jose avenue. i grew up in san francisco and lived here currently 42 years. i personally an lucky to be a homeowner, having bought my home in 1984 when homes were much more affordable, but it is working-class tenants that are the real victims today. a few years ago, san francisco made international news when karl jensen, a 93-year-old man, who had lived in his apartment for 63 years, was found dead, dead after it was revealed to him that the new owner was planning on getting rid of him to remodel the building. unfortunately, this is not just -- this is just one of many such stories, and a case in point is 350-352 san jose avenue, which i believe will be before you next week. this is a four-unit building that was emptied out so the developer can expand it into 12 luxury condo units. one tenant, a retired nurse died during the displacement process. autos tenant -- another tenant was forced out after threats of jacking up her rent from $800 a month to $4500 a month. i urge the planning commission to stop rewarding the bad behavior of the speculators and reflect the proposed project at 350-352 san jose avenue that i believe will be before you next week. that property should be affordable home for san franciscans who need it. thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. hope you're all well. this is georgia schiutish. i hope the commission received the e-mail i sent about democalcs as well as the e-mail i sent last week on 9-10 about jersey street demo project that have squishy demo calcs which is not financially accessible housing, and one of them had rent controlled units that tenants were bought out there. regardless, if supervisor peskin's split file for the calc values from the supervisor mandelman amendment to section 317 is resurrected, the commission can institute an adjustment to the demo calcs per section 317-b-2-d with an announced start date for new applications just as projects in the rh-1 knew when the zoning administrator would announce the new value, and those projects could acquire the necessary credible appraisal for the next approval of a demolition. so that's it, and please look at the e-mails if you have a chance. thank you very much, take care, be well, be safe. bye-bye. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi. this is stephanie peak from the san francisco land use coalition. i'm calling today to draw your attention today to the absence of any meaningful planning policies to address the concerns of the san francisco tenants, some of whom you just heard from. in our town, the tenants are just forgeten. in the last four years that i've become active in my neighborhood land use issues, there have been a neighborhood of policies introduced by the planning department, but not one of them was designed to specifically address the displacement epidemic that we have been plagued with. despite the fact that our general plan calls for preserving any existing housing stock, especially rental units, many planners don't check the tenant occupancy status of a building, and those who do check have no tools to deal with the situation if they find out that tenants actually live in the building. consequently, permits are approved, tenants are displaced, and our cycle of buy-fill-displace continues. we are fostering exclusionary processes that shut out 64% of the population. please don't approve projects that involve displaced tenants. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jeff hawes. i counsel tenants who reach out to the san francisco tenants association for help. recently, the landlord gave a tenant with a family as well as senior tenants buyout disclosure forms in one two-unit building in the excelsior district. in another mission district building, the longest term tenant there, who was recovering from surgeries, received an additional threat to her underlying health conditions in the form of a buyingout disclosure letter -- buyout disclosure letter from her overseas landlords telling her of his plans to move into her home of ten years. she did not deserve any additional stress from the landlord to move out. what all these tenants had in common was they did not know they had the right to stay in their homes, and they felt pressured and fearful. i can only imagine what the tenants at 350-352 san jose felt when they received their buyout forms in 2017, and then, again when the new owner continued the war to displace these two long time tenants from their home. i'm also very sorry to hear that a senior tenant died during that process. please do not reward the bad actors who have successfully emptied the building of tenants in rent controls apartments at 350-352 san jose avenue. please, please reject this speculative project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is brian pritchard, and i'm calling you because i don't want anyone to go through what my neighbor, the late carl jensen, ever have to go through. the landlord was throwing this 93-year-old man on the street because he wanted to remodel and expand this building where carl had lived over every 63 years. that developer was later charged for his other crimes, but that made no difference to carl, who died shortly after my neighbors and i brought this case to you. most of you commissioners weren't here at the time, but i'm sure a few of you here remember this well. thankfully, when the commissioners voted in the neighborhood's favor because even though carl was no longer with us, the attempt to throw out a long-term elderly tenant on the street didn't sit well with people who were sitting on the commission at this time. i sure hope the commission still feels just as strongly about such awful acts because next week, you will have a chance to weigh-in on a project at 350 san jose avenue where once again, the developer is making his profits on the backs of tenants. here's the inconvenient truth: the developer wouldn't have brought this property if it weren't so easy to kick tenants out to boost profits by building more luxury condos. that's why the buck stops with the planning department because if such projects weren't rubber stamped to approval, if planners actually checked to see if human beings lived at the site of these proposed projects, then these speculators would have gotten the message that buying a property for a song and emptying the building of tenants for expansion approval would not be a sure thing. >> hi. this is sonia trout from yimby law. i want to make sure that the planning commission knows about the protection and tenant controls in sb 30 that was just passed this last year. the code is 66300 section d, and basically, a project that proposed to tear down rent controlled units has to replace those units and also, the previous tenants have a right of return at an affordable rent, and there's a five-year look back, so even if people left in the last year, 1.5 years, they would still be able to come back. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david serrano, and i am a renter in noe valley, where i've lived and paid rent for the past 38 years. i'm calling to draw your attention to the tenant displacement for speculators who evict tenants from properties they've bought for a song. less than a ten-minute walk from my house is a property where the elderly woman you've heard today who lived there for some 25 years -- excuse me -- was forced to move out for a mere $50,000 when the developer made $650,000 from her moving out when he turned around and sold the property as-is a few months later. these are not isolated incidents, and this developer is not just a bad apple. in a few weeks, there will be a case before you where a developer who has displaced tenants from this building will be asking you for approval of this project. i'm specifically talking about the 350-352 san jose avenue, where all four tenants of the building were emptied out to make room for 12 luxury condos. one was moved out eventually shortly after the death of the elderly tenants. i don't need to tell you how much profit this developer stands to gain from these 12 luxury condos on a property where he paid $2 million only a few years ago. as you know, our city's general plan calls for the preservation of rental housing stock because that is the most affordable housing stock in the city, but how can you appro-- as commiss you are tasked with approval the general plan policies of this city. i urge you to disapprove the project at 350 -- 352 san jose which will be built on the backs of the diseases to teach a serial developer and speculator that it's not okay to kick people out of their homes. at this point, it's entirely up to you. thank you, commissioners. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume with san francisco land use coalition. my attention was drawn to this segment when i actually heard someone bringing up sb 330 and the wonders of sb 330 that allow tenants to return. if the caller had paid attention to what's going on at 350-352 san jose avenue, she'd realize that tenants cannot come back from the other side. one of them died in the process, and no doubt, i'm sure it was the stress of all of this that had something to do with her death. she had just been retired. still, i'm glad that the caller brought up sb 330 because it shows how ineffective these state level protections are in protecting the tenants. none of this is going to protect the tenants in this situation. certainly, penny, who was displaced, is not going to come back from the dead. i can tell you a number of others who are dead after they've been forced out. iris cannady is one, and carl jensen is another. we need to have protections for tenants that makeup 64% of the residents in this city. at a time that the planning department is looking into more racial and social justice for -- and, you know, having new policies for that, i think it's an opportune time to address this issue, the tenants, and tenants' lives which has become quite an exclusionary policy on the part of the planning department, and i want to close my argument by reminding you, this is not a rent board issue. if the planning department approves projects that results in tenants' displacement, this has nothing to do with the rent or rent board. this is city planning, and if we are going to be honoring our general plan policy, then we should take this seriously. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, seeing no further general public comment, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 9, 2011.1356 pca-02, for the central soma cleanup. this is a planning code amendment. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. jonas, if i can just have a minute to share my screen? >> clerk: you can. >> i'm sorry. i'm having a hard timesharing your screen. >> clerk: your presentation's up. it's not full screen, but we can see it. >> okay. i'll go ahead and just present. good afternoon. i'm ed snyder of department staff. i'm joined by josh switzky of the land use and development team. before you is a proposed ordinance that looks to make changes related to the central soma plan. central soma, of course, is the central portion of the south of market neighborhood. it is generally bounded by second street, townsend, six, and then, it has an irregular border on the north, just reaching market street. you approved the original plan in 2016, focusing around an area plan specifically for central soma. it includes a central soma implementation document and community benefits program. that's a document outlining how to implement the central soma plan in detail and provides a list of community amenities or benefits and how to pay for them, and then finally, the planning code text and map amendments, and one of the features of that, of course, was the central soma special use district or s.u.d. as i mentioned, you originally approved this in may 2018. later that year, the board of supervisors approved that, and it became effective january 2019. since the original approvals, we had one piece of trailing legislation that created the south of market community advisory committee. this legislation, we are calling it cleanup legislation, and it addresses -- we put some of these amendmented in different buckets. -- amendments in different buckets. the first is to address changes in legislation, such as incorrect references. the second bucket is clarifying intent, and this is where most of the changes are being made, and then, there were a couple of substantive amendments, as we well. i'm going to describe these clarifying amendments. the first, the ordinance before you establishes requirements that an operations strategy be provided for all popos. this was in the implementation document that you also approved but was not yet reflect index the planning code. number two, the legislation clafs that the p.d.r. requirement for large scale nonresidential projects in the s.u.v. are to include leisure additions as well as new construction. number three regarding lot coverage limitations, this -- this provision clarifies when the 80% lot coverage limitation is specifically requiring the 80% limit on all residential levels, except for lobbies and shared circulation. after i complete my portion of the presentation, josh switzky will come up with additional comments. this cleanup ordinance organizes where the amendments comply and are all consolidated in the same section. number five clarifies that the projects opting to pay the b.m.r. in lieu fee, those revenues are to be spent in the greater soma area. and the reason why we're making this clarification, any reductions in the amount of open space can be addressed by paying the in-lieu fee, so we want to make sure that that's how you rectify less than the area footage. number three, there were three related clarifications. the first is regarding the community infrastructure fee, and this just simply clarifies that funds collected within -- from the soma community infrastructure fee can be spent in the greater soma area. currently, it confines it just to the s.u.v. number eight, this clarifies that nonresidential projects not subject to a large cap office allocation and that are in tier b are subjected to a 20-per square foot infrastructure fee, and this is requested in the board of supervisors' final approval of the implementation plan and their other documents, as well. josh will also provide some additional comments on this item. and then finally, this legislation clarifies that funds collected from the soma infrastructure fee can be spent on recreation open space projects as well as transportation projects as reflected in the implementation document, currently, the planning code only restricts the funding to transportation projects. so we have three what we're calling substantive amendments. the first is regarding on-site open space. currently, the project allows projects to provide 50% of their open space requirement off-site s however, that is limited to be within 800 feet of the project development. one of the open space goals of the central soma plan is to look parcels adjacent and under the yiesh 80 friday as opportunities to create new amenities. this woulden jabl some project sponsors in project -- enable some sponsors in project soma to complete their projects within a half a mile. the second substantive changes allows projects at 185 grand street to provide up to 15,000 gross square feet of neighborhood serving retail in lieu of a portion of the required p.d.r. that's required on-site. the reason why we're proposing after approval of the central soma plan and this project, as well, we heard from community members an expressed desire to have neighborhood retail service next to a park, and as you may recall, 598 brannan street is part of the development, and it's to provide a new public park on that site. so, yeah, please also just -- so in the packets that were sent to you, we proposed to put this allowance in planning code section 329, which really addresses exceptions on discretionary exceptions. since we sent that packet to you, we thought a little more how to structure this. we're now putting it in the central soma special use district section that would just allow the project sponsor to move forward with this swap, but it also describes the type of retail in a much more detailed way, so there's more certainty of -- on behalf of the project sponsor and those who would like to see that. and then, we have one final substantive amendment. this is regarding the exposure requirements, and it's somewhat tied to the -- to the -- sorry. the -- sorry. the current application standards require that all units that do not face a public street must face an open air courtyard with a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet in all directions. few projects can actually provide this code compliant courtyard meeting, thus forcing them to get variances. this would replace the standard with a simpler requirement that's really more beneficial for businesses in central soma. this concludes my portion of the presentation. we are recommending that you approve the resolution before you, however, with the one modification that i described regarding the provision for the -- the key site at 598 brannan street. thank you, and i think josh is ready to make some other comments. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, matt. good afternoon, commissioners. joshua switzky with planning staff. so i just wanted to address a couple of items that matt touched on. so first, the commission has received from letters that we're aware, and we'll likely receive some public comment as the proposal potentially running afoul of sb 330 that prohibits cities from making zoning changes that in totality would prohibit reducing net capacity, however, this claim we feel is baseless once you look at the basic feets. sb 330 sets the basis for this comparison analysis at the residential zoning capacity that was in place as of january 1, 2018. the zoning in place in central soma on that date was largely industrial, prohibiting housing outright in large swaths of the plan area. the adoption rezoning which took place a full year after 330s reference date, allowed residential plans where none were allowed. it added approximately 5500 units of housing capacity above the units in place that were in place on january 1, 2018. so not only does the net result of this zoning cleanup and its minor changes you're being asked to consider today not remotely approach the reduction of capacity of sb 330, but the specific zoning proposals under consideration are not individually themselves more restrictive when looking at this in isolation compared to january 2018. in january 2018, there was a 20% rear yard requirement. and additionally, lot coverage can be met in any layout in a lot, whereas rear yard coverage requires a specific layout outside. >> if a project feels the need to exceed the 80% lot coverage, they could always seek an exception under 329 from the commission. secondly, the other issue i wanted to provide a bit more context on is the correction of the applicability of the central soma infrastructure fee on tier b projects that are not proposing large cap office. just like most of the other items in the cleanup ordinance today, this item is the result of accidental omission or mistaken drafting that occurred in the final adoption process as a result of the dozens pop dozens of amendments that were made in the board process and multiple committee processes, the federal duplicated files and things that just fell through the cracks in terms of making sure that the final zoning ordinance was consistent with other records adopted by the board. as you can see with the number of items in the cleanup ordinance, there are a number of instances where the actual zoning adopted by the board were inconsistent with other records adopted by the board in other incidents. we did scrupulously research the record in the board's files, all available on-line on legistar, and we would not be bringing it to you today if we did not feel the record would bear this out. you have heard today in this hearing and some project sponsors affected by this [inaudible]. >> and i would like to put that on my screen now, jonas, if i can do that. there we go. so this document is showing to you is from the board's file from the -- from the hearing on november 13, 2018, and is the sable from the implementation plan that the board adopted that summarizes all of the development requirements, nonresidential projects. you can see here a, b, and c across the top. this is the central soma infrastructure fee, the second row, all other projects, those are nonlarge company office projects, and you can see that those are red lines that the board amended and showed a 20 fee for this class of projects. i'll just highlight also on the screen in the same board's packet from the same hearing, there was a tracking sheet that reflected the amendments made on that date, and you can see here row 9, it says, conforming edits based on the prior amendments of the land use committee, and it clearly shows the tier b nonresidential $20 for all projects that are not large cap office allocation. so with that, i will unshare my screen. jonas, if you could unshare my screen. i can't quite figure out how to do that. so this fee, like the rest of them in the fee package was an integral part of the list of development requirements and debated and negotiated in excruciating detail at the board where every dollar of millions of projected revenue would go. it's to correct what we believe the record strongly shows, that it was a mistake that was not only the intent of the board but left the project out of sync with the other projects approved by the board. the other two packeted approved by this board also have a similar tracking sheet that clearly shows that the $20 fee was to apply, and i'm happy to put those on screen at a later time or a later date if you would like. it's not an unreasonable question to ask, whether given the choice now, this inconsistency should be rectified, and the code changed to reflect the original intent of the board or to reconsider. that's up to the decision of the board, but the staff continues to feel that it's our responsibility to bring this correction forward for your consideration as part of the clean cleanup. and with that, staff has concluded its presentation and are happy to answer any questions. [please stand by] and it's significantly more than the proposed fee here and it will have impact fees for schools, childcare, transit, and affordable housing. so, while we want to make our project a reality and bring it before you next year, we're very concerned that imposing new impact fees can make it infeasible especially given the very tough economic environment that we face ourselves in that would apply $2 a square foot impact on smaller scare tier b non residential projects. we will locked at the legislative records and it shows the poured of supervisors exempted these smaller projects from the speak during the code adoption process and this was at same time and it's a multi-year annual tax that funds infrastructure and services and our analysis suggests that if the cfd could have a fall of $4d that's made so they could ash sore overtime providing on going benefits to the neighborhood and we've taken a look at later documents from the board record provided by staff today and to apply the fee and they show what intended to be labeled as confirming a fend it matched the change passed by the board. unfortunately, in this characterize the board amendment, we unambiguously removed all projects from the city is and and made no mention of a $20 fee for these sites. and this is not a good time to assess new impact fees on these smaller non residential projects with no history to support it. many of these projects had been moving forward and. >> or continues it's that planning department has enough time to analyze the (inaudible) and any information on how much housing will be lost. this prohibits cities from parcels and when compared to the density permitted in january of 2018. the agent looks at specific parcels, not large swaths of area and it specifically discusses proposals. a number of sites, including --s we looked at one lot where this rule would result in a loss of 20 units taking no consider against a bonus and i urge you not to act on this legislation until you have clear guyance of how the impacts have been quantified, thank you. request is i oppose this legislation. we are a small builder in san francisco. everybody we would use to design and build these projects are san francisco businesses. small projects cannot afford after the fact additional fees in a recession. please remove the tier b and allow us to keep our crews working thank you. i'm calling regarding one of the fixes related to lot mergers and prohibiting lot mergers and we're fearful the city as i whole and the region is giving away from the fact that under productioproduction of housing e primary driving force in our affordable and displacement crisis and when the city was passing the central we could have added mor housing to the plan so any time we do anything that makes it harder to build housing, and it doesn't matter what type of housing, i know there was a conversation about converting groundfloor retail to adus we should be incentivizing in our opinion building housing. it's a good idea and any time that we we make it harder to build house whether it's intentional or unintentional is confusing to us. it's a primary reason this problems exists. we have not built enough house are or homes. i want to encourage the commission and everybody involved to continue to find ways toe to incentivize the cren of housing. thank you. there would be fees for the city to collect and real benefits would get delivered. i'd like to talk about what happened since central soma passed that makes the fee increase particularly ill-timed and unrealistic for office projects. late last year, the jobs housing linkage female doubled and going back from 1850 to almost $55 a foot? and the feasibility study for the jobs housing fee increase studied both the central soma large cap and small cap projects and it made the following findings, quote, none of the tested prototypes appear feasible based on current market conditions. the rapid growth and construction and lands costs and recent years has resulted in costs often exceeding office development values, making new development feasible. additionally, city imposed community benefits costs such as cfd special taxes, and prop c commercial rent taxes add to the over all cost burden and the analysis indicates that all office development prototypes have a negative development return with costs exceeding revenues and developer returns below the feasibility threshold in september of 2018 and at the time, planning department staff recommended lowering the fee and statinstating rates should be sn accordance with feasibility ensuring the city captures value from new developments without jeopardizing their viability and that sound recommendation was not taken and we now have an over all impact fee burden that according to the city's own study isn't feasibility and i don't know why staff has the prior position that fees should be feasible and recommending a $20 a foot increase above and beyond what projects are able to pay. we don't node a new feasibility study to tell us what is obvious. since the jobs housing fee doubled, economic conditions have deer tierated and office rents are going down and a lot with the demand for office space and i'm sure everyone is aware that pentrist canceled a lease but small companies are gives backspace as well. this is not the economic -- please project the fee increase. thank you. >> good afternoon. and i'm not going to repeat the comments from my partners that have been made and i'm asking you to remove from the legislation at this point and i just want to remind the commission that the entire plan was based on desites and the vast majority of the benefits come from key sites. they were analyzed and our office worked closely with the staff throughout the process and it was never incontinueded to burden smaller projects with these kind of fees. that's why it was taken out and we ask you to be consistent with the board's intent and remove the fee at this time. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, my name is sarah and i live in the mission district of san francisco. my primary concern with this legislation is that it just appears to be a down zoning and i think the public deserves to know how many units are proposed to be excluded. it will result in less housing and specifically, because by the density bonus app lick ability and i didn't hear anything about it it inincludedding anything about the density bonus so i think that the public deserves to have a staff report and a verbal presentation and we can view and analyze and i don't think there's been enough time committed to doing this right and so i'm advocating for more process and i'm asking to you please reject it at this time because i'm just concerned that you know, my husband and i experienced housing insecurity and i'm worried about people out there in california that are suffering from climate problems and obviously the lack of affordability and the lack of housing stocks so please, just be very careful and considering things and please provide the public with the information they need to know and i genuinely want to know how many less units we'll have as a result of this decision. thank you. >> hello, commissioners, my name is tom murphy. i lead a team to develop brian street. with our consultants we analyze this small cap projects and take into considerations all the costs and fees associated with it. this week we're blind-sided by this new fee. these are additional fees plus the uncertainty of the pandemic and recession and it makes it challenging if not impossible to continue it project. from conception to completion projects like this it's important to have consistency with regulations and fees and please do not impose these fees so we can follow through with this project and continue to contribute to the san francisco economy with this building. thank you for your time, commissioners. >> my name is sam and i am a resident in district 8 and i'm calling to oppose the surprise down zoning. i mean, to be frank, i think that beyond just the policy merits of which disagree with the down zoning, this method of doing it as a clarification is very shady and insidious and doesn't make a lot of sense. there needs to be an analysis of one, how many units we'll lose and two if this even complies with state housing. i oppose this and i don't understand why it's even being considered and such a convoluted and potentially illegal manner. thank you for your time. i think across fifth and bryant street and i'm calling into potentially require a greater study on the limiting of coverage. it seems to be we will reduce of affordable units as well as market rate units and in this project and i would hike to open up my neighborhood to more and more people and this clarification potentially when it's that. thank you very much. >> hi, i'm calling from under' law and as indylaw. i'm glad they addressed some of these questions but we need more than just a verbal presentation. if it's true that this seeming down zoning doesn't reduce the amount of housing, then we need to see a thorough analysis of that, you know. also, a comparison to what was loud in 2018, they said not very much housing but how much exactly and if they're right and it's legal, they've done that analysis and i think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for it to be done so it's public and you guys can get a really thorough understanding because the central soma plan was already widely criticized from making the jobs housing bam h be so much worse in san francisco and the bay area. now they're proposing to make that even worse and we have to go into that with eyes wide open. we need to do this right and there's no reason to rush. there are developers who have projects in the pipeline who are saying these changes reduce the housing they're going to build. to me it's very suggestive. we know that there are specific projects there. i don't know why we wouldn't look into it more. thank you so much. >> very good. members of the public this is the last call to press star and 3 to submit your public testimony. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners, public comment is now closed and this matter is before you. >> hello. >> commissioner diamond. >> thank you, very much. so i am troubled by the aspect of the amendments that relates to the infrastructure case. irrespective of whatever the intent was in 2018, the cn question was not adopted into the code. and if we put it in now, i can't do that and ignore the reality of what we're currently facing which is a significant disruption to the economy caused by the pandemic. and it is very challenging for me to want to impose a new fee in the code without understanding what the over all economic impact is to the landowners of adding this fee and i understand that when the central own a plan was done, there was a thorough analysis done and of the collective amount of fees and taxes imposed and i would want to see i would like to hear what they're coming before we come up with information. >> biff call any other commissioners i just wanted to chime in and say my sentiments exactly and commissioner diamond and i would be very supportive of doing that moving everything forward minus the fee. i know that the definitely surely works on other pieces of legislation, one large projects brought forward and overtime, this is 10 years plus work and press and address the cross a bored and i have to remind myself that we are not the ledge lay tours and i do find a question of clarification and with access to the board of supervisors appropriate, however, i would also ask eye for detail and pay for it to one more time report on exactly the tobc and how it got lost in the shuffle if the board of it would have prevented people responding and i'm very appreciative and when supportive and i wouldn't like to see clarifications on the aspect of the tier b-c. >> there were many hearings and for severa several months in mue committees and through it all, the board and staff were doing the best to track all the amendments that were proposed and try to make sure that everything was consistent. the board was amending multiple things at the same time and the planning code as well as the other planned documents including the limitation program document. amendments were first made to the configuration of the cfd and the fees, the board made that action and in the records i guess the first tracking sheet in october, that was referenced by one of the sponsors, there was a statement which did not suggest that the $20 square foot was part of that. in the can' subsequent hearing d the record and the board was trying to make everything consist apartment, yoconsistents sheet says amendments introduced at the november 5th land use committee hearing and you scroll amendments say conforming on land use committee and we see that fee reference and then when they actually amended and this is important, more important than the tracking sheet and when it proactively amended the implementation document and this important table in the implementation documents which summarizes all the fees and they proactively amended this to add the $20 fee, you can see it there. the packets from november 17th d december 4th show these changes. there's a lot flying back and fourth and it fell through the cracks to circle back and make sure the planning code reflected this which is similar to many of these other clean up amendments and there were inconsistency between a planning code and the boards' intent. >> that's what happened. thank you for explaining that. while i do share the height and extent of fees being difficult to face at this particular time in support a small project getting a break, however, i still look forward to the board of supervisors being our legislators and it was discussed and brought ford so while i support a discussion on row stating the fear and when it a supplies and how it could be modified would be by coronavirus consequences and i still see that the clarification was given to be sufficient and complete for he me not to want to personally tinker with what is in front of us. >> it's important to recognize the fact the reason we're here is because there's a concept between the code in some of the other documents like these implementation document and i know you've been bombarded with information about both we're here to clean that up in trying to make it correct and i think josh laid out the fee structure where this $20 fee is what we believed to be the intent. it's also important, as josh acknowledged during the presentation and commissioner diamond did too, we did this when the economy was a lot different. if we did that analysis today, this and others would not be part of the mix. so, i recognize that sensitivity and we're not coming scheer and we thought it was in the implementation and we thought it would be in new projects not one during risk time we would otherwise propose. >> i totally agree with you of what my own sentiment is and we're not the deciders, we're not the legislators we're acknowledging the process that you had to go through. >> this is our clean up legislation we're proposing to the board. i want to make that clear too. it's not if we're out pining on board legislation this is clean up legislation. >> w proposing. >> for me looking into more of a clean up legislation and i do remember from the last time that you know, as we previously continued it in temperatures of the fees whether it would encompass outside federal markets i remember it was a discussion because the other community members were also informing me that it wasn't the intent back then so the way i see it right now is this clean up legislations are previously it was approved by the board of supervisors but being more explicit in the legislation that is having us right now. i'm generally supportive of all the clean up it was not their understanding and for the planning communication to reexamine or those should, again, i agree with commissioner moore and this they should be more in the board of supervisors and discussion and i am supportive of most of the prenup items but that i'm thinking about and having issues with. the -- given the fact that. >> at the current time. we're confident the fee is within the next while. >> ok. commissioner jan. >> thank you. so, i am also supportive of what is in front of us, which is to reflect the board's original intent and i do think having further settings to update the study with the important to understand the current economic situation in terms of what is in front of us i find the planning department research is convinceing and the amendments or and so i'm leaning towards recommending staff's recommendations with approval of the board of supervisors and there will be and state for the flick and those who did not follow the initial representation at this particular clean up does not intend to down zone and diminish a number of housing units including and it's coincidence was sb330. >> sure, commissioner. i would be happy to paraphrase it and row state it. as it relates to sb330, specifically that state law requires zoning and housing capacity which in the case of parcels and central soma and it was substantially lower housing capacity by 5,500 units. almost all parcels were up zoned in one manner or another but regardless, the measure is the net effect of a legislation in its totality and so, it comparing the clean up legislation to 2018, it's not even a comparison because there's no possible way that any of this would reduce those units to anything approaching having to do the detailed math and as it remates to this, we don't believe it's a down zoneing and there are other components of this measure, which we definitely increase capacity by substantially reducing the exposure requirements and correcting some of the sky plane and bulk limits which had the inadvert ant and the capacity of many projects and many sights and so, we don't feel that this in anyway reduces zoning determinations on that fact. >> there's nothing arbitrary intentional with reducing capacity in deed of refinement to ha it in front of it. >> i would be support i have of most of this and support the continuesance of the one item on that has been under question related to the fee on tier b projects. >> commissioner diamond. >> is that a motion? >> >> yes, i would move the adoption of all of the clean up items with the exception of the fee item on thibedeau b projects and to continue that discussion on that item. >> second. >> could i just, as you vote can i clarify that that includes the revised language that we presented on the pdr putting that and not in section 359? >> commissioner diamond. >> so, i just wanted to clarify that i'm not too worried about i believe we should show the appropriate linkage. what i'm worried about the feasibility and if we keep loading these fees on i am in favor of all aspects of the emotion as amended the fee i would want to continue for until we can get further feasibility studies. i don't know and this is a question to commissioner koppel, whether or not we should vote on the whole thing about the with the anance or split it into two motions where we vote on everything with the exception of the fee and vote separately on the fee. >> so commission diamond. the information is to or should i ask commissioner fung, the motion is to and as amend the to eliminate the tier b fee and you are also continuing that for further study? >> yes. i am open asking him to whether he will separate this no two motions. >> the motion was seconded by myself. that is supporting the commissioner fung's motion and the motion has been seconded. >> that's fine. and i'm fine with voting on that. are you all set? i see commissioner imperial is next. >> i just have a question to commissioner diamonds in terms of the accessibility study. is there a timeline that we're looking into as part of disabilities study? is it like from that what is the disability study and we don't know the economic impact. understanding of this is that this was already approved by the board of supervisors and this is more explicit. disability study in terms of the effect of covid and for how many years? are we looking into that? >> you are on mute. >> or maybe it's something the staff can provide us some recommendations. >> you are right. it's not the time to come in with feasibility study and stabilizeing and we're coming to you next month in early october and so we can follow that up in the next couple months and the discussion and i think as things get table and give you a better sense of timing on when we think it's appropriate to come back with the feasibility study and now would not be a great time. >> there are other things coming like the fee schedule and that would be part of all of this for examination. >> >> there is been a motion to approve the to continue that portion for further studying a and. >> thank you, i just wanted to have a point of clarification before there was a because there's to take a position on the majority but continue one portion of the recommendation and we just wonder if we can get clarification with the attorney about and clarification that is not to continue the consideration of the recommendation, but. >> correct me if i'm wrong but my understanding of the motion is to forward the proposed amendment without the tier 3 fee and basically continuing that portion for further study so it's not continuing the code amendment but it's forwarding without that tier b fee. >> commissioner fung. >> perhaps we need to allow some thought by staff but the city attorneys as to what we're doing and what is the best process to handle this situation asper commissioner comments and questions. perhaps it makes more sense to continue this entire item for a week until city attorneys and staff can come back to us as to what is the best process to take. could we do a motion of intent. >> commissioner diamond really quickly and he can speak. commissioner diamond, you are muted. >> if i understand commissioner fung correctly, he would like to continue this item to allow staff and the city attorney's office to consider the commissioner's comments and to come back to us with a recommendation as to how to appropriately set phase the motion going forward. is that what you intended. i just want a little clarification of what is supposed to be done in the weeks. >> it sounds like there's a number of questions and what is the best procedural process with this and so i thought, let's let the minds with greater experience, both staff and the city attorney to come back with us as the best way to approach what we've discussed. and it would warrant an extra look back and i would be supportive of continuing the entire item for one week so we can get a grip on what we're looking at. >> i would change my motion to continue this for one week and allow staff and the city attorney's office to come back with us as the best way to deal with this situation. >> i'm comfortable with that motion. >> second. >> and let's also now hear from mr. slitzky again. >> i was just going to discussion as an alternative to continuing the item and if the commission is not likely to reconsider it's support for the fie, and not trip it out the commissioner could simile, remove it from the ordinance and maybe just add a recommendation that there would be further feasibility study at a later date. if this fee is going to be taken up. as a recommendation, it's not part of ordinance. >> shall i call to question? >> >> there's a motion to continue this matter one week to september 24th, 2020. on that motion --[ roll call vote ] so moved, that motion passes you messily. second avenue and this needs authorization. >> 60 not 70. >> i'm sorry. and staff are you prepared to present? >> i am. thank you, jonas. good afternoon, planning commission. ashley lindsey planning department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t and tele communications facility and at 592nd avenue consisting of installation of 10 panel antennas and ancillary equipment as part of the at&t mobility telecommunications network and the equipment will be screened within two frp enclosures and on september 3rd, 2020 the san francisco planning commission conducted a dually noticed public hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting and on conditional authorization applications number 2019 2019-011984cua and continue to september 17th, 2020. they provide mor information regarding the feeds ability and siding of facility at and' lab nature on information provided for the site collection and. >> it would not be viable within the inner balboa due to an existing macro site at 431 and a new facility within the gary boulevard ncd would be too far distanced from the area that requires coverage. to date, the department has received 30 letters from the public in opposition of the project. much of the opposition expressed concerns over radio frequency, design and noise. the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the wireless tell communications services facility sighting guidelines and the objectives and policy of the general plan and to protect those and the effects of a fire or natural disaster by providing communications services. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and not to be detrimental to the person or adjacent properties in the facility. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions and the sponsor is available to answer any questions. the sponsor does not have a presentation today. >> mr. turner, i believe, is the project sponsor representative and so what let me unmute that this is camy blackstone from at&t and we're here to do this presentation. we do have a presentation but we spoke with ashley earlier today and because the planning commission has had this presentation for several weeks, we thought in the interest of time, that you probably looked at it and considered it so, anyway, i'll just go ahead and give you my little talk, again, i'm camy blackstone from at&t san francisco. good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. i'm here to talk about the project at 592nd avenue it's an area we've been trying to fill that is a gap in and when use wireless technology and every year, we always are trying to fill these gaps and particularly with shelter in place we've seen and the visitors and the workers in the area. it will include ban 14 that's the national first responder network and hopefully you have that in your packet and a little packet from net that describes it further so it's an important public safety site as well. this building was selected two years ago after we did a robust search in the area and it's a tight spot there because just about everything is preference seven that's why we did go with this site and we still couldn't find a alternative and two weeks ago the request the question we did go back to recreation and parks department and ms. lindsey described their response. we have worked with planning staff to structurally develop a workable design that would achieve our coverage and capacity goals and with as little visual impact as possible, so we do respectfully ask for your approval and on the line with me today is deric turner from j5 and he is the project manager and michael who is our network engineer and we have bill hamet and they can answer questions about the site dough sign, network or exposure concerns. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> yes. thank you. >> great. each member will be provided two minutes. >> two. my name is anne green, is that me? i live next door. i thought i had three minutes. ism opposed to this project of 10 and 10 on the roof and next door to and and even on the street the structure is advisable. they can be altered and enlarged and changed and at&t told me they'll come back and they can make them bigger. our deck and bedroom would be less than 20 feet from this structure. cities at lick pet a loma they don't allow this 500 feet of a residential home. the least desirable. i do not believe they condition find a more suitable site. i do not believe that, there's no reason this insulation should be placed in a quiet neighborhood. my neighbors have lived here for 30 years and it's horrifying. property values can decrease require at&t to work harder and location and it's too small and it's in a residential area and it doesn't building here. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony? >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> great. i wanted to just call in and give my comments on the projects and i have kids and i'm concerned about the health desks of this an tina being so close and i understood the health department hasn't submitted their support yet on the effects of the radiation and i think from a safety perspective and and the effects on children and developing and and we don't know enough about this yet to try and experiment like this and my address is that 604 seventh and just a block away from rossy park, thank you. >> hell oh good afternoon commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak and i'm the first speakers' husband. we lived in this house for 30 odd years and i was an inside wire man in san francisco for my career and i'm currently retired. we were hoping to age in place at this place and when this project goes in its going to take the sun away in the winter and suggestly in the late fall and early spring and taking shade away from my garden and put it so it would have a devastating impact on us and also the general neighborhoods will be seeing these screens and your guidelines you are supposed to consider the effect the project will have on the residential areas, land use, as they had anesthetic and it willn impact on the enabled and devastating on us. please, ask at&t to find another location. thank you for your consideration. >> my name is katie and i grew up here and i hope to be pregnant and spend time during the pregnancy and raise my child in this home. i've gotten a break from my social work to do this. i heard frontline workers and cry and laugh because it's been disrupting my work. i'm trying to squeeze in time between two service and my parents stay in their home and it's not inaccessible and it's a to feel like frontline workers are valued and this is happening and down the to specifics. we have locations have been preference and i don't believe there are no in the region also i made a sunshine ordinance request to rec and park two weeks ago and received no documentation so that is a separate issue, this will be a blithe on the neighborhood. many neighbors will see it and destroy our neighborhood character. my mother has multiple disability and received social security and my mother's home inaccessible to her many of had he nodes access to sunlight and receiving it outside of her home due to her mobility and cut off some of her only online and disabled individuals and access online and those who can leave their home and row duce the sunlight in her backyard. studies show that property values will go down and my parents will lose their savings for health ear if they need to leave their home making it difficult to buy a new home and remain in the city. who is accountability for this harm to my family. it would throw their families under are buzz for 98% decks and bedrooms are right there besides an a poster up that has said it's the 16th and it's a lie. it's undem a cratic to push through this during a pandemic and we're all in crisis right now. i only beg you not to harm our community and our family and i trust you will take the needs of the community over a benefit of a large corporation and our neighborhood is protected from this harm. thank you for harm and consideration. >> thank you many of members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no other requests to speak, the public comment is closed and the matter is behind you, commissioners. >> commissioner diamond. >> i appreciate the time that at&t spent doing the due diligence to see whether or not rossy was an option and it turns out it's not. it's very unfortunate. i'm concerned we're being asked to vote ton a preference location and without and i quote the requirement clearing and convincing evidence that the good face efforts to made for a prefered location. in the report, it indicates that every other site approached. the city has i understand from the staff approved in the past, only two preference sites and i possible prepared to do so if i received evidence that everything is turned over to make sure there wasn't a higher preference site and mere you september out letters to other sites and no one responded doesn't seem enough for me at this point in time. would anyone like to make a motion? >> >> i would move to continue and i'd like to ask the sponsor how much time they would need to do additional due diligence to figure out if there aren't higher preference sites available. how they're involved and how much time you need to do it? >> so we are happy to go ahead and reach out again to all of the viable buildings in the area and see if we can get a response and as we typically send a letter via federal express and then follow-up after two weeks with a phone call. you know, we can continue to do that and it takes about a month or maybe two months to mack sure we get a response. the problem is we can't knock on doors because most of the property owners are not there. i'm happy to continue it for two months and we can go ahead and try again reaching out to more property owners in the area. >> can you reach out to property owners other than preference 7? i heard staff indicate that the balboa and the geary ncds, you didn't think were viable but i'm not really sure how much you've explored those. those would be a higher preference? >> well, sure. i understand that and if we can make that work, that would be great. we do have other sites in the area that cover those areas so when we go to build this site worwe're trying to direct the coverage towards the specific area where the gap is and we don't want to, at the same time, interfere with the other sites or duplicate coverage and we can look at it again and see if there's a way to angle the antennas in a different way and come back in two months and present that >> thank you. so i would continue this item for two months? >> very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded and public comment is closed. i do see one person requesting to speak. special i take that caller? >> yes, take the caller and we'll continue with the question? >> very good. >> caller, you have two minutes. >> hi, sorry. it's me again. katie. and i just want -- >> ma'am, if you had already public comment, we cannot take your public comment unless commissioners are asking a direct question. commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter for two months to november 19th, on that motion --[ roll call vote ] >> clerk: so moved, that months passes 6-0. it places under your discretionary review calender for item 13, case 2019-019671drp at 1463 43rd avenue. is staff prepared to present? >> i'm, can you hear me? >> yes, we can, david and i will make you the presenter in case you have anything to share. >> thank you, i don't. good afternoon (inaudible). david winslow staff architect. before you is a request for a discretionary review of building permit application 2019 2019-1003.3488 to construct 157 square foot expansion to the front of a third floor setback greater than 15 feet from the front facade of 1463 43r 43rd avenue. and the dr requesters of 1461 43rd avenue residents of the adjacent property to the north are concerned that the proposed project will block light to their light well. residential design guideline related to articulation of buildings to minimize to light and privacy and the proposed alternative to eliminate the portion of the addition next to their building. the department's review of this residential dough sign team reviewed this and proposal and confirmed it meets the residential design guideline with life and privacy and that the proposed does not create circumstances and the dr requestors site setback provides light to its own windows and the additional massing of the proposed addition which is setback two feet from the shared property line to match the white we will as minimal and staff recommends not taking the dr and approving. this concludes my presentation and i am available to answer questions, thank you. >> the d.r. is daniel church. let's see if i can find them. >> there's italon and i put no the invitation late this morning and i'm not sure it went out to them. >> mr. church, you have five minutes. >> ok. let's see, i have a presentati presentation. >> david. >> hello. >> that presentation should be in the cpc presentations under the folder titled with this address. i don't have access due to my computer problems. >> i'll have my staff pull it up. >> just give me one second. >> mr. church, your presentation is up and you have five minutes >> thank you for the opportunity. if you remember, ok, let's go there. right there. we have two issues. this is the issue that david mentioned. this will have an impact on light further in reducing light into our property. especially mid-morning light, which is pretty scarce to begin with because the sun is lower. the more important, not more important but the more prominent issue, i think is under issue number two, next slide, please. thank you. we find there are significant errors and inconsistency in the plans that have been submitted to the point where we are not certain what the tal ownons wiso do with this project. namely outside, we find the measurements are way off. the roof height they cite at back is the same in the front and the rear say foot lower. these are pretty -- they have an impact on an area in which they're going to be doing work or near where they're going to be doing work and i think it has a big impact on a project where the proposal is not to raise the roof height. now, we also have to comment on some of the issues that were direct to the project and they were raised by the materials that are in your packet and so, i would like to go to the next slide and point out some issues with that project. the issues that we take seriously are ones where folks don't follow the rules. we follow the rules and i'm going to point that out later in just a minute. here, i'm just going to summarize some violations over the last 17 years since we've been living there. they've all been brought by us. we aren't going to hide that. i don't believe that it's necessarily makes us some kind of bad guy. for example, in 2004 the previous owner constructed a third or started the construction of a third there were edition without having a permit. they were required to go through the process, get the right permit. it took them another two years, it was issued in 2006 and they went ahead with the project. in 2018, mr. tallon constructed an 8-foot boundary fence and this wasn't even on our boundary and i mean, we asked for an inspection on another issue and the inspector took one look at the other boundary and decided d to six feet. but then there's another issue that really bothers us because it also talks to the process that is involved in all of this. also in 2018, based on our comments, there was a notice of violation issued over the work done on the front deck. the original permit called for the deck and you see on the left and to be replaced in kind. what was done and the course of construction was the deck you see on the right. now, this created this was a different field of the house and we felt it was unnecessary and it was also then legalized but over the counter and public or (inaudible). i'm just going to point out that we have been strong believers in following rules. we have had one mistaken complaint in 17 years. in fact it was so long tractor-trailethebuilding inspei please, finish. >> thank you, sir. that is your time. you got your five minutes. you do have a two-minute rebuttal. >> excuse me? >> that was your time. you will have a two-minute rebuttal though. >> mr. tallon, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, sir. can you hear me? >> i can. >> ok. am i on? >> you are. >> all right. hello, everybody, thank you for your time. so we see have filed this 10 months ago. we just feel that this request is not warranted and has zero merit. this dr request. the request asked that strongly urges ha steps number one and two are taken which is mediation and discussion with the neighbors both of which did not happen. there was zero mediation. the d.r. filing instructions also mentioned that the application has been improved by the planning and the applicant may file for planning commissioner if there are excessional and extraordinary circumstances associated with the project. we're unsure and unclear what they are from the dr application request. which they would feel that they would think that we should do with our project and i don't think that that should be the guidelines of how this thing is improved or not approved. question number two on the dr asks to please explain how this project would issue unreasonable impacts. if you believe your property or the neighborhood would be unreasonably affected by the state and maybe we can get a visual of what we're talking about. this is a picture of the window and this is a building a three-storey in front that is the highest comment and there's no window down below and we are closing a door at the front of the building. and how a window can have any effect on what you see right there and beyond me and this is regardless it doesn't matter and the sun is on the other side of the building and maybe we can flip to the next picture. this is a picture of the dr requester's house built in, i'm not sure. the building to the right is a building that is 100-years-old and they have a window on the bottom right-hand section and this was built right in front of this as, i believe, it's legally allowed to do and how we're spending 11 months discussing and arguing over how we need to make our edition valid is i'm not sure exactly what we need to say. maybe the next slide if there's one more. this is the front of our building where the small dome is going to be. the dr's request mentions light well, it's a window, it's a south-facing window. we have zero modifications to the rear of our building. i don't exactly no why they're talking about hide of the back building. all this work was permitted. we've lived there for four years. they mention 17 years of issues and it's four years. everything we've done and we have permits for and we got it approved and we have everything signed off and we've had building inspectors here multiple times. they have to come out, i agree, but they have told us off the record they need to come out here and it is a waste of their time and that's all i have to say here. >> does that conclude your presentations. members of the public this is your opportunity to submit your testimony and the rebuttal. >> you have two minutes. >> thank you. well, i'm just going to finish my presentation. if we go down from where we left off if we can put that back up. which is the slide with the front of the house, this was legal iced and it shouldn't have been done. next slide, please. ok. we're strong believers in this. we think the rules need to be obeyed by everybody. we think the rules need to be enforced vigorous low and they need to be enforced uniformly. next slide. here is what we think. we think that the safety and light is an issue and mostly we are concerned that the plans are wrong and are going lead us to be enable to reach any kind of smart conclusions about what we'll end up when this is over. thank you. >> ok. mr. tallon, you have two minutes. >> thank you. rebuttal, i know i think mr. church, i don't believe they live on the house, it says they live there but i don't think they live there. i don't know why they keep talking on about the deck. the deck was reviewed and approved so it has zero to do with this project. their next question was we think that the dr request is super specific and it nodes to cite codes and there's zero, we think we would pre fer that's great. i walk around san francisco all the time and just because you have a window on the side of your house, does not stop someone from building something right next to you. this is a window on the side of their house. they decided to put a window on the side of the house. we're not building in front of it. the building is already there. so, i don't know what else to say about that. what was my next essential. it's unable and it's not enable. so, other than that, it's what we've got. >> i have two questions for mr. winslow. there's a comment in the dr request just statement and speaking about a light well and i do personally not see a light well. could you please clarify that's just a question of terminology here? >> i apologize commissioner moore. just as you started to ask your questions, my internet decided to have lack of connection. >> the dr request a statement with a light well. i personally do not see a light well. we are very, very concerned about light wells being matched and i do not see the changes to the applicants' proposal, is that correct? >> correct. so, we are sensitive to matching light wells when light wells are concerned. we are also equally sensitive to matching side, set backs, so in looking at this project, there were two considerations with respect to the light accessing the dr requesters windows in that side setback. is one where is the proposed addition going in relation to the window and that was going well behind it and as mr. tallon pointed out. there's an existing third-storey edition setback or set off the existing property line by two feet so that's kind of in a way matching or creating a reciprocal condition with that side setback. the proposed edition is well in front of our behind -- it's in front of that light well. in other words it's extending beyond it in a way that won't impact it and it's also set off from the mute tile propert mutuy two feet. we deemed there was no impact to that window to the level of exceptional. >> my second question for you is, this project is code com ploy antcompliant, correct? >> correct. >> i personally do not see anything exceptional or extraordinary which is a basis for dr as i often do, i'd like to make a comment that this project is exally well presented and sufficient information for all of us to see exactly what is and what is intended so i'm in full support of the project and i will not take dr but make a motion to approve. >> second. >> second. >> if there are no further deliberations from the commissioners, there's a motion that is 2 he to approve as proposed on that motion -- [ roll call vote ] >> so moved, that motion passes 6-0 and concludes your agenda. >> thank you. >> take care. >> have a good day, y'all. >> bye, everybody. historic preservation remote hearing for wednesday, september 16, 2020. i would like to enter the following into the record. the mayor declared a state of emergency related to covid-19. further more, the mayor and governor issued emergency -- [inaudible] -- to boards and commissions making it possible to hear commission hearings remotely. on may 29, the mayor's office authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. this will be our 7th hearing. we request your patience in advance to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this live and we'll receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgovtv is displaying the call-in number on the bottom of the screen. and comments are opportunities to speak during public comment are available by phone by calling 1-415-655-0001, and entering access code, 146 179 5679. when you are connected and would like to submit public comment for an agenda item, press star and then 3 to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime. when the allotted time is reached, i will announce time is up. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute your television or computer. i'd like to take roll. >> president hyland: here. >> vice president matsuda: here. >> commissioner black: here. >> commissioner foley: here. >> jonas: commissioner johns? >> commissioner pearlman: here. >> commissioner so: here. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners. first on the agenda is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the is reached in the meeting. we should open this up for public comment. each member has three minutes. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star and 3 to be entered in the queue. commissioners, i have no members of the public raising their hand requesting to speak. so we can then move on to department matters. item 1, director's announcements. welcome, director hillis. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, commissioners. a couple of items. one, i think after your last meeting, you heard that jeff johnson is not -- and liz has stepped in as -- [inaudible] director for planning. we're undergoing a search to fill that position permanently. so in the interim, [inaudible] contacts, elizabeth and mark will be the present contact. i will also, if you need me at any time, please reach out and i'll try to --. i also would like to let you know that the department was approved. i think it's got some final approvals, or the mayor has -- [inaudible] it was about for the city-wide survey program. -- [inaudible] to what we proposed in the budget reductions. so there is funding in the budget to carry us a significant way. the city-wide survey, we'll come and report on that to you. so that is my report. other items as well, but thank you and good seeing you. >> jonas: sorry, commissioners, i'm just trying to help out commissioner johns in the background to enter the hearing. thank you, director hillis. item 2, review of past events and planning commission, staff report and announcements. i don't believe there are any announcements other than what director hillis provided. we can move on to item 3, president's report and announcements. >> president hyland: no report or announcements. >> item 4, consideration of the adoption draft minutes for the august 19 and september 2, 2020 hearings. commissioners, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the minutes, please press star and 3. i see no hands requesting to speak. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: okay. any comments on either of these two, or a motion for approval. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners, on that motion then to adopt the minutes for august 19 and september 2. >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> vice president matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. i will remind commissioners and staff who have entered at panelists, the web x microphones are extremely sensitive, so remember to mute when not speaking. it would be very helpful on the feedback. that places us on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president hyland: i don't see any. anyone have comments or questions? okay. >> jonas: we can move on to consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 6, 20189197coa vallejo street. [please stand by] [please stand by] . . . . placing us under the regular calendar for items a-e for case numbers 2020-7531, 7532, and following. for properties at 915 howard street, 1315 and 989 market street. and these are legacy business registry applications. is staff prepared to make their presentation? kate? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. you are not the presenter. >> i believe we have a new staff person who i believe is going to be introduced. >> who is making that introduction? >> thank you, jonas. sorry about that. so we have a new staff person with the planning department and i would like to introduce him to the commission. he is a san francisco native. he's got a bachelor's of science degree in landscape architecture. he came to planning and came to the department in may of this year as an assistant planner in the southeast quadrant and is one of several staff working on legacy business combinations. please welcome al. >> good afternoon, commissioners. katie willburn of planning staff. we have five legacy business applications today that i will quickly introduce. the first two applications will be done by al and directly after i will present on the remaining three. go ahead. >> hello, commissioners.

Related Keywords

Mission District , California , United States , Georgia , Togo , North Beach , San Francisco , Anne Green , Steve Collier , Brian Pritchard , Lisa Audrey , Jeff Hawes , Ashley Lindsey , David Winslow , Pauli Marshall , David Serrano , Ed Snyder , Teresa Flanders , Tom Murphy , Geary Ncds ,