Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240712 : compare

Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240712

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 1a, b, and c for case numbers 2019000494 dnx, cua, and vnr are proposed for continuance to september 4, 2020. Item 3, case number 2019016388 cua, item 4, case number 2019017022 cua, is proposed for continuance to october 29, 2020. Further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, item 10, case 2019021010 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. Well 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. Im 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 im here to speak to San Francisco, and i would like to oppose the continuance because were prepared continued from last time, and weve scrambled to get ourselves prepared this time, and we dont 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 thats been proposed. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes, 51, with commissioner imperial voting against. President koppel jonas, ill also continue the jonas, ill 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, im 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, 60. Item 6, commission comments and questions. If there are no requests to speak from commissioners, we can move onto department matters, item 7. Directors 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 peskins 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 m1 and m2 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 60. [inaudible] due to construction on the steep slope. As explained in the departments 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 Inspections 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 100. 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 es 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 weeks hearing, and the board passed on first read supervisor peskins ordinance that would allow restaurants to open on north beach. Thats 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 15minute 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 thats why im 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 tenantoccupied 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 wont 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 im calling about 350352 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 workingclass tenants that are the real victims today. A few years ago, San Francisco made International News when karl jensen, a 93yearold 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 350352 san jose avenue, which i believe will be before you next week. This is a fourunit 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 350352 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 youre all well. This is georgia schiutish. I hope the commission received the email i sent about democalcs as well as the email i sent last week on 910 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 peskins 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 317b2d with an announced start date for new applications just as projects in the rh1 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 thats it, and please look at the emails if you have a chance. Thank you very much, take care, be well, be safe. Byebye. Clerk thank you. Hi. This is stephanie peak from the San Francisco land use coalition. Im 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 ive 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 dont 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 buyfilldisplace continues. We are fostering exclusionary processes that shut out 64 of the population. Please dont approve projects that involve displaced tenants. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im 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 twounit 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 350352 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. Im 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 350352 san jose avenue. Please, please reject this speculative project. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is brian pritchard, and im calling you because i dont want anyone to go through what my neighbor, the late carl jensen, ever have to go through. The landlord was throwing this 93yearold 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 werent here at the time, but im sure a few of you here remember this well. Thankfully, when the commissioners voted in the neighborhoods favor because even though carl was no longer with us, the attempt to throw out a longterm elderly tenant on the street didnt 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 weighin on a project at 350 san jose avenue where once again, the developer is making his profits on the backs of tenants. Heres the Inconvenient Truth the developer wouldnt have brought this property if it werent so easy to kick tenants out to boost profits by building more luxury condos. Thats why the buck stops with the Planning Department because if such projects werent 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 theres a fiveyear look back, so even if people left in t

© 2025 Vimarsana