Or outbursts. Please silence mobile devices. Please state your name for the record. We have made provisions for Translation Services in spanish, cantonese. If you need a listening device, you can get one from the table on the right side my right side of the room. I will take roll at this time. We expect commissioner mel gar absent today. First is consideration of items for continuance. 1100 vanness item allocation revocation proposed to continue to november 21, 2019. Item two. 37 saturn street. Conditional use proposed to continue to novembe 95nordhoff street indefinite continuance. 4. Bayshore boulevard conditional use authorization withdrawn. Further under your 3 00 p. M. Calendar we received requests to continue item 15 for case 2019 higher 01356gen for the informational presentation to november 7. 17. 146 geary street to december 5. Item 18. 220 post street. Conditional use authorization to december 5th. And further under your discretionary review items 21a and b for cas 3847 through 3849 18th street discretionary review and variance. I have no other items forty youance and no speaker cards. Any member of the public to comment on these items proposed for continuance. Representing the project sponsor for 17 and 18. We know you have a long agenda today, but these two items are the first retail to Office Conversion request in union square after the legislation earlier this year. We need more time to connect with stakeholders. We would respectfully ask to continue to december 5th. We have a couple members of the team the days before and after please continue to december 5th. Anyone else for Public Comment on items for continuance . Seeing none. I am kevin chang. 3847 to 3849 18th street. My concern is the continuance was requested less than 24 hours. I requested with Mutual Consent with staff it should be done with advance notice. This was scheduled for tonight. It is second to the last matter to be heard tonight the matter should be continued indefinitely to allow staff time to sort out the matter for 311 notification if it needs resent out to determine the extent of violations growing for this project, to take time to get right the projects matters by this commission. Projects with less violations had permits revoked or some other projects had permits suspended for 24 to 36 months. Zoning administrator said better safe than sorry. Same caution needs to be here. Public has a right to know what happened, to have confidence the system and Department Staff are fair in how it handles the violations. Otherwise the public is left with the question whether or not staff is incompetent or corrupt. Please continue this indefinitely until staff is repaired to give a full evaluation on the matters presented from there to get proper evaluation before it is heard aga. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public. On the same matter 3847 18th street. This has been in the commissions hands. This is the fourth continuance. This has been in the commissions hands for six months. We reluctantly agree to this additional continuance, but indefinitely requested by the project applicant, we take huge issue with. This is in the washing machine for six months. This is the fourth continuance if you guys do this. We need to get this done and have a decision. Thank you for your time respectfully. Any other members of the public like to comment on the items proposed for continuance. Seeing none. Commissioner johnson. Move to continue item 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 21a and 21b to the dates specified. Second. Commissioner richards. I am looking at the 11 14 calendar. We have 2417 green street. That is the one that i have a stack this high at home going on forever. I would like to move to offer friendly amendment to move item 21a to a more appropriate date when we have more time. I believe that would be december 19th. Commissioner fung. This is the fourth continuance, and i think that is too many. We should make a decision or not, one way or the other. I am not supportive of that continuance. Commissioner moore. I am comfortable with the continuance. I would like the Commission Secretary to make the call about the calendar being full. I would agree with that observation, but you are normally the person calling anal alarming us to the calendar. I wouldnt have recommending to the 14th if i didnt think your calendar could handle it. I couldnt hear you. I wouldnt recommend it continued to the 14th if i didnt think the calendar could handle it. You are free to do what you would like to. If the maker of the motion accepting the friendly amendment. Commissioner moore. I would like to comment that i think or calendars are completely overcrowded and completely relieving after an hour and a half or two, i would like to see balance. I would like to say in the upcoming weeks, all the way through december 30th our calendars are quite full. We have a tems we would like a single line item that will take hours and hours. We need to take that reality check before we say a calendar is full or not. Is that based on your observation, commissioner richards. It is. I would support your asking for a further pushing out of that particular item. Commissioner fung. Commissioner, perhaps we can have a separate vote on that particular item. I am happy to do a separate vote. Commissioners, i think what he is saying we thought we could handle it on the 14th of november. I think that gives staff enough time to come up with the information we need. In the calendars, part of the reason that calendars are full and they are short is that projects pulling out or get continued. It is hard to know that in advance. I just want to say that the 14th could work and we could get the information to you in advance. Shall i call that question then with the exception to 21a. Yes. On that motion to continue items proposed except for item 21a. So moved commissioners that passes unanimously 50. Is there a motion for 21a. Commissioner richards. Move to continue to december 19th. Second. On that motion for item 21a to be continued to december 19 december 19th. Roll call]. So moved commissioners that passes 41 with commissioner fung voting against. If these acting Zoning Administrator could continue 21b. We will continue 21b to december 19th as well. Thank you. Commissioners that would place us under your consent calendar. Never mind the sheriff is here. Great. That will place under the consent calendar. All matters contitute the consent matter may be acted upon by a single roll call vote there will be no separate consideration unless requested. Then it will be removed. Item 5 case 2018, case street and item 6. 2956 24th street conditional use authorization. Any members of the public to comment on the items proposed for approval. You would like to have item 5 off consent. 24 clay street off. That will come after items 1211 and 12. It will be awhile. Any other members of the public . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commission commissioners. Commissioner richards. Move to approve except item 6. Second. Thank you. On that motion to approve item 6 under your consent calendar. So moved tht passes unanimously 50. Placing us item 7 consideration of draft minutes for october 10, 2019. Would any members of the public like to comment on the draft minutes. Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore. Move to approve. Second. Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt to minutes for october 10, 2019. [roll call]. That mows passes unanimously 50. We are on item 8 commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore. Hour questions. Four questions. I read in the paper that ucsf has plans to expand. We have looked at the institutional master plan and thought it to be stable. I read in the paper. I do not know the originator. That is it not true. I would like to hear from you in the upcoming weeks of what our position will be on that matter my second question is walking through town i see a lot of expired large meeting notification on all kinds of meetings. When i see the new ones and read them, i stop to read old ones long overdue, may, june. My question what are the rules surrounding the removal of those old notices. I dont know the answer to that. Commissioner, the short answer there are no rules. That is something to explore as a policy matter with the department. I think at some point it is a question of Building Maintenance and appearance. It luke. It wk bad with how reconduct ourselves with proper posters and regularly scheduled meetings. I would like to see that we address that in some form. My third question i appreciate receiving staff update with the restaurant with no complaints except for one small incident. I appreciate the thorough writing of that report. My last question is funny because i hardly noticed it. Why is Public Comment today being put to the end . That is highly unusual. I am wondering what caused us to do that. The cause is we are short one commissioner down to six. Our Commission President is out. We are aware one commissioner needs to leave early today. It threatens our quorum and ability to consider the action items. We have done this in the past. We dont expect it regularly. Occasionally we push it to the end of the agenda. It is easier for us to understand sitting here. It is hard for the public to understand because they prepare in a certain manner. We are put in a difficult situation short one commissioner out of seven and with absences. I appreciate your, plan nation. Thank you. Your explanation. If there is nothing further we will move to item 9. Directors announcements. I will say that there has been ucsf to remind you they are a state institution they dont come to the commission for approval, but they are working on their master plan. I fully expect. There is a Citizen Advisory Group meeting regularly with ucsf. We will be in touch with them to come on a voluntarily basis to the commission which they have done in the past. To be clear the master plan isnt determined yet. They are working on it. They have to do work to the existing buildings including replacing the existing hospital. It is a big deal. We will get them here before the master plan is final item 10 review of past events of the board of supervisors and board of appeal. Historic preservation did not meet yesterday. Afternoon, commissioners. Manager of legislative affairs. First is the ordinance to permit the Grocery Store at 555 fulton street with conditional use authorization. We heard this last week and recommended approval with modifications that included removing the reporting requirement and the sun set clause and clerical amendments. There was concern about nonformula Grocery Stores less affordable and why th the sun st provision was removed. Stuff clarified the operator is not in complains the Planning Commission can revoke the authorization. Any future tenant would have to comply with the approval regardless of the approval of sunset clause. They explained the recommendation to explain was to allow future tenants should trader joes leave without passing another ordinance. They moved to approval without the recommendation to remove the sun set clause. Additionally the language regarding how they are not as affordable was removed. I would note the affordability claim was in the study on the retail done in 2014. Next they considered the legislative changes and Development Agreement for 3333 california street this. Is a mixeduse project 734 dwelling units, 25 are affordable. 15,000 square feet of child care. Planning heard this on september 5th voted to certify and approof with entitledments and ledge lanetive changes. The public expressed concerns with the trees being removed. The type of retail use is permitted. The permitted hours of operation. They supported the alternative endorsed by the improvement association. Supervisor peskin asked if parking could be reduced from onetoone, which was agreed to. Supervisor stephanie made reduction in the few permitted uses in the controls plus reduction of hours of operation reducing the late from 2 00 a. M. To midnight. The committee considered both the jobs housing linkage fee and jobs housing fit report at the same time. The Planning Commission heard the jobs housing balance report on september 19th and voted to recommend approval. The fit report was repaired by the budget and legislative analysis published on october 16. It was done at the request of supervisor mar. It looked at actual and projected job growth and compares to Housing Projection. Not surprisingly they concluded insufficient construction of bmr housing as measured by the growth of lower wage jobs. It did not make any policy recommendations how the city should increase production of the units. It did include two nonpolicy recommendations. First the board could request planning for the annual report comparing the housing growth for income. Supervisor marindicated that he will introduce legislation to do that. The second the board could request to more closely track the revenue and report to the board the report was presented as preview to the linkage fee hearing which is why they were called together. During the Public Comment there were speakers, vast majority were in support of increasing the fee. Supervisor haney introduced amendments so the projects before september 10th would pay 57. 14 per square foot. After that date but before january 1st, 2020 would pay 63. 37 and after january 1st, 2022 would pay 69. 90. They forwarded to the full board with positive recommendation on 23 vote with supervisor safai voting against. I would note in the report this morning it includes Additional Information about the jobs housing or right fit housing report. This week supervisor brown and peskins 2031 bush street passed second read and the soma Advisory Community ordinance passed the second read. Supervisor peskin amended the planning code to add residential use characteristic called immediate length occupancy for corporate rentals we will bring it to you. Thank you. Did board of appeals met last night. 1794 filbert street was considered earlier this year where you denied the Building Permit for the vertical addition to the subject property. Zoning administrator denied the variance. The board heard this item on september 11, 2019 and continued to allow additional time for the Planning Department to reduce the size of the addition such that the variance would no longer be required and add one adu on the ground floor during this time the project sponsor addressed design comments and issued the adu waivers. They will approve as reviewed. 471 jessie street. The bedder hear board heard it d the appeal which led to disapproval because the mdu was not authorized for on site smoking. The original application indicated on site consumption would not be provided and clearly stated in the hearing materials. The board voted to deny appeal. They heard the appeal of Building Permit on the subject property Planning Commission heard this in october of 2018 and unanimously approved without modifications. The addition is within the rear yard with variance from the Zoning Administrator. It was appeal would to the board of supervisors in 2019 which withheld it. The variance was appealed to the board of appeals in april of 2019 which upheld the variance decision. Last night the board of appeals upheld the Building Permit application for the subject property. If there are no questions, we can move to your regular calendar, commissioners item 11 and 12a and b for case 2016006860env and ika at 65 ocean avenue. You will consider an appeal to the preliminary mitigated negative declaration, a home sf project authorization and in kind agreement. For the benefit of the public, both the appeal and the project authorizations will be considered together under one Public Comment period. Once staff makes their presentation, the appellant to the negative declaration will receive 10 minutes. Sponsor will respond to the appeal and present their project for a period of 15 minutes. Then we have granted organized opposition which will receive 10 minutes. Then open it up to the Public Comment period. Through the chair, i believe Public Comment will be reduced to two minutes per person. Vice president koppel and members of the commission. Michael lee, planning Department Staff. The item before you is the appeal of preliminary mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project at 65 ocean avenue. Last week we transmitted a packet containing a draft motion and appeal response. Appeal letter and amended m and d. I submitted minor amendments to exhibit a of the draft motion. In appeal response 3 on page 5 there is a table. We corrected one of the numbers and added a note to the table. We can address that in more detail if you have specific questions later in the hearing. The decision before you today is whether to adopt a motion to affirm the m and d if you find it could not have a significant effect on the environment. If affirm it may take action on entitlements. You can also send it back to planning for specific revisions or over rule and require the Planning Department to prepare an Environmental Impact report if you find there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the commission sends the m and d back to planning or requires planning to prepare ir the commission cannot take action on the entitlements at todays hearing. With that i will provide a brief overview of the project. This is a one acre. The site is just under one acre it consists of demolishing existing structures and new building with 193 units. One, two and three bedrooms with 48 below market rate units. There would be a 5942 square foot child care facility and below glared parking. Below grade parking. The appeal adjusts the ad was city of the discussion of the projects compatibility with existing zoning and plans, cumulative impact analysis, transportation analysis, and the population and housing impacts analysis. The pm and d discussed the project compatibility with adopted plans. The strategy is not an ad adopted plan but the project is generally consistent with strategy luh1. 1 to provide 48 below market rate units at varying affordability levels. The analysis considered projects within a quarter mile radius of the site for cumulative impacts this is consistent with the Planning Department standard approach. For the transportation analysis we did use halfmile radius. That is sufficient to capture other projects that could combine with the proposed project to create cumulative impacts. The transportation analysis used the latest guidelines available at the time. These are more conservative than the 2019 guidelines. In that they use higher trip generation rates and loading demand calculations. It is a more conservative analysis we conducted. The 91 915 compas included. Regarding population and housing impacts, socioeconomic impacts are not Environmental Impacts. They have not provided evidence that the two are linked. Regarding displacements of on site child care facilities, one facility has already relocated to 327 capitol avenue. The other will be relocated to 203 cotter avenue. The project includes a new on site child care facility in conclusion, the pmnd adequately discussed or analyzed the existing zoning and plans. Cumulative and population and housing impacts. The apple laboratory has not pro appellant has not provided argument with the significant impacts. We recommend you affirm the m and d. In addition to my colleagues, i am available to answer questions. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners, veronica flores, planning Department Staff. This is a request for authorization at 65 ocean. It including demolition of existing commercial buildings and new construction of the residential building with 193 units, 25 of which are below market rate. Additionally, 40 of these units are family sized and include two or three bedrooms. Lastly, there will be the child care facility at the ground level accommodating up to 25 children as part of the home sf program, the project is pursuing three Development Bonuses including additional height, form base density and ground floor height bonus. To fit affordability there is exceptions that are standard and regularly you grant these modifications to accommodate the increased density. The first modification relates to open space. The project proposes more than 17,000 square feet of usable open space through the rear yard and inner courts. They do not meet the strict height requirements and therefore requires a zoning modification under home sf. The second modification relates to exposure. The project proposes 57 units that gained dwelling unit exposure on an open area that does not expand in horizontal dimension at each higher floor and requires zoning modification. The rear yard. The project proposes two inner courts when combined equal 22 of the lot area. Also the courts are not located in the interior corner of the lot, as such both zoning modification and exception required. The modification would allow the project to provide less than 25 of the lot area with the exception would allow them to be located elsewhere on the lot. To date the department has received 16 letters in support of the project siting support for Affordable Housing, jobs, child care on site. The department received five letters in opposition of the project. Opposition generally centers on overall design and concern it does not include Affordable Housing or family sized unit. The department has received 30 form letters in support of and 1,000 support letters in opposition. This includes the petitions received last week during the hearing. The Department Recommendations that you approve the project for the following reasons. The project provides rental housing including 25 on site below market rate units. This is in excess of the amount required by the planning code, 18 for other similarly conventional projects the project will provide Family Housing. Specifically this including 57 two bedroom units and 22 three bedroom units. The project would provide a much needed on site child care facility and the project is well designed and accommodates a relatively defense Family Housing in a manner consessisnt with the context. One housekeeping matter. Like other Residential Projects this project is subject to the child care impact fee. It is however seeking a fee waiver for on site child care through in kind agreement. This will be in front of you this fall for consideration. This is typical that most in kind agreements follow after entitlements when the details are fully vetted. You need to continue the in kind to later date. This concludes staff recommendation. I am available to answer any questions. Thank you. The appellant has 10 minutes is the appellant here or in the overflow room in room 16 . The appellants to make their way to room 400, please. Good afternoon, members of the commission. I am charlie. I am here on behalf of the people organizing to demand environmental and economic rights. We are deeply rooted in the excelsior district. In the last 28 years since we were founded we have never submitted an appeal to an environmental determines of the Housing Project and we see this as deeply meaningful that we felt we had no other option but to offer this appeal. So we dont take that lightly and we hope that you dont. We are standing alongside our immigrant communities bearing the brunt of environmental racism alongside communities of color from the fe soma to the mission to the bayview. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, National Origin or income respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. We see Environmental Justice as the right to save and healthy environment in the places where we live, work, play, and pray. We are responding to the needs in the communities. In the first generation with resisting harmful land use decisions. From toxic pollution that threaten Community Health and wellbeing. Faced with this reality pushed us further recognizing that we cant always be in the position of saying no to the Second Generation which is centering the voices of the most vulnerable in the Community Planning processes. Faced with the overwhelming power of institutions stripping away Community Voices we need to move further to ensuring the most impacted communities represented in the Decision Making affecting health and livelihood. We ask which of you are those voices centering the voices of the most marginalized and vulnerable in the land use decisions . Unfortunately, for the 65 ocean project we are back to the first generation of work where we have to challenge land use decisions and Environmental Planning that caused more harm than good. When the harm is imposed on communities of collar we call that environmental racism which led us to issue an appeal of the preliminary mit negativedeg colr rake. Declaration. It was insufficient for the four following reasons including incomplete assessment of compatibility with existing zoning and planning, cumulative context of development, miles traveled and impacts to population growth. So beginning with the first, you may be familiar, this is the San FranciscoPlanning Department sponsored Mission Neighborhood strategy processed launched in 2017, which was a year and a half long process in partnership with District Supervisor safai. The pm and d didnt refer to this plan that your department sponsored. Not only that. It did not reflect any of the Community Priorities related to land use and housing that emerged from the plan. So just to read quotes from the plan. The Planning Department worked in coordination with the supervisor for a multipronged to develop the goals, strategies and action. It includes various methods for opportunities for residents and businesses to participate. To conduct a more in depth process to develop the action items the city assembled the stakeholders to take a deep dive into complex subject matters such as land use and housing and build relationships with each other and allow consistent participation for the strategy to build over time. As the process unfolding, they recognized that many Community Voices were not represent would including those of isolated people and Business Owners and youth and had to deepen and extend the process. So that process landed on this finding, which is in quotes as a result of the working Group Members strong desire to address Housing Needs combined with lack of agreement on the best approach to do so, the strategy adopted is to call for a corridor wide housing plan focused omission street and the surrounding residential areas. 65 ocean falls within the planning boundary defined in the strategy. Here you see the District Supervisor proudly celebrating this Community Based planning effort and clearly taking a lot of pride in the findings that include the land use and housing strategies. The pm and d does not actually incorporate any of this analysis into its own report, and since the department has not followed through on the commitment to create a housing plan that would produce this agreement around land use and housing, it is inappropriate to approve the pm and d for the 65 Ocean Development. Second, around cumulative context of development projects. In the nine year period between the First Quarter of 2008 and the First Quarter of 2017, 148 new units were produced in the neighborhood according to the housing balance report. In the pm and d it states 274 units in the pipeline, 185 increase. Based on Community Tracking of 978 are in construction in the pipeline which is 660 increase which was not considered in the pm and d. We believe the cumulative impact will result in substantial impacts that have not been fully studied. More over, the proposed mitigation suggested in the pm and d are inadequate due to the projections in the document and the level of development currently underway. Here is a map that shows that concentration of Development Activity in the neighborhood. In plaque is 65 ocean in black is 65 ocean. The others come to close to 1,000 units in the pipeline. This development clearly anticipates a majority of high income earners which studies have shown are more likely to drive, more likely to use ride share such as lyft and uber and to shop online. This is a transit rich corridor with no minimum parking requirements the developer proposes 121 Parking Spaces of which only one for child care. This development clearly doesnt expect to have many transit users and is planning for a lot of car use. The increased frequency of lyft and yo uber wg up the bus lines. This is more appropriate for development which will bring transit riders with respect to population growth, the Outer Mission has a higher proportion of family households 767 . He 76 . 22 of households are overcrowded. The 65 Ocean Development not only proposes majority of studios only nine are affordable to working class families in this workings class neighborhood. This the development to exacerbate Current Conditions affecting the local population and the negative declaration has not adequately considered these conditions. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have 15 minutes. Please stand by for realtime ca. The x a as well. Before i stae we have translated the sponsor s anyone that requires a translatf you could please come up and gro have our interpreters on hand aa session. Is this on everyones e auxiliary . So our project is lo, down by cayuga and alemany. In s currently on the project, theres currently home to two childcaree school and crayon box, both of d their future location prior to e property. As with all of the prm undertakes, this was truly a con process. And we are proud that o deliver communitydriven projecd over three years of outreach atc discussions as it relates to als of the project itself. And have0 letters of support, signatures,m merchants and concerned neighboe those were actually provided toe packet ahead of time. A few of d results that came about as a red a half, four years of discoursee highlighted here. Our project i3 multifamily units, 25 percent e affordable. 41 percent of thosed threes. We are providing an one facility, instead of paying theh most projects do. We are proud s with 100 Percent Union labor, p0 construction jobs, and in combie childcare facility and our buils anticipate to employ at least 3s from the neighborhood. The proje are generating onsite power wif space that we have. And in totaa little over 6 million of directe city as well as making an invesf 120 million in the neighborhooy provided the green light to alsl commitment, which weve been woo provide neighborhood preferencet of the units at the project spet 11 residents. I would add that l of this in the form of these coh absolutely no public subsidy. Ty privatelyfunded project. So wef being able to push the boundarys of San Franciscos current devek its very evident to everyone ie in a dire housing crisis, and ie palpable than district 11 whichl construction, which has exacerby over the past 20 years. In the e only seen 10 plus unit buildings been focused on smaller three o. Less than two percent of the co0 or more units. And that really s massive crisis that we are facis that weve heard throughout thi, four years of outreach and dialy have theres reasons for whye are trying to to do our very bey we can with this project to hele project is served by an extremet network. We are within walking a parks muni stop and bus stationg that access to this dense publil provide affordable transportatir residences. This is something tr philosophy as a firm as we desie site is historically included ll and eventually neighborhood ser. We are proud that we are able ta combination of both of those ine project thats being presented g both the elements of the childcs that we are providing to the cou can imagine over the last four s evolved significantly, not leaso follow legislative changes that, including the introduction of hs subsequent amendment. The proje5 units. And at the 18 percent afd have only provided 18 affordablt the time we could have pursued y bonus, but we chose to do betten opportunity here with the site a substantially larger number of d chose to pursue the home sf prod utilizing the tier 2 by taking e additional story of height to p8 of which are affordable at the s specified in home sf. So home sl would have granted us the abilit along cayuga as well, taking inn neighborhood context and the fee neighbors who were engaged heavs with homes residing on cayuga, t appropriate to voluntarily set a tiered design that actually trae along ocean between cayuga to au will see in the renderings a lie building along cayuga matches te singlefamily homes that begin g at the home Sf Development piper project on its own is almost pre number of units that the sum off projects that have been appliede to provide. We really feel thatf provided a great opportunity anf provided a great opportunity too actually take advantage and dele legislation intended, which is d affordable Family Housing, at st of the neighborhood. And doing t your support here, for 65 oceanr home sf. Taking a step back andg affordability and its implicatie specific project at 65 ocean beg at the delivery of 100 percent g projects, district 11 has had ne 2000. The only project ever to e district thats 100 percent affy agerestricted. In the same tim, the six 100 percent affordable t were delivered averaged 44 unitn with absolutely no public subsin public funds is delivering and n entire 100 percent affordable pr context of a project being delit to the government. We are proudh the crayon box. This was the cht was formerly at the property prf the property. The crayon box haa church nearby and will be comine Childcare Center at the buildine with all the necessary modern ae licensing requirements for bothr space. The project itself in tet are being provided has changed. E provided home sf plus. We tht feedback from the community ands leading up to this hearing, toot were raised about the size of tt mix itself. And although home sf