Items proposed for continuance. The first one, conditional use authorization iss ed for continuance to january 18, 2018. Item two, 247 17th avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance indefinitely. Item three, case number 201600585cua, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. Further, commissioners under your item calendar, for the expansion review, this informational presentation is proposed for continuance indefinitely. I have no other items proposed for continuance. I had one item to speak to item eight for the residential expansion threshhold, but i believe it was to the subject matter rather than the continuance. Ok. So, well open it up for Public Comment on the items being proposed for a continuance. [inaudible]. Go ahead. Sure. Absolutely. Ok. Good afternoon. Heres a map that i was going to give you if we had the hearing today. I had mr. Webster make it. It shows all the r. H. Zones. Green is rh1, yellows the no. Red is the rh2 and yellow is the rh3 and you have the ability as a commission to deal with the numerical criteria. Its in the planning code. It says the Planning Commission may reduce the above numerical elements of the criteria in subsections b and b2c by up to 20 of their values should any adjustment be necessary to implement the intent of this section. So, while this is all being jettisoned, you do have a chance to do something even though this has been discontinued indefinitely and heres my point. Heres the material on it. Thank you, have a good day. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment on the items being proposed for a continuance . Seeing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner . Motion to continue items one, two, three to the date specified and item number eight indefinitely. Second. Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items excuse me as proposed. Commissioner fong . [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 50. In places of admission matters, i have four commissioners with comments and questions. Commissioner moore. Thank you to the mayors office. Thank you to the mayor for organizinging the pop up yesterday at city hall. It was a lovely experience. It was apaying to see the variety and quality of local makers and i strongly encourage to do that more often. That is around easter or any other holiday because it animates the [inaudible] in a wonderful way and the products are amazing. Thank you. Seeing no other commissioners comments, department matters. M5, directors announcements. Thank you. Commissioners two announcements today. One, as you know, there are there is a proposal for two separate ballot measures that are being that will be registered to seek signatures. One is related to prop m and one is related to Affordable Housing and teacher housing. And i just a reminder to staff and commissions that at this point we cant take public positions on these measures. But secondly, both of these measures will greatly affect our work. If they do qualify for the boil, well schedule hearings in february to go over how it affects our work and do our normal objective analysis of those measures because they will likely have a substantial impact onawa we do and how we do our work in those areas. Secondly, related to the withdrawal of the residential expansion threshhold, we are the department has decided to suspend our efforts with respect to the r. E. T. If you remember, we had multiple goals there. One was to redo or eliminate the tantamount to demolition, which we believe is currently very ineffective. We wanted to place a more emphasis and size and density of buildings and encouraged owners to build to their permitted density and to replace the demolition controls with something that was a little more clearer as i understand. There was a lot of concern about the way we were doing it, what the goals are and frankly some of the disagreements were not totally clear to me. But nonetheless, we think it is time to pull the plug. And well be focusing just on that, rather than the other parts of the effort. I will say that some of those goals that we initially laid out will not be met, clearly. At this point, it is probably the most prudent thing to do after spending two years on this. We needed to pick our battles. If you dont mind an editorial comment. One of disappointing aspects of the this process has been that theres deliberate misinformation spread by members of the community to the point that they admitted it was misinformation. And that is very disappointing to me. And its one of those things that makes it hard to do our job, but also i guess it is a comment on the Public Discourse these days. On whats acceptable in the Public Discourse and ill just say, for the record, its pretty disappointinging that that is happening here at this time and place. Thank you. That includes my comments. Thank you. Commissioner moore . I have a question. I read the Statement Issued by your department, talking about a collaboration with d. B. I. That is something you kind of did not mention, but i would be interested in hearing you clarify that. Yeah. I think the goal here is to combine efforts and make sure and basically have one definition for demolition between the two. Anybody helping as an arbitrator because the two different definitions have been standing for many, many years and are often the reason for discontent and contradictory solutions. Is there an attempt to have somebody help you negotiate where you have Common Ground . I think what our goal is to only have one definition and have it live in probably the Building Code so that there is only one definition rather than having two separate definitions so well be in dialogue very extensively about that one. One of most disappointing things coming out of this entire process is, one, that it ended. But two, really realising that the Building Department doesnt follow its own processes. I hope that whatever we come up with whether it is a definition that fits in the Building Code or planning code or both codes, after we have our joint meeting that we measure the effectiveness as to whether its followed by the organization that has the definition. That was incredibly disappointing to see that they dont follow their own definition. Commissioner moore. I have one question for you have you been following the modular building of Homeless Housing in san jose . Not today, perhaps, but at some other time you could give us an update of how that would fit for us or doesnt. I thought it was interesting, the solution looks kind of interesting. And it will be perhaps good for the commission as well as the public to know as the communities are doing. Weve been following a lot of modular housing and technologies. Im happy to talk about that in the future. Thank you. I attended a couple of Community Meetings and staff meetings. I thought they were great. Informative. I think the goal the staff did a wonderful goal in trying to advance this. I think there are two kind of goals that were set out. One to figure out a better way they define demolition and then building to the zoning density or both great goals that its unfortunate kind of got stimied in this process. So i appreciate your efforts and all the efforts by staff. If theres nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to review to board of supervise soses board of appeals and the Historic Preservation commission. I understand that you are on a tight timeline today. So, i emailed you the report. Im here if you have any questions about it. I will just note that the two c. U. Appeals at the board of supervisors this week, one for the project at 948 lombard street and the other on irving street were both upheld by the board of supervisors and that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Good afternoon. For just clarity. Mr. Starr, did you have a question . The apellants were not upheld the c. U. S were upheld. Thats what i thought. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tim frye, Department Staff here to share with you a few items from yesterdays Historic Preservation commission hearing. On october 19, i shared with you the initiation of three local public schools. Thee yore roosevelt, George Washington high school and sunshine school, all three of those received a positive recommendation to be forwarded to the board of supervisors at yesterdays h. P. C. S hearing and those hearings will be scheduled some time in the new year. The commission did initiate one new designation at yesterdays hearing. If i could get the overhead, please. This is the Phillips Building located 246 first street. Designed in 1930 by architects myers and clinichart. It is a rare art deco loft building in downtown San Francisco and the Property Owners are initiatinging the local designation. The commission unanimously approved the initiation and that will be scheduled for a second hearing likely in january. That concludes my remarks unless you have any questions. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner richards . One thing on mr. Starrs prior report. If you havent seen the tape on the aeel for lombard at the board of supervisors, that is an interesting watch. If you see supervisor peskin talk about exactly some of the issues that weve been seeing happening. Id encourage everybody to watch that. There is no report from the board of appeals. So we can move on to 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 jurisdiction subject of the commission. It is your. It is your opportunity to address the commission. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I did have several speaker cards. Thank you. Janet fowler, georgia schiudas, richard and if youd like to speak, come on up. In any order. I dont think ms. Powers here. I just want to i was going to show you some photos. You probably dont want to see them. I mean, you know what the problem is. We all know what the problem is. I respect the staff greatly. And i want to make that clear since i dont want to be categorized as spreading false rumors. I dont think i did that. My concern has always been the issue of demolition and how much should be demolished. I think the current criteria in section 317 is really worth looking at in terms of demolition. And that was my concern. I respect the staff. I get what they were trying to do. I didnt understand it. Because i dont think it dealt with the tantamount to demolition as it should. I still think that is a decent concept to work with and one definition of demolition may not be fair to people that want to do legitimate, honesttogod alterations and that is my position. Thank you. And we can talk about it again in the new year. And i really do hope that you consider dealing with the numerical criteria that you have a right to do. And i hope the residential flat policy stays because i think that is really important. And i also hope that youll look at upping the number thats also in the residence in the criteria. The idea that keeping getting rid of that affordability thing for the rh1 is a very important thing. Youve had a lot of projects that are just over that number. 50,000 over. 323 cumberland and 653 28th come to immediate mind. Those things should not have been torn down or looked at in a different way. So, thats all im going to say. I want to thank ms. Watty and ms. Butkus and ms. Bendeks. I think their heart was in the right place and im sorry if everybodys upset. But thats the way it goes. Appreciate it. I know this is not a dialogue time. But i wasnt refering to any comments and staff and i just want to be clear. Staff has appreciated working with you on this. There are other members of the community that i was refering to that had a different story. And i i understand that. And just want to be clear it was not directed at you. Ok. I understand that. I appreciate that. And aappreciate that very much. Because i feel that i feel very strongly about that whole problem. Its only been four years weve been talking about this. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner richards . No, ill wait until the end. Sorry. Yep. Sorry. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im Richard Frisbee from the Laurel Heights improvement association. Id like to discuss the urban Design Guidelines which appears in some way to be mimicking the reshls expansion threshhold problems. In the interest of time, though, im only going to discuss one issue because i think it is representative and that is the makeup of the external Advisory Committee. I have a lengthy letter, to quote, im sorry you found the process unsatisfactory. There have been a huge number of stakeholders involved and it goes on. Lets take a brief look at the stakeholders that were actually included in the Advisory Committee. I think most people would consider neighborhood groups to be major stakeholders. Of the 45 members, exactly three Neighborhood Associations were represented. Three. Thats less than 5 . With developers alone had a greater representation on that Advisory Group than did the Neighborhood Associations. In fact, representives from developers, architects and real estate groups made up approximately 50 of your Advisory Group where as a Neighborhood Association reped less than 5 . And, in fact, the largest Neighborhood Coalition in the city, the coalition of San Francisco neighborhoods, wasnt even invited to be a member. So, if a farmer were to develop a new henhouse, i doubt his Advisory Committee would exist of five hens, five foxes and 25 predators who thought chicken was a good dinner and yet that is exactly what the Planning Departments Advisory Group looks like. On september 25, the coalition of San Francisco neighborhoods sent a detailed 13page letter to the Planning Commission addressing concerns about the draft of the urban Design Guidelines. The letter began, dear commissioners. So, i can only assume that each of you has received a copy. The date, december 7, 10 weeks later, we have received no response whatsoever. Not even the courtesy of a reply that a letter was received. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sue hester. I wanted to talk about demolitions. I think you should acknowledge that you have a former member of the Building Inspection Commission on this commission. And that solution of the demolition issue involves d. B. I. As well as the planninging department. D. B. I. Staff is part of the problem. In my opinion because the commission doesnt see things. And ive been dealing with demolitions and office use per mys for 40 years. And there is a problem and there needs to be a discussion. And i should involve some d. B. I. Commissioners as well as d. B. I. Staff. As well as planning staff as well as anyone thats interested on this commission. This is a big issue. It deserves some attention, that people that are not developers and attorneys for developers and architects from developers but the public that it is involved in. And i would suggest there is a solution somewhere. There has to be a solution somewhere. D. B. I. Follows the uniform Building Code for a lot of definitions. They have their own definitions in the San Francisco wraparound on the uniform Building Code. But the whole way demolitions are manipulated and the whole [inaudible] is manipulated is a substantial problem. I dont think the commission is very well aware of this unless you do this if your private life. Commissioner moore does, i know she does. And commissioner milgar used to do it in her former life as commissioner for d. B. I. But the rest of you dont really understand how much this is a really threshold issue for the survivability of Residential Housing and affordable Residential Housing. Its really substantial. And i dont say you can go start things today, but there should be some discussion involving several commissioners and staff as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comments . Hi. Im here today to talk about a report that the Planning Department wrote in january of this year to Adult Housing for families with children. It shows that the city is building some subsidized housing for very lowincome families and there is enough housing for the ultra wealthy. But what about the middleincome families or even middleincome people with kids . The median Family Income is 108,000 a year and banks will typically give you a loan for a house value of four to five times your annual income. Assuming you have saved enough for the down payment. This means that the median family, who makes 108,000 a year can afford a 500,000 home, which we all know doesnt exist in San Francisco. And probably not even in the inner part of the bay area. So, how do we help middleincome people here in San Francisco . Luckily the report has several suggestions. To quote from page 32, one reason that housing for the missin