Th, 2019. And unlike previous weeks, i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Does any member of the public have any Public Comment on the items requested for continuance . With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner koppel . Move to continue items one and two. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue the items as proposed. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. Placing is under commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore . I read an interesting article in the journal speaking about demolition versus deconstruction in the city of palo alto. They have joined or taken the example from portland where the demolition of homes is not just simply a demolition anymore, but it is a systematic destruction of the structure to reuse, recycle, and alleviate excessive landfill due to demolition. This particular piece of legislation is going to affect how going to be in effect in palo alto in 2020 and affect commercial and residential buildings. It would be a very interesting thing for this city to look into and also consider. There are costs associated with it, but that is secondary to the benefit of what this program could achieve. I will hand it handed around for people to read. Thank you. I also wanted to say that while i was on vacation, my email got hacked. If you got an email from me asking you to purchase amazon cards or whatever, it wasnt from me and i apologize. If theres nothing further, we can move onto department matters. Item four, directors announcement. No new announcements today. Item five his review of past events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals in the Historic Preservation commission. Are they not here . Okay. Yes, there is. The board of appeals did meet last night and take action on two items that maybe of interest to the commission. They held their election of officers, though they can never public replaced the previous president. They elected rick swig to the office of president and and lazarus to the office of vice president. They heard an appeal of determination and the issuance of the appeal is the appropriate fee methodology for the project. Last year, the mohcd and planning Work Together to modify the methodology for payment of the in lieu fee for the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and for a per unit fee to a person where for fee. This change became effective on january 1st of this year to implement this discreet change in a fair, consistent, and efficient manner. The city tied the methodology to the site permit issuance date, which is one these are assessed her project under the planning and building codes. The old methodology applies for sight permits. The project was originally authorized with onsite mac b. M. R. Units, whoever the project sponsor thought the letter of determination to allow them to pay the fee using the new methodology, which would have reduced their fee from approximately three by 4 million to 2. 1 million. The Zoning Administrator found the change would require Planning Commission approval and then old fee methodology would be required based upon the rules adopted by the city to implement this change. The board voted unanimously to uphold the Zoning Administrator s determination. The Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday and i think the one item that may be of interest to the commission was 770 wolsey. There was a petition from a Neighborhood Organization to add the 2acre site just below maclaren park. It was the old nurseries for flowers, i believe, way back in the day, to the landmark work program. The commission the Historic Preservation commission is down to five commissioners and their seats have yet to be replaced. Commission president hyland had to recuse himself. They were down to four commissioners and they needed a unanimous vote. A motion to not add it to the work Program Failed 31 and there was no alternate motion to continue or otherwise. So that application failed in front of the Historic Preservation commission. Hello. Sorry about that. You guys are moving fast today. I am the manager of legislative affairs. First in the Land Use Committee was supervisor mandelmans ordinance that proposes to modify the visible envelope for building seen our districts. You heard this item on april 11 th and recommended approval with modifications. As reported last week at the july 8th Land Use Committee hearing, he described the ordinance and proposed several amendments including two of the four modifications that you proposed. Supervisor passing also proposed amendments that would tie development of 80 used to entering into a cost hawkins agreement so that new development for the new development his because of the substantial of nature of the amendments, it was continued to this monday. At this hearing, Public Comment was in favor the amendment. The committee moved to submit the ordinance as amended with recommendations to the full board. Next, the Committee Heard supervisor mandelmans ordinance that proposes to increase the permissibility of arts activities and institutional use of public facilities, general entertainment, and other retail uses in the upper market. You heard this item on may 9th and recommended approval with modifications. Also reported last week, the Land Use Committee heard this and supervisor mandelman produced proposed eight amendments including the modifications you proposed because of this distant substantive nature of the amendments, the item was continue to this week. The committee moved to send the ordinance as amended with a favorable recommendation to the board. The Committee Soup considered another ordinance that proposes to limit the size and bedroom count of residential buildings in the oceanview, Merced Heights , in ingleside and neighborhoods by using Floor Area Ratio and conditional use authorization. You heard this ordinance on june 13th and recommended approval. At the land use hearing on monday, Public Comment was in full support of the ordinance, seeing it as a way to control be Building Size and illegal conversion of dwelling units into housing. During their deliberation, the supervisors were supportive of the ordinance. Supervisor peskin did ask about the implementation of the bedroom count limit. Staff indicated the enforcement planner would determine any violations of the bedroom count limit and that the if the air controls were established to incentivized increased density in those Zoning Districts. The committee then moved to recommend the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. The Committee Also considered supervisor haneys interim controls that would require conditional use authorization for a change of use from any nighttime entertainment used to another use in the south of market area. This item did not come to you as an interim control. Interim control was spurred by the potential loss of the mezzanine nightclub. During the hearing, most speakers were in favor of the proposed requirement and a few people, including the property owner, spoke against it. In the end, the committee voted to forward the resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. It will become effective ten days after. Next, the committee considered the mayors ordinance that would abolish the north of market Affordable Housing fund and instead have the Affordable Housing fees deposited into the citywide Affordable Housing fund they collect the collected fees will still be earmarked to stabilize, rehabilitate, and retain Affordable Housing in the north of market residential std. His commission heard the item on june 13th and recommended approval with the modification to index the fee at 25. 41 per square foot. The fee will be included at the full board next week. There was no comment from the Committee Members and only one Public Comment or whose comments were not directly related to the ordinance. The committee voted to recommend approval. Finally, the Committee Heard supervisor browns ordinance that would allow intermittent activities like Farmers Market and are Zoning Districts if they are located on a parcel that contains a public facility. Such uses are allowed if they are located on a property with a hospital or post secondary educational institution. The Planning Commission heard this on june 20th and recommended approval. At the committee, there was no Public Comment and no discussion by the Committee Members. They recommended approval. Finally at the full board this week, the board heard an appeal of a tentative map approval for the project at 2146 union street this property is a mixed use building with a groundfloor retail and two dwelling units. The proposed project includes the addition of four new residential units at the rear of the building, interior renovations and facade modifications. The height of the building is increasing from about 38 or 39 feet to 40 feet, in addition to three stair penthouses that rise an additional 8 feet above the roof. You did not hear this item as it did not require a hearing and the d. R. Was not filed. The appellant was not included in the original neighborhood notice, since they were out of the radius. They were within the 300foot radius required for matt to notice. The appellant as i mentioned before, they were not close enough to be noticed. The second issue is that the proposal includes a substantial increase in the vertical height of the existing building. Since this appeal was over the condo subdivision, the appellant s issues were not relevant in the board was not in a position to do anything about the proposed project. Supervisor stephanie explained this during her comments and said he sympathized with the appellants issues and was looking at ways to address the noticing issue. She then moved to approve the map and deny the appeal. That is all i have for you today thank you. Seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move onto general Public Comment. Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I do have just the one speaker card. Come on up. Anyone else who wants to provide Public Comment, general Public Comment, come on up. Hello. Thank you. I went to the Building Inspection Commission yesterday and i urge them as i urge do all last week, to rewatch your april 12th, 2018 joint hearing and i will submit that again. It is a guide for what to watch. I also would like you to watch the general Public Comment from june 25th, 2015, and one of the things i talked about is this. May i have the overhead, please . It is not there. Well, the main thing is, what i said and oh,. You are out of luck here. There it is. I talked about that one and i talked about the problems of demolitions and alterations. There was a great discussion with mr. Sanchez and the Zoning Administrator. So anyway, here is that building as it was. I will show you a bunch of pictures. There it is in july 2015, here it is that is june. This is july 8th, 2015. Here it is a week later, july 19 th, ten days later. Here it is august 2015, here it is september 2015, here it is october 2015, here it is december 2015, here it is, and there is a copy. I will submit that because i have two. Here is another view of it in december 2015. Here it is in january 2016, here is in june, i guess i was away or lost track of it. And here it is february 2017. And here it is when it sold. It did sell, finally, it took a while to sell, because it had been two units, but they put the unit behind the garage, and i talked about that, it sold for 4. 5 million under an alteration permit that did not mention the fact they were changing the facade. I just wanted to bring that up because that was discussed back in june 25th, 2015, and i really encourage you to watch that hearing. Because a dialogue between commissioner richards and the Zoning Administrator sanchez was really interesting, and i will just leave it at that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker, please. Hello. Do you have all your photos you want to take back . I submitted that. Hello, commissioners. My name is kevin chang. In may, theres Public Comment and i discussed about the sample of the legal unit mergers. There are five samples, of which four of the five were fixit issues where basically it was catch and release through enforcement and they were allowed to correct their mistakes and proceed without discussion for the Planning Commissioner any public forum. The fifth one is one that may appear before you and i want to remind you a bit about it before giving an update. That is on 2028, 2040 street. It was decided by staff on aprin after a four month investigation finally in june 2018, it was decided there was a violation. The violations over decided were illegal unit merger, legal unit expansion to rear yard with a very, illegal to rear yard with variance, zero permitting to disguise scope of work. The property was originally purchased for 2. 9 million, two equal sized flats of a studio in law. Sold for 8. 5 million. Sold to one buyer before it was debated. There was no hearing originally required. It was determined there was a variance to correct the violations that would be required. They determined in january of this year that either a conditional use application was required, or it needed to be returned back to three units. Since then, it was given nine days for the project sponsor to respond. Since then, i believe it is going to go out for 311 and a variance application. There is no transparency in what went from a c. U. Requirement, to a 311 with a variance requirements. Given the matter is of concern to both the general plan and Public Policy, Public Policy being what should these type of violations be dealt with, how should the Commission Deal with it . Should staff determine it is a fixit cash and release, or should it be something that the Commission Ways in . Considering there in the sample size, theres a can settle number of these units that are legally unit merged. It should be heard from the Planning Commission. Why should it be left to the neighbors to d. R. Before being served by this body . I would encourage the Planning Commission to investigate and i look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you. Thank thank you. Next speaker, please. I am here today to let you know that we will be putting a measure on the march 2020 ballot to amend proposition m. And directly link how much office space is allowed every year under the prop and procedures to how much Affordable Housing the city is actually building, and meeting these standards, meeting the targets set by the Regional HousingNeeds Assessment goals. It will be determined by the state of california. There is no denying that we are in the fifth or sixth year of a boom that is fuelled primarily, or leading the boom by the office, the tech Office Development in San Francisco. There is no denying that we have not been keeping up with the demand for Affordable Housing. We have not been meeting the arena, which would be a goal of 2,000 units a year based on your report from a year ago where it was just at 68 production. It is now up to 100 20 of median income. There is no denying that the office, the government itself generates a significant demand for Affordable Housing, about 600 units a year under the 875 prop m. Cap. That number comes from your own departments. So the Planning Department and commission that we need would have asked itself a simple question, are we going too fast . Because the consequences of that shortfall are clearly devastating to communities, the displacement resulting in lower income, middle income residents of San Francisco. It is at a largescale. You should have been asking, i was simply going too fast . That is what a Planning Commission should have asked, but you dont. This commission and this department, and really, for most of my life, for 60 years, has essentially been addicted to growth. I know you talk about managing it, but in fact, it is the Development Approval commission. It is really not putting