Out their getting to 2030 i. R. P. , before we start looking at what we might like to do. You know, if we take over pg es infrastructure, clean power s. F. Wont even exist. So all of the stuff theyre doing will be for naught. We as the city, including s. F. P. U. C. , but external of silos, like clean power s. F. , we need to be looking at what we want to get to. [buzzer] and how all of the cylinders of the city can work to get there. That will be the same whether it is clean power s. F. , whether it is public power. I think it is time to break out from letting one part of the City Government to sit on this issue, which has been happening for six, seven, eight years. We need to have this happen at the 30,000foot view. Im hoping that the [buzzer] chairwoman thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Seeing none, the Public Comment is now closed. Mr. Clerk, can you please call item number seven. Item seven is Public Comment. Chairwoman any members of the public like to make comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Mr. Clerk, item number eight. Item eight is future agenda items . Chairwoman any future items to note . Mr. Global. I want to bring it to everyones attention that i am expecting a fairly long agenda at our next meeting on september 20th. Were going to have several presentations, including some of the work that lavcos interns have been doing around programs for communities of concern with clean power s. F. , and also some of the local buildout projects that have been previously considered, and well be bringing a presentation to you on that for background. Chairwoman colleagues, please note on your agendas that that meeting will take at least three hours, and to allot that amount of time so we can give our full attention to all of the work the interns have been doing. Any other items on a future agenda. Seeing none . How about Public Comment on this. The september meeting sounds like my kind of meeting. Eric brooks with all of the groups i mentioned before. Now i want to talk about you may need to call a special meeting in august. And that will be around legislation. As you heard, ab1054 passed, along with a companion bill, ab111. You should take a look at both bills. Ab1054 does not just outrageously block public power. What it does is even when the monopoly utility like pg e, even when its equipment is at fault for starting a fire, it guarantees that there will be a 21billion fund that ratepayers will pay half of to pay for fires. Thats not the way it used to be. The way it used to be, whenever it was pg es fault or their equipment, pg e paid, and had to work really hard to get any rate increases to pay for part of that. Thats not even the worst part. Once that 21 billion fund is exhausted, and we spent in the last two years 30 billion on the current wildfires that just happened in two years. If we go above the 21 billion, 1054 allows the monopoly utilities to do their own private bonds and link those to ratepayer increases to pay any further wildfire costs. [buzzer] so consumers, costumers, ratepayers will end up paying more than 50 of costs they are not responsible for. The reason that matters to our local buildout is that the more and to other Community Choice programs starting up the more ratepayer have to pay, the less theyre willing to do clean power s. F. [buzzer] chairwoman any other Public Comment. Any other items before us . Madam chair, there is no further business. Chairman thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned. Good afternoon and welcome to the frisk Planning Commission regular hearing for thursday, july 25, 2019. I would like to reminder members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any outbursts or descriptions. Please silence your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, do state your record. I would like to take roll at this time. [ roll call ]. Commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuous. Number 1, 2019011975pca for the job housing linkage fee proposed. I have no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards. Does anyone have Public Comment on the items proposed for continuous . Please come on us. Okay. With that, Public Comment is now closed. Seconded. To continue item 1 to september 19. [vot [vot [vote]. So that motion passes. All matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission. There had been no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, staff, or the public so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this. Number 2, 20180133 87cua at 88 perry street and number 3, 2019001013cua at 32nd avenue and 3132 clement. I do have two speakers from the public. I would like to confirm that they want to pull that off. We will pull that off of consent, put it at the beginning of the hearing and those members of the public who want to provide comment on that item can do so then. That leaves us with item 2, commissioners. Commissioner koppel. Thank you, on that motion to approve number 2 on your consent calendar. [vot [vot [vote]. Item 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for july 11, 2019. Does anyone want to provide Public Comment on the draft minutes . With that, Public Comment is closed. Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes for july 11, 2019. [vot [vote]. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 50. Item 5, commission comments and questions. Commissioner richards. Supervisor richards excuse me go ahead, commissioner moore. Im greatly concerned about reading about Market Street and also the letter from the disabled association about the adaptive interpretation of what was approved at the 52market unit building now becoming a corporate rental apartment. Im looking for the directors comments and support that that is indeed not the type of approval that we should be stuck with because that is not what we approved. Yes, director, can you. Thank you, commissioner. I have heard several comments to that effect. The way the that the current code works is that anything longer than 32 days, i believe it is, is considered normal tenancy. So the code does not distinguish between 32day rentals and fiveyear rentals in its current form. Itself understand that there is some concerns about this many concerns about this and the Board Members are taking it up. As of right now, there is not an enforcement action that we can take on that. I have another issue and that is i was greatly disturbed about a vote in san bruno on a project that had 425 units of housing for that community. It was defeated by one vote, and while each community makes its own decisions about housing, what i found most astounding is that by the numbers. So thats since 2016 san bruno only has built 119 units. The 119 units since 2016. The actual number based on statemandated goals is 1,036 by 2023. Thats a very huge deficit to catch up on and simultaneously as San Mateo County estimated 72,000 jobs between 2010 and 20 2015. If you use the mathematics, that means every household basically supports 19 jobs. Im looking at these statistics particularly under the significant pressure that we are sitting here every week, the sp 50 and, and, and, and we are trying to do as best as we can, while our neighbors get away with 119 units since 2016. I can only let that stand in the room, but i think at some point i would like to figure out wouldnt there be a state law that first brings everybody else into a comparable performance for each other before further restrictions are imposed on us . Im asking a very naive linear question, but that is what is on my mind. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner richards. I too have those two subject matter comments. I was looking at the fabulous dancer on the top of a tower and i was looking at single rail transit, one vote killed 412 units on al camino royal. We struggle with cutting back a bedroom because of density. We might not be doing the right thing for the community. Here we have a whole project being killed. We as commissioners need to be circumspect around feeling that pressure over tiny things like that that make this city livable in the face of this kind of thing thats happening literally right across our boarder. So this is a poster child for why we have an sp 50. I mean, honestly. And i read this and i thought, well, poster child for sp 50. Then i came across this one which is in my neighborhood three blocks away, we approved this two or three years ago. So this one here, i just feel like were being played, i really do. This is an extendedstay america. This is not a housing project. The more i talk to the supervisors office, supervisor mandelman, the more i realize there is a lot of this going on in all of the projects we approve. So the problem that were solving a housing crisis, were solving a hotel crisis. Were going to hear from members of the community about projects in the mission. Three floors of this project, two floors of this are hotel. One of our supervisors is working on a thing in the planning that cuts to this more. I dont want to approve any more projects without understanding what the hell is going on after we approve it. I think this is atrocious and it isnt right. President melgar thank you, commissioner. Seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to department matters, directors announcements. Clerk item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors, there is no reports from the board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission. First on the land use agenda was the ordinance to include a reference to the pulpspecific guidelines in this planning code. This ordinance was originally initiated by the Planning Commission, but once transferred to the board, commissioner peskin took ownership. You voted to recommends approval on july 17. Our own commissioners spoke during comment and applauded the members of the community who engaged in forming the guidelines. Supervisor peskin also spoke highly of the process that created the guidelines as well as the guidelines themselves. Land use committee voted to pass it to the board unanimously. Next the board heard for the cu requirement for employees cafeteria ordinance. You originally heard this in october of 2018 where you recommended disapproval and again on march 7, 2019, where there was no successful motion to approve or to continue the item resulting in a de facto disapproval. At mondays hearing the legislative sponsor provided background on the genesis of the ordinance. He also outlined his proposed amendments which included one expanding the use to all office uses, not just general office, add location that differentiate between break rooms and cafeterias with fullservice kitchens, add location operating conditions that exempt certain cafeterias and the cu requirement if they are at the first story, open to the public, designed to the standards for active use, and provide meals that are not majority subsidized. Add grandfathering provision and add the conditional use consideration for cafeterias subject to conditional use. Many of these were proposed by staff to the Planning Commission. Supervisor peskin proposed amending the grandfather clause to 2017. The speaker was a member of the sf chamber of commerce. They were feeling it would make business less likely to relocate in San Francisco. After the comment it was moved to accept the grandfather in addition to other amendments and to recommend the ordinance to the full board as a committee report. The next item was an ordinance to legalize nonresidential units at a place known as active space. This commission heard this on may 23, and voted to approve the ordinance with a vote to shorten the time from ten to three years office space. During the hearing a lot of tenants came to speak during the hearing and also requested the change become permanent. It was stated that pvr uses must be protected. After similar comments from members of the committee to preserve the building in the long term, supervisor ronen introduced an amendment to the legislation that would include the commissions recommended modification. The amendment was adopted by the committee and the ordinance was then recommended to the full board. Next the Committee Heard the mayor and supervisor browns Small Business streamlining ordinance whether to eliminate the quartermile buffer around districts plus supervisor pesks had been doing outreach to determine which ruds might want to retain their quartermile buffers. They learned that districts 10, 1 and 3 and district 8 would prefer to retain the quartermile buffer. The committee directed the clerk to file these at the full board. With that it went forward without recommendation for First Reading at the board on july 30. The committee then held a hearing to discuss highpriority pathways to achieving deep clean gas emissions by 2030. Supervisor mandelman requested this 100day report back in his march Climate Emergency resolution. San francisco environment presented key analysis from the focus 2030 pathways report, which planning and other departments peer reviewed, such as the need to decarbonizing New Buildings as soon as possible and meet 80 of trips with transit, biking, or walking. A myriad of departments including planning all gave presentations on the respective agencys opportunities and challenges and to tackle many areas. Over 45 members of the public gave comment, reiterating the need for bold and urgent action by city leaders and departments. Many also asked for followup opportunities to continue this urgent discussion with all the supervisors. Vicechair moved that this hearing be moved and passed unanimously. Lastly the committee considered the ordinance that would change the abandonment for cus from 18 months to three months. Commissioners you may recall you waived your right to hear this. At the hearing no one spoke during Public Comment and supervisor peskined made some brief comments about the proposed change. The Committee Voted Unanimously to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. At the full board this week, the supervisors passed its first read to continue to work out some concerns from other supervisors. Supervisor mandelmans code changes to the sct and Zoning District passed its first read. The north of market Affordable Housing fee and Affordable HousingFund Amendments sponsored by the mayor was was ammed to index the fee and then it was referred back to the committee for review. Temporary uses and interim activities ordinance that would allow farmers markets at the dmv passed its first read. The interim controls to require conditional use authorization from a change of use from a nighttime use to another use was adopted. The Legalization Program for active space passed its first read, as did the pulp specific area guidelines and the north beach period. And that concludes my report. President melgar thank you. Seeing no questions, commissioners, 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 subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except scbrened items. With respect to to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the reach. Each member of the public may address the commissioner for up to three minutes. President melgar i have many speakers, but anyone who wishes to provide Public Comment, come on up now. Thank you, my name is jonathan axlerod. I am here to talk to you about a business called doggie style that has been theres going to be a cu thats going to come before you probably in september. Theyre going to ask for permission to use outdoor space, permission to create a private social club, so and also to be a dog kennel. I represent over 121 neighbors. Myself, i back up to the project. Weve all signed a very detailed letter that outlines what the specific problems with this project are. Wed encourage you to ive printed eight copies of it that id leave right here. Id encourage you to pick up one. Theres helpful pictures in the back that situate the project. Long and short, our concerns come down to three primarily. The first one being that their noise, odor, waste abatement plan is entirely inadequate. Theyre federally trademarked no bark park, however, theres no such thing. A federal trademark aside, theyre going to put noiseemitting collars on dogs that will emit shocks to dogs to stop them barking. All of the experts weve talked to tell us this does not work in a Group Setting and is cruel and poses a risk to other neighborhood dogs. Similarly, there are residential tenants upstairs from the project which is poorly insulated youll hear today, and as well there are mini residences. This is a common green space. Theres probably over 100 homes that share this back yard area. Two, also in terms of waste, theyre proposing to pick up dog waste every 30 minutes, but they recognize that wont pick up all the waste. Theyve installed some crystalline that is going to potentially absorb it, but theyre view is they will wash down the back yard every day, that will have waste flowing into the jersey street way. That poses a risk to those that use that street. Outdoor use on jersey street is entirely inappropriate. There are no examples of jersey street that backs that 24th street where there is outdoor use. I could understand stores wanting to keep inventory in their back yards, but having active outdoor use, especially in this case a dog kennel, is just entirely inappropriate. Finally youll hear from the project sponsors that that is the savior of nonvi valley retail. We all use it and are supportive. Thi