Items one a and b. Conditional use and variance are proposed for continuance by august 29th , 2019. Item number two is 2417 green street, appeal of the preliminary negative declaration proposed for continuance on till september 19th, 2019. Item number three is 50 post street downtown project authorization proposed for continuance until october 17th , 2019. An item four is a conditional use authorization proposed for indefinite continuance. I have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Do any members of the public wish to speak to the items on the ticketed on the continuance calendar, specifically about the continuance of the items . Okay. With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore. I move to moved to continue as noted. Second. Thank you, on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. I will also continue item one b. Until august 29th, as well. Thank you for that. Placing as under the consent calendar. All matters listed under here constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and maybe acted upon bicycle roll call vote of the commission. Item five is 146 geary street, conditional use authorization. Item six is 5420 mission street, conditional use authorization, item seven is 4720 geary boulevard, conditional use authorization. I have no speaker cards. Do any members of the public or commissioners wish to pull any items off of the continuance calendar . Im sorry, the consent calendar. Okay. Commission moore . Moved to approve. Second. Thank you. On that motion to approve items under your consent calendar. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. Placing is under commission matters. Item eight is consideration of adoption of documents for july 18th, 2019 and the closed session for like july 25th and the regular calendar for july 25th, 2019. I do have two speaker cards. I believe they will be talking about your july 25th regular calendar minutes. Item 20, on july 25th, you took up items 19 and 20, if you recall under your d. R. Calendar together. You made one action by taking d. R. And approving, as revised, reverting the property to its previous condition. You did not take d. R. And disapprove the second permit for the adjacent property that was essentially a vacant lot. Theres a garage structure in the back that is proposed for demolition, but your action was abundantly clear to revert the bay window that extended over the property line, thereby impacting the second property, and that property, if the sponsor so chooses, would have to come back as a revised project based on your decision to accommodate the threestory bay window, in which event the project project would have to come back in a completely different and revised format being accommodating the bay window by either providing easement or adjusting the property line. Staff is very aware of how your decision affected that particular project. Thank you for the reminder. Thank you. Our speakers on this item are jury brought to learn and stephanie peake. Anyone else who wishes to provide Public Comment on the minutes, please come up and do so now. Hello. I have some materials. The july 25th, 2019 Planning Commission draft minutes for agenda item 20, it is incorrect. The Planning Commission did not approve the Building Permit. The Meeting Minutes should be revised to exclude the approval of the Building Permits. The review of the caption transcript which you have shows it was not the intent of the Planning Commission to approve the Building Permit application prior to approving the motion, commissioners questioned whether a new plan was required and mr. Winslow told the commissioners they could not approve the project on the other lot prior to voting to approve the motion and to revert to the project back to its previous condition. Also, the Architectural Survey submitted with the plan for 17 th avenue is not an accurate Boundary Line survey. Therefore, approving the new construction Building Permit without an accurate Boundary Line survey would be a clear violation of section 107point to. 5 of the California Building code. They did submit an architectural site survey, which is a map. It is not really a survey. And in the survey, or the map, they said it was required under California Law to establish a record of survey that would be required, in the record of survey has not been approved by d. P. W. Therefore i asked that the minutes be revised to reflect the fact that permit was not approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners i live next door to the project. I am also here to ask for a correction of the draft minutes for july 25th, 2019 hearing. The plan for the new house cannot be approved. But i will read from the captioned transcript to remind you exactly how it went. President melgar, im sorry, you said entertain a new plan submitted for the other lot, commissioner richards, yes, fine if they bring up a project for the other lot. That is great. Lets reconstruct the building and make sure the new project adheres to the existing site conditions that they need to get a demolition permit or just the lot line or whatever they need to do. President melgar, im sorry, so can we not prove the building on the other lot today . That already has been submitted. It has to be new commissioner richards. I would like to see a new project because it doesnt take into consideration the threestory bay. Mr. Winslow, i dont believe you can approve the project on the other lot today, building the threestory bay would encroach over that lot and physically change the plan of that building on that motion to take d. R. And revert the property back to its previous condition, that motion passes 501. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner richards . That is my recollection that we have restored the building and we would bring in a project back on the new site conditions and the new bay window we did not have another project in front of us. That is what it reflects. Correct. The only project we approve is the threestory bay replacement and if theres any corrections that need to be made to the minutes. Again, it does not accurately reflect the action you took because you only had one motion on both of those projects. Essentially reverting the property back to its original form. You need to speak up a little , sorry. Say that again. Essentially there was only one motion made and one vote taken on the project that included two parcels, and essentially taking d. R. And approving it, reverting it back to its original condition, the original condition of the adjacent parcel is a vacant lot, so they would have to come back with and advise a revised project. Right. They would need to vote on any project on that second parcel. Well, if the d. R. Were to be generated. Otherwise it would be a staff approval. They are both principally permitted projects, it is just a matter of whether or not someone chooses to file a discretionary review and bring it back or if you so choose, you can elect to bring it back to review that. Did you want to take that, director . Right. It was a d. R. To begin with. Correct. Okay. Do you want to make a motion . Commission moore . Moved to approve the minutes. We have not done that yet. Right. Second. Thank you. On that motion to approve or adopt the minutes for july 18th and july 25th, 2019. [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 70. Placing is on item nine for commission comments and questions. Commission moore . No i didnt. Im sorry. Commissioner richards. I have a couple of brief things that i wanted to mention. Over the last three weeks i read a book, if you havent seen this book or read it, i urge you to read it. It is called capital city the rise of the real estate state and real estate involvement in shaping urban affairs and planning. I will read a small paragraph from it because it stuck out to me even though ive got about 100 little stickers in here about things that resonated with me. The decline of urban industry as well as a real aspirational lives of ownership along among working and middleclass people, the demand for lower land values comes from organized renters. Urban tenant movements have secured important victories but they face a constant struggle. Many nonprofit unions and communitybased organizations determined that the most likely way to secure games gains in this situation is there political programs that align with actions and Real Estate Capital such as Development Schemes to compare the luxury housing and a modicum of affordable units. Real estate hold something approaching monopoly power to shape the narrative around urban planning and the future of our urban landscape. It is a very interesting book written by samuel stein who is a planner. Two other things very briefly, s. P. 330 is now making its way to the governors desk. It gets rid of any demolition controls that a city has as long as a replacement structure equals or is greater than the current unit count, so i know this commission heard in june that demolition controls, which i think we give a lot of feedback, 330 would negate any of those demolition controls because you can knock a house down, as long as you replace it with a house. And then there is s. P. 592 that defines density by number of bedrooms, instead of us saying, okay, we can increase density by adding a unit, and that is what the Public Policy goal is, it is not square footage. We know that any ten by ten unit with a closet can be called a bedroom. I envision 592 and 330, and further super sizing San Francisco and other localities. Thank you. If there is nothing further, we will move onto department matters. Item ten, directors announcements. Commissioners, welcome back to fort from your break. Ive apologized to everyone for the heat. The airconditioning in this half of the building hasnt been working all week. Well try to muddle through this other than that, i have no further comments. Thank you. Item 11 his review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and Historic Preservation commission. There is no report from the birders to preside board of supervisors or the board of appeals. The one item of interest that may be to the Planning Commission those brought up yesterdays hearing was they reviewed and commented on the board of education action regarding George Washington high school murals, specifically on the life of George Washington, the section of the murals. There was some consensus by the commission that they should not be covered up, but the board of education actually recently reversed its ruling, but instead of whitewashing over the murals to permanently up scare them from view, they decided to simply hang something over them so that they were obscured from view. I dont believe this issue is over, though, just yet. If there are no questions, we can move onto general Public Comment. Members of the public may dress a commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept 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 to the commission for up to three minutes. I do have several speaker cards. Anyone who wishes to provide general Public Comment may line up on my left. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Thank you for continuing our discussion on 303303 california. We heard rumours, i might even say scepticism about the square feet associated with that proposed plan and whether they equaled the developers numbers. We had the trainer come and any look analyse our calculations low and behold, they found layouts and calculations not only reasonable, but feasible. Score one for the underdogs. The next question we faced was do you match the developers gross square foot . In figure one, the plan did not generate an approximate 10 less , however, our plan generated an average unit size of 843 net square feet. San franciscos new apartments average 737 net square feet, over 100 square feet smaller. So my first question is, if it is not acceptable, then who has been improving projects that are averaging 737 square feet . Back to work, figure two, it shows our updated Community Preservation alternative variant two. It uses our original concept and reflects the neighborhood character and values, preserves the historic characteristics of the site at the main building, and we added townhomes along laurel street, expanded the wall , added one level to the main building, fully consistent with the interior standards for historic buildings. We also created a groundlevel passage while fully maintaining the integrity and mentality of the building. We matched the developers residential gross square foot, no retail. We can already hear the false statement, not feasible, blah blah blah. We went back and said, lets take the Developers Plan and tweak it to provide the same around same amount of residential gross square foot and preserve the key historic characteristics. Figure three shows the two sidebyside, pretty similar. Figure four, we eliminated the Masonic Building to preserve the terrace. We cut back the seven most 30 foot of the building and illuminated the two townhomes on the green space at the top of laurel street to preserve laurel hill. We used a design and added one level to the main building, and as noted previously, rated the walnut passage. We more than match the developer s residential square feet. No retail. So if you are sceptical about august lines, you have an option front of you that simply uses the developer to design. Finally, we saved about 100 more significant mature trees and eliminate 8500 daily retail trips and reduce Greenhouse Gases by 4,000 tonnes a year. Good for us and good for our climate. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, i am from Laurel Heights improvements. The developer 303303 california spoke to the public only once when he revealed his planet did not allow the public to speak at that meeting. The day before, you perfect he refused to tell us what the project was in the Supervisors Office and said this is not a negotiation. Besides that, he held about three posterboard sessions were people had to seek out information at stations around the world room, and i heard some told falsely they would be no rezoning. So we were deprived of the city run planning process for any major rezoning outside the area plan areas that we were promised in the housing element. In the special use district released in july, we were surprised to learn the additional commercial uses would use controls plus flexible retail. Flexible retail is not permitted in district two or in the sacramento or fillmore street district. It can come into a space without notice to the community unless the c. U. Is required for the underlying activity, and it requires two uses to share the same space with a maximum of five, and it allows entertainment uses that are not permitted. At the coalition we learned a neighborhood had trouble with flexible retail, having internet gambling describe disguised as teaching people about computers, and massage parlours that did more than massage, and they had to do work with the police very closely to stop illegal activity because of the in and out without notice. Also, portions of the Development Agreement were released and it does not require the developer to build the senior formal housing or pay the in lieu fee. They can build 386 market units and failed to continue and just transfer some of the land to the city, or even this it leaving the city holding the bag to develop the Affordable Housing. It has other loopholes saying theres no requirement that he initiator complete development of the project or any portion within any period of time or in any particular order, subject to Community Benefits for any building he does build, while he has the right to terminate the Development Agreement within five years if he doesnt commence construction, but he upzoned the upzoned entitlements are not conditioned upon actually performing Development Agreement and building the Affordable Housing. The developer always told us, he didnt know what retail he would put in, he didnt know what he would do about the Affordable Housing, and we are starting to get clues now that are extremely troubling, and so more about that later. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners a few months ago you may recall that myself and a couple of other people, including kathleen and catherine were here talking about preservation and how we would like to see the position of mr. Fry being replaced. There was some concern about how the evaluated projects in the city and how we make sure projects that deserve to be mindful of the preservation of Historic Resources or historic districts should behave accordingly. So today im here to present to you one such project. This building is in the Marina District and according to tim kellys report, it would change the design, setting materials, it is unaltered since its construction in 1926 with the exception of a sunroom addition. This part of the Marina Corp