We expect commissioner moore to arrive shortly. Commissioners, first is consideration of items for continuous, 201500258cua at hamilton avenue. Conditional use authorization proposed until november 7th, 2019. I have to other items for continuance. Any members that would like to comment on items proposed for continuance . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner hillace . Moved to continue. Seconded. Move to continue to november 7th. The motion passes 40. That places under the consent calendar for item 2, case 202 2, cua, 21 avenue. Any member who would like to pull this avenue out for consent . Commissioners . Commissioner hillace . Approve. Second. Item two under consent calendar. roll call . So moved and that motion passes unanimously 40, placing us under commission matters 3, consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for august 29, 2019. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on draft minutes . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed, commissioner johnson . Moved to approve draft minutes. Second. Thank you, commissioners and on that motion to adopt minutes. Minutes. Missiothemotion. Motion passes 40. Seeing no comments, that will place us under 5, directors announcements. This is Anne Marie Rogers and no announcements. Past event to board of supervisors, board of appeals, no Historic Preservation hearing yelled. Good afternoon, commissioners. This weak, the committee considered supervisor safye to allow overnight camping at 2340 san jose avenue. The Committee Recommended approval with recommendation. The modification was to alter so it may be used on other sites. Public comment was in support and many speakers express add desire to see this citywide. The Committee Recommends this as a Committee Report to be heard at the full board of supervisors this week. The other item on the agenda which would authorize interim activities by the mayor was continued to the call of the chair. At the full board this week, supervisor sorry, a Planning Commission sponsored ordinance that would allow im sorry, the herst building passed the second read and chinatown use district passed a second read and overnight camping in vehicles passed the first read. On the introductions this week, supervisors haineys ordinance to allow the linkage fee was reintroduced. In the new version, the fee increased from 19. 96 to 69. 69 for office space and 16. 36 for laboratories to 6. 43. The original ordinance only had the increase of 38 for office space and did not change any other fees. This ordinance will be brought to you next week. Its packet is in your packet this week. That concludes my report. If there are no questions, commissioners, i have the reporm the board of appeals. They considered three items that may be of interest to the Planning Commission. All three were disapprovals of Building Permit applications under discretionary reviews. The board of appeals considers the item de novo, which means they hear the case anew and not referring to findings o finding, 6camino delmar. This was a discretionary review and cited private agreement between requester and applicant. This was for a review in 201 ultimately withdrawn based on changes to the permit by the permit applicant. They included removal of a proposed deck similar to that proposed under the current permit. The board found this to be problematic continuing this to november 23rd, to allow the parties additional time to resolve their dispute. This subject seeks to configure the layout on three existing dwelling units which would extend into the rear yard requiring a variance. The Planning Commission header as a disagenciary review on february 20 2019 and voted to d. The thirdfloor dwelling unit would not be affordable. They denied the request for the rear yard variance, while the appellant, the permit holder, appealed the permit. They did not appeal the variance. At the hearing, they requested a proposed thirdfloor addition such that the project is code compliant and included an adu in the nonconfirming ground floor space and found these changes resulted in a project compatible with the carna character and thd continued the item to october 23rd, to allow the apentant to work with staff to finalize the project. This subject permit seeks to vertical addition to an existing building containing two dwelling units. The Planning Commission heard this as a public initiated review and denied this that the project had been used as a means of dislodging existed tenants under rent control. They noted it did not add dwelling units. The board cited the fact that the permit before them did not maximize appropriate density on the lot. And if there are no questions, commissionerrerings, we can move commissioners, we can move on to general comment. Members may address the commission, jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when this is reached in the meeting. Each public may address up to three minutes and those wishing to submit public testimony could line up on the there are screens on both sides of the rooms here, to my left, thank you. Its like being in england, you know, with the overhead here. Dont know what do or how to drive. Good afternoon. I sent you an email last night, two minutes. Thank you, four. With a fourpage pdf and i dont know if you got it but i think you did. In this is for you today and if i could have the overhead, please. I watched the hearing on the 29th of august and i was fascinated by that back and forth by what a demolition and whats not. I realized it was, like, the light bulb went off, all of the things youre dealing with with the demolition issue have to do with after the fact. When things are demolish and gone and how do you prevent demolitions and what do you want . What is the policy . And if you look at this overhead thing, this is the numerical criteria for the rh1, since its been in place. Theres only officially three years printed, 2014, 2015, 2017 and was raised in july. I found other numbers on the internet. It was high, went down and shot up. My contention is that as this has gone up, the demo calcs, which are a part of the section 317 and your responsibility to adjust, for policy efficacy to preserve housing have stayed flat and have not changed. And i think that its something you can do. It says its not legislative. I think it should have been on four timed. I wrote a letter in june asking about that and asked you to ask the city torn. Attorney. Its proactive and solves the issue of the confusion over 103 in the Building Code or 106. If you look at that email i sent you last night, 103 relates to demos without a permit. It doesnt have to do anything with demos, per say. Ive given you copies of this little chart i made and shows this socalled Pacific Heights exemption should be removed from the planning code because the prices have just swept up and people sometimes adjust their appraisals to meet that and demolish a house and get administrative approval. I hope you look at this and think about the demo cals and adjusting them. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment . inaudible . This is general Public Comment for items that do not appear on the agenda, thats right, no speaker cards. Im with the united Public Workers for action. I think we have an example from San Francisco of the ongoing chaos in the city and county of San Francisco. People in San Francisco are aware this Planning Commissioner, along with the board of supervisors approve the warriors stadium without proper transit Facilities Partnership we have a further situation with further gri gridlock and this io serve the people who go to warriors games. This is reactionary and corruption. Who does this Planning Commission represent . Arent you supposed to be in charge of looking at how development will affect transportation . Isnt that one of your responsibilities as commissioners . Apparently not. So youre approving planning projects in San Francisco, all over the city, regardless of no transportation. You think its irresponsible and i think you really, along with the mayor who appointed you are responsible for this gridlock, in this chaos. Youre violating your authority, violating your responsibility. You should not be Planning Development projects without proper transit in San Francisco. Youre encouraging further gridlock in San Francisco and in case of the warriors, hurting the workingclass minority in west you know, in bay point, hunters point. Think that the people of San Francisco have to look carefully because this really is corruption of the developers. The easy hand effort developers means we dont have a Planning Commissioner. We have shells who call themselves a Planning Commission but basically, it has to be the developers. They approve regardless of the cost of the people of sanfranciscsanfrancisco. I think that the Planning Commission and mayor be held accountable for allowing Development Without transit which is a requirement in the law. Its a requirement in the law that you have to have proper transit before you approve development. Youre ignoring that. Youre ignoring that. I think we have to look carefully at what youre doing. Theres a Development Issue which will be coming up later today about 1500 condos, milliondollar condos on ocean avenue without serious planning for transit and youre ready to approve that. The city of San Francisco has spent millions of dollars without proper planning for transit. I think, again, it shows the culpability and who you really represent. Thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. That places us under the regular calendar case 2017440, 2222 broadway. Good afternoon, im sharon young, Planning Department staff. The item before you was for authorization at 222 broadway to increase the enrollment cap for an existing schools of the sacred heart, broadway campus with a student enrollment increase ranging from 850 to 1,050 student and an increase in the number of faculty and staff from 200 to 205. The proposal will involve modifying the conditions of a prior use authorization on 99. 217c, motion number 160le 2 an16082with a current age of stt enrollment. No construction is proposed as part of the project, no physical alterations through existing School Communities and sites are proposed. The proposed project will include implementation of a Transportation Management plan, a categorical exemption for this proposed project. As far as issues and considerations, the correspondents from several neighbors were, the panorama Condominium Owners Association at 2190 broadway, the Homeowners Association at 228 broadway and Pacific Heights association requesting Additional Information requesting concerns for opposition to the project. The project sponsor submitted doesnt support the project. The project was originally scheduled for the january 24th g Commission Hearing but was further requested to allow the project sponsors, neighborhood groups and parties for continued neighborhood discussions. In the response to the neighborhood concerns for project sponsor, they amended the conditional use application to legalize the operation within the current range of student enrollment by facing student enrollment over multiple school years and an agreement with Residents Association. They support action by planning staff and the Planning Commission to include the main provisions of the agreement and to the initial use authorization approval of the project. This concludes any presentation. Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. As you heard, were requesting an enrollment increase from 850 to 1,050 students and proposing a stepped enrollment to grow into those additional students. The broadway campus where the enrollment would be implemented has three schools. Theres no construction proposed as part of the project. The school has a good footprint to support additional students. And although we received a cu for a physical expansion in 2001, there hasnt been an enrollment increase since the 850 students were granted in 1984. And youll here in a few minutes from the president of schools, anabout how it would allow the school to better serve the community, including scholarship students and youll hear from head of physical plan about traffic measures taken recently. Were really excited to report that weve entered into an agreement with the Pacific HeightsResident Association to support the project. Its been a long path which has been great for the school to increase its communication and work with the community. You did hear that there was opposition to the project. Yoi think that is old opposition that was before we had many, Many Community meetings since then. If i could have the overhead. So you can see the numbers. One of thenings wer of the thie requesting we have increased 1,000 student and have an informational hearing so the neighbors can be heard and there can be a public forum before we reached the last 50 students. If thats not granted, woe decrease or request and its important the Community Feels comfortable but rather than go through a full hearing and evaluate the 50 students, it would be best to have an additional hearing. In addition to the work with. Hraphra. Thanks for eurotunnel thanks to thyour time and youllhear froml staff now. Thank you. Good afternoon. Its been my pleasure to serve as the president of the school since the 20122013 school year. Schools of the sacred heart have played a vital role in the education of San Francisco since 1887 and we hope to be a positive force for good in the city and as a school and a source of service to the community. In my first year as president , i identified in enrollment in the cu conditions as one of the most Critical Issues for the school to focus on as we formed a Strategic Vision end plan. I was to alleviate the financial pressures facing the school that have been the primary source of historic overenrollment. The school afired to add enrollment opportunities in the high school levels. At the middle level, there are many applicants for limited openings. A Space Utilization study showed our Physical Plant had significant unused capacity. The school could grow its enrollment without growing its physical footprint. Once we identified there was room to grow, we analyzed our staffing needs and found that a student increase could be accomplished with minimal added faculty and staff. On april 7, 2018, in an effort to address the strategy and remedy the overall enrollment, the school applied for a 30yearold cup and applied for the increase of 200 students. It was critical that there was a low associated cost impact, since the hope was to provide increased admission opportunities and continuing to distribute significant Financial Aid to families. Providing excellent Education Opportunities to a Diverse School body reflective of the socioeconomic range of San Francisco is at the core of the sacred heart admission. The school is committed up to distributing 25 of the gross tuition at the high schools and 15 to 20 at the elementary in financiaFinancial Aid. We see this as a reflection of the founding principles. The School Awards over 8. 5 million annually in Financial Aid to serve 33 of our students, making us one of the most socioeconomically Inclusive Schools in San Francisco. The additional approval will help us to continue this addition. The school has worked through the process with the neighborhood developing a trusted relationship we hope will last a long time. It has been a rewarding experience to be at the table with the community and we have learned a lot. If you we look forward to continuing our work with our neighbors. Since the traffic impact has been central to these efforts to bring this application forward and is a critical factor to the safety of our students as well as important to our neighbors, youll hear from the director of our Physical Plant to share some highlights of our work to mitigate the traffic impact. The projects prese