Opposed . It is unanimous in favor. We are moving right along here, with the heat. Before anybody passes out lets move onto item number number 13. Item 13, reports and updates from contracted health plan representatives. Anything from the health plans . Seeing then. None. Come forward, claire. Public comment on this item . Thank you, clear, retired and play San Francisco. The reason im bringing Public Comment for, i have been hearins item in this action. Ive been hearing for members that their physician are asking them for certain annual fees. Ive heard it anywhere from about 200 1,500 per year that the physicians are asking. We are not sure if it is what they call for concierge service. These are from u. H. C. Members, not kaiser. Basically none of the retirees have discussed this issue, mentioned it, brought it forward, or responded to my questions, want to be identified. They are real people. Im not making this up. The question is, are physicians allowed to do that . Make a request of their members and say, if you want to stay on my patient list, and if you want to get a better response, or you want me to be your physician, pay me that extra 500 per year, or 1,500 per year, or 200 per year, so i keep you on my patient list to get i thought we have equal access, across acrosstheboard, to all of our physicians. Because we have United Healthcare coverage, or we have blue shield. I really cannot say if any of these people are blue shield. Most of the ones i have talked to have all been medicare. We are questioning what this practices, and is it legal within the contract with United Healthcare. What this means for our members . Some members cannot afford that. They dont want to reveal this, because they do not want to lose their physicians as their primary care physicians. They like those doctors, they have been with them for another five years. You understand what the issues are here. The question i have, it seems like it is some kind of extortion. Is this something our retirees are going to look forward to, is it something that people are required to pay, not required to pay . And then, what does that mean . One of do you move to the bottom of the patient list . What happens if you dont pay those prices. I have been in communication with abby and mitchell, this is brandnew to them, from what i understand. The members, retirees, are fearing the danger of losing their primary care physicians if they come forward and reveal who they are. Thank you. Could summary from United Healthcare come up and asked blaine how this works somebody from United Healthcare come up and explain how this works . We have the Medicare Advantage ppo plan, which has an on differential benefits and out of participating providers that are in our network cannot charge a fee to the members to be seen. Not participating providers can do that, its up to the member to choose the provider and pay that fee if they want to see the provider. We cant do anything about that. If you can get some examples, you have to identify the member, if you can identify some of these providers we can follow up and see if they are in our network. If they are we will definitely take action with those providers. Thank you for that information. This practice, from my perspective has been going for quite a while. This is not new. The concierge services, which is the reason why it has been becoming more and more popular. I think the solution that you have offered, is a good one. That is, if members have concerns than they ought to be able to check with their carri carrier, United Healthcare, for example, to find out what the status of the provider i am quite sure, theres a reason why no kaiser physician does this, because is prohibited. In any ppo network, it would be prohibited as part of the contractual relationship with that carrier. I think there should be a mechanism for them to find out. There are some providers who will, in fact, say, i have a Practice Management consultant and he or she has advised me to change my practice. And now charges additional fees and that will give my population better access. I will ask you to find another provider if they are not in the ppo network. They cannot have both. They cant be in the Provider Network and do that. There is a mechanism. It is not legal for a certain group, but for another group, physicians are independent practitioners, and they have the ability to do that. It can be up to 15,000, per person, or i think it may have gone up. I know a practice where it was starting at 15,000 per person, or 25,000 per year for a coup couple, that was over and above their healthcare plan. This is not substitute for any healthcare. You cannot give up your United Healthcare, or kaiser, or blue shield, if you sign up Something Like this, it is not Health Insurance it is just improved access. Would anybody that did that be considered a concierge, even if they just say we want 125 a year, or Something Like that . Ive heard this before i have seen all kinds of promises being made, certain physicians have said, you know, i dont have saturday off hours, but if you sign up for this additional service, at whatever rate, i will have expanded office hours, including late afternoon, saturday hours. I will promise promise responsive to phone calls i will promise responsive phone calls and email access. They offer a menu of benefits for this category. I have seen people promise this, and actually not deliver. Members pay 500 to have a saturday appointment, and the office is never open on saturday. It is a buyer beware. There is a menu of what this entails. I will say, you know, for members who pay 10,000 or whatever, its an incredible service. Those providers accompany members to their specialty appointments. They close their office, close their availability to other members so they can go see the oncologist. That is White Glove Service in a way that most of us probably dont benefit. Those members who can pay that, do get some service on it may be worth it to them. Any other comments on the subject . Seeing none. Okay, item number 14, please. Item 14, opportunity for the public to comment on matters within the boards jurisdiction. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is erica, and i recognize that the item i am concerned about, typically speaking is not on the agenda today, the fertility benefits. But my understanding, you do not meet next month, so i wanted to share my thoughts again, just to keep it on the radar. Again, i want to thank you for listening, and really hearing my concerns, and also thank the staff are all of the time they have spent on this. I want to states, as a reminder, that the investigation that was conducted by the department did show that my experience was not unique, or isolated, and it was validated. Also, a reminder, should you make this policy change it does not make the process any easier. I do not think people are going to flock to come do ivf. It is not an easy process. Even with the windows of coverage that i have been able to get, i am Something Like 34,000 in, and i failed in my attempts. So, i think this is an amazing opportunity, although it does not make the process easier, it will allow equity and access to the benefits, which is really priceless. The three things i wanted to point out is in order to make the benefits a fertility benefit, versus an infertility benefit what should be considered for deletion is the demonstrated condition that leads to infertility. That is what makes the difference between something being a fertility benefits, or infertility benefit. If you delete the necessary demonstrated condition, then it would be a fertility benefit. What was being proposed last month, a 50 coinsurance benefit for insemination services. Insemination services is a medical term. It means something very specific. Insemination services is not ivf. It is not retrievals. Its when you take a sperm and an egg to serve to fertilize it. It is not the transfer. It is not genetic testing. It is not egg freezing. Something along the lines of insemination services, egg freezing, ivf and all fertility related services would really get you at, what i think, the commission is looking for his equity and access for all fertility benefits. The last thing is, in the proposed policy, it says 50 coinsurance. My suggestion, for consideration, is to delete the number 50 , it ties the hands of the department to negotiate in the future, potentially more, 55 , 60 . I am not a city attorney, just maybe using the word coinsuran coinsurance. I dont know if that means 50 , or that can mean whatever the differences. To put it in that the policy of the department wanted to negotiate higher benefits, in the future, they would have to come back and change the policy. Thank you for your time. And thank you for giving me more than three minutes. All right. Item number 15. Item 15, opportunity to place items within the boards jurisdiction on future agendas. Any suggestions . Anybody have something they would like to put on our next agenda . Seeing none. Our next meeting, a reminder, is november, not october. Any Public Comments on this it item . All right. We are on item number 16. This meeting is adjourned. Welcome to the San FranciscoPlanning Commission regular hearing for thursday, september 12, 2019. I would like to remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind. Please silence your cell phones and if you speak before the commission, please state your name for the record. We will not have speaker cards. Commissioners, i would like to take roll at this time. Pai roll call . 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 rep