Cards. Do any members of the public wish to provide comment on the items proposed for continuance . Ok, for that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner fung . I move approval of the continuances. I second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed role call . So moved commissioners and that passed unanimously 50. Placing us consent calendar under constituted consent calendar are routine by the commission and may be acted upon by the role call. From the consent calendar considered as a separate item or a future hearing and item 3, case 2019006948c at 650 jackson street, conditional use authorization and 0045 crv, waivers from development standards, i have two speaker card for item 4 and you will assume people want to speak to that item and in order to do so, we will have to remove it from the consent calendar. Shall we hear that at the beginning. So item 3 on the consent calendar, commissioners. Commissioner fung im sorry, any members of the public have further comments on item 3, proposed on the consent calendar . Ok, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner fung . General comment. This particular case doesnt seem like it should be a conditional use and at some point in the future, you will bring that up among the commission, just adding that beer and wine doesnt seem necessary for conditional use, but i will move the approval of that. Seconded. Thank you, commissioners. role call . So moved, and that passed unanimously 50. Item 4 will be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar. Placing Us Commission matters item 5, consideration of off Adoption Draft minutes for the joint large with the Health Commission and regular hearing, i have no speaker cards. Does any member of the public have any Public Comment . Ok, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner johnson . Move to adopt the minutes. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the minuteminutes for october 3, jod regular hearings role call . So moved, commissioners and that passed 50. Commissioner richards . Interesting enough, as i was looking for the fulton street item on todays calendar, i know on our action item, we have an open action and commissioner fung walked right into what i was going to say. I remember the nc20 project, which is in 2007, and i remember 2017 saying maybe we need an nc30, look at the commercial districts and whats allowed, not allowed so maybe we do an nc33 and 34 and look at beer and wine and all other things we need cus for and look at the retail landscape to see what today probably should not be cus, et cetera. Anyone else . Ok, so i did have a request for staff. For the last three years ive been on this commission, we have consistently applied a policy of trying to get more Housing Units whenever folks wanted to expand space. And weve applied it in different ways. Sometimes by requesting an adu when folks were doing expansion, when there were tenants in buildings wanting to expand, weve been mindful of tenant protection and wanting to get moreunits when it affects tenants rather than space, resulting in evictions. So i wanted to formalize that policy, you know, pass this commissioner and give guidance. Right now, the way we do it is oftentimes it comes to us as a discretionary review request and we address it that way but doesnt address all of the projects that dont get dred or that are approved as a rider. So i wanted us to formalize and im requesting that staff work with a City Attorney to draft a resolution for us to vote on so that we can formalize this policy Going Forward. Commissioner richards . I think this harks back to our discussion two years ago when we act like a defacto board because we have a lot of emails with adu abuse, where tenants are evicted. I talked to Robin Collins on the rent board and she said our job is to determine what level of services or what amenities are taken away and adjust the rent, which i dont think is the right answer. So i come back and im going to ask again in this next budget cycle that we have a dedicated tenant advocate to look at every project through the tenants eyes to understand how theyre impacted. Thank you. Theres nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to directors announcements. Thank you, no new announcments except to say im happy to work on that policy and maybe we can run a draft by you in meantime to make sure were capturing the right issues for your attention. Thank you, director. Item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, no report from the board of appeals and no commission large yesterday. Im the manager of legislative affairs. The board was on resource for Indigenous Peoples day and italian day. Ill going over last week since i was absent. The landmark passed the full street at the full board and the south of Market CommunityAdviser Community by supervisor hainey passed and at the board, it considered the sequa appeal with 60 residential use units and the Planning Commission approved this on july 25th of this year, with conditions, pro prohibiting corporate housing. Primary concern with the department of environmental analysis for the project did not off account for the soil conditions and the appellant contends the proposed projected would alter existing drainage in the area and result in significant impacts to adjacent buildings in the woodward street district. The appellant contends it was approved under an eir and the impacts of changes since the plan was adopted were not adequately studied through the plan. During the public hearing, they spoke against the project due to impacts on residents and businesses in regards to displacement in the commission. Public comment was opposed due to changes in groundwater, hydrology. Supervisors confirmed this and denied the appeal. Lastly, the City Administrators Office introduced an ordinance to change from the office of cannabis to cannabis regulation, as this is a only a name change with no other substantive changes. Stuff was not bringing this to a public hearing, unless you hear otherwise and that concludes my report. Thank you, are star. Commissioner richards . Just one comment on its ok. I know the eastern neighborhoods planning ir was taken to court and it went through a lot of iterations. Does anybody have the status on what the ruling was . Well, i was used it was questioned in a court case. I know, 116. That was resolved and the court ruled in favour of the project. So im sorry, im going to ask the director about this, as well, not about the legality of it, but i watched the hearing at the board of supervisors and, you know, while theres no Expiration Date, the eir, the communitys contention is that things changed in the last 20 years, particularly in the eastern neighborhoods and transportation patterns have changed, as we now have uber and lyft and just at what point are assumptions outdated . I realize that theres no Expiration Date but at what point do we say, hey, its worth investing, in doing more environmental analysis Going Forward . I mean, theres not a clean answer to that question and im happy to have a further discussion with the environmental staff and kind of talk about maybe a memo to talk about where that trigger might be and how we might approach i mean, you know, the eie made assumptions that a good amount a certain amount of housing and office would happen. A lot of the housing has happened. The office has not happened in that part of the city, to nearly the part of eir covered. So theres differences in assumptions and the transportation patterns have changed dramatically. You cant tell you right here and now whether there is a trigger to require us to move into more environmental analysis, but we can give you guidance on that. I wasnt expecting a cleancut answer. I was more wanting to raise the issue as a point of discussion because aside from uber and lyft, i remember being involved in these discussions in our eastern neighborhoods. We did not quite foresee what would happen to pdr in the mission or in soma. You know, we could imagine so you think from the communitys perspective every project thats being built is being built with assumptions that we had to 20 years ago. So it would be belov behoove uso think about it. Thank you. Commissioner richards . One other comment, maybe in the memo, you could pull out the hub eir and compare it to the eastern neighborhoods to see if theres different assumptions now that were doing one in 2019 versus 2005 or 2007 or whatever it was. I would love to see what the differences actually are. Thanks. Seeing nothing further, commissioners. We can move on to general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the autos within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commissioner, except agenda items. The opportunity to address the commissioner will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member may address the commissioner for up to three minutes. I had just the one speaker card from miss shutus. Come on up. Ill read something from 2007, may 17th, and it was the background document for section 317. And here is what it says. It says, applicants who would otherwise apply for a demolition permit have attempted to avoid review under the commissioners policy by configuring their projects to comply with the technicalities of dbis determination as a project of alter augusts, rather thaalteran demolition. This is section 317, draft ordinance, defines this independently so that projects are proposed, removal of a substantial portion of that building envelopes will be subject to the requirements of section 317. I gave you a copy of this memo that i gave to the building inspection back on the 12th, with three other sheets. And im going to give it again because i think i want to emphasize that i think whats been talked about by you and by the Building Commission has been triggered by illegal demolitions or what people think are illegal dem lugses. And i think that what needs to happen is you need a definition that happened at intalk so you dont have demolitions and i think one definition should be total tearing down of a building and the second should follow section 317 with a little more not as liberal as it is. It needs to be adjusted and you can do that any time according to 317. So here are the four sheets and just to remind you what they are. One is this memo i just read from 2007. The other is the section 103 spaciou103afrom the building cod demolition without permit and 106 explains what they think is a de demolition and dbi sheet dd june 2015. So thats kind of what i think. I hate to belabou belabor it bun be adjusted. It may not solve all problems but something that should be done based on the fact that the value in the rh1 has steadily been changed over the last five years. And i think theyre linked. I hope you read the memo and look at the definitions on shes sheets. Here is another one from mr. Iona if he wants to put it in the record. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im kevin chang. Im following up from last week to 3847 to 3849 18th street. The materials submitted reflect the original condition of the property at the start of work on october 2014. Please mans arplease plans are d and not referenced in either Staff Reports from the planning and or departments. There are lack of added condition space and stairs connecting from the second floor, the lack of stairs from the first floor to a first space and limited crawl space included excavation deeper fan four feet deep, steeper grade in the rear yard understating the excavation performed and lower original roof peak than the original actual peak constructed in a replacement. The Plan Department could not have missed the issues back in 2016 when they abated the first set of complaints. In 2018, when issuing the 311 announc311311notification or whg various Staff Reports because Code Enforcement reviewed these plans submitted to this body last week. Simply put, the most recent 311 notification set of drawings falsely represent the asbuilt conditions of the property and staff new about this but did nothing about it. Staff needs to explain why. Why is the explanation important . Staff has understated the extent of Code Violations on purpose. Commissioner moore requested a verified and corrected asbuilt conditions at the first hearing in may of this year and none were provided by either project sponsor or by staff. These misrepresentations have direct community impacts. They understate the capacity changes and school fees that project sponsors have to pay. The Planning Department should require project sponsor to correct all misrepresentations and renotice. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im the executive director of liveable city and i was intrigued by some of the things in your last conversation and i think theres a lot to work with. Commissioner melgar, that idea of guidance around residential expansion and all that, looking again at that guidance would be good and adus have changed a trucks numbeterrific number of. As we look at how it ripples out into the policies of the department, you need an address. The rooms down standard are prevent you from creating an adu and maybe they could be relaxed or thought of in a different way for multigenerational households, et cetera. The residential design guidelines, weve done design expansions and all apply but theres nothing in the residential design about adding adu or cottages. It wasnt conceived of in the 70s. Theres requirements in there about parking and they tell you how to add a parking space, not talk one away. But now, actually, both of those things are permitted. So it would be great to have that housing discussion, open space. We dont require additional open space when we add an adu but if theres a private yard, do tents tenants get to use that yard . We think that would be a great conversation to have and we would like to be a part of now that were in a different universe around zoning, adus, how does it grow and adapt . You think on transportation planning, a lot has changed in terms of transportation modes available. You know a lot more about transportation behaviour. In 2014, when you did the tdm policy, you got a huge compendium of research saying these are the effective things changing travel behaviours. So the amount of parking in a building affects travel behaviour, transit passes affect it, et cetera. What youre doing rely on the old 2003 guidelines, so rather than doing an eir, eis because directors and others have said maybe sequa maybe isnt the best place, you can create a new place. Lets do a transportation study and not redoing the eirs but trying to understand what you know now and how it might policies and how they might change. We think its a great time for a refresh because we know a lot more. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Jessie hernandez for health and justice. Good day. On august 22nd, some 20 Community Members took time off of their work and family to impress on you their very deep concerns with the proposed development at 65 ocean and that day you heard a unified voice against the largest ever Luxury Housing Development proposed in the exc elsior to date. The Community Asked for a response in a months time and today it two months since that day and we have not received a formal response. So nearly two months, immigrant working class, people of colour, residents have not received a response from this body and yet, 65 ocean project has now been calendarized on the 24t 24th planning meeting. What happened . Thats a question. Today, though, im here to present over 1,000 petitions signed by district 11 residents and neighborhoods in opposition to the 65 ocean Luxury Housing Development. These are the voices and experiences of residents that have real valid concerns about how their neighborhood will be impacted by this major development. Yet, only learned of the project, many of whom learned of the project because of outreach efforts by community leaders. These are the names that today i can only invoke in this room because their experiences and struggles, i cant do justice in my few short minutes. They will show up if you allow it. Thank you. I have petitions and the copies of the names for you. Thank you, mr. Fernandez. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im a community organizer. Here instead of using my voice to repeat to you what weve said on august 22nd, i would like to read one of the petition cards. Its a letter attached. You will note that in the petition cards not everyone is a resident of district 11 and i would like to read this letter as an example of why. To whom it may concern, im amelia, a teacher at Balboa High School. I grew up in the city attending glenn park elementary, James Middle School and Balboa High School. As both a teacher in my 11t 11th area and a single parent, the housing proposed at 65 ocean is financially out of reach for me and especially inaccessible to my students and families. For those who qualify for free and reduced lunch. As a community, we should be looking to build housing to retain our vibrant community, not displace i. It. I wish there were options but there are simply zero option for me and my daughter. We should be using these opportunities to create those option. We know that when large market rate developments have built in these neighborhoods, they speed up the genderfication. Developments like this push out and keep treatments out. Developments like this take away the character of the neighborhood and make us feel like outsiders in a place we grew up in. As my landlord looks to sell the home i have lived in for over seven years, i do not know if i can continue to teach in sanfrancisco. I look up apartments and the rates are too expensive. Before going to glenn park, i attended kindergarten and first grade at the Discovery Center sch