Their comments in advance to the Planning Commission, not sfgovtv. Org. The number for the public call in number should be displayed below on the hearing. In the covid19 emergency, please visit the Planning Commission website for our regular update. At this time, we will take roll. [roll call] clerk commissioners, the first item up on your agenda is consideration for continuance. The first item up on your agenda is item number 1, 2012. 0640 ofa2. The second item up for continuance on your agenda is 2019013981 cua, 224228 clara street, proposed for continuance to december 10, 2020, item 3, 2016012135 cua, 2214 cayuga avenue and 3101 alemany boulevard, proposed for continuance to december 10, and item 4, 2017013728 crv, 1021 valencia street, proposed for continuance to january 14, 2021. Those are the four items i have proposed for continuance. [inaudible]. Clerk i will take Public Comment on items proposed for continuance. Operator [inaudible] press star, three to unmute. Clerk well wait to see if we have any Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance. Hello. Am i speaking . Clerk go ahead, caller. My name is mark burrough. Im a Business Owner at 598 brannan street. [inaudible] weve paid between 2. 5 and 3 million in rent during this period, and weve never been late on a payment. Weve been told the former landlord was the hurst corporation. Weve been told that hurst told us were the best tenant weve ever had. Were a 247365 business, but its enjoyable. We take care of pets, dog boarding, and we have a retail store, and we make a difference in this community for our clients. When covid hit San Francisco, we had a couple of long conversations with the City Attorney, and we were deemed an essential Service Prior to essential workers in San Francisco. We have even repurposed, during covid, some of our space to support rescue dogs clerk hi, caller. This item is meant to be for the proposed continuance of the item, not the item itself. So i should return when after this is continued . Clerk correct. So while basically the time to talk about the project itself would be if the commission continues it to december 3. I see. Okay. I apologize. Clerk no worries. Chan, well take the next caller. I dont see any other callers. Clerk great. Commissioners, i just received word that the liberty street discretionary review, site 13, 2020007450drp02, at 428 liberty street, is proposed for continuance. [inaudible]. President koppel motion, anyone . Commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial move to continue the items as noted. Second. President koppel thank you. Roll call vote . Clerk we have a motion to continue the items as proposed. On that motion [roll call] clerk so approved, 70. We will move onto the next item on your calendar, item b, for commission matters. So we will take commission comments and questions. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i wanted to strongly encourage everybody to participate in mondays invitation for [inaudible] presentation by the director [inaudible] director of the city of oakland. Hell speak on a matter that i personally found fascinating here on this presentation in september. [inaudible]. Clerk we will move onto item c, department matters, directors announcements. I have nothing. [inaudible]. Clerk in order to require additional review of Historic Resources and has this materials impacts. The department reopened the analysis, and in june 2019 issued a mitigated declaration including a mitigated declaration measure that included ongoing monitoring as per the d. B. I. S review. The [inaudible] was before you and upheld earlier this year. The final m. N. D. Was appealed to the board. [inaudible] raised the same issues that were raised in previous appeals. Those issues included one, instruct structural impacts to the adjacent foundation at 2124 [inaudible] street, two, indirect historic release [inaudible] staff emphasized compliance with the Building Code and additional oversight with the mitigation measures. [inaudible] City Attorneys are currently working with the board to determine ceqa findings that determine the additional analysis required. The board also considered two other ceqa appeals, both statutory exemptions called together. One was for the m. T. A. Muni bus service adjustments, and one for the sfmta muni rail adjustments and associated street and parking changes. These projects were not heard by the Planning Commission. Both projects were determined to be statutorily exempt by the Planning Department under the emergen [inaudible] in august of this year. The primary concerns raised by the appellants included that the projects do not fit the definition of an emergency project or a mass transit project and that there are massive cumulative impacts caused by the projects. [inaudible] the project also qualify as mass transit projects because they increase ridership capacity on existing transit lines. Public comment in support of the appeal reflected the primary concerns raised by the appellants. There were some concerns by supervisors, but they mainly had to do with the ceqa process and not any concerns. In the end, the aweppeal was denied by the board. [inaudible] commissioners, this is similar to an ordinance you reviewed last november section 191. The reference in 190 should have been included last year but was not included in the changes. Since this is a minor correction, staff is not planning on bringing this item to you for review and recommendation unless you direct me otherwise, and that is all we have for a review of items at the board of supervisors. And now that secretary ionin has joined us, i will see if we have any updates on the board of appeals or the Historic Preservation commission. Clerk i dont know what happened. I was joining in, and everything just clicked out on me. There is no report from the board of appeals. Given the holiday, they did not meet, and the Historic Preservation commission did not meet yesterday. Lets make sure that doesnt happen again. So commissioners, i apologize, but it appears that we can take Public Comment commission. 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 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 the commission for up to three minutes. When the number of speakers exceed the 15minute limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. I will remind you that you can call in for Public Comment by dialing 4156550001 and entering meeting i. D. 1462277331, press pound, and pound again. To request to speak, please press star, three to be entered into the queue. Oh, hi. This is georgia sciutish. [inaudible] they often have invasive roof decks that are not necessary to meet the open space requirements of the planning code. The windows changed, particularly on the rear facade, with walls of glass having an impact on the rear yard midblock open space, which i showed with the five photos, six projects in tuesdays email. Also, these have spaces with carbon capturing yards and tree canopy. This translates into the interior date with an inefficient use of space with kitchens overwhelming the main level. There are no hallways, there are no light wells, there are no discreet rooms per level. This is housing that does not comply with section 317 relative to housing and affordable and is contrary to the citys housing policies and the questionable in the age of covid as discussed in the wall street journal article that i sent to you this morning. So underlying all of this, of course, is the fact the democalcs have never been adjusted since it was implemented in 2008. Thank you, everybody. Be well, be safe. Byebye. Good afternoon, commissioners. Ozzie reaume with San FranciscoHousing Alliance and housing coalition. Im urging you to follow up on questions that the public and some of you raised last week when the planning was introducing, was presenting the new proposed a. D. U. Ordinance that the mayor has put forward. We still have a lot of issues with this, and i am imploring you to actually follow up on this and dont let another bad a. D. U. Law to become the law and law of the land in San Francisco. I understand that the City Attorney is claiming that it is a state law, and that we have to implement that, and i am questioning that. Do you know of any municipality, another community, another county, another city that has actually implemented this state law, the a. B. 68 state law that Assembly Member phil ting passed last year . We want to know if theres other cities that implemented it, how they implemented it because the ability to actually convert every inch of your lot to structures, and with no regards for your surrounding environment, no regards to rent control ordinances, its pretty much not okay. Further, the city of San Francisco is unique in its makeup in having 64 tenant and not 64 homeowners. Thats why we have an ordinance, and thats why i believe the contract that landlords enter with their tenants are a legally binding contract, and theyre not going to be able to come and tear that contract to shreds just because some new a. D. U. Law is going to be able to do that. So once again, i urge you to follow up on this. I dont believe that the City Attorney has got the answers has got all the answers, and i do believe that our local ordinance and our local laws should be there to protect our city. Further, i believe there could be better interpretation of the state law to our tenants could be better heard as well as our homeowners. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is bruce bowen from delores heights. Id like to refer back to last weeks hearing [inaudible] you may not be aware that planning has already implemented the programs that you already talked about. It isnt surprising, perhaps, that planning has proceeded in this way with implementation of the state laws, but the questions that you and the public raised last week need follow up and answers and more work, and ask that you actually follow through on answers for the sweeping changes and, yes, upzoning that have happened. Heres some of the areas that i think are needed for work, monitoring, and scrutiny. Im sure there are others. One, rent control. The city has determined only a. D. U. S can be subject to rent control, and already existing a. D. U. S may lose their rent control status. Tenant protections. It sounds like the new laws in ministerial approve will limit the rights of tenants to know what is happening against them and can assert their rights when they lose certain amenities, as everything is approved over the counter without review of the specific circumstances of the ground, and obviously, the city to provide adequate protection of tenants without a rental register may be very weak. Three, affordability and accessibility. Any programs to provide incentives or actuals to ensure a. D. U. S are more available to people of all income levels. Four, open space. Okay. If were alarmed about the impact of streamlined detached a. D. U. S in open space, the horse may be out of the barn. Assembly member ting has apparently forgotten that our lots are smaller than those of other jurisdictions, and if he wouldnt help us, we need to find someone who will. We decided that we should ask you to propose a Data Collection regimen as part of the other needs such as a rental register and housing inventory. In what ways are these new laws a burden on the city and contradictory to the general plan . Do we really know . Thank you. Clerk thank you. I just want to make sure okay. Ms. Reaume, is this you . This is me, but ive already given my Public Comment. Clerk i know. I just wanted to make sure i didnt overlook anyone. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, and actually, members of the public. Last chance to provide Public Comment. Commissioners, to enter the queue im sorry. One person, please. My name is john goldsmith, and im a 29 year San Francisco resident, and i live in the castro, and i am concerned about the Historic Preservation status of the castro metro muni station. It is at a stage in its life where it is borderline historical status, but i believe, and many others do, as well, that it is a culturally important lgbtq site with many other assets, such as Carbon Sequestration and tree canopy. Ive brought this to the Historic Preservation before. Im concerned about senator wieners intent to demolish the southern entrance of our transit hub. It needs to be polished, not demolished. Thank you very much. Clerk okay. Members of the public, last call for general Public Comment. Seeing no other requests to speak, commissioners, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 8, case 2017014833prj for the property at 469 stevenson street. This is an informational presentation. Staff, are you ready to make your presentation . Jonas, i thought that staff battery was up first. Clerk well, youre up first. Will we be pulling an item out of order . President koppel jonas, i wasnt aware of it, but it doesnt matter. Clerk okay. Why dont we just go ahead and do this one. Okay. Hello, commissioners. This item is an informational presentation on a project that would demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a new 27story mixeduse building that is approximately 274 feet tall with an additional 10 feet for roof top mechanical equipment. The proposed project would total approximately 535 a,000 gross square feet and include 495 dwelling units, approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial retail use on the ground floor. Id like to now turn it over to lou vasquez for his presentation. Are you here . Clerk claudine, do you know what his phone number is . I dont see his name on the attendee list. I do. I sent that to chan. One moment, please. Clerk sure. Ill actually try to find it right now. My technical difficulty didnt get me as prepared as i wanted it to be. For his number here, i was given 7481855. I dont see that number on the attendee list or his name. He did receive an invite, i know that. Clerk well, my staff says that he was on earlier but maybe he dropped off. Maybe the person who just texted me could advise lou to try to call back in. Oh, that was you. Yes, it was. Im reaching out to him. I wonder if he may be having some issues with the webex, as well. Clerk he may have, given the issues that ive been experiencing, as well. Should we give him a few minutes and then maybe move onto battery. Ive got a text that hes trying to call back in. Clerk if he has trouble, he can call the public line and well allow him five minutes for presentation. Through the chair, maybe we should just go to Public Comment. President koppel sure thing. Clerk okay. Vice president moore the Public Comment is a little more difficult to understand when we have not seen the presentation. Particularly, we have commissioners that are new to the project. Clerk actually, he is on the line. I see him now. I see him now. There you go. Project sponsor, your presentation slides are up and youve been unmuted. Thank you for your patience, as i will remind you. These remote hearings require a lot of it. Project sponsor, are you ready . Yes. Clerk okay. You have five minutes. Okay. Am i on now . Clerk you are. Okay. Claudine, are you at the helm here . I am. I am. Im on your slide one. You just let me know, and i will page through. Okay. Can i have one minute . I need to dial in the architect. Absolutely. Okay. Im not seeing it on the screen, though. Im hearing Something Else on the screen. Let me turn that off. Hang on a second. Sorry. Jonas, are you seeing the presentation . Clerk i see your presentation screen, yes, claudine. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hang on one second; im dialing the architect right now. Claudine, can you hear me . I can. I can. All right. My names lou vasquez. Were going to move quickly through this. I thought i had ten minutes, not five. Lou, lets just ask jonas, jonas, are you okay with us getting the normal ten minutes, please . Clerk its not up to me, its up to the chair. President koppel . President koppel thats fine. Clerk okay. Thats fine. Im going to move through this because we have a love to move through in ten minutes. This is the 469 stevenson project. Its about three years in the making at this point. The project is located at between mission and market, fifth street and sixth street. Next slide, please, claudine. Claudine, can i get the next, next screen . Director hillis the slides arent advancing. Claudine . Theyre not advancing . Director hillis no, they are. You dont see it on the screen, but they have been advanced. Oh, okay. All right. Well, this is commissioner tanner it seems like youre watching on t. V. Theres a delay, and so youre not going to see the advancing as simultaneously as its occurring. Right now, were on 53 that says at a glance at the stop. The project is in a 3g zone. Were using a state density bonus to get 495 homes there. Were proposing a 19 onsite affordable which has a state component to it. To date, weve had 70plus meetings with the community. That is ongoing. Our outreach is ongoing, where we will also propose about 30 affordable units as part of 30 Additional Units as part of this project. I just moved to the next slide, lou. I cant see the slides, so i cant its midmarket development projects. The surrounding projects the surrounding midmarket projects, they include the 656, which is [inaudible] where the new ikea is going, the 5m project, which is directly to the south of us, and several residential projects. Move onto t