>> good afternoon and welcome. i will invite members of the public to silence your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission do state your name before the record. i would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] we don't expect commissioner -- to be absent today. first op you on your agenda is consideration for june 1, 2018.

item three 2017-014841cua is proposed for continuance to july. i have no other items posed for continuance. i do have two speaker cards. >> all right.

>> good afternoon thank you for the issuance of item one. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners resupport the continuance of item one and ask that you go out to the neighborhoods and have a full public process on this. >> thank you. any additional comment? i seeing none we will close public comment. commissioner koppel. >> then to continue items as proposed. [roll call] motion passes unanimously 6-0. consent calendar, all matters

here are considered to be routine by the planning commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests in which a matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate matter. item 5, case 2018-002906cua. a conditional use thursday. item 6. 2018-004612cnd. i received a request to pull that off the consent calendar. item 17. 7. 2017-00729drp.

>> any public comment on the items on the co consent calendar five or seven. >> move to approve items five and seven. >> second. >> then to approve item five with conditions and then on items 7 taking dr and improving with modification. [rol [roll call] >> that passes 6-0. commission matters, item 8. consideration of adopt draft minutes for may 10, 2018. >> is there any public comment on these? seeing none we will move to close. move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes

from may 10, 2018. [roll call] so moved, that pass unanimous 6-0. that moves us to item 9. >> commissioner koppel, we received a letter from the carpenter's regional coun cil, i am confused what was actually said in the letter but from our joint hearing i bought up issues about factory built housing and the fact it is built outside of san francisco and built to a less stringent code than san francisco and i questioned how we are able to approve these types of developments and if

they are actually legally allowed to be installed here, so i am really confused what the letter was saying and how a certain party is trying to tell us we should be putting sub standard residential housing in san francisco, but just wanted to clarify that as of right now, i can't support anything built in this city that does not pass the local building codes that we have here in san francisco. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> i wanted to thank the member's office to put together a committee this is an issue that we talk a lot about. thank you. this is an issue we speak a lot about the commission, just the rising cost of housing production over all and i was

shocked to see just how much the cost of affordable housing has skyrocketed. two years ago we were talking about every unit of affordable costs around $500,000 to produce and now those numbers are $750,000 to produce a single unit, so as that gap continues to widen and we struggle with ways to fund affordable housing, putting together a coalition of folks from industry, from nonprofits and committee organizations and other decision makers to come around and rally around a solution is the type of coalition i want to see because i believe the solution sits at the intersection of those different perspectives, so i am exciting to see what the three working groups come up with and what their recommendations are to inform our decisions going forward. >> thank you. seeing nothing further we can move on to department matters,

item 10 director's announcement. >> good afternoon. one announcement i wanted to let you know last night i went to the southeast facilities commission meeting to talk about the 1550 evans project. there was a number of members of the community that came out a few weeks ago concerned about adding housing to a site that was proposes by the puc for a community and education facility. i hadn't been aware when i proposed that idea that this process had been going on with the community for several years where they agreed on a plan and a facility for this site owned by the puc, so last night i went to the community to explain my regrets not having discussed it with them and we were pursuing the project as proposed tabi community and puc.

i was graciously received and left the meeting feeling quite positive about the relationship and the community was greatful for my attending and explaining my point of view. we are doing the sequel work on it. the hope is that the project can be, can start construction by the middle of next year. it includes a community center, an education facility and a fairly large park area that the community would use in that area at the corner of third and evans street. you will see a zoning site that will likely come to you either late this year or early next year. >> item 11 for review of past event.

the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> good afternoon. the committee considered the ordinance introduced by commissioner peskin. commissionerrers you heard this item specifying the $2 increase within the central soma plan and $5 increase elsewhere. during deliberations they said they were comfortable with the increase in the tsf the planning code requires a periodic update. during public comment some members expressed the need to consider all central soma area plan fees together, other comments supported the fee out

right. at the full board this week seconsupervisor peskin's -- to e district was amended to grant applications already entitled and the amended resolution was adopted by the board. supervisor rowen -- put affordable projects at the front of the line and i believe this is something we already do as policy but this ordinance would make it a requirement and that conclusion my report. >> seeing no questions we can move on to public comment. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in member of

the public my address the commission for up to three minutes, i have no speaker cards. >> any general public comment? >> good afternoon. i came in frequently talking about the pipeline and how the numbers in the public data set reflected a down trend and that resulted in a sudden study and e to the data. that was great, thank you for that. i want to show a graph from the memo. this is from theresa ohada,

inside planning. it all looks good and healthy. this looks good as well, so my goal was to replicate her findings. i want to be clear i am not saying hers are wrong, i failed to replicate it given the publicly available data, and i think that's because we are still not releasing all of the data that the planning department has on the sf open data website, and so i've reached out to theresa and asked her to see if she can help me figure out where the problem lies. wondering if there is a internal process the planning department can institute to make sure that the internal data matches external data on sf open data. i am sure you can't tell me right now, but if that is

something you could look into i would appreciate it. on that graph it shows 7,000 unit proposed in 2017 and on the data available on the website it's only 3,000, so clearly something is amiss, so i don't have any specific, but if we could somehow make sure the data matches, that would be excellent. thank you. >> thank you. >> since press has covered extensively the transit center, i would ask the planning commission to go back and have one of the staff people do an analysis of what you assumed

when you adopted the transit center plan in terms of housing development, in terms of office development and other development and make a report to the commission. what were the assumptions and what is the reality? this is big ceremony on the transit center. i say that because i read the business times and the business press, and there is a lot of things that don't get reflected at the planning commission because dennis isn't here you don't have anyone really vocal about land banking permits and trading their loss for the value, but i paid attention to an article -- 524 howard.

which is a new site -- my thought goes immediately to right next to the building that the building i was here last week 524 howard and it's gone through a myriad of approvals at the planning commission and they have never built anything, they have a continuing parking lot. one of the other things that how many workers per square feet or how many square feet a worker uses has done down dramatically since the transit plan was adopted. what were the assumptions that you made between the amount of the square foot and the number of workers? when you don't balance it all

over over the course of a plan and you don't address your formulation, you will be doing noneirs until the cows come home on the project there is with making assumptions about how everyone will be housed and transit. [bell ringing] the other thing you should ask is how much delay in the few's paymenpayment happened in the tt center because there was a delay between taking out the approval and certificate and that is enormous and part of the housing problem. [bell ringing] we didn't assume that silicon valley dumping. [indiscernible] and that is why the mission is trying right now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> i am not sure if i am to speak. >> when we call the item. not yet, as soon as. >> any other general comment. seeing none we can move to the regular calendar. >> very good. item 6 was pulled off consent. 232 clayton street. this is a condominium conversion. >> good afternoon. commissioners the case before you is for the property at 238230 clayton street, four story, five unit building and the property is in rh3 zoning

district. we have not received anything in approval or opposal to the request. >> if there are any question. >> my name is lisa oprey and i live about five doors away from 238 220 clayton street. the request for the condo conversion to convert into residential condominiums i think should be denied because in june of 2002, then owner mike platowski evicted ten of the tenants living in the building. i have the sf public works form and it's an application checklist that indicates that

one or more of those tenants who are ellis act evicted in 2002 was protected status. i also have copies of the san francisco board's filing of eviction of ten tenants in 2002. the individual who evicted the ten tenants in 2002 is currently trying to evict me from my home. i would ask you to consider the destructive, life-shattering impact that these decisions have on hard-working sa san francisc. i have the form that shows.

>> if you could speak into the mike. >> i have the form which has the box checked that protected tenants were indeed effected. evicted. this is page one, but you can see on page two, it's not a very good copy, i'm sorry it's dark but line 23, 24, and 25. >> if you could just pull it down so we can see it. >> can you see that? at 228, 230. seems like a disconnect between the history of these things and i'd like for you to be aware before you decide. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> theresa flandrick.

good afternoon. there was an ellis act eviction in 2002. i didn't know about her story, which is -- anyway, so the point just being that i want to make sure that is known. furthermore that them being turned into tic's also means the loss of affordable housing and i want to be sure that is being counted in terms of housing balance and housing inventory. tics for a long time were not recorded as being tic. you have to search and see that there were six different deeds that happened within a four year period and then your best geez is that they are indeed tics and i wanted to make note of that and you know that and that it is indeed recorded here today. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on

this item? seeing none we will move to commissioner's comments and question. >> we had this come up before where the application didn't indicate there was an eviction. in this case it seems it did do that. >> our new processes seem that we include that eviction history which i believe is included in the staff report here. that did evidence evictions in 2002, however our understanding and the city planning -- that that does not disqualify the building. >> right. we just needed to make sure it was included that is why we denieded that fafsa application because they didn't say there was an eviction in their application. our focus on this is pretty

narrow. to the public commenters i think we all get the issue, but the board has passed laws on who can condo convert and ellis act has been taken into account where new applications you can't condo convert or you have to wait a certain amount of time. our power here is fairly limited in making sure there is a complete application and i think this does indicate there were these eviction. >> right. >> president hillis: commission erner moore. >> could they make sure that the protected unit was in the report. i couldn't find that particular mention. >> i was not made aware of anything in terms of protected status or disabled tenant if that is what the reference is to.

the eviction history that was filed with us didn't necessarily include that information so that is the same information from the rent board that is included in your status' well or in your staff report. it states there were ellis act evictions that occurred in 2002, so i was unaware of any citizens and that information is not provided to us except for the information provided by the applicant. >> what is hard for me is that the residential lives next door has the courage at this difficult time to come forward and tell us it is the same person and that is of great concern to me because it just puts a whole another question as far as how our own responsibilities go. i want to hang that out because i have not formulated an answer.

>> i think our jurisdiction is fairly limited here and rules as to when a condo conversion and i think it's limited when they can happen and and the tenant history and eviction history there is. i think the city went in the right direction limiting condo conversions where there has been eviction. >> can you use the mic.? >> sorry. i don't think we are in a position where we can deny this or based on what we are kind of tasked to do. we are supposed to look at complete applications and whether they are consistent with the laws on the books which the city allows some condo conversions and this one seems to be client. >> commissioner moore:i would

like to ask the city attorney aside from judging clayton on it's own merit, what do we need to do to take notice of the comment that was made to us? >> what is not clear is that the same person is part of the application in this building that lives next door unsure of the connection other than i if e ellis act conviction was the same person. in t. commission could vote to

include an ongoing concern about ellis act evictions through the city there are some limitations the what the commission can do at this point both with respect to the provisions of the subdivision code and how the application of the ellis act next door affects the ellis act eviction that happened in 2002 here. thank you. >> anything else? >> if i can just make a clarification point. a lot of new processes that we have in terms of including the eviction history is related to a couple of the condo issues that we had recently. my understanding of it and i can confirm this later would be that at the department of public work the lead agency on this and they do confirm the information

that's given to them by the applicant and the applicant submits confirmation via an aft that states that no protected tenants have been evicted, no more than i believe two, whatever the rule is in the subdivision code, so our eviction history, the eviction history is already provided to dpw, but i believe in response to some of the issues that we have had previously it's not provided to us. traditionally i believe it's been dpw's role to confirm that the information is accurate and that protected tenants were not evicted illegally and illegal evictions did not occur, so this kind of in addition as a further review and clarification point thank you. >> thank you.

>> i was going to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter on conditions o. [roll call] motion fails commissioners 3:2 with commissionerrer's johnson and mel gar voting against. >> commissioner mel gar: i have questions what has happened ot this building since 2002. can i have the commenter who gave us the comment to shine light on this. i am curious. >> i do know that the tenants

were evicted the five units were modernized and then sold as the ics around 2008, 2009. i do know that the individual whwhose name is on the rent boad papers, the owner of 228-230 who made the decision to ellis act. he sold the buildings. he is a relator. realtor and he sold the units and retained the rights to the garage. i don't have that with me today, but he does not own one of the five units but he declared in his legal papers to me he has to provide a list of all the properties that he owns and he

disclosed ownership of the garage of the building and i don't know if that is helpful to your decision making. >> as the approval motion has mailed right now we came forward with recommendation of approval and my understanding if this occurred then findings need to be made prior, so a continuation may be in order in that case. >> i realize we didn't ask is the project sponsor here? >> if the planning commission is

inclined to disapprove the application i would recommend continuance or motion of intent. the subdivision code asks for specific findings to be made and it sounds like the commission is asking for more information about the building and a continuance may be in order to secure that information from your staff or the project sponsor or if the commission would rather adopt a motion to disapprove the staff could return with more information and. >>and. >> motion to continue. >> second. >> how much time might we need? >> the soonest this could come back is june 7. >> june 7 works for us. >> i have been in the back and

there was a monitor and video back there and able to participate in this vote. >> thank you. >> very good commissioners there is a motion to continue this to second to june 7. on that motion. [roll call] so moved that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner hillis voting against. that places us under item 12 case number 2018-001876pca for obstructions in required setbackst, yards and usable open space. >> audrey beckis. this would allow pay windows

that do not meet the standards of section 136. section 136 outlines the type of obstructions that may be permitted over streets and alley. regarding changes to permitted obstructions over the last several years planning staff have increasing number of proposed designs that are innovative and desirable. the intention of this legislation is to allow for more flexible that enhance a build's design. any proposed obstruction would be required to undergo design process. regarding the changes to the bay window design. if it doesn't fit within the standards outlined in section 136, the only option is to seek a variance from section 136 but required findings for variance

are difficult to find. generally a bay window's unique result is not the result of exceptional or ordinary circumstance applying to the property but rather a product of architectural design. seek to develop an alternative to bay window design. the department did receive two written submissions after the publishing of the packet. the department recommends -- [. [reading] ing]

this concludes staff presentation and i am available for question. >> thank you. public comment on this item? >> mike bueller president of san francisco heritage. the proposed amendments before you are presented innocuously but from our view they raise more questions than they answer at this point and differ cult to understand the prokedde broadert op thescontextof these amendmen. the existing guidelines are intended to mediate impacts of contemporary new construction was existing or historic setting, the proposed amendments eliminate existing controls and delegate broad discretion to

unspecified staff as what does qualify as highest caliber design or innovative new construction. heritage is not opposed to that but amendments as presented raise important questions about the qualifications of staff making these determinations and the extent of the amendments apply to historic settings why the historic preservation commission has not been asked to weigh in on the amendments, so we support taking a step back and allowing for more intensive review for moving on this proposal. >> i am katherine petschin. i have authored guidelines for other municipalities around the state. with item 12, the start reports indicates that the planning department is asking for flexibility in planning and

reviewing, designs, specifically projections not allowed under the current code and proposed obstructions would be allowed to undergo review. it's not so much the substance of the specific amendment that i am questions but why are these being dealt with in a piece meet fashion? it would make more sense to review these comprehensively and as part of a more thorough review and with guideline updates and revisions and process. it doesn't make sense to address planning code amendments individually, so i would urge the commission not to initiate this item today or at a minimum to explain why you would do that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> restart the clock, thank you, or not. katherine howard many parts of san francisco have backyards that are rich vegetated enter your block open space and it provides habitat, a safe place for children to play and a refuge for tired homeowners at the end of the work day. what could be the impact on open space. i came up with a scenario. a neighbor builds a pop out extension extending 12 feet and it has two floors and then there is a five foot popout and then over hangs set back on both sides and in the back of a popout a pat you is put up and a

win screen or fence is installed around the entire backyard and to top it off a pergola is installed all over the entire backyard. the neighbor on the north side of all this is now looking at what is in essence a very open, but semi-enclosed room. the real question is here, what is open space? shouldn't it be open to the sky? what about growing trees or shrubs? what about habitat if we are going to talk about sustainability. what is the impact on the entire block's interior open space and neighbor's enjoyment of the yard with unregulated instruction. we need to know what the removal of limitations mean. we need pictures and we need

specific limitations on how much any obstruction can extend over our open space. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon allowing projections without maximum -- while retaining maximum seems illogical. please specify the required design standards for 136c1 feature. if they can go the width and length of a lot and they are on the first load. those section 136c2, a-g remains undeleteth in the ordinance and that would now be trumped by the planning director regardless of

impact. bay windows could get large. would planning allows one's bathroom way window to look directly into the someone else's bedroom. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i support it and i think you should approve it and schedule it for adoption. i don't think we should be -- i think we should give architects more freedom to explore interesting new designs and i think this will help make that a little bit easier.

>> thank you any additional comment? we will close public comment. >> >> commissioner moore: why not bundle in of these conversations into one discussion and do it in a comprehensive say that includes the checks and balances that were discussed last week. i believe that if you eliminate specific guidance you need to at least at minimum support it with an equal set of newly formulated guidance which is not just words but companying drawings and detail which is currently not provided so just to push it out to .>> i am happy to ask staff o a little more analysis on this. i would suggest that it is an ordinance that should stand on

its own because there are specific features on buildings that we are constantly dealing with that cause us headaches and designs that you have liked are not possible because of the way the code is currently structured, so i would encourage you not to make this part of a larger package. i don't think it's designed to be part of a larger package, it's a specific issue related to architectural projections from a building. i would ask that we can make it a stand-alone piece at this point. >> commissioner moore: i would be supportive of more intense research on the subject matter but i do believe it should involve a feedback loop through the historic presentation because i heard heritage and mst some shortcomings based on their project. >> maybe we could give this more

time between now and the next hearing and ask for a little more descriptive. you are right and just examples on how and why this would work and go to historic preservation in the interim. extend this out to july or so, so it gives you enough time to pull that together and go to preservation and some of the folks that spoke here today. >> we didn't bring it to the hpc because just initiation. but we are happy to bring it before. >> commissioner moore: if you don't mind you have four or five preservation architects sitting on this and to also run it through them. that is part of their practice

and makes sense to draw on their capabilities and direct impact. >> i am not disagreeing with you that the process usually the planning commission initiates something and that allows us to outreach. >> commissioner moore: in this case it would be good to reverse that sequence. >> commissioner koppel: motion to initiate -- in early yule. >july.>> is there a date mid-juy jonahs. >> july 12. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt a motion to initiate and schedule a motion on of after july 12.

[roll call] >> that motion pas passes 5-1 wh commissioner moore voting against. that puts on item 13. 2018-004047cwp-03, the housing balance report presentation. >> welcome ms. iata.

>> good afternoon president hillis and commissioner. i am a principal planner with the city wide planning section and here to talk about the housing balance report number six and this is only for your information and no action is required. what is the housing balance report? in april 2015, board of supervisors approved 53-15 to add section 103 to the planning code and this new section direct it is planning department to monitor and report the balance

between new market rate housing and new housing rate production. the ordinance requires a biannual reporting and i'll be talking about the sixth report submitted last week and covers from the first period of 2008 to the fourth quarter of 2017. this will also be the fourth presentation into housing before the commissioner. a hearing is also being scheduled before the board of supervisors as mandated and it has been set for july 16. one stated goal of the ordinance is to ensure that data meeting affordable housing targets city wide and within neighborhoods and informs the housing process

for new housing development. just to remind the commissioners here are three affordable housing projects cited in the mandates. the housing balance report gives context to these three different housing production goal. the housing mandated by the state to be updated periodically set as production goal of about 28,000 units built between 2015 and 2022 this is commonly called brina. 57% should be affordable to low and moderate income household. the planning departments submitted annual report on the city's progress in leading this goal to the state department of housing and community development. the department prepares a quarterly report to the planning

commissioner. prop k passed by san francisco voters in 2017 set a goal of that 57% of new communities be affordable. the late mayor set a goal of -- affordable unit.

i would like to add this has been more or less consistent in the last two decades or more. [ please stand by]

the net affordable housing stock totalled about 10,282 units. this net affordable housing stock over 4738 is about 25%. this is the city's cumulative housing balance over a ten year period. it is two percentage points higher than the previous year's housing balance reports. the ordnance also requires that the housing balances be

calculated by districts and by planning department districts. the housing balances range from -279% in district 4 to 75% in district 5. the negative balances are due to higher amounts of units being removed from protected status relative to the net new affordable units built. these districts, by the way, are consistent with the boundaries used in the annual housing inventory reports. again, there's a range of balanc

balances. in projects that have received entitlements and have yet to receive building permits. this slide shows the projected housing balance at 16%. this is about the same in the previous ten year recording period. the projected housing balance is also provided at board district and planning district levels. the housing balance ordnance also requires that three major projects that have been entitled but do not yet have building permits not be included in the projected housing balance. that is until phasing of these

projects move to applying for and receiving building permits. all together, remaining phases of these projects will provide about 22,000 net new units of which 22% will be affordable. also not included in projected housing balance are checks you aren't -- currently under revie

the mayor's office of housing and community development, the mayor's office of economic and work force development, the rent stabilization board, the department of building inspection and the city economist will each present strategies for achieving and maintaining a housing balance consistent with the city's affordable housing goal at this annual meeting before the board. should the cumulative balance fall below 33%, they will determine the amount of funding needed to bring the city into the required minimum.

the planning department has created and maintained a website specifically for the housing balance report as required by the ordnance. this current report can be downloaded from the site. that is all for now. i'll be here for questions the commissioners may have. thank you. any public comment on this item? sorry. i've been working on this issue for forever. and i think it's time to look

again at the housing fees the city's imposing. the first housing fee was impo impos imposed and it applied to office development with assumptions on the work force. and providing housing for the work force. as i said in my earlier comments, the demand for housing is changing as the use of space is changing. one of the things that i think is needed beyond the feedback on the transit center is are your formulas working today on the housing requirements posed on office developers.