>> planning commission regular hearing for thursday, january 10, 2019. happy new year, everyone. i'd like to take roll that the time. [roll call] we do expect commissioner richards shortly and commissioner johnson to be absent today. the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobil devices that may sound off during these proceedings and while speaking before the commission. if you care to do, please state your name. items 1a and b for case numbers 2018-725c89 at museum way. commission use authorization

and variance are propose for continue wants to january 31, 2019. items 2a and b for case 2017-001270cua and var at 3140, commercial use and variance are proposed for continue wall streeting. item three, case 2014.0948vnx at 1463 stevenson street. large project authorization is proposed for continue wants to february 14, 2019. item four, case number 2015-00961cua at 77 gary street. conditional use authorization is proposed for indefinite continue was. item five at 380 holiday avenue, discretionary review has been withdrawn. further commissioner, under your discretionary review calendar, item 16, case

2017-012929drp at 830ohmstead street, proposed for continue wants to february 21, 2019. those are all the continue wantses that are proposed and i have no speaker card. >> thank you, jonas. any public comment being proposed on the item for continue wants? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner melgar? >> we continue these items. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue items as proposed -- [roll call] that moex passes unanimously 6-0. >> and i'll continue items 1b and 2b to the dates specified. >> thank you. acting zoning administrator. that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate

discussion of these items also in member ott commission, public or staff so requests in which event it shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item that the or a future hearing. item 6 and item number seven. i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioners. commissioner moore? >> i have a question. >> i think you have to pull it off consent. >> yes. i want to pull it off consent. >> which item? >> item seven. >> ok. so, we'll pull item seven off then on the remaining consent calendar, commissioner richards? >> move to approve item six. >> second. >> and we'll bring that up first item on the calendar. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve item

six under consent calendar -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> i made a mistake. i have a question regarding item six. not the other way around. it is really a procedural question. i mixed up the two. >> ok. so maybe we can get at this. what is the question? >> i can move into commissioner's comments. at one point we had said that when we legalize something, because [inaudible] without the proper permits we would hear it and decide on its merit and this particular item six is to legalize an existing use that apparently didn't have its proper -- [phone ringing] authorization. at the time when it started. it is a procedural matter, i think we need to be consistent. we pulled other items off consent before. i don't want to reverse what we did, but wanted to bring that

up as an issue. >> i mean, this is we are hearing it. we're hearing it on consent. if you'd like to pull it and hear it, i think we'd have to do that -- pull it here. >> far vote. >> yeah. so do you want to hear it as -- would you like the hear the staff report and any public comment on that item? >> yes, i do. >> ok. so, we would need to rescind that previous vote. >> right. >> move to rescind the previous vote approving item six. >> and approving item seven? >> sure. >> ok. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to rescind the vote, the previous vote to approve item six on consent, pulling it off of consent and approving item seven under your consent calendar. on that motion -- [roll call]

so moved, commissioners. >> and then take item six up as the first item in the regular calendar. >> very good. commissioners, that places us under commission matter. adoption of draft minutes for december 13 and december 20 of 2018. i did have one speaker card. >> are you commenting on the minutes? all right. >> i'm commenting on the minutes for december 20. i don't think the commission should adopt them today. i think you should continue them. the day after the hearing, mr. wu left and he did work on friday. but the records have not been produced even though i made repeated efforts to get them. there is discrepancies in the minutes and you need time to

review them and public needs time to correct them. for example, my comments don't mention that i offered a document. it just uses a whole lot of words that are ir relevant that i just said. i'm basically talking about shadows and documents in the record. commission comments. at the hearing should be in the record where they are relevant. there were comments about the plans before you being impossible to build under the planning and building code because of requirements that commissioner moore noted. they should be in the record because it goes to this c.u. and the other projects you have in the record for adoption of motions. basically prop-k needed to be followed in that hearing. there are ambiguities in the record.

for example, at one point, it was said by the staff person that there was no shadow study in the record that came to the planning commission. the shadow motion was draft before there was a decisions from rec park. and these are factual matters that belong in a motion. i think we had enough rush to get this hearing right before christmas. we should not rush to adopt minutes today. i ask for two-week continuance with instructions of staff to give me the records. because they've disappeared. and there is no excuse for adopting minutes before the records are available on a case. and this is about 1052 to 1060 folsom street. i would ask the commission to be very sensitive to having adequate record of the issues

that you raised as commissioners in this -- in the minutes. there is no longer a transcript that is worth anything for hearing -- hearings at the planning commission. sfgov tv is not credible for their notes. they are spotty, to say the least. i say that knowing that sfgov tv is broadcasting this. but when there is a really important hearing, and that was a really important hearing that is going to appeal, you need to have minutes that are accurate and complete and these are neither. thank you. and i will give you my statement for the record. for the minutes. for these minutes. >> any additional public comments on the minutes? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner richards? >> question -- we don't type

word for word everything that's said during each item. we vonl that during commissioner comments and the staff report. >> [inaudible]. >> and the staff report from mr. frye, i see, is in here and mr. starr. is it unusual for us to have a written transcript? it's unusual. the record is the video. ok. >> it would be unusual to have a word for word transcript. we don't transcribe what commissioner comments are during deliberations. the -- basically for minutes under the sunshine ordinance, it directs us to have a brief description of what people say. it does not say to have a word for word transcription. i was at a sunshine ordinance task force where one commission body actually provided that. word for word transcription and they were told to stop doing that. >> oh, ok. interesting. >> i did not hear from ms.

hester what was incorrect related to the minutes of december 20. so, i'm not sure what is -- a continuance would do in an effort to provide her with the documents that she is seeking. but i would be more than happy to assist her with that. ms. hester, what exactly the >> missing? -- exactly is missing just so we know before we vote. he said that the sunshine task force said they don't want a word for word transcription -- >> and you can't even get one. i've been attempting to get one made -- >> you can't look at sfgov at the replay. it's better not to do word for word transcription when you can look at the hearing again. >> prop-k has specific requirements that you have a hearing before you act.

you didn't have a hearing. it was all mushed into one. there is no separate vote. it was a third vote which was not conformity with prop-k. and additionally, if the plans for incomplete and would affect the shadow requirement and that issue was brought up by commissioner moore, not me, because they were not drawn by an architect. that doesn't have the same standards of review on the building permits. and so, a, there is nothing in the record ton shadows. >> in the file. >> no, in the record for the planning commission itself. the planning commission was not given a shadow study. it wasn't. >> we were given the results. >> and you were given a one -- or a shadow recommendation that

was drafted before the action of the rec park commission. that is material. that is not reflected in the record because -- >> thank you. i think the issue is you're bringing up -- the minutes are what happened. you're bringing up issues -- >> no, they should be in the minutes. >> can i ?auk you are bringing up procedural issues, which you ever every right to bring up and you should ask about them. but i think we took the action that's in the minutes. the minutes accurately reflect we voted on a mission, which is what we did. >> what was the amendment -- that was given to the commission. i have no idea what commissioner -- staff member gave to the commission and there is no record in the minutes and i've been trying -- >> the amendment to the motion? you said there was an amendment to the motion that you weren't given? >> he did -- when i listened to the tape, it isn't reflected in the minutes but he said there

was changes to -- he was producing changes to things that we submitted to you. i have the right to see them. >> sure. >> but i can't. because the records are disappeared. i'm assuming that they will be produced today. but no records were available when the first appeal had to be filed. which was last friday. the first appeal was filed on friday. >> ok. >> it took the action of the board of appeals to jam the motions out of the planning department. >> i thank you. thank you. i think we get it. >> two weeks -- let me -- >> well, i think we're a little bit muddying the minutes versus -- >> no. the minutes are a reflection of what order and how you considered the shadows. it was just shadow issue that had precedence for you. >> and rec park --

>> a shadow finding and take testimony on the shadows before you acted. and -- >> again, i think you're -- i think -- but i think you're also asking two things. that is procedural question. you're saying the way we acted. you don't agree was correct. >> no, i'm saying the minutes should say the way you acted. and what issues came up. >> yeah. >> and they came up -- you are not really good about doing amendments in the records. that's an observation that's me. the minutes are not a complete record and the transcripts on sfgov tv, they are lousy. >> but the motion is ultimately -- the important thing is what's in the motion is what happened. sometimes there are amendments that we make that aren't written that go into the motion, but the motion is ultimately what we did. commissioner richards? >> the city attorney, are we supposed to take items

separately on prop-k, have a hearing just on the shadow and then move on to the project? i just want to be clear. because we just hear it all as one item. >> i think the only question that we're facing right now is whether the minutes of the hear, accurate. i don't think we need to resolve the legal question about what needs to happen under prop-k. the only issue that is before the commission at this moment right now is whether the meeting minutes were accurate. >> there is no reason we can't ask that -- there was a question that came up about how we took the action. rec park acted that morning on the -- and made findings which then we used for our hearing. sdmrekts i mean, you -- the city attorney gives advice to us on procedural issues and from your understanding procedurally we did what we were supposed to do. >> yes.

that is my understanding. i don't think i was the city attorney at that hearing. so, i'm basing it only on what's been said here today. >> commissioners, just in response, although that is not the agenda item before you, as city attorney advised, but the items were all called together as one item. we took public comment on all of the items, including the shadow findings, and you took one roll call vote for the shadow findings. >> talk into the mic a little. commissioner melgar? >> now i make a motion that we approve these minutes. i think they are an accurate reflection of what happened. i was one of the dissenting votes on approving that the particular item. and i would also respectfully request that staff make available the information that ms. hester is seeking. >> [inaudible]. >> i offered a document and [inaudible]. >> we would not --

we would not reflect that you submitted a document in the minutes. >> [inaudible]. >> thank you. i'll second the motion. commissioner moore. >> commissioner [inaudible] what i would agree. we write minutes in a certain way and they refwlaek we typically do. and if there are other issues that can be picked up based on what was said, there's testimony and evidence in that and you can use that. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes from december 13 and december 20, 2018, -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us on item nine. commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner moore? >> i looked at the advanced calendar and i was very pleased to see that we are having a joint meeting with historic prer is ?raition a few weeks. i would like to ask that for the new year, we also schedule

a follow-up meeting with d.b.i., which we had said we would do, and we also would schedule a meeting with rec and park, just to re-establish common ground. i think it is a good practice at the beginning of the year and i ask that we do that expediently in the first quarter. >> and we have a demolition ordinance coming up, supervisor peskin. i don't know if there is time within that to me with d.b.i. but it would be good because some of the issues we had with them were surrounding them. >> we have an informational hearing schedule on the demolition ordinance. i think at the end of this month. i'm not sure we could get a commission -- a joint hearing scheduled by then. >> ok. commissioner richards? >> i agree with commissioner

moore. i wanted to comment. commissioner high land is a friend of mine and we live close to each other. we put tooting list of topicks that we suggest that the joint commission have. i'll type that up and send that to you. we did that over the break. just one item today. i got a card in the mail from the california preservation foundation, which i've got all the time. but there was an event happening, which i'm going to leave early for on the 24th and it is about historic places and well being. the panel is facilitated by dr. raymond noitra and look at the impact that losses of historic places can be. can have on health and well-beg of residents. and he is a former chief of the division of environmental occupational disease control of the state of california department of public health. so, interesting topic. i'm going to go to it and will report back. i've never, ever thought there would be a connection between

health and historic preservation. it was too far out to even imagine. but somebody's bringing it up. >> thank you. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item 10, director's announcements. >> thank you. no new announcements exempt to say happy new year and i think i was incorrect in my informational hearing, i think, is february 21. not in january. we'll try to see if we can get a hearing before the d.b.i. commission before you have to act on that ordinance. >> item 11. review of past evens at the board of supervisors, board of appeal and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. air ron starr, manager of legislative atheirs. first on the agenda was the ordinance sponsored by supervisors tang and safai. this ordinance aamended the approval process for home s.f. projects and the fee schedule.

you heard this on december 6 of last years and voted to approve with modifications. those modification were to combine the excess parking conditional use findings into the home s.f. approval process for projects seeking parking in excess of what is principally permitted and to allow the tiered home s.f. program to remain until the replacement is adopted by the board. both amendments were included in the ordinance. at the hearing, supervisor peskin was sitting for supervisor sa fie yeah. kim and tang were present for their last board hearing. supervisor kim questioned whether we should make it easier to approve these projects. tang agreed to add the definition to the code but kept the parking provision in the ordinance. the committee then vote the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. next on the agenda was the false of cannabis's proposed

ordinance to amend the planning code section 190. this ordinance would basically allow several long-pending canvas retail applications to move forward. commissioners, you heard this item on november 15 and voted to recommend approval with modifications. those modifications clarified what type of projects were grandfathered and also required pending applications exempt from the 600-foot buffer rule to go through the conditional use process. the ordinance was amended to include both of those amendments. at the hearing, several mcd and cannabis retail applicants spoke in favor of the ordinance while neighbors of proposed one m.c.d. spoke in opposition. vice chair kim moved that the ordinance be amended by striking out language regarding the state licensing authority. the language was not substantive since it only referred to existing state law but its inclusion did make some cannabis applicants uncomfortable. the item was forwarded to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation. finally the land use committee

heard supervisor peskin's ordinance that would amend the retail controls for the union square area. commissioners you heard this on october 18 and voted to recommend approval with modification. your most significant modsfication was to allow nonretail sales on the third floor, which the current draft of the ordinance prohibited. at the land use hearing, several speakers from the union square area spoke in favor of allowing nonretail sales on the third floor. they proposed this with conditional use authorization which included some findings for c.u. supervisor peskin also proposed increasing the fee for the open space by a few dollars per square foot. as such, the amended ordinance needs to come back to this commission for its review and comment. supervisor peskin did split the file so the changes not needing additional commission review could move forward. the item was continued to the next land use hearing so the proposed modifications to the unduplicated file could be drafted and the duplicated file

was amended and rereferred back to the planning commission. and at the full board, the only business was swearing in the new supervisors and also electing the board president, which as i'm sure you all know is supervisor norman yee. that concludes my report. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, the board of appeals did meet last night and considered two items that may be of interest to the commission. the board heard an appeal of the building permit for an addition to 521 los palmas drive. last july they heard this request as a d.r. request from the adjacent property owner. at that hearing, commission unanimously approved the project as proposed. the permit was appealed by a different neighbor to the rear who raised concerns about construction impacts and privacy. the board of appeals unanimously denied the appeal. noting that the project complied with then mraiing code and residencable design guidelines. the board heard an appeal for addition 1889 through 1881 green street. last march. you heard this item as a d.r. request from the adjacent

property owner with concerns that it would block two property line windows in their dining room and kitchen. at that hearing, the commission took d.r. to make a minor change to the interior lay outand reinforce the separation of units. the permit was appealed by the same party as the d.r. request. the board noted that the appellant's property was a corner lot which afforded units in the building substantial light and air and the board noted that the appellant undertook a significant interior remodel which included relocating one unit to the basement and had the ain't to design their project in a way to address any light and air concerns. while the board supported the promise, they did grant the appeal and imposed a condition that an outdoor movie screen be removed from a roof deck at the front of the plot. the movie screen was located behind a parapit on the front of the building. ir relevant to the appellant's request. the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. commissioners, that will place

us under general public comment. 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. i had several speaker cards. >> so, happy new year to you all. 2019. i'm giving you a copy of a letter that i gave you a cc: of that i sent to mr. metcalfe on january 10, 2014. there it is. and the point of the letter was to raise the issue that -- about alterations being demolitions. and it's all still relevant and i'm here today to ask you to please consider something you talked about, which is adjusting the demo calcs.

in the last four years, the z.a. has adjusted the numerical value for the rh-1 three times. it's gone from 1.506 to $1.9 million. you have not done it. it seems to me if he's adjusted it three times, the commission should have adjusted the demo calcs three times. there is a linkage there relating to affordability and policy efficacy. i figured it out myself and i'm not very good at math. may i have the overhead, please? what the demo calc should be. and it is important you do it regardless of any pending legislation because it's something you can do yourself. you can do it. you can just do it. maybe you don't even have to have a hearing. but i guess you have to meet together so you have to have a hearing. could i have the overhead? anyway, i have the numbers here. if you have -- >> could we use the overhead, please? >> thank you.

if you had adjusted it, if the commission had adjusted it over the past three years, these would be the numbers now. so it would be 25.6 and 33.28 for the b part of 317. and then for the c part it would be 25 and 25. so that would be pretty good. and why should you do that? because it's still going on. the demolitions are still going on. they're alterations, but they're really demolitions. here's one here. may i have the overhead? there it is. that's it now. here it was before. a really nice house. and, of course, there is this one. which has been like that since the fall or the summer. so please adjust the demo calcs. this property has been vacant since 2015. it just had a simple remodel, pair of flats, it would be on the market.

i think it's reasonable thing to do for policy efficacy if 317 is still in effect and makes sense to adjust the demo calcs. i don't know if you can do it three times since it hasn't been done but it is something to consider. regardless of the legislation, which i think it will be good to have done. but you could do it before the legislation is done. if the legislation gets done. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you. >> happy new year. >> this is something that we were anticipating putting on our calendar for early this year. ok. we'll follow up. >> hi. jennifer feber. i'm here to talk about a d.r. experience i'm having with 1295 47th avenue for a tenant that will be affected by a.d.u. plans. like many people, she is completely baffled by the permitting process so i've been trying to help her and she's done everything right. she's reached out tot the planner.

she explains her objections and said that we will eventually want to file d.r. and the planner was great, too. you know, he said that the plans had already had some issues and they may not be approved and we should wait until that's sorted out and that she should check every week with him when we -- so we wouldn't miss our opportunity. so, we finally filed the d.r. and then we were rejected without any explanation. i just got a package in the mail. and i have a d.r. pending at 2000 grove, which is exactly the same as this one. so i don't know why these are being treated differently. so, i tried to track someone down to give me a reason. i was told that the decision was the zoning administrators and that there was nothing i could do about it. i don't know which administrator it was. they were changing offices and neither of them bothered to reach out to me or sign their name to an e-mail. i was all correspondence through another staff member who did not have any say in the matter.

so, this didn't sound right to me. that the tenants wouldn't have any opportunity to talk about their cases. so i asked sue hester to get involved. we went back to the planning desk. she explained, you know, her reasoning and cited the law and that planner agreed with us and daok the d.r. again and once again it was mailed back to me with no explanation. so, after two weeks, it was the holidays, finally someone comes forward again and says it was code compliant. that is all that matters. this is the zoning administrator's final decision. so, after all that communication that the tenant had with the planner and all the work we did, it seems like this one man has inserted himself into the process in a very unaccountable way and dictatorial, really. this is really unfair to the tenants who are trying to be heard. this toe nanlts has received aggressive buy out offers from the owner a bogus eviction

attempt already, while we're waiting for this d.r. meanwhile at 2000 grove, which is also an a.d.u., everything is great t. architects have modified their plans. we're all working collaborate ratively. very soon i'm going to drop the d.r. and this is how it's supposed to work. but the zoning administration took away that bargaining chip for me and so my tenants had to hire a private lawyer and i still want to do the d.r., but nobody's telling me how to do that. you know, i'm not here to criticize you guys. i think you've been doing a great job and thank you for standing up for tenants. i'm just here to ask for help. >> that's your time. but can i just clarify. when you say "you," you can file a d.r. on any permit. so when you say you were rejected from filing a d.r., what do you mean by that ?*k said that it's the zoning administrator's call. >> it's a misunderstanding because he can't say whether he

can accept a d.r. or not. i'll find out. i've never even heard of -- there is no such -- >> any permit can get a d.r. all right. he'll follow up with you. you can follow up. come on. we have to have this hearing. [laughter] >> ok. happy new year, commission president hillis and fellow commissioners from anastasia yagonopolis. it's totally fine for property owners to use spaces that are otherwise unused to create accessory dwelling units. a.d.u.s add a form of affordable rental control housing units to our housing staff. when it comes to landlords taking away storage spaces, laundry facility, garage and parking spaces from tenants whose rental agreements include these amenities and use them for a.d.u.s, the planning department has ventured into unchartered waters. as it stands, tenants are not involved in any planning meetings or processes about the

a.d.u.s. however, the planning department requires landlords to notify te thans in a tenant-occupied building of the a.d.u. plans. if the tenant has an objection or there is a hardship, the planning department gives no directive as to what to do next. you've heard the representive from senior disability action testify here about senior tenants being deprived of laundry facilities they're dependent on and recently i learned of a dialysis patient who's dements upon having access to his car for daily appointments and having his garage space taken away for the a.d.u. he doesn't provide any steps for remediation of such issues. commissioners, there needs to be a process for dealing with the objections before rubber stamping a.d.u.s. and i'm hoping that you'll take this issue to heart. please take action to address

the problem. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. happy new year. at a time when our policymakers are talk about do no harm and the three ps of protect, preserve and produce, we are neither protecting existing residents and nor are we producing the time of housing that we need and we should. case in point is the a.d.u. policy n. a town where 64% of the residents are tenants, conversion of spaces within the existing foot print should matter if it's going to cut into the space that has been leased to the tenants. why? because the planning department cannot give await the space that is under a legal contract to a tenant. be it just the storage, bicycle parking or a car garage.

because an a.d.u. that requires the zoning administrator to waive the natural light requirements of the planning code is not time of housing that we should produce. here are a few of the examples of garage conversions into a.d.u.s that received the zoning administrator's waiver. overhead, please. these are pictures of some of the a.d.u. that is are being built in the marina. commissioners, i urge you to go there and take a look at them. most likely these are additions to our airbnb stock as opposed to additions to our housing stock. i cannot imagine anyone paying top dollars in the marina district to live in these dark, dingy and substandard places. but i can imagine the tourists would. the picture that you see is inside one of these a.d.u.s and the next picture would actually

show you the arrow would point to where this a.d.u. is located. most likely the a.d.u. project of 1295 47th avenue, which was a garage conversion, required a variance from the zoning administrator to produce units like the marina a.d.u.s that you saw in these pictures. this is not the time of housing that the p in the produce is meant for. this is not city planning. at best, this is airbnb planning and at worse this is slum planning. a project that requires a vary grants the zoning administrator by definition is not code compliant. if the planning staff had to turn to the z.a. for a waiver which was the case for 1295 47th avenue, they could have easily let the concerned tenants calling on a weekly basis know what was going on. and that is a problem. with our a.d.u. policy because there is no notification and a formal period by which you could actually file for a d.r.

the 1r6789 a. should not advise the staff to reject v.r.s. it's bad enough that houses are rubber stamped by the z.a. but it should not come at the expense of the other two ps -- protection and preservation. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is paul webber. and i'm a north beach resident and i'm also here today to comments on the decision by the zoning administrator to unilaterally reject a d.r. on the matter involving 1295 47th avenue. the dispute involves the approval by the z.a. of a variance for an a.d.u. in a garage which does not have adequate lighting. the space is leased to a building te fwhaonlts is informally advised of the proceeding. so the issuance of the consequences to the tenant have not yet been resolved either by

the rent board or a court having jurisdiction. there is no dispute as to the current tenant's rights to garage access. the planning staff at the direction of the z.a. approved the variance and a finding that, quote, the project was code compliant. there kons quenltsly followed a series of a filing of a d.r. by the tenant's union followed by its rejection followed by its acceptance and rejection by the z.a. the commission should hear the d.a. or some time of request for hem on this matter for at least two reasons. first the issuance of the ultimate disposition of the tenant's rights really not within the province of the planning department, the z.a. or the commission. any action taken in further rans of affecting those rights such as approving issuance of a permit for a.d.u. construction should be deferred until a tenant's rights can be resolved

in a neutral atmosphere where it doesn't have the implied backing of a city agency. second, the decision to accept or reject a d.r. should not be made by the person or persons whose conduct has given rise to the d.r. request. other the z.a.'s action of approval of a project contemplating oust ago tenant before tenant's rights are resolved by another unrelated forum raises its own jurisdictional issues for the planning departments and commission and certainly should not be considered by the commission as such at least on an appellate process. so we ask you to accept for consideration and disposition of the d.r.? for 1295 47th avenue and place on hold on the projected project of disposition rights

of the tenant's occupancy. thank you. >> thank you. ms. fletcher. >> i think everything has been said. that i also wanted to say. i would just like to say i would like to echo what paul just spoke to. this was very concerning when i first learned about this in terms of does planning -- zoning administrator really understand -- know and understand how the rental ordinance works in terms of services being severed from a tenant who does have a contract to those services? and we have to make sure that in building a.d.u.s, which are to be additional, affordable housing, that that is indeed what it is going to be without also taking away so much from those tenants currently living there and currently using those laundry facilitis in particular. so, i would urge you to find a way, maybe it is not just planning but in addition,

building inspection department to be educated by folks from the rent board as to how this all works. if there are -- if there is a need for a clear language that that's what we work on and we will -- i know all of us in the tenant rights community will be right there with you. so, to find a solution to this, it was very worrisome to hear that a zone administrator alone made this decision. again, it is so important for us to be able to speak freely, to work on a solution to housing together. so i just wanted to say that. as well as i'm looking to ward to the joint hearing again with the two commissions. i hope that you can finally codify some of those things that you all agree to back on april 12, 2018. that would be extremely helpful to our city, to everyone. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. not a whole lot to add. again, very concerned about the rubber stamping the rejection of the d.r. by the z.a. that we can't have those unilateral decisions being made. d.r. gives the tenant say so and gives him sa forum to make their concerns and articulate those concerns. seems like different departmentses, different players are doing different things and we need to kind of get on that same page. again, just to echo what somebody else said, the a.d.u.s, they're there for the purpose of housing that we need. we don't need anymore airbnbs, thing like that or of that nature. thank you. >> thank you. >> sue hester. i have three suggestions on how to move from here.

one is your sbunlts coming. the budget should have a planning departments staff person who's grounded on the housing issues and need a minister of code that has zero responsibilities for processing projects. really has to be the person in the department to get grounded in rent control and s.r.o.s and give advice to other planners, including the zoning administrator. the plank department is too proud to acknowledge that they don't have expertise in the zoning administrator, too, on the minister of code provisions. that should be rectified in your budget. thank you. that's number one. number two, is the zoning administrator should put in writing he decisions on rejecting 47th avenue. just to have nit riding would be very interesting.

but that should not be a province solely of the zoning administrator because, three, you should ask the attorney to explain in writing d.r. provisions and what has been the interpretation of d.r. i know because i've been doing this for a very long time. but i found my first d.r. in 1971. people could use the charter power of discretionary review like that. it's independent of 311 and the city attorney's office should give you some illumination on what the power of d.r. and when you can do it. i know for a fact that cases have even gones to a permit have been pulled back by a zoning administrator.

because there were improperly processed. he even has a power to step in and say this was issued in error and we are pulling back our department approval. what i know is up until that permit is issued, the planning director and the zoning administrator had that power. because there's no power -- there has to be power to correct mistakes. and the planning department makes mistakes. because you're saying you're like gods. i don't think you're gods. we are the public and we deliver -- we have to advocate for public. thank you. >> thank you. >> and you do, too. >> any additional general public comment? director?

>> commissioners, this is the first i've heard of any of this. it would have been nice to get a phone call about this issue. i don't know anything about it. i tried to text the z.a. to understand it. he does not have the power to reject a d.r. it kouft been an issue with timing or could have been an issue with the way it was written. i don't know. but clearly there is a misunderstanding about it being, quote, rejected and i will certainly get back to you as soon as i suns. -- as i understand. >> great. commissioner richards? >> i know we've had a lot of d.r.s and issues with tenants. you know, there was a human portion of the decisions that we make and we've actually stepped in and made decisions trying to balance the needs of the property owner with the tenants and there's a gray area of who's the enforcement arm. so, to that point, i think one of the items added up to commissioner moore's list of joint hearings. perhaps it might be a good idea to have a joint hearing with the rent board so that we can

talk about items that intersect with each other, specifically around planning and as it hits the human element and i wrote down, well before ms. hester got up, we talked about this last year in the budget and i know we recommended that there be a person responsible for being a tenant advocate. and i know i believed that because of some trimming that didn't happen. perhaps we should focus some priorities on it this coming year for the budget answer we'll discuss that when the budget is being discussed. >> we can move on to your regular calendar. september six was pulled off consent and consider that matter now. we have item number 16. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the proposal before you is west

portal financial group. the project size is located within the west portal neighborhood commercial district which requires a conditional use authorization for the establishment of a retail of professional use. the business, west portal financial group, provides the wealth management service to community members. the proposed business is not considered a form of retail. the hours of operation for the business is from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., monday to friday. the subject property is located within the west portal avenue between 14th avenue and 15th avenue and existing two-story commercial building. the subject in the space that be occupied by the subject business for four years k. the space approximately 1103 square feet in size. and the space is previously occupied by chiropractor's office circa 2014, which operated as a retail sales and

service use. the neighborhood commerce element of the [inaudible] seeks to maintain strength, neighborhood commercial areas easily accessible to city residents this. project would maintain a retail store front and enhance the diversity of the neighborhood selling goods, services in the existing west portal neighborhood commercial distribution. retailers, restaurants and other consumer oriented businesses require professional and business services to operate. these businesses [inaudible] such as the west portal financial group can provide more effective service to their client by ing locate in the neighborhood commercial district. to date t department has received 16 letters of support for the promise. staff recommends approval of this conditional use request due to the following. the project [inaudible] neighborhood [mumbling] which will don't draw citizens to the west portal neighborhood

commercial district. the proposed use contributes to the retail good answer services provided to the neighborhood and the project is [inaudible] west portal neighborhood zoning district. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for my questions and we also have additional staff. we're open for questions. >> ok. thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a consultant to this project. with me today is ellen ching who's a proprietor of the space and also rick feign who works there and sammy kwan. just to give you a little bit of background, this space at 360 west portal a is an in odd shape three blocks set back of the tunnel and with three suites that appear to be on the

second floor. three suites appear to be on the first floor. however, when you walk up 11 steps, when you take a lift up to the second level, it's still considered the first floor. because it's only 5'10" off the ground and 6'0" is the benchmark. why we're here today is the situation where ellen had talked to one of the neighbors in the suites and said who did your signage? and i like your sign. and the person who did it said i can do a sign for you, too. and unfortunately ellen thought that not having an electrical component to it might not need permit and independent the way it was portrayed to her by the sign company was she wouldn't need one. well, the sign went up. somebody complained. and when someone complains, what happens is it sheds light and transparency on everything

and the department starts to look at things and say, ok, what's the use and they figured out that this might be considered a first floor space, even though it's elevated and set back. so, they went through the board of appeals and the board of appeals came back with a commissioners that, you know what? let's measure it. and it came up 5'10." i'm sorry, you're going to have to file a c.u.a. diligently. they did. at that point, i got a call. i wasn't involved in the project. and i said, look, let's get some clarification. let's get a letter of determination out and determine whether this is a financial services or business professional services because we need to, you know, dot our is and cross our ts. we did. we got a favorable letter of

determination. it was not appealed. we thought we were ready to go and have our hearing. a moratorium all of a sudden appears in legislation four months after we had filed. look, we want our due process and we as a community came out about 30 businesses, 40 individuals and said to some of our supervisors, look, we're not opposing this moratorium if the committee wants it or a segment of the community wants it. we want to be heard. they tabled it and two years later, we were called back for this hearing to have a conditional use hearing so we then revisited the community. we said, look, we were here two years ago and we're here today. we got letters of support. people are still in support of these people. they live three blocks away from the business that they operate. and they're loved and they're as much a part of this

community as anybody. so, today it has been pulled off consent calendar, obviously. one of the commissioners wants a better explanation and hopefully we explained it to her satisfaction. but we're available for questions if there is any that you may have. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public sxhenlts closed. commissioner moore? >> having heard the explanation -- thank you -- i am perfectly comfortable. it is just when it comes without that level of detail it is hard to understand and generally i think it would still be good to put issues that require legalization on the regular calendar. that would be my recommendation to avoid anxiety and misunderstandings. in my case what was in front of me was not fully explanatory. so i'm in full support to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been

sected to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 12 for case number 2018-017238cwp, tall buildings safety strategy informational presentation. >> i have some hand outs. good afternoon, commissioners. may i can't small, planning department staff. the tall building safety strategy is brought as an informational to the planning commission by the office of resilience and capital planning for its consideration and to support further public dialogue. note that planning department staff are not currently developing or proposing any programs or recommendations in response to the report. and no action by the commission is being requested at this time.

i'll now introduce our first speaker, heather green. she is the capital planning director and deputy resilience director for orcp and she will be introducing further speakers. >> welcome. >> thank you, may i can't. commissioners. good afternoon. thank you for having me. nice to see you in your house. i'm heather green. as maya mentioned, i'm the capital planning director and deputy resilience officer for the city of san francisco, accompanied by our principle resilience analyst daniel mueller who worked on this report as well as two speakers you will be hearing from. they are both from a.t.c. orcp is an office within the office of the city administrator. we coordinate interagency nirk tiffs that support -- >> speak into the mic? >> the integrity and resilience of the city's infrastructure.

by way of background in our office in 2013, san francisco became the first city with the chief resilience officer, the first of 100 funded through the rockefeller foundation's 100 resilience cities initiative. when that first c.r.o. left the office of resilience and recovery was merged with the taptal planning program within the city administrator's office. as the director of capital planning, i'm proud to highlight san francisco's 10-year capital plan as an example of how we build resilience for the public infrastructure and portfolio. as part of that, we analyze our seismic risks and prioritize life safety needs for known available funding. we know that the usgf estimates a 72% chance of a magnitude 6.7 earthquake here before 2043. and we are devoting resources and some of our biggest efforts there right now. like the sea wall and the earthquake safety and emergency response program. as our deputy resilience officer, i can say that the

broader mandate of resilience planing in san francisco extends far beyond the public infrastructure portfolio to the whole built environment and to our community's preparedness as well. our resilience planning includes efforts like the hazard and climate resilience plan, a first of its kind integrate effort to address the risks from acute hazards and slower moving disasters from climate change. that is coming together this year. and then balancing all of that with the threats from heat, drought, conflagration and smoke intensifying ands the most acute natural stlet earth quaix. on that front, o.r.c. coordinates the earthquake safety implementation program. what we're here to talk about today is the recently completed tall buildings study. you'll be hearing from isa and david of the applied technology council. that is a nonprofit that brings engineering experts together to mitigate the effects of natural and other has arts on the built environment. a.t.c. is the author of the report before you and i'll