i work out four days a week, and it's beautiful working outlooking out over the courtyard that i get to look at. it was hard work to get to the other side, but it's well worth it. i'm super grateful to the mayor's office of housing for having this for us. >> we are in a live broadcast now. thank you. so hopefully sf gov tv has us going. welcome to the preservation commission first remote hearing for wednesday, april 15th, 2020. before we begin, i would like to enter into the record the following announcement and acknowledgements. on february 25th, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. since that declaration, the

county health officer issued a number of public health orders relating to covid-19, including a stay-safe-at-home order. the governor and state health officer issued an overlay stay-safe-at-home order. to protect the city staff and members of the public, the city chambers are closed. furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspendin suspending suss making it possible to hold commission hearings remotely. the mayor's office has authorized the historic preservation commission to reconvene remotely, recognising that the commission's consideration of certain projects in a certain government operation and the authorization directing the commission to prioritize consideration of

action items pertaining to infrastructure, housing and small businesses. today, the historic preservation commission reconvenes for the first time in its history remotely using video and teleconferencing technology. the platform is not perfect and at times may even appear to be clumsy. therefore, we request your patience, there are built-in delays and broadcasts from the live event and from the audio feed. we have experienced issues with the conference bridge, but hopefully, that will not happen today. the commission and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely at the same extent as if they were physically present. to enable public presentation, sf gov tv is streaming this live and we will receive public comment for each item on today's

agenda. sf gov tv is streaming the toll-free number across the bottom of the screen. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling (888)273-3658. enter the access code 310-7352 and press pound and pound again and you should then receive the audio feed of these proceedings. when an item comes up to which you would like to submit public testimony, please press 1 and then 0 and you will be entered into the cue. persons commenting will be cued in the order they press 1 and 0. while you're waiting, the system will be silent and the system will notify you when you are in line and waiting. all callers will remain on mute

until their line is open. you must call into the 800 number and press 1 and 0 to enter the cue for each item you would like to comment on and i will repeat these instructions for every public comment period. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear it chime indicating your time is up and when you're allotted time is reached, i will allow your time is up and direct my staff take the next person cued to speak. best practises are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, turn down your television or computer. if you care to, you can state your name for the record. alternatively, you may submit your public comment by email to commissions.secretary@sfgov.org or to 1650 mission street in

sanfrancisco california 94013. i would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and personally thank all of the city staff who have worked to make this remote hearing possible. and i will now make a friendly reminder to mute your mics unless speaking and the chair has acknowledged you to have the floor. at this time, i would like to take role. (role call). >> first is general public comment and again, i will remind

members of the public if you wish to speak under public comment, now would be the time to phone the 800 number and press 1 and 0. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each commercial o member may ade commission for up to three minutes. if we could open up the public comment. >> your questio conference is in question and answer mode. press 1 and then 0. >> so do we have any member of the public that would like to address the commission? >> you have five questions remaining.

>> great. let's take the first caller. >> question: the sf gov tt and phone are out of sync. i'm katherine howard and i wanted to request a continuance for one of the items. do i do that now or under the item? >> you should do it under the item when it is called. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> question: mine was the same question as the previous caller. >> you have three questions remaining.

>> question: i'm ken piper and i'm just wondering when can we make public comment on any of the locations? in particular, kmnc. >> you'll have an opportunity when we get to that to speak. >> operator: you have two questions remaining.

>> hello, caller? >> question: this is richard drury, i was going to ask for a continuance on item ten. >> when we get to item ten, you'll have that opportunity. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: i'm bradley angel and i'm the director in green action for health and environmental access. i'm on behalf of all of the members in bayview hunter's point, the commission district and other neighbors around the city and we put our writin -- i. we want to raise a concern that the notice for this hearing,

contrary to what was in the announcement, the public wasn't properly notified and the many residents of san francisco were either limiting the speakers and once again denied access despite our repeated request to comply with the city's language access ordinance and that applies to not just this agenda. so i would again ask that we're all very busy, all very concerned trying to stay safe and healthy and it's an insult to the people of san francisco to proceed with this hearing at all today. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> so i guess we'll close public comment. >> very good, commissioners and that will place us under the

department matters and item one for director's announcement. welcome dr. hill circumstance. is. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity. it's been a month since i've started and i just want to thank the staff for their flexibility during this period and your flexibility and our ability to hold these hearings. the department is operating, but we're operating under reduced capacity with the focus on essential projects as a priority and we're working on all things, but definitely prioritizing essential projects which, for us, this is primarily housing and affordable housing and those are big priorities for us as a department and also as a city regardless and we'll continue to prioritize those, i think, even

post shelter in place, our ability to build housing, build it equ equitably across the cit, our community stabilization work, especially related to our racial and social equity plan and i look forward to working with you all on those efforts. of course, they're not the only thing we're working on. we've got to build a complete city and that means strengthening our neighborhood commercial corridors, our response to climate change, strengthening our transportation system and, of course, preservation, which is the focus of this commission and i know you've done great work over the years. i've worked with many of you as a planning commissioner and when i was on the city as projects and i look forward to advancing some priorities you all have, especially our city-wide survey. i know back when i was at moewd, we talked about that decades ago and i'm glad that's funded in

moving. and i know we'll be back to talk about that in detail, strengthening our cultural districts which is a big part for me in our legacy business program which we'll hear more about today. i should note, too, that the mayor has set up a recovery task force to look at some of the issues when we come out of this shelter in place and how we can strengthen small businesses and so our work around legacy business and what we do in commercial corridors to make it easier for small businesses to start and grow will be key and we'll be coming back and talking to you about that. thank you. >> thank you, director hill circumstance. >> item 2, review of the past events of the planning commission, staff report and announcements. i will just note that the

planning commission held its first remote hearing last thursday on april 9th. it was considerably successful until at&t's bridge conference line melted down on us and we were forced to ajourn early and continue the last two items. but i think it was a testament to both staff's hard work and the commission's determination to continue on with the city's business. if there are no other staff announcements, we can move on to commission matters, item 3, president's report and announcements. >> thank you, jon sarks. as. i just wanted to welcome director hillis and thank him for his update and thank the public for their patience through this process. we're learning as we go and if

the success of the planning commission is any indication, i think this will be a successful hearing. thank you. >> very good. item 4, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for the historic preservation commission regular hearing of february 19th, 2020. >> so this will be our first item that we'll ask for public comment and did you want to repeat the instructions? >> sure, absolutely. if anyone wishes to comment on the minutes, please, again, dial th(888)873-3578 and enter 310-72 and press pound and pound again and 1 and 0 to get into the cue.

josie, do we have anyone in the cue for the question and answer period? >> we don't have any callers on the line. >> very good, thank you. >> so while we're waiting, i had a question on the call-in. if a me member of the public cas the number and stays on the line and then they dial the 1 and the 0 when they want to speak, does that put them in the cue at that moment. >> it does, yes. >> so that may be something that people can pay attention to. don't dial 1-0 until you're ready to speak. >> right. something to consider as the chair for the planning commission hearing, because there is a delay in the broadcast, so our conversation on the platform is wise and they

do occasionally have a delay and occasionally we receive a late request. at the planning commission hearing, we did honor those requests. so josie, make sure if someone does get into a cue late, ok, but i think at this time, we can take up the minutes. >> ok. so commissioners, does anyone have any comments on our minutes from the last hearing? >> move to approve. >> i move to approve the minutes. >> and i second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, we caiwill call the question to adt the minutes from february 19t february 19th. commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns.

>> yes. >> commissioner perlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner monsuta. >> yes. >> and commissioner highland. >> yes. >> item 5, questions and comments. >> do we have any questions or comments for us today? we received a letter from bridget maley in regard to the golden gate library and i believe staff has that letter. it's in regard to the 7 carnegie libraries we have in the city and six have been landmarked and golden gate valley intended to be landmarked when the renovation was completed and it has yet to be done and she was

asking us to add it to our work program. so staff has that and we'll take that up during the next update. >> i had a question that was raised during public comment about the accessibility, the resources that should be available and various languages. could somebody answer that? >> well, i'm not sure -- the question was related to multiple languages and the resources are still available as our agenda just printed in english but has direction in multiple languages that if they would like translation to please contact my staff. i'm not sure what the person referring to, exactly, but nothing has changed from how the

city and the planning department and this commission responded to requests for translation between how holding these hearings in city hall and holding this hearing remotely. >> ok, i just wanted to make sure that was available to the public. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner mansu tax. mansuta. i don't see any others, so i think we can move on. >> that will place us case 28 28-00997 coa, a certificate of appropriateness is appropriated for continuance to may 6th, 20. >> ok. so do we have any members of the public on the line that would like to speak to our continuance

of this item? >> josie, do we have anyone in cue? >> there are no callers right now. >> very good. >> so any commissioners that would like to speak to this or do we have a motion for a continuance, please. >> motion to continue. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue, th then, item 6. >> commissioner black. yes. >> commissioner foley. yes. >> commissioner john's. yes. >> commissioner perlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner mansutu. >> yes. and commissioner president highland. yes.

>> thank you, commissioners and that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and we'll place this under your consent calendar. this is considered to be routine by the preservation commission and may be acted upon by a single role call act and there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff request. in which the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered a separate item at this our a future hearing. so if any member of the public would like to see any of these items removed from the consent calendar, you should call the 800 number and press 1-0 to get spot cue. item 7, case 2019-17569 at 735 montgomery street, certificate of appropriateness. case 8, 16968 at 1086 through 1088 fulton street, certificate

of appropriateness and item 9 case number 2020-000441coa at 53-57, certificate of appropriateness. josie, do we have any members of the public in cue? >> we don't have any callers. >> would any commissioner like to remove any of the consent calendar items off of consent? >> very good. >> move to approve. >> thank you. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners and on that motion, then, to approve items under your consent calendar, commissioner black? >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. yes. >> commissioner perlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so.

>> yes. >> mansuta. >> yes. >> and commissioner highland. >> yes. >> so moved. >> item 10, 2020-000052pca for the standard environmental requirements, these are various code amendments and i would remind members of the public that at this time, if you wish to speak to item 10, you should call the 800 number if yo. if you are on the 800 number, this would be the time to press 1 and 0 to get into cue for public comment. is staff prepared to make the report? >> jonas, ahead of the staff starting their presentation, i would like to make a couple of comments to the commission, if i could. so we are received a few questions about this item and

requests for it to be continued and i assume everyone, if you've seen your email this morning have seen those requests. i would prefer, i would like to hear the item today, allow staff to make the presentation and we can discuss whether we can continue it. there are three points that i would like us to remember or to think about while we're deliberating and one is that this item is -- our actions today is to recommend this to be moved to the board of supervisors from planning commission and it's not an approval of the ordinance. it's an initiation of the process or continuation of the process. the second is that we're hoping that this item will be an enhancement to our process and whether or not this is a

critical item or not, i guess that's up for debate as of today. and we're hoping that when things get back to somewhat of a normal process, anything that we can do at this point to help facilitate that, it would help us with these critical items as we start things up again. so in this time, this would be a good time to facilitate these processes. and thirdly, the item was that there was a lack of access to this hearing and that may or may not be true. our hope is that we're expanding access and we can't figure out how to do this better without trying it. so that is what our intent is and we will give it a go and we can discuss it further in our deliberations. thank you. >> thank you, president

highland. good afternoon, commissioners, i'm veronica florez, planning staff and i'll share a presentation with you and i'll give that a moment to load up for everyone. the item before you is the standard and environmental ordinance. i will go over the program itself and there's planning staff available for more technical questions. so the proposal to standardize how we apply some of the environmental protections to projects to the sequa process, to apply the mitigation measures as standard environmental requirements. just for general information, this is how to proceed with adoption of the ordinance. as president highland mentioned, we're in front of you today for

you to review and recommend your approval to the board of supervisors. we will present the same ordinance to the planning commission on april 30t april 30th seeking their recommendation, as well. afterwards this continues with the legislative process for the board of supervisors and their approval of the ordinance. we will return to you for your view of standard requirements related to cultural resources and we will share your comments and feedback on the requirements that the planning commission for their review and adoption. we will be reporting on the standard environmental requirements at least every five years to planning commission and board of supervisors and the planning commission can modify the standard environmental requirements more frequently as best practises evolve. just for a little bit of

background, the effort to provide standardized environmental requirements came from the 2017 mayor's executive directives to keep up with the pace of housing and one of the goals of that executive directive was to codify litigation americans which is me same of the program and i'll go over some of the goals in the next slide. they're to achieve the same or higher level of an environmental protection currently achieved through mitigation measures and we want to provide improved consistently and transparency in our review. again, the crux is to codify mitigation measures included in hundreds of environmental documents completed in the last ten years or so. we will be able to do so by

mandating that best practises in environmental protection are applied as requirement. thereby, avoiding potential impacts. these standard environmental requirements would be applied to projects bases on preestablished criterias such as size, location and environmental setting. this means that the standard environmental requirements would also be applied to minimu minisl projects. environmental planning staff identifies which projects may have exhibit impacts on the environmental and then determines the type and level of environmental review required. but generally speaking, exemptions are prepared for projects that do not result in significant impacts.

mitigated negative declarations are prepared for projects that may have significant impacts on the environmental but could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures. an environmental report is prepared for projects that have a potential to significantly impact the environment. the ordinance will authorize planning commission board of supervisors to standard policies that eliminate or reduce common environmental impacts. so what does this look like? the diagram in front of you illustrates that the process is still generally the same. we are still conducting environmental review and we are still achieving and actually enhancing environmental protection. the only difference in the process is what we do after identifying any significant impacts and this is highlighted in the middle of the diagram. the way it is now, when

significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are applied accordingly. and the way it would be when significant impacts are identified, the commonly applied mitigation measures will be required by the standard environmental requirement's program thus reducing or eliminating significant impacts. so the end is still the same or deteriorategreater level of prot this gives us potential time savings. if applying the requirements alone are not enough to reduce an impact to less than significant, further mitigation measures could be required which is generally for a larger project. and so this means that if a project will still result in a significant impact after the standard environmental requirements are applied, then the project would require mitigation through a community

plan evaluation, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report foulltofully analyze the impact. i want to highlight and elaborate on another difference. the way it is now, we are unable to apply mitigation measures to projects that are not subject to sequa, like the 35 project, for example, but the way it would be. standard requirements would be required regardless. so following review, instead of applying mitigation measures, it would be to the size, location, and other applicability shown for each topic area. this, as mentioned before, also results in the enhanced environmental protections for projects that are currently not

subject to sequa. the planning department conducted outreach to various stakeholders including community members, developers, environmental groups and consultants. we have also contacted all of the relevant city agencies, including the department of health and the department of environment. the department hosted a workshop on february 12th and the workshop included a brief overview of the proposed ordinance with the majority of the time dedicated to break-out sessions for each of the topic areas. additionally, the department presented to sfac to the general meeting on march 13th. general comments and questions throughout the outreach process were involved around the concern of bypassing sequa, impacts to small projects, what the apolitiand what wouldbe applied.

so to reiterate is a standard of the requirements to the board of supervisors. the standard environmental requirements that are related to cultural resources will be brought to you for your review in the future before they are brought to the planning commission. these currently include standard requirements for the treatment of archeological and tribal resources and standard environmental requirements to reduce construction vibration impacts to adjacent buildings, including historic resources. as noted previously, the department will bring the ordinance to the commission on

april 30th. this concludes staff presentation and i'm joined by the environmental review officer, miss lisa gibson, along with other members of our environmental staff and the team is available to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> great, thank you, miss florez. so with that, while we're waiting to cue up for public comment, are there questions that the commissioners have for staff? commissioner foley? >> hi, and thank you so much, miss florez, thank you for your presentation and for all of the hard work. i think that everyone knows that i'm a huge supporter of the staff and all of the work they do, but i think in these trying times we live in and as we're working online and figuring out how to do this, i think we need to give people in the community

time to weigh in on this. and i will be a proponent to continue this, not to take away any of the great work or the technical aspects of what the planning staff has done, but more to give the community in this time of duress some time to kind of absorb it and for us to come back. and i don't think it will hurt anyone, but i think it will allow people to feel better and in a lot of respects right now, people don't feel good and it's not just about this, but there's so much stress and chaos. so i'll be a proponent to continue this. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner block? >> yes. i have two questions of staff. first of all, if i understand this correctly, these would be standard conditions of approval that are routine that we see all of the time in our staff reports and eirs and i'm interested in understanding how this might

affect historic preservation projects and taking that a little further, where the standard conditions would not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels, i'm guessing it would still trigger a focused eir as it relates to the historic properties. so that's my first question and the second question is, are there any other jurisdictions that have adopted a process similar to this? >> miss florez, would you like to address those? >> so i'll actually respond to the second question first while it's fresh in my memory. just across the bay, the city of oakland has implemented a similar program and they have a much wider range of topics available for projects to be assessed against and we are just starting off with a few of the topic areas that i had mentioned

just a few moments ago. but we will be coming back to you and back to planning commission to review as our potential standard environmental requirement. so we're first assessing what are the best practises we currently have in place and again looking at those frequently applied mitigation measures that we've applied to hundreds of environmental documents. and then for the second question, i actually want to check if we have the full staff available on this line. so we have staff that are available to answer to the historic resource question and i see they made a request to speak. is it ok if i invite them to response to that first question now? >> yes, .

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm wi with the department staf. so that has to do with how standard environmental conditions well affect historic resources. so as we said, today really you're reviewing the ordinance to move forward will bring the standard environmental requirements to you in the future and the two that we're currently working on that we envision will come tow potentially around june, depending on how all of this moves forward are ones that are associated with our review of o logical and tribal cultural resources. we've been using mitigation measures for those for quite awhile and so we would be implementing those standard mitigations. we also would be bringing a standard environmental requirement that has to do with construction vibration and how we can reduce construction vibration related to where this construction vibration and how

that relates to adjacent properties if there's an impact to a demolition of a resource, the standard environmental requirements would not reduce that impact and eir would be required and that's a focused eir and those would continue to come to the commission as part of the alternative's review process for that eir and for review on the draft impact report. so in that regard, we're not seeing that this ordinance or the standard environmental requirements would make much of a change in the process of most of the projects that come to you for review and comment for significant impacts to historic resources. >> thank you for both answers. >> great. is that all you have, commissioner black? >> yes. >> commissioner soh, do you have

a question. >> hello and can you hear me? >> yes. thank you. first of all, i would like to say i'm just floored at how everybody works so hard, even in times like this to come forward with such a thorough report and i appreciate everybody's hard work. it's a stressful and unprecedented time. i did, actually, come up with two questions and i think the first one, it's very similar to commissioner black's questions about the requirement for the standard environmental requirements related to his preservation and thank you for answering that, because it was -- my understanding, it would be continued understanding about that. i'm looking at the overall process on the executive summary in the last page about reaching out to the community and there

were questions about what would the applicability criteria for the standard environmental requirements and then at what stage during the sequa review this will be applied. and i like to have staff to kind of walk me through more about what is the criteria and the applicability criteria and then when it will be put in place in the process of sequa review and with the focus on historic preservation. that's my question. >> so is that for miss florez or miss vanderslice? who would like to take that one? >> i can take that one, miss vanderslice. the standard requirements are different for each requirement, so i guess one of the things i

could do is walk you through, briefly, the current approach that we have for the archeological and tribal cultural resources. would that be helpful first? >> sure. to get a sense of that to understand. so with tribal and archeological resources, we would determine whether or not there was a potential impact to an archeological resource and we would follow our standard approach for that. and if we determine that there was, then we would implement the standard environmental requirements. those standard environmental requirements would include things like qualified consultant producing an archeological monitoring or testing plan and then they would implement that plan during construction practises. if a significant archeological resource was found during construction, they would do what

we could call data recovery and then they would do excavation in the field and then lab analysis and so those are some of the requirements that we would go through. and so these are processes that we've been using for many, many years at the department through the mitigation measures. so pretty much, it won't be very much the same process. the way that this would be different, was we're doing preliminary archeo review and determine whether there was a project to impact a archeological resource, we would apply the standard environmental requirement. and so, then we would move forward and that would be included as a part of the project approval and then that would be a requirement that we would track. the department has a process for currently tracking mitigation measures and so, it would follow a similar process where we work with archeological consultants

to ensure that archeological resources are properly treated during construction and that's an overview, briefly, on how that process would work for at least one standard environmental requirement. as we said, they will vary from topic to topic. please let me know if i can provide additional information. >> thank you. it's very thorough on this very specific case study. it would be really nice to see a broader picture of how it's being applied. when do you think we can see that? >> so the ordinance will move forward as we mentioned to planning commission, to the board of supervisors and we'll be bringing the standard requirements do with cultural resources back to the commission and so historic preservation commission in a few months. i'm happy to provide drafts of

those, that we have drafted to you if you would like review before that. but that was the plan that we would bring them back and we're happy to have conversations with you in detail about those measures when we bring them become for those hearings. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner perlman, i believe. >> hi, everybody. these questions are for miss florez and again, i want to reiterate that being an architect who does work with the city on many of the projects, i think this is a good way to help streamline the process. so that's my two questions, is there any estimate on the amount of time that could be reduced in general with the implementation of these measures and the second question is, is there any element in any way that would

reduce any protection offered any sequa under the current process that would happen under these new rules? because i know, it seems like the public, from what i've heard and the emails we've gotten that i've read about, there seems to be some confusion that this might diminish the public's ability to review and there would be some diminishment of the environmental review. so i just want to be sure that nothing is left on the table relative to any requirements that's there now. thanks. >> i'm veronica florez with the planning staff and i'll putel pull up the slides again to better demonstrate. so regarding the level of environmental protection, so the ordinance, again, we're still going to be conducting

environmental review and we're still going to be protecting the environment and we'll actually achieve the same or greater level of environmental review in the way we're doing it. that's the only real change but we're still protecting the resources that we have. in the middle, that's where we would see the different mitigation determined or if it's the requirements for the standard environmental programs. we will, again, achieve the same level of the environmental protection or greater. so an example where we may be able to achieve a greater level of protection is the project sponsor has the opportunity to actually -- is this is written in the ordinance, too. they can demonstrate the to the review officer they can mitigate any significant impact in some other manner, they can still go ahead and apply a different requirement for their project and it would not be applying the

standard environmental requirement specifically. but we are sharing that list, making it publically available and just emphasizing that these are the best practises and sometimes thes easiest ways at the department have determined to mitigate impacts and that's why we're highlighting them through this program here. and apologies, commissioner perlman, can you refresh me on your first question. >> the first question is about time. this is being done to streamline the process. so if you have some estimates on how much time could be saved by doing this? >> yes. so i'll first start by saying through the environmental requirement's program, we are able to reduce any significant impacts or all significant impacts to less than significant

and we actually move projects from what would be a mitigated negative declaration today to a categorical exemption. so from there, that's really one oof the biggest time savings we have. in terms of the number of months, it's hard to say a general number there, just because of so many different projects that we have on the table. but that is one of the biggest examples that i can provide for you today and i invite other staff to clarify. the minimum would be three month's savings for mitigated negative declarations that could be exemption and that would be through this program. >> great. miss gibson, did you want to add on to that? >> yes, i would like to, please.

>> thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and i appreciate your consideration of this item and what the reason i wanted to speak is to address the question about whether the program would in any way weaken the protections that are afforded by the sequa environmental review process and i the answer to the question is no, there would not be any weakening. we do say that the process would streamline the environmental review process and that term streamlining kind of has a loaded meaning for some folks. it can be seen and feared to be the equivalent of weakening or side-stepping environmental protections. that is absolutely not what we're doing here. this program would not in any way change the requirements of sequa. we are still belate obligated te

sequa review. what it would do is to provide greater consistency and transparency upfront about the routine, well-tested, off the-the shelf mitigation measures. they would be applied based on their size and other criteria and then, we would be strengthening the environmental review, actually, beyond what sequa could do because sequa does not apply to projects that are minimum stai minimum ministe a benefit from these environmental protects that we use routinely through the sequa

process. >> thank you very much. that sounds like much broader protection than we have now. >> great. so let's go ahead and take public comments and we'll come back to the commission for further deliberations. >> yes, thank you. members of the public, this is your time to call the 800 number if you haven't already done so and to enter 1-0, to enter the cue. josie, let's go to public comment for the first caller.

>> there are several. >> all participants are in listen-own mode. only mode. >> for some reason, my q & a mode is not letting me go the callers. >> sounded like there was the opportunity to go to all callers into speaking mode or interactive mode. maybe we can do that and take people one by one.

>> hopefully members can hear my direction and this will be more complicated than anticipated. apparently our cueing mode has failed us from at&t. so what i will do is if members on the phone, if you can hear me, please -- this is going to be the hard part -- is if you could one at a time state your name or if you would prefer to be anonymous, you can simply say stay anonymous. i'll trial to write down your name and call you each one at a

time to submit your public testimony. but let's try to do this. so if some of you can wait until there's silence before you -- >> i have the first caller. the last four digits of the phone number is 9148. >> perfect. thank you, josi. >> that's richard glory. can you hear me. >> yes, we can hear you. so it sounds like we have a better solution. my staff in the background will call out the last four digits of your phone number. when you hear the last four digits of your telephone number, that will be your cue to speak. so richard, it looks like you're first in cue. go ahead. >> question: this is richard drury and i submit add written comment letter on behalf of the

hollow revolution. this is a highly controversial proposal and we believe that it should be continued because there is broad public interest. thi've been in communication wih other organizations to comment but are unable because co-opioid doesn't allocoviddoesn't allow . for the last five minutes, my line went dead and i wasn't able to hear the procedure. i think this violates the brown act. it's a real mistake and illegal to proceed. it's not an emergency. there's no reason it has to be approved. we're at the height of corvid cd yesterday was the height of the

covid epidemic and it should be continued until we can make our comments known. we believe this real prejudice. the stated purpose of this ordinance is to make projects exempt entirely from the sequa process that would otherwise not be. that means excluding the public from the ability to comment on projects when they otherwise would have had that possibility. now, staf staff is imposing mitigation measures but the process is that the public can provide mitigation pressures mea specific project. one was to require interim construction equipment. that's 80% dirtier than the final.

so, obviously, you would be locking me in for inadequate mitigation matters that you would be arguing were appropriate, especially if a project is near a sensitive receptor, a school or a nursing home. people allow those individual projects and specific concerns to be taken into consideration which would be eliminated. the whole opportunity for public comment would be eliminated by this proposal. most importantly, it just shouldn't be done under this covid epidemic when people cannot successfully participate in the public hearings. this is not an emergency and should be continued until after the state of emergency is lifted. thank you. >> the next caller we have on cue is the last four digits is 1860.

>> yes, that would be me, katherine howard. can you hear me ok? >> yes, we can hear you, katherine. >> a lot of background noise. maybe if people could have children go in another room. i want to echo the sentiments of mr. drury. we're in the middle of an pandemic and it's hard for people to be worried about this when they're worried about food or their family or keeping safe. and i appreciate the commissioner's meeting during this time, but this is not an urgency. this is an important controversial topic that needs to be dealt with the public. if this policy is implemented, it will be many projects from the public eye, including preservation process. they inform the public about a project and the impact of the project can give them the

opportunity to weigh in on a project. yeah, sure, this project doesn't change the sequa process, but it removes certain projects from the stages of this process by reclassifying them. what will be the impacts on the public's incorporat ability to n a project if a project disappears because it was given a categorical exemption? also, once tasked, the content of the e exemptions can be expanded by the planning department and approved by the appointed planning commission with no further review by the elected board of supervisors. in essence, this becomes a carte blanch for sequa approval. i suggest your commission consider inviting an independent sequa attorney to explain the ramifications of this policy in terms of the city process. these are serious questions that

need answers. i have people emails me who have not been able to get connected and i think in terms of the brown act, the technology is just not working and it has to be straightened out. please continue this item to a future date so the public can participate. thank you. >> the next caller, the last four digits is 5270. >> question: i'm bradley angel and i am the executive director of the green act for health and environmental justice and we submitted comments yesterday in writing on behalf of our members and constituents across the city very much including neighborhoods that are totally targeted for negative developments that the planning development has done everything in their power to help in our

view and experience to gentrify sanfrancisco. i, too, was dumped off the call and this whole proceeding, as far as we're concerned is in violation of the brawn ac brown. it is not working and you cannot have the public participating. secondly, in the beginning when i raised the concern about the violation of the language act test, i don't know who it was, but one of the speakers who responded stated, and i have no reason to doubt your sincerety, that, in fact, the planning department was complying with language act and that is completely and totally false. including for this proposed ordinance. the notices were not multi lingual, no document was translated. they kept saying if we get a request, we'll translate it.

we requested repeatedly to no avail on behalf of our non--english speaking residents. but this is no surprise as to surprise that the claim of this ordinance would help achieve and enhance the environmental protection. thayou have to look at -- one of the biggest projects that seems to coincide with this being promoted was the planning department's approval of the mixed-use development project contrary to the claims they're so concerned that the planning department is so concerned about environmental and health about the vulnerable communities and the social equity and that eir confirmed that the project would

have significant, harmful and unavoidable forever quality impacts that would harm vulnerable residents of bayview hunter's point and approved it anyway with a statement of overriding consideration to get around the conclusion of their own eir. so the bottom line is, number one, you need to comply, the planning department and commissions with language access. otherwise this is illegal. you need to have proper access to the process, which is not happening in this call. nor did it happen on the commission's website. iit claimed all stakeholders are notified of this. that is nonsense and completely false and then lastly, this is such an important issue that really needs to be looked at. we support some standardized conditions but not as a one-size-fit--all and ram

through development options and many which need to be rejected. thank you. >> that is the last caller. >> what? can you hear me? >> no, i actually would like to speak, as well, please. >> so would i. >> and so would i. >> submit your public testimony. the first person who said so do i. [ laughter ] >> question: this is woody leboun electrician. nti. e. i also got disconnected for about three minutes and i don't think this process works and i just think that falls to the necessity to continue this item. i appreciate the commission wanting to hear the staff's report and learn more about

this, but the big issue to me is, you're letting the cow out barn if you recommend approval to the board of supervisors. at that point, upcoming topics on preservation will be brought to you for consideration, but you're giving all of the power to the planning commission to make the rules. do you want to do that at this time? the second thing, there is a broad list but it is difficult to get ahold of people and to pull people together and talk about this and to actually consider this properly and get real public input. so i don't feel like this is essential business, an emergency that needs to be dealt with at this meeting. i would please ask you to continue it. thank you. i hope you heard all of this. >> the next person who would like to speak.

(inaudible). >> any other member of the public who would like to speak to this matter? >> question: i'm latisha yang and i would like to make some comments, please. i wanted to note for the record, i was kicked off the dial-in number and missed a large portion of the presentation and to let you know that for the record. i appreciate the time to address this and i likewise wanted to add my voice to request that you continue this item on the agenda. without even commenting on the merits of the proposed ordinance at this time, the nature of the current battle against the unprecedented global pandemic prevents safe leading by members of our community who might otherwise be interested in providing public commentary.

there are healthcare workers risking their own well-being to care for our community and you would be excluding members of our community who are ensuring that the essential businesses continue operating during the shelter-in-place order that has been mandated by our mayor and governor. there are countless caregivers responsible for the ederly, for children and for ailing members of our community unable to participate because of the current situation. i would ask that you acknowledge the truly extraordinary and tragic circumstances that we are currently facing and provide the aforementioned group the ability to add their voice to the conversation once the risks of covid-19 are behind us. if you proceed with this agenda item today, you will be disadvantaging and discriminating against those most critical to those ensuring our health and well-being. this will help wide-ranging and

long-standing impolitica implicn our city. this is not an emergency by any means. in this context, there must be ample opportunity for the public to comment once this is behind us. thank you. >> is there another caller to submit public testimony at this time? >> question: hi, thank you. this is steve williams. i'm an attorney here in san francisco and i've been doing sequa field for more than 20 years. i also would like to echo the previous speakers and urge the commission to continue this matter without action to actually allow the public to weigh in and to read the ordinance. this is not an emergency. this is not an essential item that needs immediate action.

it's just not appropriate to make a major amendment to the rules and procedures for environmental review given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. i think it's telling that there are no public comments, emails or letters in the online posted source materials on the hpc website. none of the comment letters noted by mr. drury or others are available for the public to review. is it possible that absolutely no one has sent a comment into the commission prior to the hearing? i think that really tells you what's going on. i was also cut off twice during the staff presentation and had to phone in again. and without commenting too much on the ordinance itself, i think this is a remedy in search of a problem.

i assume that staff is already applying best practises, as they call it, to all projects. it's been my experience that the package up review to expedite it or streamline it usually means paying lip service to it. so i would urge the commission to continue this matter. thank you very much. >> is there anyone else that would like to submit their public testimony? ok, hearing none, commissioners, i would suggest you not necessarily close public comment, but maybe go into commissioner deliberation and josie, if we get any additional callers to submit public testimony, please notify us. >> will do. >> thank you, jonas. that's a great idea. we'll hold public comments open.

i think the city attorney would like to address the comments. andrea, are you there? (inaudible). >> operator: all participants are now in listen-only mode. >> commissioners, are there any further comments or discussions?

commissioner foley? you have the floor. your microphone may be muted. >> i was muted, sorry. >> thank you, president high listen. highland. i believe the planning staff is doing a super great job in everything they do, including this. but i do believe that based on the calls that we're getting right now and the letters from today, we should continue this so people can have more time to digest it and not have to worry about this being stressed when there's all of this other stress. thank you very much. >> thank you. city attorney, did you want to speak, i see that maybe you're

un-muted now. maybe not. commissioner johns. >> i believe the planning staff is doing is doing a super great job. i believe on the calls we're getting right now and the letters from today -- >> you're not speaking, if you could mute your microphone, please. we're getting feedback from the live broadcast or from the sf gov tv broadcast. >> thank you very much. i share commissioner foley's concern. i'm fairly certain that we could go forward with this, but i think it would be unwise considering the number of people

who were not able to participate in hearing the staff presentation and i think if they had heard it, then, perhaps, the comments that they made would have been different then what they were. i also am very mindful that anything that we can do now that would speed the process of dealing with matters once we get back to normal, it should be undertaken. however, this call, due to technical difficulties, doesn't seem to have laid the proper foundation for doing that. i do think that it would be appropriate to continue this matter and that if it is continued, then, i would like

anybody who is going to submit public comment, please do so in writing at least a week beforehand, so that as many people as possible have an opportunity to read and consider the public comment so that we can have a much better hearing when we do have a hearing. thank you. >> great, thank you, commission johns. commissioner black. >> i want to say begin with, i think it was a well-written report. i know it's been very difficult for staff to coordinate remotely. i'i want to say i'm generally in support of streamlining any process provided that legal protections remain in place and the public still has a right to participate. i was initially a little queasy

about the change from mi mitigad negative declarations to categorical exemptions and i assume and i'm looking forward to hearing from the city attorney that all of that has been fully vetted and lacked at. i can see that there really is a benefit of approval time frames that's an important feature when we're trying to get as much housing online when we possibly can. i see cost savings to applicants and i see a significant benefit in terms of staff resources and as we all know on the commission, we're trying to be able to have staff work on, for example, the city-wide survey and other projects.

having been in the public sector for more than 30 years, even though it's been a number of years since i have administered sequa projects, we need to give all members of the public full access to speak their peace. this will not affect whether the board of supervisors determines to make a statement of statemene on certain projects. sequa is not is project to prevent projects but to educate. and i fully support everyone being able to be heard. i know how comly katee complicar people to be heard electronically and so, i want to allow members of the public to

meet in advance, organize and meet in advance, virtually or otherwise. so i am going to support a motion that someone puts forward that we do continue this item to make sure that the glitches today and other people have full opportunity to be heard. >> great, thank you, commissioner black. commissioner soh. >> i'm going to try to make it quick here. i think most of the points my fellow commissioners touched upon while waiting in cue. there is a considerable amount of public comments that we have received within just the last 12 hours of our time. i woke up this morning and i saw a bunch flooded in my in-box. i think this is something important and i am all in for

streamlining the processes that bring us more housing to the city. but then this is a pretty important and influential staff that we are recommending. san francisco is made out of people, otherwise we don't have a city. so we need to make sure that we give the equal amount of time, of public comments with the unprecedented crisis that we have having right now, we are all scramble to try to adapt to a new norm, and that's including our new way of having a meeting. so i am in support to have a continuance for this agenda item to give all of us some more time to vet out our comments and concerns and, also, get a little bit more understanding on the

information that is going to provide, supportive information going to be provided by our staff with some of the questions that we have raised today, specifically related to the portion for the historic preservation. i do really second commissioner johns' recommendation that should there be public comment, if you can somehow get it to us sooner than later, it will be very appreciated. this is a process -- there was not an emergency. i do believe this is a part of a process that is urgent enough to support our essential buildings and our initiative for the city to make sure that not too many people are continuing to be displaced in sanfrancisco. and that's what i wanted to say. thank you. >> great, thank you. >> commissioner perlman.

>> thank you very much. i agree with what everybody said so far. i think i'm completely in support of this didn't i'v and d through this a newspaper o numbs and the reason i answered the question miss gibson answered, it's clear to me that there's nothing in here that would weaken any environmental protections that are out there. i think the notion that i think people are confused about is the one about mitigating -- by applying these mitigations, it could be apply a status to be considered as a categorical exemption. not that all of a sudden it could be a cat x but applying these mitigation measures, that particular project could be

considered as a cat x. so anyway, i believe that this is very necessary. i think it's well thought through, but again, like everybody else, time is time. we've had the same process in place for a long time. and if we have to wait a couple of months to implement something like this, i don't think there's anything that wouldn't change a change in how we process our permits and reviews. so i agree. oh, i see rich is here. but i would make a motion to continue this and, again, i don't know how long -- if we want to wait unti until after te stay-in-place order is lifted. it's kind of general because we don't know when. >> i second that continuance. >> i would suggest, commissioners, that on the motion to continue, we do make

it date specific and i would continue it to the next hearing of may 6th and if need be, we can continue it out further again. >> that's fine with me. >> i second the motion. >> commissioner foley, nation additional beyond the second? >> no, i wanted to second it. >> we have a couple more comments before we take a vote. so during hillis. >> director hillis. >> i wanted to take the public. it's tough to make comments when went have technical difficulties, but i encourage members of the public like you did to submit the comments and we can respond to them, because i do think -- i agree with everything commissioner perlman said. this is a government measure and it's not meant to reduce the protections or to reduce the public right to know or the right to question or appeal.

it's just some of these projects to, that the impacts could be mitigated to category exemptions with the application of these measures. so we'll respond to comments in bringing you back to answers to the question add the next time we're here. >> i would just add on that, obviously, our city attorney hasn't been able to participate due to technical difficulties. is that on driv andrea. >> yes, hello. i was trying to participate but i was muted with the star 6 button. but i wanted to basically say that under the unprecedented emergency we're all living through, that the mayor and the

governor have issue specific orders regarding public meetings during this time and this meeting is not, therefore, in violation of the brown act. just wanted to put that out there. in fact, my office has issued public advice on that issue and there is -- if you go to the city attorney's website, you can find it there as to how the meryl anmayoral and governor dus emergency. i just wanted to make sure that the hearing is not in violation of the brown act. >> great. thank you. >> so i think we're at the end of our comment. is there any additional public comments or will it be ok to close public comment at this time? >> i don't see anyone on the line, but i will change it back

to the broadcast mode so anyone can talk. anyone that wants to speak can join in. >> are you now in direct talk mode. >> question: in terms of the continuance -- >> excuse me. is this your second time speaking? >> question: the shelter in place is until early may, so why would you continue it when we'll still be in or just coming out of, hopefully, the shelter in place? it doesn't make sense and it's a waste of everybody's time. >> excuse me, i think you've spoken already. >> operator: you're in listen in-only mode.

>> president highland here, i think it would be appropriate to close public comment. >> i think we have a motion and a second to continue this. i guess the question is to the next hearing. and i personally would support that. >> yeah, so the motion on the floor that has been seconded is to continue to may 6th. on that motion, commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner pearl listen. >> listen. perlman. yes. >> that motion passes unanimously and it's 7-0. commissioners, that will place us on items 11a, b, c, and d for case 2020-3292 lbr 715 harrison

street, 2020-3293 lbr at 414 ocean avenue, 2020-3294 lbr at 25 have 25vanesse avenue and 28h vanesse avenue and these are all legacy applications. so shelly, if you could un-mute your phone call-in. you have the noon. floor. >> thank you, commissioner, secretary. can you confirm that you can hear me. >> i can hear you, thank you. >> thank you, hello and i apologize that i don't have video capacity on my laptop, but hopefully, you'll be able to hear me ok today. this is shelly from preservation staff and i'm going to be very

briefly introducing the four legacy registry applications before the commission today. there are recommendations from staff for support of each of these applications. and we will forward your resolutions that you make today to the small business commission. as far as i know, the last i checked with the office, the small business commission is not currently holding hearings. so it is expected that these applications will be acted upon after the shelter-in-place order is lifted. meanwhile, the office of the small business will provide support to these four applicants and not delay support due to the emergency. before i start, i would like to note that i have heard from seven applicants and members of

the public that they would like to speak during public comment and i have a list of their names and i'll be listening to make sure that everybody has a chance to speak. i'll let you know if someone has contacted me that is not able to get through. so with that, i would like to start with the first application for city nights. it is located at 71 715 harrison street. this is the bay area's only 18 and over nightclub. this is one of the largest running nightclubs in the country. the south of market neighborhood contains the lgbtq eligible

district which is one and two. so markoma has been identified n enclave and responsible for the businesses associated with the area. staff is recommending support for this application and recommending the following futures to be safeguarded. they include the community function as a gathering place that provides dancing and entertainment. the facilitator for low-cost community events, its capacity as a facilitator for dialogue between residents and the local entertainment businesses and the warehouse building itself. that takes me to the second applicant for the korean martial art's center at 1414 ocean

avenue. this is a martial art's studio founded by meryl young located in engleside, established in 1983. it is one of the ol oldest family-run businesses in engleside. we are recommending support for the application and we're remming the following features to be safeguarded. they're offering a three to four classes a day for young adults, adults and seniors and their practise of including a variety of martial arts, the seating area for spectators, their ability to be consistently open seven days a week, their service to an average of 120 to 150 students and the affordable prices. that takes us to the third

applicant. this is the new conservatory theatre at 25 vanesse avenue. this center is the premiere, queer and allied theatre at the forefront of the lgbtq plus activist theater in the art's education since 1981. the theatre is located within the historic masonic temple, which is listed in article 11 of the planning code. we are recommending support of the application with the following features to be safeguarded. innovative, high quality productions and theater productions for the queer and allied community, their visua vn this is a way to build community, the staving o staginn shows a season, the entrance of

the building framed by a sculpt or of three alogorical features and there's king solomon. that takes to us to royal motor sales at 285 south vanesse avenue. royal motor sales was founded by roger anderson in 1947. the royal motor sales originally started as a used car business and repair shop at 280 south vanesse avenue. we are recommending support of the application.

there are three locations for the business, 285 south vanesse, 324vanesse avenue and we're recommending the following features to be safeguarded, the sales and service of the volvo vehicles and their mission to work as a cohesive team and to be the best in every area of the business and that concludes my presentation and i'm available for veries. i do know there are applicants waiting to speak for the new conservatory theater, for city knightcitynights and korean the. >> unfortunately, again, the q & a is deactivated. however, what staff is going to do is call out the last four

digits of the phone number, and if you wish to speak, that will be your indication to submit your testimony. so josie, why don't you call out the last four digits of the first phone number. >> at this time, i don't have any phone numbers on the line in cue. but i will click on the broadcast mode. so and can speak, if that's ok. >> if i can interject, the sponsors were given the number and i believe some of them are on this call. >> let's go ahead and do that. if you are one of the owners or operators of these businesses, you have to hit star 6 to un-mute yourself from your phone line and once do, go ahead and submit your public testimony.

let's take 3960. >> that's my number. >> oh, ok. the other numbers are still muted that i say, 4563 and 3581. if you un-mute yourself, you can submit your testimony regarding your item. that person just -- another person left. 4563, and hit star 6, it will un-mute your phone.

>> i could read out the names of the people who contacted me, each calling to support the applications. and that way, we could, for the record have their names and show of support. >> perfect, thank you. >> so ed decker is supporting new conservatory theater, ray bobbittwor t associated with ciy nights is supporting the application and the following larry dorsey, lauren coe, tim dalton and ken piper supporting the martial arts .

>> well, why don't we open this up to the commissioners. are there any commissionerings that would like to speak to this? commissioner johns. >> thank you very much. i think that these are o interesting businesses. i've been a customer at one point of royal motors. so i'm very familiar with that operation and the jobs that they've done. i would move that we put these applications forward. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners. >> i think there was a comment. >> yes, thank you. i'm just sad that we weren't able to hear the comments from the owners that, nonethethe less we wish you congratulations and

looking forward to working with you in the future. >> now there's a motion to accept all of the legacy business. >> i officially close public comment, by chance. >> so there's nothing further now, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt recommendations for approval for all of the legacy business applications and commissioner black? >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner perlman. >> yes. >> commissioner soh. yes. >> commissioner mansuta. >> yes. >> so moved and that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that concludes

this agenda. i would just ask that commissioners black, perlman and soh remain on the live event so that we can convene the review committee. >> we are adjourned. to

. to >> clerk: and sfgovtv is on here, so why don't we push "live," christine?