>> clerk: okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for november 4, 2021. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for each item on this agenda. opportunities to speak and offer public comment are available by calling 415-655-0001, and entering access code 2497-652-9473, then

press pound twice. when you hear your item called, please press star, three to enter the queue and listen for the prompt that your line has been unmuted before you begin speaking. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly, call from a quiet location, and turn down any speakers on any electronic devices. commissioners, i will now take roll. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is items

proposed for continuance. item 1, 2020-007481-cua, 5367 diamond heights boulevard, also known as 1900 diamond street, proposed for continuance to december 2, 2021, item 2, 2021-00215-cuv at 400 hyde street to december 9, 2021, and

items 3-a and b, 2019-020031-cua, proposed for indefinite continuance, item 11, 2017-015678-cau at 4259 -- -cua at 425 broadway, as well as item 5, 2021-005183-cua

at 2040 chestnut street. members of the public, this is your opportunity for public comment. if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue and begin speaking when prompted. >> hi. my name is malcolm brownson, and i'm calling about the space on 2040 chestnut street, i believe it's 2040, for yet another chain. somehow a hermann miller store managed to sneak in --

>> clerk: sir, i apologize for interrupting you, but at the moment, we're only taking comment on the continuance, not the project itself. >> understood. i will send an e-mail to the person listed on the item, then, and find out how to move forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for that. okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no further requests from the public to speak, those items proposed for continuance are now before you. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i move to continue the items as proposed. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to continue the items as proposed --

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i would also continue item 3-b for 2867 san bruno indefinitely. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, that will place us under commission matters for item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes for october 21, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes. seeing no requests to speak from member of the public, public comment is now closed, and the matter is now before

you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to adopt the minutes. >> president koppel: second. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes from october 21 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us on item 5, commission comments and questions. okay. if there are no comments and questions from members of the commission, we can move onto department matters. item 6, director's announcements? >> director hillis: nothing from me, jonas, thanks. >> clerk: thank you. item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors,

board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> this week, the last use committee held a hearing on the planning commission's hearing of reorganization. the hearing was called by supervisor peskin who was worried about leading the director into planning. director hillis led the meeting and supervisor peskin asked questions throughout his presentation. more toward the end, he focused on our budget and toward the existing vacant position. there were a few public commenters. most were neutral or supporting the planning department, with the exception of one commenter, who appeared to be approve of our planning department.

lastly, the committee considered supervisor chan's ordinance that would repeal article 12. if you remember, this was her last week, to approve the legislation which the amendments had not been drafted yet. the committee then voted unanimously to approve the modifications and then had to continue the item one week since the modifications were substantive. at the full board this week, supervisor walton's ordinance that deletes the life ziens special medical use district passed its second read. supervisor mandelman's ordinance concerning accessory dwelling units passed second

read. supervisor ronen's ordinance that amends our inclusionary unit -- ordinance to make sure that our [indiscernible] was equal. that concludes my report, and i'm happy to take any questions if you may have them. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr. seeing no questions from members of the commission, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, and after a brief hiatus, took up historic preservation registration and took up hearings for button down on sacramento street, d.d. boutique on pacific avenue, t-van company on union street,

harris' restaurant, blue danube restaurant, b.j. grocery on clay street, and then took up the landmark designation of the golden gate valley carnegie library on green street, where they also initiated landmarking that site and adopts a recommendation for approval to landmark the allegory of california diego rivera murals. and that concludes reports for the board of supervisors and the historic preservation commission, so we can move onto item 8, slightly misplaced and really should have been under commission matters is case number 2021-009977-crv to

further extend remote hearings for another 30 days. commissioners, if you recall, the governor did not extend the stay of certain brown act requirements for public hearings, whereas city hall has not reopened, so we need to adopt these every 30 days, which will come to you at the beginning of every month. we should take public comment on this item. members of the public, if you wish to speak to the remote hearing resolution extension, please press star, three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> this is sue hester. i request that the planning commission require that there be a scheduled hearing on the

next item -- next time this item is coming back to you. please have a discussion on remote hearings. we have never had a hearing that allowed the public to speak or the planning commission to speak. good afternoon. thank you. >> oh, hi, and welcome back, commissioner chan. this is georgia schiutish. i understand why you want to do this, because cases went up. when you see the mayor of los angeles and the quarterback of the packers having breakthrough cases, i understand why you keep remote meetings.

however, i would request that you allow three minutes to speak for items, not two minutes. and also for the matters where there's an organized opposition, you're only giving six minutes for that. that's hard if they're in three different places. at least give them ten minutes. so that's my request. i know we may want to get back to city hall, but it may not be feasible at this time, so please consider going back to the traditional time that you allowed the public to speak. thanks a lot. >> linda chapman. as a problem with remote meetings trying to speak, i was

trying to call in and could not get through. it happened again today when the secretary advised the time to comment on the items before the board of supervisors. it's just impossible for the public to have any kind of ability to respond. i cannot see what's in the file -- for example, on the grubstake project, i tried to open that file for months.

i know they were having problems, showing up at the community hearing, saying that they were bullied and pressured. when the correspondence that you never see was released to me, they suppressed the e-mail contact information. what can i say? the process works, but you have to do it, and i do want a chance to comment on the matters before the board of supervisors when the item is called because i was not able to get through on the phone. thanks. >> hi. this is buffy [indiscernible], and i'm calling in to agree with the caller that asked for

in-person meeting. i think we have the policies in place to meet in person safely, and i second the concerns that have already been voiced about the challenges of meeting remotely and the challenges of not being able to comment remotely or the challenges not being able to provide space. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. with that, public comment on remote hearings is now closed, and that resolution is now before you, commissioners. and if you care to, this would be the right time to have a conversation or a discussion about remote hearings. it is on your agenda today, and both you and the public have every opportunity to -- >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: happy to start off, and just generally speaking, i would support a resolution to continue remote hearings. i know there may be differing

opinions about that, but i think that just in an abundance of caution, and i would personally hope that maybe in january, we could be meeting in person, and a lot of the public, and i just wonder, jonas, if you and your team, if we go to sfgov and other staff at city hall, just kind of what would we need to do to do maybe a hybrid meeting or just if we go back, we're all in person again? are we thinking of a hybrid or just kind of go back to 2019 i guess, or early 2020 ways of operating? >> clerk: right. the only indication that i've received from the city administrator's office and the mayor's office is that we should not expect to resume city hall for in-person

hearings is until january 2022. they are also working with sfgovtv on a hybrid solution, but i believe what they're trying to do is create a solution that would make it consistent among all commissions, and i think that poses a bit of a logistical issue for other commissions. i think we're geared up and prepared to handle hybrid hearings, and to be completely honest, i don't know that that's the direction that they're heading. i'm as much in the dark as you are. i forwarded the memo that i received to you all so you all have the most up to date information that i have.

>> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you for that, and for me, that only solidifies that we should continue to have remote hearing, and especially not knowing what direction we're going to be able to go and certainly finding a fit that fits all commissions is a challenge, but you're not working on that directly. i think another thing we can talk about today is how the public can access hearings. they've had trouble getting logged in, and we talked last time about maybe some ways to broadcast or show or display the items that have been continued just to make sure that folks can catch up with what has been continued because it can be hard to keep track of. obviously, there's a delay, so there's a little bit of a challenge with folks calling in that have their t.v. on, the t.v.'s kind of a few minutes behind, not catching up, echoing and stuff.

i think it's been hard as a commissioner not seeing the public. i do enjoy seeing our public commenters, so i do think it's understandable that they're on the phone, but certainly not being able to see us in the hearing and interact with us in a better way presents a bit of a challenge. that said, i think the staff has done an amazing job in these hearings, particularly in multiple languages. it's not always easy, but i think, especially last time, it ran really smoothly. but i would urge you to keep doing remote hearings for the

next 30 days. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioner tanner. i'm with you. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yeah, i have a question for secretary ionin. i wonder if we could have a presentation for what a hybrid hearing would look like. do you think by december there's some sort of presentation that could happen with that? >> clerk: i would be happy to reach out to the mayor's office and the city controller. i would imagine the meetings would happen the way they did before and allow the public could call in or submit public comment on webex or the

platform. i don't know where we're going with this. january 1 is sort of a new target, but as you have seen consistently throughout this pandemic, that target is a moving one that keeps getting pushed further and further back. there was a report that all of the bay area has moved back into measures of lockdown because of rising cases, but i

simply don't know what will be coming in the future. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, secretary ionin. as of now, for matters like public comment, i'm wondering what kind of, you know, the kind of discussion we should have when it comes to the public comments, and -- yeah, whether we should revisit that. i know there's been some outreach that has been done with it. >> clerk: well, the time limits

are imposed by the chair, so those can be altered at his order. the time limits came to provide clarity to members of the public but got a lot of push back. over the course of reviewing our internal policies and procedures in the rules and regulations, the city attorney's office actually pointed out to us that they felt that our process for organized opposition was not legal, and so that's the reason we've actually adjusted our time limits. essentially, advice from the city attorney's office is such that we can only provide each person the same amount of time an individual member would receive. so when we have public comment that provides two minutes for each person, organized opposition is only going to get six minutes when they have

three people speaking, and we will only allow each party to have three minutes. so it's a brown act and it's being fair to each individual without giving preference to an organization. >> commissioner imperial: i appreciate that, secretary ionin, for explaining all of the challenges and procedures that your office has to go through. especially for me, when i feel like there are some suggestions in the remote hearing versus the in-person hearing and whether going to the in-person hearing, i really think that you guys are doing -- having challenging -- we are having challenging issues when it comes to all of this. so i appreciate the explanation and for the public to know the challenges that we're going through, so i appreciate that. but in terms of for us, i don't

know, president koppel, if you would reconsider having three minutes, but i think that should be something having the commission consider, as well, when it comes to public comment, because in person, i believe it was more three minutes and being outreach, now, it's two minutes. but i'm happy to hear other commissioners of thoughts on that, but -- yeah. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i appreciate the frank discussion going on between the public expressing their requests and needs. i believe that secretary

ionin's explanation is thoughtful and represents the best information available. i continue to be very cognizant, as mr. ionin referenced, yesterday's graphics from the entire bay area being back in the red zone, with the exception of san francisco in orange, and i wouldn't say i'll be back in city hall next week. this is a historic building and

it's very, very large, but it's not something that technology can provide as in more temporary spaces. again, i'll return to city hall or any public gathering space as soon as i am given the green light by secretary ionin, but at the time, i'd rather remain healthy. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? [indiscernible]. >> clerk: commissioner chan, absolutely. and in fact, because of my

staff, who you don't see on a regular basis, we've become quite complicated where we've posted hearings, so that may be why you're not -- you've been absent, so we've requested translation services in four different languages, and we've provided break out rooms. when they do provide public testimony, we do provide them twice the amount of time that an english speaking public commenter would normally received, and that is the law that would not -- i guess that requirement was not lifted during the covid time, so no, that hasn't been -- >> commissioner chan: okay. thank you. so just from the public perspective, how would a non-english speaker submit their non-english testimony? so would they call in and then a translator from the non-english side submit their comments to the commission?

>> clerk: yes. essentially, the caller would speak and the translator would provide their testimony. [indiscernible]. >> commissioner chan: okay. i would move to approve the motion. >> commissioner tanner: second. >> president koppel: second, and let me call on commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i was simply going to reiterate what commissioner moore said, which it's very frustrating not to have the human interaction that comes by being able to meet in person, but given the covid

numbers and the reality of the room in which we meet, i am in favor of moving this motion forward at this time. >> clerk: thank you, commission -- oh, commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i don't see this brought forward as a motion. it was a resolution. i don't see it expressed as a motion in our packets. >> clerk: it is a resolution, but there is a motion to adopt before us. >> vice president moore: okay. >> clerk: okay. if there is no further discussion, i did want to acknowledge my staff who you do not see on a regular basis, but who do work hard to make this work, so thank you for what you do behind the scenes. on this option to extend remote hearings for another 30 days -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and places us -- through the chair, there was a request from ms. chapman to allow her the opportunity to submit public comment on the board of supervisors report. did you want to go back to that? >> president koppel: oh, okay. she did not want to do that through general public comment, she wanted to do that through mr. starr's report. >> clerk: members of the

public, this is your opportunity to submit public comment. >> thank you so much for that opportunity. you know, i participated in the meeting of the land use committee, and the supervisors are in a tough difficult. they're having to make tough decisions and they're having subpar reports [indiscernible] in this situation, you are in the position of the commander,

the decision makers, and your chief of staff is in charge of all the people who come before you to present information so that you can make the best decision, and sometimes that isn't happening. sometimes it's mentioned by other people in that hearing, it's as if they're working on commission, or maybe just the person made terrible mistakes, and it was their case, and nobody else changed it, so that is something that really needs to be worked on, and i don't -- as i said, i don't blame the director. he's only been here ten months, right? we were groomed on staff actions that prevented us from giving our opinions or you just received partial information that is terribly damaging, which i'll come back to another

time regarding the pine street project, for example. so i'll conclude my remarks at the moment and come back at another time in the spirit of trying to be helpful. >> clerk: thank you, ms. chapman. with that, general -- or excuse me, public comment on that item is closed. commissioners, we can now move to 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. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be

moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, press star, three to enter the queue and begin speaking when the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> oh, hi, this is georgia schiutish. when there are plans for these demo calcs, the calcs on them are often squishy. although the calcs for those two projects did not pass the threshold, they were very close, and the submitted calcs were not close, as they turned

in the past, the commission would not demolish sound housing. in 2009, a permit to demolish a two-unit building in the richmond was denied, even though it was going to be turned into two two-unit buildings because it would result in the loss of sound housing, but there was another finding on the same issue faced by the commission because the family was going to live in there. there have been at least 39 speculative alteration projects since 2014 that should have been viewed as demolitions and were flipped for an average

price of 3.9 million. it's fair to say this resolution has a ripple effect across the city. the democalcs need to be adjusted. thanks. have a nice day. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume with san francisco land use coalition. i would like to draw your attention to 2867 san bruno avenue which was just continued today. i think one thing that's completely been missing from any kind of discussion about this project is the fate of the tenants who are currently living in this building and any attempt to legalize what was previously done without a permit could affect them. so i would like this commission, and i would like the planning department to basically do good on what they

promised in the past few weeks to check the tenancy of a building and to keep in mind the effect of any kind of remodel, remolition or demolition. in this case, this unit was obviously not built to permit and it was basically a demolition. so who is going -- what is going to happen to the people living there? what is going to happen to the tenants currently living there? are they going to be displaced for any action taken making this building legal? so my comment, again, as you promised to look into the tenant situation, as you promised to work with the rent board to make sure that tenants are not going to be displaced as a result of projects, i

would also like you to look into the situation of these tenants when this situation is before you and ask for any kind of restitution or remediation for plans that might impact their residency at this building. thank you. >> hi. this is stephanie catella again. i want to speak to [indiscernible] again. i understand this meeting was approved in september, but i did not discover that until i checked on-line. i've lived in the lower haight for ten years -- >> clerk: ma'am, i'm going to interrupt you for just a second. we're not on that item yet. we're on general public

comment, and haight street is a matter that we'll be taking up in the near future. >> okay. thank you. i didn't see the agenda. i can wait. >> clerk: yeah. thank you. >> linda chapman. i'm going to speak to the parking issue on nob hill, which i said i was going to come back to it. you may recall earlier in the last century, most homes did not have cars at all, and even the older condos or co-ops had no parking at all or parking that was much less than 1:1. i lived in a condo in 1996, and we had no parking. the one on post street has, i don't know, i think 66 units at

least or more, no parking. even the luxury buildings, like the one on sutter street, have no parking. others have less, and they would use community or communal parking lots while they were waiting to get in. i lived in a 12-unit building that had one parking space for the owner or manager. most of the rental buildings around me had none, but when people moved there, they got rid of their cars, literally, but then, if they suddenly

needed one because they got a job down the peninsula, there was a place they could park if they needed to. so bear that in mind, just like communal laundry, people need a place to park. >> clerk: okay. last call for members of the public. seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed, and moving you onto item 9 end your regular calendar, there is 2018-004217-gpa, an overview of

general plan amendments. annemarie, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. today, i'm going to give an examination of the larger opportunities and challenges there in. next slide. the planning department acknowledges that we are on the an ceded ancestral land of the -- unceded ancestral land of the ohlone people. as guests, we recognize the benefits we gain from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay respects by acknowledging the elders, members, and residents of the ohlone people. so here is what i will address. first, an overview of the general plan and how it's used. next. the general plan and san francisco's vision for the future. it provides direction during the decision making process while staring us toward the

future we want to create. next, the general plan is mandated by the state to address [indiscernible] my first bullet on the slide. as you can see, the updates that we are currently preparing: housing, safety, transportation, and environmental justice. from time to time, the state will require updates. they just updated an annual report for updates and accountability. this slide shows not only the nine mandated elements indicated by the state capitol icon but also the other action.

in many cases, san francisco has led the nation on this work. there have been actual above the fold national articles about our plan amendment. next? the listener should know that for the past two decades, most of our general plan resources have been focused on updating the geographically based chapters of our plans, often known as area plans. today, we will focus on the topic based chapters, the elements. next. looking at each of our chapters, here is when the elements were last updated. we've been mandated to update the housing and community elements, however, outside of those, the only other element comprehensively updated is this

[indiscernible] based element in 2014. next? when we think about our city today and the idea of a 20-year planning horizon. think of how much has changed in the past 20 years. the need to adapt our housing policies to face our challenges could not be more urgent in this post covid world. how much of us would have thought that planning for excessive heat would be an issue for san francisco, and yet here we are. these issues affect our people and our buildings. these issues affect city planners. two issues regarding state laws

mandate that general plans address climate change and environmental justice. we are updating our transportation element as part of connectsf and recently heard about the issues being addressed here, and the next generation of muni service and connectivity. and this commission also passed the home resolution, asking our work focus on racial and social equity. these are some of the reasons this is coming before you. next? there is also benefits. it has links to real world spending and [indiscernible]

the plan reflects public values and generates buy ins. buy ins gives the plan weight in terms of actions that align with priorities. it helps agencies work together to deliver programs and projects, and it's time to deliver on actions that allow communities to live here. this report also informs the public about the progress in meeting the community's goals, there by increasing connection between policy, action, and accountability. next. let's talk about the major updates under way now. next. we are currently updating four topics: housing, transportation, safety, and

environmental justice. with these four updates, we'll have an opportunity to start to significantly modernize the general plan so it reflects our current values in four areas such as racial and social equity, environmental values, and community resilience. you've heard presentations on most of these in the past few months, so i'm going to skip the content today, instead focusing more on the approach. next? first, let's talk about the housing element. it has a mandated time frame. it must be approved by next year. as you've heard, we're doing it differently this time. san francisco has not acknowledged that housing has to do with racial and social

equity. this is one area where the state has increased action. if san francisco fails to adopt by the deadline, we lose access to affordable housing dollars and can be fined up to $100,000 per month. next? second, the parallel effort, transportation element. you've heard about this recently, too. it springs from our robust interagency effort that has been working since 2016 on technical studies, outreach, and next generation for planning streets and highways. in that effort, planning has invested $2 million in staff resources, and the project has benefited from an $800,000 consultant budget. we've invested in transportation planning because the link between housing, jobs, and movement is clear.

next? this work has not all been for this transportation element, and the interagency effort has given sfmta the transportation forward plan and the sfcta their mobility plan, and they will lend their expertise to the production of our transportation element. while this general plan updated isn't mandated per se, it is directly tied to creating real life transformation our city needs. general plan language was needed to create a better car free market street and to address the key issues like walking and biking safety. we need a contemporary plan,

centered on racial equity and social justice. more on that in a moment. the next two projects have much slimmer budgets. our community safety element as it's currently called turns ten next year. this is a plan, and it's basically middle age, and it's one of our newest elements. we're working on this because another state law requires that general plans address climate change. currently, the general plan doesn't address climate change, or as we've been asked to call it, the climate crisis. the community safety element content has grown directly with other plans. we've partnered with other city agencies, mainly the office of

capital planning and resilience and the department of the environment, and the city did adopt h.c.r. last year. so while the city led the effort, planning helped draw the law, and in the same way that you heard an informational presentation on the agency prior to board adoption, you will hear a presentation on the community plan to fund the climate action plan next month. that, too, is an implementation plan of the general plan. planning staff engaged heavily in content for these plans and community outreach. the engagement for both

outreach has supported the general plan, which you will see soon. next? the fourth effort that environmental justice framework. you may notice i keep mentioning environmental justice, or e.j.f. this project will set clear goals and action to help communities of color and low-income communities, and this is working to place e.j. in all aspects of our work, that's why i keep mentioning it, and adding this is mandated, as i said. the goal is to help eliminate health disparities. this project has about an 80,000 budget and one staffer working full time. so these are the projects largely underway. each represents critical work, and with these four, we have a

moment where we can complete significant updates so that our general plan reflects our current values and priorities. working on these at the same time has created a rich opportunity to think about what each effort has to say about san francisco's vision for the future, so there is one portion of the general plan existing today that summarizes our commission, and it's in a corner of the slide. next slide. the general plan introduction is a 1,000 word essay that celebrates the city and our diversity and six general goals to [indiscernible] these are all very laudable goals, so while the 1996 discussion

discusses some of the basics of community planning, based upon the outreach engagement underway, when the e.j. framework comes forward, we will also include an introduction to address these items. because e.j. will be woven throughout the entire general plan, it presents a ripe opportunity to moving san francisco into the future. next? this is one more general plan effort underway that i wanted to mention. it is not a san francisco planning led effort, it supports waterfront plan. the waterfront land use plan is about 25 years ago old. planning staff are working with the port to keep the policies

in synch. this is a project where we're ensuring that investment is a priority. so those are the updates under way. it's a substantial body of work. to truly ensure that our city keeps pace with our projects, there are other efforts on the horizon that can feed into a next generation of planning updates. let's take a look at the projects so that you can see the possibilities before us. we are working on economic recovery. we have completed facilities strategies for soma, and we have a similar request for

mission bay. it's time to memorialize our current body resilience plan. the cultural district work can be memorialized in a new conservation heritage element, so these projects together should -- can and should culminate in policy conclusions into the general plan. these can become a phase two of our general policy effort. looking forward, we can see a general work plan that looks like this. phase one are active general

plan amendments, and phase two are viable projects, setting us on a path of a timeline of completion by 2027 and phase four repeating. our staff is committed to not only proposing new content but also to making the general plan easier to use with a consistenting framing and format with meaningful tracking and evaluation. we want to work with you when policy resonates. it should be reported in the general plan to guide future actions. this commission has become [indiscernible] with planning

code updates. in the coming year, you'll have the opportunity to get similar comfort with the general plan because when it comes to the general plan, those amendments, many people don't know, cannot come from the board of supervisors. only you and the historical preservation commission can make amendments. we're here to steer you in the right direction to lead san francisco forward. next slide and last slide. commissioners, that is our plan for modernization. i'd like to conclude with a quote from the state office of planning and research. in california, more than half of our local cities have general plans that are over 15 years old. often, this is because, the state says, the process of adopting a general plan has become too time-consuming and

costly. i believe that san francisco can get out of that quagmire. as we are moving forward, we are making commitments to you and the public to address san francisco's current needs. in return, we look to you to find direction. help us find timely approvals with robust community engagement and efficient use of resources. that's the end. thank you very much. i'm available if there are questions. >> clerk: thank you, annemarie. if there are no immediate questions from the commission, we should open up the item for public comment. members of the public, if you wish to make public comment, press star, three. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is the time

you may begin your comments. >> ozzie reaume, san francisco land use coalition. miss rodgers' presentation was extensive and comprehensive. the majority of you have not upheld the objective number two of the general plan ever. we're not confident that the general plan will be upheld by this commission or at least by a majority of you, so i'd like to raise this as an issue. how can the public be sure that what's going into the general plan, things like environmental consideration, things that are

going to supposedly put san francisco on a new path, how are we going to be sure that this commission is going to be upholding them when something as important as affordable housing, such an important issue, has not been upheld by you? again, my question is how can the public be sure that the general plan, the new version of general plan is going to be upheld? more importantly, how are you going to be upholding the current policy of general plan that usually are being ignored by this commission?

>> clerk: okay. with that, public comment is closed, and the item is before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: miss rodgers. you have set a high bar, and your presentation was very professional. my question is will there be a general plan requirement that is supported by state legislation to expand general plans of seasoned communities

providing them the opportunity to respond to regional planning goals. is that something that you are tracking throughout or is that a new challenge to the department? >> that is a very good question, and you may, in fact, know some things that i don't know. what i do know is that, since 1996 charter updates, san francisco's general plan and the policies brought before this commission respond to issues and local regional plans. so we have a plan about that, especially when it comes to housing allocation and making sure that we're planning realistically for the location of those housing units, and

that we are, you know, playing fair and consistent with the state and regional laws. >> vice president moore: the mandate, i read, i thought i read, was actually a little bit more extensive in its accountability, basically looking at a community with larger transportation and resources, etc. i found that very frightening, but i would love to see that you perhaps check a little bit more into it because it would affect what you're doing. but again, your plate is very full, but i would like to see you constructively look at that. >> thank you. we'll look into that. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: thank you. in recent times, the state has been issuing a lot of

legislation primarily related to housing. however, does staff foresee the state issuing any additional legislation that may impact the scope of general plan upgrades? i -- yes, and i believe that we should expect to see even more [indiscernible] which require us to address climate change in the general plan, which ours does not do, and require us to update those. i do expect to see further laws

towards climate change and resiliency. >> commissioner fung: miss rodgers, could you explain further areas where you expect to see more changes? >> i do anticipate they will continue to ask for more specificity in housing law because they've already declared the housing law to be a state interest because it was totally a police interest, and now it's a state interest with regards to the depth of the crisis. so in conversations with the city, the mayor's office are telling us they are expecting more housing policy to come from the state, and i personally am adding to that. we've seen a lot of new housing

policy from the state regarding climate change, and i would expect that would continue. possibly also racial and social justice, given the recent awareness of those issues across the nation. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: it actually was answered, but thank you, miss rodgers, for a really great report. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there are no further questions for annemarie, we can move onto items 10-a and b for 2019-011944-ofa and var. this is a request for office development authorization and the zoning administrator will consider a request for

variance. mr. sucre? >> the item before you is a small development for a property located at 660 third street, which is a contributor in the article ten southland mark district and is located in the south soma mixed use office district. the office allocation will legal lies probably 36,690 square feet of office space within a four-story former industrial building. the building also included 17,000 basement space which is

fully devoted to commercial storage. the project does not propose any off street parking spaces and also includes 24 class one and five class two bicycle spaces. the project also requires a variance to meet the planning code requirements for active use pursuant to planning code section 145.1. additionally, the project is subject to planning code 145.4 which requires active commercial uses [indiscernible] within the central soma s.u.d. subsection e allows for this section to be modified or waved administratively. department staff have received one inquiry on the project, though this does not express

either support or opposition. the project sponsor is present and will now make a presentation to you, and this concludes the staff presentation. thank you, and i'm available for any questions. i will share my screen, jonas. >> on now? hello? >> clerk: you have five minutes. >> five minutes? thank you. jim reuben here for the project sponsor, and delighted to be here, a hearing that i hope will be completed or get completed and end a 9.5 or almost ten-year saga. in the written term, the history of what we've been through are all there, but there are a couple of things

that i'd like to talk about how we started and what went wrong and ask for your help in getting us resolved. so this building, 660 third street, was owned by irving raybun, bought in 1962, still owned by the raybun family. in 1980, bonnie authier signed a lease to have the butterfield and butterfield offices in the building. i don't know how many of you remember that business, but it was legendary and iconic. any ways, they operated outside of the building as their offices since 1980. the elder raybun died in 2012, and his two sons came to me and

told me the story of this building that they had been operating as an office. they knew that the planning department's records did not know it as an office, and having now taken over the family real estate business, they were trying to do the right thing and have the records at the planning department and the city reflect the actual use of the building because they wanted to start that way, to do the right thing. so we went through those options at this time, and i know wish we had chosen. there's an opportunity to grandfather a preexisting use if you have sufficient documentation, but because this was owner occupied, we didn't really have strong leases and things like that, although we did have a declaration from barney authier from 1980 that

he did lease offices, although i didn't think we would win on that. there was in the planning code a conditional use opportunity for class a historic buildings to turn themselves into office by going through that conditional use authorization process, the idea being in an office, there's more money to maintain these historic buildings. so if i researched that option and found that there had been 11 total such applications in san francisco, of those 11, all 11 had been approved at the planning commission unanimously, so it appeared to us at the time that that was

the best route to go, and danny and ari agreed, and we filed the usual application to convert at the planning code, and we filed that in 2013. just before we go to hearing in 2014, some of you may remember this, pinterest moved to 140 henry, and everybody got involved. what happens is -- 1 henry adams, and everybody got involved. what happens is pinterest would move in and that would create a maelstrom in san francisco. instead of getting our 80,000 that had happened 11 time earlier, we got 40 out of 80,

which is the worst possible result because now we're on everybody's radar. half of the building is authorized to be office, half is not authorized to beoffice, but we've shown it, and we were relegated to purgatory, where we remain today. there were a number of steps along the way, including a board of appeals hearing that commissioner fung will remember. i think he was the president of the board at the time. i told -- i told the board of appeals the same story that i told you, and i think there was some empathy on the board for our problem, and we entered into -- ultimately entered into a settlement agreement that allowed us some time and imposed some penalties for --

>> clerk: mr. reuben, i'm sorry to interrupt you, but that is your time. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear you. >> clerk: that is your five minutes. the commissioners may have questions for you later. >> okay. well, i'm here to answer any questions, and daniel raybun is here, as well. >> clerk: excellent. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter your public comment. press star, three to enter the queue, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> this is sue hester. [indiscernible] is office rent, and they have currently got nonoffice used daily. they haven't paid their fees yet for the extra 30,000 or

whatever it is, so this is a landfall for the developer because if the fees are deferred for housing, people haven't built housing to accommodate the new legal office space. they -- staff report kind of squishes over the basic thing that happened. this was not initially a central soma project, it was an eastern neighborhoods project, and there was a process for legitimatization of those departments. paying fees is a major thing. we have had a lot of p.d.r. uses that have gone to office

space illegally. this one should pay the great for increasing office -- housing in the city. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment on this item, you need to press star, three. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: i'm in support of the item today and call on commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have a question. just to clarify, mr. sucre. in our packet, it says it's in central soma mixed use district, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner imperial: okay.

so it was in central soma, not outside and not just -- >> yes. >> commissioner imperial: okay. just want to clarify that. also, another question. since there are, in their packets, and regarding the penalty, well, perhaps it should be the project sponsor. have those penalties been paid? >> i know that the -- only on november 3 did we issue the accrued notice of penalty and fee to them, so presumably and maybe the zoning administrator might be able to weigh-in on this. >> i might be able to [indiscernible] and have the project sponsor fill in if he would like. good afternoon, commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator. there has been a portion of fees pays regarding the notice of violation related to this. the board of appeals allowed

them to maintain the office space overtime to give them opportunity in the future to remedy this. at this point, our records indicate about 200,000 of unpaid enforcement fees that would be due, and mr. sucre was mentioning our most recent visit with the project sponsor this week. >> commissioner imperial:under this matter, those fees would still be able to be collected? >> those penalties would still be due. >> commissioner imperial: okay. that is my question. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would like the project sponsor or attorney to speak to that

issue, if i may. >> yes. commissioners, can you hear me? >> vice president moore: yes, mr. reuben. >> there was one invoice from the city a year or so ago that we paid, and we have not received any invoices since then. a day or two ago, we received an invoice for the penalty of $190,000 or $195,000, and we are absolutely going to pay the penalty. was that the question? >> vice president moore: that was the question. the issues that miss hester raised, are they addressed by the question that you were answering or was it different? >> i think that what sue hester is saying to all of us is there shouldn't be freebies, and

office space is a useful commodity, and it is. we intend to pay the penalties that's the resultant $250 a day imposed by the planning commission and the zoning administrator just referred to, and we will be paying the fees associated with the conversion of those two floors that we're speaking to now, 40,000 feet, so there's going to be a bit that's going to be a substantial amount of money associated with completing a change of use. >> if i may -- >> vice president moore: who wanted to speak? >> that's my client, danny raybun, who's sitting in my office and who is anxious to let everybody know that they're going to pay the fees. >> vice president moore: please go ahead. i interrupted you.

[indiscernible]. >> oh, do you want to talk? >> i was going to say, we paid the impact fees that sue hester was talking about for the conversion. the fees have gone up significantly. i don't know the order of the magnitude, but we're going to be paying significantly more than we would have paid if the conversion had happened when we first applied. thank you. >> vice president moore: thank you. i believe this building is suited for the adaptation to move to office, and i move to approve with the caveat that the payment of fees be monitored prior to any further -- >> commissioner imperial: second. >> vice president moore: -- actions. mr. ionin, can you call the question?

>> clerk: certainly. on that motion, then, to approve this matter with conditions -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing on the variance and intend to grant with the standard conditions. >> clerk: very good. thank you. commissioners, item 11 for case number -- well, for broadway has been continued, so we will take up item 12 for case 2021-000209-cua at 733 treat avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. miss samonsky, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes.

elise samonsky, planning department staff. [please stand by]

.>> and correspondence from thre residents from the height massive proposed to the scale of the neighborhood. and a potential reduction in the availability of street parking. the department finds the plan is compliant with the plan.

the project is designed to be compliment existing character of the neighborhood and will provide front and rear yards. it's complimentary to the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> good afternoon commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor. the construction of a new four story seven dwelling and is

fully consistent with the planning code. the subject property currently consists of a four story building. this is not permitted by zoning today. it's not consistent with the urban character of the neighborhood and occupies the entire lot. you can see on the right is the mission park rec and center. on the left is a fire development center and will be in front of the commission in the coming months. the proposed project consists of four story and seven dwelling units. good sized family units. a one bedroom adu will be provided on the ground floor.

a seven space parking garage and full 25 percent rear yard as opposed to the building that is there today. you'll see that the four story 45-foot tall buildings are common on both sides of this block and immediately a jays adjacentto the building on eithe is compatible with that height; the proposed dimensions of the project are consistent with the immediate neighbors and surrounding neighborhood. the open space is provided mostly in the rear yard. there's a common roof deck that will be set back from all sides.

there's a similar sized building just to the left that is being entitled here. this provides good open space but is very much set back from the front and side property lines. next slide, please. this is a really important component of the project, the project significantly improves the condition of the property. the existing building is 22 feet tall and the entire set back of the lot. very much inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. as proposed the building will

provide 33 feet of separation creating significant light and air for both buildings. as mentioned, the project requires conditional use for an unauthorized dwelling unit. we're not in agreement that there is an existing adu here. i do want to make clear that the only evidence we've been provided, this is a commercial building that's there today. the only complaints we've heard today is people in the neighborhood sleeping in that space. we're not aware of any other

documentation on the public record that indicates residential use. it makes sense, the existing building is completely inappropriate for residential use. it's an old warehouse building. it's simply not space that anyone would ever want to turn into residential or use as residential today. we have gone through the steps of getting the appropriate appraisal and cost estimate. legalizing would be infeasible so the commission can make the findings today for the adu removal. the project has received nine letters of support from the public including support from the owner. in closing, the project significantly improves the use

of the property. it removes the building that currently occupies the entire lot. it creates seven new dwelling units. it's completely consistent with this lot. thank you. i'm here for questions. >> very good. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star three. you have two minutes. >> hello. i wanted to thank the planning commission for the opportunity to express a strong opposition to the proposed project, before i get into my comments, i would like to state that i live right behind the building and i can tell you someone lived there for

several years. we have multiple conversations with the older gentleman who lived there before he passed away while he was out repairing his roof. i had multiple conversations with a younger relative who i believe took care of him from time to time. hearing that no one lived there, that is an out right falsehood. i co-own with my partner one of the 28 units. we have made this unit our home for the last 18 years. this is the only home we will ever be able to afford here in san francisco.

the 28 units were designed and approved to receive adequate light and ventilation from the east and the west. units facing harris son street receive from behind. i can tell you that if a four story building is built there, we will dramatically reduce the amount of fresh air and light we will get. it does not add more light and air to the neighborhood. that is a falsehood. for the units on the back of the building, the air occurs on the west side. six units directly behind -- >> that is your time.

>> hello. i'm calling in support of this project. as we are all aware san francisco is in a housing shortage. this building complies with all applicable provisions and requires no exceptions or variances. it replaces a derelict warehouse. it would be great for families. this is a great project and we desperately need more housing in san francisco. please approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. last call for public comment on this matter.

seeing no additional callers. i take it back. there is a late request for comment. >> hello. i'm also directly behind the unit. one of the things i want to point out is that in trying to justify the height increase of the building that was inhabited by someone. it doesn't actually block the

air and light access of any units. this unit will be coming very close to this building that you guys approved and build with the assumption that the access to air and light will be as designed from east to west. this is going to effect six other families in this building. we're trapped here. whatever you guys decide to do today is going to impact the lives of these six families. in terms of affordability, i question what the measure stick for that is. certainly none of us here in this building will be able to move into that. if you're trying to gentrify the neighborhood, you'll be successful. the plight of people having to leave the city because of people

who have no other alternative is going to be on your hands. thank you. >> hello. i'm with the residential builders association. i'm calling to say i think this is an excellent infill project. i don't want to go over the facts you've already heard in the presentation. this is much needed family housing. we're providing consistent open area in the rear of the building. we cannot and should not let 40 feet intimidate us. if i was going to be critical in any way it should be 50 feet with some set backs. we should not let 40 feet cause

alarm. if we're going to put a dment don't inour housing problem, weo get over this fear of 40 feet. it will be a big asset to the neighborhood. thank you. >> that will conclude public comment on this item and it is now before you. >> i have a question for the project sponsor. you mentioned it was a warehouse. what kind of warehouse was it? >> the current project sponsor bought the property about a year ago. at the time it had been vacant

since 2015. as far as anyone knows there's been no active commercial use of this property since 2015. >> what can you say about the comments that there were residents living in this building before? were you aware of that? >> we have a letter from the owner saying it's been vacant for years and no one resides there. because the owner purchased the project a year ago. we have no more details than that. that's all we have to go on. >> thank you. it looks like -- did you also

look into the rent board whether there were any -- >> the rent board had no record. the judgment that there was a udu present was based off of information that came from the code enforcement task force which had prior to this -- the current property owner purchasing the property had done enforcement inspection done on the property. that's how it was concluded that at least for some period of time there was someone living in the building. it was previous a refrigeration repair and storage. essentially it was a trade shop of a man who serviced refrigeration units.

that's based off of the conditional use from 1981, i believe. it was a long time legal non conforming. >> in terms of the rent board complaint, it was filed in this current project sponsor or previous owner. >> the rent board has no records in regard to this property. it was code enforcement. >> okay. thank you for that clarification. those were my questions. >> i have a question. my question is i believe that the massing of the proposed building makes every attempt to turn a two story commercial

building and it's proposed massing into housing into a reasonable shape by setting it back 30 feet on the property line. did you by any chance do any 3-d modelling to show how people who have problems with the context of what this really means. >> i think it's in my presentation which has the best 3-d rendering we have. both viewing the rear from the front and viewing the rear from the rear, if that makes sense. that is from the front. we don't have it from the rear? do you have the plans?

i believe it provides code set back from the proposed units. it will always be an issue whether it's a perceived impact or a natural impact. i believe that the introduction of the rear garden including holding the roof deck

sufficiently apart from the building edge provides impression of a building that allows light and air for the people living on the street. if we question why this only provides large market rate units, that's not what is in front of us. but it is a code compliant building. for that reason, i'm supporting the building. i'm curious what other commissioners have to say. >> i'm supportive of this project as designed and the mass and would move to grant conditional use. >> second.

>> okay, commissioners. if there's nothing further. we have a motion. (roll call). so moved. before we move on i will announce members of the public who may be waiting for item 15, that matter has been continued to january 20th, 2022. a conditional use authorization an the zoning administrator will be considering the variance.

staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i want to apologize in advance, i have helicopters circling the building. >> i would like to state that while i live beyond a block away from this building, i have no conflict with this item. >> on the north side of washington between jones street. located within the knob hill neighborhood. a two story public parking

garage. approximately sixty five foot tall residential building with 20 residential units. the project includes approximately 6,000 square feet of total usable space. the project will include a mix of 12 one bedroom units 92 unito building units. additionally the project will require the zoning administrator to grant variances for rear yard for eight units. the project does provide

25 percent set back due to the down sloping nature of the lot, there's a portion that will extend above the natural grade line and thus requires a variance. it does not extend into the 15 feet of lot depth. the project will comply with section 415 inclusionary housing units with affordable housing fee. the applicable percentage will be 33 percent. the project proposes to construct windows on the east side of the property line. the sponsor has obtained a no build within 15 feet in order to allow these under fire code requirements so they can be

considered bedroom or sleeping room. information regarding the easement as this new information discussed after publication of the staff report. to date, staff has received 42 letters of support for the project. the homeowner's association and the property owners. staff has received 11 comments in opposition to the project. one comment is that it does not achieve enough density.

there are concerns about traffic and congestion after and during construction and noise impact from those still working from home. the proposed project is on balance and is consistent with the general plan and is necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. a larger proportion of two and three bedroom units. it will improve the character of the neighborhood by creating a 34-foot rear yard set back. the project has been designed sensitively and included materials that reference the surrounding neighborhood context. for all these reasons, the

department recommends approval with conditions. that concludes my report. i'm available for questions. >> good afternoon. i'm a project sponsor of the project. the land development -- [indiscernible]. we've developed

in san francisco and lived here as well. for over three years we have engaged stake holders with meaningful efforts to ensure this is a welcome addition -- a rear yard set back of 30 feet which provides significant improvement of light and air. >> i'm sorry. i'm going to interrupt you briefly. your computer microphone is what's picking you up.

i would suggest hanging up because it's causing an echo. >> thank you. can you proceed to the next slide, please. can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. we were hearing you just fine. i wouldn't change anything at this point.

i'm pausing your time here again. we can hear you from your computer, you don't need to call back. we can hear you fine. i would not call in to a different number. >> the problem is i can't hear you. i'm hanging up the phone. >> okay. thank you very much. sorry for the delay. 1320 washington street will meet the city's urgent goals for housing and keep with the

neighborhood's oldest neighborhood. >> architectural we took cues from the neighborhood. structures, materials and pallets and textures from surrounding neighborhoods. we took the relationship of our neighbors and took a set back of 25 percent. we create a set back along washington street which is consistent with our neighbors. we set the parking garage back

15 feet to comply with the planning code. a natural grade sloping to the north which is why we're asking for a variance. we were able to lower the height and create a rear yard and the garage also below the window adjacent to it 1441 jones. this mains the 21 percent year yard exposure. to maintaining light and air we created a easement on the east side of the property. our ground floor is composed of a central lobby. on the north side we've placed two large units ideal for families. second floor is composed of six

units. all the units have significant light and air to the north and south as well as to the east and west. floors three and four are similar to floor two with the exception that these have balconies overlooking the rear yard. the fifth yard is where we created private terraces an maintained the [indiscernible]. we've located a common terrace with the residents. we exceeded the common space.

the palate is warm and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the terrace on the fifth floor and will be continually landscaped. as you can see it steps down to your right which is a 17 story. >> thank you. that is your time. >> we've demonstrated. >> the commissioners may have additional questions for you but we should take public comment at this time. members of the public this is

your opportunity to provide two minutes of public comment. when you hear that your line has been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> i own 1340 washing street which is directly adjacent. i'm calling to voice my support of the project. the garage that currently occupies the land -- [indiscernible]. the thoughtfully designed roof top will be a nice addition as well. i think the project does a good

job paying attention to the character of the neighborhood. the bay windows on washington street. i appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions on the project. given the thoughtfulness of the project, i support it as proposed. thank you. >> hi. i'm president of the san francisco entertainment commission. today i'm calling as a small business owner. we're very much in support of this project. our small business has suffered a lot. bringing more neighbors can help

businesses. bringing housing can allow people to live nearby. they've done extensive community out reach. i've been impressed with how many stake holders they've involved in their process. i'm thrilled to support this project as are my business partners. thank you very much. >> i've lived in san francisco for the last 21 years.

to paraphrase how the board of supervisors on the project that they voted down. they aren't against building housing but just this particular housing. parking, aesthetics -- people will have to use onstreet parking. there's not a lot of onstreet parking available. with the crime wave we've been

experiencing there will be more break ins of cars. it's much higher than the buildings adjacent to it. two stories of living space plus the roof deck. the building being approved was consistent. we would like for the commission to not approve the height and reduce it to be consistent with the buildings that are on either side of it. we were promised perspectives of what the building would look like from our viewpoint. we never received that. the drawings provided to the hoa showing the new project appear it indicate there's only one story above the other buildings. in reality there's at least three stories.

thank you for your time. >> my husband and i oppose the height of this project. not the building itself. we ask that the san francisco planning department hold on approving this today and revisit the building height. thank you. >> i live at 1441 jones street. i want to speak on behalf of our hoa board in support of the project. it makes great use of the under utilized space. it it will compliment the

neighborhood nicely. we appreciated working withing the project sponsor. they have addressed some of our feedback. we suggest that you support the proposed project. thank you. >> i'm a resident of 1441 jones street. i live adjacent to the current garage, i'm looking at the concrete walls that is 14 inches from my living room. the new development will increase that set back and improve quality of life for our building. i'm excited with the prospect of new family homes next to us.

i'm very happy with the idea with the garage where we won't have to hear cars and such. our quality of life will improve with this development. we're really happy with it. i would urge the commission to support this project. thank you. >> hi. i'm not really close to that building. i have talked to a lot of people who want to move into that area. having that building adds a lot of value to that space. i'm a proponent if you have new

development you should maximize that space and in order to do that, you have to go high. thank you. >> hi. we live a across the street. both our bedrooms outlook onto the new proposed project. we're in support of the project. we think it's going to be a positive improvement on the neighborhood. the garage has been a noise issue and attracted a lot of people into the neighborhood late at night. the project is extremely handsome with landscaping in front and the roof top landscaping. it's going to provide needed

housing for san francisco. the lot is very under utilized. urban land development reached out to neighbors. they had a community meeting to give everybody an opportunity to meet with the architect and the developer. it was extremely informative. they've done a fine job. we strongly support the project. thank you very much. >> hello, everyone and commissioners. we are the incoming new residents at 1174 pacific avenue. just half a block away.

we just purchased a three unit apartment building. we're certainly excited about a decisional residentials coming to this neighborhood. i think as a lot of the supporters stated. san francisco needs additional housing and maximize the under utilized lots. certainly this is the neighborhood for residentials and create a more family oriented environment versus a industrial warehouse parking facility. we're certainly excited about this very aesthetic design and construction. we're excited to be a part of the neighborhood. we're supportive of this

project. thank you, everyone. >> hi business is at 1521polk street. it's been our business for 41 years. we support this project. i told my employees recently to

find apartment an they have struggled. i think it's a win win for everybody. thank you. >> thank you.

last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no further public comment on this item. public comment is closed. commissioners there is a late request to speak, shall we take that caller? >> yes, go ahead. >> i'm a resident and former owner lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years. i'm in support of the project. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. that will conclude public comment and it's now before you. >> i'm in support of the project and recommend this application.

>> i'm am in full support of the project. i'm asking for the commission to consider one thing. just a few minutes ago we looked at a project that had similar characters in a different neighborhood to the one that we're looking at. setting a larger previous industrial building replacing it with a residential building. the surrounding context to other buildings. what struck me was how it delineated the roof of that open space. i question that this particular project, the current delineation on page 22 does exactly what we

normally expect. i ask that we apply the same principles that we see on the project here. that is that the open space does not really extend to the property line neither in the front nor in the back or on the sides. that indeed the open space as to whether or not portions of it are assigned as a private terrace or not that is organized for a building to function on its own. it's consistently held back from all sides. east, west, north, south by at least 5 feet. that is consistent to the policy that we use everywhere else. i would like to see it here too.

this would still leave the calculated square footage way within what is needed and i think it will create a better project. otherwise, i'm in support and if the commission agrees, i would like to make a motion to accept the project except for the modifications that i'm proposing. >> thank you. i'm generally supportive of the project. i'm delighted to see the addition to the neighborhood. i wanted to see if the project sponsor would respond to the commissioners suggestions.

>> [indiscernible]. >> i have a hard time hearing the project sponsor.

there is an echo. >> we're also hearing an echo. let me see if we can turn off the computer maybe. >> the echo is because you have two microphones on at the same time. as i previously recommended you should hang up your phone. >> it seems like the sound engineer will be looking to see about the soundproofing and that satisfies my questions. >> i too am in support of the project. i believe the increase in density an height is necessary

to accomplish that. it's appropriate. i favor housing over parking. we as a commission don't protect views. i think this is a very beautifully designed project. i was happy to see the preservation of the backyard and the balconies to the rear. i did have a couple questions. the first is for the project sponsor. the depth of the balconies is only two foot nine. is that the most under the code. it would be nice to accommodate a chair or two. what we learned during covid is that access to open space is very important where we can provide it. i was wondering if you could

address that? >> yes. that is the maximum that we can do there. >> is there a way to design the doors to that so that it functions more like a balcony. is that something that you can work on with staff during the design refinement process. >> yes. we're using french doors. >> okay. my additional question is for commissioner. commissioner moore on her set back. were you looking for a five foot set back on all four sides. >> if you're asking me,

commissioner diamond, the answer is yes. it's basically holding the roof deck back from all edges. it does not diminish. there's plenty of roof there. it just allows for that deck to be less intrusive or visible from all sides. >> thank you for that clarification. a follow-up question for staff. i know that the deck was providing -- all to go it was providing more open space than was required, does the reduction of five feet on all sides still keep it within the minimum requirements of the code. >> i believe it does. >> did you make a motion? >> i was floating the idea

asking everybody to reflect on that. >> would you like to make that motion. >> i'll be happy to make the motion to support the project with the modification as i just explained to commissioner die mon. diamond. >> second. >> i just wanted to quickly address the variance just to clarify that it's somewhat a technicality. the building that is proposed that the deck does not go deeper than what is permitted. the code deck allowed for the low grade garages for extend within 15 feet of the property line. it's because of the historic

nature of the development of this site. it doesn't exactly fit the requirement to be below grade. i wanted to be clear on the specifics. it's not technically a code compliant in the rear yard.

>> i often experience that to be a complicated intersection. you have considered that when you have cars coming in and out

of your building. >> we're adding much less cars. >> so you are have considered that. obviously a garage which is primarily overnight parking. if you have thought about it, i'm comfortable. i'm bringing your attention that it's not a completely problem free intersection. >> i'm also acceptive of the concept of the project, it's scale and it's overall design. i did have a question on the proposed amendment by one of the other commissioners related to the five foot set back. they currently have planters on

the east and west property lines which has no dimension but based upon a visual look at it, they appear to be about four feet. i'm assuming that the amendment then is looking at a reduction of the roof deck at five freet t from the property line. if that's the case, i would be receptive of that. >> if we could get clarity of that. my understanding is five feet of all sides. >> from the current property line. if you look at drawing 22, it

shows clearly that the planters sit at the edge of the property line. they need to be set back five feet. >> five feet from the existing location not five feet from the property line. >> yes. that's inclusive of the landscaping. >> that's correct. >> landscaping and roof deck to be pulled in five feet on all sides. >> very good. >> if that's the case, i don't see how that conform it what we've done in the past. >> you could clearly see that on the project where basically a non occupied roof outlined the edge of where the usable surface

of the roof deck can be. >> yes, i've seen that. i'm talking about the general policy that we have imposed on other projects. if the planter is there and that prevents people from going next to it, i don't see the purpose of the five feet. >> there's basically no edge. the planter itself does not delineate the edge. it's a furnishing of the roof deck. we want to hold the furnishing of the roof deck five feet a from the edge.

>> question to the project sponsor. there's no details at this point. what is the intent with those planters? >> not at this point. it was too soon. we haven't gotten to that level of detail on the design. >> okay. >> what is in front of me is

drawing 22 of the roof deck. that particular drawing does not show any planters. the planters to be introduced need to be held back five feet from the edge of the roof. >> drawing 22 shows planters. >> it's shown in the wrong spot. it doesn't show anything on the front side or in the rear where the private terrace comes all the way to the north side and south side. >> the question was on the east and west side. >> i think we have explained what the intent is here. >> if i could just intervene here, if i may. i think it is --

>> can you pull a diagram up so that the non architects on the commission can be looking at this and understanding what you're talking about. we can visually see how this is being resolved. i think it is consistent to say the set back is five feet. that's how staff has been interpreting things.

they may or may not be planters there. those are not things that are necessarily permanent with the building. >> if i may, my understanding of the motion is simply to take all the edges of the roof deck inclusive of the planters and set them back five feet. that's from the east, west, north, and south side of the roof deck of the terrace. >> yes. >> commissioner diamond does that satisfy your question or clarify -- >> it's very helpful to have the diagram. even though it shows planters on the east and west side. if we bring it in five feet. >> they may not have planters within --

>> i know. they could choose to have the planters or not have the planters. nothing is going to be developed, plants or anything without five feet all around the edge. do i understand that correctly? >> : yes. >> just so we're abundantly clear. you're not effecting the edge of the light well. >> no i'm not effecting the edge of the light well -- >> just from the property edge. >> from the light well as well. that's correct. because that is what we

consistently do. >> okay, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the motion that the roof deck be pull back five feet from all edges including the light well. on that motion. (roll call). that motion passes six to one. >> i will close the public hearing on the variance. >> thank you. commissioners that will place us on item 14.

are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am, thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. you have before you a request to amend the conditions of approval proposing the demolition of a two story unit composing of one dwelling an construction of a new four story building with nine dwelling units above a child care facility. the project itself remains unchanged however it proposes to satisfy the inclusionary low

housing rate. the project proposed to satisfy the inclusionary affordable housing program. however, the plans and transportation management plan provided low market rate units. it wasn't until shortly after the hearing that the disemploy y was noticed. the revised plans that no longer indicate the units. based on the scare footage the project will be required to pay a fee of approximately 371,000 in accordance with the 2021 impact fee schedule.

the department has received one letter in support and one letter in opposition. in order for the project to proceed it must modify the planning code. the proposed changes to the conditions of approval do not effect the conditions an policies with the general plan. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for further questions. thank you.

>> chris did a great job of explaining what went wrong here. i mistakenly did not submit updated drawings to include that however that was our intent back in may. the actual problem here is that the affordable housing code that's minimum size units or market rate units and we're just shy of meeting compliance with that. with this design as is, we do not meet the code for the unit.

in some cases we're as short as 12 square feet. in other cases it's 40 or 50 square feet. we believe this layout is the most efficient we can do with the project. we want to go forward with this lay outand do the in lieu method of compliance. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to provide two minutes of public comment. >> i'm addressing the fact that without accepting public comment on the previous item, it does concern me, how can you be conducting lawful proceedings when the system doesn't work, when star three doesn't respond.

that concludes my remark. i don't want to interrupt this item. i live half a century near that project, i'm not opposing the project, there are things i think you need to know in order to make good projects and not have negative impacts cumulatively on the project -- on the neighborhood. thank you. >> thanks for opening u public comment. i want to state that i understand the plan for this property was approved in september. i did not receive notice of that meeting nor the meeting today. i discovered them out of curiosity. i wanted to voice a few concerns that i would have shared if i had known about the meeting in september.

the project has two floors of child care. it's a frequent source of commuting downtown. for those of us who bicycle or drive, it's a busy stretch. for two floors of child care with what is currently available in front of the property is essentially four spots where somebody could park without double parking. there's constant double parking on the street. this can directly effect all of us. my concerns is as a commuter. the noise pollution it will create as a result. i was told there's a plan for pick up an drop offs of child

care. given the limited parking capacity, i don't see it's a feasible option. i understand the square footage issue and suggest that it's redesigned to observe that. i don't believe it serves the residents of san francisco. it disadvantages residents of san francisco who have already been pushed out of the city now. you truly cannot separate rates from class. i'm curious what will happen to the cannabis dispensary across

the street. >> members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak, the public comment portion of this item is now closed and the item is now before you. >> thank you. i have concerns about this project and what comes before us. it looks like supervisor preston's office expressed concerns on this. it's important to address the discrepancy. i'm really curious how did this

discrepancy happen. the commission hearing voted yes on this project rk the, the impn is that it's on site, code compliant and within the inclusionary compliant. i would like to understand how did this -- especially on staff on our side. how did we overlook on this? >> this project has been in the works since 2017. it it was being overlooked by self staff members. members that are no longer with

us. the project has evolved over time. the project sponsor was proposing fellow market rate units on site. the measures did indicate that they were proposing to do bmr units on site. i'm not sure if you can provide anymore insight on that. >> my curiosity is -- one is the inclusionary packet or application included off side. the tdm said something onsite.

i just feel like, whether the mapping was submitted, i believe it looks like it was submitted in may -- i'm really concerned in terms of the information being provided to us an the commission whether correction or lack of accuracy. the accuracy of the information being provided to us. in my -- it was something that voted that this will provide onsite because it's maximizing the density. there's nine principally permitted units. it will allow for inclusionary. i'm not in support of the

transferring to the off site. i believe that our department needs to do more looking into the information being provided to the commission an also within the department itself in terms of looking into the maps or information being sent. i don't know what else to say but at this point i will not support of this. thank you. >> did you want to hear from me. this is the architect. our design was more or less finalized back in january. that was the dates chris was

reviewing. we got delayed bit environmental review. on another project we had in front of you on third street last may, we did end up needing to redesign that project. it's something we're capable of doing. we're missing the unit number eight. they are missing the target by 16 square feet. it's possible to redo. we didn't want to redo the facade again. we were thinking this method would be easier. i forgot to update the cover sheet so that's entirely my

fault. >> i don't know if i'm going to accept that apology but i appreciate your explanation. >> i appreciate certainly there are some concerns regarding reporting. one thing i think the communication to us that we received this afternoon pointed out is the amount of the fee that would be paid is fairly low. perhaps they hadn't paid attention to the sale in part because we see larger fees because there are more units being paid out. this was a smaller amount for a smaller project. it struck me that there's a policy issue here which is the amount is far below the cost of

building a new housing unit. i don't know if there's anyone on the line today who can address the fees and if there are any possibilities of the board resetting those fees so they are more aligned with actual construction costs. building one unit of housing is seven hundred, eight hundred, a million dollars worth of cost. that's just to pay for labor and materials. i'm supportive of the project. i wish we didn't have to make a change. i'm concerned more about what the fee is right now and that we may be seeing more folks have use of fee instead of building the bmr. we need a balance between fees an folks actually building onsite units.

maybe the scale is tipping very far towards the fee at the moment and wondering if staff can speak to that.

. >> there's nothing requiring one or the other at this point. >> commissioner diamond: and does the code say anything about changes that have been after the project was approved? i thought we had some legislation or proposed legislation in front of us not too long ago trying to clarify some of these measures. >> it's my understanding after consulting with our housing advisory team that this particular request wouldn't trigger any of those denial findings, but again, this is just proposed legislation but not adopted. >> commissioner diamond: i, too, would prefer to see the b.m.r.s on-site. on the other hand, our code did

give them some of the choice. i also want to point out this project is providing much needed child care, and i feel like i would support staff's position and would move to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: if there is no further deliberation, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that motion passes 5-2, with commissioners moore and imperial voting against. >> vice president moore: president koppel was left out. >> clerk: i'm sorry. commission president koppel, did you vote no? >> president koppel: i did not vote. you did not ask me. >> clerk: oh . [roll call] >> clerk: i apologize. then, again, staff, the motion passes 5-2, with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us, as 2040 chestnut has been continued, under your

discretionary review calendar, on item 16, 2018-007339-drp-02, at 619 22 avenue. mr. winslow, you found your office. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is a discretionary review for the construction of a rear horizontal addition at the first and second stories totaling 266 square feet, and a two story vertical addition, totaling 1,974 square feet, to create a new second unit to the existing single-family home. roof decks are also proposed at the rear of the two-story addition. the existing building is a

category c, no historic resource present, built in 1922. there are two d.r. requesters, first, adam schnall, resident of the adjacent property, and james chu, resident of the adjacent property to the south of the proposed project. mr. schnall is concerned that the project does not meet the standards of the proposed architects, that the architects are not state licensed, and that a potentially previously construction [indiscernible] that was not previously reviewed in this project, and

because of the deficiencies cited above, this violates proposed due process. his proposal is from two additional stories to one additional single story with a deck. mr. yu is concerned because it will block light into his kitchen and air into his living room. to date, the department has received no letters in support and no letters in opposition of the project. planning department's review of this proposal confirms support as it conforms to the planning code and residential design guidelines. roberta wall is a licensed firm of principal architects. firms are not required to be

licensed, only individuals are. there are other homes on this blocks with setbacks similar to this one. an environmental review has been conducted and it met the categorical exempt. planning staff couldn't find any previous records of permits for construction, and until now, no complaints have been made for the construction or demolition of this structure in the past. this garage could accommodate up to four cars by my estimation in tandem. information on the drawings that were sent out for neighborhood notification were complete per department

standards, so we deemed that that had been done. the department carefully measures light and air to adjacent properties. the anticipated setbacks to the proposed building were to respond to the condition. the third story also reciprocates the existing neighbor's light well, and with the side spaces filled in to align with that neighbor's rear building wall. the residential design guidelines consider the height of surrounding buildings as they define a scale at the street and rear yard.

in this case, because the adjacent corner building is three stories at the street face, a three-story building is acceptable with the accept back. therefore, staff deems there are no extraordinary circumstances and recommends approval. that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. did i miss that mr. yu withdrew his application for d.r.? >> i am not aware of anybody having withdrawn d.r. >> clerk: okay. i don't see him here, so mr. schnull, you have three minutes. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> excellent. it's schnell, but if you would,

please call me adam. >> clerk: okay. >> thank you. thank you very much for allowing me to speak. i'm a neighbor located at 629 22 avenue. please note that i don't see any of my supplemental photos and materials and diagrams in the packet, even though they were required to be submitted three weeks ago, which we did, and so i'd request that these materials be made part of the packet and -- and reviewed. so i'd like to clarify some of the initial comments if we could turn to the second page. and i apologize. with three minutes, i'm going to rush a little bit through here. skyline. i believe the pattern in the central richmond district has created a unique skyline and also a clear policy of preserving that skyline in the character of the richmond.

i did an informal survey of the numbered avenues over a 14 block neighborhood between cabrillo and fulton. many of the blocks in the central richmond and indeed the richmond at large are framed by very large multilot three and four-story structures at the corner, so our building is one of those. these corner structures tend to be the largest and the tallest. historically, these structures have been protected by the planning department. i was unable to find any four story structures adjacent to these structures, and i was unable to find any five-story building adjacent to a four-story project, and this

would do just that. not only aren't there any four-story buildings next to a three-story building in the neighborhood, but there aren't any at all. none of the structures were downgrade and built to be taller, as this project will do. so what we see in the pattern of building over many decades is a pattern to create a very specific skyline and protect that skyline by protecting the integrity of these very large corner buildings. the current project will deviate from that policy by dominating over the neighbor at the corner, which is us. if we could turn the slide again. so the question is, if -- if the skyline's going to be

changed against current policy and 100-year precedence, what are the criteria for that? there haven't been any criteria stated other than height and zoning, and i don't see any discussion on skyline. and so without any existing clear criteria, any approvals either currently for this project or in the future, which you will need to issue because you've issued this one, and you want to be a -- you want to be repeatable in the process -- >> clerk: that is your time. >> okay. >> clerk: you will have a one-minute rebuttal, and the commissioners can ask further clarifying questions. i don't see -- well, let me check one more time. i don't see mr. yu's e-mail and i don't see his phone number. mr. yu, if you are in

attendance, you can press star, three and i will see your hand raised. i see a couple of calls -- let me just see if you are mr. yu. >> hello. >> clerk: is this mr. yu? >> yes, it is. >> clerk: okay. mr. yu, if you would mute your television or phone, that would be great. thank you. >> first of all, i want to thank the commission for hearing my cases, and the main concern for me is the light wells. if that building is allowed to proceed, my living rooms and my kitchens, it will be really dark for 24 hours. that's one thing. and needless to say, it wasn't due to your mental state of health. and the second thing is then that allowed the building to build the sidewall of the rest

of the natural building, where i live, we can't do any maintenance or painting over. and third, if you look at the current property where they tried to build, they've had an illegal unit for almost 40 years, and now, the planning department is reviewing that, and they want a set back even more in the front. if you look at ours, we have a set back in the front and the back. and the final thing is they never looked from day one. there's no one there. they're trying to flip the property for making profits, and we've been living there for almost 30 years. if you consider that, with no

lighting, with no set back, with all that, and if you look to the final drawings, which mr. adams submitted, that building is taller than a telephone and a utility pole. that's how tall that is, and that's never this tall on this block or in the richmond districts. my final question is, if the commission is allowed to continue, what is the next step? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes d.r., we should hear from the project sponsor. given that there were two requesters, ms. wall, you have six minutes. >> hello, commissioners.

roberta wall here. so we started the process by having our preapp meeting, and mr. yu was present at that meeting. mr. schnall was not. on that meeting, we did light studies for the project. we also heard what the neighbors were saying, and we did, in fact, set the building back at the third story, 5'1" on the northside and 4'4" on the southside of the building. so not only did we match the light well, but we also just extended the pull back so more light could go in. i will identify that mr. yu has the privilege of adding a third story, and so his complaint that this property is also adding a third story, which would block his light, so we

could continue this all right. you're the one who moved this forward. could you move forward, please. thank you. okay. yeah, so this is a previous thing. here's the profile and the yard from the back. the whole thing is quite modest, as you'll see. that is showing the difference of what it first was and then the second view of it, and again, we can move forward through these. keep going, keep going, keep going. i want to get to the -- okay. so this is -- sorry, yes. thank you very much.

this is the immediate block of the 619, where we're going to add the two stories, hopefully, and then, the blue are all the four stories on this block, as well, so there is precedent within the block that this has happened, and i would also say that this project is -- has been more sensitive than many of them and doesn't max out the square footage on the lot and has setbacks on the lot. if we could move forward, please. this was the e-mail about the -- the e-mail that i sent to all the neighbors from our preapp meeting, kind of speaking about the character and the sun study that we've

done. and what i've said here, sun study, which was attached -- i gave them that, so we wanted to know how things work, and taken from july 21 to december 24 [indiscernible] respectively, during the summer months, there's no different with the four-story building than what is currently projected by the facade. that was the light study done, and i think i can stop here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three to be added to the queue. mr. yu, you don't need to press

star, three. you've already spoken, and we will get to you when we call up rebuttal in just one moment. given that there are no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, public comment is closed, and we can move onto rebuttals. adam, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. so the fact that there are a few four-story buildings at a much, much lower grade than this building really doesn't give any precedent. this is a building that is at least one half story or greater in height due to the elevation of the land than any other building on the street. in addition, no other building sits a full story that's adjacent to one of these large corner buildings -- there's no other building that i can find in the entire richmond district

in our subdivision that does that. there are a few that are a few feet taller. i only found two or three of those, but there is really a push to protect the height of these corner buildings that frame the entire block and give the skyline the nature that we have currently. if there's going to be changes, i'm all for it, but let's have a process and talk about what the criteria are. i've made out in my slides what some of this could do, and even more variance in a back to get to do a horizontal addition, and then, they can get all the -- >> clerk: mr. yu, you have a one-minute rebuttal. mr. yu?

you have a one minute rebuttal if you care to use it. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. >> am i on or no? >> clerk: yes, sir. your time is running. >> again, i'm concerned about the air flow and light into my living space. and if you haven't walked into my house, you don't know what it would look like. and also, for your information, i also personally went to the planning department and had submitted with all the photos in there. did anyone review those photos that i submitted or they're lost in the mail somewhere?

would anyone like to answer those, any commissioner, or mr. winslow? i have a hand stamped envelope that i submitted or were they thrown in a garbage can? >> clerk: sir, this is not a question-and-answer session, but this is your time to present your rebuttal. that concludes your time. members of the commission, that concludes the public comment portion of this hearing, and so this matter is now before you. >> commissioner diamond: doesn't the project sponsor get a chance to do the rebuttal? >> clerk: thank you. and i apologize, ms. wall. you do get a one minute rebuttal. >> oh, hi there. i'm back now, unmuted.

i think i've kind of addressed the point that there is precedent for four-story buildings in the neighborhood and it is to code. the owners have, in fact, made concessions to the neighbors and this is a fairly modest project. that's my point. sorry. >> clerk: now that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing, and it is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i looked very carefully at what's in front of us, and mr. yu, all the photos that you submitted are in the package and as well as your concerns, and i've taken those concerns very seriously, but in a broader

view, i did not find anything exceptional or extraordinary about what is proposed in this particular project expansion. i found it very good shaped in the back, and i think the department has done a good job guiding the owners through the project and i am in support of it. i'm curious to hear what other commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: i'm also in support and leaning towards staff's recommendation. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. thank you to those who are participating. there has been a question from one of the d.r. filers, i think it is mr. yu, around if you have any other options. if you are not happy with the

results, you can take it to the board of appeals, so you can do if you feel that's what you need to do. i would move to not take d.r. and approve staff's recommendation as proposed. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: i heard a motion. i didn't heard a second. >> president koppel: second. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously 7-0 and concludes your hearing today, and i onlyask that we

conclude in the honor of buster posey's career. he brought us three world titles, and he will be missed. >> president koppel: i agree. we are adjourned. >> president bernal: secretary morewitz please call the roll.