>> -- and that both parties are going to have to give, so the give was we would retain 11 ficus. retain 11, remove eight. that was a key part of the

compromise. now there was some discussion about what phased would mean, and the library was committed to that. but that was the agreement. remaining eight and retaining 11. we should have reached out before initiating the posting of those 30 trees. i had to hand things over to others. as you can see, it's unfortunate that we're here. may 29, we had a close call. we were willing to live with those 11 ficus. we were willing to say, we see

those record of roof crowns, but there's no failure. let's work with the public and keep those trees, and then, we had the failure outside the entrance. that was a very close call, and unfortunately, at public works, although it's not popular, we need to say that the ficus trees need to be removed, they need to be replaced, of course. there's a lot that's gone on in 2021, but we're documenting everything that's going on, and that's why i want to take the time to address each of miss boler's requests this year. there were certain things that the library was committing to

that public works could not commit to, and roberto lombardi reached out to say, i'm sorry, but the library needs to focus on core business, and we had not finalized all of our near agreements, but that's the details as i went through them. and again, i do want to assure the commissioners and the public that we're evaluating these trees very, very carefully. roy and i have the same credentials. you know, i've been a proctor for the certified arborist exam. we don't need to list all of our professional qualifications, but i do want to assure the public that if we thought there was information

to glean by removing the pavers and reviewing the roots of those trees, that would have been done. it's been considered, as well as putting a grate over the trees and getting rid of all that soil. the amount of debris that they're dealing with on a daily basis is not pleasant to talk about, but it can't be recessed below ground. these trees, even if you do that, they're still going to be sitting in water. we appreciate your patience. we're glad no one got hurt, but now that that tree has failed, we're looking at the removing ficus, and for trees that are just 25 years old, they've got competing stems, failing

leaders, and now we have a confirmed issue with all the root crowns. so that's where we are today. we're asking that the board approve public works approving the remaining 16 trees with replacement trees, but big picture going back, it's ultimately replacement of 19. the request for a six-month turnaround is the library was committing to six months physically on-site. we are not physically on-site. we would strive for three but

ultimately want a buffer of six. we are immediately meeting our commitments to hayes valley and we're meeting our commitments to 24 street, and you would immediately hear from them if we're not, so that's a little bit of an olive branch to demonstrate our commitment. i'll wrap that up. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda and a question from vice president swig. >> president honda: welcome back. since i've been back, we've heard more tree hearings. i myself have witnessed a failure of a ficus, and now, that's why we're here, and it

seems it's a reason we want to get rid of all the trees above. you know, my grandmother lived in the tenderloin for 40 years. there is no -- there's no trees. i have a business located in the tenderloin. i see lots of empty tree basins and trees that are snapped in half. over the nine years, i heard about this street plan. i seen it as it's matured, and as you said, you know, you're agreeing with the plan, but yet, performing this is a huge part of everything. and even though you guys are working to get this done every year, it falls less and less and it falls further in the hole in my opinion. and, you know, like i said, i look at ficus' all the time, and when i look at them, i see

most of them with branches that are codependent and leading, and so does that mean that we take out all the ficus'? as commissioner fung says, that's not his favorite tree, but does that mean we should remove all of them? that's what was planted in the 70s and 80s, so it's very challenging. you say we had all this compromise, but yet, we're coming back to the table two years later, no, let's forget the compromise and just do the whole thing.

i would like to see something other than just removal of all the trees because i am not on board with that at all. vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: hopefully i'll do a better job of asking questions, but i'll be just as direct. welcome back, mr. buck, and welcome to the pit again for the fight. you have 19 trees, you're replacing 18. that's 5%. that's another loss of trees in san francisco, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner swig: you have a plan that you got almost all

the way there in february of 20, and now -- and there was some details related to the choice of trees and some other, i would consider, minor details in that you got pretty much into the aforementioned red zone, pretty close, and are you just going to disregard that hard work and throw that plan away just because now you want to do a shave and a haircut? >> no. i mean, again, there were very concrete requests that were accommodated. literally, sidewalks were closed in the tenderloin and there were requests to slow

down. some of that happened directly, some of that happened indirectly. the library withdraws their removal application -- >> commissioner swig: but it doesn't matter if it's the library. let's not going into semantics, and let's not hide behind the skirts another -- that's not meant to be sexist. let's not hide behind another department and use the library to tear down trees in a willy nilly fashion. you had a plan, and forget all the rest of the stuff in the tenderloin. stay focused on the trees that we discussed on grove street. stay focused on the trees that we discussed on hyde street.

can you implement that plan on those trees as was discussed by the public? >> not at this time. >> commissioner swig: why not? >> everyone saw the photo of the entrance to the library. >> commissioner swig: that's a great one. >> so commissioner, what i'm saying is the compromise was retaining 11 trees, removing eight. we didn't remove trees, but the compromise was to hold off and not -- not remove all the trees. we've got it down to eight that we felt were critical, but since that time and during that delay, we had a pretty notable

failure in an area that's heavily documented by public works. i mean, i want to pull those trees up to the ground level and undo the damage done, but we can't ignore the liability. >> commissioner swig: is there a process -- let me ask you another question. there's 68 -- 2.5 years ago, there were 68 empty tree basins in north beach. how many of those 68 tree basins, after hearing from this commission, especially myself on multiple times, about those 68 tree basins, how many trees have been planted in those 68 tree basins? >> we made those all happen. >> commissioner swig: they all got done? >> they all got planted, and there's any attrition, we need to replant those. but absolutely, north beach has us on speed dial. we absolutely delivered on

north beach. now could there have been a couple that are missing in the last few months? sure, but we are absolutely looking at other areas to plant in north beach. >> commissioner swig: and is there a plan that goes -- what i'm hearing is shave and a haircut, which means we're going to shave all 19 of those trees down and replant them. is there another plan that's not as radical that you can identify so that not 19 trees are given a haircut and are not suddenly bald and then waiting for 18 trees to be planted. can it be done in a method that enables that street, both streets not to be scarred and

bald for a period of time waiting for trees to be replanted? >> that was the plan that was nearly agreed upon, and then, we had the tree fail. >> commissioner swig: okay. >> and so that changed the narrative. i mean, that definitely changed the narrative adjacent to the library. >> commissioner swig: but if -- but [indiscernible] according to mr. leggett, i believe, you're going for the shave and a haircut situation, where, in fact, although there may be trees that are damaged or in distress, there are some trees that are not damaged and not in distress, and so -- i'm not saying that -- i'm not saying that the whole process shouldn't be done, but why should the whole bag of eggs be

thrown out into the garbage can when there are four eggs -- assuming the rest of the basket's going to get rot, but you throw out the four eggs first because they stink. is there a process by which this can occur so this whole expanse of street front is not suddenly barren? >> commissioner, i hear your concerns, but it's which tree would fail next? they're all exhibiting the characteristics of the one that failed. the trees are all relatively similar size. there's only a couple on grove that you might call them a

little bit smaller. but there's -- there's -- no. i mean, we're not seeing -- if there's an olive branch here, we would be the first to offer it. but unfortunately, we're not seeing it, and that's why we had literally everyone, including the tree crew, and our superintendent and our assistant superintendent, what are the options here? the first one is one emergency removal. we didn't do that to the rest of them because we knew we needed to have that conversation again, but we're not prepared at this time to propose a phased approach because we don't have anything to base it on that would be a rationale that would hold up under scrutiny. >> commissioner swig: thank you for that answer, and i'm going to ask in rebuttal -- and if you don't have the time to do

it, i will ask you to have time to do it, and all the appellants, an alternative plan that, in my words, a shave and a haircut, all trees go down, leaving this street bare, waiting for d.p.w. to access and plant the replacement trees. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner lopez has a question, i believe. you're on mute. commissioner lopez? >> commissioner lopez: thanks. yeah, mr. buck, just one question, and i think the appellants, from my perspective, did a good job kind of broadening the aperture a little bit and placing this question in the context of, you know, inadequate tree planting across the city, in particular,

certain parts of the city like the tenderloin that don't have the coverage that we would like. you know, can you just weigh-in on that question, maybe? i think it's clear to me, you know, your points with respect to where did this fit with the department's planting and plan long-term? >> sure, commissioner. without a doubt, in an ideal world, we would plant all empty basins, meaning trees that have been removed that have not been planted yet, and then just plant the rest of the city, plan it all out and win the

trust of the public. that is literally the day -- hopefully it's not our grand kids, but someday, someone will call the city because there's no tree -- because someone will call the city and say, there's no tree in front of a home, and we'll say, there's no tree because there's underground utilities in front of that home. just like every other city department, we have to -- we have to compete with funds, and so it's not a lack of will, you know? we want to plant these trees. we want to plant in areas that are undisturbed. a nearly 20-year resident down the street from the case that was before us, we know where we need to plant. we know that.

the tenderloin -- so just let me bring it back again to this site. we know the tenderloin doesn't have a lot of trees. there are challenges to tree planting in the tenderloin. there's a lot of sidewalk basins. we planted a couple of years ago when the global accord was in san francisco. the international global accords, we did a planting that morning. it was one of the official concurrent events. you know, we focused on the tenderloin. we weren't planting in-fill in an area that already has a lot of trees, so the challenge for us is that we're aware of the situation. unfortunately, we're given the urban forest right now to manage, and we don't get to make our decisions to, like, do the easy stuff first and avoid the tough trees. i would be love -- it would be great to not walk down 24 street, but guess what?

we have to go look at the trees on 24 street. we have failures, so i -- i guess what i want to assure you, mr. klipp, the first appellant i spoke to this even, is an incredible advocate for the urban forest. he's chipping away, and understandably, like, why is the city removing trees when they know they need to plant more? we know we need to plant more trees. a little bit general, but we have specifics. we have a database of all the potential planning sites. we have a plan, and as that continues to get increased funding, we're going to continue to plant in the areas that need the most trees, so i just want to ensure everyone, yourself and the public included, that that is what is

happening, and, you know, we have informational items all the time. we're currently before the board of supervisors reporting out on what those numbers are, so i just want to assure everyone that we're -- there is progress. it's not always backwards action, so, you know, maybe another evening i need to bring a little bit of that information so the public understands we are doing tree planting. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from commissioner chang.

>> commissioner chang: i think that the concern by the appellants is also very clear. there's waning canopy and there's a very strong desire to increase the canopy and increase the number of trees in the city. i personally -- while it's sad to say, i personally believe that the tree removal permits were properly issued, but i guess to address the concerns of the public, it doesn't seem there's a timeline that can be given. while there seems to be good intentions behind the plan that was discussed a couple years ago now, things changed and circumstances required the removal of trees that were not

essentially planned. is there some level of assurance or some check in or something that we can provide to the appellant to help restore their faith besides we understand, and i also want to say that i understand you're being put in a tough position right now because there are a lot of circumstances that are outside of your control, but i think that's what the appellants would probably want to hear. >> i do think there is a mechanism, and i, you know, again, unfortunate events all-around. i just feel like if i had been around for the last half of the year, perhaps those conversations could have occurred so that we could avoid an appeal or at least have a little bit more of a consensus that either we are -- we've got an agreement and we're essentially settles and/or come to you and say -- settled

and/or come to you and say, we've got 95% but neither of us can best of your knowledge on a couple of issues. that absolutely would be ideal. i wish we were here with better circumstances and, you know, i returned two weeks ago and hoped that things had been resolved, and they had not, and then, i had to start catching myself up on where things were. not a great answer, but i do think we're in touch with the appellants on a regular basis on a number of different cases. it's -- you know, it's happening. [please stand by] .

>> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square.

>> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun

hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6 years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally

italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out. >> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians

epic people would talk with you >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive.

you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash

or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here.

i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now. >> for the first time in nearly two decades fishers have been granted the legal right to sell fish directly to the package right off their boat -- to the public right off their boats in san francisco. it's not only helping local fishers to stay afloat but it's evoking the spirit of the wharf by resurfacing the traditional methods of selling fish. but how is it regulated? and what does it take for a boat to be transported into a floating fish market? find out as we hop on board on this episode of "what's next sf."

(♪♪♪) we're here with the owner and the captain of the vessel pioneer. it's no coincidence that your boat is called the pioneer because it's doing just that. it's the first boat in san francisco to sell fish directly from the boat. how did you establish your boat into such a floating fish market? >> well, you know, i always thought that it would be nice to be able to provide fresh fish to the locals because most of the fish markets, you would have to do a large amount of volume in order to bring in enough fish to cover the overhead. when you start selling to the public that volume is much less so it makes it hard to make enough money. so being able to do this is really -- it's a big positive thing i think for the entire community. >> a very positive thing. as a third-generation fisherman joe as his friends call him has been trawling the california waters for sustainably caught seafood since an early age.

since obtaining a permit to sell fish directly to the public he is able to serve fish at an affordable price. >> right now we're just selling what a lot of the markets like, flat fish and rock fish and what the public likes. so we have been working for many, many years and putting cameras in them. there's the ability to short fish and we have panels that we open and close so we target the different species of fish by adjusting the net. and then not only that but then the net sort out the sizes which is really important. >> joe brings in a lot of fish, around 20,000 pounds per fishing trip to be exact. >> we had one day one time that we sold almost 18,000 pounds. >> it's incredible. >> i know, it's hard to imagine. >> but this wasn't always the case for joe. >> the markets that we have left in california, they're few and far between, and they really are restrictive. they'll let you fish for a couple months and shut you down. a lot of times it's rough weather and if you can't make your delivery you will lose your

rotation. that's why there's hardly any boats left in california because of the market challenges. my boat was often sitting over here at the dock for years and i couldn't do anything with it because we had no market. the ability to go catch fish is fine, i had the permits, but you couldn't take them off your boat. >> that was until the port commission of san francisco rallied behind them and voted unanimously to approve a pilot program to allow the fish to be sold directly to consumers right off their boats. >> the purpose of the program is to allow commercial fishers to sell their fish directly from their boats to the end consumer in a safe and orderly manner for the benefit of the overall fishing community at the port of san francisco. we have limited the program to certain types of fish such as salmon, halibut, tuna and rock fish. crab is restricted from this program because we did not want to interfere with the existing crab sales on taylor street and

jefferson street. so this is not meant to favor one aspect of the fishing industry more than another. it's to basically to lift up the whole industry together. >> and if joe the program has been doing just that. >> it was almost breathtaking whenever i woke up one morning and i got my federal receiver, my first receivers license in the mail. and that gave me permission to actually take fish off my boat. once we started to be able to sell, it opened things up a bit. because now that we have that federal permit and i was able to petition the city council and getting permission from san francisco to actually use the dock and to sell fish here, it was a big turning point. because we really didn't think or know that we'd get such a positive response from the public. and so we're getting thousands of people coming down here buying fish every week and so that's pretty cool. they like the fish so much that they take pictures of it when they cook it and they send us

all of these pictures and then they ask us, you know, constantly for certain types of fish now. and when they come down here the one thing that they say is that they're so amazed that the fish is so fresh they could eat a little bit during the week and it's still fresh all week in the refrigerator. so that's really cool. >> the fish is very fresh and the price is super. i don't think that you can get it anywhere in the bay area. i can see it, and i can stir fry it, wow, you can do anything you want. i just can say this is a good place to shop and you have a good experience. >> this program supports the strategic plan in terms of engagement, people being connected to the waterfront, and also economic vitality. because it's helping the fishermen to make ends meet. they have no guarantees in their businesses, not like some

people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them to have a good and thriving business. >> how does it feel to be able to sell your fish locally kind of in the traditional way, like your grandfather probably did? >> when i was a kid and i used to work in my dad's fish market, a lot of the markets that we sell to now are second and third and fourth generation markets. so i remember as a kid putting their tags on the boxes of fish that we shipped out of monterey and ship down to l.a. so it's kind of cool that we're still dealing with the same families. and this is probably about the only way that anyone can really survive in california is to sell your own fish. >> one of the advantages of this program is the department people that pull in the fish, they can find out where they caught it and find out more about the fisherman and that adds to their experience. the feedback from the fishers has been very good and the feedback from the customers have very good.

and there's a lot of people coming to the wharf now that might not have done so. in fact, there's people that go through the neighboring restaurants that are going to eat fish inside but before they go in they see the action on the dock and they want to kind of look at what's happening on the boat before they go in and they have a meal. so it's generated some conversation down at the wharf and that's a good thing. >> as you can see by the line forming behind me getting ready to buy fish, the pilot program has been a huge success. for more information visit sfsport.com. (♪♪♪) (♪♪♪) >> i personally love the mega jobs. i think they're a lot of fun.

i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪♪♪ we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter

buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans

bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond

with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands.

>> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want. just put your mind into it. >> 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.