(recording in progress) >> well, that was a new one okay. well to the. >> welcome to the san francisco planning commission meeting this afternoon at 1:00 pm., thursday, january 19, 2023. um, to incurring public participation sfgov is streamlining this meeting live i believe another hearing has gone over not broadcasting rec and park going long but streamlining go and as

long as rec and park end their hearing we'll be broadcasted as well. >> each speaker up to three minutes after three hear a whim your time is up and i'll announce that and take the next person take public comment from those people in the hall first forcing those persons perhaps web x raise your hand and previously mentioned web examines has thrown us a curve ball so the numb is. >> call-in +1-415-655-0001 access code 2491 667 9409 password 0119 then press pound and enter password.

>> call-in +1-415-655-0001 access code 2491 667 9409 password 0119 and at this point able to hear the or listen to the hearing live please wait for the item you're interested in speaking to for public comment to be announced to comment he need to press star three to raise your hand once your hand is raised here a prompt you've raised your hand to ask and question, please wait until the host calls on you so when you hear the prompt you'll be asked to unmute of us press star 6 press star 6 to have our comments audible and you're unmuted speak and we'll try to be patient with one another and best practices to please mute

the volume on our television or computer if you or anyone you know has information o for those in-person line up on the screen side of room and please speak slowly and clearly. and at this time take roll call. >> president tanner here. >> vice president moore here. >> commissioner braun here and commissioner diamond here. >> commissioner imperial here and commissioner koppel here and commissioner ruiz here. >> thank you, commissioners. are first is one a through a. >> 1.a. 2019-022404enx 1458 san bruno avenue. and. >> 1.b. 2019-022404cua 1458 san bruno avenue. and. >> 1.c. 2019-022404shd 1458 san bruno avenue. and shadow vshd proposed for continuance until mark 2 until other items

and take public comment members this is your opportunity to address the commission on the naurnd from a through c in the chambers please come forward or remotely press star three or raise your hand via web x and to unmute yourself press star 6. >> go ahead caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the sponsor for this project has continued to have many times actually sent to moot with the community been 6 months and no community meetings and the commissioners to ask the sponsor to set and

date and time and in addition, this property 1458 san bruno is- and the sponsor ignored a request made to public works and suggest to the sponsor that if you regularly maintain the current property and respect the community may be the neighborhood will not be opposed to the project.. thank you for your time. >> . thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment? >> seeing none, requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed and you're continuous calendar is now before you.

>> so moved. >> and second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to an absence absent commissioner braun, aye. >> commissioner diamond, aye. >> commissioner imperial, aye. >> commissioner koppel, aye. >> president tanner some commissioners that. >> that passes unanimously. >> 7 to zero and under. >> b.2. commission matters 2. land acknowledgement. >> commissioner will lead us in the acknowledgement today. >> the planning commission acknowledges that we on the homeland security for the original hazard of san francisco peninsula in addition to the stewards and in accordance never been seated and the caregivers of this place and people reside as guests we recognize working

under the traditional and wish for the respect of all people . thank you. >> item. >> b.3. consideration of adoption: draft minutes for january 5, 2023. members of the public your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes and again, in the chambers come forward or calling in remotely press star three seeing none, commissioners seeing none, commissioners public comment is closed and they. >> the item is now before you commissioners. >> snarm. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion commissioner braun, aye. >> commissioner ruiz, aye. >> and commissioner diamond, aye. >> commissioner imperial and president tanner. >> that passes unanimously.

>> and announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the commissioner(s). >> i wonder if direct the caller for the 14 talked about issues for cd anything about the graffiti in public works for enforcement comments or discussion or until on that matter and we can check with the project sponsor to see what is going on and because we heard about that issue and reach out so we'll do >> any on the commissioner questions or comments. >> not seeing any. >> okay. >> seeing none, requests to speak from

speak from speak from speak from speak from speak from fixed by the commission at the first regular meeting on or after the 15th day of january each year. >> commissioner diamond. >> do we need to. take public comment. >> sure we can take public comment now members of the public your opportunity to address the commission on the election of officers or remote press star three seeing none, commissioners public comment is closed and um, you are free to in a moment. >> i'd like to nominate president tanner as president doing a great job and for another year. >> thank you. >> second. >> (laughter.) >> thank you for the nomination and the second and

been by pleasure to serve you and the people of san francisco thank you for another opportunity. >> my pleasure to work with the commission and president tanner and as vice president again. >> thank you. >> very good no other nominations or any deliberations we can there is a motion send to elect president tanner as president and vice president moore as vice president. >> commissioner braun, aye. >> commissioner diamond, aye. >> commissioner imperial, aye. >> commissioner koppel, aye. >> president tanner so moved. >> that passed and congratulations it all of you and move on to the. >> c.6. department matters: director's announcements. >> congratulations a quick item

on the housing element we are expected to be at land use next monday and on tuesday and approval by the full board and hoping to get a precertification letter from hcd and substantial certifications for each can do it to weep keep you updated and if we get the letter we'll let you know thanks. >> thank you. >> to have everything go smoothly. >> okay. no questions for the director we can move on to >> c.7. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. no report from the board of directors or board of appeals but the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. >> um, and they continued their

election of officers until a replacement for commissioner john is needed but under the regular calendar they adopted recommendations for approval for several legendary business applications and care facility no north beach penn in a and the cafe on 24 street. we'll moved to the office of the small business administration with recommendations for approval. and they also heard the planning commission overview for the planning proposed amendment with the modifications they took a reviewed and commented on the draft eir for the stone sound project on 20th avenue. they

heard information presentation on the citywide survey from 1924th and the early revival style through 19 thirty and no questions commissioners we can move on to your oh, yosemite at this time members of the public they address the commission and sit up general items will be for the when the item is reached and each member they address the commission up to three minutes when the number of speakers exceed that yosemite maybe moved to the end of the agenda. >> good afternoon. i talked

about an e-mail i am looking forward sent on you december 29th last year. and that was focusing on particular differing i am looking forward retention the roof-decks that was ultimately withdrawn and i thought that was interesting sort of added to my comment that mr. ionin put in our paektsd before the how would you have you'll you are accomplishments and 37 differing cases and 12 don't care that on and one withdrawn this was withdrawn as well the reason that i was instructs by that because of the neighbor of the differing follow-up about the thing and said well, we- stop your project we saw the differing to protect our property that is the heart of most differing i think

that differing 36 they wanted the roof-deck removed and actually in the staff report the staff agreed removal the roof-deck a single-family and here's the original house and it said in the staff report they suggested removing the roof-deck but lowered it a few feet so that was what the wanted to talk about but made me think about the dr and i met the lady doing dr reform but i was thinking that the dhr said to pass on

this city attorney opinion number 7929 from april '79 requested by the platform and written by a gentleman and i think in light of what that neighbor said wanted to protect their property the last paragraph i'll read it is critical. in view for going require no argument (bell ringing) about which you inquired the municipal code but for rational and comprehensive application of land use regulars in the modern densely populated place of san francisco that was true in 79 and true in 19 fy23 copes for you and one for commissioner diamond that's all i have to

say. thank you very much. (bell ringing) >> h my name is gail a former president of the neighborhoods association and also a concerned community member and a member of planning committee and calling attendance to 555 fulton by developers and when this property was originally entitled before the current owner two points were negotiated with the community and then the developer number one, adding height and bulk for more units was agreed on and written into the entitlement and enforcing up to the thirty thousand square feet commercial space. z n l with the

generator income from sale yet the community was for a it was egregious that z n l can profit but the community can't even though the property is entitled required an affordable grocery store and have a lease agreement in place and one time listing passed in 2019. but it seems z n l have not filed the n r s notice of restrictions is now fy23 since 2013 this community has showed up for meeting would the affordable priced grocery

store is and her the plan hermosa fail in the democrat gravengz need for the variable priced grocery store in 2014 we saw this from portland withdrawn and worked with the sales agency to locate a new tenant troorgdz to enforce the entitlement of a priced grocery store not a suggestion but an entitlement by penalizing the folks for the grocery store and the community is ready to provide that commissioners detail regarding the frustration and still no variablely priced grocery store at 555 fulton.

>> hello, i'm also an association member and i've worked on this 555 fulton project just described. and um, as we know z and l has been a problematic developer their project on market street is changed from condos to apartments the they've solid in of the condos and sits empty so the housing it empty and unused. so the frustration of how we deal with problematic developers don't honor their xhtsd we care deeply about this is one of the

more egregious one there's many over 20 years we have been trying to get the owner of 930 grove street to rehabilitate 14 units and that mansion is supposed to have nothing has been done after many, many, many iterations with d b i am looking forward and the city attorney they brought in a contractor was not specified and approved and spread asbestos over the city the neighbors had to deal with that. intended and still sitting in a bad state another 14 units of affordable housing on for 20 years the property owner has a long history of properties in north beach of being problematic continues to do it elsewhere we

have to have enforcement i am looking forward know one of the later um, issues today will be the code enforcement property and priority has to be penalties and ways we can call people to honor the commitment they made to i know one of the issues you'll be talking about is- one was supposed to be be built long ago and ready to go and broerng participated in the extended hub development thing they were part of affordable housing for the mission. we're talking about 1,000 units on site bus plus the housing units and now need a four-year estimation we have to

hold people accountable. thank you. >> and again, members of the public press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> hello you my name is susan i'm a thirty year resident of the neighborhood and a member of the civic association it is a shopping center at the corner of alfaro street one block from my home i support the market. >> i'm sorry one moment i think you want to chime in later on when we pull the item. >> we're only general public

comment when you call in press star 6 again. >> hi. my name is richard. i'm a 19 year rent control of district 6 i'm calling about redevelopment in the city in general particularly in this case less than 50 feet into a major roll call vote on market street that was brought up again for the z and l i've bun- this started the redevelopment started in 2020 when covid 19 start and the world went silent but the equipment was loud as it ever was and blow up out of our

apartment in addition to that the underground excavation i am looking forward called lateral freddie to make 14 61 market street to be unstable that causes needs to be displaced from i my parents over a year i've been trying to get help and had service requests telling me they don't have the equipment to have the underground stacking fixed i am looking forward filmed that myself with metal mailboxes in the lobby shaking and an electrical shock. so like for example, on- i am looking forward couldn't be in my apartment to fix the seismic

activities through the walls and everything in that environment so- i'm saying i am looking forward (unintelligible). >> i'm sorry. i'm hearing something. >> does that conclude your comments, sir. >> what that is causing i need help here it comes through the lobby and the first one is the the thinkinger ears are vibrate the air pressure keeps on changing and i don't know what to do about that i'm paying my rent and still i don't know if it is the reason to get me out

of my apartment but the- the building as just out you have control right now parking- everything to do illegal and no parking no ecology selection (bell ringing) and in district 6 it is insane from the 16 plus market street development. >> thank you, sir. that's your time i mean really not an q and a but contact the department of the building inspection. >> i had a derivative to them but they don't have the equipment they can't investigate those it is 11:30 at night and

everything can happen over 5 o'clock i am looking forward contacted everybody over a year and a half. >> thank you, sir. that's your time. >> okay. you. >> thank you. >> on the district supervisor can hear what is happening that is outside of ours it is certainly a violation. >> that's a a good idea. >> wish we could help to person but last call for general public comment need to press star three to raise your hand and in the chambers please come forward and no requests public comment is closed. . and we can move on their designee, lawyers, architects,engineers, expediters, and/or other

advisors. >> i'm going to call on commissioner diamond and i want to ask a followup question on 555. >> the way it is written the housing the timing of housing independent of timing of the restore we do one and not the other but the construction. >> so the grocery store until you approve trader joe's as far as we know has a lease we reached out to trader joe's and the office of workforce development and reached out to trader joe's but they said no. >> certainly not moving forward quickly we'll continue to follow up with them. and may be subject to a commercial space tax that is in effect you, you know, the

space you're entitled and trader joe's assuming they have a pleas we're trying to figure out why trader joe's is not moving forward. >> i feel a great deal of sympathy and frustration they thought they negotiated something and thought they're sdiechlt were negotiated and there is an issue with the two parts to a project one goes forward until the other one is ready and the space was provided we don't control the tenants obligation when they built the space per our entitlement. but i'm wondering whenever we can do i think will be- >> (multiple voices). >> any leverage we can pull on getting that; right? >> the space we can come back

and - but a grocery can't divide it up. >> compelling them to at this point we assumed a lease for the grocery store trader joe's we want to get moving an occupancy and we sympathize with other grocery store and still with the community development we'll try to make that happen. >> within the next month or see report back to us and we'll need do grocery store and having empty space in do the neighborhood any good without a grocery store and with respect to the caller called on market

street. it is not a win issue per the planning department i got it but i am looking forward sense the frustration not knowing where to turn and feels like his attempts to call d b i am looking forward but appropriate to reach out to them and we received the comment and, you know, we would like to follow-up and recognize limitation but can we make that call? >> thank you. >> i am looking forward certainly support that and we'll see the challenging and ongoing construction after hours and the impacts of construction with the vibrations when the project started to understand that. >> commissioner. >> non-agenda items just for

clarification under directors the developer for oak and fulton is the same; correct? and the individual or person of nationality. >> the oak project on market street. >> correct. correct. >> but the oak are the same developer who the person of foreign nationality and not accessible and by someone in this development community; is that correct? >> you know, on the fulton street matter we're not - we're going talking about trader joe's. >> but i don't know why whether there is issue been the trader joe's and the- you know, but i'll contact with the grocery store on the oak market street and we know it is for sale and

there are developers who are looking at to purchase that from the developer. >> from just from reading the paper the other issue. >> yeah. >> i'm opposed surprised things have stopped. >> yeah. >> thank you, commissioners i think you look forward to follow up. >> item 8. >> just before corey jumps with an intro i am looking forward want to introduce kelly wong with the development for seven years and you'll see more of her in the future she was promoted this last fall with the code enforcement team so she'll be in on this discussion 2 two years in planning and architecture before joining planning worked and getty institution in la and

the consolidation of construction documents for initiatives prior to the getting i did not kelly was a preservation project manager she lead the projects that is great. and after proifrd dedicated to the rehab of the conservation historic building and sites including the angel immigration island and received her undergraduate from berkley and architectural conservation from the university of pennsylvania and welcome to the commission. >> thank you for your service. >> and good afternoon president tanner and kelly any bio is not nearly as imperative but i am

looking forward want to give a lead-in before kelly and giving context for today so, you know, one of my roles to oversee the enforcement sometimes making tough decisions with the legislative item before you today but prior to the pandemic we used to come to the commission roughly every two years with a general update and often with with the new commissioners for the enforcement and what the trends are and what we're doing that was interrupted by the pandemic the last time with that presentation was 2018. and just a sign of how things have changed the biggest trend was the conversion of pdf to the office says that the purpose of this presentation to kind of the impetus other than to have it

again with the legislation and make sure with the h pc yesterday had an opportunity to give an overall and presentation so the commissioners having a firm grounding in the overall enforcements process how we conduct three work will be relevant to the changes that are proposed in the legislation so with that, happy to i'm going to turn it over to kelly. >> great. thank you, corey and director hillis. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and i'm here to insure with you and the public an overall of the planning code improvement program underlying practices and courage trends and how this proportionately proposed legislation will change the property program the code enforcement is existing of 8 people up to 6 and a half ftes

including myself and one staff. like to start off with the enforcement we investigate all planning related complaint in the planning code and work with the property owner and tenants and business owners and representatives with the architect and contractor and land use attorneys and other cities agencies to help owners to bring their property into compliance in most cases have a site visit and verify the violations and recently have been working with other agencies and collaboration with conducting more joint site visits that the department of building and what a process looks like we're a complaint based program we don't walk around the city looking for

violations when complaint that filed we investigate and determine a violation there are multiple ways to file it directly to the department or postal mail or e-mail we received many of the complaint through three 11 and however or forum we received referrals from other cities agencies including the department of the building inspection and public works and public health and the mayor's off of housing and community development due to the how volume of referrals we have been world working closely with the city agencies to improve our processed through more mo are endorsements efforts not every one is a code violation that appears the complaint was filed there another code. if we find the violation is invalid we

close the complaint. here are the steps for the enforcement after receiving a complaint i'd like to share the current process is not to be tentative but to help property owners with violations. while the planning code requires a notice of violation we supplement search warrant multiple notices to get up notice for owners to engage with us before penalties begin we tart start by sending out the noticed of complaint a complaint or planning code violation was filed and contact the planner and waiting to hear from the property owner wellness the case will be investigated and require they research the permit history and approval and any evidence provides by the complaint and also any other resources we have available if we find the

complaint to be invalid we close the case. and if improvement is warranted we issue the notice of enforcement and especially not been contacted by the owner the neo provides the instruction to to abate fileing a sdierment application and at the stage we usually conduct a site visit if the owner did not correct if we issue a notice of violation in love at the stage the owner has 15 days to get the effort with the departmentalized to abate the violation or you file on appeal after that is issued we typically fine the owners and close the application in the

owner can appeal the they can appeal this decision to the board of appeals. currently if the owner didn't pay we refer to the bureau of revenue after the steps we have the option to refer the case to the city attorney's office while the department may hold approvals and permits whether those an actual case nothing beyond this in our process (rustling of papers.) once all work is necessary required and the penalties are paid we close the case. those are the fees with an enforcement case the planning codes says we charge the materials had a violation it confirmed this is 0 staff time and the ordinances to bring the prophet into compliance and it is $1,000 and changes in august with the fee

schedule, however, maybe more depending on the amount of staff time. the penalty is now up to $250 a day per violation it didn't accrue until the 16 day after 2 has been issued. and currently the penalty now is at determination administer and i'd like to add at this point we also offer payment plans for property owners if this is a challenge to pay. the upcoming legislation builds for guidance for determining the penalty that audrey will present and as you remember through the legislation last year ruled in an mou been the planting and mpdu they are

progresses in 2020 because of covid 19 pandemic we developed an internal strategy we courage use to focus our enforcement work first, the high priority complaints essentially with immediate action and attention like life activist and housing related complaint like affordable housing and dwelling revolves and unauthorized dwelling units and without permits typically pertains to the attention and x vacations and demolition. where we find life safety issues we refer to the development agencies for example, with the excavations with the adjacent properties we refer to d but i with the hazardous materials dph.

>> next medicine to priority those 3r0ir789 to land use and include changes of use like office and exhibit or automobiles and requirements including privately own joint subcommittee on human services and some unpermitted structures like fences and sheds. general signs and conditions of approval such as hours of operation. lastly the low priority complaints fall under the umbrella of aesthetics include signs and transparency and generated encroachment with parking and setbacks and front yard paving and street trees and part time categories we try to continue to evaluate against our racial equity plan and make in the adjustments. i thought that might be interesting to share a

couple of trends in code enforcement this graph shows a distribution we received complaint from all over the city with concentrated areas like couldn't downtown and here's one of the ones first work without or receiving approvals for alterations and annexations and demolitions and dwelling units and unauthorized unit and second changes of uses with change of office obvious and growing up and lastly, we received a lot of concentrations for signs transparency and front yard paving and encroachments and as high priority the majority are additions, resolves and excavations next dwelling unit additions like on unauthorized

building and lastly, a toy between the dwelling unit removal i am looking forward hope that is a sense of the type of cases were working and before closing like to share a successful enforcement case to show you the work we do (rustling of papers.) and case with multiple storefront were removed or installed as part of the mandatory program the abatement included the restoration of a storefront with the configuration are entryways and here is a similar case. and lastly, here's an example of fences and handrails replaced without a permit and the new fence was 6 feet at all we worked with the owner the contractor to restore this building. and in closing i would like to remind the commissioners and public the presentation is

just a give a general overall overview to provide you with connection with the new legislation that audrey will get into and i'm available for questions. thank you very much. >> thank you kelly and that concludes staff preparation and members of the public your opportunity to address the commissioner if you're in the chambers or remotely press star three to raise your hand. >> jim again. >> i applaud you're looking at this and in general, i would be supportive of our obviously not trying to continue this in our actions just to get compliance the correct thing do in every

case makes sense, however, there are some cases that really rise far beyond a reasonable doubt what is reasonable and again, i am looking forward point out 930 grove street an example of 20-year history of abuse by a property owner that has a history of problems both g b i am looking forward and encourage consider ways to have to more with d b i am looking forward and the attorney where is egging degrees and things think it to happen with actors with you're good intent open those rare

occasions where you're able to build your cases with business is not just an enforcement but rather that's something really requires a major intervention and invite to you look at the possibilities with our colleagues and with the city attorney's office and d b i am looking forward as you're doing those efforts to include a worst case scenario that really has teeth in it thank you, thank you. >> commissioners thank you for your time and i'm honored to be here at the same time. >> my name is david i'm an owner of a condominium corner of

main and i represent the homeowners. >> if you could put the microphone closer. >> i have to read quickly for three minutes. >> um, hoa has been working with the enforcement division of planning department for over 10 years in intent to bring this garage an independent business into compliance of a condition of approval permit over the past decade has failed to bring the garage into employment and the prove administrator and i've got to tell you was approved effectively granting this variance to the owner were not appropriate in the process. and approximately, one year ago on january 2022 representatives

from the portside came to the commission about the same lack of enforcement appropriate enforcement of codes but that time one zoning administrator and who noifgz in 2014 and 2018 and one notice of violation in 2020. 10 years as stated at the time the violations were effecting safety and security and quality of life at the portside a situation that remains with no cure with the notice of violations we detailed several at the presentation one i don't know. and enough details were provided the plan commission president tanner (clearing throat) excuse me - indicated she'd like to having hear more and directed the

planning commission to get back and he said he knew nothing about that and subsequent to three 0 assigned an officeer and didn't do a site visit one conference call informed us had better things to do with her time and not spending time and refused to support us to hear our appeal of the permit we inadvertently missed a 10 day notice because of the pandemic and suggested we submit a suggestion to the administrator and said not (bell ringing) mr. cate planning code with the condition of approval abatement

for the false and misleading information. >> sir that's our time. >> if you want to e-mail the comments to the commission we'll have that. >> (multiple voices). >> electronically or in writing. >> you can do it electronically. >> contact the commission secretary to provide the e-mail address. >>. thank you for your time. >> . thank you. >> andrew brooks if portside and further on the conversation the garage operation took years for the notice of violation and penalty decisions it still is not applying with the condition of approval permit. and it was not until the garage was facing the penalties 9 years after notifying took issue to respond. and most of problems with

compliance by the garage operator began in the revisions in the project during the approval process. those revisions created physical con strakts with the making it impossible for the development to meet the conditional use permit to provide adequate parking and circulation in the garage we raised this in the correspondence to the planning department and asked for a rehearing of the recruitment due to the false and misleading information when the basis of original condition of approval approval again, i state we seek a rehearing of the conditional use permit due to the false and misleading information that was the basis of the original conditional use permit. we recognize that the physical constraint of the existing

building making that impossible for the garage operators to meet the conditions of the previous approvals and we believe the original remedy to bring the building into compliance a new review and approval by the planning commission to that point we submitted in october of last year a letter and a request with fees to the zoning administrator for a letter of determination on january 7th of this year our counsel was advised that letter and that request had been lost. we requested the commissioners advise attendance and direction to staff to get that rehearing of the conditional use permit moving forward and ask for your help in the matter. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. >> my name is john also with portside i've been a resident and president of association. and you heard some testimony about the mechanical history and everything to why it has been a problem. this conditional use permit has a very strange history first of all, portside is an misrepresent use condominium business and parking project straightened underneath the bay bridge and the parking component of the combhimd was created in order to satisfy the entitled for the parcels so two office building and another residential project a our two projects it is complicated with the parking rights when they started the project the planning commission approved a fairly

straightforward approach for the physical spaces and have to have subterranean to get another spaces they started digging and hit a bunch of lead and switched the yards and sandblasted did bridge for decades soliciting the soil when they started the construction was to contaminated had to- a kind of clutch like how we handle this. >> and in the middle of construction come back to planning and they got month modifications for valet parking and playing musical chairs has a weird strange history a lot of spaces are not real spaces like

an emergency oh, crap what do we had no check how to make that work. >> we're homesteaders say this is a cancer in our midst i've been on the board and the litigation and not just parking this is impacted our disabled and access to disability and quality of life and this is really been a huge problem for us and implore you, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars the offshore didn't know what they bought and not- trying to make a profit that is difficult thank you for your time and left lane help us out

(bell ringing) >> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been carrying a grievance for years and years ago house this department takes fees to property owners and i've been down here never had the proper form i'm delighted to be here for this conversation i - i feel that the penalties and the way it is administered a bias against smaller incarcerating and homeowners and developers an as example i was involved with a first time bshlg didn't comply with the program we were green but paid the price 250 per day as the code says we got the b m r unit back and made it right

imagine how he and i felt when 6 years or less than a year later a three hundred project with thirty or 40 bmr projects and what fees they paid 250 per day. >> the exact same penalty and on the surface sounds fair. it is a project not in compliance. i am looking forward i got it. but we have 800 take the mind have to distinguish between the types projects and the impact of $250 a day on this demographic and the quack of 250 a day on a three hundred unit project. maybe the department is fixing this i don't know so been awhile the clue is that the property

owner was only 6 units that's how far back it goes i believe other issues including the fee structures not the same dollars for the single-family as for a high rise it is very different anyway, thank you. >> good afternoon georgia i'll start my comments how i am looking forward focused yesterday at the preservation commission that one way to deal with that problem and to incentivize adjusting the cap and last week, we had the um, thing on 21st street which violated section three 1722c i was disappointed that there was

not an autopsy how it happened since it was not only the demolition but a loss of a unit two original and to liveable unit the family lived in a smaller one but anyway, i was puzzled why demo caps in the mo p dr i am looking forward went there and there were no de0 caps no matrix with the original architect redo last march what was there was this and i'm going to send it to i want to show you now it is interesting can i am looking forward have the overhead please? >> okay. so (rustling of papers.) sfgov the overhead. >> very good. >> so i put those little

circles that is what was on the agenda that is in d b i - i thought was interesting had is here this in our packet shows what they originally submitted and long time ago that is was in the agenda and actually oh, hero. >> this is what they said they did. and you can see the markings on the addendum how did this happen? how can you preventive this in the future no matrixes but thought this was interesting now three different sets i am looking forward bring it up the commission has three more um, legtionss and i am

looking forward hope- not the owners fault but how does this happen we can understand how shouldn't happen in the future i'll send you those i think those 0 are interesting. thank you very much. >> okay. seeing none, additional members of the public in the chambers if you're a remote caller press star three to raise your hand seeing none, commissioners public comment is closed. . and this is an informational matter for you review. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> it appears (coughing) the theme is the grievance

center of last resort i got it those are permit we have touched no one way or another and neighbors will have residents finding something was not done exactly the way they were understanding that was supposed to transpire through the plan hermosa or d but i to get to some resolution of their problem what it doesn't happen after years and years they come to us they don't know what else to do i'm sympathetic what he will what would we do other than show up and please someone. on this portside matter director hillis where does that stand and what the department should, doing going forward if anything.

>> i'm going to turn it over to my colleague. >> for the question i am looking forward want to use we don't talk about the active investigation i'm not doing that here this one is as it was described per date takes a challenging situation a situation where they described a lot of action the property owners took that action and the garage the- the position that the residents the work is not adequate to meet the original requirements and have requested get a letter of determination after the fact that the the current status without getting into the details there are a lot.

>> where it stands at the moment they were unhappy with the resolution and submit another letter to you and you're in the process of determining whether any additional action is warranted. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> i'm glad to know this is not coming to the end and at least a former in which they're grievance is considered with respect to the gentleman's concerns i think they raise good points and i'd like to address them in the change of legislation thank you for making the comments i'm not ignore them but refer to the next item it is more appropriate to address them there then. >> thank you commissioner koppel. >> thanks for the great report i see a lot of complaints and a lot of work cut out for you

thank you for doing our best and actually have questions. for georgia she's been coming here how many years now every single thursday kind of bringing up the same stuff we keep seeing and just i'm not going to get like two grandular but- how are houses demoed and over the scope like i'm not asking georgia but someone in the department to give georgia an answer she's been asking for years and years and years. >> and partly the commissioners how we are expect to show up every thursday to make important decisions and supposed to come back and say well, i guess it is

okay because they didn't do what we said where does everything fall apart and go on when neighbors are claiming and claiming and claiming and the work is not stopped and continues and houses double in size. >> will do my best i think the answer a bunch of answers the commission has heard a lot of times before from the applicants before you gone a permit and gotten fourth in the permit and come back under the demo honestly sometimes that is a clear situation with the business is fit to do this a risk with regard and take the chance to go beyond a permit it is unfortunate but noteworthy not doing if we situations

people are unaware of their limits or property owners did understand the code and people generously don't have an intent to run afoul of the code run beyond the scope and hear they commission they're discovery in the field during the construction i'll ride it out and the logic they make it go away without stopping and calling d b i am looking forward across the city a legitimacy i don't know from our perspective from an enforcement day to day one silver bullet answer why we see those but true kelly pointed

out people are going outside the scope and doing work and still allowed to continue to they're not stopped. >> i'd like to add a comment this is kelly. we don't have building not special year-end tax-deductible gift in planning and really the permit are over seen by building inspectors with the department of building inspection and the inspections look at the project we don't have the same in planning and it is complex so not all the inspectors know that code we the an informational presentation with them i think that was last year. um, so that twhir training all their inspections to understand your sort of complex code that's why the code

enforcement efforts have been successful for now the inspections and i am looking forward work, work closely question get out there with the enforcement inspector but again for the out there everyday looking at the projects they're approved like d but i d b i am looking forward. >> like full of violations i have to correct and so many complaints was frustrating were complaint were about the violations were essentially planning code violations the inspector opened up that and on behalf of 6 d b i did come back

to us to figure out how to help with what has been essentially a dwelling unit merger i am looking forward guess what you're describing working closely together going forward to prevent that so violations don't get closed when a violation can you talk about that? >> yes. >> definitely to all the interagency referrals we are talking more we had a monthly meeting and talking about the issues that are coming up perhaps d b i see not aware and seeing to make sure they are referred to us and also flag the one's like hey this is happening and needs immediate attention if a group housing and when necessary refer to us, we can

work together they might to reestablish that in order to restore this i see vice president moore raising her hand and others. >> bubble good morning the best way to describe it how years ago that was two digits where the public notifies the planning commission things were supposed to be remodel but when we at this time ourselves went out to see that was less than bubble gum and those been around long enough for 4118 and the list goes on close to 1 hundred buildings with the questionable

remodels partial um, devotions and we were caught off guard somewhere along the line either someone knew how to rely on the fact that- and three continues today. and it is for that reason and we're talking about in our next agenda item we have to look at the entire situation and not rely on the fact that everyone makes incidental mistakes i think mistakes are made intentionally and i think a couple of changes we have lost a significant amount of affordable housing stock going into the

area of buildings were under the historic preservation commission designations and we'll stop or lose the city at large we may have to know exactly what is before us and perhaps can look at budget analyst report deeper as to though this is a correlation between the address and who was involved and when. >> and again, it is creative process i look forward to creating something that is transparent but transparent enough to scare those people who are intending to do that the wrong way. so i look at it as a positive step in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> yeah. first thank staff with

upgrades and go to hear from ms. wong so updated us on the practices that the planning department is trying to really good to hear that i am looking forward watch one of the planning and d b i am looking forward and it looks like this is going to be moving forward not just with d b i am looking forward but other agencies. i mean i'm frustrated as well when it comes back to the plan commission and have to look at the units i do think again at the end of the day, the enforcement whether which agency um, you know, is at fault but i am looking forward like to hear more updates in the practices moving forward in terms of the improvement enforcement we understand as to- we approve an

entitlement what happens next and what are the steps being taken by the planning and others in the departments as well. so i don't know if it is within a year or perhaps next year if we can discuss. >> and you want to respond. >> a broad one to note note urging seeing more cases around three 17 and demo around the work and coordinating making d b i am looking forward more aware they're the ones out through so we also, you know, could be less complaint based was mentioned are important in the actions we take; right? we respond to the complaint. but don't necessarily have to do that we do that could

be more pro-active in the cases around demo and also remind you, we tried to removal demo in some cases why it is in the code more affordable housing is that working i'm not sure especially we're seeing projects alterations expanding on the number of units from a single-family home to two or three trying to remove and let's adjust this or where we're considering demo we'll see see samgz but looking at whether that policy is chief executive officer what its supposed to and tweak that we had that conversation conversation and

tilts called a housing element we need to look at. >> i support looking at that i am looking forward know they're different opinions to make that simpler and people violate and which not understanding and doing a big demo you're in the field taking care of that and a lot of reasons and simplifying the code will be clear and understandable like not have to interpret that is going a long way easy to understand and read and not hover a professional to understand and whatever so simplifying hopefully and reduce the number of cases and things like that and other enforcement may not be at hot topic but folks care about and many, many things we have this next year

seeing some of that action coming forward and get an agreement as the commissioner sows that i say commissioner braun has your hand up. >> thank you. >> i am looking forward have sort of i think two questions for ms. wong related to the question how does those violations happen and how are they identified and what do you do to be in compliance but my first question is: you know, what it comes to d b i am looking forward have to sign off on the work hoping and did d b i am looking forward in the reference the approved projects finance i'm trying to understand how this slips through. >> sure happy to answer that i can't answer completely for them but in some cases in my experience sometimes look at a

new window for example, we care about the materials like life safety issues they are a building code they would know we're looking at something different we have different codes they don't necessarily know what our codes require they're taking a look at from their perspective those things maybe missed. >> any issues like it addressed through the efforts for cross training their inspections. >> yes. definitely we are talking about issues where um, it is definitely a planning code issue so that is all refer those to us this is the planning code issue taking a look at and if not they don't refer those but in the past we did receive those types of sort of restless but today, we are seeing more of

those and having conversations with the important for planning and especially for accident enforcement cases we're building into the system the enforcement planner will look at the final photos to make sure all work is in compliance before the building inspector signed off on that permit. >> thank you for that >> it is good to hear progress is being made as director hillis said some of the things the commission corrections are indicators of that progress i am looking forward have one other question i'm curious to hear sort of an update on the enforcement i'm wondering what happens to responsible parties never correct out almost forever

we had cases like that for example, outcomes and since the existing penalties like might not be fair enough for the responsible party to come into convalescence. >> so as i am looking forward shared in in any presentation about the process, the only thing we can is refer to the bureau of delinquent revenue in outstanding fees or penalties and they then collect a percentage above what we referred to them and kind of let them take care of or refer to the city attorney's office don on the severity and there was litigation and settlement that came out of that and part of settlement also conditions for what is to happen next. to o so

we're working closely with the city attorney's office to make sure this property maybe not in the timeframe reasonable to a neighbor or, you know, a complaint that we are 85 trying to move that process forward the it takes long definitely something we have been actively engaged in with city attorney's office. >> thank you. >> i am looking forward have a few more questions with the demolition and morgueers i'm curious had kind of complaints people are living next door with group housing and looking at a new definition of group housing with families and the number of people living in a housing together is problematic but curious about the complaints how

we're dealing with those. >> happy to try to answer that, we see a variety sometime like a large single-family home especially you're larger institutions like universities we have a lot of students and a neighbor made a complaint this is not being occupied by a family the planning code is 8 unrelated people using the group housing occupants that is one side. we also see um, things more on the spectrum lake the good ship have that warehouses that are converted and used for large number of people living in not nearly that extreme but on occasion see some like that at example the life safety issues and - but on the other end of extreme like not a residential but more of a large space with a lot of people living in and

everything in between. you know, had situations in the past new companies people like to trio new business model in san francisco and others try to do different titanium's business group housing but in terms of new definition anything we do today like a complaint of unauthorized group housing and legalize if they want to do or a law in the stymy authorizes is from us now protect subject to the controls. >> dollar people living next door not related what are write doing it seems out-of-date and, you know, inappropriate she all shouldn't be living together how are we are dealing with the complaints. >> we dealt with those for a

long time and ever since with the multi versus the group housing division and one is how many unrelated has a definition of a family it comes from a california court case from southern california in the early 80s that definition is across the state and - but like a lot of the definitions how the space is used and the people are operating generally the more like a family for example, sometimes have a sober home and not related people but the native of facility is like for example, like living together and cook their meals will directly be a definition of a family but some situation every door a paddle locked and the

kitchen is locked cabinets that is clearly not meeting the definition but more in the middle is a good call and. >> more common lists think about things we're using our time for last year neighbor complained about parking setbacks and the front yard paving where it is paved not knowing an issue in those cases the parking not parking there now but are we looking at for folks to get a permit foreclosing out the complaint which do they get charged $1,000 fees those types of complaints. >> two different questions and the paving depends on those sometimes been there a long time

and happen after the code you can't do that people are options; right? we have the front yard paving issues and over permeable from storm drainage system cleaning services landscaping perspective and so violation like any other violations in convalescence with the code some provisions will allow an administer waiver with a slope with run off a variety of ways sometimes like a role challenging situation not common bow to be a variance for that. but especially a violation it has to be fwloitd the means available and choose to go down there with fees are charged across the board we issue a notice of violation that confirms to a violation like the 15 day appeal we don't start the clock then. if people engage

with us at this point in the process and start to work on the abatement process we don't start the clock we're not trying to be punitive now you owe us a fee we very much have the penalties as an incentive to abate the violation as long as people are working with us, we don't run the clock time and materials depends on how someone works with us people are responsive and work with us if this takes staff time we don't charge them the materials but they're still responsive but if you get an n o v depending on had the issues are this will be assessed. >> thank you very much. commissioner diamond. >> have a question for ms. wong. >> first of all, thank you for your extremely helpful

presentation. for those of us not heard the enforcement press i thought that conveyed useful information i am looking forward have a request about situation where homeowners others are doing work and tear down walls and find things are much worse than before and your suggestion it is matter of working planning work with d b i am looking forward how long do it take for the planning to get down in the fold? my concern is that the cost of construction so to how at the moment with labor being a large component and materials that homeowners are incredibly sensitive and it maybe hard to

get ahold of people if you do use me the next time i am looking forward have a availability is a month from new construction in the bay area how fast can planning all send someone out with d b i am looking forward to look at the situation? >> great. first say we or working closely with the d b i am looking forward have a process in place where they can send their inspections out right now and take a look at to see whether or not the work is studying the scope and now england our concerns about doing calculations, etc. they can actually issue a correction notice if exponentially that wall a beyond repair needs to come down we can file a permit. in this case question don't

include that also already a process in place d b i am looking forward not don the planners do intoxicate we can- had if we can bring, you know, we can get a planner to go out the next day and complaint an friday afternoon and that depends on whether with the d b i am looking forward schedules a meeting or site visit to make sure there is access we can go together. to definitely we have people that are available to go out right now when an immediate need not waiting a couple of weeks before we show up. >> i think it is critical did you want to say something. >> i want to make one quick clarification so we're finding two different things would you

say is on the front end get the permit and you're in thefield doing the work you may have to took down the wall what should we do then? in this situation we had d b i am looking forward they don't take down the wall contact d but i need a new permit to address that wall removal and everything is clean we did he have the inspections going out on the front i understand in the permitting process the process kelly was referring to after the fact oh, they've down the work and d b i say that is beyond the scope and now to determine what it is two different context i am looking forward want to make sure we're not confusing them we do have

the planning department inspections like building inspections to make sure the work is done with the plan i don't know if it's helpful. >> it is i am looking forward wanted to look at the reeltsz in thefield and make sure we're not creating disincentives so we live in the city with much of housing is over 1 hundred year olds you open up the walls and their worst they are. and may not have been constituent in the permit and obviously has not been taken care of we've not created a system for a disincentive and adding time is a big incentive for many contractors and homeowners to comply we ought to set up a system that is where contractors are aware they look at the situation that happened frequently they know they can

make a phone call someone will come out the next day and something like that off on who say they need to do in appropriate and if not they need need to know that but not create hurdles to compliance and that is sort of like the real world issue i'm hoping we think about that we are talking with the rb a and represents a number of contractor to understand so that the problem they're facing in thefield without parole with a motion it deals this current problem. >> thank you i am looking forward agree with those comments. >> no other commissioners hands up and this is informational. >> very good commissioner will places us on

places us on item and penalties for violations of planning and building code provisions; clarify that violations affecting more than one unit this is a a building code amendment for your consideration. >> good afternoon, commissioners before i get the staff presentation and from supervisor ronan's office is here to speak on that. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is- legislative aid to hillary ronan thank you, for you service i'm here today to present on the legislation that will actually do a lot of what i'm hearing from public comment to create disincentives to violate our building codes. the first essentially that raises the maximum daily fine to the administer from 200 to 1,000 and

then also accesses a 250 one time 250 fee on any dwelling unit that is demolished and a $500,000 fee on any historical building that demolished. the impetus for from you may have heard from 261 san bruno for 10 units and a total of thirty, 20 unpermitted units in addition no affair fire escape so the maximum fee three developer is assessed $200 a day with 20 extra units can probably have

one in perpetuity and 19 to profit no incentive to come apply with the law. we see that our building placed or planning code is in a bureaucracy fire escapes are essential for life we see those developers taking profit and putting people in danger. we hope this legislation will get straight to the heart of that and address that issue. the the other thing that is the most egregious actors don't want to harm small developers or people that make honest mistakes we have this is the for example, the developer has done the basic

minimum to comply with the department; right? that means be in sending a few e-mails no updates to correct anything the residents of the building were not aware that those units were unpermit. woobs it cease a fee for the individual unit for each violation separate in another. this developer pays the $200 daily for the entire thing. this law a lot hoping then role take the envelope out in each individual units an assessment they maximum rate. let's see - i am looking forward spoke with commissioner diamond yesterday had some suggestions of recommendation so i want to

speak a little bit about that. (rustling of papers.) for the most part we are in agreements with the recommendations and i can- for (clearing throat) hold on a second. >> um, number one, to require the department serve notice property owners i believe commissioner diamond we require that planning record the violations on the deed. and i've spoken with planning not written to them but we agree that would be the most appropriate thing to do and number to reduce the appeal to 15 days from proposed thirty days and, you know, this is something we go on back and forth and spoke with commissioner diamond about her concerns this is extremely small

period of time. for folks to perhaps get on attorney and we will be open to changing that. >> um, number 3, which basically says when the notice- the recommendation that the fees be assessed with the fee is a notice of violation is assessed instead of what the violation took place this is completely reasonable. and speaking with planning and we'll know when the violation took place anyway will be impossible to know we're no agreement with that. >> number 5, this is one that where states that that um, adding more units than two are subject to $250,000 fine. planning suggested that is raised to three for the fact that are people that people have

unpermitted unit in the house and we don't want to permissible owners that are buying homes they're not aware this is there and now have to pay the fines again, we are in agreement with. and number 6 typographical changes we're fine with those. >> i think you skipped number 4, roving the 5 years prohibition i don't know if you have comments on that. >> this one unfortunately, supervisor left out of town after audrey and and i spoke i've spoken with some of her colleagues who are interested in the legislation and feel there is the um, exception more affordable housing. so if a developer who is in this 5 years periods will be allowed to do

affordable housing within that something we agree with a was as compromise i am looking forward know once been through all the commissions next to the one that has been concern with didn't serve the purpose because the developer may wait that out and usually does anyway, we don't want buildings we want to promote a construction of affordable housing. so that one as well we're okay with. >> thank you very much. thank you for your time and thank you for the supervisor important sponsoring the legislation. >> thank you all >> as i'm getting the power point i want to thank supervisor ronan's office they took our suggestions after the first draft legislation came out. and they ended up incorporating our feedback into the version in

front of you today thank you for that. >> again audrey plan hermosa i'm going to the a power .72 hours a little bit calculated a lot of changes hold on would moment? >> perfect. >> so commissioners the proposed ordinance for the planning code for the strengthening for planning it proposes to do by increasing the fines and also giving the planning department new tools or strengthening the tools we already have to have compliance with the code. the first big change is going to be in the way we have our administer notices only requires

one notice to be served to the properties, no. violation of planning code that is notice of violation our current practice that as highlighted before ms. wong is other 2340z we offer as courtesy before we get to charging fines to off did you process we'll have several notices not previously codified will be codified as part of the enforcement process. so building off of ms. wongs county process that is a slide under the ordinance. we have the same process before up through the notice of violation. after a notice of violation is served if we're not receiving um, communication at all or closing slow communication with the

responsible party have what is called a notice of cliensz action and penalties this is a notice can be sent out periodically by the zoning administer stating what actions are need for convalescence and how much penalties having accrued and then if the party in question to appeal the notice of violation or the informs of compliance action to the zoning administrator our penalty letter that is the letter issued by the zoning administer post hearing is codified and then if we don't get compliance after that one, two wonderful to we'll have to order an order of abatement on the property that is we have the ability to that 90 days after we

issue the final notice of violation if not appealed and final notice of violation and penalty decisions that also gives us the authority to place a lien on the property if we fine a listened professional a responsible party this ordinance will give us the ability to have the abatement stage report that party in the state board or listened agency i am looking forward want to make sure we have the orange case closed so at the end of the day, this is our goal and if anyone of the steps they combo convalescence we close the case out. right now technically the planning code only owners and tenant may be responsible party for the

planning code violations that says the owners are the responsible party but when information is available we can clear anyone that is agents and builders and leaseholders, etc. and so if it is were able we are confident we respected may be the responsible party we can mail the same notice to the mailings i am looking forward want to make sure that is clear within that we will have to state point property owner will ultimately be listed as responsible party because at the end of the day, our monetary penalties are tied to the property and therefore whole foods market to the toilet so they will always be listed and worst case scenario if they're not we find someone not the property owner responsible and

they're not complying this give is property owner the ability to go after the responsible party in court. so we touched on that but receiving an increase in our moment amount of daily penalties for all the planning code violations right now that is up to 250 a day will be chained to one 01,000 a day the daily penalty once the appeal period for the notice of violation has expired and significantly was touched on to create one time fines for illegal construction and illegal construction involves in either the loss of a single dwelling unit or the addition of more than 2 dwelling units sounds the gentleman is accepting the post modification we have thought units will

result in being able to being charged up to $250,000 fine per unit lost for per unit added if they go over the threshold two or three units. and then we have a similar process for historic structures so the historic structure based on the building itself it is the only distinction but sounds it is additional or demolished maybe charged up $500,000 for each structure a provision will require the planning commission to adopt the career for those subject to the $250 fine and it

was the historic preservation commission adopted that but definitions what caused the significant alteration or damage for the historic structure for the purposes of having that that to $500,000 we're not talking about that today, this ordinance was not adopted but if adopted we'll come back with the criteria. and so more importantly to the administrative appeal process the two major changes are that a new notice that can be appealed that open includes the penalties letter would be appropriated to the zoning administer right now the notice of violation or the notice of penalties appealed to the zoning administer or the boyle's and supposed to increase

the amount of time right now two weeks ago to file with the legislation is up to thirty we are recommending something different i'll go over in our proposed modification i am looking forward want to point out been a lot of questions will the penalties be applied to property owners not knowing what they're doing between intent and at least for the new notice of appeal to dba there are going to be new forks for consideration they must consider for levying a fine and the amount of fine and will make that more equitable considering the will fullness or intent of violation whether this was financial gain due to the violation or whether under the influence a displacement of

tenants. so i'm trying to make sure that is clear we have mechanisms in the ordinance already and hope you'll develop through the factor of consideration to make sure it is an equitable process and only penalizing the responsible party deserving and simply to update the limits the board of appeals can reduce they're daily fines to in the case it is appealed the board of appeals upholds in part or entirely the decision um, for either the large penalty the one time fines or the daily fines creating minimums for that and move on to the recommended modification. um, so i want to mention the historic preservation commission heard this item yesterday on january 18th we looked at they

didn't get the full presentation we asked them to give the historic preservation commission aspects they did vote to approve the ordinance with our three recommended modification with the historic preservation commission so i'll be be sure to point out those and the first recommended modification they when a property toilet changes hands if it is think outstanding violation not reported on toilet the planning department has to issue notice to the new business owner we ask that removed or amended the department doesn't have the capability to do other ways to accomplish to make sure the new property owners are made aware of oungs fines and commissioner diamond will be making a suggestion how this is

done and the second recommendation to keep the appeal period at 15 days for um, notices and this is because now we have a new notice would be appealed we don't want bad actors waiting until the 29 day for every issue and don't charge a fine until an appeal is either extraordinary or resolved so thirty days is a really a way to drag the process out and prevent from getting fines and potentially the violations that you, you have is worth it to drag out of process so we feel like two weeks is an appropriate amount of time now with no notices appealed. and the third recommendations is one was recommended for approval by the

historic preservation commission. and that's just to add language to just to be clear, for the large one time fines that the language should be clarified to say (coughing) this fine is complied with the notice of violation occurs we know side notice of violation to make sure the language is clarified ate fourth recommendation approved by the historic preservation commission. we found that when a similar imposition on the permit was through d b i am looking forward (coughing) with the compliance program ended up harming the city more than the responsible party lets the housing or land to sit have a doubt for 5 years the developer didn't have to comply with any in-kind recommendation i am looking forward know that the gentleman talked about (coughing)

to say did an exception if every unit a bmr but will wait the 5 years out in the time the property will fall in disrepair a nuisance to the surrounding area so we feel like the goal to be punitive the hefty one time fine teacher of the year of that and not letting property sitting vacant for 5 years will harm the community. >> 5 to ask us to have the idea of the. >> please state your name and the item you'd like to speak on. >> fine applying when anyone is adding multiple unit illegal low for that number to be raised from one to three units we often see older buildings up to three mini for a long period of time

and an owner will receive a complaint and doing their best to legalize it is we see a small handful of those every year we feel like over three years of housing built illegally you knew warm up doing and not getting the proper permits that fine may not appropriate and recommendation 6 two were heard by the historic preservation commission all mechanical in native three total. just making some simple affiliations i'm happy to go into more detail but a couple of examples i can get into the commissioner comments and questions. if part of the process is confusing we have a few highlighted suggestions but i look forward to our comments

and kelly and corey and we are available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. audrey. (laughter) a lot of information. >> at this time should take public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on that proposed legislative change in the chambers please come forward or calling in remotely press star three are raise your hand via webb x. >> hi it is georgia when i am looking forward went to the historic preservation commission yesterday, i wanted to talk about this legislation- you're welcome. >> because i felt that three 17 can an incentive this business

was trying- and would need to get the enforcement that was interesting, you know, i'm kind of upset i am looking forward can't talk because um, i think that- that- what is missed here why is three 17 being able to the code. i don't- so what if people go up to to a different number the whole point i'm thinking about the houses that went away affordable housing some with two units gone in the last 10 years millions of dollars in price increase with the epic center and other neighborhood have stumbled and only 12 or 13 complaint in the last 8 years i am looking forward hate to file complaints first of all, is it takes time

and the housing is gone never going to come back so i i - i yesterday she said a funnel disagreement in r e t no past legislation two or three years with housing- 4 of you could vote to adjust those 20s percent let's see what happens it wouldn't be a terrible thing like the fabric of the building the economic vitally the diversities i've seen that happen in my neighborhood in noah valley i was we we became part of neighborhood people are not part of neighborhood they

are not maybe i'm getting overly emotional but an incentive like in the caps were you adjusted more of the housing will be preserved potentially and may be able they'll not do it keep the housing that is what the policy will be that kind of housing will be left there bus it is mid century housing and maybe that is an idea that is gone away i don't know. i don't think so but worst a try since you have 2, 3, or 4 years with the housing element sorry i'm sorry to be so emotional- are faces

the condition of approval and the missouri's onerous who are the project sponsors immigrants people don't speak english as their native language and people with without college degrees how will we make a system it distinguishes the people that knowingly willfully and deliberately do something wrong versus that make people that make an honest mistake i'll give you an example in everyone jurisdiction to the east can't go west but find dry rot on a

blind wall nobody seize if you take 5 infrastructure feet 5 square feet properly 2 1/2 by 8 by 10 that triggers a demolition and you're automatically subject to this legislation and this penalty. and in this case 50 thousand (bell ringing) . >> 50 thousand that's the minimum we have to work harder and back to the drawing board and find a way to reconcile this i am looking forward have a problem on construction no problem with the most egregious cases no problem the 5 extra square feet do you notice to wait 5 years (bell ringing) put back additional units the cost that is hundreds of thousands of dollars we need to

taylor this for the most egregious the memoranda egregious, and the there are should innocent people. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. no outlet members of the public in the chambers coming forward go to the remote callers again, when you hear you're requested to unmute press star 6. >> you want to unmute yourself? >> and again, try mr. gonzales.

>> council wanted to thank the staff for a firm presentation. we look forward to working with the supervisors office on, on this ordinance i think the spirit is on point. we could have questions about just unilaterally going to a licensing board so clarifications and i think that is worst noting understanding the concerns and with the rb a a policy progress will be an opportunity for staff to come through in comprehensive regulations through that process we're able to um, really fine-tune some of the things to make sure that is implement in a fair and equitable manner we represent many small e w d

contractor they're not only providing go big jobs to the community but healthcare to our neighbors and providing living wages and providing security and apprenticeship and they having to follow all the rules in the true spirit question are going to support that to make sure the highest bidders are held not only from the developer perspective but from a law on paper chances are on osha violations at safety mechanisms we look forward toshg with the supervisors and robust discussion on policy and implementations and with staff regulations an important time to engage not just listening to

this call but. thank you for your time. >> all right. halley sending you a request to unmute. >> okay. haley completely dropped off last call for public comment. on this legislative amendment. seeing none, (bell ringing) to speak you public comment is closed. and this. >> the item is now before you commissioners. >> >> you see a hand that went up just as you were saying. >> oh. >> indeed. >> hello. >> this is sue hester i am looking forward want to bring to your attention to stunning

avenue will be before the commission on the 26 it was an egregious um, violation. and right now april to not go forward because the developer didn't file the amended plans they don't come to the commission. i am looking forward strongly building in supporting supervisor ronan's legislation is grapples you had a case last week and really a conversation at the commission level about the intention of the form owner and the real estate agent who solid the property to violate

instructions from planning. and you have had a more than two cases you had a lot of cases that are done with that we had huge incentives to demolish housing to displace renters nobody paying attention and the planning commission should accept for staff to take control after they signed off on the building code there are problems with the building department and inspectors and people going out to inspect properties are not going out and signing off on property because they're paid. there was article in the chronological about what the inspectors being

paid off. you should pay attention to the loss of housing complaints aided eviction a lot of tenant housing. it is my priority or not the long history of involving the project and i'm sure that should be pay attention but the priority should 200generate the loss ever property and the inspectors shouldn't say i'm not responsible but they should monitor it in the building

department (bell ringing) . thank you. >> okay. final last call for public comment. >> seeing none, to speak closed. now. >> the item is now before you commissioners. >> >> okay. thank you. >> i want to thank the supervisor for bringing this legislation forward in response to san bruno but other cases we see and frustrated with, you know, what to do on the back end and how to hold people abdominal we don't want to punish folks people that that are doing things and making mistakes to make sure we don't push everyone in the corner for the worst actors allowing things up to or giving ourselves desegregation to go further with strength to

there are other circumstances to consider and the penalty maybe less but for the most part we've done that but make sure we're calibrating not for the worst person in mind but accommodate addressing the challenges as well. >> to that point i am looking forward have a few questions or comments. i am looking forward wanted to go on a little bit perhaps a process we're talking about and how that relates and for example, the cats from last week two units or less than three units but understand that case. we have a after the fact it is 52 unit they merge together and have a violation we're noticing the property owner and i don't know maybe and

realtor but other folks are getting notice in terms of actually following through the property owner has to contact you to avoid fees and property owners like not my fault i bought it have to go to all the steps they're guilty if the will responsible party fails to get responsible and take that to court i don't understand what is happening to the responsible parties but not the property owner any longer. >> thank you commissioner, i have to take that comment on the. >> for example,- >> (multiple voices). >> that happens. >> absolutely. >> going forward. >> i'm actually going to ask jonas to put the power point back on the screen one of the examples is illustrate i'll not

pretend a perfect response but i'll explain that the example we have here is an article 10 so historic building has two residential units in the main building and third residential unit as a detached structure in the rear this is the scenario that a complaint is filed for starting the scope of work and a permit to do interior and exterior recommendations nothing more the planning department staff will make sure that is true and- a is egregious we're saying in this case they actually merged the two units in the main building to one unit and they um, demolition of the structure in the back so what did that mean total new they had

a loss of two dwelling units one from a merger and a demolition in the rear. so they could and in the most e impressions scenario be bilateral for 250 for each of the two occupants public school $500,000 and if the a historic preservation commission whatever definition and come up with to determine with what a demolition means in the demolition in the main building or the doing of the structure in the rear turn out to meet the definitions than if one of the structures is demolished then they will be liable for the up to $500,000 plus if we go through the stages for issuing the n o v and don't work with us and accruing those penalties after the period closes what about liable for the

1,000 day penalty on each unit they have um, committed a violation with. that is the most extreme example. and so to get kind of more towards your question let's say not the property owner but similar to. >> use this example- >> (multiple voices). >> what is happening right the bishld is not the property owner the property owner is in the mix is the responsible party makes sense didn't actually ask for this to happen or bought it unwittingly what is happening with the responsibility for those fees or and my understanding let's stake with that $500,000; right? for the loss of unit this is automatic or after and through the n o v process with the va; right? this is how to get those fines

assessed the property owner says i'll fix it i'll close the door kicking the upstairs a downstairs but to punishment for the person that created the violation because the problem is fixed by our standards no more violation we're done. >> sure so i- if mr. teague wants to jump in first, the criteria for how much of the he penalty should be assessed of the 250 for the loss of each unit to the um, the zoning administer will use to criteria based on what we know i'm presuming the violation saying our liable up to $250 need to come to into chlorination woe not necessarily saying we've determined your liable for this

exact dollars amount today is it true. >> correct. >> going from there work with the property owner and choose to adopt the for example, this ordinance contains for the va hearing criteria is a violation restoreable or a tenant all those things will raise that fine to a certain level and is the developer aware of a willful assess they'll be the reasonable party the property owner has not knowledge this was illegal construction and perhaps the previous property owner has some knowledge of that before they sold the property but the owner

knowingly condominium this is the imperfect part of this is the um, aspect we struggle them code enforcement that is our ability to go after certain violators whole foods market to the best we can do if we're for the getting a response from the responsible party not the property owner we can defer to the city attorney but also have those notices we have if clear a process they're named in the notice. and i'm presuming will work with the actual property owner again not here to be punitive but make sure that responsible party is disswayed from doing it again so yet not

perfect. >> a challenge again, the for example, that was different the owner is responsible so with the responsible party i believe and other situations the responsible party can be long gone. >> jane did you want to add. >> sure, thank you. city attorney, i want to add to the conversation about the responsible party the legislation is perhaps not that would be helpfully crystal clear but >> 8.a. staff items: planning commission tentative future agenda items (administrative assistant melanie bristow) property owner as stated in the paragraph and other individuals who like been involved will be served notice but not have what we call joined liability as a responsible party. >> okay. that's great thank you for that. >> i want to touch on still for context on this issue because

this context is not changing under the legislation. >> right? when did the violation occur and the thing that is a little bit different will be different under that legislation to pass it right now if we get a complaint and it is clear the visitation- we don't have anything else we can do regardless of how and who and sometimes a situation that was a building addition done 5 years ago without permits and the new property owner says they didn't know. so the thing we never could know who knows what people say they don't know it is changing to make the decisions based on that context we are not investigating on that level or are the ability to really find that information subpoenas; right? so they're hard he said

she said a violation the property owner is ultimately responsible for the property that is the crux of that at the end of the day, the prepare that ones the property is responsible for that that property and unfortunate something happens they're not aware it is different now is, you know, the question of the fee level is will be assessed fees but we have to consider; right? up to $250 a day a decent amount with a long period of time the diverse between 1,000 and $20,000 we're on a different scale 250 and 5 hundred that ends not the scale is different but kelly mentioned in their presentation the code says in the code not designed to be punitive it is really trying to get abatement that's all and not

what the proposal is specifically but to be punitive on the back he said a whole different calculation about what and how to use those fees in what way to make sure that is appropriate for the egregious case but not heavy handed how to make that assessment but coming to the commission more more guidance that decision is not made in a vacuum. >> thank you and comments and other commissioners. i think that again making up two languages and as far as the staff recommendation i'm supportive of most of staff recommendation and comment on a few when it comes to recommendation two i tend to agree with commissioner diamond 15 days is short and even if someone a bad actor so i don't

want to draw it out and again, about the non-bad actors so you haven't opened your mail i am looking forward wanted to make sure we're not two punitive not a business difference for the city but someone that is receiving the n o v and didn't know what that means or what they have to do otherwise other things makes sense and we'll take a look at the legislation. um, and the only other comment the legislation says we'll mail or post of the notice of violation at the property i don't know if staff has a preference for one or the other when we use use the or poster like to so he means a challenge we should mail and potentially

post but never just post and not mail i'm not sure why that is written that. >> sure the current process is mailing we don't post and sometimes there is no contact from the property owner or the business tenant in which a violation. having the ability to post something on site if we make a site inspection we can't enter the property will be helpful for informational purposes. >> so at least be a 90 changes in the ordinance and post versus or post will be helpful certainly want to just post that and listed it is a violation and you can appeal it that's my comments for now. >> thank you, commissioner sometimes information from the assessor on the appropriate property owner is delayed by 6 or telephone longer months so

for e impressions violations or vacant land nobody is there the ability to post it in notice counts as serving it is important for that purpose but you know attest to the fact that is not the primary way of communicating or serving notice. >> that makes sense thank you for that. >> with that, i'm going to turn it over to other commissioners and - >> thank you. >> and thank the supervisors office and planning department i'm generally supportive and with the instructions from commissioner diamond. i am looking forward have two very small questions i mean my first question around the code enforcement and the dialogue from president tanner gave

clarity but depends on personnel in terms of the scale of the project. and also wonder following the case of san bruno project optimal tenants living in the building living with a violation. would we- when we get the fees or receive the violation on the fees where did that money go into duo we absorb that but any cases where tenants are entitled to a compensation or has to do with with the rent board? >> any fees go into a code enforcement fund and again, code enforcement staff correct me, if i'm wrong but that is used to pay for the cost of enforcement.

um, the recent legislation announce with the mayors u.s. department of housing and urban development does have more affordable housing violations the ability for that department to enforce on those complaint and that funding or penalty paid goes into a different fund through the mayors office and community development we unfortunately, don't have a fund that goes for tenants i'm not sure how the mechanics work. >> thank you. >> i'm thinking how a possible scenario returned to a city attorney's office they filed a lawsuit could be part of settlement. >> and go ahead- >> i wanted to say we are looking at additional legislation and said to add but

it is two complicated to provide rights for the tenants in those circumstances like sfulg giving them the option to the landowner has to pay for a relocation that on eviction who knows though this is happening we don't know what is happening with the building so looking for legislation to provide that before eviction. >> thank you and then my last question around one of the commenters mentioned if she's around d b i am looking forward and a scenario where inspections have paid off how much have we have like have you heard the thing happened often and what it happens what do we do as department to hold them accountable where they're

responsible in terms of being included as a responsible party and violations we've seen? >> can you repeat the first part of that question (laughter). >> one of the public commenters mentioned d b i am looking forward inspectors getting paid off so i wonder how often have we heard that is a thing. >> we, you know, we heard from the cases have been public you heard of and certainly, you know, we hear, you know, things we think are complaints about d b i am looking forward or in the department not acting correctly we'll take that up and talk to, you know, the supervisor and themes. but, you know, i don't know if we hear i don't think we

hear that no more way hear. >> uh-huh. >> elsewhere. >> maybe following up on that especially with oath cases it becomes clear maybe varies activities recommending to a property through the planning department we rectify those and with san bruno a good example we have had to deal with the remedy and work with resolving um, the things were done shouldn't have been done and correct those things and bring work back those are the things you guys often struggle with but that's usually our approach we absolutely take a look at when things are bring to our attention if the thing was not issued correctly and

take a look at if any planning related components with that. >> yeah. all not- the inspector level but at a much better working relationship with the agency and flagging issues maybe happening and additionally them collectively we have made improvements in a better working relationship with a lot of new management at d b i am looking forward and staff with is working on that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> thank you. >> after i am looking forward read the legislation owe had a number of calls this week from supervisors staff and to understand the goals and i-i

should say from the residential builders association understand the goals i think goes too far and unintended circumstances i think we should worry about the unintended circumstances that is clear that legislation was drafted and to deal with the out range works we want to tools to deal with that in order to protect against in a egregious example we adopt regulations and tune to down to deal with um, cases where they intentionally are built out or the developers are the outcomes are not to terrible or reversible the problem with the structure certain things built into the ordinance that undermine that

have literal i am looking forward want to address those issues that hurt the egregious actors i think can be fixed. so in no particular order of importance here's the issues. i think that is absolutely unfair we'll assess penalties on subsequent property owners didn't have um, real notice they took the properties after the violation an existing property law a system everybody relies on which is going to purchase properties and the title reports and in it all the exceptions to toilet and something happens later on an exception to toilet and your toilet insures are responsible that is accepted by everyone in the real estate a common practice everybody think

what they purchase property you got to order a primary toilet report how do things get on the report they're recorded. and it strikes me the only responsible option here is that notice of violations and other subsequent notices that assess penalties maybe reported by the planning department not a egregious process that way we can, certain the planning department and commission any subsequent owner was aware of the violation. and reported it will actually have the incentive of behavior most partnerships don't want anything reported against their property. >> secondly, if a subsequent property owner is in psycho and

sees a violation they'll say i'm not going to close until you pay the penalty or decrease the amount of purchase price by penalty the obvious solution to require the notice of violation and they must be reported to impose any penalties on the subsequent property owner i don't believe a big obligation burden on us and rules in fairness for everything this my first strongly held recommendation. the second issue is that we're about to assess penalties daily penalties four times up to 4 times the amount they currently are and one time penalties could be millions of dollars for example.

and given that the consequences we should we on the side of due process and given everyone the opportunity they need to appeal this both to the da and then that the board of appeals and the 15 days is far too short of period to do that. there are all kinds of things mention that obvious one could be on vacation for two weeks and not receive the noting notice, and, secondly, dealing with an emergency in their family and can't deal with all this kind of stuff and thirdly, given the size of penalties and the fees and quite frankly anyone that is is potential violator will want to retain legal counsel it takes

time to find the right counsel and even of in the only appeal to file a piece of paper most people will not understand that i believe strongly all the appeal periods that exact fees and penalty for the 15 days but thirty days to file and appeal to get to the da and to file an appeal to the board of appeals if as a matter of fact, what you're appealing is the amount for that penalty and thirdly this legislation says under no circumstances from the board of appeals reduce the perpetrates for less than 50 thousand. i don't understand or agree with that at all. >> it strikes me that the da and the board of appeals needs to hear all the forks and can very well come to the conclusion

the small developer didn't intend to do this even if the da thinks it should be 50 thousand they get to hear the case and take into account all the factors and in the bottom line under all circumstances the minimum penalty is 50 thousand i think that needed to be removed we're talking about so much money that is not for us to adopt legislation and impose this penalty. i think i've molls hear about the inveterate circumstances a system that is so onerous intentionally to keep out bad actors and those that produce most of housing we've

approved thousands and thousands of occupant in tall building virtually none are built what we're seeing smaller developers building smaller units to make sure we're not adopting legislation that will have people through up their hands and say that is two difficult to tear down a wall that looks rot in other jurisdictions without putting a project on hold if i am looking forward make a mistake the i am looking forward didn't understand what i'm doing i am looking forward might be subject to a $50,000 penalty that might me to file bankruptcy it goes too far i'm supportive of legislation and absolutely agree with the intent to create severe penalties we need to recognize san jose of stuff is notebooks really bad actors and

need to build for guardrails into the legislation it and not rely on regulations to town to down a bit to predecessor the worst penalties for the worst bad actors and the ability to give appropriate notice and record the documents and i'll say we need to take a week or two to revise this to get it absolutely right we can figure out how to do do that today in the past we tried to do this and people are weighing in we try to correct it in a minute. we know how to poorly that is- and the last thing i support staff's recommendation to rough of 5 years prohibition (coughing) and keeps housing out of system

we need every single one to get to the 2000 and while that might seem appealing it imposed the penalty on the property owner that not effective and deprofiles us for more housing i believe i don't believe should be limited to affordable housing we need every unit a requirement for 2000 are not just affordable housing that's my comments for now. and agree having a minimum part didn't dissuade people from appealing or unwittingly appeal could have a less penalty if they don't boil and the board of appeals- >> i did walk through that scenario with the zoning administer 0 tells me the only

way someone will appeal it is fine is over 50 thousand or- >> (multiple voices). >> but agree. >> what they're doing. >> i agent limitations is inappropriate. >> thank you for letting me address that just to be clear, in the zoning administer has a penalty less than 50 thousand the applicant or responsible party with go to the board of appeals and if they uphold the decision i don't believe they're required to go up to 50 thousand they can't further reduce a penalty. so there is still no risk in getting charged more penalties? just you can take our case to the board of appeals and if they agree the zoning administer made the right decision you'll not be charged 50 thousand if you're not charged that amount by the

zoning administer. >> you know, ms. medically melanie. >> now the board of appeals can't reduce the fee low one hundred dollars a day that is a structure in place my understanding of it is more of a difference to the da in terms of there is legitimate question if it is- the board of appeals says clearly a violation just value in saying yes, but we're not going to penalize you that is all though this is the appropriate with the 250 goes to

1,000 or the larger fine a question for you all. >> i think up to give us is discretion needed to neither do all the scenarios shall be no less than in the scenario i don't know gentlemen if you want to address that. >> this is definitely we can look at, you know, you're in discussion we can go back with the city attorney i don't know remember why we choose this was many months ago but, you know, certainly think that is reasonable to take a look at that. >> thank you very much. i am looking forward support the other um, suggests that commissioner diamond made and have until march 2nd if we need it to come back with the language i'm supportive of that as well and commissioner koppel. >> thanks to everyone especially supervisor ronan helping out do i think we're all

starting to feel better about a lot of i am looking forward know a lot of going on not in a perfect world we see the cases we see and sometimes unnervious and seeking legalization i don't want that to i don't want to create more work for any of you and have any less to be here every thursday we've spent a lot of time here and like the case of san bruno cases of complete negligence and i am looking forward said that before this is the difference between people's lives safe a tourist died

standing on a deck that was not inspected. i am looking forward can't find do words how erie to say that i don't want that to happen to anyone especially, when they don't know better and thrilled to hear about the relocation language people who are sleeping in their beds and night and what in the light safety system doesn't notify them a fire or a signage on a building that is something not ann as tense don't have people held captive in a building if it was built correctly would have been inspected and all that side the building can be safe right this second and everything

is working (coughing) not if when we have the next earthquake this is why the building code is stricter than the entire world our buildings with close to each other and when one catches on fire they all catch on fire. and families are not taking that as lightly as the inspectors and developers again like certain instances we need to take this seriously before the outcomes i don't want to see an accident but someone profited and it takes a life. thank you. >> vice president moore. >> i'm very glad we had this and appreciate the candid

exchange and strongly building that commissioner diamond sowing that violations are reported from the toilet report and everything from thereon makes a significant easy for enforcement in subsequent actions and i'm appreciative for commissioner diamond saying that i am looking forward as too big lengthening the period if 15 to thirty days given the answers for the families and any other things including the timing and delivery of mail i think that makes sense for doing that because as you said as to be fair and to make it possible for being it effective the question i am looking forward hope we'll choose registered mail because

delivery mail those days is less than certain and i assume you will consider using registered mail. the thing as ownership identification many owners front of the planning commission is a secure name followed preliminarily who is called an llc and no name no real address except some kind of a mail and hope we can break through that in order to notifying the right people and sometimes owners come forward with developments and the layer who are did you recipients of the notifications

having said that, how will we document over time where are the weak points in the system? who are the bad actors? are we starting to create a discrete list confidential within the enforcement to have at least the address the types of violations and the participants so we can see a pattern. >> thank you. >> um, up to now at least from the planning department perspective the callers the who thought situation not resist we don't have punitive and as a property owner don't have that formal list here and the department of building inspection have sharing protocol but i will say kind of repeat

offender absolutely would be a fork that is adopted as e when the higher fees are warrant and we'll be allowed and kind of have the opportunity under that code if it passes as proposed we will be able to put on the record in the notices a large kind of net of responsible parties if we're aware they really are responsible. i think that will allow us to take a step in that direction than today, i building including the names around where the public themselves are identifying. where the public identifies this is happening at the same address and the same pattern and i think that is time to not only look at going forward but like a cursory

look where those projects and intermits but will take another 20 one hundred violations how we're going about that. i am looking forward sat in that commission many times public was telling us commissioners should be looking at the act of demolition this is a demolition and was solid and approved as a renovation happens again and again and need for more not tone deaf (coughing) cautious reminder to take a look at. i - i don't want to um, take avert stand on projects moving forward to the board of appeals the board of appeals just like this group is a group of volunteers and lay people in the

field. personally public utility any trust in the enforcement capacities of this department to come up with attach judgment that is needed here over the years as much as i really like the ability to take flowage the board of appeals but i don't want to agree with the board of appeals given that the knowledge i am looking forward work comes to flifrts that resembles our own and have to the point the professional judgment of this group is stronger and has more stake for me in taking it to another side and talk about taking projects to the board of appeals costs $900. it is kind of a lot of extra money i think that a waste of time and waste of money under the appeal

commander takes months i'd rather stick with the suggestion (coughing) with the administration and life that with our planning department and doing what they need to do that's my comments for now. >> commissioner braun. >> thank you. >> um, i am looking forward have really two questions i think one of the question was answered along the way but two questions and comments. >> to be point of recommendations about the fact that violations become reported with the toilet and commissioner diamond emphasis on the title will be those violations will be doing the due diligence i don't have a a sense how quickly does the notices become up here in appear in the toilet and curious had the process right now for

placing those violations on that process. >> staff want to answer that. >> sure commissioner for the question the short answer we don't do that now i don't have a time and process. what we record on properties is n s r for example, when you grant condition of approval authorization with the conditions of approval get reported on the toilet on the n s r we don't record any objection? seeing none, and have no order of you abatement or leave or anything like that that is reported through the planning department process. so governments can record on title

for situations we used that in lieu of a property owner like for them not against their will so to speak but no numbers how long along the process takes we don't currently do that. >> thank you so then the staff recommendation they note any violations includeed is that a change. >> yes. absolutely a change from how it is practiced and the notice of violation goes out to the property owner and any other responsible parties and not reported on toilet. >> i see. thank you. >> great councilmember chang. >> i guess this might be the well, house i'm curious they're still is in place criminal

enforcement and i am looking forward saw the penalties was in many ways less than the size of the jail time the actual jail time contemplated but the misdemeanor is intact in the elastics that is never pursued i'm curious to hear why it is not pursued and what the change is in the legislation. >> defer to the city attorney. >> um, that is hard for me to say i am looking forward was involved in the drafting if i had- i am looking forward hate to speculate as a general rule will be that we said to prefer the ability to bring the

criminal offense but greater latitude can you talk about how often we go that route as a city in some cases frequent or no? >> my team didn't work on the um, code-compliant issues. i can certainly forward that group i am looking forward know that team works hand in hand with coreys team and d b i am looking forward code enforcement and bring a number of lawsuits because violators but i'm not perfectly familiar with that and concludes the criminal misdemeanor. >> do you want to add to that. >> does that answer your question? commissioner all i think that answers my question we spent a lot of time here

talking about dmaeft what happens to bad actors for code of violations and not responsible for the original violations i was thinking, you know, even though the penalties in the criminal portion of the code are not severe like one more to to bring to bear or at least to bring people into guidance also a potential for district attorney's office charges as part of this as well. i don't think that is the change we have in front of us but on the whole tools and the option for combinations this legislation will get the challenges we're seeing and same

thing vista responsibility for circumstances and so part of that i am looking forward also emphasize and that the zoning administer has latitudes to determine the fee amount for the folks committing less or imagining advert. >> woormd my department starts to track a broader list of responsibilities in the code enforcement actions. of we're not necessarily taking any action on the the list when you work on the further with the penalties often change and also for the zoning administer when setting the expanded penalties

based on the violators so i'm in support but modifications by the other commissioners today such as providing additional time and suggested that makes sense to me. i'm a little bit torn still on the idea of allowing the board of appeals to completely reduce the penalties below the thresholds so forth in the legislation right now. i don't know if others have more thoughts on that i'd like to hear those, too but otherwise i'm in support of recommendations. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you for all the comments fellow commissioners, i think those are very expansive

decisions and this is the second one we need to set some motion to um, so, i mean overall i do support this legislation also the staff recommendation and also support commissioner diamonds recommendation as to in terms of the recommendation number one, to include um, you know, to include violations in the title report and all the fellow commissioners the majority of fellow commissioners to also suggested in terms of time removal of the 50 days to uphold the legislation about the thirty days. in terms of i think this process that we are having right now in terms of the fee

determining what is lawful and i'm looking forward for that discussion in terms of forks we're going to consider after what is the maximum amount. i think that is really is- i am looking forward also wanted to, you know, uphold trust in ev to have the discussions will full or intentional or i think those are really going to give us the planning department really, you know, a direction whether this is, you know- rather a specific project is intended to be in violation role. so i support that process as well. um, but- also for supervisor ronan's

office a trail legislation what commissioner koppel is saying those are the forks yes, we need to look at this seriously and also i am looking forward agree with the commissioner koppel with the life and safety issues that san francisco, you know, are building here, you know, very close to each other and those are big forks and have a lot of, you know, in the earthquake zone so some of the things maybe to be mindful. i think i'd like to make a motion with the recommendation of what has been said where (laughter) for recommendation number one, includes to include the violations isn't title report i think that language and to remove and uphold the current legislation in terms of removal this is a my motion. >> the second part.

>> uphold the what. >> recommendation number- to remove recommendations number. >> 2. >> 2. >> yeah. [off mic.] >> the motion was we have- supervisors ronan's aid communicated the comments made here to i don't want to add any particularly other conditions given we don't have the language to approve the modifications together with the recommendations as you commissioner. >> diamond. >> and communicating our part. >> can i am looking forward ask commissioner imperial did you include all the recommendations except for number two. >> i want to make sure that is

clear. >> yeah. >> all staff recommendations because reporting beyond the um, not having recommendation i am looking forward understood that first one for the modification. >> yeah. >> ; right? >> yes. the recommendations number one, in addition to the commissioner diamond. >> (multiple voices). >> ; right? >> great. >> commissioner diamond. >> just a question of clarification. um, if we did existing election products for thirty days for appeals to the da and appeal to the board of appeals? >> yes. >> okay. >> so that's simply eliminating recommendation two. okay. >> and then third, i wonder for the commissioners would indulge we have another recommendation that says something like that we

ask a supervisor ronan's office to consider though and lower limit than 50 thousand is appropriate for the violations? >> that is mandatory review it just. >> i be amenable to that with supervisor ronan's take a look at it and part of your discussion. >> i think vice president moore. >> i'm okay with that with the legislator we can leave it open for discussion. >> at that point they'll look at that a number of months since legislation was proposed and helps with the flexibility so

determination to be used depending on the circumstances is important for us and the board of appeals as well. >> with that, i don't see any other hands. >> very good commissioners there is motion has been seconded to approve the proposed legislative amendment with staff modifications amending the first proposed modification to include that the department record those as violation on the title eliminating the second property staff modification and adding um, a recommendation that the board cancers a lower limit from the proposed 50 thousand penalty. >> on that motion commissioner braun, aye. >> commissioner ruiz, aye. >> commissioner imperial, aye. >> commissioner koppel, aye. >> president tanner. >> that passes unanimously.

>> 7 to zero. >> we're going to take a break (this conference is being recorded) >> okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission for thursday, january 19, 2023, commissioners we left off on item on your regular calendar snad snad for your consideration to adopt. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners david with the earth on behalf of trent the tenderloin neon special sign

district standards you approved on august 25th and substantially adopted i didn't the board of supervisors on september 27th the installation of the new known signs in the tenderloin. this was one goal of tenderloin community action plan to foster a sense of identity and history. the ordinance requires new known designed standards to have guidelines on the neon aesthetics and placement. the proposed tenderloin neon special sign district standards includes guidance for where signs can be placed on building and how they thereby mount and best practices for the neon signs. and those are derived in consultation with ranldz home and known speak and for advocacy groups and includes the comprehensive checklist for best practices. and the neon

sign standards for guidance for insuring their having a soft touch and therefore staff recommendations you adopt those tenderloin neon special sign district standards. >> thank you. >> that concludes my presentation. and public comment members of the public your opportunity to address the commission on this week matter in the chamber come forward and if calling in remotely press star three and no requests to speak public comment is closed and. >> the item is now before you commissioners. >> >> thank you staff for bringing this forward and easy to read user friendly document and call on vice president moore. >> need to read the documents move to approve. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the standards commissioner braun, aye. >> commissioner ruiz, aye. >> commissioner imperial, aye. >> commissioner koppel, aye. >> president tanner. >> that passes unanimously. >> 7 to zero and places us (medical cannabis dispensaries and pre-existing non storefront industry) and the equity program requirements of cannabis businesses. >> good afternoon planning commission. >> motion to approve the consent agenda. of the planning department staff and today joined by the office of cannabis and before i turn it over to the office of cannabis the results

of manager and first for an application from the planting the site must be referred to the planning by the office of cannabis the licensing agency this revel after the applicant is deemed eligible for a license from the office of cannabis and planning confirmed has a viable pass for land use approval. to date the planning department has received one hundred and 58 referred locations in the office of cannabis of the would be i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of hundred and 58, 98 planning department or planning commission approval and 14 locations are there review and 20 for the application for the planning department and 26 have been withdrawn of the 98 locations received approval 76 for storefront with the cannabis retail use of 76 locations 46

received condition of approval authorization from the plan commission and the planning commission approved 5 with discretionary review and 5 were administration good evening require the approval by the cannabis related business is for the physical clarifications of the proposed location the office of cannabis is a comprehensive review including a review and approval of the operational details such as a current plan that is reviewed and commented that on by san francisco police department and mission plan for all cannabis and reviewed by the department of health and more detailed plan and permitting from the department of health is required for businesses that propose onsite smoking or vapor rooms and is office of cannabis

also requires a good neighbor operating agreement that incorporates feedback in the communities and neighbors this extends beyond it and incorporating to the licensing requirement. the office of cannabis is processing and referring to planning applications and tier 6. which includes members of the board and converting to cannabis retail and the non-storefront destroy and anticipated the number of projects that river approval by the planning commission will be reduced when compared to the processing torres there are still a number of people's exhibit 10 applications require a planning commission hearing including self on the city's west side and other with permitting

programming and portion of this presentation i will i'm going to turn it over to director with the office off cannabis thank you and i'll be available for questions. >> i'm the director of office of cannabis and joined by deputy director and we'll provide a presentation should be on the screen momentary if you can bear with me i am looking forward appreciate that. thank you. >> thanks ray. >> today is presentation will essentially breakdown into three components the first to seek some of the general permitting responsibility for office of cannabis and focus on the

modification made to the legislation that determines how we process the applications in the order we received them and colleague ray will speak about the torres were and what we are right now and the last part we'll focus on the makes we are currently progressing and has planning mentioned we are currently progressing 6 application more in the minimum minute the office of cannabis has 10 core functions these core

functions but i'm not speak details the 10 core functions with permitting and rule making basically interpreting the regulations and enforcement actions ever unpermitted cannabis activity position something the office has taken up as recently the number of complaints we received has increased compared to last year

and community outreach and exposure to prove the process and coordinating with the oversight committee and the committee is currently taking applications for now appropriate and the grant program has distributeed the $7 million at this time i'm going to turn it over to ray. >> thanks good afternoon, commissioners i'm ray senior deputy director with the offense of cannabis and as mentioned in the presentations one of our core functions to process the permit cannabis and by the law. since the establishment of article 16 the policy processing has been codified section 1606 in the original language which is reflective on the last chart.

this was 6 torres with the applicant and unincubator and medical cannibis dispensaries, applicants with commitment and all other operations in the general public in 2021 the key system was legislation passed by the board of supervisors as you can see on the right side of chart. to her one through 6 extended was two new tier- to fascinate those (unintelligible) of the city's commitment for expanded the number of torres from three to 8 a walk you through. under the current policy codified in section three of the police code this is owned

by the applicant 100 percent by applicant owned businesses are equities public school solely owned the clarification process was the office of cannabis and the new second to her is providing opportunities to manufacturers who hold primaries permits. >> with the temporary permits into permanent permits by the shared murphy space with applicants who are interested in manufacturing activity and unlike the first to her in to her that have the ability partner with investors for funds or logistics to support bus but they must retain 40 percent to be progressing in the first to

her. to her 4 is incubator when the space or technical sausages for applicants or operator (unintelligible) and receive- under this tier with the buzz by the federal government and preexisting non-conforming operators ass clarify the applicants permit cannabis business permit and next is tier 6 they are regular permits as opposed to manufacturers eligible under to her two. and temporary permits besides retail and operators must show they gave me in the cannabis business before september 18th and they

are permit applications will be processed and to her 71 all applicants that demonstrate to provide- this is followed by all other applications by the general public. so this slide this is the policy list this slide i'll discuss the tiers as of now they're three hundred and 25 permanent applications this is the number of applications it didn't mean they are three hundred and 25 unique permanent locations one operator what host and hold permits at the same location an important point and currently approximately 60 percent of those verified applications and also worth

mentioning those applications must be processed from to her 6 that include the members of the board and temporary public holder if non-cannabis operations. but it is also important to mention that the overall timeline is subject to delay depending on new applications from tiers one through 6 like i said earlier in the presentation our office is mandated to process the applications by the tiering system if we have new application we have to go back to to her one or tier three and all applications first before we go back to tier 6 from the legendary businesses that's it that concludes my presentation. and we are happy to take any

questions? commissioners. >> thank you that concludes my presentation. we should open up for public comment members of the public to address the commission on this informational presentation in the chambers come forward if you're calming in remotely press star three to raise your hand. >> and no remote callers again press star 6 to unmute yourselves. >> hello. >> commissioners and- hello. >> yes. we are addable i'm calling from vocation valley calling your attention this was a number about mandate cannabis approved by the commission i am looking forward- the one was not mentioned but in the report. that was one that was denied by

the commission but substantially approved on appeals by the board of supervisors. this is vocation valley and the commission hovered in 2021 you didn't approve that because was an existing mc d less than one hundred feet and should not have two cannabis on the retails on the same block the commission got it right and the for whatever reason the board of supervisors he overturned that on denial in the middle of 2021 where are we today nothing has been done nothing at the location. this all of a sudden operators the cannabis they got their approval and you disappeared it is an eyesore

since 2018 when the cannabis starting to look at location and now nothing. before this was a small family owned convenience store and they got crushed out the landowner of that property went with the highest bidder it is vacant since 2016. nothing. the mc d operators got their approval and disappointed i wanted to you, you know, the pictures that holly presented at the san francisco there is a side to this people who are holding the properties for for whatever reason and doing nothing with them it is stealing the commercial corridors and the warehouse district i am looking forward want you to ask yourself is that a good thing for san

francisco we don't have (bell ringing) >> the golden picture there is a downside a direct result of cannabis industry. >> okay. >> last call for public comment on this item again, if you're in the chambers come forward if you are remote press star three or raise your hand seeing none, commissioners public comment is closed and. >> the item is now before you commissioners. >> for your review. >> thank you for this informed discussion a topic at the planning commission and get applications i had a question regarding efforts to have enclosures for the the efforts one of our rolls with the physical um, set up and layout

of storefronts that type of visibility i think we do a job with the regulations but more kind of focusing on that to use or families to keep cannabis away from kids what are those uses of exposure look like we are building on a campaign that the department of health created and promoted serve years ago through taking a lot of the material and resurfacing if areas more visible for the back of buses and inside of buses and working closely with mta to get those materials designed and up and running. that sort of the scope of what we're doing but certainly open to more suggestions and thinking through

other access points to dmun information that our office will not necessarily create but we are on the look out for good information and other consents with medical teams providing to us and we can um, determine go platforms to spread that fox that's what we're currently in the process of but open to suggestion. >> i have a question about the businesses that had been engaged or threatened foreclosures by the federal government can you shed light what is the businesses they're operating and somehow unlike other cannabis that are operating out of the federal government those are singled out for enforcement i'm curious. >> i'll say that is requires

being singled out for the- i think your raising a good point how they're different than the temporary cannabis businesses on the supply side were operating and not singled out those businesses came forward to identify themselves aspirational and went through a process of registering their business that provides a ticket for permanent you conversion and the businesses had that mark against them and one of the factors western considering i'm happy to let my colleague speak to that but. >> that's right. >> greg did i miss anything. >> thank you very much. commissioner imperial. >> thank you for that short term presentation we have a question i mentioned in the enforcement actions on our part on upcoming permitted gas activity some sort of an

increase can you expand what exactly unpermitted cannabis business activities did through our office. >> happy to say worded clarifying may not be an uptick in the federal government office we have been responding to the complaints we are receiving and taking action to close the complaint. what we're sowing primary on the supply side businesses growths operating without a permit we're not aware of notified by the folks in the community and the fire department maybe activity going a strong odor that is emitted and following up to see illegal activity my colleague will be the first tell you your ability to gain entry into the

fates we're limited to conduct investigation and partner with other departments that do have more authority like the police department my conduct investigation but that requires a high-level of coordination by the time those conversations are had and actions taken the businesses maybe operating their tipped off and in the wind at that time we want to address the underlying bother not necessarily um, in and levy penalties the really goal to make sure that activity is stopped. >> sounds an increase of law enforcement under from the office but. >> yeah. i am looking forward appreciate the question something that is important for us for a period of time as you

may be aware a lot of turn around in the city the person that was leaving was called back to the department of defense we're continuing that work but in terms of having dedicated that position an area of need we understand that that the best way to promote a safe and regulated cannabis community is underlying that the best note and not incentivizing the legal space but bad actors created a disincentive so they have regulars to be followed it is important we certainly don't have the staff to address it in full and prioritizing as much as we can. >> thank you. >> for we're not an office of cannabis commission (laughter)

but at the same time, i appreciate what are the actions and activities in a way that promotes safe and regulated- and then i also want to comment on a question on the speaker on- from the phone from the public i did not get to understand what he's trying to say but sounded like like one of the projection is still not operating i'm not sure is that my understanding from the phone call first of all, in that it sounds like less vacant or property issues or someplace i am looking forward wonder what is going on i don't know if- you know, in the planning department staff. >> we have a lot of activity

i'll step to the side because it, it is a pending application we're not able to provide.

>> maintains the property we want to encourage the folks but call on commissioner diamond. >> though the 6 hundred for the burst buffer is appropriate i don't know if you're office as given that consideration if you're pursuing with the change like 6 hundred feet is still the right amount or somebody or something that existed outside of purview of your office if you can speak to that. >> i appreciate the question the latter if i'm a round of applause a 6 hundred foot buffer is in the planning code but

predates any time and the factor that we thought but about in terms of where it sits in the planning code we left that there. >> does our office have concerns with the 6 hundred foot buffer greater or thoughts in terms of what you're seeing on the street? >> that's a good question i think we need to um, probably look at 2 in terms of mapping out where are the existing businesses where they respect the businesses that were grandfathered in there's interested cannabis businesses that are buffered out because of 6 had the foot buffer that tells me certain zoned areas are attractive for cannabis businesses and to the extent of

a 6 hundred for the buffer keeps businesses that are interested out it tells me areas desirable in the city and the buffer is doing its job in limiting the number of businesses in those areas but without a further analysis it is hard to talk about. >> this comes up frequently should the buffer be large 6 hundred feet in the commission want to pursue when is the the pathway to pursue that. >> i mean, if you wanted to change the plan and direct us to explore a different, you know, we can do that we have not seen many complaint about the number

of retailers we definitely have a discussion in the mission street and excelsior and to as they're operating and open we see less and less more acceptance and recognize in problems quote/unquote but filling vacant spaces on corridors we have not looked at whether that is working or not from the public but if you want to dick is to take a look at we certainly >> i'll (captioning is ending at this point due to the time limit provided for captioning)

how many applications are pending and where that green zone is to look at. look at the buffer if you want to. i would just say as somebody who frequently comments on the buffer. it's one of those things that if somebody were to expand it, i would welcome it. i don't know, given the amount of projects we have and the things that are important to this commission in the city that it's probably not worth spending staff time on, but someone's listening and wants to make it like 1000 ft between i think that could be good, but it's more from my perspective from a

saturation standpoint of just having a concentration in the city of having you know, and not because they're bad or anything , but just more kind of what diversity want to have in our commercial areas. um and i think a lot of them operate very well. very professionally, very clean, great to have a filled storefront. um i think maybe one thing i would ask you talked a little bit about the youth campaign, and i'm just that's that is what comes up a lot from the public when we hear from the public is people worried about sensitive uses, and i know part of the rationale is that when we map all the sensitive uses daycares and after school programs and other things we get to having you know no cannabis dispensaries that anywhere in the city, and at the same time we're having campaigns to try to dissipate the youth from using cannabis. it sounds like and yet we're saying, well, all these other sensitive uses that have kids. where are not important? i don't know what the rate of, you know, walking by dispensary and decided to use cannabis is compared to just a kid having access to it through some other means, which is not through the dispensary itself. it's through parents or family or friends or what have you so i just wonder if you could just dive a little

bit deeper into what are the problems we're having with our youth. and what exactly are you trying to dissuade them from doing? and i don't know if that has any relation again to our work. or if it's more just, you know, public health campaign messaging to help you understand the consequences of using cannabis could you share like what are we trying to message to them? and what are the challenges we're facing? i want to make sure i'm understanding the question fully. but what i'm gathering is what is the messaging and ultimately it's around. spreading awareness about what the adverse effects are of prolonged use of cannabis and tobacco in general, right. it's sort of if you're going to use use responsibly. it's in that vein. it's not, and i think this is sort of born from the fact that past campaigns we've learned from if you try and scare people away from doing something, it doesn't work, so it's more of an educational route of these are the effects. this is what the medical research suggests. if you're going to use this is what could happen, but not in a sort of

threatening or don't do it kind of way more just to empower you with more information that's very, very helpful. medical and commission more and then commissioner couple. first thank you for really explaining the significantly complex structure on which you're working over the years. i was not aware that your responsibilities and you're tasking is as broad as it is, and i very much appreciate that was the overlay of what this department does. i think we have a really good infrastructure to deal with the, um issue of cannabis and where it should be. i want to briefly comment on commissioners diamonds question on the 600 ft radius. i would like before i would entertain examining that question. i would like to get a reading on the economic viability of the number of stores we have in this particular line of business. when i read the papers. uh, and

again that may be information that is not verified. it sounds to me as if we have too many stores. too much competition and not really is a cut type of successful business operations that people originally envisioned when cannabis first would legalized. is that a correct summary of what i think i'm reading? too much competition, not enough revenue. it's a really interesting point you raise and the first thing i want to say is i agree with you that we would love a market saturation analysis just to get a better understanding of what or small san francisco footprint can manage. so first and foremost, we get this question a lot is are there too many businesses and the reality is we don't know yet there hasn't been analysis done that is informative. that is current that takes into account the number of current cannabis businesses that are permitted so first and foremost, yes, i totally agree with that. the

second piece, and i think this is also very interesting about competition is it's very hard to separate some of the market. the macro market conditions that are occurring right now. it is a tough time to be in the cannabis space as a whole taxes are generally high regulations or costly the cost of flour has significantly dropped. the pandemic has reduced foot traffic into a lot of these businesses. so when we hear that it's a tough time for cannabis businesses and they're not doing as well. we take that in stride because we believe there are a lot of factors that are contributing to it, where competition plays into that. i think it's a piece of it. but to your point there needs to be some sort of analysis to better understand how much of a driver it is, in the challenges that we're hearing from our operators . at this point time, it's hard to tell because if you looked at what the market conditions were several years ago, it was a great time to be in the cannabis space, and that's something that i routinely sort of. repeat is that trends in this space are

very hard to predict intern or very hard to determine how predictive they are because the space is relatively nascent. we're five years into this. and if you look at every year over the last five years, the trends have looked a little bit different. this is a tough time. make no mistake about that, and there are a lot of factors that are contributing to it. we would love to understand where sort of competition and the number of cannabis businesses in our geographic fiddled fits into that conversation. thank you for the dancer. i want to follow up as a question from mr christiansen. and this is a tag onto the first part of my question. i see a number of cannabis businesses, sisters that this commission has approved, however, for an extended period of time. i see those particular locations not being realized. leland project reported graffiti. i can report to the same phenomenon, graffiti and unapproved location on polk street and another large

location on polk street would was never realized, and the new boats themselves are wondering what is going on and again. this is not an expression of how neighbors have different feelings about cannabis. yes or no. but when the business is not realized, and turns out to be a negative influence was graffiti and will tool neglect on the street. then i think we need to respond, and i'm wondering what your thoughts on that sure. michael christensen department staff. um you know, vacant storefronts are of course, a very severe issue in every neighborhood. um really, interestingly enough in los angeles when they had this process of shutting down unauthorized cannabis dispensaries, they realized that crime rates in the areas actually increased because they vacant storefront was actually worse than an unauthorized illicit cannabis dispensary. um . and vacancies, of course, an issue throughout the city and talking with our applicants and thinking about why we've had

these lags. we've certainly heard that applicants struggle with getting architects, engineers getting the consultants and everything that they need to navigate the cities. complex. building permitting process through db i we've certainly seen very commonly this very large lag between the date of approval of a conditional use. authorization to want a building permit his first filed and then of course, when the building permit is obtained that process plays out for all applicants in the city, and it's something that we are all navigating, um, but for cannabis applicants who many times you know, this is their first time interacting with an agency with the city or an agency like t b. i then may just experience a little bit of difficulty in navigating that, um beyond that the office of cannabis certainly works directly with these applicants and may be able to provide a little bit more insight on what

particular difficulties they face. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner koppel. uh yeah. i'm really thrilled with the report today. super glad to see that over the course of the months and years we've seen a lot more equity as far as spreading out of the dispensaries in the city, because if you if you look at the map, there's still almost you know a lion's share of them were up in the northeastern part of the city, and i'm just glad we're hearing cases on in other parts of town and other neighborhoods. um just so you know, for access. we can spread it out evenly. um do you guys have any thoughts on the next up and coming? divide um, substance in in oakland there now, giving their now giving out mushrooms as communion at a church. in oakland, is that what's on on deck for us next? i do not know . um what? i what i did want to

build on one of the questions previously about vacant storage spaces because we don't often get to celebrate wins in the space. but what i do want to draw attention to is the office of cannabis this past year hired three dedicated permit analysts and we've seen the dividends from that decision. we have issued almost twice as many permits in the last year as we did the previous three years or two years before that, we're approaching almost 40 equity cannabis businesses and if you look at what the existing cannabis, the existing number of businesses in the cannabis space was prior to passage of prop 64. it was about 35 medical cannabis dispensary. so we are reaching a point where we're seeing a lot of the applications that were submitted early on years ago. being moved through the process a little bit faster, as my colleagues have described here, there are a variety of different factors that can delay the process for folks. no single application looks the same, and

businesses face over variety of different hurdles. but what we are happy to report is that the number of cannabis businesses that are getting to a point of actually being permitted. that has picked up over the last year and we anticipate that that will continue and in large part, it's because we're staffed a little bit better. we've reprioritized a little bit, and it's showing one of the other things i wanted to just speak to very quickly was with respect to the conversation around the 600 ft buffer. there are sort of two factors that come into mind that would be relevant for that conversation. one is that if a business has been grandfathers in then, regardless of what the buffer changes to those businesses are already in, and so i had heard earlier that there were some concerns around the congestion in the mission. i think it's worth noting that that was a combination of older businesses that were already grandfathered in and applications that have been submitted, um within those spaces, but whether it's a 200 ft buffer or 800 ft buffer. it

wouldn't have made a difference because those bills, those businesses were already grandfathered in the other, really important factor to consider and i think it would be in consultation with the city attorney's office is just what the city's legal exposure might look like if the buffer was changed, and it was applied to impact the applications that have already been submitted. so if you have submitted an application, and it's within 800 ft of another business. under the old set of rules, it would have been a viable application for us to begin processing. let's say there are two years into their process and then the buffer changes. if it applies to them. they're two years in invested hundreds. tens of thousands, if not hundreds of $1000. i'm not sure what i'm not sure what the impact might look like they're so maybe it doesn't apply retroactively. maybe it's just moving forward. but that would certainly i think have to be a part of that consideration . and when you think about 60% of our applications being from

verified equity folks the entire point of this. this effort is to not re traumatize people from the effects of the war on drugs over a period of 30 years, and so that's something we would be front center for us as a part of that conversation. and then just one more thing. i think the supervisors are entertaining potential caps. a cap or caps on i don't know how they're gonna work all that out, but on the districts themselves thank you very much. i don't see any other supervisor, supervisor, commissioner hands up. ah so i think yeah, i think great. thank you for this great presentation and just looking forward to guess not seeing that many more applications here, but i'm sure there's some that are still coming to the planning commission. we appreciate the invitation to present thank you for having us. thank you. great thank you. commissioners that will place us on item. 12 for case number 2019-4110 e n v hyphen 02. for the whole foods project at 26 75, gary street.

um. this is the draft environmental impact report. please note that written comments on the draft year or will be accepted. at the email listed on the agenda or the planning department until five pm on january 30th. 2023. can we have the. the presentation. yeah. excellent. thank you. good afternoon, president tanner and members of the commission. i'm rachel shut, planning department staff and environmental coordinator for the whole fields at 26 75 gary boulevard project , joined today by just arranged the principal planner for the project. the item before you is review and comment on the draft, environmental impact report or draftee ir. no approval of the project is requested at this time. the purpose of today's

hearing is to take public comments on the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the draft er pursuant to the california environmental quality actor sequa and san francisco's local procedures for implementing sequel. the project site is a the project site is a vacant retail space on level three of the city center shopping center, which is located at the southeast corner of gary boulevard and masonic avenue in the western addition neighborhood the proposed project is a change of use. the vacant retail space was last occupied by best buy in 2017, the project sponsor, is proposing to renovate the space for a new whole foods market grocery store. parking lot c on level three would be available for whole foods market customers . loading activities would occur from loading docks on level to access via o'farrell street. no changes to your vehicle parking , bicycle parking, loading driveway, access on site circulation or to the public right away are proposed. the

only exterior construction would involve replacing to dock levelers, installing new signage and expanding the roof dot mechanical penthouse to accommodate new refrigeration equipment and upgraded heating, ventilation and air conditioning or hvac equipment. this is not the first time that this project has come before the planning commission. on june 25th 2020, the planning commission issued a conditional use authorization to permit a formula retail use whole foods market within an nc three zoning district. this approval was supported by class 32 categorical exemption issued in may of 2020 on september 11th 40th, the department rescinded the category categorical exemption and issued a common sense exemption. concluding that there is no possibility that the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment. the common sense exemption was appealed to the board of supervisors and a public hearing on the appeal was held in november. 2020 at the hearing of the board granted the appeal, reversing the determination that the proposed project is exempt from sequa. specifically the board directed the planning department to

further analyze potential air quality impacts on sensitive receptors in the year of the project site. regarding all other environmental issues, the board found that the exemption met the requirements of sequa and indicated that no further analysis was required. the board's findings supporting that decision were published march 16th 2021 on march 24th 2021, the project sponsor, submitted revised project plans which i'll discuss in the next slide. the department published and notice of preparation of an e i. r. and an initial study for the project on june 22nd 2022 2 comments on the scope of the environmental analysis through july 22nd 2022. on december 14th 2022, the department published the draft er, which addresses the issues raised by the board regarding potential air quality impacts. so as i mentioned, revised plans were submitted by the project sponsor revised plans reduce the floor plate size characteristic independent restaurant cafe uses to be seating areas for the on

site, consumption of prepared foods and beverages and added an expansion of the rooftop mechanical penthouse to accommodate new new refrigeration equipment, including a 23 ft tall cooling tower. and upgraded hd equipment . the addition of this new mechanical equipment required additional some additional noise analysis. the following slides outlined the additional analysis that was conducted and the conclusions reached in the draft er on the topics of noise and air quality. so for noise, the new mechanical equipment would be located on level four, which is adjacent to the bright horizons daycare playground. acoustical analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential for the mechanical equipment impacts that sensitive receptors at the daycare playground. the analysis also evaluated the project. mechanical equipment noise levels against the limits in the noise ordinance. the analysis determine the analysis determined that the new mechanical equipment would exceed exceed noise limits at the playground and at the

northern property plane. installation of noise attenuation features, most notably a sound wall around the cooling tower would reduce noise impacts to a lesson. significant level is attenuation. measures are included as mitigation measure. m n 03 and, um, have been agreed to you by the project sponsor. based on the boards direction, the drafty ir evaluates the potential for the proposed project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. sensitive receptors include children at the at the daycare playground and residents immediately north and south of the shopping center. impacts to workers within the city center shopping center were also evaluated. the primary concern expressed by the appellant at the appeal hearing was that grocery stores receive a high volume of daily deliveries. many of those deliveries are made by trucks that use diesel fuel and a portion of those have a second diesel engine to keep refrigerated goods cold in the container. these trucks emit

diesel particulate matter a toxic air contaminants that can affect human health. consultant quantified criteria, pollutants and toxic air contaminant emissions from project construction and operations, performed air dispersion modeling to determine the pollutant concentrations at those receptors and calculated the particulate matter, concentrations and results, resulting cancer risk from construction and operational sources of emissions. the draft ei are found that all project level and cumulative air quality impacts from project construction and operations would be less than significant. secret requires that an e i r evaluate a no project alternative and alternatives that would lessen the project significant impacts. the only significant impact identified in the ir is noise from the projects. mechanical equipment will this impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

the alternatives analysis in the ir focused on reducing the project's mechanical equipment noise in accordance with the requirements of siga. the e i r considered 10 project alternatives and brought three forward for evaluation. as shown on this slide. shown here there there are two no project alternatives. under alternative a one the site would remain vacant. under alternative to the site would have a new tenant, but the tenant would only sell dry goods. for example, clothing , electronic books furniture and would not require cold storage, so no cooling tower would be required. this alternative assumes that any upgrades to the h v. a c equipment would result in similar noise levels to the existing equipment. alternative b moves the cooling tower from level four. this is the blue square on this on this figure to level three in parking lot c near the building facade. it's the purple square. this would increase both the vertical and

horizontal distance between the cooling tower and the daycare playground alternative would also include a taller cooling tower, which is quieter. alternative b would still require sound attenuation measures to meet the northern property. plain noise limits, but the sound will sound walls around the cooling tower would not be required. in this way. alternative b would reduce the project significant noise impact at the daycare receptors. alternatively is considered the environmentally superior alternative. today the department is seeking comments on the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the draft. er. staff is not here to respond to comments at this hearing. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing and responses to comments document which will respond to all relevant verbal and written comments received during the public comment period and make revisions to the draft er as appropriate. from members of the public who wish to provide verbal comments, please state your name for the record and speak slowly and clearly so that

the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. anyone who would like to comment on the draft e i . r in writing may submit commons via email or by mail. all of my contact information is included on this slide and in the notice of availability of the drafty ir hard copies of this presentation, and the notice are available on the table to my left. please contact me by phone, email or post if you would like a hard copy of the draft e i r or the responses to comments document this concludes my presentation. thank you. thank you. we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on the draft. e i r. um if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing no members of the public and the chambers coming forward. we'll go to our remote callers again. you need to press star three to be added to the queue and you need to press star six when prompted to unmute yourself.

go ahead caller. yes my name is peter divine and i live in the end of the neighborhood on encanto and i would like to speak for the whole foods project. number one. that particular city mall, which used to be occupied fully by syria's roebuck has never been fully filled. ever since he was left. we had mervyn's that fills a good portion of it in toys r us. mervyn's gone toys r us is gone . um, they don't new buildings over the parking lot. um on masonic and those remain empty for 2.5 years. the present site where hope foods wants to go has been empty since 2018. so it's

sort of got aborted up. feeling to it is a shopping mall that needs to be fixed. that's number one number two, we lost a number of stores, little corner grocery stores in our area during the pandemic on clement on cabrillo on, ah broaddrick on enza, etcetera and. cowan gary closed a long time ago. now that's toyota and instead of this great market that then became clear one has gone so there aren't a lot of options in our neighborhood. um we need another option and we need something with, you know, fresh whole foods and vegetables. third this would benefit. um no as a neighborhood that people visiting patients in kaiser hospital because you have the cafe, you have sandwiches, salads. fruits and vegetables, all that available to people visiting the hospital, and there's nothing else in the neighborhood that would serve them. okay? fourth great

handicapped parking for those of us who are handicapped and need to be able to shop. this is a perfect solution to that. okay? um. and finally, five in revives the neighborhood. because that mall has been sort of a blight for a long, long time, and it's important to bring that back. i agree with the environmental report that plan b is a better solution for the noise reduction and all that, and i applaud the fact that the whole foods people offered that as an alternative, so i'd like to speak very much in favor of whole foods going into that city center mall. thank you very much. thank you. i will remind members of the public that we're taking comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft environmental impact report, not necessarily the project itself.

good go ahead caller. i just spoke a minute ago. i don't know. i'm being asked, and i'm glad you like to hear me twice. i'm great. thank you. i'm sorry. our webex platform likes to, um now. jumbled the numbers out of order. you need to press stars six to amuse yourself. yes good afternoon. this is mr

jameson. i live in the end of his also and the best actually live on and the best if i am for the whole foods project going through. when you had the comments at the board of supervisors meeting and a lawyer got up and spoken. it was throwing out so much data about environmental pollution everything else. he was using data that's like 10 years old. by the time whole foods opens. all their vehicles will be electric, not diesel. so that needs to be considered in what people are thinking. um the other thing is so many people were saying, oh, i don't want whole foods going in there because jeff visa has too much money or they're not union. i'm a retired union member. the job itself will create over $6 million. well, that was a year ago, so it's probably about $7 million worth of construction cost money, and that's very beneficial for all the employees in san francisco. when the planning commission approved the wallenberg remodel, not 17.

cisco contractor was hired to do any of the work school district was allowed to hire out and like now we have a lighting problem. but the contractor from grass valley he's out of business, and no one knows how to control the lighting system under title 24. so i'm for the whole foods going in there. it's something we can walk to a shop very easily. so we get our exercise and we also get breakthrough breast meat. yeah it's very viable for the neighborhood if someone said before uh, best buy went down in a shadow 2018. i think it's even before that. and that space has been vacant symptoms. please do what you can to get this moving forward. ah! if you say yesterday in his book supervisors say yes, tomorrow it's still gonna be four years before the store opens. we waited a long enough time. thank you for your time. have a good evening.

go ahead caller. good evening, everybody. my name is sergeant ferrari, local 38, plumbers and pipefitters. san francisco also the building trades member. i am 100% for the report. and i agree like the caller prior to me. we should move this forward. thank you for everyone who had their hand and doing their great job and let's get this thing going. it's a great location. and it's a great area. thank you. good night.

okay and you need to press star six to amuse yourself. there you go. okay? can you hear me? we can okay. uh my name is about sodini, uh, president of the answer to the neighborhood association. in our neighborhood directly about city center mall . uh, i also have to agree that the e i r is complete. i think it's accurate. uh we get a ton of wind up here and i can't see any pollution. uh, from this project. um it just blows the dust up here all the time. and i also have to agree with the 1st 1st respondent. that mentioned that we definitely need a grocery store up here. many of our residents including myself are teaching. summary disabled, some are unable to drive. for us getting groceries in our homes can be a real challenge. i

believe for us. it all comes down to having a grocery store that our seniors can get to it's not a nice city. it's an assess itty. i also think not being considered is the fact that only a retailers that can generate a large amount of foot traffic can survive in the mall. this space has been vacant for at least five years because retailers know how difficult it is to complete compete with online sales. oh you have to do is ask the good guys. best buy mervyn's toys, arrests. they couldn't make it. we can't wait another five years to find another retailer with the bright, bright business model. we need our market. can you need your tax revenue? so please don't wait and let this opportunity slip away. thank you. mr gonzalez. members of the

planning commission. good evening. thank you for your service and patients. this has been a fascinating and i think positive experience for anybody who's been watching and listening along. uh my name is rudy gonzalez. i represent the building and construction trades council here in san francisco, where the literally the hands that build the city. um and we're calling in today to express our support for the draft. e i r we think the analysis is not only adequate, it's more than thorough and more than satisfies the disclosure requirements. undersea quite frankly, the whole foods project is a relatively modest project in terms of just, you know, seeking your re tenant. situation for an existing commercial building. we believe that this is a chronically underutilized space and that whole foods and the entire sponsored team have done a great job, although it's taken a long time, i think they've done their

homework dotted all the i's and cross the teas and i'd like to take this opportunity to also just highlight some of the economic benefits in terms of creating a couple of 100. new construction jobs for local workers and workers in the community. they have also committed to first source hiring agreement with the city and county so we can make sure that some of the new operations jobs at the store are actually filled by san francisco residents. there's meaningful tax revenues you've heard from other callers . um, and the expansion obviously of healthy, nutritious food, but to the point on secret . we believe that they have done a thorough and adequate job. we appreciate your support for the draft. e i r. thank you very much for your time. great thank you last call for public comment on the draft environmental impact report. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners. public comment on

the draft. e i r is closed and this is now your opportunity to review and comment. thank you. staff for your presentation. do any commissioners have any comments on the draft? e i r. thank you. i don't see any hands. commissioner couple moved to approved d i r. i think we're just taking comments today. rescind that motion. uh expedite the process. sure, more. i only want to comment that i believe, but it's in front of us is complete and accurate is actually very interesting to see the large shopping center being retrofitted to accommodate a use like whole foods and that it's possible given sitting on level three was the ability to create a proper uh, ventilating ducting system for the refrigeration

stuff. glad to see it happen. long overdue and thank you. a second. those comments thank you , commissioner more. there are no comments from the commissioner's. we can move on to items 13 a through d for case numbers. 2015-4568. dnx hyphen 02. see you a hyphen 02. s h d hyphen 02. and v a r hyphen 02. for the property at 10, south fairness avenue commissioners, you will consider the request. for downtown project authorization, conditional use authorization and shadow findings, and the acting zoning administrator will consider a request for variants. good evening. i think in the evening our president tanner vice president more commissioners. i'm nick foster with department staff. happy new year to each and every one of you. so tense

often s. you're all familiar with the site. this is the southwest corner of arguably two of our city's most prominent and iconic thoroughfares, um, sometimes referred to as the honda site sometimes referred to as the fillmore west side, but it's 10 south van ness. ah at least after you probably remember this project from 2.5 years ago in june of 2020 when it was first approved, we are focused on a modified project that's before you today. this project would do predominantly some massive changes to the single tower, some removing some notches, adding a few notches. the podium is for all intent and purpose intact, as was approved 2.5 years ago. within that edition of 46 units. ah from going from 966 units up to 1012 , which is a pretty significant number. the total gfa or gross floor area for the rez residential would increase by about 12,000 square feet, and then similarly, the retail floor area would drop by about 10,000 square feet for new residential parking spaces and 39 new class

one bike parking spaces and then also of note the project sponsor is seeking. basically one additional year on top of the three years for the vested period for the entitlement window. three just happened to be sort of department policy. it's not hard coded in our planning code. but for reasons the project sponsor can get into. if you have questions for them. they can elaborate as to the why there. um of the 739 exceptions being sought. they are the same that were from 2.5 years ago. i think it's worthy of note that five of them are materially the exact same the two that are changing our exposure. it's actually beat this new modified project is arguably more co compliance, uh , going from 34 units that did not mean exposure down to eight, which is less than 1, which is actually very strikingly amazing that a project this size only has less than 1% that doesn't mean exposure and then dwelling unit mix is going sort of arguably in the wrong direction from 19% meeting code down to 14 , albeit a small relative amount, but just wanted to make

that abundantly clear to you all . um the c u is the same as basically for a single retail use above 6000 square feet. ah if you're curious, that was 9087 before, and it's actually being reduced down to 64 or 67, so just barely above the threshold there. and the variance is the exact same before it's a width of opening its 20 ft. exceeded the code the acting administrator will hear and potentially opine on that this evening. um also of note the shadow much like what we did for one oak. um we do not have discretion under section 295 to say whether reckon park is a department and record park as a commission show here or not here an item. it's their line call, so we shared the updated shadow analysis with park staff who then shared it with the general manager of the record part department who consulted with the rec and park commission. they conferred and said we are waiving our right to hold hearing you have that memo in your packet nonetheless, per 2 95. you still have to take action on that. um the

affordable housing compliance program is the same as it was before. there's a memo in there in your packet, basically alluding to the recipient site or donor site. if you will 1979 mission being able to capably handle at least 35% of the principal project, which is tense out that nest and this project is complying. through the allowance with the band s market std, which is a land dedication, which is pretty unique to the hub. um on the secret front. the i r was certified on may 2021 of 2020 through motion number 207 to 0. staff level, reviewed the modified project and agreed that i noted file was most appropriate and compliant with sequel law. and you have that notifiable dated december 21 2022. wrap up here quickly. few minor corrections in the draft motion. there was an erroneous reference to dwelling in mixed percentage. that was incorrect in your three or nine motion. i will update if you so choose to take action tonight and then also, i think of note. the plans that are before you so the

official plans that is exhibit b and there was a layer of those, unfortunately missing on three sheets a 21 b one through 82101. which showed the sort of placeholder for the below grade munich connection to the vienna station, which included a elevator and escalator and then the sort of shell of the space at grade. those labels and the graphics themselves are shown correctly on exhibit c, which is a reference that and sort of obnoxious in the color, but it was to show the overlay of the two sets. um, apologies. it was just it was an oversight. the also missed myself. um but obviously, if it's adopted tonight, we will make sure that exhibit b is updated public comment. the project sponsor did extensive public comment except community reach, starting in 2017 3 approval of 2020 today we have not received any letters in opposition or support this project, and we obviously steadfastly stand behind this project would you find to be necessarily compatible and desirable for the reasons as

outlined the draft motion and unbalanced, still consistent with the general plan, policies and findings. so we recommend approval and course i'm here for any questions. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. i think so, yeah. good evening. president tenor commissioners. i'm jim abrahams . i'm land use counsel to the project sponsor. we'd like to respect respectfully request your support tonight for this request for an extension. one thing i want to clarify, so we're asking for a four year extension from today's date, but the existing is hiding ones do not expire until march, 2024. so we are here proactively and the extension if you take it from the date of the entitlements would actually lapse in march, 2024 is less than a three year extension, so i think this is a very, very important clarification. we are here proactively because we have a lender who is requiring us to have the entitlements extended. the project sponsor. um you know, is endeavoring to

construct this project and build this project, but it needs this extension to close alone is expected to close in february, and that's a condition to the loans closing. um the project is , you know, uh, substantially the same. there's a 5% increase in the unit count. there are some changes to the massing and the design of the tower. however there is a maximum 12,000 square foot floor plate requirement in this area. it cannot be waived. there's no exception permitted and that tower meets. that means that exception so although the tower is, um is modified and somewhat of a jingle like manner . there's notches that are moved in different places and square footage that is added and subtracted in various areas. the overall average floor plate is still 12,000 square feet. um let me see. i'd like to remind the commission that this project did it already purchased and donated to the city. the site in 1979 mission. this is, i think

incredibly important, given that this was more than $40 million purchase. i think it's notable in somewhat unusual that a project would spend uh, a significant amount of amount of money upfront. make that commitment. make it happen, you know, years prior to commencing construction, um, finally, the project sponsor has already filed a site permit. they found the site permit in march 2022 so that is proceeding and, um, the packet that's before you tonight is, i would say probably unusually dense from what you're used to seeing. we had an internal debate in my office and also with nick about whether or not to include a summary of the site permit or the actual site permit, because because we have a site from it, and because somebody spent the time and energy to prepare it. we thought it was appropriate to include it. so i'm here for any questions, and i appreciate your attention to this. thank you. for that concludes sponsors presentation. we should take

public comment. again members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you're here in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling and remotely any depressed star three you're on webex. raise your hand. hi. my name is robert hefner. um i live right across the street from where the project is going to be. on market street. my building market franklin um 12 street i can see directly down from my building. my building is, um all disabled people. 65 units, um i've been there 30 years. the building construction that's been going on along market street is slowly slowly, slowly , creating more more shadow on our building. now. of the disabled people are building a

good 50% are mentally ill. now you know, sunlight makes a big difference, okay? um. that tower is just going to obliterate our sunlight. there's no doubt about it. because it's right in the direction of where the sun is. this guy. i mean, we'll get some in the afternoon, but screw the mornings. um. so that i had questions about that. i also have questions about the wind. um, because oh, gosh. venice can be very windy market speak can be very windy. have you ever been on franklin street when it's windy? it will blow you right down the street. now if you put another 61 story tower right down the street from a 55 and another one. that's 44. i

know. they say it's not 61 stories. well, 610 teeth is eating kwon stories. okay anyway , if you do all of that, you're just creating more and more wind blow and shaft. and share. put that with the darkness, and it's going to create on the sidewalk. just i am. i can't see it becoming a better situation. i just seriously darker. now originally, when we heard about them wanting to put up buildings there, we were told they were going to put up to 30 to 35 story towers. nobody really objected to that because they're going to put an alley between well then. we hear? no, it's going to be 45 stories. one tower now it's going to be 60 points stories. it's getting out of hand. i just think that there needs to be a little more. oversight and looking at this

because if socially quote, equity is really important to the city, then you can't just screwed those people across the street. thank you for your time. okay last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star three to enter the queue or raise your hand on webex, seeing no additional request to speak missionaries public commonest close in this matter is now before you. three thank you to staff for a great chris presentation. thank you. also the project sponsor. i do wonder. i don't know if mr foster you want to speak to this, mr abrams the questions we just got about shadow and wind, the shadow study focused obviously on the public parks, but maybe if you can shed some light on kind of how the shadow is or is not maybe following in neighboring buildings and others aren't protected, but just for our benefit. and then likewise with wind. just kind of i think

we all know that van has corridors. very windy. uh it's so windy. you could be very still a few blocks away. and then suddenly you're like being blown away. um, so i don't know if you could talk a little bit about how this building tried to mitigate some of the wind but maybe couldn't get it all the way to where we want it. to be sure, i'll do my best. nick foster the promise of so on these the shadow aspects so again, this is not subject to section 295. so we're not talking about rpg properties. um section 1 46 the planning code talks about a son bangle plain and particularly the subject frontage here would be market street and so actually, one of the 309 exceptions being sought , just like i was in 2020 is not to exceed that that plane and two step back as much as humanly possible project sponsor did what they could in terms of loading the tower on the site originally, if i'm not mistaken during the stages project actually had two towers. um and morphed into one, um the shadows that are they're called out in the three oh, nine motion in terms of where they are

potentially will be are analyzed under sequin. and they're not subjected to 95 there will the sequel analysis mostly focuses on open space like stevenson, for example, on mint plaza. the subject property as i understand it is on the north side of market. and so it's a it's a private property. it's not doesn't constitute as an open space per se, but nonetheless, um 1 46 does analyze shadow impacts and attempts to get sponsors to minimize shadow load on sidewalks, for example, which clearly are public in nature, so we believe they've done the best job they possibly could. um, and again, the material project is a carbon copy in terms of the overall massing not being shifted from what it was two years ago on the wind, similar numbers, the number of these are criterion comfort exceed ince's above 11 mph in terms of an average number of mph and average day between seven and six pm, um there is only see.

eight locations that would have one mile per hour edition with this, i think it was 50 test locations and e. eight of them would have a one mile per hour on average accidents, and this is actually the exact same as it was in 2020. i will point out there is a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. mm rp, which is hard coded per the secret, um , certification and the secret of findings that you approved two years ago. that does require the project provide canopies at about pedestrian level. as well as street plantings and other features along the right of way both. i think it's just van ness, but perhaps 12 street as well to help mitigate win where appropriate, so thank you very much. very excellent reporting. um, see commissioner more with her hand. having been part of the previous approvals. the project as it is brought forward today has not significantly changed from what was approved

in 2020 and its physical appearance, the increase and small filling of notches. i think it's hardly distinguishable, at least from a physical point of view. the i am glad to hear mr abrams, explaining that the extension for four years is indeed factually only three years because i was concerned that having the intersection being very much in flux on all corners , including what was announced to be a project under construction, where nothing has happened in the last few months. that is so d, uh ah 30 by ness. uh that something has to happen here. uh, the, um. the question i have is, it is a concern. that i think we all share. see. abandonment of larger family units is of concern. ah and partially so because we had all

said. common goal. and all buildings to support mix of large, family oriented units and the smaller ones, which is the one bedroom and studios and we pretty much abandoning the three bedroom units. could you perhaps explain to us? uh was this the only way of how you could do this? absolutely so crescent heights, i think is probably in the best position to understand the market of this intersection because they own and operate the building a block away. neema 10th. it's a rental building with they're finding now is that the units that are not renting are there two and three bedroom units and the units that are indeed renting are the studios and one bedrooms and so they are trying to do everything they possibly can to get this project to move forward to be financially feasible in order to do that they are talking over to the studios and one bedrooms that they know are renting better at neema. that said, if you know if the market changes

if you know if there's increased domain for two and three bedroom units, that will be something that would consider. it's also i think a policy discussion rights, apologized policy discussion commission and the department about two and three bedroom units and, you know, given the regulatory trade offs of everything that you know, we all want in the city. um if we're going to trade two and three bedroom units for something else, what would those things be in terms of the cost of the project? this strong argument that this project has for it is its commitment to 1979 mission. there are few other projects in this area, which have made the commitment and it's for that reason that i'm inclined to support the project . despite some shortcomings that i voiced a few years ago. the one thing i would like to ask, recommend or suggest, uh, 12 street in the course of building and realizing this building is the future really residential

neighborhood speed. the street was son. the street was slow moving pedestrians, etcetera, etcetera. we have projects on the other side of that street now coming into fruition. and i would like to make sure that whatever the developer can do to help that this street improves by your project has not been built. yet we need both sides ultimately to realize 12th street and what we have been experiencing. particularly at the time when the planning department was still in the older building on notice street . we all walked down 12 street, but it's steeplechase. was now stabilizing of 12th street. i hope that there is some way of how this owner. take some responsibility of maintaining the street, at least even on the unoccupied side of the street. i'm just asking that we cannot make it a condition but that is very important to me because this project will not becoming

online as quickly as i talked. and also my comments. thank you . thank you. commissioner definitely support the comments on stewarding still 12th street even in this interim period. commissioner imperial. thank you, vice president. more, um first, i, you know, um and thank you for giving us an update. by the way on the on the status of your site permit and the and it sounds like that that there is still that continuous commitment in the 1979 missions. really i'm not going to lie in a way that i do feel a little bit disappointment into in terms of the dwelling. unit mix. um as as a commission. you know, we do. there is actually a requirement for dwelling unit mix and at this point is actually not in compliance, or it is an accepted from the event ness and market residential special use district , but i understand that the trade off for that is that

commitment for 19 7 to 9 mission street, so there is a big emphasis for me. to make sure that this project is actually built and that commitment remains today. um, today, um to the. to the community. um and at first my first reaction to this . i hope this is not like one oak street project that we know where the financials are still being figuring out and um and i hope that this project really falls through. um but, um, so i guess this is a question more in the staff in terms of the dwelling unit mixed requirement. um. and i guess for all of us in the commission as well in terms of the trade offs, i think you as the sponsor gave us a give a good kind of question. like what are the trade offs like there is this um you know, affordable housing, but at the same time, um we want also to be in

compliance, and in our planning goes that we have so um how i mean, is this kind of like the, um i guess this is kind of like the trade off in which the department that okay will not meet the dwelling mixed, right? um you know requirement it will be exempted from the s u d, um and therefore. where eliminating i mean limiting three bedroom and of course, there are some market analysis on that as well. but also at the same time we reduced the two bedroom units as well. so, um so, yeah, so i think it's more of an open ended question. and if you you know if you would like to respond to that, mr foster thank you, commissioner. so the 309 is the code relief that's being sought just as it was in 2020 wholesale 309, or conditional use other authorization is available to most projects, depending on the geography of the city. and for the sake of the argument project could come through with the

state density bonus law project and seek either a waiver or concession or incentive based on whether it's residential density controlled by a lot area or residential density controlled by foreign based project, so there is a menu of options i understand from policy call, and i respect that. and i agree with you, um but nonetheless, strictly speaking, the 309 that's being sought is seeking that slight exceptions, not a wholesale relief. they are still providing 14% of the units that do qualify under our dwelling in mixed requirement of the planet code, so it's just short of the 40% requirement. um also one of the points just for the record, the understanding of the project sponsor elaborate further if they'd like to, but the contribution and commitment to 1979 mission has already been made. it's sort of done so, i if thank you. thank you. thank you, commissioner, imperial commissioner diamond. i think the two modifications that i think raise policy issues for us

and i'm interested in director hillis is viewpoint on this are the request for a four year extension? um or four year time . it's not for your extension. it's four years. from today, which is on top of the 2.5 years you've already had, and then the second question is, um, reduction of the two elimination of the three bedrooms and reduction of the number of two bedrooms. so i want to start first with the question on that time period. yeah. i mean, as we know it projects aren't moving forward, right? we're not seeing a lot of activity, and i think we are going to see more of these extensions. in my thinking is, you know the fact that you're bumping up against an extension? is not going to typically be the deciding factor and whether a project moves forward or not. it's whether they can get financing and you know, construction costs are at a level that work for them and they can move forward in the project. so i mean, i think this

case is unique because the fact that you know, not only are they into it for whatever costs. they have to get to this point, but they've purchased and donated already to the city. the mission street projects so you know, i think in this case it's very comfortable when you know we're very comfortable recommending an extension to that. time period. i think the question will be for other cases that are coming up. you know what should we do? but i think you know we're seeing from the comptroller's office in the report they're doing for the technical advisory committee on the inclusionary. you know these projects don't work right now, so we're not going to see the activity. in project starting so . you know, our posture is generally to allow for extensions in those cases so we can get those units and not start back from scratch with entitling those projects, especially given you know that the arena targets we have from the state. i think you rose

really good point. some conflicted on a, um not in this particular case because they've already demonstrated a $40 million commitment to move forward, um, worried more about the precedential value that the sets? um although the $40 million, you know, may absolutely distinguish that i agree with you that you know, the project sponsor doesn't have to find dance and you go forward, knowing that the deadline is approaching isn't likely to make them build faster. it's made makes them more likely to come in front of us and ask for an extension. i assume the rationale for putting a time period in the first place. where never we came up with that way back. when is if they're not going to move forward, you know, and then there were other people who were interested in going forward. we should, you know, give the opportunity to other people and we're not in that market at the moment, the flip side of this for me is what we're doing in the housing element. you know, at the request of the um bees and h c d. we put in a provision that says if we don't, you know , get enough housing going and

four years, um, then were subject to all these other controls, so it feels a little weird to me that on one hand, we're subjecting ourselves to that four year requirement, um, imposed on us, essentially by young bees and hcg, and on the other hand recognizing the reality of the market, which it really doesn't matter what we do. if they can't get financing, they can't go forward. um as i said, i think it's in this case . i don't have any problem. um because of the $40 million demonstrated commitment, but. i don't know how i feel about it if it came in with other projects, so i'm just raising sort of policy issues around it and sharing thinking about this. on the second issue of the two bedrooms and three bedrooms. my understanding is that we want that mix because we want to make sure we're promoting family housing. so i have a few questions. um is there any evidence that if we build two bedroom or three bedrooms that it's actually families occupying it as opposed to roommates

sharing space. in and i asked that in particular to this kind of location. yeah different on the west side where there is access, you know, parks and schools and daycare, but in this kind of location do we think that you know these two bedrooms are occupied by don't think we know i think it's anecdotal at this point when i was on. the commissioner asked that same exact question probably was too early in. you know, i don't know how long this requirements been been in place. there were some iterations of it, i think j supervisor mcgoldrick put it, put it in for market activity, and then it's more to become kind of carried forward citywide . i think we're at a place now where there's enough projects that have been built with these requirements that we could probably do that analysis in look at it because people speculate. is it is it still kind of roommate situations that are happening or really families? and if they're not families? why you know, and maybe it's better to look at this rate in, apply it in some neighborhoods and not in others.

but hey, i don't think we have the data. necessarily think that would be important because it's a requirement. we layer on top of every other requirements, and they are numerous. and i my guess is that the developers of you, it is an exact action of some kind. it's just one more thing they have to add into the cost of the project went on their own. they probably wouldn't do that, if name is an example that respond to market forces and build all studios and one bedrooms. but it would you know, in order not to spend a lot of time wing something where we really don't know if it's producing. you know, if they build the two bedrooms, it's actually attracting families. i think it would be really helpful if we did that study to decide whether or not um, now that we have some evidence, whether or not it's something we should proceed with particularly interested in this, um because i'm hoping this will come up downtown that we're going to have people who want to convert office buildings to downtown and do we really want to insist on two and three bedroom requirements on top of all the other expenses? people are incurring, so i don't know how

much time do you think you need to do that? we'd probably want to do it as part of our as part of the rezoning and effort and as we look um to change zoning and in other areas of the city and take a look at this as we shared with with some of you that asked, you know, 58% of the units currently in the city are two bedrooms or or larger. 80% of the housing stock in the region is two bedrooms or or larger, so it's not as if you know, we've got an over abundance of one bedrooms in in studios, but i think we have to look at kind of where demand is and who who's living in these answer some of those some of those questions that we don't have answers for. let's put it this way. we only build one bedrooms were not going to attract families. so you know we should be clear about that. and we should be doing everything we can to retain and attract families in the city. but we should be judicious about where we apply it. um and think about it. so with that i'm going to

make a motion to approve. i see the, um commissioner. koppel wants to speak as well, too, and i want to cut off discussion. but i'd like to put the motion on the table to second. the motion. thank you, commissioner koppel. i'll third. the motion and also, i'm just thrilled to. i know none of us like to see projects coming back asking for extensions or any type of modifications. but the market is certainly driving the bus these days. i'm just glad that we're here actually asking for extension. i mean, we still have a big hole in ocean wide, you know, downtown, and the last thing i'd like to see is for another project to be abandoned. so the fact that there is a perspective close date, um, is thrilling and then i'm also just super touched that the 1979 mission street is already taken care of. don't deal. that's that's very impressive. i don't think we've ever heard of a project. doing that much. for its offsite, affordable housing . considering the state it's in right now and again. this is going to go really well right

next to the plumbers union hall, which was self financed. you know, we can't all do that. so that's why we're having a weight for our big big loans. but again , this is the most transit oriented intersection in the whole city. so just thrilled to see that this is not as fast as we'd like to say, but still moving forward. absolutely. i won't delay it any longer except to just say, i agree with commissioner diamond about looking into the bedroom mix, especially as we go forward, the housing element and rezoning and just it's i think it's a mix of like totality, where with the city and then also within certain neighborhoods where the balance is and where the market is very interesting to hear the demand for the studios and one bedrooms and that may lend itself to certain neighborhoods for specific reasons of people wanting to live there. who may be at different phases of life, and perhaps it's something else we want to kind of understand is who's living there? you know, not just think there's a kind of idea. it's like young people working in the tech industry. but there are all kinds of people who want to live in one bedroom or studio apartment, and

it's um i think it's helpful for us to get a broader picture. of what that what that looks like. but that said, i think everyone's spoken and we're ready to take our boat. very good commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions and adopt shadow findings on that motion. commissioner braun i mission ruiz diamond commissioner, imperial couple more. commission president tanner. commissioners in motion passes unanimously. 7 to 0 acting zoning ministrations would seem thanks. they closed the public hearing and approved the requested variants for the findings outlined in the september 2nd 2020. variants that was granted for this site with standard conditions and the requested for your performance period. thank you. commissioners that concludes your hearing today. thank you. we are adjourned.

the sheriff's department ownersight board meeting is now in session. on behalf of the board we'll like to thank the staff at sfgovtv for providing assistance to broadcast and moderate the meeting. you may view on cable channel 26, stand it recite the pledge. [pledge of allegiance] i hope everyone had a nice new year and weathered the storm well.

wod