that is what a planning commission should have asked, but you don't. is commission and this department, and really, for most of my life, for 60 years, has essentially been addicted to growth. i know you talk about managing it, but in fact, it is the development approval commission. it is really not putting first priority for the future of our communities. you would ask the question, if you did, are we going too fast, and we believe the answer is yes we are growing too fast. this mechanism will provide an adjustment that connects how much office space we build to how much affordable housing we actually provide. do we meet the goals? if we do, then office development can continue at the current pace. but if it doesn't, and it hasn't been, it will be reduced. thank you. >> thank you. next public comments, please. >> sue hester. i have a handout which is -- and it would be better that i sent it to the planning commissioners in the planning commission secretary this morning on requesting that the hearing slated for next week for the academy of art institutio

we did have the manager schedule meeting with the planning director and hopefully go before the commission to educate the commissioners so that there is not a disconnect that you referenced. i think it is very important as plans are moving to the planning process, as developed and move forward, they are aware of the situation here at the puc for our water limitations. general manager, have you made any progress on scheduling those meetings? >> we have reached out, but have not been able to - because he and i have been on holiday. >> great. if you could please continue to do that and make sure that somehow the commission becomes aware of the challenges we are facing with our water supply. we would really appreciate that. >> i would like to be more civic and say, you know, maybe before the summer, or the end of july, or august, i want to be a bit more specific. i thought we were going to have that as a discussion? i did not know that we already decided on that. in the discussion i think we talked about what we would like to hear, what we would like to discuss and talk about, or hear about wh

the planning commission meeting on march 7th, commissioner hillis requested that you work with the project sponsor on the plans, presumably the issues raised by the neighbors. unfortunately, nothing has happened. the department has not been in touch with us and when he was asked about switching the side, he said it would offend his personal sensitivities. >> thank you. anymore members of the public who wish to commt

the planning commission meeting on march 7th, commissioner hillis requested that you work with the project sponsor on the plans, presumably the issues raised by the neighbors. unfortunately, nothing has happened.

with the planning commission. now this legislation adds yet another road block by requiring homeowners to submit a conditional use permit that will end up in front of the board of supervisors for approval. when talk to go my friends about owning a house in san francisco, i tell them that most likely we will never be homeowners here in our hometown and that's because the over regulated process of obtaining permits and building has driven prices through the roof. thank you for >> i'm a realtor. i learned people with young families are looking for three bedrooms on one level and the last 15 years they're looking for open space so they can have family time together because it seems they work so much they need that time to be together. and i feel that this goes against all that those families are looking for and i urge you to vote against the legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, laura foot. i've heard about 10 different explanations for what the purpose of this legislation is. i think muddied would be the best

planning commission on may 9th requested a history review. building and planning inspected the site inspection on june 13th. in addition to 13 previously identified code violations. they identified 11 more issues. serial permitting. expansion of building, conversion of storage space without permits. building staff scheduled to present the findings to planning commission tomorrow on july 18th. however some issues. unpermited activity done in plain sight without any enforcement action taken. no less than 17 on site inspections and despite complaints by the public in 2016 to 2018, building inspectors took no action and determined no violations existed. complaineds concerning the permitting, some of the same code violations recently determined. not until after the planning commission requested the permit review did the building staff issue is notice of violation in may 2019. building inspectors issued one nov and identified in 2016 some walls which were fences built without permit but did not identify the majority every training walls were unpermi

we have public hearing scheduled as well as the planning commission for the fall. there will be permits to alter for the buildings and the exterior permit that needs to happen on those. there is 12 currently. then there are 34 plans it's -- plan sets that will be before this commission in november. then i will go to the board of supervisors for final approval which is scheduled for early -- end of 2019, early 2020. the imp is, as you know, is a summary of what the academy is doing, where it is going, and what it's plans are for these two images are really the most important part of the story. what the academy is doing is vacating nine properties, many of which were at the request on negotiation with the city, based on their location. we are vacating properties in the north beach area, in particular and consolidating against the vanness quarters. there are nine buildings, three properties all in that court order. all of which have good ties to existing academy uses in in that corridor. the current fashion school, we are adding a new building that is added to the fash

the entire resolution passed by the planning commission does not mention special use districts. this was never reviewed as being policy that would change the buffer areas. it's not mentioned once in the planning department resolution. i have a fear that unfortunately that that policy was completely misleading. it says l.c.u.s in r.h., r.m., and r.t.o.s. i think this was a sneak attack on the quarter mile buffer zones. please eliminate the n.c. 1 and n.c. and l.c.d. legislation from this provision. everything else is fine. we do have a lot of questions along with the haight-ashbury neighborhood council regarding bona fides and how that's treated, but i think it's time to move on. there's some good stuff in there, but get rid of the n.c. 1 stuff. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. livingston. next speaker, please. if there are any other speakers for this item, if you would lineup to my right, your left. >> i'm the owner of the wooden coffee house in cole valley, and i just wanted to express my continued support for this legislation. as a small business owner, currently prohibited from

subsequent to the planning commission's direction encouraging additional public outreach, the project sponsor hosted a community outreach meeting on april 30, 2019, inviting more than 1500 owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project. 16 of the invitees attended the meeting, including members of the united to save the mission and the mission economic development agency. seven neighbors from the woodward street, two neighbors from 18 street and amy binart, assistant to supervisor ronen. subsequent to the planning commission on april 4, udat provided additional design for the entries and the cat walks. the project sponsor has elected to utilize the project density bonus law. the project requires an inclusionary housing rate of 18%. the project sponsor has volunteered to contribute one additional percentage for very low-income households. since the previously scheduled public hearing on april 4 of this year, the project sponsor has updated the project as follows: per planning commission's comments, the p.d.r. small work space building was removed from the project. the add

matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission. there had been no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, staff, or the public so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this. number 2, 2018-0133 # 87cua at 88 perry street and number 3, 2019-001013cua at 32nd avenue and 3132 clement. i do have two speakers from the public. i would like to confirm that they want to pull that off. >> we will pull that off of consent, put it at the beginning of the hearing and those members of the public who want to provide comment on that item can do so then. >> that leaves us with item 2, commissioners. >> commissioner koppel. >> thank you, on that motion to approve number 2 on your consent calendar. [vot [vot [vote]. >> item 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for july 11, 2019. >> does anyone want to provide public comment on the draft minutes? with that, public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt

in facts, the planning commission last month stated this on the record of the planning commission that in her mind, projects like the appellant should be encouraged to pay the fee. because, for several reasons, but primarily because the first one is, when a developer constructs small reserved affordable units, in a project, they tend to sit vacant. we provided significant amount of evidence in the record that those types of units shockingly in a city where there is obviously ongoing affordable housing races. these units don't go rented, the families don't reside at 500 square-foot units. consistent with commissioner melger's position. the city needs the funds. the position the planning commission is, let's see if we can get the affordable housing fund to grow by having developers pay the fee. in this instance, the appellant wants to pay the fee. if they're forced into paying the 2018 fee they will build the units on site despite the fact it's inconsistent with the whole purpose of changing the fee structure. finally, there's going to be no disruption of the cities of a fallible horse -

on may nine, the planning commission did this ordinance, they were in general alignment with this ordinance. they moved to approve modification. they suggested 10 modifications. for liquor stores, the summary would be to provide planning staff with quantitative and standards for the liquor store review. i think that is what is being amended. thank you. the upper market street, maintain or increase the produce ability of arts and health uses, that seems to be included for the nct three it would be to increase the liquor stores only selling beer and wine. that seems to be happening. for both of those zoning districts, the summary would be to consider arts activities and liquor stores as active uses, and then citywide would be to eliminate the philanthropic services use type for the planning code as well as to include health services in the planning code that are subject to controls. i think those are also being included. this concludes the presentation. i'm here for questions. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public here on item number 2. seeing none yet it will close public c

that is what the planning commission needs to investigate. in light of these shortcomings, imagine what would have happened if the d.r. was not filed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon chairperson and commissioners. i would like to continue the discussion on 3333 california street. if you take a look at the start item, the developer is requesting a 15 year entitlement period. i think that -- i think that is outrageous. and the second one, we have -- can any of you imagine living next to are actually inside a construction sight mac for 15 years? no one should be exposed to this type of abuse. so we decided to ask the developer some questions about this. and the first starred item was, question, you also stated that they wanted to develop mint agreement to lock in entitlements for longer periods of time than it normally would be allowed. simple answer, yes. fifteen years. pretty self-explanatory. second starred item, what is the reason for construction? answer is, if conditions do not exist to build up the entire

and given how much discretion is taken away from you, i suggest if this passes, there be two planning commissions. there be a commission of three of you to merely handle the stuff that comes through this new legislation. might as well only have three of you, because a lot of your discretion is taken away. you should add a commission, a full commission to deal with commercial projects, retail projects and projects of maybe 10 or more units. that would be efficient. maybe we should do that. charter amendment, sure. finally, i wanted to mention. i don't see in the legislation any grandfathering for existing projects in the pipeline. [bell ringing] and even if it's going to be changed significantly to reduce its consequences, i urge you to consider that. thank you very much. oh, one more thing. a mere 10% increase or decrease in the size of an existing rental unit, will, under the legislation, in most cases trigger a hearing where none is required today. that's a tremendous amount of new work. thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm going to read some more speaker cards. if i could beg your understand

sure there is a bunch of nimbys somewhere in the city, they don't control this planning commission, theyabsolutely don't control the board of appeals. i am aware because they pay attention to these things. there's a lot of manipulation of submitting applications for a permit, saying, everyone is on vacation, so now let's go file the application and the first two weeks and there will be no one around, and so right now, applications, i am aware of them our time -- our timed by the developer's lawyers enter architect to take advantage of the code. we don't need to give them anything more. they have enough to do -- to deal with already. thank you. >> thank you. any more members of the public who wish to comment on this item seeing non, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> question for staff. recently we acted upon the oceanview legislation and then we heard the proposed legislation on demolition. both arguably have down zoning elements. how does this bill impact the implementation of those two? >> thank you. a key thing to keep in mind is that the limitations on down zoning referred t

that rallied outside the richmond planning commission meeting on thursday. they want the city to ban coal and petroleum coke from beings toward or handled in richmond. >>> it will impact people's health. the particular matter from the coldest input impacts today. >> reporter: richmond said a ban could be a fatal blow to the small family owned business and the employees.>>> if the ordinance passes it will potentially put the company out of business. it will also we will lose 50 unit union jobs will be lost if this actually happens with this ordinance.>> reporter: members also shared sporting signs and speaking out. many of the workers in blue jumpsuits that they worry about losing their jobs.>>> i have a son and two daughters. i have been married since 1998. 22 years.>> reporter: more than 60 people signed up for public comment. >>> we are dying over there. somebody has to help us. >> reporter: some supported the ban and others were against it.>>> say they want the city to wait until an air quality study called a b6 17 is completed. the company president answ

and this project, though, could not be approved by the planning commission. again the criteria, rather than findings for the commission. so i'll charge through these again, some of them are the same as in the previous example. first, unclear if we know if the building was rented to anyone in the last seven years. the existing building conforms to the height and scale of one adjacent buildings, that it contains a gable roof, like several on the block. it contains a raised entry, like several on the block. and it contains some double-hung fixed encasement windows, all of which are found throughout the neighborhood. therefore, doesn't meet that criteria of the ordinance. the project, although compatible with the mixed character, does not prescriptively conform with the height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. the project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. so it wouldn't be approvable under

the planning commission did not find the ordinance is inconsistent with the general plan, so you said, when this goes to the board of supervisors it will only require six votes to pass. >> chair peskin: thank you for that clarification. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you for that clarification. there was a lot of misinformation out that. i would just ask that we take this later. we are finalizing the amendments and we will return to this shortly. >> chair peskin: okay. we will continue this item, and we will move on to item number three. i don't know if supervisor ronen or her staff is here, but we will call item three. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: all right. is there anyone here from supervisor ronen's office that would like to make opening comments? seeing none, do we have somebody from planning, audrey merlon? >> that's all right. it's a new last name. >> chair peskin: i was just going to say, it was like a week ago. >> it was. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> miss donovan is here from the office of small business to speak on their behalf. >> chair peskin: miss

i recognize that the planning commission is tasked with fulfilling the planning code and the goals of the planning code. they also recognize that it is test to do appropriate, equitable development in the city of san francisco. this project is adding another unit of housing to -- another unit of housing in the housing crisis. for a moment, could i get san francisco government t.v.? this building, is the building smaller? yes, but the building is not -- this is not extraordinary for this block or this neighborhood. this neighborhood had larger homes in it and it is r.h. one so you can only get one home per lot. the demolition, no one is standing up here defending a demolition, but we do -- i think it is important to know to distinguish between this type of demolition and the demolition you guys have been seeing over the last couple of years. these guys have been punished. this happened three years ago and for a single family home and a home remodel, they are here three years later. it is not like they have not been punished, and it is not like this commission hasn't been putting projec

the primary position of the planning commission should be planning. i think it would be farber for those resources to be devoted to planning for increasing, the density, the amounts of housing in neighborhoods that are not currently supplying that especially in the western parts of the city. the other concern is although the ordinance has some language on its face would seem intended to allow for additional density, the requirements are so strict in reality it would not result in that so i urge you to ask to be sure that the final version of this ordinance, if it's enacted, would in the world result in the creation of additional housing. thank you. >> thank you mr. peterson and next speaker, please. thank you. >> hello, my name is brigitte duffy. they haven't gotten the memo yet. the planet is at risk. human life, i don't know if you've heard it. the u.n. just put out a report if we don't lower our carbon emissions within 12 years, human beings may go extinct within 100 years. this is dire warnings and everything and living small and living less is th

they rallied outside the richmond planning commission meeting on thursday. they want the city to ban coal and petroleum coke from being stored or handled in richmond.>>> it will impact people's health. the particular matter impacts people today.>> reporter:ban on could be a fatal blow to the small family owned business and the employees.>>> if the ordinance passes it will potentially put the company out of business. it will also 50 bs will be l if this actually happens with this ordinance.>> reporter: members of multiple unions sporting signs and speaking out. many of the workers in blue jumpsuits that they worry about losing their jobs.>>> i have a son and two daughters. i been married since 1998. 22 years. >> reporter: more than 60 people signed up for public comment.>>> somebody has to help us. the concern for dust comes from the community. >> reporter: some supported the ban and others were against it.>> richmond is always going to get be broke if you keep throwing people to the curb. >> reporter: supported said they want the city to wait until the compl

but at the end of the day, we lost and the planning commission approved it.ors approved it. we appealed and appealed and after appeal after appeal and i want to thank scott weaver who is an attorney who volunteers his time for us and has done so much work. [applause] for free. pro bono basis. you know? and like him, there is so many other attorneys and so many other people who volunteer their time to give. and so this story ends like right here. and i want to thank mayor london breed from my corazon for going on that cruise with us. [applause] you know? and you're right. you don't know how many hits i got on facebook and twitter and everybody was blowing me up. oh, you were cruising with the mayor? think that we were having fun. i've been telling the story -- >> working! >> yeah, we were working and in fact there is a picture somebody gathered of me driving and showing her. sorry i shouldn't have been doing this. but i'm showing and explaining to her and it was like magic. you know? for her to go and get this done with kate -- thank you, kate. thank you very

retaining wall which is seeking revitalization. >> there is an additional request from the planning commissiong the continuance, and that was for the project sponsor to study the potential of adding a third unit to this project site. the plans that you receive this week do not have a third unit, by the project sponsor has submitted to the commission there study and analysis of that aspect of the potential project, and that was e-mailed e-mail to everyone earlier this week. a site visit was performed in june, and the revised plan before you captures a few of the features that were additionally noticed. things we found like the swell at the end, there were carpet walls on the roof that are now being proposed to be removed, some of the materials on the roof were never called out, that being a standing metal roof, which they are seeking revitalization of, and the sighting siding of the dormers were also clouded in. preservation staff does not agree with that alteration, so the project sponsor is proposing the return that to a horizontal wooden siding that matches the existing faÇade and what had h