tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 25, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> for those of you who are standing at the door, we have arranged for an over flu room in room 416. you will be able to watch and listen to these proceedings. and then when the item is called you can come back into the room. i would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] we do expect other commissioners to derive shortly. forced on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.
items one a and b. conditional use and variance are proposed for continuance by august 29th , 2019. item number two is 2417 green street, appeal of the preliminary negative declaration proposed for continuance on till september 19th, 2019. item number three is 50 post street downtown project authorization proposed for continuance until october 17th , 2019. an item four is a conditional use authorization proposed for indefinite continuance. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> do any members of the public wish to speak to the items on the ticketed -- on the continuance calendar, specifically about the continuance of the items?
okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i move to moved to continue as noted. >> second. >> thank you, on that motion to continue items as proposed... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. >> i will also continue item one b. until august 29th, as well. thank you for that. placing as under the consent calendar. all matters listed under here constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the planning commission and maybe acted upon bicycle roll call vote of the commission.
item five is 146 geary street, conditional use authorization. item six is 5420 mission street, conditional use authorization, item seven is 4720 geary boulevard, conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> do any members of the public or commissioners wish to pull any items off of the continuance calendar? -- i'm sorry, the consent calendar. okay. commission moore? >> moved to approve. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve items under your consent calendar... [roll call]
so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. placing is under commission matters. item eight is consideration of adoption of documents for july 18th, 2019 and the closed session for like -- july 25th and the regular calendar for july 25th, 2019. i do have two speaker cards. i believe they will be talking about your july 25th regular calendar minutes. item 20, on july 25th, you took up items 19 and 20, if you recall under your d.r. calendar together. you made one action by taking d.r. and approving, as revised, reverting the property to its
previous condition. you did not take d.r. and disapprove the second permit for the adjacent property that was essentially a vacant lot. there's a garage structure in the back that is proposed for demolition, but your action was abundantly clear to revert the bay window that extended over the property line, thereby impacting the second property, and that property, if the sponsor so chooses, would have to come back as a revised project based on your decision to accommodate the three-story bay window, in which event the project project would have to come back in a completely different and revised format being accommodating the bay window by either providing easement or adjusting the property line. staff is very aware of how your decision affected that particular project.
>> thank you for the reminder. >> thank you. our speakers on this item are jury brought to learn and stephanie peake. anyone else who wishes to provide public comment on the minutes, please come up and do so now. hello. >> i have some materials. the july 25th, 2019 planning commission draft minutes for agenda item 20, it is incorrect. the planning commission did not approve the building permit. the meeting minutes should be revised to exclude the approval of the building permits.
the review of the caption transcript which you have shows it was not the intent of the planning commission to approve the building permit application prior to approving the motion, commissioners questioned whether a new plan was required and mr. winslow told the commissioners they could not approve the project on the other lot prior to voting to approve the motion and to revert to the project back to its previous condition. also, the architectural survey submitted with the plan for 17 th avenue is not an accurate boundary line survey. therefore, approving the new construction building permit without an accurate boundary line survey would be a clear violation of section 107-point to .5 of the california building code. they did submit an architectural site survey, which is a map. it is not really a survey. and in the survey, or the map, they said it was required under
california law to establish a record of survey that would be required, in the record of survey has not been approved by d.p.w. therefore i asked that the minutes be revised to reflect the fact that permit was not approved. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i live next door to the project. i am also here to ask for a correction of the draft minutes for july 25th, 2019 hearing. the plan for the new house cannot be approved.
but i will read from the captioned transcript to remind you exactly how it went. president melgar, i'm sorry, you said entertain a new plan submitted for the other lot, commissioner richards, yes, fine if they bring up a project for the other lot. that is great. let's reconstruct the building and make sure the new project adheres to the existing site conditions that they need to get a demolition permit or just the lot line or whatever they need to do. president melgar, i'm sorry, so can we not prove the building on the other lot today? that already has been submitted. it has to be new commissioner richards. i would like to see a new project because it doesn't take into consideration the three-story bay. mr. winslow, i don't believe you can approve the project on the other lot today, building the
three-story bay would encroach over that lot and physically change the plan of that building on that motion to take d.r. and revert the property back to its previous condition, that motion passes 5-0-1. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. commissioner richards? >> that is my recollection that we have restored the building and we would bring in a project back on the new site conditions and the new bay window we did not have another project in front of us. that is what it reflects. >> correct. >> the only project we approve is the three-story bay
replacement and if there's any corrections that need to be made to the minutes... >> again, it does not accurately reflect the action you took because you only had one motion on both of those projects. essentially reverting the property back to its original form. >> you need to speak up a little , sorry. >> say that again. >> essentially there was only one motion made and one vote taken on the project that included two parcels, and essentially taking d.r. and approving it, reverting it back to its original condition, the original condition of the adjacent parcel is a vacant lot, so they would have to come back with and advise -- a revised project. >> right. they would need to vote on any project on that second parcel.
>> well, if the d.r. were to be generated. >> otherwise it would be a staff approval. >> they are both principally permitted projects, it is just a matter of whether or not someone chooses to file a discretionary review and bring it back or if you so choose, you can elect to bring it back to review that. >> did you want to take that, director? >> right. >> it was a d.r. to begin with. correct. okay. >> do you want to make a motion? commission moore? >> moved to approve the minutes. we have not done that yet. >> right. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve or adopt the minutes for july 18th and july 25th, 2019... [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing is on item nine for
commission comments and questions. >> commission moore? no i didn't. >> i'm sorry. commissioner richards. >> i have a couple of brief things that i wanted to mention. over the last three weeks i read a book, if you haven't seen this book or read it, i urge you to read it. it is called "capital city" the rise of the real estate state and real estate involvement in shaping urban affairs and planning. i will read a small paragraph from it because it stuck out to me even though i've got about 100 little stickers in here about things that resonated with me. the decline of urban industry as well as a real aspirational lives of ownership along -- among working and middle-class people, the demand for lower land values comes from organized renters. urban tenant movements have secured important victories but they face a constant struggle. many nonprofit unions and community-based organizations determined that the most likely way to secure games -- gains in this situation is there political programs that align with actions and real estate capital such as development
schemes to compare the luxury housing and a modicum of affordable units. real estate hold something approaching monopoly power to shape the narrative around urban planning and the future of our urban landscape. it is a very interesting book written by samuel stein who is a planner. two other things very briefly, s.p. 330 is now making its way to the governor's desk. it gets rid of any demolition controls that a city has as long as a replacement structure equals or is greater than the current unit count, so i know this commission heard in june that demolition controls, which i think we give a lot of feedback, 330 would negate any of those demolition controls because you can knock a house down, as long as you replace it with a house. and then there is s.p. 592 that
defines density by number of bedrooms, instead of us saying, okay, we can increase density by adding a unit, and that is what the public policy goal is, it is not square footage. we know that any ten by ten unit with a closet can be called a bedroom. i envision 592 and 330, and further super sizing san francisco and other localities. >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further, we will move onto department matters. item ten, director's announcements. >> commissioners, welcome back to fort -- from your break. i've apologized to everyone for the heat. the air-conditioning in this half of the building hasn't been working all week. we'll try to muddle through this other than that, i have no further comments. thank you. >> item 11 his review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. there is no report from the
birders to preside -- board of supervisors or the board of appeals. the one item of interest that may be to the planning commission those brought up yesterday's hearing was they reviewed and commented on the board of education action regarding george washington high school murals, specifically on the life of george washington, the section of the murals. there was some consensus by the commission that they should not be covered up, but the board of education actually recently reversed its ruling, but instead of whitewashing over the murals to permanently up scare them from view, they decided to simply hang something over them so that they were obscured from view. i don't believe this issue is over, though, just yet. if there are no questions, we can move onto general public comment. members of the public may dress a commission on items of
interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address to the commission for up to three minutes. i do have several speaker cards. >> anyone who wishes to provide general public comment may line up on my left. >> go ahead. >> good afternoon.
thank you for continuing our discussion on 303303 california. we heard rumours, i might even say scepticism about the square feet associated with that proposed plan and whether they equaled the developer's numbers. we had the trainer come and any look -- analyse our calculations low and behold, they found layouts and calculations not only reasonable, but feasible. score one for the underdogs. the next question we faced was do you match the developer's gross square foot? in figure one, the plan did not generate an approximate 10% less , however, our plan generated an average unit size of 843 net square feet. san francisco's new apartments average 737 net square feet, over 100 square feet smaller. so my first question is, if it is not acceptable, then who has been improving projects that are
averaging 737 square feet? back to work, figure two, it shows our updated community preservation alternative variant two. it uses our original concept and reflects the neighborhood character and values, preserves the historic characteristics of the site at the main building, and we added townhomes along laurel street, expanded the wall , added one level to the main building, fully consistent with the interior standards for historic buildings. we also created a ground-level passage while fully maintaining the integrity and mentality of the building. we matched the developer's residential gross square foot, no retail. we can already hear the false statement, not feasible, blah blah blah. we went back and said, let's take the developer's plan and tweak it to provide the same around -- same amount of residential gross square foot and preserve the key historic
characteristics. figure three shows the two side-by-side, pretty similar. figure four, we eliminated the masonic building to preserve the terrace. we cut back the seven most 30- foot of the building and illuminated the two townhomes on the green space at the top of laurel street to preserve laurel hill. we used a design and added one level to the main building, and as noted previously, rated the walnut passage. we more than match the developer 's residential square feet. no retail. so if you are sceptical about august lines, you have an option front of you that simply uses the developer to design. finally, we saved about 100 more significant mature trees and eliminate 8500 daily retail trips and reduce greenhouse gases by 4,000 tonnes a year. good for us and good for our climate. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> commissioners, i am from laurel heights improvements. the developer 303303 california spoke to the public only once when he revealed his planet did not allow the public to speak at that meeting. the day before, you perfect -- he refused to tell us what the project was in the supervisor's office and said this is not a negotiation. besides that, he held about three posterboard sessions were people had to seek out information at stations around the world -- room, and i heard some told falsely they would be no rezoning. so we were deprived of the city run planning process for any major rezoning outside the area plan areas that we were promised in the housing element. in the special use district released in july, we were surprised to learn the additional commercial uses would use controls plus flexible retail. flexible retail is not permitted in district two or in the sacramento or fillmore street district. it can come into a space without
notice to the community unless the c.u. is required for the underlying activity, and it requires two uses to share the same space with a maximum of five, and it allows entertainment uses that are not permitted. at the coalition we learned a neighborhood had trouble with flexible retail, having internet gambling describe -- disguised as teaching people about computers, and massage parlours that did more than massage, and they had to do -- work with the police very closely to stop illegal activity because of the in and out without notice. also, portions of the development agreement were released and it does not require the developer to build the senior formal housing or pay the in lieu fee. they can build 386 market units and failed to continue and just transfer some of the land to the city, or even this it -- leaving the city holding the bag to develop the affordable housing. it has other loopholes saying there's no requirement that he initiator complete development
of the project or any portion within any period of time or in any particular order, subject to community benefits for any building he does build, while he has the right to terminate the development agreement within five years if he doesn't commence construction, but he upzoned -- the upzoned entitlements are not conditioned upon actually performing development agreement and building the affordable housing. the developer always told us, he didn't know what retail he would put in, he didn't know what he would do about the affordable housing, and we are starting to get clues now that are extremely troubling, and so more about that later. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners a few months ago you may recall that myself and a couple of other people, including kathleen
and catherine were here talking about preservation and how we would like to see the position of mr. fry being replaced. there was some concern about how the evaluated projects in the city and how we make sure projects that deserve to be mindful of the preservation of historic resources or historic districts should behave accordingly. so today i'm here to present to you one such project. this building is in the marina district and according to tim kelly's report, it would change the design, setting materials, it is unaltered since its construction in 1926 with the exception of a sunroom addition. this part of the marina
corporation residential historic district, which is eligible to be part of the california register. staff agrees with the findings that the subject property is a contributor to the marina corporation residential historic district. furthermore, tim kelly's report also stated that there was a famous person living here, and we could contest that it should also -- this building should also qualify under criterion number two, a famous bay area opera composer who lived on the property. this building is effectively being demolished. nobody has failed for demolition , so we know demolition is problematic. the commissioners mentioned that , you know, as of s. be 330, will not have any demolition control.
if the building that i showed in the previous footage is going to be replaced with this four story building, the top is gone 100%. and this is -- if this is not tantamount to demolition, i don't know what is. this will be before you as part of adr because obviously nobody claimed it as a demolition, no c.u. was filed. but it is buildings -- of buildings like this are not being saved, i wonder how many of these are in the crosshairs of demolition. that is why we need to have a preservation department with a heads that could pay more attention to things like this. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> hearing would bring us to the nexus of what is warranted and ultimately true to your on proclaimed values and therefore, we are demanding the planning commission hearing at 65 ocean avenue be held in the neighborhood in this it seeks to effect. cuhj expects a response that requests a demand no later that september 22nd, 2019. we're willing to aid in the logistical process after this date. thank you very much and i have letters for you all here.
>> the working families in the accecler cannot afford luxury rent and she wantings you to be more aware of the communities and how this would be useful for them. (speaking spanish (these are units that do not benefit the community because they are studio. (speaking spare). spanish (. >> and the families are three or four or five people.
she's here to demand town hall in district 11 about 65 ocean. (speaking spanish) >> we're asking for a town hall in the district that accessible to everyone during accessible hours so the community can tell you what the needs are. (speaking spanish). >> we don't want any luxury housing. we need 100% accessible housing, affordable housing for the community. >> we would like a town hall in
luxury housing is proposed in a community where there are so many low income and working class families. >> i'm very angry today because i look around my neighborhood in the streets and see so many people that are in need that can't even dream of attain in living in an affordable home. in my case as a single mother with four children, we are struggling to find affordable
>> good afternoon. her name is dora and she says it would be hard to afford these luxury units because she's a domestic worker and she wouldn't qualify for these units and wouldn't able to afford it. she's asking that you pay attention to the community and that you have a community forum, a community meeting in the district where you can consider the community's needs and they can be memorial day. heard. thank you. she also hopes fro for a positie response from you. thank you. (speaking spanish).
units to be affordle to many of the working people, working families in the neighborhood and that's not enough and not right. >> many people are coming from outside of our city that have earned high incomes and can afford to live in the new luxury housing units, but those of us have that been here and work here, are needs are not met and we're ignore. (speaking spanish).
>> we speak to your humanity and lock forward to the opportunity for a community forum where we can share our concerns, our ideas, our solutions and participate in these decisions impacting us. >> it's time to consider our community needs and allow us this opportunity in the neighborhood. thank you. (speaking spanish).
that would be what they want you to hear and believes it's your responsibility to hear out the community. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a youth oregoner for coleman advocates. i've witnessed the harms among my. students, cramped living space. i have three cousins under the same roof and the stress for survival. all of these factors deter they're flourishing and instead developing in the market rate housing, it is our obligation to invest in our youth's future. for that reason, i demand no luxury housing at 65 ocean avenue, only housing affordable to excelsior community and it should be accessible to not only working families but students directly affect. we look forward to your response by september. thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is brandy and i'm a youth organizer with coleman advocates. we organize families and children and youth in the excelsior and what we love is how family o oriented the distrt is, holding so many of our families and family-oned familyd businesses. they can't afford this and they're looking for opportunities to live and continue their legacies in the excelsior and the proposal at 65 ocean is not one of the opportunities and, in fact, stands in the way of new possibilities for families to live and sustain themselves in the neighborhoods they have been growing up in and continuing families in. so we demand there's no luxury housing at 65 ocean avenue, only
housing that is affordle to excelsior residents and we ask to have one in the neighborhood on the 65 ocean project where you can hear the voices and power that lives in the excelsior and we look forward to your response in september. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gina lejo. i stand with the community for the concerns regarding the development at 65 ocean avenue. since more than 50% of luxury market housing is still built in san francisco, we have seen first-hand the impact of costs in most neighborhoods, existing and long-term residents cannot afford more than $3,000 market rate grants. this will be the same fate in
the excelsior sense the is more than 65% market rate units. but this worsens the housing affordable crisis in our city and does not alleviate it. the planning commission and planning department continue to prioritize luxury market rate housing in our neighborhoods, then none of the members will be able to afford living in their homes regardless if they are tenants or homeowner. if new housing is built in the axcelsior so that our neighbours have a place to live. i almost also a tenant for the last 16 years and speak up for the future generations of the axcelsior. we request a planning commissioning hearing by september regarding the
vulnerable project. i strongly oppose the luxury housing at 65 ocean avenue because luxury housing is not for us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. (applause). >> i'm father john himan circumstance, i've been involved in the exc elelsior for 30 years and my years as a priest going back ten years and many families in leadership high school, june jordan high school, these families and my experience in the mission going back more than ten years of seeing so many people displaced once luxury housing comes in. it causes us pressure and analyzed by commissioner richards. i think our response is what we've heard. we have to draw a line at
excelsior, at bay view, and south of market has lost and even the sunset can be more like daily city. we have to take a stand. i've seen both families, retired people, elderly, so many i've known that have been displaced and people living in cramped situations. so we ask for no luxury housing at 65 ocean. we ask if the planning commission could have a meeting out in our neighborhood because people are working and they can't come down here. we're all taking time off from work and things and we look forward to response in september. thank you. thank you, father. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, distinguished members of the commission. mi'm from sanfrancisco and i'm here because san francisco is
bleeding. san francisco has been bleeding for the last 20 years since genderfication came to our city. it's nothing than greed and now the last community, there's no latinos in our community. they are in excelsior. they're moving and everybody is moving out of the city because they want to construct luxury buildings that we cannot afford. that's the last community, the last place in san francisco that we have the excelsior district. i'm asking you just like my humble opinion, please do not construct that building on 65 ocean. that's not the solution. i am a driver in san francisco. i've been here for more than 45
years and i've never seen what i seen in san francisco, when i see the city that i love, the city by the bay, that is bleeding now. so please, genderfication is not the answer. now i'm here also because maybe if you guys have some time in the future come to our neighborhood and see what's going on. a lot of working people living in there. and all we need is more money so we can clean up our community. thank you very much. >> thank you. , next speaker, please. (speaking spanish).
good afternoon. his name is givani and he has been in the city 30 years. he knows we're all hurting because of the luxury housing. where is there safe for working-class families? not in studios, not no one bedroom. so he urges to consider the working class. we have family and we don't want to be the next people on the street. thank you. (speaking spanish).
>> lastly, he would like you to come to the community and listen to the needs during the hours for the working-class women and men of the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, everybody, i'm here to say no to luxury housing at 65 ocean avenue and only affordable to excelsior neighborhood.
so from the 1970s until now we've seen changes that is affecting us, immigrants families on our community in general and i'm a part of the corpus christi church parish which is a few block downs fromm the 65 ocean side and i'm familiar with the neighborhood and i'm currently still living in the neighborhood, just a block down from this, from this site. i'm also involved with community for communities of united health and justice and have been active with a community in the neighborhood and one of the projects that we have done regarding this site is actually going around the neighborhood, just talking to people in the streets regarding the housing that's happening and all of the sites and everybody that we went up to was against this project. so the reason why is because we cannot -- this does not help our community. like, for my family, for example, many of my aunts and
uncles who immigrated to this neighborhood can't even live there anymore and living in areas like in stockton, valejo and they're commuting. i live in a household with multiple generations and me, who's been living here, and my wife, who works here, we're planning to have a family and hopefully have a place for us to stay in live in san francisco. it's not just me but i represent many young adults trying to raise their kids in this community where we were born and raised here, right? and this site does not show that this is helping us. this is actually encouraging us to leave and forcing us to leave because we can't afford luxury housing. what we need is 100% affordable housing to appreciate our families, our immigrant families and the current people living in san francisco. you guys all know that san
francisco den, there's a problem regarding affordable housing and this is something we want to work together with you in finding a solution, a better solution and not 65 ocean because this is not it. so what we encourage you guys, if we can have a planning commission hearing in the neighborhood on the 65 ocean project so that you can hear the voices of the community and we look forward to your response. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i will try to be quick. 65 ocean project is a hacked indoor project, putting 25% below housing on site, using smf. i believe this is the second project that will hopefully get to the pipeline after the lucky penny site and less than a mile from the bird station, .7 or so,
14 minutes walk to a regional transit hub. these are the types of projects and homes that a city is supposed to be prioritizing. while 100%, i understand where speakers here are coming from and i firmly understand and believe that the fears are very real, because it's been lived, we haven't built housing in the last 30 years and that got us into this mess. we have not provided enough homes for people to live and so what's happening, as our very healthy economy continues to grow, it puts pressure on current residents who are already living here. if we don't provide alternative places for people to live, then the housing stock that we currently have will get gobbablegob