tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 26, 2018 3:00am-4:01am PST
the four-line permit details report. as a result, we know this is a vetted issue. it's not just an issue that snuck through. and my understanding is that originally, it was believed that there would be a sprinkler requirement, but because this is an existing three story with a not habitable garage underneath, there's no requirement to sprinkle, even if you are converting that not habitable space to habitable space. i'm happy to answer if i questions. >> sure. mr. hammond, we just had -- i don't see the e-mail in front of me, so i can't notice whether the address was and all that. but the appellant read an e-mail affidavit that says we will put
sprinklers in the house. are you reneging on behalf of your client on that commitment? >> i don't think that she was aware of the fact that it's not required. >> that doesn't matter. there was a request neighbor to neighbor, will you put in sprinklers in your house, and what i was just hearing -- again, i can't read that far and i could request that we postpone this and we get that all printed up, but what i heard was we will put sprinklers in the house. so regardless of whether it's required or not, there was an implied contract between the -- your client and the neighbor. i'm asking you, on behalf of your neighbor, are you reneging on your client's commitment she put in writing. >> i'm not reneging. the reason is she thought it was required. this house is gutted. there's a lot of work going on.
>> so with your permission, if we move forward under further conversation amongst the commissioners, you won't feel bad if we put in sprinklers given that your client said it was okay. >> this is a really expensive thing if it's required, then we have to do it and we'll do it. if it's not required, you know, just because she thought that -- she's acting in good faith. >> did you get your question answered? >> your time is up. >> the answer is yes. >> departments, any rebuttal? >> actually, i had a question for inspector duffy -- murphy any way. sorry. >> duffy. [ laughter ] >> hyphenated tonight, buddy. >> your question, commissioner honda? >> so the appellant here said that her house is identical and
there's a trapdoor through the bathroom. right? has anyone verified the as-built conditions of this property? that might be something that would be worth looking into? if someone through it in there and it's demoed already, you can tell if that's original to the property as per the lumber and how the design was, i'm pretty sure. right. >> we wouldn't have -- it's good faith on the drawings. >> and i believe the department is considering some rules indicating that they're going to verify as built conditions prior. >> that's for the demolition process many we're going to start doing that. correct. you know, as i say, all we have are records at dbi and the city. we keep historical records. if you have something that's 1900 square feet and then you see four levels, i would be wondering about it. i have no problem going out there and doing a site visit. >> that's a concern, too. there's 1900 square feet on four levels.
how is that even possible when you have two levels that are -- >> well, that's -- what do you want us to do with this? >> do you want to continue it so that i can look into it further? i have no problem with that. >> you can do your thing on the permit. >> yes. >> on your own time. >> that's right. you can approve the permit and i can -- >> or you want to resolve this in a final way? >> well, if the permit -- if we find out, for example, that it wasn't four levels of occupancy that's reflected on the permit, the permit is reflecting four existing levels of occupancy, legal levels. >> then it would have the permit application would have to be changed. >> it would need a revision permit. that would -- i disagree with mr. hammond there respectfully. i think dbi would be looking at the sprinkler require many going from three to four, but it's entirely possible it's an existing -- that's -- we can
deal with it on a continuance or approve the -- >> it makes sense for both -- if they have the ability to negotiate, that's fine. but for us, the question of whatever is required, if it needs to be revision, they're smarter to have us incorporate that revision into the permit set instead of having to go wait for another period of time ha that it takes. >> and it's appealable. >> you're saying a continuance. >> i think it makes more sense for all parties. >> and are you, again, the appellant, talked about access to that area in her house, access to that area in a twin house on one side and then we just heard that, you know, there are stairs up to that -- formal stairs up to that area in the
demolition. wouldn't there be a permit on file. >> not from 1900. >> no. no. if there was, it wouldn't be a broad assumption -- unreasonable assumption. if there was the assumption those houses were, in fact, triplets and that the project sponsor's house had a change sometime, would there not be a permit on file for that change or on your site visit, could you tell there might have been an augmentation without a permit. >> that's a good question. we have ways of -- we can order the microfilament and we can look at it. we can work with the permit holder to figure it out. it's an amendment to the permit. it needs to be made if that's the case. and maybe the sprinkler
requirement may kick in. the gentleman referenced an information sheet. i don't have that with me tonight. it wasn't really part of the brief. but if -- i would like to do more research with the plans department and records department and make sure what they're putting down is what they're doing. there's no problem with having the four levels, but if it's going from three to four, we want that reflected. we want to do what needs to be -- >> it could be true, but a 1900 area feet, each one of these full foot prints are 800 to 1200. if it's 1900 square feet, how do you get two living levels and a den and that space that comes out to at least 2300 square feet. >> and when we reach -- whenever we deal with these -- and we deal with it all the time. we put the onuses on the property owner or the architect to show us documentation that we're wrong. then we just amend the permit to
reflect that you're getting that additional square foot because you want to get credit for it. the property profile won't change from 1900 on this permit if it's being reflected as existing and no change, which could be wrong. so we want to get it right. >> i agree. >> that recognition of 2300 square feet versus what it's listed at might trigger and then recognition of what is the true configuration may trigger at that point automatically the sprinkler issue. okay. so then we need to move this -- allow you some time to figure this all out. >> this isn't at proved set in the brief. this was not the dbi approved set. there could be a note on there from us about sprinklers that i can't see. >> okay. >> and i think that the owner was saying they were going to do it, but mr. hammond said they weren't. it could be something on the approved plans addressing that. >> if we move to move this to a
later date, then we also would ask that the -- a clear, current and proper set of plans as submitted to dbi would be submitted in conjunction. >> yeah. i think continue it. >> how much time do you need. >> a couple weeks. >> i think that's the going rate right now. >> two weeks or four weeks. >> two weeks is plenty for me. >> if it's two weeks, if you're submitting anything it has to be done by next thursday. >> okay. >> if he's submitting something in writing. is he going to submit something in writing. >> or you want to give an oral analysis. >> i prefer to do an oral analysis. i can work with the department holder on this all the time. >> does march 7th work for you? [ off microphone ] >> okay.
>> all right. move to continue the item until march 7th to allow dbi to confirm the number of stories of the building. >> okay. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this matter to march 7th, 2018 to allow time for dbi to confirm the number of stories in the subject property, president fung. [ roll call ] >> that motion passes. this matter is continued. >> no further business, president. >> good night.
please silence your devices and when speaking before the commission f you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] and we expect commissioner richards to arrive shortly. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continue wants. item one, 2016-007850env, 88 broadway and 735 davis street, an appeal of the preliminary negative declaration is proposed for continuance to march 8, 2018.
item two, 2017-004489cua at 701 valencia street, request for a conditional use authorization. and item number three, 2017-006817drm, 1190 bryant street and it is proposed to be continued indefinitely. item four, case 2016-010348cua, 1233 policiening street is conditional use authorization, items 5a and b for case numbers 2015-014876cua at 749 and 27th street, conditional use and authorization variance are proposed to march 22, 2018.
item six, case number 2015-015846drm at 520 28th sfraoet, the staff initiated discretionary review has been withdrawn. and we've received a proposal to continue items 20a and b for case numbers, conditional use and rear yard modification. the project sponsor was requesting two weeks. the supervisor's office was requesting four to march 22. even further commissioners, under your agenda, under the discretionary review calendar, item 23a for case number 2015-015846drp, the discretionary review portion of this project has also been
withdrawn, therefore item 23b for case 2015-015846var at 520 28th street, the rear yard variance project, we're requesting a variance hearing agenda of next week for february 28. finally, item 24, for case 2016-009992drp02 at 586 sanchez street, discretionary reviews have both been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> public comment? >> i just want to commend the staff for their work on 520 28th street. i think they were spot-on and how it evolved. i'm glad they pursued their concerns and did not make 528
the model. if you are familiar with the block -- you are not going to see it, but could i have the overhead, please? that is the thing that the d.r.s were withdrawn on. here's further down the block. there is a lot of greenery there and the staff was wise and smart and i think it is a model for future projects with excavations. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i will remind speakers that we're only speaking to the matter of continuance of these items. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of livable city and a mission city resident hear to speak on 701 valencia. we don't have an objection to the continuance and we haven't had a chance to look at the staff report. i don't know if it is available
to the public but we wanted to highlight some issues that we hope will be considered when this item is heard. parking lots are noncon frommering use in u.c.t. districts -- >> we're only taking public testimony as far as the matter of continuance. >> it's relative -- >> speaking to the project. >> speaking to -- well, ok. sgo*k ahead. >> all right. thank you. section 303 of the code, the c.u. finding that you need to make requires that you find necessity and desirability and as you consider necessity and desirability, consider the site. it's in the mission district on valencia street. a good site for housing and good site for retail. we have a shortage of both, as you'll hear later. that should be a criteria when you look at necessity and desirability. section 303t has an additional three criteria that you are supposed to consider when considering the matter.
the other thing is this nonconforming use has a nonconforming future. those on valencia street. and hopefully there will be time to put it on. you can say no c.u. and it will become mixed use development, which is more desirable. regardless, the nonconforming feature should be removed and that should be condition of a -- approval and that should be aproved and you can do that as members of the commission. we ask that you direct staff between now and when this is heard to study those matters. the additional findings. and then the nonconforming feature and whether condition of approval for whatever you decide to do could be removal of that nonconforming feature. we look forward to hearing the item if you do continue it to march.
but we hope that all of these will be addressed before we hear this so, you know, we're not all guessing about what the criteria are that should be considered. and you are also going to hear more of these types of appeals. some planning code changes were made and it would be good to have a consistent approach to the questions of necessity and desirability for these temporary parking lot uses. it's now an in all nct distributions and all the grandfathering was dismanlts ld. you are going to have a lot more cases like this and we ask that you approach them in a consistent way that's consistent with the planning code general plan and the interests of the city and the neighbourhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you. my name is mohammad, i'm the project for 226 ellis street, which is 20a and 20b, the
conditional use and rear yard modification. speaking to the matter of continuance, we've been in touch with both supervisor kim's office as well as the district to determine the precise community benefits that this project will have and, over the last 48 hours, we've discussed face-to-face a two-week continuance. the constance district and the representative i spoke to this morning said that she has no objection to our request on a two-week continuance. so on that we'd like the request a two-week continuance. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the items proposed for continue wants? >> hi. good afternoon. i just wanted to speak quickly on the same issue that mohammad was speaking to, the
continuance for the project at 229 ellis street. we had a lot of people coming from the tenderloin to speak to this issue and because it's been continued, i rushed over here so i could articulate the concerns. i might not have said this. i am a community organizing and planning manager at the tenderloin development corporation and also one of the co-chairs of the market street for the masses coalition which is a group that looks at development to the mid market and tenderloin neighbourhoods. we're supportive of the request for a continuance. we have some concerns about the level of community engagement prior to the planning commission date today. but we're optimistic that there has been so far better communication between the project sponsor and particularly the constance transgender district which we're positive will turn into a positive community benefits package. from our perspective, it is
extremely important to us that the tenderloin and the people who live in the neighbourhood not be treated as collateral and that they be given respect and that respect really starts with community engagement. so, we just have concerns about the way that the project has been conducted to date. and these concerns are only amplified by the fact that the project says it's located in union square west instead of in the tenderloin, which we feel like sort of indicates a lack of respect for the neighbourhood and its constituents. so i hope that you will agree that a continuance would be helpful in this situation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david on behalf of the hack, also speak about the continuance on the same issue. so, you know, i don't have any comments about -- i don't know how engaged the project was with the neighbourhood and i will take that at face value, that there needs to be some
more engagement. but i do want to speak to kind of the late nature of the continuance. i believe that it was agreed upon over just the last couple of days and when we talk about cost of construction, cost of housing, this continuance is like this. that only add to the -- to the cost. right? continuing to negotiate community benefits up to the last minute. just continues to add to the cost of projects and makes projects less likely to pencil out and ends up with less housing at all levels of affordability. so, i just think that that needs to be called out and that we really do need to start doing business differently in san francisco and not be trying to hold every project to squeeze every dime out of everyone. so, that's it. thanks. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner koppel? >> move to continue items one,
two, three, four and 5a to the dates specified and 20a to march 22. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been second to continue items as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. if the acting zoning administrator would be so kind to continue the variance portions of each of these projects. >> yes. i will continue item 5b to is itamar 22 -- >> yes. >> and item 20b to march 8. >> march 22. >> oh. i thought the variance hearing,
that was the -- >> no. the 20b is 229 ellis street -- >> excuse me. 20b to march 22 also and then for the third item, i'm sorry -- >> 23b. >> 23b, which is to february 28. >> very good. and just to be clear, the 520 28th street variance is going to the zoning administrator's agenda, which is next wednesday, february 28. thank you very much. commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar, all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a sing roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing.
item number seven, 2017-007501cua, 3629taraval street, and 2017-012457cua at 235 church street and item nine, 2017-015083cua, 721 lincoln way, conditional use authorization, item 10, 2017-010871cua, 691 14th street, conditional use authorization and item 11, 2015-09009450cua, 1600 ocean avenue conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? >> i'm happy to approve 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve your items under consent with conditions.
on that motion -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and places under commission matters, item 12, consideration of adoption draft minutes. for the february 1 closed session and regular session. >> there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? richards? >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for february 1, 2018 -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and places us on item 13. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards? >> so, interestingly enough, first of all i'm elated that i looked down and we have new mon
tors and things. everything is crystal clear when somebody puts something up on the overhead. i'll be able to read it now and not try to squints. congratulations, san francisco, for being in 2018. i have a couple of things to talk about today. nothing huge. but i wanted to just kind of triangulate. we think here in san francisco that everything that's happening from a land use and housing point of view pretty much happens to us and we're special and nobody else in the world's experiencing things. but there is an article that -- and i don't get macleans, but macleans is a publication from canada. and there is an article this week in maclean and it's titled the analyst to expose vancouver's real estate disaster. i really suggest anybody who wants to really understand what's happening in vancouver, people that have held vancouver up as the model for what we should be doing in real estate should take a look at it. what basically synopsis of the article is, this person was
able to figure out through public records, access, etc., who was buying the homes that were being created in vancouver and one of the neighbourhoods that he first chose, two thirds of them did not come from vancouver. they actually came from outside of canada. he further went on did some more investigation and found that it wasn't only that these buyers were coming in, they weren't paying cash, they were getting mondayers. so, chbc and cibc were also in on the act. and he went further and found that the people building the condos were kind in on this whole kind of system and then in the very last portion of the article, he found that the people that were running the city were in on it. so, this whole kind of bubble in vancouver wasn't being caused by outside groups, it was caused by everybody who was benefiting from the bubble. so, really, really good article. along the same lines in bloomberg -- again, i don't get bloomberg, buff i read it on my
phone, just this morning there was an article about new york's vacancy rate. besides all the bad actors, there was short term renle that, etc., one of the paragraphs jumped out at me, although they have what's card low vacancy rate for their apartments, 4%, one of them said more problematic and predictive is units that are held for occasional, seasonal and recreational use. it is growing at a big clip in new york. we talked about vacancy tax here and we should take a look at a couple of these articles and understand how we can truly understand what's happening and whether the housing is used or not or used for occasional, recreational or seasonal. in brooklyn, there was an article in the "new york times" sunday. we talked about renovictions here, it is happening in brooklyn, too. the path to a shelter began with repairs.
so, talks about people who are getting repaired out of their apartments because they can't be there while the construction is happening and go away for a while and one thing leads to another and pretty soon a year goes by and they can't afford to move back into their apartment and become homeless. it is a really good article. and two other things. sunday the 18th on the chronicle's front page. a really good article about short term rentals and a good analysis around what neighbourhoods they are, how much they get for each rent and the big thing was the amount of short-term rental that fell off the roles when we required a valid registration number. i don't know if you recall we had this discussion in may of 2015 here and it is finally coming true. lastly, a former planning director wrote a co-author piece. questions for candidates on how san francisco sees its future. i thought it was a really spot-on article, not just talk about housing but all the other things that need to happen when
you start adding population and vision for what that would look like. another good article. sorry for the long thing. but wow, housing seems to be on everything i touch today. >> thank you. commissioner melgar? >> first of all, i just wanted to say thank you to commissioner richards. you are like a lexis/nexis. [laughter] for media stuff. it is really great. you just add so much to this commission. >> thank you. >> thank you. so a couple of weeks ago there was another article in city lab. how to design cities for children by mimi kirks which reminded me how far we have to go in this city. even though we talk a lot about retaining families and how those issues are also related to workforce and the quality of our schools and a whole host of other things. and so i was reminded of the excellent presentation with our team about the definition of
family housing and i'm wondering, you know, what happened to that. you know, because we -- i think defining what family housing is sort of a first step. and then i was thinking, you know, a couple of -- a couple of meetings go, two or three meetings ago, we approved a project that was on a corner. do you remember that? that had two stories of residential housing and commercial store front out in the avenues and i was think, that is the perfect place for family housing. proximity to shops and wouldn't it be great if somehow we could incentivize that space to be child care. and wouldn't it be great if we could figure out a way to have the open space that is required, you know, to share with child care. could there be something creative that we could do to leverage, you know, our existing tools. so, all of this stuff that goes together, supervisors yee and kim have, you know, a ballot measure to make moneys
available for child care of which there is a huge shortage of and all of these thing go together. how do we design a city that has affordable housing, but also has all those other things that families need. a big thing is affordability. but proximity to schools and proximity to child care. ease of transportation. and biking if that is how you get around. so, i'm wondering, director, where that is going. what's the next step after defining family housing and how can we put all of those smart minds in the department to work together, you know, across different things, to weave all of those different things together. transportation, commercial space, child care. yeah. >> yeah. i mean, i think the short sans that we're continuing to work with the supervisor and the first phase was that series of amendments to make daycare easier, if you recall. we put forward about a year ago.
christine johnson worked on that a little bit. and then -- sorry? >> the p.d.r., child care. is that what -- >> no. there was a number of provisions we put forward to make it easier for child care to be approved. it no longer required a hearing and we could approve it administratively. we're then working with supervisor yee right now and one of the issues that you mentioned which is whether we should include where daycare is an active use on ground floors and given the discussion we're having today about retail, it is probably timely to have that discussion because there is concern about increasing number of vacancies of retail spaces. so, those are the issues we're continuing to work on. i'm happy to have sue come back and give you an update to talk about nit more detail. >> did you want to -- ok. thank you, jonas. >> ok. nothing further, we can move on to department matters, item 14, director's announcements. >> i just wanted to give you a good news announcement today. about one of our staff who received an award recently.
allison abericci is one of our architects on staff and allison received the 2018 aia young architects award this year. which is an award given annually to individuals who have been licensed less than 10 years. and who have demonstrated exceptional leadership and made contributions to the profession early in their careers. allison has been with us about a year now. she is in a number of -- she's worked in a number of other locations as well and we're very pleased that the a.i.a. has recognized her contributions. we wanted to publicly acknowledge and congratulate allison on the award. thank you. >> item 15, review of past event at the board of supervisor, board of apeels and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon. aaron starr. the board did not meet this week but they did meet last week. in last week's land use committee hearing, first on the
agenda was the gearey-masonic amendment. at the hearing, two people spoke in favour of the item after public comment. after that, they voted to forward the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. next on the agenda was supervisor peskin's ordinance that would amend the controls for restaurants and bar uses in the jackson square s.u.d. you heard this item on january 11 and voted 6-1 in support of the ordinance. at the land use committee meeting, supervisor peskin discussed the merits of the ordinance as they pertained to the existing conditions in jackson square. supervisor asafai proposed a capping on the number of drinking establishments. both safai and tang made mention that any eating and drinking restaurant looking to locate in jackson square, but
confronted with the cap are welcome in their representive districts. supervisors voted unanimously to recommend the ordinance to the full board. next on the agenda was the brunette avenue rezoning which came about from a lawsuit the city was involved in. this was continued to the chair as a settlement has not been finalized by the board. the settlement must be finalized before the map amendment can move forward. at the full board last week, they passed its second read. and next on the agenda was the category exemption appeal for the proposed small scale chinsing slaughterhouse located at 1526 wallace avenue. the project received a conditional use approval from this commission in november of last year. it was appealed by the animal legal defence fund. the appellant believes that the exemption did not adequately consider environmental imkts pas related to air quality, waste water and solid waste disposal and claim that the department improperly relied on
existing regulations to sub starch yaits why the project was elable for a categorical exemption. in planning for the hearing, staff appeal add response that provided additional information and the proposed -- about the proposed use and its environmental impacts. staff also co-ordinated with other city agency, including the p.u.c., ndph to make sure that they understood the permitting process. at the hearing, supervisor cohen's follow-up questions referring thome some other staff was appropriate. staff was able to convince the board that there was no foul play in issuing the categorical exemption and given the scale and type of proposed use there were no unusual circumstance and the project could lead to significant environmental impacts. by unanimous vote of 11-0, the board of supervisors upheld the planning department's categorical exemption. the appeal for 2918 mission street was continued to june 19. and then the special use district passed its first read. and that is all i have for you
today. thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff here to share with you two items of note from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. prior to the commission hearing, the architectural review committee met. in particular, they provided a design feedback to the department of public works regarding the replacement of the gold light standards, the landmark 200 that start at the embarcadero and they are proposed to be recast as part of the better market street realignment and the commission did have some concerns that the row casting and change in diameter for about 236 of the poles basically from the embarcadero to octavia would be different than the ones from octavia up to the castro. so, d.p.w. will come back to the a.r.c. at a future hearing
to provide how they've responded to the a.r.c.'s comments. at the full commission, as you're probably aware, the commission heard the request for certificate of appropriateness to remove the early days sculpture from the pioneer monument located in the civic centre landmark district. there were a few letters of opposition that the department did receive via e-mail. but a majority of the public comment at the public hearing was in support of the removal of the early days sculpture. there was a good deal of discussion among the commissioners with both commissioners johns and pearlman raising concerns of eliminating the early days sculpture without any sort of background context about even the most negative parts of u.s. history. so they amended the condition's recommend dmaition support of removal of the sculpture with the conditional case thating either a plaque or some
additional interpretation be added to the raised [inaudible] will explain why the sculpture was removed and a broader intendseration of the remaining parts of the monument. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> thank you, mr. frye. >> there is no board of appeals report. seeing no questions, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject jurisdiction of the commission except with agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have just one speaker card. >> yeah. >> hello again. good afternoon. this is for you. from me. spinning off of what commissioner richards said.
could i have the overhead? i think i've shown you this before. but this is a chart that was in the "new york times" and it just shows the income growth where it is. it's all located with that top 1%. that certainly relates to what i'm going to talk about, which are -- i'm not going to show any pictures, but there's been three megaprojects recently all in the multimillion dollars, all raising questions about 317. it's on the sheet. they all have names, like branding as well as addresses. but they are on 18th street and noe street and laidley and one of them is sold for $9.7 million. but the outline for the 317 issues there, whether there was a merger, the one on the 18th street. what about the demolition.
were there demo calcs, were they right? but the overriding one is relative affordability and that gets me to something that i wish i had focused on more. but you could still do because even though we're going to do something about demolitions in 317, i don't know when that is going to happen. but you do have the right to change the values. this is from the zoning administrators. it says the following values are subject to nonlegislative updates and may be adjusted periodically by the planning commission to further the efficacy of section 317 in order to promote the objectives of the general plan and planning code. so you can change these values by 10%. so like for now where it is greater than 50%, i guess what that would be greater than 40%. you know? all the numbers, although they're greater than, you are lowing the numbers so you're increasing it, but really
lowering it. so, i think that is something you can look at and do. do you have this sheet? it's the zoning administrator's bulletin. >> can you hand it in? >> do you want my copy? you always want my copy. that's fine. i'll make another one. it also has the one where the r.h. is -- anyway, thank you. >> thank you. >> also has the one where the rh-1 was adjusted to $9.1 million. >> the one for $11 million, would the flat policy change the outcome of that? >> might have. might have. i mean, it's certainly -- i'll just say this. people have been looking at it closely because the ads on the internet said there was like a studio unit so there are three units in rh-3. it's really fancy. if you looked at the pictures, it's over the top. anyway, i just wanted to say one more thing. people are looking -- i can't
say anymore. all right. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> all right. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i actually was looking over your agenda and it looks like an item isn't properly noted and also in section 317 saying if you look at item 22-a, 799 castro, it says that it is in the rh-2 district for the 40x bulken height limit and the same address is that the same property is in the irving street commercial district with a 65-a heightened bulk district. when did they extend the n.c.d. into castro? the question is they didn't. this isn't properly noticed. i wanted to bring it to your attention. i don'ten if you can act on it today. but it certainly was confusing for me to figure out. >> it's spon zoning run amok. [laughter] next speaker, please.
>> i have some documents for the record. >> just leave it right there. >> hi. i'm steven buss, a software engineer and lead organizer of mission yimby. so, i call this graph how to kill a city with one simple policy. i did an analysis of the planning commission's planning -- housing construction pipeline. and i've presented the incoming planning applications for new promises and you can see in 2016, there is a sudden, precipitous drop in incoming planning application and this trend has continued into 2017. the planning commission is, i'm sure, aware in mid 2016 we
instituted a new inclusionary zoning policy, up to the inclusionary zoning percentage to 25%, which has been lowered to 18%. january 1, 2017. as predicted, this caused a dramatic, as you can see, decrease in the number of projects entering the pipeline. and i would like -- so i went to the inclusionary housing, technical advisory committee meeting last week and i presented this same graph and i was dismayed to find out that they have no authority currently to raise this issue and they won't be reconvening for a year and a half. and i believe if we let this trend continue without taking action, then the construction pipeline in a year and a half, two-years from now, will start showing this same, dramatic decline. i'd like to ask the dmoition study the effects of prop c and
see -- and verify that these numbers are correct. of course, i'm just an armchair data analyst. and i would like official analysis from the planning department on the incoming planning application pipeline and not just the d.b.i. permitted pipeline. which does not yet show these effects. as you know, it takes a long time for projects to get approved. so i've submited this for public record and if you have any questions for me, i put my e-mail at the bottom. yes, please ask the planning department to study it. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. jennifer with the san francisco tenant's union. i'm here about a d.r. that we filed that's upcoming. it is 79 28th street. there is two people requesting d.r.s on this building. there are tenants that have lived nit for 28 years.
they are also being [inaudible]. the owner that bought the building [inaudible] within six months of purchase. so it will be devastating to this couple if they have to move out. i'm pretty confident you guys aren't going to like this project. they're installing a carport. they are going to put four cars for two families and they're five blocks away from bart and they're going to supersize the unit that is inhabited by these tenants. the problem is the ellis act trial is on april 28. they have a really good attorney from the tenderloin housing clinic. there is a good chance they're going to succeed. but we'd like to have the d.r. pushed up so that the owner understands that, you know, there's not a lot of reason the ellis act if they can't get these permits approved. we have a lot of community supporters today who will request the same thing. if there is any way we could get this pushed up would be really helpful. thanks. >> thank you.
>> good afternoon, president hillis. members of the commission. my ?aim joe butler and i'm an architect in the city. i'm curious whethers any meeting has been scheduled between the planning commission and the building inspection commission. the building inspection commission, we were chagrined to hear that maybe a june date would be possible. that seemed like a long way off, but give than a month has passed or more and nothing has happened yet, it could be june of 2019. >> good afternoon. overhead, please.
and put my glasses on. so, thank you. it's nice to be here again. i'd like to thank the planning domestic for its response to the commission's request for an analysis of the proposed senate bill 827. and its potential effects on san francisco. in my opinion, anne-marie rogers and joshua switsky have done a thoughtful and careful analysis and have given a lot of food for thought. further, i found the analysis to be somewhat heart warming because it holds in it the importance of livability, of preserving a place where we want to live. our affordable housing problem is also a global phenomenon. i came across a documentary video some time ago that i believe that you will find interesting and useful. a documentary that might help all of us move beyond the rut of our local situation.
sb-827 doesn't move beyond that rut. it is based on a popular belief that building more housing will result in affordable housing overall. but is that true now? i hope you will watch this documentary video. it is called who owns new zealand housing now. i know we're not new zealand. but it is global. it examines why it is that hois, has become so unaffordable for people on average income and why it is happening now in ours lifetimes. there are me affects on who gets to own their own home today and who does not. you will have to watch the video to get a glimpse of the complex factors at play here. does building more housing make housing more affordable? this is explored on about 1:28 of the video.
does the housing supply solve the problems if people simply don't earn enough money to be able to afford that housing? in the february 5, 2018 planning departments memo regarding sb-827, i noticed the following. sb46827 would reduce interest in local affordability incentive programmes but may result in more affordable housing overall. i think the word "may result" is used intentionally in this analysis and perhaps the authors of the analysis would also find value in this documentary video of new zealand. thank you very much for your time. i hope you find the video interest and i'd just like to say that this is family housing, 63 units somewhere else. but a place where families can live in the city. thank you. >> i want to leave this with you.
>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon to the commission. i'm anastasia and i'm a housing -- excuse me, a tenant rights advocate. i stand in solidarity with the folks on 28th street who are facing an ellis act eviction. next, after hearing public comments on february 8 on the budget work programme, this commission thought it prudent to request that additional staff be allocated to zero in on tenant protections, including the addition of staff to investigate all a.d.u. building permit applications in order to determine whether the construction of any accessory dwelling unit would require the deplacement of tenant or tenants. i'm hoping the director will act swiftly to honour this request and keep us all informed of the progress that is made.
10 to 12 building applications for a.d.u.s are received each week by the department or about 500 a year. however, there is really no guarantee that 98% of those a.d.u. permits are problem-free. since 98% of all a.d.u. permits don't require a 311 notification, nobody knows about those units -- those permits until after they're issued and we need someone at the planning to ask the question. could any of the proposed a.d.u.s negatively affect existing tenants? nobody's asking that question. and nobody knows where the a.d.u.s are even being applied for because 98% don't need a preapp or 311. only in rare cases require a 311 when the a.d.u.s are combined with expansion and those a.d.u.s projects will only come before this commission if and when a d.r. is filed. for example, the a.d.u.s at 505 grandview.
there are unscrupulous building owners also who will tell tenants they have to move out of a building because an a.d.u. is planned when in reality no permit application for the a.d.u. is even approved. for example, my neighbour lives in a rent-controlled flat in a building that is two stories over a garage. this tenant, who wishls to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by the landlord, was notified by mail by the landlord's attorney to move out of the flat because an a.d.u. was going into the garage space below. when, in fact, no record of an approved permit for the a.d.u. was on file. in summary, commissioners, every phase of a.d.u.s is threatening tenants in many cases. i feel it would be wise for the department to require 311 notification or preapp meetings for a.d.u.s or, at the very least, scrutinize accessory tweling unit permit applications for potential
displacement of tenants. thanks. >> thank you. ms. hester. >> sue hester, displacement of tenants seems to be an issue today. i want to talk briefly about the importance of lighting on the sidewalks and it's a follow-up particularly on ms. melgar's comment when people change the use to a nonretail use, they don't understand what might happen if the building owner doesn't have to light the sidewalk. women are particularly vulnerable to walking down dark streets in commercial districts. i'm one of them. people with handicaps know that they are vulnerable. and the planning department doesn't scrutiny and doesn't require every building owner
and the building department needs to do this as well to light the sidewalks. it should not be a fault of the ownership -- whether or not there is a tenant that happens to be there and lights the sidewalk on the ground floor. it should be the responsibility of the building owner. apart from that issue, the housing -- there needs to be a real housing analysis person in the planning department that reviews a lot of issues. in the neighbourhoods in tenderloin and china town, they don't give 311 notices. they are not here all the time. and they have vulnerable tenants -- very vulnerable tenants. low-income tenants that can't compete with market rate renters. so you missed your opportunity because you continued your hearing, thank you, for 229 ellis.
and the 229 ellis is coming up on my d.r. next week will absolutely come to you dealing with what is happening in the tenderloin. there is no tenderloin notices, and you have to be really adventurous like i too many force a d.r. hearing because there is no notice. exempt we're noticed on window replacement and on that you have a hearing next week. pay attention. there needs to be someone that goes into the residential hotel ordinance and knows what it means because it's not the planning code. but it deals with planning issues. and the same thing with the rent control or did nanls. all of those deal intimately with the planning code, but the planning staff is not aware of what they're doing. and you need someone who has no
conflict with processing permits to do that work and it's a high priority. i'm going to bring it up. others will bring it up when the budget is at the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you t.s next eke spaoer, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen. you have a big queue so i'll keep it short. i happened to walk in and hear that there was some critique about the technical advisory committee or inclusionary policy. so that's all compelled to give you a little bit of a counterperspective. just to roll the clock backwards, the city went through a fairly elaborate process with the technical advisory committee for almost a year to do a feasibility analysis of the prop c measure. in fact, that ended up with a adjusted set of inclusion nicer requirements and it passed through unanimously with the board of supervisors and the mayor. it was uncontested.