tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 22, 2018 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
that was the ordinance. we didn't have to deal with this. so i've been grandfathered for 40 years. >> i didn't say that. >> do i comply? yes, i do and the reason i conform is because i'm by the entrance to macy's because i have a 25 foot wide sidewalk. during the holidays, i work with macy's. i have different sized carts, i come out with different size cart, tents, sometimes i don't come out at all. >> when was that photo? >> this was the weekend of christmas, like, a saturday night at christmas. you bet. yes? >> i have a question, as well. so since you've been there 44 years, there used to be forests that were on the corners, and i know that they -- they didn't voluntarily leave. do you remember why -- i ask can ask the department that
after. >> there were two florists. >> there was one in front of i.magnin, and one in front of neiman marcus. >> the one in front of neiman marcus, they died and they went out of business. but the other one, i don't know if they just picked them up and put them on geary. >> the last thing was for reference, do you remember the old vietnam vet that used to sell nickels for a nickel and he used to be on that cart? >> oh, yeah. >> thank you. you don't look old enough to remember that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks for your time. we'll now hear from the permit holder. you have six minutes. >> so the appellants brought up
congestion. there is a large amount of foot traffic in union square. it's important to point out when the ordinance was amended in 2014, it did not prohibit m.f.f.'s from operating in areas with large amounts of foot traffic. it provides guidance on where they believe m.f.f.'s should expand. the typical -- but it allows reviews on a case by case b. the typical traffic flows and existing food frask demonstrates -- traffic demonstrates that our presence would not have a negative impact on congestion. on the east side of the block, you have a flower stand whose operation takes up an 8 foot by
20 foot space and is open every day 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. outside of macy's, you have appellant's hot dog cart who has 10 foot of sidewalk clearance and is open daily. our location is on the west side of the block, and our operation exists within the confines of a legal parking space, occupying no portion of the sidewalk where the sidewalk in front is 15 feet, not 10 feet. we are a grab and go operation where our offerings are made in advance and ready to be served upon ordering. all the pictures of the appellant's exhibits feature full fledged food trucks that require people to order, wait five to 15 minutes for their order to be prepared, and then receive their order. even in the event that a substantial number of people
wanted ice cream, the pace of the people being served would move expeditiously. they've brought up blocking retail storefronts. it is unreasonable to claim our presence would cause harm to retail storefronts. our parking space is designated for six wheel commercial vehicles five days a week. due to a scale of the local comparison to illustrate the difference of vehicle size. here on the bottom, you've got our vehicle. above that, it's drawn to scale. above that, you've got a standard food truck, and then, beyond that, you have a six-wheel commercial vehicle. the 70 foot distance restriction that the appellant raised, that restriction raised by the appellants only applies to brick and mortar
restaurants. it does not apply to other m.f.f.'s. they raised possibly changing the use of the permit. we were very specific in our permit application what the intended use of this permit was. the m.f.f. ordinance gives the d.p.w. director the right to revoke or suspend a permit in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or false claim in a permit application, and that's located in section 4(c) 2(a) 1. furthermore, the director has the authority to revoke a permit where the permit's operation negatively impacted public health, safety, convenience, or welfare. in section 4(c) 2(a) 4. they also touched on a permit being transferrable. the transfer of a permit requires the explicit consent of the director of public works. in conclusion it is clear that
the appellants are frustrated with the m.f.f. legislation. however we should be be penalized for their frustration or the acts committed by others. we complied with what was put before us by the city, and we reasonably relied on following the legislation that has been on the books now for five years. there's been no abuse, error or fraud in the issuance of this permit. therefore, we respectfully ask that you do not overturn it. it would be an honor and a privilege to participate in the union square business community. we ask that we be evaluated on who we are and the specific proposal we have put forward, not on wild speculation, inaccurate information, and nonsensical hypotheticals. thank you. and i believe my brother would like to say a few words, so i'll let him speak. >> you know, my brother and i put everything we have into building a business that's not only dedicated to the city and
community, but one that's dedicated to doing things the right way. dotting all i's, crossing all 2 t, so it's very important to demonstrate out comes when things are done properly and rules are followed. as you've heard from the public, which i'd like to thank for their dedication, and passion. there are so many reasons why this is important. this is an opportunity for the city to demonstrate that it actually cares about its local citizens and constituents, that it values supporting a disappearing class of business, and that it's vital to not only the identity of the city br the community as well. we ask that the committee respect the decision already made and not bend at the interest of a select few. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah, we all have questions, i think. >> we'll start with you. >> can i see that photo you put
up the first time of the bus. >> which -- >> the pink -- hot pink. >> which -- the original bus? >> no, the one that you're planning on. >> using this one? that bus? >> right. so i guess i'm a little confused. so how many people do you expect to serve? 'cause i look at this -- this size, and it doesn't look like it can hold very much. >> so -- right, so what we did was we limited our offerings. we'll only be offering six flavors, and there'll be a freezer that stretches across the side of it, within the width of the van, so it should be probably able to handle a day's sales. >> a full day's sales. >> right. >> okay. and then, there was a comment that you guys weren't interested in any negotiations
or discussions to think about other locations. can you tell me a little bit about that. >> well, that's not entirely accurate. >> okay. >> we are -- you know, we set our sights on this. we had our mind on this, and we want to see it through. so this is our main focus, so that's all i can say in regards to that. there was no particular discussion about particular locations in other relocations. there was potential offerings, but what we said is, you know, our mind has been set on this, our heart has been set on this. this is more than just about selling ice cream, and we think that this particular landmark location has special value. >> and why is that? tell me why that particular location. why is that important to you? >> well, it is a landmark. people walk by, and that is the spot, and we want to be a part of that. we want to be able to show people that san francisco is more than just chain stores. there's nothing wrong with chain stores, but there's more
to san francisco than what's currently being represented there and what's being served there, so we wanted to make a difference within that particular space, within that particular area. >> okay. my question. so the concern here is that the permit is transferrable, and yes, we understand that it's up to the director. just out of curiosity, would you be willing to have a special deed of restriction saying that there is no other substitution other than the size of that 1978 vanagon there. >> yeah. >> and so there would be no exceptions to that. you couldn't go left, right, up down, that would be the size. >> yeah. we have no plan on deviating from what we're putting forward. i would think that -- >> i think you're saying permit restriction. >> okay. permit restriction because the concern, one of is the blockage, the footprint and the real estate that that takes is
relatively small in comparison to 35 feet and 16 feet up in the air, right? and so if -- but if that is -- you're willing to do that, that's a -- you know, a plus on my side. >> commissioners, that does affect transfer? >> you can condition anything. >> thank you. >> and yeah, i would like to reiterate and be clear that we have no intention of deviating from this and are completely fine in putting things in writing, an extra provision. >> okay. we will now hear from the department. thank you. >> thank you. >> you have six minutes, mr. cohen. >> i'm not sure i have much to add. a lot of the arguments were discussed at length, so if you have any questions. >> i guess i might have one.
how often have you had requested to transfer a permit? >> they come -- they come periodically. we've had -- i couldn't say how often, how frequently. >> but you do see them. >> they have -- they do come. >> and are you aware when those have happened as to whether the equipment, if you want to call it that, has changed dramatically? >> we don't necessarily -- i mean, we started to review or look at the equipment. we'd definitely look at the footprint in terms of push carts, in terms of food trucks, as long as they meet the criteria from the health and fire department -- departments, we don't comment on the look of the truck. >> answer that question, though. do you allow the neighbors or the neighborhood to weigh in on your decision to allow a transfer or do they have no say in the matter?
>> the transfers do not require notification, as far as i'm aware. >> and the neighborhood's not alerted. >> not alerted, no. if they wish to, and they wish to appeal, i think they could, but i'm not sure on that. >> so your question that i asked to the appellant that had been there 40 years, can you elaborate, does the florist require a d.p.w. permit, as well. >> so the florist, i think they're under an ordinance or a special provision. >> so they're not through you or your department. >> i think they're defined in the public works code, but i don't think we allow any new florists. >> so is the permitting -- that's the question i have is, is there used to be florists on all sides, and i've got some definition from the hot dog vendor guy, but i would like clarification from the department as how that went. >> sorry. >> i mean, why did they leave?
'cause just from hearsay, i heard they were no longer allowed to be on those corners. and so the only one that would not allow them to be on the corner would be the department, which would be your department. that's the question i'm asking you. >> i think if -- i'm not too familiar with the flower arts or flower stands, and if it was in this -- the construction area, the central subway, i believe they'd work with m.t.a. and public works to relocate. i'm sure that's how -- i wasn't part of that, so i can't really speak to that. >> was that a question related to this case? >> yeah, it is related to this case. >> or other interests? >> it is related to this case. and then, i have a question for the ice cream truck. >> no, i have a question for mr. cohen. >> okay. >> how do you determine congestion? >> how do we determine congestion? we -- i think it's hard to make a determination without --
>> it's traffic analysis, right? >> no, we don't do traffic analysis, no. if we were presented one, we would probably present it to m.t.a. as the traffic arm and make a determination. we're not traffic specialists. we don't review transportation in that respect. >> so the permit is not subject to congestion at all? >> well, there's words. >> well, that's what i'm trying to get at. >> yeah. >> they're qualitative, you know? >> i believe the permit's requirements or the path of travel requirements and the serving requirements, that's captured in the requirement that the sidewalk be 10 feet for food trucks and 15 feet for push trucks. because the push cart is on the sidewalk, so you need that area. the distance from the curb for the push cart, and then, you need the path of travel space. i believe that's how they came up with those widths when they
came up with the code. >> okay. >> and the shy distance that they referred to in the brief. >> that's not in the code. >> or in your quantitative analysis, right? >> no. >> okay, and again, i have a question for the permit holder. so on the vehicle that you're going to use, is that vehicle going to be stripped and be towed into the property or is it going to be driving in in its own power. >> it's going to be driving in on its own. >> i'm going to be amazed how much ice cream you're going to be able to get there. i've been to your shop, as well. >> okay. that was my question. >> okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> comments, commissioners?
>> you want to go first, i've been blazing all night long, literally. >> i'm prepared to support the permit. i don't know how i feel about the restriction. >> i'm not supportive of the permit. i think there's too much congestion there and not just at those special times that they've brought forth, but the entire area's packed. i'm talking about regular days. and the usage of this is different than some of the other streets. when you have streets that are fronted by mainly office buildings, it's come and go, it's a little more permanent for the issue of congestion. here, where you have people
that are there with no time frame, and i think therefore, based upon my experience, the congestion is already quite a bit, and i personally wouldn't have wanted to see anything on that sidewalk. >> i'll start, then, you know, continue. so as a small minority businessperson for a very, very long time, over 30 years, i'm, one, a proponent of small business. i think that san francisco in general was based on that prin principal. you look at all the companies that starts here, levi strauss,
esprit, gap, and the list goes on and on. i know that neighborhood really well. i'm down there on a regular basis. that block is -- of all the blocks, that block, it's just extremely, extremely congested. so my concern would be, one, for pedestrian safety. i mean, i'd love to see a small business succeed and bring some special spark back to -- to the district. but at the same time, it's not that i'm supportive of large business, but big business, if you folks go down to union square, which i was at today, and you see the amount of empty space and storefronts, it's scary. retail is leaving our city at an alarming, alarming rate. and yes, i'm bad. i had three orders of amazon dropped off at my house today,
and i'm, you know -- it's tough. i think that retail in the city needs all the help they can get. i'm not super supportive, and the only way that i would be is if a -- a deed of restrictions or some -- some restrictions regarding keeping the footprint of the 1978 volkswagen vanagon and for it not to increase in size in any shape or form away, and that's the -- any shape or form or way, and that's the only way i would support it. >> well, i have to take some offense to my fellow commissioner. you -- retail, like anything else must adapt. if it doesn't adapt, it dis. it's just -- the market speaks, and i don't think we should prevent small businesses from being somewhere because retail is having a difficult time. the more concern i have -- and
i don't frequent that area as much as you do, is that it is congested, but i don't know that this small business should be punished for our perception of congestion when there's been no real studies, and the department has passed on it. and your idea about a restriction intrigued me enough that i would go commissioner lazarus' way on a yes, but your way on the restriction. but president fong does have some sway on my, so i am a little concerned about the congestion. >> if there's three votes to -- or two votes to deny the appeal, then -- then -- you need three votes minimum --
>> to continue. >> -- to continue in support of the appeal. >> or to continue. >> or to continue. >> correct. >> well, i'll make a motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit on a restriction that the size of the vehicle never exceeds the proposed one. >> 1978 volkswagen vanagon. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeals and issue the permit on the condition that the vehicle under the permit be limited in size to a 1978 v.w. bus. >> can i have the basis. >> on the basis that restricting it that the permit was properly issued and the restriction will address some of the concerns about
congestion. >> okay. so on the basis of the permit was properly issued and will address some concerns about congestion. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so we have -- do we need to continue this matter? >> no. >> okay. so -- >> that being the appeal. >> motion fails. >> yeah, motion fails. >> yeah. so -- but we have the motion to grant the appeals, we have three yeses, right, so since commissioner swig is -- >> so if the -- if they want to maintain the condition, then, we have to continue this case. >> okay. >> so i would make -- you want to make a motion to continue or i'll make a motion to continue.
>> okay. >> make a motion to continue that the missing commissioner -- that we can hear his vote on it. >> sorry. i'm a little confused. >> so -- okay. i just had it. [inaudible] >> the motion was to grant the appeals and issue the permit under the condition that the the permit -- well, you would grant the appeal and issue the permit -- >> we're not debating this, okay? there's no thing we're going to take from the audience at this point. you don't understand the procedures. if you want a condition, you have to grant the appeal, okay? >> right. i think that's how i did it. >> yeah. yeah. >> you need four votes. >> so we need -- we need four votes to grant the appeal.
we have three votes in support of that motion, which means we need to continue the matter. >> that's why i made a motion to continue it for the -- >> to see where the fifth commissioner stands. >> correct. so on commissioner honda's motion to continue the matter, and this would be to the next meeti meeting -- >> next meeting? >> which is july 11. >> that's fine. [roll call] >> this is on the continuance? >> if we continue it, we will get vice president swig to vote. >> i'm still voting no. >> well, thank you for voting on the record. this matter is continued to july 11 where we will get vice
>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday cap june 21st cap 2018. i would like to remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any -- outbursts of any kind. please silencer mobile devices. if you are speaking, state your name for the record. i will apologize in advance. i've come down with a cold. my voice and sniffling and sneezing between, i will apologize in advance. commissioners, i would like to take roll at this time. rollback for smack we expect cos to arrive shortly. commissioners, first on your agenda is the consideration of
items for continuance. item number 1. 701 hampshire street. items two a and b. >> this was proposed for continuance in 2018. we request a member of the public, and neighbour to continue that matter to september 13th or the 20th. the staff was indifferent. so you may take that up as you may. further commissioners, under your regular calendar under item 17, that conditional use authorization. the project sponsor has requested a continuance of staff in support of the proposed continuance. the date is july 12th. i have no speaker cards.
>> thank you. any public comments on the items being proposed for continuance? >> hello. i'm representing the development regarding 232 clipper street. yes indeed, we requested a continuance. since that time, we worked out a deal with the neighbours. and we would like to present that today after all at the time requested. and if the commissioners or staff have an issue with y. k. so be it we would like to be able to present the project with the neighbors. >> this is the cu. it would be good to have staff involved. it is not just a d.r. where you are working at the issues. >> that is correct. >> has staff seen the revised proposal? >> we submitted to the staff of the revised proposal, but there
maybe one element they haven't seen. would you like to testify as to whether -- >> yes or no, has the staff seen what we are presenting later? >> they've seen what was i the pocket to you, commissioners, but there is a small notch that has been pat -- cut back from that since they saw it. and it is a three-story propos proposal. >> any other items being proposed for a continuance? >> i live at 236 clipper street drugs clipper street next to the project we are just discussion. -- discussing. we've been in productive conversations. i think we are also in favour of going in and hearing it today with the three-story proposal that was submitted and a small adjustment that we have just discussed with him this morning. and recognizing that staff would need to review that as well.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is donna. my husband and i own the building immediately behind 50 visit arrow street. i would like that date changed from the sixth to the following week, or afterward, but i need to notify you that we are going to be away all of october in the 1st week of november. if it gets pushed past that, i needed to be after november 6th. we are the most adversely affected property for that project. >> i am also here on 650 to visit arrow. either of those two days are totally fine. either the 13th or the 20th.
thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i represent 228 clifford. the property adjacent to 232. we are most agreeable to proceed with this today based on the adjustments, minor adjustments and some setbacks bubba eastwood has proposed. i have asked the council to hear y if we could just a correction, sorry for the miscommunication. the only day that were expressed in september is the 27th. the 13th and the 20th do not work for us. >> thank you. any additional public comments.
do we want to talk about it? do you have a comment? >> i am filling in for devon washington. we were assuming we would be continued as moments ago. they are ready to present however, we would like more time to consider the divisions and allowing the parties also to receive the device plans and bring it back on july 12th. >> alright, commissioners. we will close public comments. >> i want to continue items one, twyla -- two with date still to be determined. and continue clifford based on stuff's recommendations.
>> the july date will go to september. what was the date? >> the 27th. >> the 27th. is that ok with you commissioner more clearly. >> i will second that. >> very good commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue item as proposed. items two a to september 27th and item 17 to july 12th on that motion. >> it passes unanimously. if the administrator could continue item two be, the variance portion? >> i will continue at september 27th, also. >> thank you. >> commissioners that will place us on your consent calendar on all those matters. they are considered to be routine by the planning commission and maybe acted upon
by a single roll call. there will be no separate discussion of these items less a member of the staff, the public the commissioners request it. would be considered a separate item. you have to watch what items. item three and item zero .-ellipsis i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment on the items being proposed for approval under the consent calendar. seeing then we will close public comments. >> on that motion to approve three and four under your consent.
consideration of the adopted draft for june 7th, 2018. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing then, comment -- public comment is closed. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for june 7th, 2018? commissioners? that motion passes unanimously and places us on item six. >> commissioner more clearly. >> i want to make a comment on neighbourhood notification. we talked about postcards. this is what municipalities and organizations do talk with that is what it is.
it is excessive. this one allows you to basically add pages and diagrams for whatever it is and add sufficient information for the price of a very inexpensive mailing. i want to bring that around. the other thing i wanted to bring to people's attention is an article i read yesterday written by a gentleman named stephen hill. he talked about his visit to europe and coming back to san francisco and challenging, invite and, actually mayor elect london breed to look at what many cities in europe do for housing, and dealing with the issue of affordability and i want to encourage everybody in this room to pull that article up in the newspaper. it will bring a smile to your face. it can be done. we may not be quite ready to do it yet but there is always a
challenge and the road ahead. i really recommend everybody to reading it. and it was in yesterday's paper. again cap to repeat to the person name is stephen hill. >> commissioner johnson? >> earlier this week i was at an event put on by a foundation called tipping point to communities that was focused on the issue of nonprofit displacement. i had been aware of this idea or what is happening with the nonprofit sector which is just as rents go up across the city, both residential rents have risen but also commercial rents have risen. they have risen at a level that outpaces what nonprofits can continue to afford. we are seeing, or we are beginning to see a loss of our nonprofit organizations which are really the anchor of our community. these nonprofit organizations are under a couple of
challenges, not only are they struggling to find stable space that their employees are struggling to find housing as a cost of living continues to rise. and everyone competes for the same housing. the same time, the client that they serve struggled to stay in the city. and so i think that why kay i wanted to bring that up as an issue as we continue to think about how we continue to protect legacy businesses and we protect our nonprofit community and make space for them and i also just believe that our nonprofits are best partners in helping think about development and how we create community going forward. >> thank you. >> it is nice to see my fellow commissioners not allowing me to monopolize commissioner comments. thank you. a couple of things, in the sunday examiner, there was a call and called a letter to
senator weiner about sba 27. just when you thought page 27 was in the aspen of history, along comes this article. it was startling. the reason why it was startling was senator weiner and the crowd portrayed it as a bold stand to promote racial equity and racial equality. however, and i don't see stephen buss here, there was a dead geek who nato green nose and he goes by the moniker, revolutionary clown. i would love to get his data. i believe i know who he is. overlaying the impact zones with census blocks to find the percentage of renters, nonwhite people, and median income in those affected areas. what they found, again, this was to promote racial equality and equity, areas affected by this where lower income, less white,
and more renters than california as a whole. neighbourhoods within counties were poorer, less white and more renters than the county average. they gave some examples. is 21% nonwhite. thirty-seven% renter, and the median income is hundred and $19,000. it is quite high. the impact was on areas that were 62% nonwhite. they had a much lower median income than some of the median incomes we have in three areas of the city. they went on to give some more examples. the number was 61, riverside it was 67. we start looking at this where it comes up under the guise of promoting racial equity and it actually impacts those that it is trying to promote and list up
harder than it does everybody else. the study said disproportionately affects lower income nonwhite renter communities more than their affluent neighbors. wraps up with, there is no path to racial equity that does not involve people of colour as the architects of their own liberation. that's a pretty startling statement when you look at the evidence. there is no for historic structural racism and design of racial communities less control over their own land. i wish stephen buss were here because i like to connect him with a person who has the data for a peer review on what this impact actually is so when people start making statements like this bill is for racial equity, and you see data like this being presented, if it is in fact true, you can form your own conclusions. we are getting more demolition requests. the demo law is being worked on. i look forward to that.
i talk to people in the community and they keep saying it is ok to keep demoing a house that isn't affordable. and i say no caps you don't understand. that 800 square feet, or that place is affordable to some people and i held this chart up before. affordability of sensing door san francisco since 1991. it has peaks and valleys. the median price was in the first quarter of 212430% of san francisco couldn't afford the median income of the price of a house. now it is down to about 11% or 12%. when you look at cell data, and i know they get happier every week, and you look at that 700 or 800, dollars per square foot on a fairly modest cottage or a house that needs work, then you look at cell data on what the surviving project actually is, and you see it is 1400 or $1,500
a square foot. when you actually put it in line with this cable, it is not 11% of affordability anymore. it is four. it is three. there's a trend in the city and it is going on one house at a time. i don't know if you recall when i mention the population data, we had 46,000 people leave the city who were lower income at 60,000 moved in who were actually made triple the amount of the people who moved out. gets what they are doing in buying these houses? so it is something definitely to think about when we think about demolishing what our relatively affordable houses. lastly, and the san francisco weekly, they had a best of the bay column. this caught my eye. most practical use of the mission's collective outrage, and i kind of went down and thought what the heck is this query apparently there is a club that is thinking about going into -- the club was started by peter teal. we all know who he is. he spoke at the republican
convention. it is a gate private club and they i will put it in the mission on 18th street. my only response to that is give it -- given what is going on in the news lately and the sleep i'm not getting because of what i am seeing, this is an extraordinary and exceptional time. >> commissioners, nothing forward -- further, we can move on to item seven. director's announcements. >> commissioners, if you would allow me a few minutes, i thought it would be a thought to recognize three longtime staffers who are all leaving us in the same week, next week. they are sitting in the front row today. and in order of their service to the city, mark llewellyn, sara bell day, and david lindsay. they were with the department for many, many years. they are leaving us in the same week. i would like to think they did not plan it this way, but it happens that they are leaving
wednesday, thursday and friday of next week. if i may, a few words about each of them. mike llewellyn has served the city for 16 years. you might recall he was first the preservation planner for the northeast team. he was the preservation coordinator for what was then called the landmark's advisory board. for the department, which predates the preservation commission. and then sends 2,008 he has been the quadrant leader for the northeast team which includes downtown. sarah has been with the department since june of 20 '01. seventeen years. as you might remember, they were she was the lead planner for 55 laguna which was a complicated long-standing project that which is 450 units and seven different buildings including historic buildings. including a senior affordable building which is actually under construction now. the west of that complex buildings. there has been -- she has been
with us for 17 years. and david has been with us for 28 years. they have been the northwest -- he has been the northwest team lead for it since 1990. before that, served as a planner three. maybe he did not have team structures back then, i don't remember. david has seen, and these stats are interesting. the processing of a 116,480 total building permit applications. [applause] i want to recognize and thank them all for their great service. we have certificates that were signed by you by port -- for you by president ellis. [applause] >> commissioner more?
>> could i ask you, of these people look far too young to retire. >> the city system allows him to retire from the city system, i daresay they might continue with other work and a future career. they will be retiring from the city system. >> thank you to all of them. you have been amazing and we will really miss you. all of you. thank you. >> did anybody want to say anything? >> no. >> go ahead. >> i particularly would like to thank liz zloty, jeff jocelyn for their supports in the last few years. it has really meant a lot to me. i am incredibly lucky to have them support me and help me through things and allow me the leverage i need.
i cannot thank you guys enough, really. the other things i'm really proud of, john mentioned 55 laguna. the transitional housing at the edward the second building at scott and lombard which is from -- for foster kids who have aged out the foster care system, the city took a lot of heat for that and we made it happen. i'm incredibly proud to have been a part of that. it is one of the reasons i got into planning was to help nonprofits and people who need a little extra hand up in the planning process. the senior housing has always been a privilege, and really fun to do. at the red brick, when it closed and turned into a commercial entity with some performance-based, that was a wonderful experiment and trying to help a long-term neighborhood
tenant to continue their journey in owning their building and trying to keep it private and open for the community. that was another thing. 1500 page street which was a vacant building for years and years and years on page and masonic. it is now supportive housing for people with exceptional abilities. those are the things sort of come to the top of my mind about my career. the women that i've seen come through the office and the industry, kate being one of them, so many people, there's kelly and, deb stein, i had my list. it is gone now. there's a lot that of these women who have been mentors to me and meant a lot. i hope the women coming up in the department find their people and to create their careers. i think that is what i have.
if any of the other commissioners are watching, thank you for serving. [applause] >> just real quick, i only... congratulations on busting the silicone feeling. -- ceiling. i think sarah and i go back the farthest. i've come to have a healthy amount of respect for her. i just want to say, the work that you do makes me proud to be part of this organization. i wish you all well. >> thank you very much. you have sent your guidance to us and it has been in it -- invaluable. after the years you've been here, to answer questions about d.r. is our advocate for affordable housing, it has been
a privilege for us to have your guidance and leadership as we take on many cases. i hope when you drive around the city as you are retired or working again, you do notice these things. we do too that have happened. thank you very much. >> there's nothing further. we can move on to item eight. >> good afternoon commissioners. happy pride and happy solstice. this week the land use committee was cancelled, but at the full board, the reauthorization of 210 can student -- concerning new pdr services. the landmark designation for 2,341st street also known as a phillips building passed its first street. on tuesday, the board considered that my request as process improvement ordinance. we move to unanimously continue
the ordinance to the june 26 a board meeting. in order to allow time to draft amendments to the nature -- neighbor notification service. the amendments would address the proposed notification period of 20 days notification of requirements that required minimum size of 311312. finally at the board meeting, the board upheld the appeal for a 2918 mission street. the proposed project would merge three lofts into a single lot and demolish an existing laundromat and construct an eight story building. the planning commission approved this application in november of last year. the decision of the board of supervisors turned on a single argument that the shadow announced was not adequate. specifically the board found that the planning department should have considered shadow impacts on the early education school as a potential environmental effect.
although at the nearby school is not currently enrolled in the shared schoolyard project, it should have been treated as such, assuming the school is likely to be included in the program in the future. the appeal also raised issues related to growth projections, relied on in the e.i.r. for the eastern neighbourhoods plan. cumulative transportation impacts, and impacts of noise and dust during project construction on the adjacent school. the board's action to appeal the appeal avoids -- avoids the approval of the project. it must return back to the planning department for processing consistent with the board findings which are being drafted at the attorney's office. that concludes my remarks. >> commissioners there is nor board of appeals report and the only matter of significance yesterday was they initiated a landmark of the california buckeye on the calendar.
>> commissioner richards? >> just a question for mr starr. when you said that size is 311, we sat up here and said, hey, we were going to do a commission quality, all those different things. this bizarre policy is established with the roles that could be coming. i think they haven't been communicating with us exactly what they are doing. we will know next week what they are actually going to propose. >> okay. >> we would ask. >> i think that was left for the details after the legislation would be adopted. >> i don't think there is any, i don't think the board is, i don't know for sure, i think the sense is the board is getting into that level of detail and we will leave that to sessions with the community. >> i would say that maybe part of the amendments. they may get into that level of
detail, i don't know. >> one other question on the 2918 mission, i did watch the hearing. when you say it has to come back here, there is no other hearing that the board is going to have to say, hey, shadow impacts do or don't have an adverse impact. >> i believe the environmental review has to start over but i can defer to the city's attorneys office. >> because the board of supervisors spends the community plan evaluation back for additional amounts for the shadow impacts, planning department would revise the cpe, chapter 31 adds they provide that when the board overturns the review, the decisions that were taken are automatically void.