San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 12/11/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President So. Present. Commission Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Present. And Commissioner Williams.

[Gerry Adler (Public Commenter)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you commissioners. We expect commissioner Imperial to be absent today. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one case number 2016 Hyphen 000302 DRP at 460 Vallejo Street. Discretionary review is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Members of the public, I have no other items proposed for continuance. So members of the public, this is your opportunity to adjust the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance.

[Gerry Adler (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Gerry Adler. I'd like to challenge the proposed indefinite continuance.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Challenge it in what sense?

[Gerry Adler (Public Commenter)]: It shouldn't it doesn't meet the criteria for an indefinite continuance. I have materials.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If you'd like to submit them, that's fine.

[Gerry Adler (Public Commenter)]: If we could stop the clock, I will

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, your time's running because you need to submit them. It would have been better for you to submit them at

[Gerry Adler (Public Commenter)]: GREGORY Okay. So or the hearing. GREGORY Basically, the criteria does not exist for indefinite continuance. There is no neighborhood opposition. There are no legal or policy issues. There's no missing information. The item doesn't require further review, mediation, or complexities. What's the cause of delay for the 2018 NOE that' been out for seven years? In the materials that you haven' handed out there' a picture of the 2018 notice of enforcement I'd like you to give those to the planning commissioners. And there's a picture of the unpermitted deck and the housing unit that was eliminated. The roof deck in the prior slide is illegal and it's unsafe. Former building inspector Bernard Curran closed two illegal deck complaints prior to going to prison. A structural engineer told me the weight of the water in the pool deck is the equivalent of adding two stories to a 100 year old house. This is unpermitted, by the way. And the developer contractor, Peter Iskander, is a frequent co defender and should be added to the bad boy. I should have changed that to bad boy, bad girl list the DBI ECC enhanced control list. There are now two notices of enforcement. One was issued in 2025. The problem is getting worse, not better. One dwelling unit is now a private club. Why? Why would you want to put this on indefinite continuance? Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, last call for public comment on the continuance calendar. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is before you commissioners. I will just note that reaching out to mister Winslow, he's stating that the request for continuance is to allow for the enforcement case to be resolved prior to bringing it to you.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director)]: Okay.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to continue.

[Lydia So (President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You commissioners on that motion then to continue item one as proposed commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President So. Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. Placing you on your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. 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 a future hearing. Item two, case number 2020Five-seven879 CUA at 690 Van S Avenue, conditional use authorization. Item three, case number 2020Five-six847 CUA at 2660 California Street, conditional use authorization and item four, case number 2020Five-seven559, CUA at 1416 Haight Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items on consent be pulled off and heard today. You need to come forward. Very good then, commissioners. Public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items on consent, commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Commissioner President So? Aye. So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. Placing us on commission matters, item five, land acknowledgment.

[Lydia So (President)]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatish Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Item six, commission comments and questions. Seeing no request to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to department matters, item seven, directors announcements.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director)]: Hi, commissioners. A couple very short and brief announcements today. And one is just a response. Last week at this commission, during general public comment, you heard a comment from Mr. Rudulovich noting a portion of the general plan. I wanted to get back to you. We know you heard a request for compliance in that state bill. It addresses rewilding, among other topics, in our general plan element of our master plan of our general plan our recreation and open space element of our general plan. Staff actually did the research when that bill was approved somewhat about a year ago. We have a memo that we've sent to the state at that point in time, and we believe we are in compliance with that law. We haven't heard back the state. So I just wanted to address that in real time based on the comment we heard last week. Second announcement, we wanted to note that our senior community development specialist Oscar Grande was commended by the Board of Supervisors this Tuesday in a really moving ceremony, commending his many years of service to the city of San Francisco. We're pretty lucky to have him as a part of our team and just wanted to also commend him for his work. And then lastly, we were able to celebrate together as a department for our annual holiday party. Thanks for those of you who are able to join us. We have a great team. And I know we're closing out 2025 with a lot of accomplishments. So thank you for helping us celebrate that.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Kathrin Williams.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you, Director Phillips, getting back to us on what you got back to us on. Just wanted to also acknowledge Oscar Grande and his work with Bodair and the mission community and also the outer mission community. Oscar has been a leader, a great advocate for low income communities. And we are lucky to have people like Oscar in city government working with the planning department. And so I just want to appreciate the planning department and the leadership for acknowledging the work the important work that he does and so I just wanted to say that so thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay commissioners if there's nothing further item eight review of past events at the board of supervisors I have no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. This week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee considered Supervisor Walton's ordinance that would rezone 1236 Carroll Avenue. The proposed ordinance would change the zoning district designation for the subject property from PDR two to public, and the height and bulk districts from 40x to 90x. These amendments are to support the SF Fire Department's training facility on the site. This commission heard the item on October 16 and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the board with no modifications. During the hearing, there were no significant comments from the committee members and no public comment. At the end of public comment, the committee voted unanimously to recommend the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Also on the agenda was the mayor's ordinance to allow adaptive reuse of historic buildings. However, this item was continued to the call of the chair to allow for more outreach. Next, the committee considered Supervisor Cheyenne Chen's ordinance on tenant protections. This has been continued several times. During the hearing, Supervisor Melgar introduced an amendment that converts the three conditional use findings to requirements. Project sponsors would now be required to comply with all buyout agreement disclosures and submittal requirements before applying for a demolition permit. Additionally, if the rent board has issued a finding of tenant harassment, the project sponsor would be prohibited from applying for a demolition permit for five years. The third requirement would require applicants to comply with the notice requirements in Section 317.2 before any permits are issued. Given that the number of conditional use findings was reduced to eight, Supervisor Malgar also proposed lowering the approval threshold to 70%. So you have to meet 70% of the conditional use findings. The Land Use and Transportation Committee unanimously accepted all of Supervisor Malgar's amendments. These changes were substantive, so the legislation was continued to December 15. The Budget Committee also considered a planning code amendment this week. The surcharges for appeals to the Board of Supervisors sponsored by Connie Chan. The proposed ordinance would increase the Board of Supervisors surcharge for appeals from 120 to two forty to help with city recovery cost. Commissioners, you considered this item on July 17 and adopted a recommendation of approval. There was one public commenter who made general comments about the ordinance's effectiveness. The committee then amended the file with a minor clerical edit and forwarded to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation. Then at the full board this week, Supervisor Mandelman's Central Neighborhood Large Residence SUD passed its second read. And then also the mayor's family zoning plan passed its second read on a same vote as last time. And the local coastal program amendment related to the family zoning plan also passed first read on a split vote, the same as the family zoning plan. Supervisor Melgar's inclusionary housing waiver and land dedication ordinance passed its first read. And there was an appeal for 350 Amber Drive, both a CEQA and a CU appeal. This item was continued to February 10. That's all I have for you today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Seeing no questions for Mr. Starr, we can move on to general public comment.

[Jerry Dratler (Public Commenter)]: I have some materials and if you would turn on the screen for the computer, I'd appreciate it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: SFgov, can we go to the computer?

[Jerry Dratler (Public Commenter)]: Thank you. I'm ready to go. Thank you. My name is Jerry Dratler. This presentation deals with lessons learned from the 12/04/2025 planning commission meeting. One, more needs to be done to protect homeowners from the financial and emotional risk the family at 524 Vallejo Street experienced. Two, planning commissioners should not be the court of last resort for these homeowners. Three, the planning commission split the vote three to three, which demonstrates the need for a formal policy dealing with illegal construction and alterations. And lastly, the planning department should develop and present an enhanced code enforcement proposal to the planning commission in the next ninety days. San Francisco ordinance two twenty eight seven eight passed in 2023 gave the planning commission the tools to deter deter serious code violations. It needs to be fully implemented. It hasn't been. This slide shows the scope, purpose, and the legislative changes. But most importantly, is the last point, factors for penalty. The planning commission and the historic preservation commission must adopt a criteria for determining penalty amounts. The planning department has tools, specific tools, and these are the new tools that came out of the ordinance. One time penalties may be opposed for amounts up to $250,000. It is expected the planning department policy which hopefully will be delivered in the next ninety days will identify specific violations that require the planning commission to recommend developers contractors or engineers be added to DBI's enhanced code compliance list and there be specific minimum financial penalties to deal with the listed code violations. What is the planning department planning to do in terms of penalties to be levied against these two recent projects? The one on the left is the earthquake shack that was written up in the newspaper. The one on the right is a matter that came before the planning commission where that house was reconstructed, remodeled, and it's on an earthquake zone. These are serious things and it shouldn't be there should be a policy and it should not be up to individual commissioners to decide the penalty. Thank you. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And that completes your very short agenda today, commissioners.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs)]: Thank you.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director)]: Meeting adjourns.