i got this thing called an annual report, andi don't -- for some reason, i didn't get it -- how do we measure whether we're doing a good job, and

then, we have these targets, percentage completed by this day, percentage completed by that day. i look at some of these we make, some of these, we don't make, and i think it's due to process improvements. i think that's why we're here today. i think this is alyood conversation. i think it's a good start of a conversation. at a high level, as i sit here, you know, i kind of want to shoot myself sometimes because we have the industry, we have the neighbors, and we just kind of -- it just happens on anything -- article two, article 7 -- it's different day, different issue, and i keep coming back and saying, what's the issue? and i think supervisor peskin, unfortunately, put it in words. he says they don't trust us, and he just handed the letter over the rail before this meeting started, and that's really unfortunate. i think what the perception of the public is it's shifting the s going to be me at a chdog --

disadvantage? the public is perceiving that it's then versus the high paid lobbyist, the architects, that made three or $5,000 an hour to do this, and i think we heard that from the public. the other thing that jumps out at me is hearing all this back and forth, and the severe disagreement. effective, we want to approve all this and getting it rolling, and go back and design the postcard. i've gotten a lot of input on that, too. why not do all the outreach, get all the stuff teed up, and then, come back in october. then, we can say, we love that. we've got a postcard and we're doing all this, rather than doing it backwards.

that's just one thing that i'm thinking of. as for the affordable housing part, go for it. i don't think there's anything there i can't disage with it at all. i actually violently agree that we should be getting that stuff, and i completely trust the organization and staff to get that going. don'want to seeleff hog projects when we've had d.r.'s, i kind of rolled my eyes and thought why are we seeing these? complyess and they gs that were re just delaying things even more. on these other things, they they should not be in the code, planning code, in the past, oh, how many times havee actually changed these things in the last 40 years? you know, we want to make they can flexible.

i think the words were modernized, flexible, standardized, i completely agree. some of stuff i don't mind actually having this in the planning code. we don't change it that often. i don tnk we' changed i ever. we probably just kept adding on, adding on. it's too usit needs to be stream lined, i completely agree. i like some of this stuff still being in the planning code. as for the -- and i'll go -- i've got some specifics here, but as for the notification, we do do a 30-day now, we do a ten-day, we do a 20-day. i actually can support just a flat 30 days honestly, and i think it would engender the trust of the public. it's not like we are doing more 45, 60 days. we're not going to be putting notion ificatithe newspaper

now, according to the legislation, so i think we have a little more freedom, so 30 days makes perfect sense to me. the other one on the signage, i read the legislation, and correct me if i am wrong, the zoning administrator wants to have a different sign, let him have it, but as a planning commissioner, i don't want the zoning administrator doing a bulletin on what we should be doing -- what we feel is a sign. and here's -- you know, i walked down the street, i drive my car, i'm across the street, and i see this sign, and i know something's going on, honestly. this is a real sign that was at the end of my street. it's a long path. i pulled it down this morning. maybe the words need to be better, but you can probably see this a mile away. >> commissioner, did you pull that off a -- >> i did. >> admission. >> president hillis: you know, something's going on. you never know what's going on.

>> commissioner richards: i had this happen -- it was good, better. better. i thought, we're going to put this on a building, what can i put across the street? i can't support any change to this. and i'll be honest with you, i think the building department should use this, i think mta should use this, and we should really get away from this. i really do. >> commissioner, i should point out the current 311 and 312 notifications had that. >> commissioner richards: i think everything should be bigger, to be honest with you. i do. section 309, exposure -- oh, the postcards. so this was my mail this week. this was just the stuff i got, oh, my god, i had a safeway ad,

i had a food 4 less ad, the mailman shoved it in the mailbox, and the dog ch half of this. i come back and i say, why don't we use this size. this size probably seems better. you can get more information in on it. i had asked before to get a 3d of what we've got, what we're going to get. i don't know if it's more money. i actually support the postcard. you did a great job. i think that i could support something that's bigger. but honestly, this is the kind of stuff that you get every election, you get stuff on a tuesday, especially if it comes, it gets lost, it really does, so i think a bigger postcard makes absolute sense. on the notification for the pop

outs, get it. i feel so much more comfortable knowing here are the 250 projects we did 311 notice on, here are the 25 we did notice on, here's the five that were changed because we got opposition on, and here's the one or the zero that went to the board of appeals. i'd love to see that, and i think i could ask anybody out in the room if those are truly the numbers that we're looking at, the tail wagging the dog, that they could probably be reasonable and say yeah, that's a lot of awful work for that one or that two of 250. you know, if you're the next-door neighbor, you probably would have a difference of opinion, because obviously, you're the one that did the d.r., but with more data, i could get behind completely eliminating the pop out thing, and i think the public would have more trust there. the numbers were given, so they must be somewhere, so let's go ahead and get those done.

on the c-3 district, allowing the exposure, etcetera, i get where that's coming from. i think that's a good idea. the 430 main and the 429 beale project that we had, would that have gone through administratively? >> i think -- the only difference -- what we're oposin here, commissioners, there are certain items that require a variance, and we're requiring a separate hearing, we would bring those to you as exceptions, just like we did on 430 main. it doesn't change the requirements, it doesn't cut out the hearing. >> commissioner richards: some of these, we actually have the hearings and the requirement he at ge same time. >> that's for the big ones. >> commissioner richards: one quickie, on page 13. i'm sorry, i did read all of this last night. page 13 of the case report number, i guess, it says the

limited for height of the third level, not the second level. >> yeah, so the bottom of the third level. i know, i did the same thing. that's actually the way it's written in the code. >> commissioner richards: i was thinking maybe it's a mistake. >> no. the bottom of thehird tloor, meaning the top of the second. >> commissioner richards: under the conditions for the affordable housing bonus prom, i wrote in some of these conditions. it should comply with the san francisco building code. i thought it should pay prevailing wage. that's why we're funding these things with public money. the housing district on the section 309, the residential, does that include residential or is it only office? >> that would be --

[inaudible] planning commission weigh in on that. that's it for now. thanks. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. so i generally like all of these. i'm a big fan of streamlining and making things more entci and th tse proposals generally do. i love it that we are now notifying tents. i will say, and this is where i may differ with ron, whom i'm very fond of, i like having things on-line. it's a generational thing, perhaps. i think that the amount of paper that we have used in previous generations as our population gets bigger doesn't -- it has to have

consequences. it's not a good thing, and that means that some of us have to help others, you know, who don't have the same access, but i think it's in the cost-benefit analysis of where we're going with this earth, i think i gd thing. so i am gally in favor of putting as much as we can on-line, where -- and i do think it's -- you know, what that means is some of us will have to train others on how to use a new process, a database that's relational and to connect the dots in all of the information and data that's out there, so i believe in that. sometimes people ask me, why are yo on the planning commission? man, you have to be there until 11:00 at night, it's such a pain, and people come up, and they say stupid things. and that -- so i grew up in a third world country in el salvador, during a time of

civil war, and i feel honored to be part of this sometimes crazy process because there's a formality in rules that need to be followed, and i think that that is what allows us to live peacefully in this seven by seven miles with transparency. so i actually like it that we can hear from neighbors, and that people weigh in on what's going on in these -- this tight little space. i am very much against moving the d.r. office to alcatraz. that being said, you know, i believe that the specific proposals could use a little tweaking. so of all of this great stuff that is being done, i have heard two things that people are upset about. one is the pop outs, and the

one is the notification of the 311 session to 20 days. so i support going back and looking at that a little bit more closely and not throwing the baby out with the bath water and holding up everything else that's great in this process off legislation. i heard it from shawn keegan and commissioner hillis. i think if we think about the process a little bit differently, we can come up with something that will, you know, put things in abeyance. i like that sort you know, concept, giving everybody a transparent notification and not clogging up the planner's time while at the same time allowing folks to look at it, weigh in, and then, you know, i actually trust in the process. i think if something's code compliant, and, you know, someone's not trying to mess

with anybody's light and air, it'll go forward. there are crazy neighbors, we all know that. there are people who, you know, will try to do -- but i think that the price that we pay for living together harmoniously is allowing for a process where people can weigh in, so that's what i think and good job. this -- this is really good. thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. thanks for this today. i think everything that's presented is meant to be more efficient, but it shouldn't threaten our democratic process here. interesting to hear the other comments from the commissioners, and i'm very supportive of their standpoints. i'm more of the thinking that we could chop this up today and finish moving it forward along with all the comments that are made. and i did want to address more

of the larger scale projects. very much in favor of streamlining the 100% affordable housing, as well as the bonus housing. but i'm also going to ask for edwo amendmentst during the first reading of this item, which was, you know, an in writing commitment to pay prevailing wage and to state that the projects will be built up to the local building code. and again, i'll explain why these are my concerns. we've heard here in these chambers special interest groupsromotg factory built housing that is state approved and is not code compliant in san francisco. so i fear that there may be a couple projects here in the city that have been building already that are not up to the local building code. i do not want to see anymore of those. i think it's our duty to

protect the residents of san francisco, especially in their dwelling units when they're asleep at night. in case of a fire, they need to be notified. everything must operate completely properly, and it is a matter of life fety. e thevailing wage side of that also comes into play with this factory built housing, which is not built here, and i highly doubt that they're -- the workers installing that work are being paid a san francisco prevailing wage. so i really like to make a huge point of seeing those two things memorialized just in general, and even more so if they're going to be stream lined. i'm not talking intentions or encouragements, i want to see written commitments that those two things be abided by in order to earn that streamlining. i don't feel comfortable with certain groups, certain trades, certain prohousing groups that are in favor of this

substandard unsafe housing in san francisco, and so i would feel comfortable moving this forward today, including with those two amendments from my side. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think we are at the beginning of a good conversation. i do not personally believe we are there, but i welcome the opportunity to have many knowledge peoe snni this audience and give their opinion. however, i do believe there were really too few people at the table to also discuss that with potential architects in one room. i am a strong believer of public process, and i am a strong believer that as commissioner melgar said earlier, these code of fliers that i got a number of years ago needs to be reduced, needs to be more accessible and clearly understandable, and code reform is something that i

hear wide support for. however, i believe that in order to do it properly, we have to have a clear and enforceable code, and many of the things that are in front of me today, there's still too much ambiguity and too much contradiction, and it still needs work. i want to particularly jump on the most discussed topics that were mentioned here by the public as well as commissioners picking it up, and that is reducing the notification -- the public period to 20 days. i believe for all of the reasons that the public is really volunteering their time torn between holding their job or not being able to take work off requires 30 days and that be olding for all processes. the fact that we do have internet, the fact that we do have more quickly available communication does not mean that you can attend to it more

quickly that you are more available to schedule your time within a shorter notice period. second point is public notice and how do we do it. do we send things by mail? yes, we do, but is there a possibility to require an option e-mail registry for those who want to participate in a different and slightly more expedient way of getting the things. and perhaps neighborhoods have a combination positive those who don't have a computer. some get it by e-mail, and some get it the traditional way, and some integral time that we amend the process to transition perhaps to all e-mail registry, but i don't think we're there yet. when it comes to mailing, i personally believe, and i thought commissioner richards physical demonstration was really good, and i'll just

comment, as well, these cards don't work. they get lost, they get stuck in the mailbox, they fall out of the mail carrier's bundle, and they disappear. i see other organizations use this format, fold it over, and put a little piece of tape in here, and their things contain a number of extra pages, and for a cheaper price, for that same format, you could add plans, you could add additional things and mail it out, reduce costs, but have a more efficient delivery of how you're packaging that information. that's what many organizations railroad wi already are doing, and why not try that for a change? that is for that e. i believe the idea of taking

100% affordable housing out of the historic way if i review that is good, except i believe there are additional metrics that need to be developed in order to have standards to which those housing units have to be designed. we are all talking about that we want affordable housing to be equal to -- and in design quality to market rate housing, but unless we h standards in metrics which parallel very particular criteria, eliminating the review will not necessarily guarantee that the quality of that housing is equal. so i think i would encourage that additional work is being done to develop some criteria by which streamlining that pressld cou be helpful yes not omit certain other things. on almost all other levels, i think there is still room to

add specific criteria by which makinglin sg workable. at this moment, i feel there's still too many loopholes and too many places where specificity is missing, a it brobe and in lengthening the process, but being precise in what you're asking for. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just also want to thank the public for coming out a weighingn i o these -- the proposed process improvements, and my fellow commissioners for your thoughtful comments. i'm going to say what i said at the last hearing what i said on this. i think there's a lot of good material here. i just think that everyo agrees that the streamlining of affordable housing process is really crucial to meeting 100% of our affordable housing goals. o latwuages,ha's really

overdue. the idea of having information being accessible and immediately visible is really important. i keep coming back to what is it we're trying to solve and there are three things that we've been talking about, making neighbors know what we're talking about, that everyone is ultimately engaged, and that we are working in partnership in a way that encouraging housing law, at the same time we're creating housing and projects that are in keeping with our codes. so on ng sure that neighbors know what's happening, i think what i hear in this proposal is the opportunity that the planning department is asking for the opportunity to experiment with waysrichards?

>>missior richards: so a few more things. on the preproject meetings, i'm not sure i would hang my hat on having that be a process that i could trust, i.e., i was in a neighborhood association, and i was the president for a few short years. and you know oh, we're going to have a project meeting, and it's going to be wednesday at

1:30. well, i can't go because i have to work. oh, here's the ans,ut then later on, the plans change. i just don't feel comfortable making the preproject with the neighbors "the thing" on how things are notified. also, plans do change. there could be serial permitting. we've seen that the project that ends up isn't actually the one that we were shown. interestinenou , i was sitting up here,nd i just did a google search on the internet access for san francisco, and an article came up from the examiner literally a year ago today, and it -- the title of the article is jarring "internet access results in boldening leaders." and the mayor says the responses to a few questions

were more jarring t i particularly imagined. we have a much broader picture of what's going on, but it's not a pretty picture. 30% do not have internet being, and 60 cite the costs. we should be all digital by the time we have broad band for everybody, so let's have a transition period, and let's move towards that, and i think this would be another good reason why we would want to move to broad band, but there were people in the public that were senior citizens that said they didn't have access to the internet, and this survey from a year ago actually says that. i don't get plans on-line. i think a couple of commissioners do, but i don't.

it's hard, especially trying to shift the thing around on the screen, etcetera. i think like the idea of hey, whatever we do, let's come back in a certain period of time and say how'd we do? what exactly -- how many hours did we save, you know, what was the impact? were there any tenants evicted, and another question that i have is you know, we had a pop out on somebody living behind a garage, and there was construction, will they get evicted? i don't know. we talk to any tenant advocates. i think the department measures that come in the annual report that certain things tick in the direction that's right, so we can come back and say we saved this many hours, and what we've done with that is done a better job doing x, y, z, so i'd like to have a report back on how well we did with these savings. >> absolutely. and commissioner richards, just on the preapplication meeting, i'd just like to remind you that it is a commission policy. it's totally an item that we could come back and talk about what the preapplication policy

is. for example, we've made some changes over the years to make sure that it is -- they have to be after working hours, because it is common sense. that's better to do that here with the commission to again, rely exclusively on what's in the code. so prpplication process is always something we can look at and make sure it serves this purpose to its best intent. i certainly welcome that. >> commissioner richards: i completely agree, it's just we hear so many times, neighbor a to neighbor b, i didn't hear about it. do we continue it because of that? and we do, more often than, err on the side of caution. i think we all agree on the affordable housing piece. what do we do? >> president hillis: well, one, there's stuff that could be done without an ordinance, so, you know, we talked about

if you remove pop outs from not having notification, there's improvements to the process that are not -- that are not needed. the legislation is not needed. your common residential expansions can be done, that process improvement that we talked about could be done without -- withoutlegislation. so there were a couple pieces, i think of code changes that folks asked for. commissioner melgar, which i agree with, asked for 311 notification be at 30-days, and notification of the pop out- to keep notice of the pop out, although improvements to the planning department's process for pop outs. >> so i think categorizing the notice for -- standardizing the notice for 30 days is standard. the process change that you're talking about, the internal process change to send the notice out, sort of without sending it upstairs to a

planner to sit in their cue and allf that, there's a period of time that's spent creating the notice, creating the mailing, and sendingut t mailing, but also as to the time. and my fear with that is it doesn't actually save any staff time because now you're allocating that staff time to still do that notice? and the big sort of win of this is tt we're saving some staff time to reallocating it to reviewing and approving housing. >> president hillis: but that wasn't driving that -- >> the permit is waiting in the process. >> president hillis: and then review. >> yeah. >> president hillis: but if you were to say hey, this pop out, or even a vertical addition -- i would expand it beyond pop out, complies with the urban design guidelines, there's no reason it has to be the same as -- as a -- a new three-unit building. i mean e i think that's what we're doing here. we're equating what we do at a

staff level for a pop out to the demolition and construction of a three unit building. and i think that's where we should -- and i don't think the notification is ws g n in the way. the question that we've been convinced that that's what's happening. >> commissioners, i think -- if the issue is if we work toward a solution like what you're describing, it doesn't require legislation. >> president hillis: correct. >> so i think that what i'm hearing is perhaps that we pull the pop out stuff out of this package and come back to you with a procedural change that addresses the issue as efficiently as we can, and what that might mean is something like having a dedicated planner just working on that stuff. i'm not sure that your approach works just because of the back and forth with a project sponsor, but there's other ways we can look at this perhaps -- >> president hillis: i mean, dbi does that. >> i know, but it's a little

different when you pull a permit -- sorry. >> president hillis: come back -- we pull it, come back. if there's no savings from that or we can't do it, let's revisit the notification issue. >> sure. my fear is that we will never get to revisit it because the trust, it works on both sides. >> president hillis: yeah, but i'm for moving it forward. i think a lot's good in here, but i think that there were those two issues. >> i think we can solve the standardizing notice by going to 30 days. we had hoped that your concerns about notifying immediately adjacent neighbors would be resolved with the preapp requirement which is a notification as well as a building permit notification, but it seems like that's not adequate. >> president hillis: i'm just not convinced that the notification is what's driving the problems, right? and so we're giving up notification to say we're going

to save two weeks because we're not going to note kify this? >> it's an internal processing thing. >> president hillis: yeah, so i think we fix the internal processing thing. >> if the department believes that that is possible. >> look, there's different things we can do. >> president hillis: look, there's different things you can do. i'd rather have my neighbor build a vertical addition than a pop out. there are code compliant vertical additionhat meets standards -- >> everything that goes up for 311 is code complying, yet you do get d.r.'s on all of those code complying projects. >> president hillis: yeah, but it's a smaller version of it. >> very minor expansion. >> president hillis: what we're saying is oh, you bring

it in 5 feet from the property line, in a lot of cases, it doesn't matter if you -- there's a building there, right? so we're making people do that. we're actually making them make bad design choices. my house, there's a huge wall next to my house, right, that if i ever wanted to pop out, i actually should build out to the property line and maybe give 10 feet on the other side where there's a big, but in this instance, i'm probably motivated not to do that and build a pop out with a 5 foot set back on the other side. >> but that would be a comment through the residential design team. they would look at your adjacent property and say oh, you should shift to that side and shift the processing time. >> president hillis: but actually for a better project, i would need notice, depending on the context. that i as why i think we're trying to define a little, too. we're trying to define where we don't give notice. >> i think trying to include vertical additions in this

would be ideal probably for processing time savings, maybe not for neighborhood concerns, but by having the same threshold of notice for these two differing scopes of work, we're not really incentivizing someone to do a smaller scale notice. if they require notice, they're going to do the bigger project then. >> president hillis: which may be appropriate. >> okay. >> president hillis: but i think you can make the process improvement that we're talking about on either of those and process. and get through the >> that is for the department, too. >> just really quickly, commissioners. i want to reiterate what the improper mentioned earlier, which is that this legislation is but one piece of our process improvement strategy, we just on monday launched a project streamlining process. we have a lot me information, ways that we can handle these

expansions more efficiently, perhaps not witho no perhaps with expanded over the counter review, perhaps with something different. we are looking into that now, we're going to continue, and after we report back to that as part of the executive directive, we're going to keep you in the loop. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i lost my train of thought. i think whatever we do, i have to keep coming back to section 333 and the postcard and the size of the signs. i want to make sure that doesn't get swept around. i want to revert back to kind of what we had before. >> can we bring the slides back up again, sfgovtv? we have a -- just to help you at the end of your package as we move forward, the six modifications what we just proposed, i'm looking at page six of your draft resolutions, which is where any such proposals that you're making

would be made. numbers five and six are related to the pop outs, so if were to remove those piece prosecutes it, you would need to have an additional number- additional resolution to modify it to keep notice for the pop outs, but those numbers five and six that are there right now which is the commission policy about preapps, and the three year rule about the serial permitting, those would not be to be included because they're essentially moot at this point in time. and then, commissioner richards related to sizes of the materials, you can see that a couple of these are about the proposed side of the mailer. >> the legislation still has 4.5 by 6, by the way. >> and the staff resolution as currently written now is to do a half sheet which could be another commission policy, it could be done through a variety of means.

>> president hillis: is that going to be in the ordinance, the 5.5 by 8.5, or is that commission policy? >> you have to have something. >> president hillis: well, we could set that as the minimum, obviously sy commsion policy. >> you could go more hils. >> that's what i'd recommend. >> president hillis: and then, the size of the poster. >> it's got a minimum of 11 by 17 in the ordinance, and we've got the same situation. we can adjust that, what color it should be, what we can do with that. >> president hillis: when you come back with the language, we should ask you to com back before january 1 with commission policy. >> commissioner richards: so we're going to have another hearing with the public coming and saying, it needs to be blue, it needs to be 6 inches by 12. >> once we get into that level in detail, that absolutely would be the point in time to talk about the engagement for

what works for the postcards and for the mailers. we wouldn't want to come back and have a policy discussion before doing at least that amount of the work. the whole conversation doesn't have to happen in one hearing. we can do that and then you all can consider whether to have such a policy or not. in the interim, any specific details in how the posting or mailing is done is always up to the zoning administrator, so at the bare minimum, we would update our bulletins to account for the differed conditions on-sites, but the commission policy is probably the clearest way for you to be in crof that dialogue. >> president hillis: that's fairly easy to change, too, from time to time. >> by resolution of this commission. >> president hillis: right. >> that's right. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i believe there's a significant amount of passion from the department and all of staff. and i appreciate your ability to really respond in the moment to very important questions.

however, the more questions arise, the more i see myself, personally, the gap between this body's knowledge about the incidentri c intric intricacies. i am all for improvements. i many times sit here completely bogged down in contradictions that i can't quite understand, although i spend a lot of time preparing myself for the meetings here. if we could take a little more time out to really try to think our speeds, think ourselves around common areas of concern, common areas that we want to improve and how we want to improve, with refirming certain basic tenets with how we want to operate with the public and the public sees themselves in the process, and we work with each other. i would greatly appreciate

that. i'm speaking for myself. i myself feel we are not synced around the issues at hand here. >> cssioner richards: is that a motion? >> commissr yeah. >> commissioner richards: how long? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to see it before the summer break, but i do not know your schedule, i do not know your ability to have a -- i hate to use the word war room where people can sit with each other and discuss this stuff. >> just to clarify, are we talking about the materials that will be mailed out? >> commissioner moore: that is only the result of having a process in place. it is the substance of what we're trying to change and trying to improve. >> right, and so that's the section of the notification related to the notification materials, and everything else. >> right. that includes the pop outs and

everything else. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: so what i heard you say is you intend to come back to this body at some point with something like a policies and procedures manual that will be more specific on the how to's of some of the stuff in this legislation, which i very much support because it is a good governance practice. it is much more easily changed than even in the code, and i think it is also a good practice, you know, to do it on a regular basis. i think what's key is to have some public involvement in that process. and i think there's a very similar thing with the, you know, inclusionary housing section of our code that the mayor's office of housing writes a policies and procedures manual on how the ttery happens and the a.m. i.'s, and every year, it gets updates because the a.m.i. gets

updates. but every time they change it, they bring together the lenders, the home ownership counselors, the tenants. so it is a lot of work to involve the public, butst' a crucial step that's involved in making that happen. i'm ready to on this today, but i want somewhere in the language of this -- that -- that that be specified, that the policies and procedures with aroundh going to l come up reflect a publicrocess that includes neighbors, includes everyone, and, you know, that we will have a public hearing before they get implemented, and that there will be a regular schedule by which they get looked at, and that we don't change them, but that we look at on a regular basis. >> i think there's precedence to that. we have other reference to policy documents in the code

for other issues, so we can go ahead and do that for this ordinance, as well. >> vice president melgar: thank you. >> yes. >> president hillis: and that would be before january , before we implement the ordinance, we would have the hearing to set those policies. >> yes. i'm not sure how we word it, because the ordinance becomes operive a it passes. >> president hillis: but it's effective january 1. >> so we would come back to you before that time. >> president hillis: just that we would recommend that it's effective the earliest of january 1 or when we -- the latest of january 1 or when we adopt policies to implement the noticing provisions. >> yes. you need to -- sorry. >> president hillis: 'cause we need to do that, any way. >> we need to check with the city attorney just to make sure how we would set that kind of a we can actually set it up where it would be consistent with the policy notification, and we currently have the operative date of january 1 of 2019.

i'm not exactly sure what the best path is right now other than to make the resolution that that part of the -- not be in effect until the policy is adopted, and that way -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to raise the residential guidelines which focuses on many aspects that we're going to hear, they're not ready to test -- [audio difficulties]

>> commissioner moore: the other thing is somebody threw out that actually, two days ago, proposition f passed, and it may have impact on consequences that we don't know about that. i would like to see an answer or a position taken on that, as well. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i guess i'm a little bit confused. we have until july 15 to get this back to the board. we have some unresolved things that maybe an extra four weeks can get sharp, get people in a room, get them down, get this stuff nailed down. let's not have another hearing later this year, sust get nished. >> i think the level of detail

that we're now discussing about the commission policy would take more than four weeks especially to do the appropriate community outreach and do all that work. i think the proposal that's being discussed iso move the ordinance with the proviso that we're going to do that work. putting that on a do or die before july 15 puts me on pause. >> commissioner richart i gets people to do things. >> president hillis: that was always the intent. to dumb back with this post adoption of this implementation with policy on notification. we've almost heard the same thing go back and forth from people who are nomable. i know a lot of people, this is the first we've seen this. we have people here, we'd have a community meeting, we'd see the same folks, the architect and the neighborhood folks, who we see a lot, and we very much appreciate your opinion, but we get the same response in comment. i think commissioner mcgill was

right, we tried this 100 times, and we always continue it. we're removing the pop out, we're going to 30-days. it's what frankly neighbors asked for. i think we implement the great things in this ordinance. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i move to move this forward with the pop outs omitted. i move to have the standard notification 30 days, i move to not finalize the notification details until the commission policy's set. i move to have a review period set at some point in the future to see what the impact of this has been on the efficiency of the department and what it's gained us. i move to have local building code followed and prevailing wage be part of the check list of the affordable housing

piece. is there anything else anybody else -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. what was that last portion? richard richards the building code be followed and part of the prevailing wage. i thought that was part of it. >> commissioner richards: it was. to have it followed. >> same for the building code, that's what's always followed. there's no harm in putting it in the planning code. it's something that dbi takes care of. >> vice president melgar: second. >> president hillis: great. and you'll come back to us with improvements that are not planning code oriented to get at kind of the pop out and other pretty standard residential expansions? >> oh, absolutely, again, this is one piece along the long path of process improvements, including -- you know, let's change things internally, amen, and this is one of the pieces

before us, so we'll absolutely be -- the regular reporting on all that will continue. i just want to ask for again, we have the draft resolution, i just heard, and i think i saw secretary ionin writing down one, two, three, four, five, six, additional resolution drk-items in your resolution. i would also ask whether or not it would be cleanest for us to be sure that the commission recommends -- you know, we had these other modifications about the pop out that are irrelevant. i guess there's no harm in leaving it in here, and also, the three-year rule about the pop outs -- >> president hillis: i think you can cleanup the ordinance. if the no notification for pop outs is out, you can cleanup anything irrelevant to that. >> clerk: i heard commissioner richards strike items five and six. >> president hillis: you get it.

if those items aren't relevant, there's no sense in putting any irrelevant language? >> yes. i just wanted to make sure we get it corrected down to the letter richard richards can we make a -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: right, so we're modifying. >> yes,hat modification's already in your resolution. >> president hillis: all right. >> commissioner richards: is there a second? >> vice president melgar: i second. i second. >> president hillis: you seconded a motion to continue -- >> clerk: no, we didn't get a second on that motion. >> president hillis: jump all over me commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i had asked for performance standards for affordable housing, but i believe everything we just said could go through a cycle of

revisions, becausenot inclined to approve something at this moment with hanging loose individual adjectives. in this case, something where the writing is not in front of me, words make a big difference written one way or the other, and for that reason, as much as i support everything you outlined, i cannot participate in supporting approving it just based on what we are providing this input. >> president hillis: but to be clear, we're going from 20 days to 30 days. >> commissioner moore: the devil is in the details. >> president hillis: 20 to 30, i don't know how you detail that, and we're actually eliminating a portion of the notice. >> clerk: just from clarity, we're going from 20 to 30 or a straight 30 because there are many things that require 30

days. [inaudible] >> -- so you just change the two to a three in 333. and in the pop out, there's a text change to keep that. >> clerk: is there any other -- any other amendments anybody wants?

-- by putting out r.f.p.'s with clear specifications how it should be designed and in our planning code we have the affordable housing design guidelines as well. >> great. >> there's a motion and a second. >> president hillis: okay, there's a motion and a second. to adt this resolution recommending approval with amendments striking items 5-6 on page 7 related to the pop out and pre-application including a straight 30-day notification requirement,

details not to be effective until commission policy is set. a look back after implementation of one year and the affordable housing component comply with the current san francisco building code include prevailing wage and that the performance standards for affordable housing be included. jonas i didn't hear you read the required notification for the pop-outs. that's on my list. >> we struck 5 and 6. >> we are striking 5 and 6 so that's a current requirement. >> the commission needs to affirmatively make a recommendation with the way it's drafted. 5 and 6 were ancillary.

>> we're not eliminating notification. >> i don't want to come back and do the resolution. >> we are keeping notice for pop-outs. >> commissioner? >> i want to make sure from the performance standards clea those staards don't actual exist in that form. they are within the o.c.d.'s manual, right, what we are talking about here. maybe the best thing to do is to refer to that manual rather than refer to something separate for a set of performance standards if that makes sense. >> on that motion [roll call] that passes 6-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> all right, we will take a 10-minute break.

>> for thursday june 7th 2018. i will remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off on the regular calendar for items 11 and 12 a and b. planning code amendment for case number 2018-0091494 p.c.a. >> thank you, jonas. good evening, commissioners. marcella, staff, and implementing permits at the planning department. i will give you bra f overview of the monitoring regarding the accessory dwelling units. this report will also be transmitted to the board of supervisors.

i will highlight a few overall trends of the data and end with a few key procedural and process improvements and i will be able to answer any questions have you following. can i get the overhead please? the graph outlines the quarterly filing since the inception which really illustrates what we found substantial increase in filings since the program was implemented september 2016, 162-16. 73% of all the a.d.u. submittals have been submitted since that time. in the case packet also included the map which illustrated the geographical distribution of submittals for all a.d.u. permits. ri