>> on the contract director with hsa. people are coming out of mental health facilities and are being transported from the hospital to a program or back. it is not like a normal transportation where you are just going in there. it is the rare circumstance when you have to bring in someone under that type of situation so they can move from a facility to a home where they will live for back. so there is higher liability. >> president serina: commissioner pappas? >> commissioner pappas: typically services are provided by the driver themselves. if there are places where the park and accessibility, or if there is no parking where an attendant has to assist in this location to the actual permit itself, or have special needs, that is where the separate attendant is added.

it is not a standard addition to the hour, plus the attendant. the attendant is optional. >> vice president loo: are you telling me that may be also the attendant has some special training create they are not the regular attendant that does housework? >> that is my understanding. it is also more so with the manpower and the actual assistance available. >> vice president loo: thank you. >> president serina: what kind of vehicle do they use? do they have their own vehicle? does they have their own vehicle? >> yes, they do. they have their yard right across by 15th and scent bernardo avenue. right by ups by the freeway. >> president serina: ok. thank you. any other comments or questions? 's. >> commissioner wallenberg: i did have one other question. services will be requested by e-mail. i would assume that there is a provision if there is a crisis situation when somebody needs to be reached faster, that it would

be by phone or through other means of communication. is that correct? >> that is correct. we discussed that in the event there is something more urgent, they would be willing to help us. they have a rather large fleet's. >> commissioner wallenberg: thanks. >> president serina: thank you. any other comments or questions? and eat from the public? hearing none, called the question. all in favor? every commissioner should say yes. thank you. any opposed. thank you. the motion carries. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> president serina: any general public comment or any announcements. >> clerk: commissioner, we have to vote on a. did weekly. >> president serina: we did. we voted on both. a and b. >> clerk: my apologies. >> president serina: >> president serina: any announcements. patty? >> good afternoon commissioners and deputy director. i wanted to announce the health and wellness affair that is

coming up september 15th. it is a saturday. from 11-two i put out flyers for all of you at a put flyers out off i guess here that are in chinese, spanish and english. it is something we have been working at really hard to. we are happy to say the event is growing and we have five community business sponsors this year. we have an amazing raffle. three vaccinations vaccinations, blood pressure checks, dental screening, and it is a family affair. it is fun for all. you are welcome to come join us. we invite you and we want to get the word out. we will be sending out electronically all over the city too. >> president serina: thank you eric any other announcements? any other public comment? do we have a motion to adjourn? >> vice president loo: so move. >> a second. >> president serina: all in favor? by rising vote, we have adjourned. [♪]

>> i will remind members of the public to silence her mobile devices. when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state so for the record. i will take role at this time. womack -- [roll call].

first on the agenda's consideration if of items proposed for continuance. item one, case number 2017, at 412 broadway. proposed for continuance to september 13th, 2018. i item two, case at granville avenue. discretionary review is closed for continuance this september 13th, 2018. discretionary review is proposed for continuance until october 25 th, 2018. no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards >> president hillis: thank you any public comment on the items being proposed for continuance?

>> i was the d.r. requester for both the grandview and the new hampshire. i support continuing 505 grandview. we are close to reaching a deal with the architects. they have been great. we just need a little more time. and then on 701, i do not support the continuance. this is in an a.d.u. project. we had several tenants, who are going to lose their garages and be displaced. one tenant has been -- has taken a buyout. they were pressured to do so. the other one does not want to move but but she is under tremendous pressure to take the buyout. i just would like you guys to watch this project so that is not on the table. because she is the lone wolf here and it's not fair to her. the planning department is looking at plans and not really

considering how tenants are faring in these plans. thanks thank you. any additional public comment? >> hi. my name is christina tran. i am here for 701 hampshire street. contrary to what she just said, we are not pressuring the tenants. we actually took all of the buyouts off of the table. >> president hillis: right now we are only taking public comment on the matter of the continuance. not the matter itself. >> ok. i'm sorry. >> president hillis: you can -- >> i have a prepared comment. >> president hillis: if it is about the continuance, sure. >> yes, so our project is under the retrofit program and we are

proposing to add a.d.u. units and other much-needed renovations to prolong the useful life of -- life of the building. our attorney has been actively negotiating with tenant attorneys and representatives. we are discussing how to make the work easiest on the tenants, the existing building tenants and offering improvements to existing units and cleaning providing washer dryers, no cost to increase rent -- >> president hillis: we are trying to consider --dash we are trying to decide if we continue this item. this is relevant to, but if you can stick to why we should or should not continue this item, that would be helpful. >> these negotiations have taken longer than expected. we ask that you allow these negotiations to continue and therefore we are requesting it continuance to the next available date. >> president hillis: thank you anyone else on the items being proposed for continuance greek commissioner richards?

>> commissioner richards: i do not support the continuance on hampshire but i support all the other ones. i move to continue all of them but 701 hampshire street. >> second. >> president hillis: so you want to hear hampshire? spee ats. >> president hillis: is a possible -- i mean i am fine but i don't know if staff is prepared to hear it. >> commissioner richards: can. >> commissioner richards: can we talk about it? >> president hillis: can we continue it to date? there is time pressure involved and we like to keep the pressure on. perhaps we can begin keep it on a date earlier than october 25 th. so people come ready. >> commissioner richards: iris into my motion and move to continue 701 hampshire to september 2nd. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to continue, items one and two as proposed an in item three to september 6. [roll call] so moved, that

motion passes unanimously, 7-0. all matters listed here under the constitution for that calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single rollcall voted at commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public or staff so requests. the mayor addressed the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item for this or a future hearing. item four, at 711 germania street and 73 through 77 webster street, condominium conversion subdivision. item five, at 1501 california street, conditional use operator station -- authorization.

for the zoning administrator who will be considering the variance i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any public comment on the items four or five on the consent calendar? seeing then, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: moved to approve those items on the consent calendar. >> second nine thank you. on that motion to approve items four and five under the consent calendar. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. zoning administrator, what say you? >> we declined to request a variance for engine five b. >> clerk: that will place you under commission matters for item six. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: it has been a very busy week. so much happened this week. more than happened in a break. i will break. i will be very brief. we have been hearing about the

river and the p.u.c. fighting and state water resources to curtail shipments of water to the bay area. there was a counterpoint on tuesday in the chronicle. the city demand on the yes side. when i was reading the 870 franklin, led negative deck, on page 120, they talked about water resources and it talked about will adding additional residents to this project create any issues issues with water? and the answer and that was no because we were supposed to have enough water in the future for these residents. if you look at what is being said here under the no side, huge portions of the bay area would face water rationing on the order of 20-30% beyond the conservation rates achieved during the recent drought. since the river users are already among the most frugal in california, residents used 54

gallons per capita per day compared to the statewide average of 82 gallons. that is what todd david mentioned when i brought this up last time. some communities will be forced to achieve rates unseen in the developed world. san francisco is one of the cities could be forced to impose an emergency moratorium on building everything from schools and parks to hospitals and housing. i think this is a looming issue that i don't know with a sense of my other commissioners is. maybe it would be informational for the s.f. p.u.c. to come and tell us about what the situation is and why we will have enough water in all of these buildings. i understand the effort -- methodology may be something we might be interested in. i got a thumbs up from commissioner fong and a couple of head nods. maybe we can schedule something. >> commissioner richards: second thing. i had lunch this week with are a member of a major -- a prominent member of the development community and this person was talking about one of our recent

decisions to have a house be put back the way it was in the fact that that llc could potentially go bankrupt. the question i have, is understanding that we have asked for these things to happen and these partnerships are kind of separate, if a development entity where to go bankrupt and they couldn't do what we did, what actually happens quickly that it is a good question. i would like to follow up on these ones. these are significant steps that we have taken to deter bad behavior when we really thought there was a fraudulent fraudulent behavior. i wouldn't -- i am a little bit concerned about following up on these and if we feel good after we made the decision. we never understand what happens we can look into that.. the decision was dad regardless of the status of the property owner. the commission's decision would stand and if the commission's decision is not implemented, we

would have the ability to pursue enforcement on the ownership entity. >> i had lunch with the director this week and i look forward to the action item updated once a quarter. we talked about that and we have some really good dialogue around that. i would tell the department that they are doing so much stuff that we, the commission, sometimes the public don't realize peak --dash. i look forward to that. we had enough comments last week on the cost of community engagement. i know she was maybe being a bit cynical, however, we are looking at housing affordability studies and this week we had condos stalled out as a builder's cash out. the front page of the chronicle. today, construction firms facing worker gap. the new york times state tariffs could make apartments more expensive. there is an overwhelming amount of talk about costs going up. i had a discussion with the director this at -- at lunch. i really want to understand that

the timelines and the costs and what happens at the same time? so we are being led to believe that community process takes a lot of time and money to happens in isolation or sequence. when maybe they're trying to get a permit for this or that in all these things are happening concurrently. i want to understand how this all fits together. i think the take away was that if the investors don't achieve six% return, stuff is not getting built. i would love to see what all those nickels and dimes add up to you and why things aren't getting billed as part of the affordability study. and lastly, i saw in the chronicle this week, there's been a central soma economic report put out by ted egan. you may have have come out after we voted on the central soma plan but i look forward to having him come in and tell us the impacts of the plan and hopefully he can bring copies with him or send us the copies. >> president hillis: thank you

>> vice-president melgar: to piggyback on the central soma plan and the study that was done by ted egan, we added some language and that what that came out of this commission cake , on good jobs. is the first time i have seen that happen. and it occurs to me that every project that we get has been a proof -- of prevailing wages and stuff around local hiring. but i don't know what the cumulative impact is of that. i've never seen an analysis or a report on how we are doing. i feel like the information that we get with every project is not consistent. sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not. i i would be really interested when we have mr egan come, to have someone from economic and workforce development, specifically the local hiring

folks,.com and tell us about the central soma specifically. what we are thinking is going to happen, given this language and whether or not this is language we need to incorporate -- incorporate in other areas that are being developed and if it makes a difference. i'm really interested in that. and then the other issue that i wanted to talk about and follow up with staff, as about family housing. remember family housing? we had a number of people do some really great work. i'm not sure where that is. at the very least, i have heard that term used by a lot of folks , meeting different things. and i think before we continue anything progressive, especially , especially in talking about developing higher density on the west side and staff,, we need a definition of

what family housing is. i think it will take more than the planning department coming up. it sounds like, we need something you're just watch what bedrooms, rate? it is all kinds of different things. we should be thoughtful about these things. it could be the start of some good stuff. so i would request respectfully that we follow up on that conversation and perhaps get it going. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you commissioner boyer? >> commissioner moore: i am assuming it is a question regarding central soma to include the central soma version that we have not quite heard yet i had a question for administrator sanchez. i am glad you are here today. in the paper yesterday i yesterday i read that senator weiner is introducing the statewide new version on how

long bars can stay open. until 4:00 am in the morning. how does that affect you relative to specific neighborhoods in -- bars located in neighborhoods? >> my understanding is local land use control would still apply and the neighborhood commercial districts would still have limits on hours of operation to either 10:00 pm, 12:00 pm or 2:00 am. probably where we would see the most difference would be in the districts that don't have limits on hours of operation. such as the c3 zoning district. this this would allow those bars to stay open beyond 2:00 am. >> commissioner moore: thank you for clarifying that. i'm raising the question because the paper it was generic about the answer. i thought it was an ability to really let the neighborhood people know that this will not immediately affect neighborhoods and protected hours that are

already set. thank you so much for clarifying >> president hillis: commissioner richard squeaked. >> commissioner richards: i appreciate you bringing that up. i did a double take when i read the same article in the chronicle. our supper -- they say it is a land use category and the quote was, one side state mandates do not fit all localities. it made me scratch my head in light of some of the things proposed recently. i i wanted to mention that. >> commissioner moore: -- >> president hillis: we were also also at the mayor's announcement where this was an ounce. they announced an expedition effort to expedite the construction of a do you at a fairly sizable backlog. we all agree we have seen their efficient way to head new units. they are generally in spaces that are unoccupied. it is a good way to add new units but i think the city's process has not caught up with how to do these. they are generally in ground-floor levels with levels

with exiting issues. so mayor breed issued a directive to try to get these done and departments working together to get them done in a timely fashion, which is exciting to see. i don't know if you want to add anything to that. >> commissioner richards: i was going to mention that as well. the mayor did have a press conference today. we had been working with the fire department and department of building inspection to streamline our process. i just want to give a big shout out to marcel boudreau on the staff who worked hard to make all this happened. we have come up with a much more streamlined solution to how these work. we have set up on the fifth floor of d.b.i., a desk solely for a.d.u. there is a backlog of 900 units right now that we have in applications for. we have approved 377 i think was a number put out today. interestingly enough, during the press conference, i learned what what residents came in and applied for a.d.u. permits coincidentally, which was interesting. but the goal is to have all departments finish the work

within four months and issue permits within four months and to clear the backlog in six months. marcel feels confident with the new procedures that we can make that happen. i am grateful to her for her work and for the mayor -- part of the reason for the backlog as we have way more applications than we ever imagined. we are getting applications at the rate of 500 a year. it is a a very substantial program right now. >> president hillis: it would be great if we can get a report, whatever you will eventually do for the mayor's office to track where we are with the backlog. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: this commission is very supportive. i hope that she could present to us of what the bigger hurdles are for her to look at certain rooms. i read in the paper that the interpretation of fire code, for example, is often a hindrance and comes past the fact. it is also subtle issues that need to be considered. i am also tuned into the comment this morning, a few minutes ago,

that it is the impact on tenants that is a very important issue that we need to be concerned about. we cannot afford to gain one and lose five. the subject has not brought up very often but i hope we will be able to be informed about that issue. >> president hillis: commissioner richard squeaked. >> commissioner richards: last comment. i know when we did the budget we earmarked some funding or an f.t.e. for the people or the tenants and i look forward, in the coming quarters, to understanding how that plays out >> you approved a budget that had an a.d.u. in it and that is in the process of being hired. the other position that you requested did not make the mayor 's office budget. so we are looking at other ways of making that work. >> clerk: nothing further, we can move onto department matters item 77, director's announcements.

>> that was my announcements. >> clerk: item eight is order of the events of the board of supervisors. there there was no meeting yesterday. spee on the board resumes next week. i will have information for you then. >> commissioner richards: they are back in action september 12 for they will be hearing the rehearing for the removal of the early days statue from the monument. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there will place us under general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items that are of interest to the public except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the team's reach in the meeting. you can address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> good afternoon. i will talk about unit size pick last week i mentioned a house where the staff is working with

d.b.i. to make sure -- and i would give you a copy of the layout and i forgot to do that. here it is, for the record. it is 1964 square feet. three bedrooms. very livable and very beautiful. i should have done the overhead last week but i won't show it again. what i want to show now is a units that is pending in a multiunit building and it is a three build -- three bedroom. may i have the overhead to, please. it is 1284 square feet. three bedrooms. there it is. right there. it is under review right now. you can see, there is the common stairway, but it is still 1294 square feet. three bedrooms, two baths. that led me to think that something i mentioned earlier, which i think it is a demolition

, but whatever. here it is here. and what happened was it was two units, illegally, and one was moved downstairs behind the garage. here is the plan that was first approved by the staff. you can see the wall between they are and the garage. the unit. and then they asked for a revision so they could have a stairway from the garage, above the unit, and no entry into the unit. just coming from the garage to the upper two floors or three floors. it has a roof deck. here is a detail of it. you can. you can see the stairway goes up there there is a closet underneath. once they hit the market and they are asking 4.6 and they got 4.9. here it is. you can see what happened there. into the garage, there is a stairway and entry into the unit it is not a single family home. this past sunday, reading from

the open homes, this little thing there? 6.4. i i went to the internet and there it was. two doors. here it is now. they took the service door and put a number on it. here it is as it is. one big double door. and here is the room down. a wine fridge. that is classic. they always put a wine fridge and they don't put a real refrigerator. here is the layout. you can see the same thing. and from the garage into the unit. up the stairs in the main room is called a media room. the thing is, they are asking 6.9, 6.4. there it is. two units. move a unit downstairs. it is being sold as a single-family home.

i think it is something that we cannot lose sight of, that we use -- lose units this way around the city when we are trying to densifying. >> clerk: can you provide that info to the zoning committee? >> i do not want to snitch on anybody. [laughter] >> president hillis: just to verify a, those the flat policy -- they would be configured differently. >> so it grandfathered a certain set of these. so maybe these were before the flat policy. however, that connection between the two units is a violation. we would require the restoration of the wall there and the rule of the door and restoring any cooking facilities. if any of the others can come our way,, we will refer that to enforcement. >> yes.

i'm part of the san francisco land use coalition. two items that were brought up as part of the commission's comments and thank you commissioner richards for bringing up those numerous articles that have been published about the cost of building that has put a damper on production of units and housing. that begs the question, why haven't we slowed down the issuance of entitlement and the permits we it seems to me that it's logical to go back and revisit the build it or lose it. if people are still coming here and they still get entitlement for the buildings that they are not producing and they are actually using these entitlements to turn around and put it on the market and, you know, make a hefty profit from buildings that have not been built, there needs to be something to put a stop on that.

and secondly, the issue with the tenants, again, thank you for bringing this up and the need for the planning department to be more vigilant to, i believe that if we could get someone at the planning department to actually look in to the tenancy with respect to the 80 new applications, it is about time for the city to consider a registry. we are one of the very few cities in the state of california that does not have a rental registry. cities that are far more conservative than we are have these registries. it is not a conservative, versus liberal versus progressive, this is just a simple thing to keep track of who lives where and who is a tenant. nothing to do with the rent control and nothing to do with the vacancy control. a simple fact. we should try to do that if we are trying to preserve tenants and occupancy, i think this is

the first step. if you could all support this, i would appreciate it. we are all working on it. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. >> my name is jerry and i am with the san francisco land-use coalition. i would like to comment about 214 state street and other llcs going bankrupt when they are forced to rebuild what was illegally demolished. i am a retired cpa and i would like to provide perspective on that. the l.l.c. structure limits personal liability. that is why they choose that structure. but it also includes -- encourages risk-taking. the l.l.c. take on as much debt as possible so the return on their initial investment is as big as possible. the bigger point is the l.l.c.s were never designed to be

sustainable businesses. they are single transaction businesses. so when someone complains that they are putting l.l.c. out of business, they took those risks and they put themselves out of business. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. miss clark. >> hello. laura clark. welcome back to commissioners who have been out of town. a couple of things. one, it was thrilling to be at the a.d.u. announcement this morning. i think we have all been frustrated with projects and that are permitted and not built we found where the problems were and we are creating more harm and harmonization during the different -- through the different departments. this is moving forward thanks for a broad coalition of people who bicker with one another. and all advocating to get the a.d.u. built as quickly as possible. it is not a done deal.

we are still going to need to track this and make sure that they really are moving forward with coordination to an departments. additionally additionally, it is a good example of projects that are permitted and not getting built. where is the problem? instead of saying let's throw them back and throw out the entitlement to, let's figure out how we can actually get those permits built. we do have a pipeline that is drying up permit currently do to a confluence of factors including increasing cost of construction, and including our inclusionary. we have a lot of basket of cost of which straw broke the camel's back we weaken our research and figure it out and do what we can to remove some of those straws. whether that means that some of the packages that were negotiated to get those entitlements built no longer pencil, whether that means we figure out a way to reduce construction costs, maybe we can make some of them into modular housing projects to reduce the

expenses there. i don't know about you guys should find out. those permits took a long time for you all to figure out how you could agree on something that you could pass out of this commission. the last thing i want to point to as the housing accountability act. the 2017 housing package is really coming into implementation. we had a major announcement that corey spoke about last week about the housing accountability act and how the state is really going to be enforcing it with renewed vigour. we passed a stronger version of it and it's really exciting that we are going to be seeing projects, you know, a little bit nudged forward forcibly. and the state is going to be really paying a lot of attention to that. for us locally, that means that we cannot rely on some of the ways that we have used to protect some tenants in single-family homes previously. we really do need to get ahead of this issue and pass some kind

of demolition control to protect tenants in single-family homes. i know that other people are drawing attention to this. that is great. this body has the ability to direct the planning department to figure out what the right law to protect tenants in single-family homes, when there is a four unit project, potentially, that might be good to put there peerk how are we going to protect the tenant in those units? thanks. >> president hillis: any additional general public comment? seeing none, we will close public comment's ba to just one comment. georgia, i appreciate you bringing up these issues but if you don't report them, and you can see that there is a way to enforce this, it is to know and. i hope you would give the information to the administrator thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: enforcement is complaint based. that is the most important -- important thing to know. >> clerk: your regular calendar. item nine.

the downtown area plan amendment 175 golden gate avenue. this is the initiation of a general plan amendment. >> good afternoon. i am with the planning department staff. before you is initiation of a general plan amendment to add 175 golden gate avenue to map one of the downtown area plan. the initiation is proposed by the department response to a separate ordinance introduced by supervisor came which proposes to resume 175 golden gate avenue from c4 to c3 which is the downtown commercial district. that which -- that would be heard on september 27 planning commission hearing and also at the september 5th historic preservation commission hearing. they have proposed the rezoning to allow what 75 golden gate avenue to be eligible to sell their transferable development rate credit. the general plan amendment proposed for initiation today is to ensure that the supervisor's ordinance which would amend the zoning map is consistent with the general plan downtown area plan. please note what is before you

today is just to initiate the general plan amendment. it does not constitute an action on the proposed map amendment for the general plan amendment itself. the department is recommending that the commission improves a resolution to initiate the general plan amendment for consideration on or after september the 27th of this year. that is the conclusion of my presentation but i am available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment, commissioners. >> commissioner richards: moved to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you commissioners. on that motion to initiate general plan amendment. [roll call]. so moved. that motion passes unanimously. item ten, case number 2018.

the residential roof deck policy informational presentation.

>> president hillis: could you do it on the overhead? do you have it on paper? >> all right. there we go. thank you, very much.

>> good afternoon president hillis and commissioners. i am a staff architect. i am here today with chris mae and louise. our other staff and a staff architect to talk about roof decks in our districts. there is little question that roof decks provide a valuable outdoor amenity and augment open space in a dense urban environment. it must also be acknowledged they can also present in intensity of use that can negatively impact the quality of life of adjacent residents due to openness and location. in recent years, the planning commission has seen an increasing number of requests for discretionary review of residential projects that involve roof decks. and accompanying this accompanying stairs and elevator penthouses. and in the past year or a half -- year and a half or so, they

have made decisions with some pattern of consistency related to the impacts to neighbors in the form of location and size of the decks with respect to adjacent conditions and minimizing the means of accessing these decks. despite projects that receive commission review, roof decks with no additional building volume may get approval over the counter with little or no design review. to remedy this inconsistency, the planning commission directed staff to study and develop a roof deck policy in an effort to ensure a consistent approach and predictable approach to evaluating the appropriateness of roof decks, taking into consideration the following factors. the size of the deck and the cumulative impacts of multiple decks. availability of usable open space, at grade in the rear

yards. the pattern of roof decks and the surrounding area, and other quality of life impacts such as impacts to privacy and noise and from sightlines to adjacent neighbouring windows. as well as shadowing a vertical appurtenances such as the penthouses that i mentioned before. light wells and other sites that impact rear yards. and also, visual clutter. what is currently allowed by code is elevator penthouses and stairs may exceed the allowable height limit by ten and 16 feet respectively. the planning allowed for railings, parapets and catwalks to exceed the height limit by 4 feet. unenclosed seating areas, limited to tables and chairs and benches -- benches with a maximum height of 10 feet are also permitted. the planning code does not restrict the size or number of

horizontal surface areas of roof decks. the residential design guidelines go a little bit further. there are four guidelines directly related to roof decks and they are sensitively located and screened rooftop features they do not dominate the appearance of a building, design stair and elevator penthouses so they minimize the visibility from the street, and designed parapets to be compatible with the overall building's proposal -- building are portions. and design windscreens to minimize the impacts of building designs to light and air of adjacent buildings. with these guidelines in the code, there seems to be some specific guidance regarding qualitative effects on privacy, light and visibility from other vantage points that might seem lacking. i will now turn this over to chris mae to present some of our

analysis and information. >> good afternoon commissioners. the department's recommended roof deck policy attempts to strike a balance between allowing for the reasonable provision of outdoor open space on the roofs of low-density residential buildings which will improve the visibility in a dense urban setting, while at the same time protecting the quality of life for adjacent to neighbors. it also seeks to establish a predictable and transparent set of standards and procedures to be applied by the planning department at all possible review stages, including over-the-counter building permit to review at the planning information centre, during review by the residential design advisory team, and in preparation for discretionary review hearings.

while our unique topography and climate require a tailored approach, planning staff and research roof design guidelines and performance standards in other jurisdictions across the country, including l.a., seattle , santa monica, san jose and alameda. this provided helpful insights when developing policy. we reviewed best practice practices already being applied for more informal reviews by the residential design advisory team and we were informed by standards applied in recent discretionary review approvals. currently, building permit applications proposing roof decks on low-density residential buildings with no related expansion into the building below can be approved over the counter at the planning information centre. these projects do not require a preapplication meeting with neighbors. they did not trigger a review by the residential design advisory team or neighborhood notification. as such, there is no potential for the discretionary review of these projects. projects proposing roof decks with other expansions to the building including stair or elevator penthouses are assigned to a planner for a detailed

review. these projects require pre application meeting as a neighbor's and section 311 of neighborhood notification and are subject to discretionary review. often they are reviewed by the residential design advisory team on a case by case basis where the size and location of the roof deck and stare penthouses is evaluated in a qualitative approach devoid devoid of any numerical thresholds. to procedural differences between projects reviewed over-the-counter versus those that require a more thorough review by planning staff, including those who include -- get discretionary review by the commission underscores inconsistent i an consistent ache -- outcomes and it is the primary reason for the proposed roof deck policy. planning staff are recommending establishing a series of thresholds with which to evaluate residential new construction and alteration projects proposing roof decks and stare penthouses in low-density zoning districts. projects seem to comply with

these thresholds may continue to be approved over-the-counter if there are no other proposed expansions to the building. they would not require a pre application meeting with neighbors and would not trigger a review by the residential design advisory team and would not require section 311 of note -- neighborhood notification ended be no potential for discretionary review. projects proposing roof decks within these thresholds that are routed to a planner for reasons unrelated to the deck, a rear expansion for example, would be subject to a limited review by the residential design advisory team, without review would be focused on nondeck related issues. those that do not comply with the thresholds will be reviewed by the residential design advisory team on a case by case basis and may be reduced in scope or deemed accessible -- acceptable based on the surrounding context. in the event of a review hearing , a summary of compliance with the policy will be appended to the staff report. the department recommends that the discretionary review of projects with roof decks deemed to comply with this policy would

be limited to nondeck related issues. the first of the recommended thresholds is a maximum roof deck area of one third of the roof area. this is, in most cases a sufficient size to accommodate enjoyment and connection to open space but is considerably less than a full floor. this diagram shows a residential building on a typical san francisco lot with a roof area of about 1250 square feet. one third of this area is equal to about 417 square feet. a larger building with a total roof area of about 1500 square feet would yield a roof deck area around 500 square feet. this leaves the other two thirds of the roof area to allow for a buffer to neighborhood properties as well as space for solar panels and green roofs which are required for all new residential construction pursuant to the better roof process coordinates.

the department also recommends that this threat shall be applied cumulatively when they're proposed over different parts of the building. the second recommended threshold is a minimum 5-foot setback of deck guardrails from all building edges, except for the rear building wall. setbacks of 5 feet are recommended to from shared lot lines and from the edges of light wells. this setback creates a buffer between roof backs while maintaining a reasonable area for usable open space. this diagram shows the roof area with the 5-foot setbacks that also meets the one third roof area requirements. the department also recommends creating a hierarchy of preferred means of access. prioritizing less obtrusive

features such as roof hatches and internalized staircases while allowing for stare penthouses in circumstances where they have minimal impact on access to light and air and visual clutter. planning staff is recommending that in order to be considered compliant with the proposed roof deck policy, they should be accessed by internalized staircases or roof hatches which are permitted by the building code for one and two unit buildings. roof access within the recommended 5-foot setback area should be provided by a roof hatch or internal light staircase. the building code allows roof access via an open staircase for buildings with three or more dwelling units. in instances where more than one means of egress as required by the building code, planning staff is recommending that only one of them bvi minimally sized stair penthouse in order to be considered compliant with the proposed roof deck policy.

in order to be gate -- be considered minimize, planning staff recommends a sloped roof providing an internal ventricle clearance and landing no larger than the minimum required by building code, also out to be set back 5 feet from shared lot lines on the edges of light wells. in order to summarize the department possess ongoing development of this policy and to solicit feedback, planning staff scent an e-mail bulletin to all subscribers of the city's a registered neighborhood groups and created a website to provide detailed information about the policy and advised when planning staff would present the results to the commission in this informational presentation. as a result, staff has received a significant amount of feedback much of which was generally positive and underscored an appetite for clear guidelines and procedures for reviewing roof decks. not surprisingly, the department has received quite a bit of negative feedback, although commentary has arranged

dramatically from the proposed policy being too stringent, to not stringent enough. the department is keen to hear the feedback at today possess hearing, both from members of the public and from your cells. pending further direction from the commission following the hearing today, planning staff recommends conducting additional public outreach to refine the proposed thresholds and to develop a tool to implement the policy. this could take the form of a simple checklist available to the public and used by planning staff and the planning information counter during the review and in preparation for discretionary review hearings. once finalized, planning would prepare draft resolution to be adopted by the commission and recommend that these performance standards be incorporated as an appendix to the residential design guidelines. this concludes our presentation and we are available for any further questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you we will take public comment on

this item next. if you would like to speak, i don't think we have any speaker cards. go ahead. it is fine. rosa tilson, arthur luther, grace grace franco, ross levy garrick if anyone else would like to speak, lined up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, again. i sent an e-mail to mr winslow and two may. there is a copy of it for the record. i just want -- my take on these roof decks is that it is to increase the value when you sell it. and it adds to the cost of housing. i think that the overarching things should be that if there is enough open space to meet the open space requirement in the yard or on lower decks, which i think should not be categorized as roof decks, even though they may be on the roof, they are a

deck off of a living space. a roof deck is a unique thing. i first became tuned into roof decks -- you didn't even start my clock. >> sorry. >> get to the overhead, please. this is down the street from me. originally i would put a fourth floor up there and the neighbors bought it. we came here. the compromise -- this was four years ago. i was sitting in the bath and i nearly had a conniption went a commissioner said, it would be a really great view from up there. we ought to allow a roof deck. i thought, no one is entitled to a view. it says that in the rdg and i thought why are they getting a view for the roof deck? you go to these open homes and it is a beautiful day and you get up there and real estate agents have told me, anywhere from 50, 75, 80, $250,000 added

to the sales price. the starting point should be you can meet the open space requirement with a property, with a rear yard or with the other decks, the decks off of living space back then that should be it. other than that, it should not be approved. the stare penthouses, if you do have a roof deck, are terrible. i think roof decks are great on multiunit buildings for people to have open space and i wish they put clotheslines there so people could dry -- dry their laundry and save electricity. thank you. that is it. thank you for doing this. i think it is important. just like my point before and i will take my 30 seconds, not to raise the complaints about those two buildings, but to focus on the size of units. you can get three bedrooms in 1300 square feet. you have done it in multiunit buildings where they also have roof decks. thank you, very much.

>> president hillis: thank you very much. >> afternoon. thank you. generally speaking, streamlining the process for consistency is a great idea. the biggest comment -- common complaint is a picture in the slide of big parties. when there are appliances and hot tubs and whatnot. it was not mentioned but it was one of the things in the code. a proposal to get rid of those appliances and hot tubs. that makes sense to me for neighbor privacy and lowering the noise. that is the best way to lower the noise. but i think the one herd rule is where my issue is. it discriminates against small houses. both of these examples given were 1500 square feet of floor plans. imagine a 25 by 50 floor plan with the setbacks. it still would only be a 400 square-foot roof deck. smaller than the example given. with a one third rule, would only be 250 square feet. imagine there is a walkway on a roof to get to the main space. it could be only hundred and 80

square feet. tiny." discriminates against small houses. there should be a balance here. if there is a one half the rule with a maximum size of 600 or 700, then you don't have these gigantic 1200 square-foot roof decks that seems to be the main problem cited here. i think we should set a policy that those that discriminate against smaller floorplans -- i am in favor of having a setback. lets have those but do not discriminate. secondly, i think the roof is the roof. as a speaker before said, if someone has a patio on the second-floor, that the second floor, that is not a roof. again, i think the cumulative effect makes sense. with multiple egress is, you can have roof decks where there are literally stairs on both side -- sides and their two roof decks on the roof. that is on the same roof. add those up and that is cumulative. but to punish a home that already has a patio and calling the roof that is not a roof does

not make sense. those are my two main issues. the one third rule of the blanket rule against smaller buildings and the roof should be the roof, not the second or first floor of the house. i am in support at i understand the need for a setback for neighbor privacy. i understand the need for getting rid of hot tubs and things that allow for parties and lots of noise. i understand that. so i am neutral on that card for that reason. again, i just want a wafer on -- owners of small houses to be able to build something of a reasonable size and not only reward those with big lots. [please stand by]