looks like we're up now finally. apologies. let's start over. welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, may 26, 2022. in-person and remote will require everyone's attention and most of all patience. if you're joining us remotely and not speaking, mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting this. we will receive public comment on each item on agenda. public comment is available by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering access code 2483 459 7905. we will take public comment from

persons in person first, then open the remote access line. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to, do state your name for the record. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce your time is up. for those persons calling in to submit their testimony, when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. for those persons attending in-person, please line up on the screen side of the room when your item comes up and i will ask that you please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. at this time i'd like to take roll.

>> president tanner: here. >> commissioner moore: here. >> commissioner diamond: here. >> commissioner fung: here. >> commissioner imperial: here. >> commissioner koppel: here. >> commissioner ruiz: here. >> thank you, commissioners. first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, to 22-3902pca for the neighborhood commercial and mixed use districts planning code amendment. is it proposed for continuance to june. item 2, 2021-2030 youtube street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance. item 3, 45 bernard street, a discretionary review is proposed for continuance to july 21, 2022. item 4, case number 2016-302drp.

460 valetio street proposed for continuance to august 25, 202525. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the matter of continuance for any of these items. if you are remote, press star 3. public comment is now closed an it is before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: any motions. >> commissioner koppel: motion to continue as stated. >> second. >> jonas: thank you. then to continue all items, commissioner ruiz. >> commissioner ruiz: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. so moved, that passes unanimously 7-0.

and will place this under commissioner matters for item 5. consideration of adoption draft minutes for may 12, 2022. again, members of the public if you're in the room, come forward. for those members of the public calling in, you need to press star 3 to submit comments on the minutes. seeing no person requesting to speak, public comment is closed. and the minutes are now before you. >> commissioner imperial: move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> jonas: thank you. on that motion then to adopt the minutes from may 12. >> commissioner ruiz: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. so moved, commissioners that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. item 6, commission comments and questions. >> i'm going to kick off with

the land acknowledgement and then incidents happening in the country and invite other commissioners to share comments as well. the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you again for making space for that. there's a lot been going on this week and if we think about it, kind of connects back to two years ago when george floyd was killed in minnesota. and his death set off kind of a

nationwide interest -- renewed interest with racial reckoning with and our desire to transform to social and racial equity. i was not a member of the commission at the time. it was very bold action to commit our department to centring social and racial equity and trying to see what we can do as part of that transformation and that approximate you shall to recognize -- push to reckon with our society's past and create a different future. so it's so poet cli injust as we're approaching the anniversary of his death, there is a massacre in buffalo, new york, killing 10 people and injuring others, racially motivated by the assailant to stop the ridiculous theory that people of color replacing white people in this country. and in just this week, a

massacre of 19 children, mostly age of 10. and two educators. and i don't have any words to say at this time to make sense of it. but to say that our work for racial and social equity is more important now than ever and if we ever thought we could let up or maybe things were getting better and welcome just let it go, we have to remember that we have to push ourselves forward and our institutions forward. and not just a chance from our policies but to transform how we treat and care for one another. and i would just encourage this commission to think about with our time that we have given our low case load, is there space for us to think about both reflecting on what we made, the progress in the last two years that that been significant. and i don't want it to go unrecognized and recognize where

we can push further. where we can advance? what is beyond our grasp as a department? and so i know it can seem silly to me in some ways like we have this huge tragedy and here we are business as usual, let's just keep going. and so i do want to just have a moment for us to pause today but also to close this hearing in honor and memory of those who have lost their lives in this last week. those are my comments, commissioners. thank you for your time. >> commissioner ruiz: i have a question, just to follow president tanner's comment on our department's commitment to center race and equity. what has been the status of the equity council and the work that they've been doing? and forgive me for not knowing what the structure is in place in terms of updating the

commission, does -- do we get regular updates as a commission on the status of the equity council? and i think it might make sense for us -- if not, maybe we should be getting those updates on a more regular basis, just so we're in line with that commitment. >> just to respond, definitely the work is ongoing. our equity work, the work with the council. the council is really set up to advise us as staff about how our work should change and transform, but happy to give updates to the commission and even come and do an informational hearing. if you think that would be useful as well. we're happy to do that and we can do that as part of a broader look at our work in response to the resolution you all passed

two years ago. as president tanner said, there is definitely been a lot of anxiety and concern about what's going on in the world around us and just how we redouble our efforts and refocus on what we're doing and really take stock of what we're doing to make sure it is kind of doing what we intended it to do. and making change on the ground. so, happy to come back, especially with lighter calendars and give you a broader update on what is happening. >> i don't think it would make sense to have weekly. monthly. >> we meet monthly and the website what we're talking about the council, we just had a meeting two nights ago, so would be happy to come back and talk about where things are. >> just so the commission can inform what is being discussed or if you need support for us to help better create a structure.

that sounds great. >> i'll add to that, would be great for those commissioners or those equity council members that are able to come to join us, thank them for their work. i know it's additional on top of their jobs. >> commissioner imperial: first of all, thank you, president tanner, and for showing that kind of vulnerability. i, myself, have, you know, tried to separate my public and personal feelings. and there are times i feel like lack of inspiration and in terms of us in the planning commission, i've been seeking a lot too in terms of what -- at least has been short and it looks like it's going to be like that until july or, you know, and i've been thinking what

informational hearings we can have here in the planning commission that in a way that we can be more thoughtful. there are times that when policies come to us, there is a lack of information or lack of understanding in our behalf and we have a greater discussion, which is fine. that's our role. but perhaps we can look into other informational hearings. i would like to see the equity council members. it would be great if we're invited or some of us in the commission may be invited to sit down in their meeting sometime and to understand what are the discussions going on there. but thank you. those are my comments. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could you hold a long pause because i think all of us share on a

personal level what you expressed as our observations and feelings. and i couldn't be more supportive of what you said. i'm sure everybody saw the nobel laureate poem yesterday in the paper, couldn't have been said any better. a young woman who sees what is going on. on top of that, and i just kind of like speaking to underlying sense of discontent that is everywhere in our country. i'm reading articles that much more into our area of responsibility. housing plan to create 5,000 homes. we're fearful of losing paradise. there is an article how they could take issue with how it is written. it speaks to increasing lack of respect from citizens for the institutions that we all are trying to uphold and work with,

screaming, insulting, recall, et cetera, et cetera. but the underlying message for me is we're being bombarded from left to right and i would like to have us reach out to other communities, be it oakland or berkeley of how they're planning commissions, their planning directors and their citizens are dealing with the ongoing incomprehensible legislation coming out of sacramento. we all received an alarming e-mail from one of our citizen groups about folks who -- [indiscernible] -- these are discussions we all share. instead of pitching each other against each other in the bay region, i would like for us to have a common ground where we take responsibility as we can, but push back on those which we

can't. there is a wide spectrum. san francisco's particularly hit hard with incredibly numbers to deliver housing at a scale that by far exceed what everybody else is asked. on the other hand, you see other for their own reasons fight only for adding 5,000 townhomes. i'd like to open that discussion and perhaps director can reach out to other communities so we indeed can have a joint discussion how we share the burden, where to accept and where to push back. thank you. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner moore. i don't see any other commissioner comments. unless director, you wanted to respond to commissioner moore's idea, but... sure. >> we can reach out to other jurisdictions. i think part of this is in where

is the state going? some of these bills obviously that are working their way through the legislature, we don't know where they're going to end up, but we can look at how they're responding to sb9 and 10, things that have already passed and are being implemented and give you an overview of that and what is happening. not just around the bay area, but in the larger cities, l.a., san diego, sacramento. >> i think that would be great. director hillis, these are unsettling times no matter where you look, but this affects looking at our own lives and it would be helpful to have a broader dialogue of what can be pushed back on successfully. >> president tanner: it's timely, because bills either advantage out of their chamber of origin for wait until the next life, so that might be

timely to think about what's got legs in sacramento. i don't see any other comments from commissioners. we're rad to move on. >> very good. that will place under us department matters. director's announcements. >> just quickly, we'll send you invite similar to what we were talking about, about what other planning departments are doing as part of our equity and action series. it's geared toward staff, but we'll invite you as well. we're inviting the seattle planning directors to talk about their efforts around equity. so i think that will be a lively discussion. it's june 7th, but we'll make sure you're on the invite list. the issue of popos came up that may be closed to the public. so we are sending out, making a letter to all owners/operators

and reminding them of the obligations to have these open to the public. thank you. >> jonas: seeing no questions for the director, we can move on to item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals. and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners. manager of legislative affairs. this week, the land use committee considered the initiation of two landmark designations. the first is the castro theater. it is already a designated landmark, however it only covers the exterior of the building. the revised landmark designation would cover the interior and the significance to the lgbtq + community. this is taking over the management of the castro theater. a.p. is proposing interior changes and significant

operational changes. during the hearing about half a dozen speakers commented on the revised landmark designation, all in support. the committee then forwarded the initiation to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report. continuing on the lgbtq plus theme, the committee also took up the initiation of the landmark designation for turk and taylor streets. the intersection is significant because it documented the first uprising of queer and trans-people in 1966, three years before the stonewall riots in new york city. this confrontation between police officers and drag queens started at the cafeteria at the intersection of turk and taylor and spilled out on the streets. turk and taylor is the site of the black translives matter mural, a visual demonstration calling for awareness of the alarming violence perpetuated

against transgender women, disproportionately impacting black transgender women. during public comment, eight people spoke in favor and they forwarded it to the full board with a positive recommendation. they both need to go through the historic commission and then back to the board for committee hearings and votes. at the full board this week, the board passed on second read, the landmark designation for the cultural center and the landmark designation for the castro was also adopted. that concludes my report, but i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> president tanner: any questions? seeing none. >> that will place us under general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on item that are within the subject matter

jurisdiction of the commission. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> hi, good afternoon, president tanner and all of you. i brought two things today. one is about the actual language of 916. i call it the stealth legislation. the other thing that i'm going to talk about, primarily before i put pictures on this. how do i make this go? what do i press? >> you ask for the -- >> it's in the laptop. i just say go. i'm tired of the junior high school overhead projector. how do i make this go, please? okay. so there it is. this is a house that just sold for $9.5 million.

i don't know where the other pictures are, i don't understand. this is an alteration. you showed me. there it is. i happened to take that picture in 2018. i was walking by and looking at others. i didn't see it during the demolition. there it is and you can see it. and the original house is very livable. as you can seext and there is the original house. actually that's the studio. the thing had a legal unit when it was approved back in 2014 or whatever it was. you can see the rooms, it's real nice. there is the living room. two kitchens. so what's my point? there it is. there are no demo calcs in the folder. i did a public records request. i did find the info about the

legal second unit. so there it is. and i can't make it work any better. i should go back to the overhead. so what's my point? you know what my point is. the demo calcs. i would say this does not comply with the housing element that was in place when this was approved. you wanted to preserve housing. the city's policy was to preserve housing. it wasn't preserved, it was demolished. i mean policy 2.-- 2.1, discourage the demolition of the housing unless the addition results -- unless the demolition results in a net increase in affordable housing. a unit was lost there. preserve natural affordable housing types. so, that's all. i gave you the article. $9.5 million. it's like an $8 million increase. unbelievable. thank you. take care.

be well, be safe. thank you. >> jonas: any other members in the chamber please come forward. those calling in remotely, when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners, this is bruce from the improvement club and land use coalition. i'd like to call your attention to ab916 which was the subject of letters received this week. and follow up on this by giving examples. let's say i want to build five bedrooms at the back of my house in the required rear setback. this requires a variance, but if there can't be a variance hearings, the addition wouldn't be approved presumably. if i want to add five bedrooms on the top of my house, above

the height limit, again, no conditional use or variance hearings. they are prohibited if i'm adding the bedrooms according to this legislation. the one sentence in the section of this legislation. now i might want to go on and buy the apartment building next door and reconfigure the units to reconfigure bedrooms. i can make the rooms as small as i want and possibly avoiding other requirements. are hearings required? no, they are prohibited. and one more step. part of the reconfiguresation which i'm adding those bedrooms, i can merge it into one unit. the mergers are done without a hearing because hearing is prohibited. what about any tenants in the building? here, i don't know, but it's hard to know how any enforcement action can be done if any enforcement that requires a public hearing is prohibited. if all this is accurate reading

of the bill, i have no reason it isn't, it's one of the most sweeping changes i can think of all within one or two sentences of the bill that seems to have gone under the radar because most of it, adu, this has nothing to do with adu, just bedrooms. the only person to have read it and understood it, but i think a lot of people do understand the bill very well, unfortunately, people with a libertarian bias that is inconsistent with san francisco and most of the other parts of the state and are willing to go for a nuclear option like this. the examples i gave are just some that i could think of. my mind isn't that devious. i'm sure there are many more ways to aplomb the depths of the opportunities created by this bill. going to the board of supervisors to make sure that they understand this so the city can fight to prevent this from

being passed which may be soon in the legislature. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. last call for general public comment. again, those persons in the room, can just come forward. if you're calling in remotely, press star 3. seeing no other requests to speak from the public, general public comment is closed and we can move on to the regular calendar. >> could i mention on ab916, to respond, we're -- mr. stark can add, too. this was originally a bill to clarify definitions around adus. we hesitate to opine on things earlier. this changed and out of this provision we reached out to the mayor's office and the legislative team and they're reaching out to the author to understand what the intent is. you could read it as what mr.

bowman said, or you could read it for just code compliant projects which may get this treatment. but we'll find out and report back. >> president tanner: director hillis, do you think the planning commission could have a memo regarding ab916? >> we're looking at all -- to give you an update on what is happening regarding housing and all the bills working their way through the process. >> if there is nothing further, we can move on to regular calendar. item 9, 2022-2926p drx a, affordable housing code enforcement amendment. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. with us today, we will also have sheila who is a former colleague of ours from planning, but is now the director of policy and legislative affairs, mohcd.

i will give the staff presentation. so, sheila, if you're here via webex, you can begin speaking. >> hello. i'll turn on my video, too. it's nice to see everyone. good afternoon, commissioners. sheila with the mayor's office of housing and community development. i want to provide a brief intro and then i'll pass it back over to audrey. the policy goal of this amendment is to streamline the enforcement process of planning regulations for affordable housing unit to bring more clarity when planning or when seeking -- leading enforcement effort. the proposed legislation will not change the rules of enforcement as applies to a developer or tenant. the proposal does address more of a back office administration and enforcement and fixes

inefficiencies, in particular, will ensure that mohcd is able to directly bill for time and materials and receive penalties. and this infusion of funds will -- our capacity to lead enforcement work. which are predominantly when owners are illegally subleasing their affordable units. the proposed amendments are a result of the close partnership between mohcd and planning and we're greatly appreciative of planning staff time and commitment to working with us on this. i will turn it over to audrey to get into the details of this. thank you. >> thank you, sheila. so i might be slightly repetitive after what sheila said. but i want to be clear on what the ordinance does. the ordinance would make planning and mohcd joint and enforcement efforts more

efficient and the distribution of penalties from the enforcement cases more equitable. the ordinance would do three things. first, allow mohcd to issue notices of violation and collect fees resulting from enforcement of affordable housing violations that they are in charge of. second, it would be establish a new fund so that mohcd may collect the penalties of the cases they enforce along with their time and materials, costs directly. and third, it would be require that the memorandum of understanding be established between the two departments that will delineate the lead agency for various types of affordable housing violation cases. i know there has been questions about the timing of the ordinance and hearings, and some concerns over whether this ordinance would make major policy changes and i'm here to say that is not the case. the current system for enforcing the affordable housing violation

is simply just much less efficient than it could be. it's less equitable for mohcd as well in terms of the distribution of the penalties in cases. scott sanchez began working with mohcd on this ordinance as a better governance effort. so for some additional background and explain how this works now and how it would work if the ordinance passes, planning and mohcd work together to enforce violations of affordable housing. this is because of the reliance on the zoning administrator to begin the penalties process. enforcement of these cases have two possible. the first is if the violation is going to be occurring or occurred during the construction of a building, of an affordable unit, it's likely go to be headlined by the planning -- handled by the planning department and this would not change that. if the violation occurs after

the construction over the building, it is likely a violation of the occupancy requirements for the affordable housing unit. for example, the owner or the developer may still have vacant units to get the units occupied or it can be a case of a qualified b.m.r. renter or owner illegal will i subletting their unit. so currently, if a violation related to occupancy is filed, mohcd begins the process. they will send out the notice of complaint letting the responsible party know the complaint has been filed and the notice of enforcement which is sent out once a violation has been established. if the responsible party is not making a good faith effort to resolve the violation two weeks after the notice of enforcement is sent, mohcd must then refer the case to planning. this is because mohcd again does

not have the authority to issue the notice of violation letter. the notice of violation letter starts the daily administrative penalties. only the zoning administrator has the ability to do that. so these referred cases must then wait in the queue with all other planning code enforcement cases that need notices of violation. once we get the notice of violation sent through the planning department, the responsible party often is still going to continue to work primarily with mohcd to resolve the violation. again, they're the agency that oversees the occupancy itself of the affordable units, so they're the most appropriate unit to deal with violations of that. if the daily fines accrue and result in the enforcement action, right now, they're issued to the planning code enforcement fund because mohcd does not have a fund for penalties collected under section 176 of the planning code. so, what would change under this

ordinance is mohcd would be able to send out the notice of violation letters directly. they would not have to refer them to planning to get the zoning administrator to sign off and send them out. they're already overseeing the rest of these cases, so just be a way to remove this step in the process that seems unnecessary. it would also establish the fund so that when they are the lead agency on that case, they can actually collect the penalties that they worked hard to enforce against. and then it establishes the m.o.u. and that m.o.u. is being drafted as a collaborative effort between both departments. it's going to outline specific enforcement scenarios and identify a lead agency for each. the designation of the lead agency is not expected to change from how the two departments already operate. it's rather just to solidify roles. so, basically all of that is to say that the ordinance is intended to streamline current

enforcement processes and make the distribution more equitable between the two departments. it will not result in major changes to how affordable housing cases are enforced or which agency takes the lead in enforcing them. in addition to myself we have jackie and sheila from mohcd in addition to cory from the zoning administrator's office to answer any additional questions. thanks. >> jonas: if that concludes, staff presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on this matter, come forward. if you're calling in remotely, press star 3. i take that back, when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is john with the council of community housing organizations. just to say the timing of this

actually makes a lot of sense that we actually create the streamlining of enforcement. we have stories that came out in "the chronicle" and the mission local about b.m.r.s units being vacant even after years of fines. our concern about moving forward is it will be good to see what the m.o.u. says and to have clarity about the exact roles that would be played and spelled out in the m.o.u. and would like to see that as this leads planning -- if it leaves today, there is recommendation that -- [indiscernible] -- made final so they could see exactly how important what will be done by both departments. also interested in making sure that the new fund that is created with the mayor's involvement can actually be clarified to be used for its

intended purpose, which is really about the enforcement action, the recovery of time and material costs in the enforcement. and that -- plans would have to be -- ordinance. [indiscernible] that would -- [indiscernible] ensure enforcement is specific to the real needs. the enforcement mechanism needs to prioritize market rate development projects and developers, where we have seen the greatest extent of vacancies after a -- [indiscernible]. that's the end of my comments and thank you for listening. >> this is sue. commissioners, i sent an e-mail on this. i'm asking you to defer make a decision to later after memorial day break.

we have a lot of issues coming down the pike in june on housing. bmrs have been a real problem and they've been raised by supervisors repeatedly. part of the problem with bmrs is the interference, quite frankly, of the department of building inspection. and there has been a couple of scandals and indictments over the bmr manipulation by the d.b.i. people. including right now today. supposed to be sentenced. so one of the things i'm asking you for is if the commission has not been informed about negotiations that have been going on for the past month -- pardon me -- the past year. you are not informed and the public is not informed. so, defer make a decision on

this until you've had the hearings on the -- on the housing element or the master plan. and the bmr requirement for the city. i think that is -- i think that's important to the people of this city as a whole. bmrs have been manipulated by developers, yes. and the supervisors are paying a lot of attention to it. thank you very much. >> jonas: last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: thank you. i think the staff for the presentation. i had a question regarding kind of the role that this new relationship would play in vacancies. does this affect it at all? it didn't seem from the staff

report or presentation this would be addressing unoccupied bmrs, it would really be about the items that were discussed, that are routinely addressed by mohcd. >> thank you, that's a good question. and i'll provide an initial answer and pass it over to my colleague to provide more details if needed. in general, rule of thumb, anything leading up to that point of occupancy falls under the purview of the planning department to enforce. and then once the unit is occupied, really what mohcd is focusing on is violations where an owner is illegally subleasing. that's sort of a general rule of thumb. but we do have a slide that i can pull up that shows the timeline of what falls under planning versus what falls under mohcd and how this legislation would help clarify that. i'll pull that up, but, jackie, do you have anything you want to add?

>> yeah, good afternoon, commissioners. this is jackie from mohcd. i'm the compliance manager for our homeownership and below market rate programs. in terms of the type of violations, it's exactly what sheila had pointed out. predominantly the types of violations that we are currently working on are matters where owners of bmr units are illegally renting out their units. that's the vast majority of the types of enforcement cases that we are actually working on directly. and planning department typically actually isn't involved in those types of cases. there are some enforcement cases where we do currently, as audrey pointed out, working in collaboration with the planning department because we don't have authority to issue a notice of violation. and those types of issues may involve things that would fall under the realm of like perhaps

vacancies. but, you know, this will allow us to more efficiently address these sort of issues by not having to rely on the planning department to issue that notice of violation. >> thank you. and we have a handout of the timeline, so i think we have that here in person. >> thank you. >> can you just speak about a little more about -- i think perhaps the caller is thinking about instances and the topic in the news, the number of vacant units in san francisco and how we might address that. if a bmr, a rental is unoccupied, that's not really where you'd have a violation? is there some other recourse that mohcd would have or are folks just going through the process of getting qualified. can you talk about that? >> certainly. i would say that the reports

that you're speaking of really had a point in time count of vacancy. and that number is constantly shifting, because units do get leased out over time and, in fact, i think that number has come down over the last couple of week. we will consider a vacancy a violation if in the course of lease up and our office is very much involved in the lease-up process, although the buildings themselves hire leasing agents that handle the qualification process, we work very closely with them. so if they're working hard to get those lease -- units leased up, and it takes more than 60 days, we wouldn't consider that a violation. they are working in good faith, trying to get the units filled up. if, however -- and we do see

this sometimes -- staff isn't kaed itted to -- dedicated to lease up affordable units. and this is unfortunately something we see, because, you know, it does take extra time to look at additional documents that our program requires. and they may be perhaps motivated to lease the market rate units because that could go a little bit faster. we've seen that before, too. so if that is the case and we see that the developer is dragging their feet on leasing their unit, that is when we'll go down the enforcement pathway and begin the noticing process to get them back into compliance. >> president tanner: would this legislation allow mohcd to do that more quickly, or is that already enabled without this the code change? >> what we do now, we'll be able

to issue through the notice of enforcement, but we don't have ability to send out that notice of violation. we do need to refer this type of case over to the planning department for them to send out the notice. we would now be able to issue the violation and move quicker. >> president tanner: the last question i have is about the m.o.u. i think it would be helpful for the commission, when everything settles, to make sure we get that to see how things are outlined and for partner agencies in the city who help getting housing, so they know. so they know whether it's planning or mohcd they should be contacting. i would look forward to seeing that m.o.u. once it's finalized. i will ask the commissioners if they have comments. >> commissioner imperial: i have a question to mohcd since you mentioned about the notice of enforcement and i'd just like to

learn about the difference between notice of enforcement versus notice of violation. >> yeah, so, under the administrative penalty process, there are a few different notices that are issued. the initial step -- and, audrey, feel free to chime in -- the first is a courtesy notice. it's a notice of complaint. it's a notice to the owner that there has been either a complaint or some sort of suggestion of violation has occurred. and we at mohcd often do send that out to let the owner know that there has been some issue. and we're giving them some time to begin to address that issue. if they don't remedy the violation within the timeline that we specified, usually 60

days, sometimes 30 days, then we will proceed to the next step which is notice of inform. that is -- enforcement. that is a more official notice and that, again, sort of reiterates what the -- what the issues are, what the violations are and how to remedy those violations. if they, again, do not abate this violation within the time period allowed, then the notice of violation is then issued. and that -- if there is no action, no response to the notice of violation, then that's when the penalties, administrative penalties, begin to accrue. so that's kind of the different types of notices and how they fall under the subsequence and how they would -- sequence and how they would work together. >> commissioner imperial: when notice of enforcement is issued and it sounds like there is a

cue on issuing violation, how long does it take to issue a notice of violation? >> thank you. i wanted to point out that cory teague, zoning administrator is here, it would be great for him to chime in because this is how we enforce all of our violations of the planning department and planning code, so... >> good afternoon, president tanner, zoning administrator. just briefly, the n.o.c., the notice of complaint to n.o.e. to notice of employment to notice of violation, that's the progressive due process we have for all of our enforcement cases under the planning code. so m.o.u. is using the same process. what has been said is under the planning code, the zoning administrator has the authority and discretion to issue the actual notice of violation and that is the formal notice that puts you on notice if you do not take corrective action as called out, then you're subject to

penalties. additionally, the notice of violation is what is a appealable. the notice of violation is like the formal step in declaring if there is a violation and moving into that more formal process. i do want to be clear, though, that, you know, even though there is this kind of back and forth between planning and mohcd for affordable housing cases that we're really more on the occupancy side of the spectrum. affordable housing violations and enforcement is one of the highest priority enforcement in cases that we have. so, you know, we have more than 1500 enforcement cases open right now. affordable housing is a small sliver of that, but they don't sit in the queue. affordable housing is definitely right up there with life safety issues that we try to get to as soon as possible. i think the point that's being made, because the zoning

administrator has the responsibility of issuing that violation, that letter has to really spell out what the violation is and how you're in violation. if it's appealed, we have to defend that at the board of appeals. so the planning and me and others don't deal on a day-to-day basis with the marketing and occupancy of units. that's not the realm we have expertise in. there is extra time for that coordination to make sure that whatever letter we're sending out, we understand what the violation. so there is coordination time. if this ordinance is passed, we would agree on the front end, in these cases i can delegate that authority to mohcd. in these situations they have the authority to -- >> and mohcd will consult you on the violation based on the

planning code? is that part of the m.o.u.? >> yeah, so it won't be a situation where they do all this in a vacuum. we will still share information. we'll be kept in the loop. it's just that they will have the authority under this legislation and the m.o.u. to go ahead and take that step themselves without having to refer it back to the zoning administrator to get up to speed and get that letter out. and those details will be worked out in the m.o.u. and, of course, the m.o.u. is like any other m.o.u. it will be revisited over time based on how things play out and tweaked as necessary. >> commissioner imperial: is there any part -- i wish i see the m.o.u. because i would like to see in terms of how are we -- how is the planning and mohcd is really going to work on this? my concern on this is that the zoning administrator, your job, is to look into the planning

code, whether it's really -- you have to refer to the planning code. and what i'm hearing right now is that they are leading on it and there may be some conversation that will happen, but they will -- it sounds like to me -- that the reference will still be on them. and that's what i'm afraid of in terms of the -- what the zoning administrator's role in terms of enforcing the codes. so, i wish this is something that we could see in the planning commission and whether this is more of like an interim, whether it's like for a year or two years, in order -- i understand that mohcd needs to have the administrative fees on it because they're also taking their time on it. but i wish this is something that i am also seeing in terms of this is more of an interim.

also, my other thing, too, is whether, how is the fund going to be used under mohcd? but thank you. >> i can speak briefly to the m.o.u. the m.o.u. is being drafted now. the main focus is where is the divide? which are the cases that are going to be referred to mohcd? under the system we have right now, under the last 10 years, mohcd and planning have done work to staff up and put a lot of priority on this work, so the level of coordination between the two departments on affordable housing enforcement has dramatically increased over the last 10 years. so we already work really kleesly together. -- closely together. even under this legislation, because the zoning administrator, we don't really administer the procedures manual and we're not working, so we already rely heavily on mohcd's input as to when there is a

violation in those cases. and so, this wouldn't really be transferring that, but for the m.o.u., again, like any m.o.u., it will have time periods to revisit obviously -- we could show it to you today, it could be different in a year. we may amend it in a year based on practice. the main is what gets referred to mohcd. >> part of what i was understanding from the staff report distinction, some of this, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, there is a technical manual that operates that is not in the planning code. it's not even the zoning administrator oversight function because it's not even in the code, so that's why mr. teague has to work with mo to ensure we're citing the right

violations. >> the source of all the requirements is the planning code, which is why it comes back to our enforcement. and the planning code calls out all of the hard requirements for the affordable housing units. but then everything having do with occupancy and the operating of the housing once it's built, it references a procedures manual so that that procedures manual does have the code, is referenced by code, but is not part of the code. and the planning department does not implement the procedure. that's what mohcd does. we have a two-department system, but we don't have a two-department legal framework for enforcement. while we work well together, we

don't have the legal framework we need to match the way we already work together. so that's what this is trying to do, right-size that. >> i have another question to mohcd or whether this fund it will create will be earmarked to something specific to mohcd? >> i can try to speak to that. thank you for your earlier question. i think i just want to point out, we have been collaborating very closely with the planning department for some time now to do enforcement work on affordable housing units. and a lot of times the violations are fairly clear as i mentioned. oftentimes the type of cases we're talking about is places where -- who purchased a market rate unit have illegally rented

it out. and we have pretty good evidence of that and those are the type of cases we want to move on. in terms of the fund, the new fund that is established is the affordable housing enforcement fund and what that fund will allow us to do is deposit -- it would be the place where we could deposit any of the time and materials that are collected through doing enforcement work and also penalties. what i'm personally really excited about, this fund will allow us to hire personnel to be dedicated to the type of enforcement work. we don't have dedicated staff per se at the time. we do this work because we think it's very important. affordable housing units are scarce. and we want to make sure it's being used for its intended purposes. that is going to be really the primary way that we will use the

fund. we also, you know, utilize our city attorney's office and so this fund will also allow us to help offset some of our bills to the city attorney's office. but, yeah, it will be used for really affordable housing enforcement. >> if i could actually just add on to that. in the legislation, the -- page 9 and 10 of the draft ordinance is the administrative code to create the fund and it has a subsection called use of the fund. and it provides like in detail what those -- what the fund may be used for. so it is called out in the ordinance. it's not just an open fund to be used for anything. it's essentially paraphrasing, has to be used for enforcement forces. >> thank you. that's it. >> president tanner: vice president moore? >> vice president moore: i'd like to take a slightly

different set of questions. i'd like to acknowledge the importance of affordable housing is probably high on our list of priorities. that said, i would like to ask the zoning administrator teague as to whether or not we are not looking at a slight duplication of services, adding bureaucracy, specifically because mohcd does not have to hire staff and train staff, wouldn't another solution be to augment people in your department to basically be the floaters between the two to do the work that is being described here? i'm a strong believer that the zoning administrator should entail enforcement and i'm a little bit concerned as i said earlier duplication of services. could you address that, mr. teague? >> sure, commissioner moore,

thank you for the question. so, as we mentioned before, the affordable housing enforcement that we do, it's extremely important. it's a very small sliver of what we do. and we don't do this work that is specific to implementing the procedures manual whereas mohcd staff does. they mentioned that they don't have staff for this. i think that's a little misleading in the sense that they may not have staff that's going to maybe specifically hire and budgeted for enforcement, but they absolutely have staff who work on enforcement, because we work with them all the time. so it does make more sense to keep the -- basically the same structure we have now. that's why we have the structure that we have now. and in this case, again, just keeping that same structure and right-sizing the legal framework. any question about -- and i take

the duties of the zoning administrator very seriously and would not delegate anything that was deemed in appropriate to delegate. -- these are very specific situations in part of the affordable housing world that the planning department really isn't involved in on a day-to-day basis, so that's where the m.o.u. will create that clear distinction of which cases is appropriate for the planning department to lead on and which ones mohcd plays lead on. if we implement this m.o.u., we're going to evaluate it. so if there is anything that needs to be tweaked or determined that, you know, the zoning administrator and planning should keep functions in certain types of cases, we can make that choice in the future. this ordinance doesn't require the zoning administrator to delegate. this allows the zoning administrator to do so and the m.o.u. would be the agreement of when that happens.

>> vice president moore: i appreciate your explanation because i would think it would be very bad in more than one way to diminish the authority of the zoning administrator, but ultimately, where the rubber hits the road is that the working relationship between the two departments recognize that importance and work together in a way that layers expertise rather than duplicate expertise. i have a question. that is the following. you spoke about an array of violations ranging from owners illegally renting, renters potentially illegally -- i have heard other stories and they're a little more -- to me, although i don't have proof they're happening. where there were buildings, units, not just one unit, but a number of units had studios unoccupied for five years. in the shortage of affordable housing units we have, that

sounded like a very long story and my question is, is there also possibly an additional sharpening of rules between developer who builds the buildings and hands the unit to you, would the obligation have to be shifted to the people who took on the obligation of building the affordable housing units? >> thank you, commissioner moore. this is a topic that we've been in discussion with various people for a while now, because we recognize that particularly coming out of the pandemic we're seeing a lot of fluctuation in our bmr market. i think the important thing to emphasize because of all the fluctuation and all of the market rate units, we don't necessarily know what is the contributing factor to why some of these units are remaining empty. we don't have units that are empty for multiple years. most of them are somewhere --

we're gathering the data right now -- but they're between 9 to 18 months. there is a handful of units that have been sitting vacant and we are working closely with the developers to try to understand the issues. the list of issues includes they don't have a leasing staff. it's hard for them to find people. some of the units were designed and built pre-pandemic times and they're small units and it's hard to find people who want to live in the tiny units where they're not able to work from home. some are in neighborhood that people are not interested in. there is a whole suite of issues that are impacting inclusionary units. but we're doing a deep dive into the data to understand what that is. but that is a very different issue than what this legislation would propose to address.

>> vice president moore: thank you for going into detail to both departments. i hope this is not a solution in search of another problem. i would have preferred as a commissioner to know more about the subtleties of what the memorandum of understanding really tries to do. see pros and cons for certain kinds of positions, because what we're being asked today is to give blanket support. i would like to express an in-kind support, however, i would like to also state that i would like to personally know more about the memorandum of understanding and the actuality of how you're trying to transition into this new form of governance. but thank you for all of the efforts. and i hope that you'll find something that is acceptable to all. thank you. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i have a last question.

does this -- well, i guess it's going to the board of supervisors for comments. and will the board or us, planning, be able to see m.o.u. before this need -- i'm wondering if there can be -- to see the m.o.u. and understand who is going to be involved in the m.o.u. because we're talking about legal sizing framework on this and i know, i trust you, mr. teague, but here as commissioner i also want to protect the powers of the zoning administrator in terms of enforcement. >> sure. the draft legislation now states that the planning department and mohcd must enter into an m.o.u. it doesn't really give any further guidance than that in terms of that process. i mean we can discuss -- i mean,

we can certainly provide you a copy when it's completed in terms of provide ago copy prior to completion for your information, we can check on that and see if that's possible. i'm not sure why it wouldn't be, but that's something we can look into as well. >> commissioner imperial: okay. and you will be who else in the planning department will be part of the m.o.u. discussion? >> i believe that because it's an enforcement, it's a z.a. deferral of authority, but it's also a partnership between two departments. i mean that's primarily the zoning administrator and the planning director for an m.o.u. of that nature. >> thank you. >> vice president moore: i had a question, because in the synopsis given to us, there is mention that an m.o.u. has been in draft form negotiated for a year and a half and i heard ms. chiu also mentioning that the

draft agreement had been worked on for a while. so that does not quite gel with what zoning administrator teague just said. >> could i comment on the m.o.u. if i may? >> please. >> certainly. >> we have been working on this for some time and we are actually quite close to wrapping it up. i think we would certainly be happy to and would like to share that with the planning commissioner. to give everyone a flavor of the bulk of it, we've kind of taken stock of the different types of enforcement cases we've had over the last many years. and kind of created a very detailed listing of the types of cases and what are some of the characteristics of these cases so that we could help to use the chart to help us identify who would be the enforcement lead. so as we've shared today, typically, matters that have

been before construction are handled by the planning department, because the planning department implements this side of the planning code. so, to give you an example, out of the condition of approval, one of the things that developers need to do is record a notice of special restriction. so in some cases, for example, we found developers have not gone to record that notice of special restrictions that identifies which units will be bmr units. that is a violation of the planning code and the condition approval. so that's an example of the type of enforcement case would have to go back to planning in order to get resolution. okay. there might be other issues, for example, construction issues. the units haven't been built according to plans. that would go back to planning or d.b.i. it would not go back to mohcd.

mohcd doesn't get involved there, right? but once it becomes things like, you know, once the building has been built, then a developer needs to come to our office, mohcd, to do the marketing, to do the lottery, to do the sale. and once, for instance, a unit is sold to a first-time homebuyer, that first-time homebuyer has now signed up for obligations according to their loan documents that they won't illegally rent their unit as their primary residence. these are all things that happen during the occupancy stage that mohcd has in-house expertise. i mentioned earlier that, you know, we have been doing enforcement work. we don't have dedicated staff, but we have been doing enforcement work because it is important to us.

and so, the m.o.u. will outline these types of enforcement cases and talk a lot about kind of the details of how are we going to share this information. how are we going to handle buildings and that sort of thing? but the heavy lifting was really to identify the various types of enforcement cases we believe will happen given our past history. one of the characteristics of these types of enforcement cases and because of that who would likely be the lead enforcement agency. >> if i could add on to that briefly? i think the last 18-month timeline is really more referring to when planning and mohcd have been working together just on this issue, like how best to move forward to make this function better kind of within the same dynamic. and that's kind of -- it was mentioned that scott sanchez was kind of the lead with us on that and working with mo to figure

out what is the best option? can we do something administratively or should we amend the code and create their own fund? so that whole process is what we're talking about for the 18 months. clearly, closer to this time it was determined, yes, the legislation is the best option to move that forward. i don't think it's accurate to say we've been working on the m.o.u. for 18 months. it's not that long of a document. it's really folking on which cases will be deferred to mo and which ones will not be deferred. we'll be happy to share that with you, but i think the actual work on the m.o.u. itself is much more recent relative to the overall issue we've been working with them on. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond: thank you.

i really appreciate the commissioners' questions and staff answers. it really helps enhance the understanding of how this is going to work. while i would like to see the m.o.u. presented as an informational item once it's done, i don't need to see it before i'm willing to vote on this ordinance, so i would move to -- i guess we're recommending it, is that, jonas, what the action item is here? >> jonas: well, the code actually uses the term, the planning commission shall approve. so you are approving even though it's forwarded to the full board. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> the only thing i might add, it's wise to have the m.o.u. before it goes to board, because we had a lot of questions and that may be helpful. and we would like to have it

back as an information item. >> before we vote, with can say i personally for myself? if we're asked to vote on something that has intersection with the planning work we do and this has not come to the commission before, i think just in terms of procedure it makes more sense for me for an item like this to be informational. and we have all of the necessary information before making a vote. even if it does have to go before the board. so, i'm just personally not comfortable approving this completely and would recommend a process like that in the future with legislation creating a new system. >> i do think and i don't know if mr. sars is here -- i don't know if this is under the same timeline of review. i don't know if that challenges us to have information items and

approval items. >> there is a timeline. we didn't feel this was a complicated ordinance that needed an informational hearing. something more complex, we would do that. but it seemed straightforward to have mohcd do the work they're already doing and be paid for it. that's what this does. and the m.o.u. is a living document. it can change from year to year, month to month, depending on the types of cases we're seeing. so it's not something -- >> i had a question, president tanner. in terms of the m.o.u. coming, are you -- did you add something in terms of the m.o.u. be presented to the board of supervisors or be presented here at the planning commission? because i would like to see the m.o.u. even if it's informational presented in the planning commission and at least

we can make comments on it and deliberations and it's up to the whether joining administrator to -- zoning administrator to take the comments, but i would like -- >> yeah, my suggestion, i'm happy to take that one, is the mowinger and the seconder, have us look at the m.o.u. i can imagine the board may have discussions. this is a quick and easy thing, obviously not. and have a m.o.u., you're describing what it could say, but if he could see it, it seems efficient in this regard. i don't know if commissioner diamond or koppel were indicated they wanted that to come back as a discussion topic. i was thinking it would be sent to us and we could provide comment. i see director hillis and commissioner moore in the queue. >> i just want to get clarity on how long we think it's going to

take to complete the m.o.u. because we think this is a good ordinance. i sense some discomfort around the m.o.u. we want this to be approved because it makes sense to getting affordable housing and bmr issues resolved in some funding from mohcd to continue to resolve. if that takes bringing you back an m.o.u., i wanted to say can we get that back to the commission in time to opine? i think it's a good idea to have you behind this and supportive of it. >> are you asking like get the final draft or the final -- >> sure. >> or the final adopted m.o.u.? >> that sounds similar. so -- >> the draft right now, a lot of the work has been focusing on just clearly documenting the different types of cases and making calls on which one kind

of lands where. there are obviously other little details that take just review time. so i think just from a staff review perspective, getting to the 100% mark and dotting all the i's and crossing the t's, i think we're a month out. definitely we could absolutely send you the m.o.u. once it's finalized or the final draft. so if it's a situation of trying to get a final version done before this moves forward, i think that might be a bit problematic. >> if in two weeks if we can get a 95% complete draft, it sounds like that may get us to a vote where we have the entire commission support. >> we're talking about a draft form that has maybe a few tiny parts that have not been resolved, if that's your request, we could do that. >> i think if you wanted to

approach unanimity, the m.o.u. would serve that effort. >> vice president moore: i appreciate weighing in on the conservative side, while we appreciate your trust and this just being an easy thing, the commission does not work full-time in this legislative or these types of matters. and a little time advance notice on these things helps us be better prepared and more ready to support it. i think it's all leaning toward a reasonable level of comfort, however, as always, the devil is in the details i would personally appreciate to be on board with better understanding of the details, this being the memorandum of understanding.

>> thank you. >> commissioner fung: i don't need to see the m.o.u. the question is whether we buy off on the concept and i'm supportive of the concept. i don't need to see every little document that the department goes through. >> president tanner: any other comments from commissioners? >> if there are no other comments, there is a motion that has been seconded. shall i call the question? >> i see commissioner imperial pushing her button. >> commissioner imperial: i just wanted to clarify, because i want to support this, but i just want to clarify if the vote is approved, is there still a chance to have it informational in the commission? okay. just want to clarify. thank you. >> president tanner: i think -- i want to be clear about that. so is the m.o.u. going to come back in two weeks as informational item?

>> i think it's your preference. we've mentioned we can get you probably close to final, but not final draft of the m.o.u. that you could hear in two weeks, so we could put it on as a director report item. we send it in advance and if you have questions, you can ask then. or if you want it wait a little longer to get a final draft, that may be a month, or after the board starts. >> if i may suggest, maybe a 95% draft be forwarded to the commissioners and if there was any interest in having a public informational hearing on the matter, that the president could direct me and we could add it to the agenda and at that time we could have a further discussion. i mean, the draft m.o.u. may be satisfactory to the commission, where we don't need to have informational, but if we do we can agendize it. >> president tanner: i see nodding. is that okay? >> i'm so sorry -- >> vote. >> i wanted to let you know about deadlines just to make

sure we're clear on this. june 16th is the last day this could be heard if you want it to be an action item. but informational there is no deadline. i'm sure they'd be happy to work with you, but i do know the sponsor's office is planning on giving a big presentation on june 6th at the land use and transportation committee dealing with not only this issue, but with bmr vacancies, although they're not related in terms of this ordinance is not a response to that. they're making a very coordinated effort to have similar matters heard on the same day. if this is not an action item before that date, again, there may be issues for timing. >> president tanner: thank you for that. commissioner moore, i couldn't hear your question. >> i said -- are we having an amended motion or are we basically just saying we approve

and leave the comments or potential questions about the m.o.u. just hanging out there? >> president tanner: i think there is a couple. one is approving the motion as is. there is obviously, continuation. what i heard there is a deadline, so if we continue it needs to be heard in a hurry to be voted on. kind of the hybrid option is to vote today, hopefully most in the affirmative and have the 95% draft e-mailed to us. if anyone has a question, you say put it on the agenda. we put it on the agenda, give feedback and it's on to the board by the june 16 deadline. i think that's what we're trying to do, the latter option. i think i got it. with that, if there is no other comments or different motions -- >> jonas: i think -- >> commissioner diamond: this is a question for staff. i understand this m.o.u. can be

amended multiple times going forward without the input of the commission? >> yes. there is no language in the draft legislation for planning commission role in the m.o.u. you know, it's -- over time. so with that, i think i would like to stay with my original motion which was that we vote to which is the motion for approval, but i would like the draft to come to the commission as an informational item so we can give feedback on it. and it's fine by me if the public gives feedback as well, too, not just the commissioners. it's helpful for the staff to hear if we have concerns. but i would like to stick with my original motion that we are approving it today. >> jonas: very good, commissioner diamond. seeing no further or other requests to speak -- >> president tanner: one last time. i know you want to stop talking about this. but just want to, it's coming

back as an info item and we are going to talk about it, yes, no. can we get it into the next week or two, two weeks? okay, two weeks it will come as info item. thank you. >> jonas: that's fine. it can work. june 9 you have the housing element draft eir, but we can certainly add this as an item. if there is nothing further at this time, commissioners -- >> just to say thank you. >> jonas: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed amendment. on that motion? >> commissioner ruiz: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: no. >> president tanner: aye.

so moved, that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on the discretionary review item, 10, 2021, 001778drp. 1603 treat avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon. staff architect. the item before you is request for discretionary review of building permit application number 2021.0125.3210 to construct a horizontal basement at the rear. you should have received plans

yesterday. i apologize for the inclusion of the wrong plans in your packet. the existing building is a category c. no historic resource present. built in 1907. the d.r. requester elizabeth wright of 1605 treat neighbor, the neighbor so the south of the proposed project is concerned that the addition is incompatible with the scale of the existing building, and bisects the open space leaving adjacent neighbors boxed in. her proposed alternatives are to, one, limit the depth of the eastern wall of the third floor to no deeper than the eastern wall of 1605 treat street. and, two, to limit the depth of the eastern wall to the second floor to no deeper than the 1603 treat street. it conforms in the residential

guidelines and the planning code. the project proposes to expand the first floor at the rear to align with the rear wall of the neighbor to the north. the height of the proposed first floor addition, relative to the d.r. requester is approximately 10 feet above grade. comparable to the height of a fence that could be built with an over-the-counter permit. the second floor extension extends two feet beyond the rear wall, so as to maintain the scale and access to mid block open space. therefore, staff does not see the project disrupting the pattern or scale of the buildings in the rear, or cutting off access and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. thank you. >> jonas: that concludes staff's presentation. d.r. requester to the chair, you have five minutes and public commenters will receive two minutes.

>> i apologize. good afternoon. i'm beth wright. i live at 1605 treat avenue, the property next to 1603 treat. i saw the application for discretionary review. on behalf of myself and other neighbors have filed letters in support of this application. we do not oppose the project in its entirety, we're simply requesting small changes to the building envelope that would not dramatically alter the living space to be added, but would make a world of difference to us who live nearby and love and thrive in our mid block open

space. this is a map of the project. the gray is the project. the green is the mid block open space. and the blue are the residents who have filed letters of support for my application for discretionary review. please note that two adjourning neighbors, 1605 treat and 71 norwich support this change to the project. this block of bernal heights is comprised of small house which share a mid block open space. the proposed addition to 1603 treat would triple the square footage of the existing house by adding a new ground floor level, pushing the eastern walls well into the mid block open space. this expansion would negatively impact the scale and character of the neighborhood as well as neighbor's privacy. the staff report is incorrect that the scale is comparable to a 10-foot wall, because the

property is located on a hill, on the downhill side of my property and more than five foot below mine. the neighbors continue to question the scope of the project in part because the drawings inaccurately depict the location of the rear wall and current slope of 1603 property. the drawing submitted also failed to include the changes agreed to by the sponsor in the earlier hearings. they're requesting the changes outlined in the application. our requested changes would permit the expanded house to fit into the neighborhood, maintain the existing building scale of the mid block open space and alleviate the boxed in feeling for adjacent neighbors. small setbacks of the second and third levels would not significantly reduce the new living space to be added, would make a world of difference to those of us who live nearby. we ask that you limit the height

of the third floor ceiling to nine feet which would cause the roof line to be below neighbor's windows as promised by the sponsor. we ask that you limit the wall of the third floor to the eastern wall of 1605 treat, which is 50 square foot difference from the project as submitted. and we ask that you limit the depth of the eastern wall of the second floor to the which is about 150 square foot difference. we don't ask that they pull back the new first floor at all, because it's below the property line. and it does, in fact, adhere to the 10-foot fence as suggested by the planning committee. i've asked the new owners multiple times to please meet with me to discuss this project and its impact on their new neighborhood, but i've received

no response. please encourage the project sponsor to work with the neighbors and make these small adjustments to the project, to help maintain the mid block open space and not wall in the adjacent neighbors. thank you for serving the san francisco community. i've never been to one of these meetings and it's interesting. since i only thought i had three minutes and i have five, here's a photograph taken of the property -- since i have five, not just the three, this is the photograph taken of the property as it is now from the one of the adjoining neighbors houses. the tree trimmer i strapped to the fence is the height and location of the new addition, which would be two floors, not just one. property line to property line at the bottom of this house.

and that's my ding. so thank you for your time and patience with me. >> project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is bill. i'm the project architect. thanks for giving us the opportunity to speak today. the project is -- it does comply to the planning code, most of the planning code. comply to the setback, the high, all within the planning codes.

and the house right now, the condition of the house is really in bad shape. it's not livable condition. that's why we want to make it -- improve the house to a habitable space for my clients. and before we submit application to the planning, we have three separate meeting with the bernal height community board, also we -- the neighborhood -- most the neighborhood participated. and doing a meeting we talk about the project a lot and we keep -- significant of -- to the design, including take out all the roof decks, all the guide

rails -- guardrails. we increased -- size. and we also reduced the way the approach to the yard. and only like two feet more than 1603 treat avenue, because if we align the back wall of 1603 treat, the -- will be too small for the bedrooms. so we want to -- we have come to agreement with the board and then they said two feet. that's what -- willing to offer to the neighbors. i can refer to the -- to the

board the bernal height we bought and that is what they say. that to preserve the character of the existing street elevation, comply with the high limitation and mass reduce requirement and extend modest one story addition into the rear yard. we understand that nowhere -- [indiscernible] and that's what we conclude of the three separate meetings with the neighbors. and we all happy that what we come out with, with the meetings. and we were surprised that the neighbors keep against the project. so, i feel really sad that, you know, we cannot come to an agreement, but sometimes it's really hard to come to agreement. and we try, but it didn't work

out, but hopefully we can conclude this today. and another thing is the addition, it doesn't change the facade of the building. it sets back like 12 feet from the front facade. so the facade remains as is. and the design doesn't block anybody's view from my point of view. it doesn't block the view of 1603. they're still able to pursue all their views. the large open space that is 4911 inch. 49 feet still there. remain in the backyard. and this not really bugging anybody's view. it's making it very hard to -- for us to give out more for the neighbors. thank you very much.

>> jonas: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity now to address the commission on this matter. those persons in the room come forward. you'll each have two minutes. >> hello. we're the people that actually bought 1603 treat street. we actually bought the -- >> jonas: i'm sorry, if you own the property, you are part of the project sponsor's team. okay. your opportunity to speak was during the project sponsor's time. but you will receive a two-minute rebuttal, so you can speak at that time. >> okay, so after? >> jonas: yes.

sfgovtv, can you go to the overhead? nothing, start speaking. >> okay. hi. my name is pauly marshall. i live at 71 norwich street. our backyard shares a fence with the backyard of the proposed project. this picture was taken from my backyard. i know a lot of people don't like discretionary review and blame it for the city's lack of housing, but i think this situation is the perfect illustration of why it's so important in certain situations. expansion of a single home could

have such a major impact on an established impact of modest houses trying to resist the full brunt of gentrification. this is not a case of rich homeowners fighting each other. this is a case where developer contractor purchased the house from the estate of a longtime resident who died at the home at close to 100 years old. the then the contractor proposed a huge expansion of the home to more than triple the living space. an expansion that did not apply with guidelines or planning code and treating into the mid block open space and severely boxing in the home of beth, who is the one who filed this appeal. the review board and the planning staff require them to minimally comply with the law. then the contractors sold the home at a cut rate price to

people he knows and his work before who pursued this permit. the neighbors are all people like me who lived in their homes for 30 plus years or like beth who lived next door for 26 years. she's a single woman working at home. i'm a semi-retired person who runs cancer support groups. no one who lives on these modest blocks are wealthy. middle class and working class people really and truly still live in this part of lower bernal heights -- >> jonas: i'm sorry, thank you. >> there is a trampoline on the property, that's how you welcome new families. not by building four bedrooms and four -- >> thank you. >> jonas: last call for public comment on this matter.

>> good afternoon, i'm representing the affordable housing alliance and addressing gentrification that resulted in displacement. today i'm speaking as a neighbor about the form of gentrification that is going on here as the subject property is expanded to accommodate the changing demographic of the occupants. i want to point out the two ways that the changes proposed in the d.r. have the effect of protecting and honoring the rear yard mid block open space. first, vertically, if the changes were adopted, the project addition would step down into that space. it's a three-story addition back there, then would step down into the rear space and viewed horizontally, it would appear to step back from the deepest depth of the neighbor to the north to the shallowest to the neighbor to the south. this stepping would lessen the addition's impact on the rear

yard space. i urge you to accept the d.r. so we can actually have the conversation about this which has really never occurred in this process. the concept that we really discussed and agreed to anything is actually disingenuous. thank you very much. >> jonas: final last call for public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. or if you're in the room, you need to come forward. okay. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> hi again. rebuttal. we had three meetings. the first of which is required bit commission. and the project sponsor failed to properly notify the neighborhood. so we had a second meeting.

where we were talked over and dismissed and our questions about the excavation and the requirement for a new retaining wall were dismissed and put off. and we got them to remove the roof deck, the third floor deck and to reduce the volume by that required by statute. the third meeting was just to review those revisions with the bernal heights east bernal slope review board. there was three meetings, but there really wasn't a discussion going on in any of them. as you saw from the map we put together, all of the surrounding neighbors oppose this tripling of the size of the existing house. the one notable exception we didn't get a letter from is the downhill neighbor. mrs. royo. she just celebrated her 93rd birthday. but i spoke to her son who comes to care for her and he promised me a letter. i didn't see it in the package, so i don't know if he sent it or

not. this project is really big. we want to welcome new people to the neighborhood. we just want them to scale it back a little bit. that's all i got. >> this. i'll show you this picture, because she didn't have time. is the overhead on? there is a family living in this house now that are really sweet and i love them a lot and they've got two kids. and she loves listening to them jump on the trampoline. this new building would occupy that space. and we just rather have some kids running up and down the yards like they used to. >> jonas: thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. hi, we bought 1603, my husband and i back in 2020. we love the neighborhood and wanted to build our forever home

there. we wanted to live there because of the community. we wanted that for our child. i was pregnant at the time. my daughter is now almost one and a half. we wanted our kids to grow up there with the park, the neighbors and have a community feel and extended family feel, which is something we've wanted and it's very hard to find in the city. we've made actually many concessions to accommodate the presence preferences. we've had multiple meeting with our neighbors and incorporated their feedback as much as we could with the help our our architect. we had the plans approved bit bernal heights design committee that confirmed that our plans are in line with the design guidelines. connecticut sessions we made -- concessions we made was removing

desk and increase decreasing the depth of the addition into the rear yard. we believe it's in general conformance with the building guidelines. the design preserves the character of the existing street elevation complies with height limitations and mass reduction requirement and extends a relatively modest addition into our rear yard. i didn't want to -- we hope, we would ask that you deny the discretionary review and finally build our home and start our life there. and i didn't want to bring -- yes, there is a family we're renting to. they want to leave soon as well. and we -- oh. no more? >> jonas: that's your time. >> thank you. >> jonas: if there is no further

public comment, did you have a comment on this matter? no? okay. in that case, commissioners, the public hearing on this matter is closed an it is now before you. >> president tanner: thank you. thank you to the staff for the presentation and for project sponsors. i don't see anything that's particularly unique about the circumstance. i do want to ask mr. winslow what is the depth of the rear yard after the proposed project. it seems to still provide a rear yard. >> well, the plans here a are a little rough to read. the question is according to the plans submitted yesterday to you on a10, rear yard setback at 45% is 48 feet, 11 inches according

to that plan. plus or minus, because there might be a little bit of a gap. >> president tanner: so that complies with the team in terms of preserving the rear yard which is a concern of the d.r. requester, but it still complies with our code. code compliant project, seems okay to me. >> commissioner moore: i have two questions to mr. winslow. one question was answered, that is the meeting with the light of the adjoining property. however, my question to you, the d.r. requester just a few minutes ago mentioned that a third floor deck was removed, however, the forms have not been

amended and still a full height gleaving double-sided door that would step out on a sloped roof. that needs to be amended to show windows rather than a full door. or that needs to barricade or a bar or something like that. because if that is not changed, somebody could build a deck, get an over-the-counter permit and there would still be a third deck up there. can you answer that question? >> sure. according to the drawings that you received, on a3.2 and i'm going to ask for mr. guam to confirm this, because due to the reduction it's pretty small print. the windows that you are describing at the rear that -- hold on -- who is talking?

>> sorry about the confusion. >> hold on. hold on. let me finish. >> those windows look to be designated as fixed full height windows as opposed to doors that would enable access, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> vice president moore: they are not changed, they're still shown as sliding. there is no change from what was submitted as the wrong set of drawings that you submitted this morning. i have those drawings up here in front. and i have not seen that modification of the drawings. i just want to make sure that we are indeed all looking at the same thing. the drawings that you submit, that you sent this morning, still show sliding doors and -- >> that might be a graphic error. do you want it address that? >> those windows are full high

windows. so it looks like a door, but it is actually not a door. >> is it fixed? >> i'm sorry. >> are they fixed windows, not operable? >> yes, yes. >> vice president moore: was that the same before, because you also have drawings shows them in identical form? >> yeah. >> vice president moore: there could be a drawing note there is a fixed windows, i would accept it, otherwise they look to me as if they're sliding. >> the elevation designates f on the windows, designating fixed, even though the graphic plan view kind of indicates something that could -- sliding glass doors. so i think that might be a drafting error.

secondly, it's not -- a deck is not being requested in this permit. so it's not typical for us to preemptively make a condition that a deck is not approved when one is not being asked for. and thirdly, i think we have great faith in our plan counter staff to understand and apply the deck policies as they know it if a deck was submitted for an over-the-counter permit. >> do you need a security bar on the inside so people do not run into this window? something about this that is odd. >> if it's a fixed window, a security bar isn't required is my understanding. the glass would be

>> do you need -- there is something about this that is odd. a lot of old-time homeowners in that area. what i'm concerned about, this

is a very desirable place to live now. we're seeing folks buying properties, making these extreme changes to keep single-family residents in the area and is that the kind of change we want to see? like do we want to see increased density? would we prefer to see an additional apartment being added to this lot instead of completely expanding it, adding more bedrooms for one family to live in. from that policy perspective, i just don't want to approve something like that. and i'm concerned that this will then -- other people are going to come into the neighborhood -- make similar changes and then completely change the scale of the neighborhood. if you've been in bernal heights you see how small the homes are. you see how narrow the streets are. does this make sense for the neighborhood? i personally don't think so.

>> i think those are great comments. i think the board did take up legislation that was proposed by supervisor mandelman to limit the size of increased homes. and i think that ended up becoming an s.u.v. for noe valley, is my understanding, that's how that was dealt with? district 8. so the board didn't see it as a policy for the whole city. the appropriate size and extension, how much bigger can a home be in light of thinking about things like affordability. i would argue to reasonably disagree. our code is our policy. if the code says people are allowed to come and build a home that size, then that's what they're entitled to do and this is only coming to us because neighbors dislike it. if folks are in an area where neighbors are fine with it, that homeowner gets to have the expansion.

certainly can agree what is the role of expansion in affordability and in changing character of neighborhoods and at the same time for me i don't see anything that would rise to the level of discretionary review being granted. >> commissioner moore: the only thing we -- this particular application leaves us completely in the dark with the size of the -- and what -- it's very difficult set of drawings to read and i'm going to have to sit down and figure out what approximately size is. what is the extent -- what is the square footage extent of what is enlarged here? that's the question i think the department should always have as part of a submittal and this particular submittal does not give us that.

>> thank you. >> commissioner koppel: i'll move to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> second. you can have a seat. thank you. >> jonas: if there is no other commissioner deliberation, there is a motion seconded to not make d.r. approval for the project as proposed. >> commissioner ruiz: no. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. so moved, commissioners that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner ruiz voting against. that concludes today's hearing. >> thank you, everyone. >> we will adjourn in honor of the victims of the buffalo and the uvalde massacre. thank you.