>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco commission hearing for thursday november 30, 2023. to enable participation sfgov.org broadcasting and streaming and will receive public comment and okay items on the agenda. each allowed up to 3 machine when is you have 30 seconds you will hear a chime. when your time is reached. public comment from city hall first and open up remote line for those call nothing to submit testimony call 415-655-0001.

you will hear a prompt stating you raised your hand to ask a question wait until the host callos you when you are unmute third degree is your indication to speak. for those in [inaudible] you may log in via the link on the agenda and enter c pc 2023. and you need to use the raised hand icon. call from a quiet location. for those in city hall lineup on the screen sider to your right. >> i will ask we silence mobile devices. and at this time i will take role. president tanner

>> here >> commissioner braun. >> here >> commissioner diamond. >> here >> imperial >> here >> dmrn koppel >> ear >> commissioner ruiz >> vice president moore will be absent today. >> first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one 619 marina boulevard dr is proposeed january 25 of 24. item 2, 838 market office allocation indefinite. item 31277 pacific avenue dr has been with drawn. as was item 4, 2266, 43rd avenue dr also with drawn. i have no other items proposed

shall we take public comment. this is your opportunity to address on the items proposed to be continued. again if you are here come forward. if you are call nothing remote press star 3. no requests to speak public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is before you. motion it continue. move to continue 1 through 4 >> on that motion to continue. do we have public comment. commissioner braun >> aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> tanner. >> aye >> that motion passes unanimously 6-zero. places you on your consent. all matters institute content

are considered to be routine by the commission and acted upon by a single vote there will be no separate discussions unless someone requests then removed from the consent and considered as separate at this or future hearing 5, 690 sacramento street. cu. 6, 16 jesse street number 306. cu. >> item 7, 1128 lake treat, dr. item 8, 2060 poke a cu authorization. members this is your opportunity to ask any items remove friday consent. and considered under the regular calendar.

gwen if you are here come forward if you are remote press star 3. no requests. commissioners public comment on consent is closed and it is now before you. >> thank you. a motion on the consent? commissioner imperial >> move to approve all. >> second. >> thank you on that motion to approve items urn consent with modifications commissioner braun >> aye >> ruiz >> aye >> diamond. >> aye >> imperial >> aye. >> conel >> aye >> tanner. >> aye >> that motion passes placing us under commission matters item 9 and land acknowledgment. commissioner imperial will share that today. [reading ramaytush ohlone land acknowledgment]

>> thank you. >> item 10 consideration of adoption draft minutes for october 26, november second, 9, 2023. public comment for the minutes. no requests to speak, public comment is closed and your minutes are.

commissioner imperial. move to adopt all minutes. why second. >> thank you. on that motion to adopt your minutes commissioner braun >> aye >> commissioner ruiz >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> imperial. >> aye >> koppel >> aye >> and president tanner >> aye. >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 11 comments and questions >> happy thanksgiving hope you had a good holiday and [inaudible]. i don't have dments or questions but if others do? all right. >> okay. moving along, item 122024 hearing schedule. so, when it was issued i should have taken a closer look. there are 12 proposed cancellations. but in retrospect there is a bit of a large gap between the first cancellation the beginning of the year and your second at the

end of may for the fifth thursday. december 19th is sort of may not be as close to december 25th. . and rash endos october third i know you taken this in consideration i don't know if you want to reinstate halloween plane an interesting hearing. and i would i money it prosecute poseed take the entire month of august the same the board of supervisor dos this year there are 5 thursday's in august. july fourth is on july fourth and cancelled. we will or i would request that you consider canceling january second 2025. so we know in advanced same we

ask to you cancel january fourth this year. january fourth was i suggestion from vice president moore. because there are 5 thursday's in february. for a leap year. that to reinstate the fifth thursday in february begin is so close to the beginning of the year and your holiday break. just things to consider. should take public comment. members this is your opportunity to address the commission on the 2024 hearing schedule. if you are call nothing press star 3. no requests to speevenlg commissioners. public comment on hearing schedule is closed. it is before you. >> thank you for putting this together and did speak with vice president moore before she left about having the 5 hearing in

february. seemed to be reason but open to what folks think if you saw other holidays that may be you are plan to take or men have 10 that where the day falls closer open to thoughts. i would request we not meet on rash aba october third should be canceld and i appreciated having all of august off this year and suggest we do it again. >> likewise. >> so would you want to reinstate the 31st of october and take off the third of october. >> commissioner braun? august is -- may be -- if people want to take the 5 hearings up we restore august first and then have i think the thursday september fifth so that because

that is labor day weekend before september fifth and staff might coming back from brake. might be good to not come back until after. >> to take the labor day as well. >> i think that seems fair. preserves the 5 weeks and in one month i think the continuous break is preserved. commissioner koppel. >> agree with all of that and suggesting a hearing off in march. yea. there is a long stretch of hearings between january 11 and your first cancellation for fiveth thursday on may 30. east 30 year is march 31st you miwant to throw in april fourth as in between those dates. is not until may fifth.

because of the cans lagszs i would reinstate november 19th. did have you a date in march or able via -- amenable. or march 28. i prefer to go more in the middle the 28th. commissioner braun? il read become what i the suggestions i heard have october third off. cancellation. reinstate october 31st. woad have march 28 as a cancellation. and we would reinstate august first and a cancellation on september fifth? i think i saw nodding to

forecasting that january was january second? 2024 cancelled this is reasonable. would be a cancellation and a question this no one commented on that jonas raised december 19th if we say agree to continue what as a cancellation? commissioner diamond. i had assumed we were taking august off i will not be available on august first. i will in the be here. >> i continuing makes sense i like having the labor day stretch but -- [inaudible]. any other comments or proposals? do we have a motion? >> we do. did you capture everything i

stated. i think so. motions to approve or need to read it back again. so moved >> commissioner koppel. >> diamond >> what do we do about december 19th. assuming no one's commenting we wanted cancel it. i wanted i know no one i assumed. that's how i understood it. >> commissioner koppel made a motion to adopt the calendar. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve the 24 schedule. canceling january fourth. canceling march 28 for easter. may 30 as the fifth thursday of this month. july fourth for the holiday. we are keeping august first.

and adding september fifth as a cancellation. with the other august dates. we are canceling october third for the holiday and reinstating october 31st. canceling november 28 and december 19th, 26 as well as january second of 2025. on this motion commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye president tanner >> aye that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that will place us under director's announce ams item then. 14 we view of past event there is is in report from the board of appeals and historic preservation did in the meet >> aaron starr manage of legislative afierce land use took up 2 items to the 45th

avenue cultural district. the item was the ordinance stake the sud and the second an amendment to the local coastal program to incorporate the sud. the 2 were called together. continued from october 30 hearing because of issues related to the coastal commission rerue. the staff gave a presentation on the sud and the new building. there were a dozen commenters. half in favor and half opposed. come comments of support from chair melgar about the will proposal and the 2 items were forward today full board with positive recommendation. next up the major's ordinance, citywide expansion of commercial instruct and retail uses this was heard at mitto on october 30 and continued to the week. director tang gave the sum row of amendments in front of to the

committee which included to amend the lcu and the corn commercial uses and residential districts and obtain code for nonconforming lcu's the zoning control it not permit 1 version of residential udu to lcu. unless a garage or storage on basement or first floor. form well restale not permit exclude not permitting walk up facilities in r2 districts. also amending the priority processing prk program to present all formula retail not just uses with less than 20 establishments. and other clerical fix added. >> supervisor supervisor peskin thanked and commissioner tang and proposed clone up amendments

of his own. supervisor preston commented director tang on the out reach completed and request that additional conducted with japantown neighborhood. and as the duplicated file moves forward. 2 commenters with one asking claire sxifkz worj in support. the committee then took the amendments presented by treshth tang and supervisor peskin and forwarded the item to the full board with positive recommendation as committee report. the file was upon dupe katd as amendd and then amended again to include applying the exemption from termination provision for nonconforming use in north beach and lcc us's permitting uses if complies with neighborhood commercial or special use district with one half mile of the use or if the use is more than one half mile from the near

of the su d directs and amending the use size limitations to comply with the limitations the neighborhood/xheshg or special use. another amendment in polk street ncd. which change health services so property this is don't have frontage on hyde street would not be permitted there.

based on feedback we changed the preapplication requirements of projects exempt from 317c requirements to moting that must occur prior to or within 20 days of submitting an political. amended the 311 process waiver outside of the geography sud not adding a unit and i vertical addition or increase i single

family home side to 3,000 square feet or more are subject to notification. any horizontal addition or progress this increases units will instead require 311. the original draft of the ordinance did, way with 311 all together. >> as you expect there was significant public comment they were given a minute each that lasted less than an hour. once comment was over it included staff modifications. and amendments from supervisor mandelman were added which include requirement that for a project to be exempt prosecute 317cu requirement and must be constructed after 1923. the file was duplicated and sent to the full board without a recommendation and the daoism indicated to the call of the chair. some progress on the contrain's reduction ordinance. >> lastly the committee

considered in. supervisor peskin residence luge the city lobbyist hcd extend the housing leadership action plan dead line and correct the policy and practice review letter. this resolution was amendd and continued to december fiveth i don't have them but more next week on that. the full board this week the nonprofit art's special use district by supervisor supervisor peskin passed the seconded read. the housing production or contrain's ordinance was continued a week so what supervisor mandelman's amendments considered the full drient's ordinance you will hear it today related to this. and then the city expansion of commercial instruct and retail uses sponsored by the mayor passed the first read that's all i have. >> thank you. seeing no questions move on to general public comment. members of the public may

address the xhoigz items of interest in the subject matter jurisdiction. with respect to agenda items your opportunity will be when the item is roach in the the meeting. each member may address the commission for up to 2 minutes. the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda >> if you are here come forward or call nothing press star 3. seeing no members in the chambers go to to remote callers. >> good afternoon this is anatasia. a member of san francisco tenant's union. i'm commenting on a letter that must have hit your inboxes and must want it make the public aware of this.

regarding legislation this protects tenabilities from displacement. so -- apparently, planning staff knew the legislation referring to mayor breed's legislation. was out of compliance with policy number 26. and recommended actions. to specific low exempt rent controls from stroll lining process. but neglected alert the commission. 4 commissioners voted to strip protections for rent controlled housing and backed the major's contrain's reduction ordinance. this was -- unthinkable. i can't believe what happened. and it caused a lot of -- conattorneyation at the land use

committee. i'm hoping that there has been a resolution now naamendments have been added but -- it is -- unthinkable to -- excuse me. to advocate for the dem lagz of rent controlled units. i can't believe that 4 commissioners decided to forward this with their positive recommendation. thank you. okay. last call for, there is another. go ahead, caller. caller you have been unmuted >> this is sue hester. i am going to ask planning reschedule the joint hearing meeting with the bibbing.

dbi is part of the problem wide project takes a lot to get through not just planning. entire focus on the planning commission. you should have a session with bic, there has been inindictments the past year the past tw years of bic personnel the dbi. i have not heard one at planning and so, basically, the planning department shares the responsibility with the dbi. pleads have a joint meeting to talk with bic about how they are processing projects. and how they are tracking projects. second thing. please have a report in writing from the director and the staff for what is going on with the push back on the -- state wide

hud housing element. there is a lot of things said this are not base on the real world and the planning department needs to speak up and one of the best ways to do this is publish the written communications between planning and bic. thank you. last call for public comment. general public comment. seeing no requests to speak general public comment is closed. and we can move on to your regular calendar for 15ful kearney street and m ap. special use district planning code and zoning map amendments. >> good afternoonful commissioners veronica planning staff. the item observe you is the 900

kearney street sud and this was introduced by supervisor supervisor peskin. the propoedz ordinance would create the 900 kearney street sud at block lot 176. 11. the under lining zoning would remain china town community business or ccb. the space under question was a formula retail financial service use. doing business as east/west bank that vacate in the 2021. being used special use district would permit nonretail professional service on the first story and basement as well as principally arts on all floors. lastly the sud would not have a size limit. after the staff reports were

published i was forwarded 3 letters of support regarding the ordinance i shared with you earlier this morning. these letters were from the china town community development will center. merchant's association and the chinese chamber of commerce. all letters cited the add flex ability for this space and help fill the vaccance and he activate the block and neighborhood. the letters cited support for the team's community out reach efforts regarding the ordinance. the department endorse the ordinance as addresses a significant vacancy in china town contributing to the preservation of the neighborhood's vibrancy. further the building existing configuration which designed for one tenant in the open floor plan with the associated spill roll stair case. and all this make its difficult

to reconfigure the space to comply with the existing code. reluxuriation of the use controls here long with the new use allowances will provide the flexibility to help build this vacancy. and in addition to recommending approval of the sud, the department would like to use this opportunity to fix code error and a technical amendment to section or table 810. in the china town community business district. to make it consistent with the use itself limitations.

that is the 1 the zoning control table references. i'm available to answer questions and i also want to share that we do have mr. allen low representing the property owner. for back ground or details as needed. we should take public comment. i realize friday planning staff

my employer commented on the item. and i had no involvement in advised well is in financial interests or conflicts they will not impact my ability to rule on the item >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner koppel >> motion to approve. >> second. >> um -- can i clarify. >> seems like a good -- last time and clear. on the motion it approve with modification commissioner braun? aye >> ruiz >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial wrchl aye >> koppel >> aye >> and president tanner >> aye >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 6-zero.

16. the entire ordinance is buffer staff are seek review and recommendation of an amendment add by supervisor mandelman this amendment will sunset cu requirements by the corona heights residential sud and the central neighborhoods large sud at the end of 2024 and therefore the dwelling unit from residential development to 3,000 square feet of gross floor area. items from supervisor mandelman's office is here to poke on this item after i will continue my presentation. >> good afternoonful president tan and members of planning

thank you to director hillous and star for the work on the piece of legislation. i'm add am an aid to supervisor mandelman. i'm here to ask for a positive recommendation for supervisor mandelman's duplicate file of marrow housing contrain redrukz ordinance including amendment naaddresses an issue in district 8 the proliferation of monster homes they don't support housing goal in terms of affordability and density. this is why supervisor mandelman worked on legislation to combat monster homes. they are more affordable to residents this lead to creation of central neighboring special use district in 2022. in 2017 his predecessor chen scott wean with the looming

implementation of 423 the city controls in the neighborhood's sud relied are in question tell sunset cu authorization requirements and the neighborhoods sud the end of 2024. supervisor machine machine's amendment limit units to 2 thousand square feet to make additions up to 15% of gross area. the same busy to the sud we agree that approach is correct. as identified the amendments will support the general plan and housing element e eliminating the objective cu requirement and replacing with

code standard. this will make housing approvals consistent and reduce the time it takes to approve the projects. we believe they are fair changes and ask for your supportful thank you. change from 3,000 square feet in sud's i like to note in in the staff report this building size but intend today say unit size in not building allow a 20% increase. it is 15% in the central neighborhood and no allowance for the corona height's sud. and amend 311 so the word building permit is replaced with planning entitlement this is not

related to supervisor mandelman's proposed amendments but implement pass the ad 1114. the recommendation the commission may want to consider is not in your staff report but allowing the 15 or 20% expansion every 5 or 10 years for customerial permitting i'm happy to answer questions as well. thanks. >> open up public comment. i chair the delores heights club in d8.

we support the amendment they provide standards that will support dense housing projects. 15% limit on expansion projects will preserve more fordable housing and intent multiunit projects with more affordable sizes. the central neighborhoods large sud pass in the response to on slot of residential developments in d8. it is reasonable for the size of the units single family and in projects with more then and there one unit. it has had an impact from 2047 to 21 before this sud came in affect our 12 block had 35 significant home demolitions or renovations not tucking about the replacing the shower in the

program. including about 20 this were more then and there 3,000 square feet almost all on a single 2, 850 square foot loss. upon since the implementation in 2021 we had one in excess of 3,000 upon gross 6 square feet this is working. the delores heights the monster homes we have rent control in sizes and want to promote and preserve this in our neighborhood. [speaking very fast] pleas approve supervisor machine man's ma'am and to the major's ordinance and send it back for speed passage. thank you. no one not guilty chambers. go to remote callers.

i'm christopher roach san francisco resident and chair of the public policy and advocacy commito aia. we are general low in support of the contrain ordinance. this is i critical peeves legislation. to the housing goals. however. we have been concerned with the continued delay and addition of amendments to the ordinance and the one before you today is case in point. we disagree with the amendments that supervisor mandelman added. and specific low the size limitations. this is arbitrary remember size limbation based on little to no research about the basic size of different type of house holds

and family units. we should not be limiting the lifestyles and the family choices of citizen we have codes to limit size, bulk to make sure this projects are compatible with neighborhoods. don't approve this legislation. which has been watered dun. we think the original version of this ordinance are with the preksz for tenant displacement should pachlsz thank you very much. hi. good afternoon it is georgia as i wrote in my letter i support the upon supervisor machine man's number. here are examples of sold home in noe valley.

16, 44 [inaudible]. 1275, tw bedrooms. 2 units 3, 7766, 2 units. reading numbers... [reading numbers very fast]. 5 story single family home one become in 2012 what to being advantage of the demo calks

that's my testimony and the 3 then and there square feet is reasonable given the historic numbers of homes this sold in noe valley thank you. >> good afternoon. . organization representatived by the city [inaudible] concerns the legislation. the letter includes 3 metropolitans that would bring it to close aline am with the housing element. regarding large lot developments [inaudible]. standards appropriate for each district and advance housing leadership policy. 4.5 for cultural [inaudible]. this includes section 303c clear process and time line putting in objective guidelines for

cultural district and referenceed the element action. [speaking very fast] guide lines under mine the integrity of the community. second amendment to [inaudible] and areas from displacement from the density project. [inaudible].

refer stot letter you received we appreciate your attention [inaudible]. contact us for questions thank you for your consideration. >> go ahead. >> [inaudible]. large districts in [echo cannot understand. ] one bedroom in a house a large home. a coworker considering building a large home [inaudible]. it was not per missable for multiunit apartments.

multifamily conversion of a large house [inaudible]. you want to buy a house with unfinished garage rather than earthquake that has no exit space more expensive. if you don't have space [inaudible]. the 3,000 square foot does that include unconverted space or not? [inaudible] we most need are large buildings apartment buildings. the second is learning houses that can later be converted to multifamily.

last call for public comment. go to the remote caller. good afternoon. [inaudible]. so i am calling to actually criticize the way the commission and the mayor appointed commissioners acted left time this legislation was before you. similar to the comments that [inaudible] made during the general public comment. it is completely unacceptable for the commissioners to ignore what was an and is in the planning housing element that will just approved a few minutes ago.

read the documents that planning put out. i'm perplexed the [inaudible] 4 appointees voted for a legislation that [inaudible] don't demo reason controlled housing. which per of the housing element does in the understood by you? and i believe the public does deserve an explanation. anything that come to the commission rubber statutoried without you doing research. this is a really [inaudible] situation i'm calling to bring this to your attention the

[inaudible] city [inaudible]. why didn't the city attorney bring this to your attention that you are in the approving a legislation that is compliant with our housing element? i irrelevant hope that -- today you take this opportunity to explain to san francisco residents why you voted the way du and yu were ignorant of the housing element. >> thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. okay. final left call for public comment on this item >> no requests. public comment is closed this merit is before you. >> thank you before the commissioner comments i think i want to make comments in addition to supervisor machine man's office thank you for being here. thank you for having me. i recognize this is supervisor mandelman's duplicate file and we are in full support and continue it work with his office on ways we can further this

conversation on behalf of our communities. regret that supervisor supervisor peskin not able to join but in i think joanis is in a receipt of a letter and him. i'm here in the support of collaboration around this process, for you to come in compliance, i uponed to energy for you all in collaboration with the city attorney's office we have been working on clarifications and tweaks. and they include and not all of these would require a rereferral and thought it would be helpful it talk. i technical ma'am restoring 2 alanguage to 317. clir foiling that bioagreements not recorded at the rent board. 2, a technical amendment to section 3172g clarifies the sponsor shall mail and post

notice so tenabilities receive the same notice. given that -- ask you can slow down. you are speaking a bit and start the second thing over. i got buy outs not needed to be recorded. >> thank you, >> [thank you]. no worries. so weer two. this is a technical amendment to section 3172g. clarifies that the project importance shall mail and post notice so that tenants in i building can receive the same notice of property owners and this is you know, live here in san francisco oftentimes we have absentee and property owners. people that are living in the neighborhood deserve to have the

same notice. number 3, adding back the ownership requirements to the 4 plex legislation. in working conversation with the city attorney's office they reviewed our housing element and confirm today does not include policies requiring the city to remove the ownership requirements and found policies that -- actually reenforce the homeownership requirement and is something this supports the endeavour in our housing element already, proved. for you, claire fighting the 311 notice prefers apply to all of the priority equity geography sud zoning districts this point in time china town is the only neighborhood that is part of the sud but is not includes under

the 311 notification. privilege we are confirming and making sure they are included. come final plea although -- we will not at this point in time bring forward amendmentos monday to -- address the issues you heard about today we want to be on the record with our support for neighborhoods that are not included in the sud in terms of desire to see objective standards and work with the planning department on objectives that are taylored be unique and cultural and affordable. you know program terse. and assets in the neighborhood and those theory within the sud they irrelevant have an opportunity to have their own unique and individual objective standards that are tail lawyered to their neighborhoods. buzz it is objective does in the

mean it is one side fits all. for everybody. and then i know there has been a lot of feedback and comments we in in receipt of a coalition letter this morning from ycd and i believe antidisplacement coalition around attention what is it we do to address giving the community an opportunity to have a say and who receives state density bonus even though we know the hearings are really just an opportunity for you all to engage with sponsor it is an important democratic press for community as well. and even though you are required do what you are required to do it is something this we would like to see continue. so, thank you very much for your time and i'm around if you have

further questions. >> thank you. >> okay. so got a bit of information. i think this is ballooned the number of things that we are considering. in this those were not necessary low part of our staff report review you want to open the floor for staff comment and questions we can first address the subjects that were part of the report. and probably the subject of most of review and thought around 2sud's sunsetting and the size requirements. we talked about the topic earlier. i was earlier left year around supervisor mandelman was trying to tackle the challenge of learning are home and we is have seen a few here and when to do. i found that this proposal was in line. wham we already approved and what was part of that legislation. so it seemed reasonable. i think that the where i was mulling i bit on the staff

recommendations and gets back to the question of like what is an promote max size for a house. i don't think well is one answer to that. the most common planning we are trying to get to machine abjective and manage this can be consistent and can help provide to home builders look to building homes and expanding existing homes. i would say for recommendation one and two, upon but should be a lued it change to 3500 and, lu5% more not that supervisor proposed and increased size and a fourth amendment verbal ieszed make sure over time can't be cereal permitting beyond 20 or

15%. i'm open to what commissions thank you the recommends seemed reasonable the reason i thank you 35 huh00 could be allowable we don't a garage and may be well is slopes or other thing this is lead to pits this is there but not used for a bedroom or for like finished space. it is count third degree seemed to be a 3,000 square foot house and 500 square foot garage seemed reasonable or typical. open to considering both of those size increases. i will go to commissioner diamond. >> thank you. i have it say that notion of coming up with an arbitrary cap

guess against the grain for me. i don't believe we have one size fits all lot sizes. or one size fits all topography or neighboring properties. i understand why there is a desire to do this. and it made sense to me. that we could go above 3,000 with the cu process. however, and we don't want to have a cu process going forward then i could get my head around supporting 3500 for all the reasons in the staff report and you stated and i don't think we should pickup truck minimum number if we can't go higher. i could support 3500 i would not supportive of 3,000. i think that starch suggestion for a 20% increase in sud makes

sense to me. for the same reasons. but phone an accompanied by prohibition on changes you know. i could live with every 5 years that seems fine to me. i also think that characterizing a 3,000 square foot home as a monster house would be surprising to many people in houses all overnight city who live in 3,000 square foot houses. a 3,000 square foot house on 25 by 100 lot may awe're as a super large house. on a large are lot, i'm not sure the characterization of it as a monster house is appropriate. given that we want to have families living in the city and you upon families want to have 3-4 bedroom fist they have many children we have w at home.

the need for office space. i have to say object to the use and seacliff relative to this 3500 square foot house would not be characterized by me as a monster house. that said, i am okay approveing so long as we add in the staff's recommendations accompanied by a 5 year and i will put this out as a motion to approve under those circumstances. >> i will second this motion. i have a question to staff the number 2 allow 20% increase. is this so if the max cap is 3500, square feet. plus 20% increase. >> yes. if you are over 3500 and come in

and say, want to do a small addition like a bay window or a kitchen addition on the back. without this allowance you would not be abling to it is 20% above what you currently have. and hen again having some sort of five or 10 year look back so you can't do a cereal permitting thing. >> thank you. that is a clarification. my thoughts is and you know we have seen more then and there 3,000 square feet 33 and 32 and 3500. and we tends to approve it. however i will loning on the original legislation. i supervisor in terms of capping 3,000 square feet with allowance of adding the 20% increase. for me it simple the you know

again -- there has i think well is i way to do temperature where you can fit the habitable and inhabitable in 3,000 square feet and make 2 units out of it. so i would still for me i would still retain what the original legislation allowable increase of 20%. so on board on approve with number 2 and 3. and looks like there is also recent comment from thes public and with the supervisor supervisor peskin on -- many things sounds like you want to add this on this legislation or -- this is my question to you. is there manage that should you are suggest to add on the legislation by mandelman or working with supervisor mandelman? trying to clarify >> this is something that we

wanted give a head's up we are continuing to work with the city attorney on amendments for the monday land use hearing have beenmented to get the commission an opportunity. as things are moving and flowing to ask questions or to debate amongst yourself. >> thank you. commissioner braun? >> i in general in faithful the legislation and i'm in favorite you'veed us moving toward having an object itch. having something this is clear and helpful for applicants to

understand. and so we don't have the situation we have at this commission which we deal with the cu authorization [inaudible] and over 3,000 square feet and it is such a subjective decision make process is this too much. not enough? or not, not ever enough or too much over. so in terms of the recommendations i am in favor of the increase upon staff recommendation the maximum to 3500 based on the logic out line in the the staff report of the 3,000 limit is corona heights sud. to me take the average of the 2. there is no reason for the

numbers but it seems fair given most under 4,000 square foot prop. and 15% versus 20 i'm comfortable going up to the 20% number. i very much want it see the serial permitting i would go to 10 years but 5 years is time. again no strong feelings i don't want people going back yearly to expand the homes. so -- those are will my thoughts i can support current motion. >> thank you. >> commissioner ruiz? >> thank you. i just want to say i'm supportive of the supervisor's recommendation. as president tanner you mentioned we discuss third degree quite april everfrequently this is the most

things we seen before the commission. andmenting to encourage increased density and not just propotion the huge peoples. ive than the sprierdz's recommendations is in alignment with the housing element. but i would be amenable to supporting commissioner imperial's suggestion including the 20%. men if there was i requirement to include an adu i would be supportive of the increase. 3500 but i am not supportive of the planned staff recommendations. >> i want to ask i thank you for commenting. i don't know mr. starr or the attorney the 4 items if they are made ma'ams will this come back. if we will have it again or today's reading of the amendments not yet drafted

trying to be sufficient for discussion in the to recircumstantial lit is this the attempt >> since than i have been discussed than i would not have to come back i would defer to city attorney >> sure. under the charter -- the legislationing thoz in to planning to be approved or dis, proved. often -- topics will get brought up and discussed at plan nothing this way and madeace amendments in land use. so for these before that i believe they would not come becomes to planning. >> okay. do we need to mikhail motion i can comment but i don't know if we get to agreement.

so i will give my best critic at commenting. [inaudible]. thank you, mr. starr. i think the buy out seems fine. making sure this owners and attentives receive notice is important. pesting is important i'm supportive of that. the ownership piece i think if wore going for an comment on the later item. increase density ownership requirements get in the way if this is the goal i'm not supportive of the 4 plex or and we do i like density control throughout the opportunity of the neighborhoods and then the 4 plex ownerships i pregnant way but i don't see how we get to goal fist we contrain ourselves. i think it is additional constraint on adding housing to the stock. and then for the 311 notification that med sense to dog when we say we want and make

sure the geographies are included. including china town and there was stated the podium around making sure that the state density programs come here that was inoir letter this we stopped having the projects come to the commission? where there is in the an under lying entitlement. currently, like in the mission, if you got a project on mission. the marrow ordinance did not get rid november entitlement. it is outside the priority equity geography. does remove density bonus. gi knowledge we have been asked for emphasized by the state we should do that. i believe. you could, you could keep it. jue could it runs to the weird dynamic. 423 once it takes affect. where projects are minster yell

in the e equal of geographies you are required to have a hearing. that hearing would are e be if you had a state density this is approved and will hear are about this next week there is a hearing requirement. you could have a state density bonus project with under lying cu's if the ordinance passings there would be no hearing on this. if it is in the a state density bonus project and the cu would be a cu hearing here. depends which path you are going down.

my challenge can we get to something similar without a hearing. we will have a variety of pregnant ways for people to make changes to property and so some of pregnant ways will have hearings and providing clarity it community partners when there will be i hearing or not they will understand points to engage with project experience. >> i wanted to add context to the 311. china town never had 311 or 312 not ifications. this will be we are not taking it, way it was in the an error. by it is a new process you are add to china town fine if that's

what the communements it was never there to begin with. great. thank you. those are my comments the last on objective standards. one of my hope system this you know in the vision would be as we have more stream lining and the mrerns wander when will i do with my time. and i don't have work to do. we have work to obingjectives standards and more to do more of the work of looking at our neighborhoods and understanding had makes them special working with our cultural districts to help them have a process to understand how they want to see their culture represented in the built environment. [inaudible]. results of those standards. bring buildings to life in i different way. hope we could get to more w with neighborhoods and more planning over all in the next item tuck

about the need for planning for library and parks and school this is is per of next edge. we got, lot to do in the housing element i'm hopefully will keep the spirit of having neighborhoods be special place i want to call on commissioner imperial >> thank you, president tanner. in terms of going with supervisor supervisor peskin in the added amendments. yes, i agree with the section the first 2 and recorded in reasoned board. and mailing the post to the attentives. sfrz i know i thought this is part. nais not eliminated. if -- make sure in the new legislation we did not lose that.

>> in terms of homeowner ishmael requirement. you know i am approved of that amendment. because again, the homeownership requirement is addresses the speculation aspect of it. there are again the speculation practice for a year or 2 years and sell it become to the market. this is creating more displacement the requirement was in the 4 plex legislation this adding for 5 year. because that gives the ability for a tenant. to be in that -- and you know weapon change of land lordship. that can create changes in the tenants as well. so i am aprufrl of that i thank

you is a tool for antidisplacement strategy and in terms of 311 notice, yes , i approve agreed on this to all priority equity geographies plus china town. and also in terms of the other recommendations, i do agree also i want to highlight in terms of the objective creating objective designs for equity job fees and include the areas of vulner abilities. i'm not sure where we lands in the that bhap we talk about areas of vulnerabilities. that is manage that again you -- you know if we are talking about i think i'm not sure china town is part of the vulner abilities. there is a different map being used. that is another thing that the

areas of vulner abilities manage needs to be hone it so. yea. i approve and agree in many of the comments or adding amendments. this is my question and more conversation we'll have next week about there is also the stream lining and i agree with you president tanner with the stream lining of the state density and the code compliance. needs a clear message in the xunt what will be part of the still gotta be part. hcd policy review is clear. stream line all density bonus

projects does in the go to planning. and my understanding as planning commissioners we make a recommendation it does in the have it come here. quo need to be clear what are than i going to being coming to the state and city and code compliant projects >> thank you. commissioner ruiz? i'm supportive of all of the recommended amendments. and i want to appoint to the letter sent and i know other commissionerings might not have had time to read it it was sent before the hearing starred. i would like to encourage as this guess forward men planning can assist getting the legislation from the major's office in aline woman had the housing element says in equity.

i see and appreciate all of the actions and policies that remember called out. that don't compliment what is being said in the mayor's legislation. to start in terms of objectives for priority equity jog fees sud and spicht of this. we have an dwlam talks about it and ask in more detail when they think about creating specific objective for geography where had is in the sxroesz how soon can we ghaet started in january we'll see a lot of projects come before us. and that only gives the ability to have objective standards. where is this in the press? and if the community is requesting that let's do this and get had started. i'm spicht of that amendment in terms of adding language in one

21. 1 and.3. i vice president a question for the department. so the community included action that discussed first codifying community benefit districts before we allow stream lining. and will specific low excluding areas jul evervulner okay and the p glshgs sud. there is no language on state density bonus well is language within the mayor's legislation. so -- they are calling that out in the letter exit wonder is this possible? to kind of exclude those 2 areas from the stream lining of state density bonus?

mayor's legislation leave in cu's in large lots. you had issues state density projects come to you with the cu's and you can't do much. we talked about it. i think you can have those hearings could still happen. we want to clarify when the recommendation on that. they said remove state density bonus hearing where there was not an entitlement. in those case a cu for a project on mission under lying entitlement exists. you get in the 423. right. if this project could state density and min teryell tell not have this that will be ministerial it is required in a

geography called out to have a hearing. >> that required state hearing with when we are requiring and for project catharsis in the taking advantage of the take advantage of ministerial approval. what i see happeningly we are so overwhelmed by the stay laws encouraging you to stream line housing the community is grappling with what is possible and not possible. here is an opportunity to include amendments in the name of equity and lone on our housing element which is trying to center this. that's what i see the community doing and we need our heads together and aline the 2.

and i think the mayor general low do this. 311 in priority jog fees 317. cu's and under lying entitlements remain. that was the prince and he will you think people called out places where requesting whether this exists but that is there. why and seems like areas vulnerable to displacement is not interchangeable with priority geographies. seems like the communities is asking to include this. that honor is separate.

>> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. thank you. >> 2 questions. again on the state density bonus projects. i'm not sure i got it.

so question to supervisor supervisor peskin's office, are you asking us to have sd b hearings had well is no other reason for a project to be at the planning commission? gi think no. no is the short answer. >> no. >> i think the upon long more nuanced answer is that you know associate myself with commissioner ruiz' comments that all of the contradicting connolly vac state laws and policies and recommendations and you know -- it is so difficult onful try to -- figure out westerly is the inflection point where we can have some type of collaborative discussion here

locally and have things conform to democracied of planning presses that helped create neighborhoods icon iing as north beach and china town and preserved family and seniors and artists and workers. for generations and it is just very confuse to try to understand okay. this person will come in and there is no opportunity to even inquire of the experience, do you know the neighborhood you are going into? what is community benefit what benefit are we going to be able to -- receive as a community. inform exchange for upon the benefit you are receiving as a result of sd b. you have had the conversations like before. i appreciate those conversations you had here around state density bonus. i know you get it.

i think we are trying to figure out how can we support you know -- the letter that you are hopeful low in rope of. different then and there china town and the tenderloin. where how are they as we areup zoning and encouraging state density bonus on corridors like the mission main mission boulevard. miracle mile, you know where we have the small businesses this are not protected. don't have relocation and preservation. protections for all theim

guarantees and simultaneous businesses everyone is trying to figure out how do we hi, we want to be engaged and -- so that -- is a long answer to your question. commissioner. >> i mean we are grabbling with reality of decades of practice. rung up against you know take nus a different protection. and trying to figure out if there is a middle path or something. i hear you are asking us to do. i want it express miami personal am frustration as a commissioner, may be the others share it this when state density projects are in front of us there is nothing we can require. the neighborhoods expect us to be able to do something and there is a huge disconnect with the expectations of the people who come in front of us and our ability to have power to do anything. and it is a very frustrating

position as a commissioner and so i question you finish there is nothing we can do why are we creating an expectation. that we can't. so i understand the desire to have a forum for collaboration. i'm not sure am a hearing in front of planning where we can't do anything is the right place to do that. i want to second commissioner tanner's comment that we mead to think about what the right forum is to do this. and i just question whether had is the right forum if our hands are tied. >> right. i don't know if this is something that in the pre, post now applications or post application. the other thing you have the opportunity to get -- to ask questions. the project experience paperwork is for folks in liperson land

hard to understand. they get an opportunity to have you ask questions of the experience and go, that's when that means. being be oozed the process in 423. it is coming early on in the process. a preapplication hearing. than i will be hear and theed projects ministerial. may be there is, linement to make there. >> i think we are alined. >> and then second question is for the city upon attorney and i'm not expecting an answer today. can if you want. which is clairifyification on

the requirements of the housing element. under general plan lawful are we required to follow every requirement of every policy on every decision we make? under the general plan? ownership is there a balancing to make sure over all the inthen is there. one is -- a balancing and other is every single decision make not to violate any policy. this is in part of the general plan. independent now or take time? >> i can i will say that i can follow up with you separate low temperature is a complicated question. but -- in ever general the mandate is on balance.

i will skip to commissioner scombraun then imperial and may be vote on the motion. >> yes. i don't think i have extensive comments but i being this when it come to the idea of objective design know standards customized for parts of the city i'm on board with this idea recognizing the diversity and circumstances in many neighborhoods the path and the legislative to that. will see how this works. the idea make sense. as language as the standards are objective design standards and i think we need to be careful that what merges from the process and putting them in place. they stand up legally as objective design standards. so -- otherwise, yea.

the basic idea of having variety in those standards makes sense to me. as far as the intended -- amendments shared by preston's office. i am comfortable with these -- amendments. i think as far as the ownership requirements in the final foreplex a year ownership requirement that was adopted or is it still. is there clarification. >> a year yoochlt yes. so. that ownership requirement i'm comfortable with for now as it stands. >> that's it. >> thank you. >> commissioner imperial.

commissioner ruiz. yea. last comment. in again on the objective design standards, i think for myself. clarification on what is and when is not possible. and for the city attorney to state density bonus projects even if prior geographies were to implement objective design standards could a developer request a concession or incentive not abide. i think more reason to figure out how community is going to become aware of projects that may not come before the commission we may see projects that will not abide by what communities are hoping for >> thank you all for the discussion and thank you to supervisor's office. du want to ask. i would add to the year ownership provision we had

debate about that as well in the contrain ordinance removes that. the question you were talking about one side we want to have a hammer. large single family homes multifamily or smaller we have the prosecute visions like the ownership requirement or a 317. n is a disinsettive to develop the lots to 2 and 4 unit buildings. we grapple with this. you know in have this process so -- move to a larger single family home that is has been in we have not stein 4 plex projects come forward.

we have a motion from commissioner diamond with all staff recommend eggs and 5 year? 5 year. great. thank you all for robust discussion. if this is nothing future a motion seconded to approve with staff modifications. including a 5 year serial permitting review. commissioner braun. why aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> no. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> no. >> commissioner koppel >> aye >> commissioner tanner >> aye >> that passes 4-2 with rusxiz imral voting against. >> thank you. item 17 expanding housing

choice. informational presentation. . lisa chin informational u. on housing element program expanding housing choice. today's hearing have an update on the project sum rising the engagement the pedestrian year and sharing new draft proposal. the second half will include a dive in objective designs and have trent green to discuss initial design concepts we are refining based on feedback. like to remind you the people we are working for. at the upon event this is summer shared the housing element.

through the out reach process for rezone wing continued to garth stores from people phasing challenges the folks here from i set of 15 interviews conducted this summer. we spoke with first responders moving out of the city and might not be near during emergencies. and workers in the building trades who build the husbanding we need and commuting for hers to get to cites here. we have the honor of working with michelle the in house artist for the human right's commission. i may have seen them on muni bus and newspapers and social media.

we are continuing the stores of work to implement the housing element and housing for awe this reminds the work is interconnected and the rezoning we are work to implement funged, press improve ams and collaboration. w is designed to meet state requirements and obligations adding capacity for over 36,000 unit in thes opportunity area shown here. most comprised of 6-8 story. by moving forward we open opportunity for develop and close to meeting the targets.

here is a summary of out reach activities over the past year. first out reach during spring and summer. and here is a snapshot of out reach which included open houses. focus groups online surveys and edgeal work hops and briefings with groups. c in the peculiaret sum rises phase one of the commune engage am and the feedback we heard. acknowledge our staff who made the evans possible somewhere here today and online. this is hen an ambitious under take and there has been a lot of information for people.

evans are inclusive people with grapple with the issues and really share hope and concerns with us along the lines we have been partnering with community groups because of the work the geography supplements open houses with targeted evenly like focus groups. housing insecuritieses. key things from out reach. we have heard of the severity of the housing crisis and call for more affordable housing protection and small business supports. regarding the up zoning we continued to hear a range of

perspectives including people who want to see more housing addedad different heights and different locations and other who is are concerned about densities in the neighborhoods. heard comments about housing approval and the infrastructure and serbses to support new housing. we will be back with feedback. includes a buffer upon density yours off of the transit and commercial streets the map on the right concentrated on the corridors and higher heights as a result. at our phase 2 open houses this month we shared the updated draft zoning proposal. today we added an interactive

online version of the map you find on our website. proposal focuses brogue on trandzit streets similar map 2 from sum and we heard interests in the buffer areas weept can the focus on corridors because that's where we see large are sites like low to be developd and have less existing housing help inmyself displace am. focusing on learning are cites help mixture myself foordzable housing and funning for infrastructure. increased height in various locations. at intersectionos gear and he 19th avenue and on streets that were not on prior maps portola and portions of irving and ocean avenue. we estimate zoning proposal will create capacity for 54 then and there new uits similar to the proposals we submit instead

element and exceed the gap. this monopoly shows final heights and developing a local zoning. eventualizations that the hosing will look like this is gory looking east. and this is from noriega. we will continue it create more showing other streets and neighborhoods. we have heard questions about why we are creating a local program. so we want to acknowledge the state density bonus has been a critical 2 for housing

production and will be used as you have been discussing that said. here are the reasons why we are creating a local xrm how we are work to make it a fleckable option in parallel with the state program. program is ment to codify core goals related equity afford okay, design standards and other principles of good urbannism and meant to create urban forum state density projects take advantage of waivers to avoid or side step our height and bulk requirements. to incentivize we are aim to create flaeblths our role program allow a diversity of compliance, off sight fee, off site, on sight fee off sight lan

dedication and rent controlled as well. we are dugs the designs at future hearings eye high level of the topics we are working on so in addition to ideas i mentioned we are looking at tenant protections and demolition control and ways to support existing business and policy. we are working on a pair of

financial feasibility oonls pro forma by century urban will look at cites. and a broader housing probability model. that will look at the planned area and citywide. and i arab analysis of rezoning the final code and inventory of cites for affordable housing look citywide and the planned area include zoning changes for affordable housing on cites. i will turn it over to trent green now. pleaseed be here to discuss highlights of the draft standards under development.

and the standards were address 6585 foot tall buildings. on, lufor ministerial improvements on projects in addition to the public out reach we are under going project experiences to give feedback and standards are feasible for standpoint. we held one workshop and going back again. over all we are taking a light touch with the standards and focussing on impactful elements. our hope they will allow for flexible and how than i can be

achieved. additional low collecting data on previously approved density project its determine concessions and waivers asked most the idea it tail library standards to address the waivers. for the projects. and in so doing make the local program more apoeling and compete with the state density bonus. so the standards are broken down to 2 categories site design and architecture. and site design we are looking at the massing of the building how they fit on the site. like ground floor setbacks and upper floor set becomes and so forth we developed a moss. the corridor and showing a mixed develop them might happen and development staying and different types and so forth.

front and side -- again in the city you have the tall are buildings next to small are buildings. this will is in the something this is something we want to encourage we don't feel this stepping dun to low are buildings long the corridor is necessarily something had is needed. they are wide and take the height of tall are belling and creates a dynamic street scape. so -- generally we want to move volumes at the street and allow the buildings to go up to 85 feet at the corridor. reduce impactless to the neighbors. we will be looking at building notulation for long buildings to break them up we don't want to

chop them up too much. this is where hill be impactful to the neighbors and we are looking how the buildings may step down. intention we want to have typical double loaded units long the core door. 65 feet. you look at a hundred foot lot this is 65% and suggesting a step down with the 65 and 25% rear yard to the scale between the tall are buildings and lower existing neighborhoods.

a lot of feed become from the community architects and -- talking about how can be restrictive we are looking at data to see if we can address that. with a one story podium the full depth of the lot. do an l shape configuration that puts massing against the massing of the homes and preserves the

mid block open space locating this rear yard with this. there are instance stepping down the main conscience small are homes siding up. those homes will be rezones and redeveloped there po serb everterrible for presenting tall, blank walls side up it roar yards is uncomfortable conscience. we are suggesting there may be a step dun provides more exposure and relief to the year yards. largeicides in development. in the plan area we want to --

make sure that when these are develops they are broken down to block sizes consistent with the neighborhood and don't present long walking didn't. look at the maximum block xhengzs and mid block alleys. for buildings tall are than 85 feet we will develop standards. mass productions and towering. moving on to architecture. as mentioned teshg lagz is important and -- we know the recessions creates a rich quality and identifies buildings

residential. so again difference ways the standards could be met. it might be a major prosecute jection or recession i bay window or terrace. that is repeated. loofrng the facade. a facade texture with deeper leaf being be sunshades other types of projections that are spaced across. and we think we can achieve this the standards. and then another is ground floor this is where the tracks with a building than i see most.

the street scape and benefits the units. the event real in the walk and a landscaped strip. and raisedent rows this are recessd and give a prominent on the street. essential it building quality.

nick this is are creating a shadow line and windows. will be important. we are continuing to update and encorporate the feedback from you the public and stake holders. we will have a second meeting insure low. and -- have for adoption. thank you and i will hundred it become to lisa for next steps. >> thank you. one left time we are at time we wanted run through mile stones. we are in phase 2 and have our phase 2 survey and also a small business survey live on the website through december felony and i web near on december 13th

can be found on the website and we are continuing to do conversations that will not end we will meet with any group thats to invite us throughout the adoption process. you can contact us throughout website and in terms of our hearings here you have before you a number of related hearings. next week is the state housing law and policy and practices review and 2 weeks from now the attentive protection hearing and we are plan for informational hearings for this rezoning and early next year and as needed. with this. we want to thank everyone who participated and thank you for your feedback we want to get this right and are looking forward to take the proposal throughout next stage and rewith your passport and collaboration. thank you.

take public comment members this is your opportunity to address the commission. let's go it remote callers. speak would like to thank director hill us for participate negligent open house on november 15th in golden gate park. speak would like to thank director hillous for confirm that the department does not intend to ocean beach to miami beach and urged this be in a policy statement of thank you the director for clarifying the grocery store cites housing opportunity site there is is an area needs clarification.

there was inconsistency in staff on the issue. green ways there was consistency in the fact there would be no proposed up zoning and housing on the green ways. sunset, p presidio [inaudible]. the brother hood way green way with lack of clarity if there is no principle fistup zoning and housing on both sides of the green way. or if there is i principle for up zoning on one side of the green way. thank you. this is christopher roach. with the public policy

committee. [inaudible]. just voicing support for rezoning effort. reported department and out reach and you >> sppth all the recommendations and studies this have been put before you especially appreciative of trent and the group look at standards in clgdz the aushth and design community in reviewing and refining those and our comments and recommendations. in incorporated. we just encourage this diawilling to continue and support this effort. thank you very much. >> okay left call for comment

on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak public comment is clezd and this merit is before you. thank you. staff for i robust proposal and the work in i was able to go to one open house and grit to see the folks out and giving input and feed become i thank everyone who participated it was fun reading the staff report. stipulate is rebust and diverse out roach. focus groups it is tremendous. thank you for puting together and thank you to anybody listening or watch who gave us thoughts or pregnancy or a mem of your time to think about the future of the city and huwe build housing. it is irrelevant remarkable. and so great thing what we are

receiving and will see has this evolved is not one person's idea or a small group of people but trying to take this information and then to turn it to something tanningable. i know queer are not to the end in phase 2 headed phase 3 and coming to close early next year. one comment about the maps i understand the rational but disappointed see the buffer zones e eliminated and the 4 plex and 6 plex. enter rates are awful there are reasons why people were not building the year ownership means we don't have something

accessible to property owners and i would repeat this if you cannot afford to live snrp who i your house is under construction. i hope to have i similar building involve, don't what is in the streets and having more density we are not changing the heights we are allowing more units. i am in the sure why we need get rid this is it traffic? i'm not understanding. we north shutting the door on that. i would say for this stage of

the rezoning we want to prioritize the opportunity cites. there will be future opportunity to continue to work off the corridors to your point we have not had projects off the corridors have not been 4 plex projects we are looking through tipology and will electric at things like preapproved designs that could make those more possible and along side that we look to the typologies like density control and buffer areas that might be possible and as per of the financial feasibility we will look at the mall sites and including looking at you know what typologies work in 40 feet and how they may compare. >> okay. du get feedback. i read it and it is in the news flash.

that's a great sum row. is there another reason from the community to get rid of the density and buffer zones? it was a range i don't know i think the were the dem graphic shifts. so i would not say there was a clear consensus there was interests and i think we still want to look at areas in the future but you have chosen to prioritize the corridors. >> that makes sense i think that am freshman my. spot i like to see them add back or locked at in part because one we need every opportunity for housing off the above. 2 provides test to compare the areas that don't have density

control and the 4 plex legislation when does the market want to provide and even though things are in the feasible. i think upon early 30 year nothing is feasible. they don't matter one typology of building. i deb think feasibility today should inhibit the vision in what is per missable in allowable zoning.

the design stoorlds letting per of the rub is having this stoop more privacy if you can't take stair it forecloses an town to live there and you can have elevator access and folk who is have mobility issues nice to have this. i don't know if had is something to look at or allowing soment rows to be zero barrier entries. >> we did provide an option for in the draft this i think you have in front of you would allow for at gradient rows have to be recessed you dent have the raised stoop you need a better buffer. we did think about this.

>> and stay for 2 questions one we had sessions during the covid balconies requiring or asking to be included we fixed the challenge of them not count to private open space. we talked about it the rub was than i did in the get credit to having balconies. we wonder if we can address and in the code if we have not addressd that. i don't know if the commissionments to require balconies. something we tuck body i don't know if you thought about this further in this discussion. >> i understand addressed in the code. >> okay. >> great. i know we talked about it i can't remember the left thing the blank wall appreciate it down to 55 feet. and so i was curious if we thought adding texture or another standard to be applied.

i think that is in the the right direction. some make it more interesting. thank you for staff and for degree this committee out reach and engagement there is attendees, looks like this has done so far the sign standard in that engagement. in terms of like -- you says there are about 19 stake holders. as part of the focus groups or community conversations how is this feedback? nevermores of objective design standards?

the workshop this referenced was gored to professionals in the building. dp builders so we have not had in any other sets other focus groups for nonbusiness ownership nonbuilder community. but we have had the design standards at open house and through the focus groups discussed the neighborhood feel and people's occurrence the new house nothing so you know i think people do care about the design of the community and i think we could go become to the feedback from the open houses and see you know the reception that people had the terms you saw that presents a technical language. we have been challenged with how we present it in a way that is accessible temperature has been thol have the visualization and models to get a sense of when

this myself might look like. there is engagement by winter to spring it is the proposal they are already formulate to planning the pirnlt to spring what is the time. keep are getting feedback and happy to meet with neighborhood groups this want to dive in themselves. jot present anticipation on the objective designs were good i suggest to present it to neighborhood residents or business. to get more variety of you know -- information when it come to design standards. i agree in many of the of the sdpien butt community and care.

whether they play around with the ideas as well. so manage to think about. part of engagement. thank you for the community engagement work and i had conflicts during the workshops great to see they were attends and i know how much w they put on. i put one on 2 weeks ago. i have a question about rezoneing there is a comment

this the expanded zone capacity and heights this acounties when state density projects might be proposed. what would happen if they are state density bonus projects. from meeting our -- identification of opportunity sites and zoned capacity under the state law and requirements. do they count if the developers need to use a state density knowns to get them built. planning staff. they can count. the standard is there

substantial evidence the city can put forward to show a track record they would get built under all of the rule s and programs. our existing siteos the zoning state density the state is happy to accept that. that is evidence based. through the tool and it is capacity we estimate that is the totality. we are take different cuts of it if we assumed knowing to go to

the program and the what would this get us. we are looking at the layers we are confident that we will more then and there make the numbers we think with this together. yea we are over 50,000. we think. you know there is head room there. and upon just to finer point. the state to uncertainty of development the state encourages a 15% minimum over zone that's the way the rules encourage you to account for this uncertainty. and so we have baked that in the numbers the 36,000 includes the 15% over zone. if we were rezoning for the gap this is 20,000 something. we are counting for theory and shooting on top of that. our numbers are you know 30% or

more. we have head room to to account for. i think we need to have tools in play in order to hit our housing production targets. i see that ensuring the zoning has that extra room is important part of this. i think the there was a poop00 zoning program hearing on the 14th.

otherwise. comment on the zoning monopolies. i was disappointed see the shift away from the buffer zones and decontrol and the neighborhoods i wander if there is we are looking at that to see if there are areas and neighborhoods it might make more sense. i then and there we had an ambitious version in one of 2 maps vetted over the summer and i think it might be worth examining how else the density control could be put become in place and areas it makes sense or receptiveness to it.

on objective design i agree with engagement. i'm glad we are working upon with the group. we select the design standards could make a difference in when it takes to build the cost to build and not to be owner us or have artic lagz can add costs to a building.

norred get stot stage we are now. no matter how many suggestions or comments we offer to you you want to start with really how proud you should be on the department everything accomplished. in many of here. >> everybody is. >> yea. really a round of applause. i --ment to offer a few comments and thoughts i feel like the

most significant achievements bringing along the west side to the point where they not residents and owners understand this well there is a need toup zone the west side and build buy in the press this came through not only you know offering options along the way and your various methodeds of feedback and an opportunity for multiple opportunities for review. to this end i foal like -- there is a sense from that i live on the west side and the people i talked to this map -- is beginning to represent a compromise for concerns raised. i would feel we would backtrack if we added more buffer zones. 2 concepts one buffer zone and

it is others said this try to concentrate on the commercial corridors and it feels like you most low went with the commercial corridors with areas of buffers left in. i would not be supportive of adding back in more buffer zones. i feel like what you have got represents the input for all the people you talked to and i would hate to see people feel like -- they gave input and got a zoning map it is getting close to when they want and we are back electronicing and saying we like the idea of buffer zones and add that in i would be opposed to the congratulations by the other commissioners. in theory it may be a good idea. concentrating the development higher heights on the commercial corridors is the way to go.

i agree visuals are speck particular lawyer than i help people understand what it will electric and feel like. and it shows mid sized development. and -- you know more visuals are always great i happening that is a wonderful direction and keep pursuing this. i think the press by which you are developing the design standards is terrific. i think that set becomes and step backs are used elsewhere are really, really helpful and helping blend in to the existing more modest heights that will be adjacent. i would encourage to you keep

exploring with the design committee the use of step backs. and i absolutely second commissioner tanner's suggestion the 55 foot blank wall i would not want to electric at a wall i don't think any of us would we need a green wall or manage or needs to be lowered. i that is a part of the design i'm not happy with at the moment. so, i was struck by00 comment this says you tried not concentrate development in one area but evenly throughout the housing opportunity area that makes sense. in contrast i look at the 2 block corridor from the association california and

geary. and this looks like an area that is getting a massive amount of new development. you got 85 feet on geary. you got 125 gear and he funston and gear and he [inaudible] this is the area you preserve density dekrell with gore and he clement. you have a 65 foot along clement. and you have an 85 foot zone along california. when i look at the spread of development across the map with the exception of the van sesz corridor it feels. done in close with supervisor chan. i had an opportunity to peek with her yesterday.

i'm concern body this issue. and in particular along clement. i will get to in a moment i feel like if we prosecute seed with this scene it needs to be done with a supervisor in the district based on my conversation knows the owner of every property along and the plans for the property and like low to develop. i feel better about this if i knew this she looked and said yea this makes sense. i rather not wait until it guess to the board i rather we get her input worry it come become to us. so if changes are med we see those at the commission. and my primary concern is not the 85 foot height on geary.

it is not even the density decontrol zone. not the height on california it is the 65 foot height on clement in the area that goes to funston this is a really interesting cultural district. and with -- shops geared and -- there is a very clarj asian owned operated, asian customer base in that area and i have a lot of concern about what happens when we rezoned to 65 feet and new buildings are built and we can you know come up with compensation for relocation. you be to people who are lost and what does it do at this time neighborhood when you take out people used to lower cost rents.

when they can no long are afford to be there. this is not a cultural district. men it should be i think this is worthy of exploration andip don't want to it limit this am to clement there may be other areas through the process should be you know -- given that same level of review i know this area best i walk brown it with my dog. i know it shot shop and when i do i think about what will it feel like if there is 6 not the 65 foot height the displacement of the concern tenants and how this might change the nature of how the neighborhood operates i feel like that is an important conversation to have. so i would -- urge to you do that. those are my comments.

and again, thank you. i want to raise a question about my understanding the brother headway of zoning and talking about the graen way the 80ed under law and us adding a laureler. why that is on the one side you see in the map. >> that section was added before sb4 the state legislation enabling you know stroll and process and greater density on cites. it was site by supervisor melgar a great potential your it look

at zoning. we did a walking tour with the supervisor in that section. you could see a future that includes housing. you know a lot of large site there is and the institutions may be are struggling a bit. the other side where the green way is not in our plan its rezone i think there have been conversations about this section of brother hood way in the past and looking at upon different street configurations. that is a longer term conversation but does fall outside of our area as well. >> one last question on lincoln avenue is there a reason why it is in theup zoned it is density controlled i think nearer to the park more inform to the p is a great amenity and a missed

opportunity not allow more residents next to the park. we are novelty changing the involve and not raising shadow occurrence. great. >> thank you >> any other comments or questions, commissioners? i think we are concluded with this item. item 18. for the uc college of law. informational presentation. i think we will take a break. 5 minutes try to be

welcome back to planning hearing. i don't left off on item 18 the u c college of law informational presentation. >> president tanner and commissioners good afternoon. . a quick introduction to the next item. an informational. you order all the work uc hastingses college of luthe work that they have done on plan now begin to build. what they call academic village. because u c luis a state entity. the city rules don't apply. this is not unlike sf state or ucsf. buzz we dealt with the state level actor, uc luis not subject

to the local land use controls. krushgs lupartnered with the city. we worked together to advance our shared priorities. we are joined by [inaudible]. uc law coo. she will tell us about what hastings has built. and in terms of the general campus. also here is david stewart. he is a long standing cfo.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon. honor believe commissioners i'm rihanna bailor i'm the operating officer at uc san francisco. i'm talking about our long range campus plan the progress we made and the left time we were before this body was in 2020. when we have on the herizeom and over view of academic village i want to provide background. of course we are no long are calls uc hastings luwe are uc

law san francisco that happen in the january of this year. we other same that founded in 1878. we are an affiliate of the uc system but in the per of the system we have our own board and don't roll up through the office of the president. i got information >>. with respect to our students we have 1200 students on our campus. 1100 or own law students and other village partner you see that offer programs on our campus. so, the last time we came to you we spoke about our village part of our long rafrn plan. village is the idea of a shared campus platform. there is discussion in the press having a will uc am campus in downtown san francisco and good new there is is one that is here. we are looking for partnerships

as limp jot idea is i stand, lone law school we have limited resources and limited ability given the number of students what we have is incredible real estate a block from where we are today. and what we thought about and our chancellor thought what can we do to leverage that real estate. to ensure we address the housing crisis that our students are facing with the city and to replace aging facilities the idea to capitolize on efficiencies and bring together other snungzs to share our campus. this is from i residential perspective and the idea behind it for us is the benefit of being able to update those aging buildings and ameniies for our stounts and the others have a footprint or address housing

crisis in san francisco without the learning capitol up front costs. we have completed 2 projects and i will go more in detail about this and one is fwop commence construction. what has changed is since this time it is the long range plan is progress on the projects. as well as new site located at 2041 avenue the u night needs a now union hall through an agreement we had with them we would develop a new hall with them. a master ground lose with them. they would continue to own the property but we would have the ability to develop additional academic facilities and

resources. we'll get to that more. to updateow when we have done, you see from the slides here them is our new academic building 333 golden gate. the entirety of the campus plan was to believe able to increase housing. without dispolicing a resident we have dhan tripled housing without displacement. and in order to do this we needed to build a new academic build to take down the existing building. build new residential. and when we finish that move existing residents in the new residential. and then renovate the existing residential. the good news is we under way. this was hoped opened march 16, 2020. we were able to of course come become and ewe likewise it. it say beautiful space we have

here. and once we complete this we were able to move to the campus housing building i mentioned. what is incredible is that it has 656 housing units and it has oonlt to provide residential not just own communities but all of these institutions you see representatived here. and so this is this shared campus village i mentioned. the 35% that you see here we have's 20 year occupancy agreement. and so than i have taken 35% of the units and all of the other institutions come you to through referrals from the institution or from the students and professionals themselves. . who have interests. a couple of images we are excited. but we got 3 levels. got lateral classrooms. two.

100 person class room. auditorium. amenities. dog run. what we have on offer part of the village that is different from a student institution going out market plagues you get access to the campus. go to the library and quad the entire campus on offer for institution within the academic village. and so here is our studios the primary focus in the new building. as we complete that building and again that opened on august 30 of 23. august of this year. we now have managemented all of the residents out of that building. relocated nel in to the new residential and have managemented this existing residential tower. this is how we have been able to again bring on new residential without dispolicing a residence denial. the plan here is to bring on an

additional 275. upon between the new building we open and theed renovation of this building we will have a thousand upon bedos offer for our own community and other institutions. the tower was a hotel construct in the 1929 we took it over in 80 as campus housing. now it is time to do a seismic retrofit and will it you believe to add beds and academic space. this is an image of the chefrp 've church and terrible forarc demmic partner. . the u notice here local 2

project. from a ceqa perspective we completed the nop. we amount draft will be out for circulation in the spring. and we look to certification in the spring and or the summer of 2024. hi want to do is provide unite here local two of the opportunity to speak to the benefit. joining of the village and the need for the union all. >> thank you. >> thank you. representing the members of my urine local 2 we have 15,000 members. we report the hotel workers. foodservice. gaming workers and we are proud to be a part of this project.

members have been proud to call our union hall home for decade in the tenderloin on 200 block of golden gate we own building and property it is in need of repair the old building over 100 years old. and we are a proust members struggled and carved out a standard of living. can afford to live in the city to put, way mony for kids and send them to college. food on the table. so00 autoability for our union to -- develop a hall. is difficult. this project for us is an opportunity to -- develop a new hall. to do so in an institution we

enjoyed a long history and relationship as neighbors with unique opportunity in the future with the community, willing services and crossover with the work of our members and their 80 to access service. we thank you is a great project our members vote instead membership to move forward with the option agreement. and am we want to thank you for your time and consideration we are excited move forward. >> thank you. jol i wonder if there is feedback the college or per ins hope to get on this project or anything you hope the commission can oshg pipe on we are happy to receive feedback the idea was to keep you awear of when we are working and aware of the ceqa process we are under taking it is an informational item answer

questions you might have. >> great. thank you. public comment first and then comments or questions from commissioners. >> for those interested to comment come forward. this is sue hester. i am so happy this this hen informational item you heard on -- uc law. we had planning commission and the public years and years of struggle about academy of after the university who was rivered comply with the law and filed a masteder plan but they did not. it took probably 5 or 6 staff

members from the planning department make them comply with the law the big issue than i were not supplying housing. they had a requirement to do this. i have been involved with the here local 2. get being that site so -- hre and -- uc law taking the solicit to build housing. one of the thing this is it really -- i pay attention to

university. uc paid more attention in tan fran to dog patch than and any other areas. thank you. ? informational matter is before you. >> thank you. exciting to see projects going. we are excited about all the progress that has been made and this continues to be made and you are planning for a good partnership created which is exciting and see more and more students and activities in the area and more housing. joining mrs. hest exert thanking

the college for providing housing and thoughtful about creating the village an asset to the sdmugzless you are partnering with and to the city. and the region. thank you for coming here and can't wait to see. in a few years the building will be there. i want to call on commissioner koppel. thank you for your thoughtful thinking. resulting in great very always impressed with how active you are and representative workers. that are -- 10 times taken for granted and how many things we have to benefit from in the city. thank to the workers of local two. it is a good for you gheeings.

looking forward to be invited and you know -- we have things working against us the technologies and just people looking at cost and ways to cut corners and stuff i will steel a line and say one thing that will never go out thank you for staying active and keeping voices alive. >> thank you. >> commissioner braun. >> no questions or comments other than thank you for coming and sharing the presentation. i appreciate the commitment to san francisco and the facilities in the city with the work and students housing and adding vibrancy to this part of town i know a lot of graduates and others.

great to see this process is happening now. >> commissioner diamond. wofrl quillment what pbsz everpercentage of students level on campus? we have about 250 students living on campus and there are 1100 of our own students. we were supposed to open on july first we opened on august third we are amazed we made it before the semester started it was right before it started and so -- we have currently what 60%

occupancy within the build and twpch expecting to 100% >> is it apartment style or dorms >> yes, apartment style and i was trying to go quick. these are focused on graduate studentses and professionals. was that it was about single up tos is efficiencies and studios there are a half of 1 and 2 bedrooms. a common cafeteria. >> they have their own kitchens there is a cafe that is opening down on the lower level. than i have access to the entirety of the camp us and there is dining service monday-friday across the street and in the tenderloin there is dining the primary is the kitchens in each unit. >> and i just wanted second what commissioner braun said this i'm

happy to see you doubling down in victim in the city. e support at the time when we want our institutions and universities and it is you are an amazing example and you know congratulations and thank you. >> thank you. >> we have been here since 1878 and committed. appreciate that. commissioner imperial. joy want to share same sentiments. thank you for being a good partner with the staechl i have a question in the eir process. does this have to go through the planning commission? or striet to the uc board in it is the uc board of directors and society process guess before them. not to planning commission. but we do come to you all to

share information. not buzz we have to but our per inship if it would be helpful for us to come back. when we are circulating we will be help to. >> just asking. i remember u csf -- did come to the planning commission. that was part of the xrpgz 'll transportation. we can move to item 19, the ren force am penalty guide lines a

request to adopt factors. >> good afternoon. corey teague za with the department and kelly winning or code enforcement manager. we are in front of you a follow up item on legislation you heard earlier this year which up grid the code enforcement program in the planning code. in various ways but -- created new fees and requested the planning commission within 12 months of the date adopt factors had impelevening the new fees. brief background. ordinance was buffer in earlier this year. it was order in the daily pens up it 250 i day now ump to awe thousand a day and new notice and gave the department the

ability to record orders of, buyments and leans like what dbi does for unpaid fees. the big change is this introduced these 2 new one time punitive penalties that the planning code program was not. all the potential fees were cost recovery or spents to try to bring about, bait am we did nohave citation authority or assess large fees. this changed that by creating 2 new pens and one is for i have lithes where a residential unit is removed or 4 or more are

added. in that development we do see a number of residential unit removal case. but we have only see a hahnful of -- 4 or more unauthorized units added over time and the last 5 years. 5 such cases and there are varying scales. important to note the new penalty would -- only be effective or applicable to i have lithes that occurred after the effective date of the ordinance. after april of this year. the penalty is up to one time up to 250 thousand dollars pens. that is not a small penalty. the concept was this such a

penalty with a wide range of violations. you know not a light decision and while the planning code has some factors that are codified for the za with they must consider when determining if there is a violation. the daily penalties had rate to you use not a comprehensive list and does in the weight them or give a concept if this happen this is warranties i higher fee. so that's why we are here today for is you will see in the packet proposed 10 principle and crip teariat planning decision could adopt for guidance in the future when makeing determination. whether or not in the situations you charge no penalty or a thousand or 250 thousand dollars

or in between. and i think it would be helpful to go over each one. to read it aloud and talk about the concepts behind it. the first one being the za need to consider all of the star in thes planning code. 20 units add and theed other direction a large number removed warranty a large are penalty. 4 a larger scope of planning code at the lot would warranty the only violation is the removal. sometimes a learninger scope.

demolition. other code violations factoring that. is number 4. i think that speaks for itself. 6, repeat offense by an opinion party. i think that is straight for the. a million gain to the opinion parties in a larger penalty. if you are violating the code to get financial gain that is a pretty sound rational for higher penalty. when there are negative impactos

people's lives the big deal we want to capture here. number 9 is allowing payments of penalties over time and the rational there if you are may be an operation 250 thousand dollars is warrantied. often times the work necessary on abate costs money. and we may have where on one hand we are push machine to abate a violation as fasts they can takes monand he other handle charging a large penalty which could reduce ability to pay for the w this is necessary to abate the violation. so -- this is recognizing that fact there may be some things where it would be a better situation to charge a higher fee spread it out over year.

10 is there -- proposal the absence of the factors listed here if they don't exist this does in the mean upon the z assays no penalty. recognizing that every one is unique. sometimes make all outside what we have. that is there to clarify that your recommendation would be adopted would not be read if you don't meet any factors no penalty assessed. that is the principle. we recognize is a new conat the present time and not had the fees before and like make the decisions not something this we had to consider before am so -- we appreciate that the ordinance asks plan to weigh in. provide guidance. and bench mark for the za to

consider.

the crime skwheen things go wrong and the new factors and criteria i think this they sound pretty good and hope the commission agrees and helpful tools going forward. in the next decade. take care, by. this is sue hester. you need to schedule a join meeting with the building inspection commission. db oishgs has inspected. than i should be catching these

problems and inside of catching them several commissioners inspectors that have been insdietd and in prison because they -- knowingly checked off the project was compliance with the plans. there are more this afternoon 20 units ill ll low added or

demoed. permitting system is not straight through when in upon the department medical it goes throughout building department. so -- payingly attention on inspectors that are per of the reps. thank you. pent on the responsible and it is for plan to reject projectos basis of a proaches luviolation or approval on the confection. which is when you did under fisher i few years ago.

i think that the previous policy of lan use in the future is inefficient use of land and you know a penalty is better. we have seen uncertainty situations we are not sure. a part of the build to build something bigger or the contractor to being it don. i think -- whether there was a personor financial begin should be finding that the owner can contest in a court of lu. and i think the amount and the policies are vague lund real list. i do like the list of -- which to prioritize more. i think it is good to prioritize more on whether hrm to 10 act. and how much financial gain it was. thank you.

last call for public comment. seeing no requests to peek. public comment is closed and this item is before you, commissioners. thank you. commissioner imperial. why i have a question to mr. teagues. sorry. i need water. don't worry. thank you for this list of looks like the scope of what would be amount for a large penalty. so how would you -- make this decision in terms of like what are these all of the priorities? do you have point system. i'm trying to understand how would you make this position. joy think that is understandable question. so ghaen is not determination we

had to make in the pastment i thinksh force am the way it works now is you know everything is about leverage now. there is questions about how much we charge cost recovery is straightforward. penalty and it is amount daily penalty is how much we think we need to pressure to apply to get the issue abated. you know the purpose of these is in the that. the purpose this is to be a straight penalty. and disincentive to others to do this. i layer on top every case you know a lot of enforcement cases and the withins that have nothing to do can be complicated and nuanced there is context. and so the purpose of with we were putting forward you today is in the and will not have behind the scenes point system or strict sentencing guide lines thing y where if this always

this we want to maintain discretion to be thoughtful with each situation. have the priorities laid out and priorities is a strong word. principals we have in play so the za will understand how best to wait any decision would -- spell it out in the actual notice of violation because you know if you are going to be assessing a fee of this at the same time is expected this will being a field and who knows may end up in the court system. part of the rational here is to have i very delineate framework. so this if and when we do take this course of action it is the principles with the specific details of each case will be

clearly called out to passport that fee is. tlldz not be a mechanical system to determine what the appropriate fee would be >> thank you for this explanation and i do agree with you. another question is the dbi role. because you saw in a way you are catching off what may have happen in the dbi what is the role of db oishgs in this one? >> in this there is no role for dbi. good point which again had is planning code enforcement. dbi they have their enforce when we have cases that are a violation of the planning code and urn the building code property owners get hit twice. getting de feo fees from plan and dbi the item and the decisions really don't have any

formal interaction with what dbi would do. upon since this is now to us.

du -- questions what was the press for developing these criteria and did we look at other communities that have manage like this and seeing how it works? that's going back when the structure was put in place. and honest low i'm not sure if the sponsor did that level of reupon search. i believe there was you know comparisons with jurisdictions and the greater bay area. i'm not aware personal low of this type of significant fee for the violations being part of the enforcement program and other jurisdictions a lot are similar to what our program sell now. which is -- identifying a violation and using fees as a tool to get to you comply. not hitting just a one time fee.

but you know i don't have that information directly myself in terms of research in other agencies in the area the state. and whether or not they have the [inaudible]. if we i'm comfortable with what you described here but if in the wing or need to modify not a lot of case come forward. if we find that then we revisit it i like to examine weather communities do as part of the process and not bay area communities. my other question is, we have the 250 then and there max. penalty. under the criteria here would you envision tht enforcement case would trig are the full max. amount. i know not takeing as a certainty i'm ask you. but -- you know we had pretty

agregious examples. going through a process and collaborate process to determine san bruno is agrege outstandings case and impacted attendance that is clearly an example of what being help and was part of the imppus for the legislation to begin with. and -- going forward whether or not there would be if we don't have any case like this come up that having the successful this is intented to be disincentive. and i do i think the main thing

i say you can tell from the presentations earlier in the year on the ordinance and today like don't take this light low we are not throwing out mack finds to every violation. tell be a measured and delineate process for each case. you appreciate that. i like you had kids this should be the max amount. i'm trying it think the findings to be to you penalty levels i see aspects the 1s that had me more concerned are intentional. and financial gain. do you have thoughts on the evidence this would support ever support those >> the code does not require

specific findings there are in the rules of evidence. any time -- the za issues a violation and or pees that are of a certain amount due to factor the own us on us to prove that case. we are -- it your point we want to make sure we have clear documentation to point to one or more factors. so -- again i can't speak for future zoning add administrators. this come up in enforcement case now do we know this or that. and sometimes we may have a hunch.

but do we have clear documentation of that? we might not. and so -- what i say for the situations again. new measured and careful. make sure if we use a factor to justify a higher fee we feel certain in this information. thank you. why would the san bruno case warranty the max pen? i am not going to speculate on an actual pen.

it would check a lot of box. yea. this saturday worthwhilemented worthwhilement we have a handful in this category may be not the same scale. and alleged developer are you going to trace the steps will someone look at the projects for current signed off on? the city is ticking steps to make sure that work is followed up on. to build on that. own if this were to happen the

date tht violation is noticed or the date the violation occurred. a project where it occurred 5 years ago and notified after today ever we have it the violation occurred the notice of our violation to the person or when we believe it occurred. >> when it occurred not when we catch it. so in this time if you. een if you look back could in the apply. >> correct. >> where canneen photocopy today the complaint about units added they were added tw years ago. the language of the ordinance was meant to be purpose low not retroactive in this way but looking for when the violations occurred. not with standing one should do that investigative work it would

not expect to seat 250 penalties 45 thousand dollars for sudden bruno in part it is in the past? >> correct. that case specific low like this would in the apply. . we never know with this project. commissioner diamond. >> the z, that makes the decision special appealable? >> yes. this is a decision by the za. theingly sdiz is the reasons we fwhlt in to provide input from the commission. but the reason i said measured and deliberate we want this is is a single person makeing call. and not a light call to make.

the other question is appealable to the board of appealless you miremember the discussion we have the ordinance because well is a limitation if the za issues a penalty for the stereotype type of i have laying. more than 50 thousand dollars. the board cannotrous it to less than 50 thousand dollars. if we issued a pen. full 250 they knowledge sxael "board to bring you down low as 50,000. if the penalty we assess for the violations only assess 45,000 that can't be reduced. i think the criteria are important and useful to you or your successors in making this decision. i'm anxious about how we ensure well is consistency and how the criteria are applied. especially if the za is making

the decision. how do we avoid -- people saying oh they favor in the thisis case the pen was lower. i feel it is important that there is in -- review on a base i by the za. of past decision its make surety za is testing to make sure that you really are trying to be consistent as possible. no 2 case are alike you want to protect yourself from challenges or undo #ness. >> we don't have it here but it issure flon keep a data base.

to help protect the za you minot be purposeful. being be 15 years down the road and who is in this position could make a reasonable decision based on the facts of the case and a lawyer case had a different outcome. for no reasons that are purposeful if we have these and maintain tracking we have bench americas and understand the goal is to maintain awareness of that long-term. these are high low subjective. and therefore it is really important to be reviewing the did thea base and making sure you are in the getting out of line with when prior za decisions have been. sure. the principles are straightforward in terms when

they are saying. it would be wise of me or any future za if we say a higher fee because you were aware it was willing violation tell be on us to provide documentation it shows it was. for 6 where it says repeat offense. is that the responsible party the same property or could be multiple properties. are number 8 to have it covered i think push 8 is dealt rimal impacts i would like to see it include currentor past tenants because we have the violation

noted in this day if past tenants had challenges because of it. as well as though occupying that is the intent but make it specific to say that. and i worn if worth to add number 11. more things in the list. but to commissioner diamond's point 19 you are taking in,a count pen in case so there is this on going building of what happen in the other cases that we are saying we'll look at when we are make when you the za at the time will make that determination. the tenant question concern tenants to be all but more ecplaceit to say. why i want to create include past.

testimony isup fortunate it is not retroactive. it is not possible to do. hopeful it deters future riligzs. and give us a now tool to

address those if they occur. our hope it has deterring affect on the building community. and comments or questions or proposed adjustments to the list? i make a motion. >> commissioner braun. so i will move to approve. i do have a request du. to modify the eighth with respect to say detrimental impacts. >> i assume we will not penalize them.

i was satisfied. in that case i move to approve with addition of item 11 specifying the criteria to be considered a pebble amounts assess in the past. something. you mind if i put it in the record a suggestion which is if you don't mind the number 10 now references all the previous. it motorbike nice if the motion to add this add it a new number 10 and new criteria are penalty for past case pursuant to 176. which is these types of we don't want to look at all past just these. the language new member 10 penalty amounts pursuant to this

section. >> great. >> okay. move to approve with that edit. >> second. >> nothing further there is a motion seconded to adopt the resolution for with factors and criteria adding a new number item 10 for penalty amounts past case pursuant to code section read in the record. commissioner braun wrochl aye >> commissioner ruiz >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> koppel >> aye >> tanner >> aye >> that motion passes. 6-0. item 20, 129 laidley street a cu authorization. >> good afternoon. matthew planning staff. the project before you includes demolition of existing 2 bedroom single family build and new construction for you story 25

foot 7 inch tall 2 unit building 4, 628 square feet in rh1 zoning 40x height and bulk and neighborhoods special use district. the new building include hay 3, 720 square foot 3 bedroom dwelling and 908 square foot, two bedroom adu through the state law. for the project to prosecute received grant cu authorization pursuant to the planning code. to allow the demolition of the sing will family home and the development of residential building with a dwelling unit exceed egg 1 po 1.2 floor areaerate row and exceeding 3,000 square feet of gross floor

area. it was continue friday october planning hearing. at the sponsor's request. the project experience since updated the plans with additional details to enhance clairelet and address occurrence raised by neighbors the updated plans are withins included within the staff report today. it date department received felony letter in opposition and 5 of support of the project. the opposition is centered on the accuracy of the plans. limit the able for public feedback and compliance with the residential design guidelines and ability to meet the required cu authorization. the opsigdz notes the project size will impact the mid block open space and compromise privacy. letters of support emphasize positive @electronicallies contribution to housing and thoughtful design. that avoids negative impacts on

the properties. 2 oshg pezing neighbors after meeting with the experience after the continuance. and reviewing the details. the existing home has been occupied since november of 21 by tenants note low income submitted written comfirmation and work on the relocation plan. the department finds the project is balance, consistent with the objectives and policy of the general plan and recommends prove with conscience out lined in the staff report. the proposed project is code compliant and create a family sized unit and increase of 1 dwelling to the city housing stock. department finds the project necessary, desirable and compatible and not detrimental to persons or a jayce annual

properties this concludes my presentation i'm available to answer questions. thank you. >> hear from the project sponsor. i'm emily a multijen raying san franciscans we found or dream home in 2019 and lived here until covid. we found this we were progress nan come decided the open spill roll stair case was novelty practical it did not benefit city so we wanted cat high income tenability in november of 21. we were [inaudible]ingmented build a now home and communicated that in an e mail to the commission. thank you i will pass it to our architect, jeff. i'm jeff gibson.

the project before you is full demo of existing single family home replace with a family home wo 2 bedroom erickson du as a new 2 unit project the housing act does apply here and the extent possible when discussed the design guide lines focus on the objective. project reviewed for compliance with all codes. planning staff architects review today multiple times. great feedback we integrated that. and found the project to be in compliance employs know it takes space to make new housing the massing is determined suitable for the family home in relation to the consect and the housing goals. we design today in the spirit all homes. it terraces with the slope.

of all homes in the area enjoy terrace and than i are also 5 feet off of the property lines for a reasonable level of privacy. the demo we are because of the soil quality we assess this in existing structure. the streets where they through it over the side and it is -- terrible. low quality in the front portion retrofitting was in the unreasonable.

] speaking fast] with the side niche hosted calls your top popular is a nonstarter the second shawn we asking shawn why

they had not shared objections he said they did not want to be a bad guy wanted the city to do that. city is here a former public company ceo will be well spoken. actions speak louder about this neighbor. steven game. thank you that is your time. with that open up public comment this is your town to address the xhoigz this item. please come forward. you will get 2 minutes. >> hello commissioners. chair person tanner. i'm steve my wife and i the home ordinance of laidley street. we both engaged with civic life in san francisco for a long

time. serving as a board member in bridge housing. absolutely appreciate the situation that the city is in now. we are fully supportive of project in our neighborhood. we would be very fully supportive of this project with some reasonable changes this respect the planning code and the presidential design guidelines there are 4 issues where the clear do violate those in our view and they are stoo s. then00 square feet is beyond the 120 criteria. they mentioned our project next door we have a lost and a half. we are at 120% as well. the cu authorization utilized

improper low. planning code section 2492 footwork within states the project meets residential design guide lines it does not. part of laidley street. we have serious privacy concern. 12 foot high windows that if that were the wall. they will look inner bedroom the decks are over sized and look to other people homes as well. the propose the project they noted is 46 plus thank you this is your time. is this is your time.

>> thank you. last call for public comment.

i'm john see moore my wife and oppose the plans. we agree with all you have we will are from niches which is everybody surrounding the property. downhill and up him private easy violation. e mail to the [inaudible] indicate that the visible percentage of all low and home like low to be 50% or more from southern vantage points the mast are bedroom examine 2 children bedrooms. i believe it is learning enough the project would not judged as passing requirementses with privacy impact had this considered fully we will asked to bean likewised for responses refouz to acknowledge there is an issue than i have in the offered a concession.

we don't expect zero privacy impact no more than what we have. our am pomp up deck we see 6-8 feet in their windows.

one more chance mr. hawn. mr. hawn do you care to mitt your comments in >> can you hear me. you need to mute your television or computer. otherwise we get your feedback. go ahead, sir. i will give one more chance to mute. >> i'm david hawn aushth for

lidly. the experience [inaudible] [inaudible] remains noncompliant. residential design guide lines [inaudible]. [inaudible]. from the guidelines says with permitted by code building extensions in the roar yard may not be appropriate if thrill are deeper.

include it is modification in exhibits b in height x. briefacy and light issues for the guidelines they have not done so they have side facing windows so -- the right of the proposal should reduce enforced and the open mid block context comply otherwise with the neighbor privacy light issues required in the guidelines. thank you. hello, can you hear me >> hi. i'm [inaudible].

my husbands are the homeowner. san (is important and neighborhood is a wonderful per of the city. in a large part do you to the design of the area. sense of community and connection with niche and name of we continued is in the a result of the development over time but a considered urban designs and required for new projects built in the planning code and the guide lines. including the home at 159 laidley under construction and designed by the same architect. 12 line is a 4, 628 square foot structure.

another the design of the top floor of the project features 13 foot wide side facing winnow look manage our mast are bedroom and the area. massive window wall is 13 feet high and 12 feet wide. over [inaudible] deck this is in the setback and also looks in our mast are bedroom. the planning code and design guidelines are crucial. in the, hui practical of this size to destroy the mid block open space and violate privacy of the neighborhood. require the architect and owners to revise the design that respect the [inaudible]. thank you. why thank you.

left call for public comment on this item. >> seeing no requests to speak public comment is closed this merit is before you. thank you for the presentation. and the comments this we received. i want to have staff address we heard a few comments about the design guidelines. i read the staff report there is a report how it met the guidelines. >> thank you. part of the review process i review third degree with staff. staff was -- pretty supportive and we felt it met the design guidelines do you to the unique slope of the lot and how it is very down sloping lot. the building has az maximum of 2 stories at the front. 25 feet and 7 inches within the

height limit allowd and artech lites the mass to go down with the slope. for an entire max of 4 stories at the rear where it is heavily down slopped and the artech layed provide from the 2 neighbors. and it leaves the required roar yard open which would be 30 feet for this 100 foot lot. >> thank you very much. commissioner tanner. were having conversation design standards not the current to the we have one of the principles we have been developing in dr's every week when we talk about rear yard open space. they are all code compliant a 45

degree angle from the rear wall of the neighbors. it is well twhan additional piece of context to our design guidelineful will are tr there are questions from commissioners. commissioner diamond >> move to approve >> second. jost. no further deliberations a motion second its approve on that mowing commissioner braun >> aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel >> aye >> commissioner tanner >> aye. >> in motion passes unanimously. commissioners place us on dr

calendar. for the final item today 10 seacliff. good afternoon. daveit staff architect. the item before you i public initialled request for dr of building permit application 2022. 0621. 67 threat to construct a rear addition on the second floor. new decks at the rear and new sun room on the third and new raised officer to 3 story over basement. i'm happy to announce i understand that the dr requestor and the sponsor reached an agreement.

joanne agreement you want the dr requestor go first? i believe the dr requestor is here. very good. >> so. proceed. >> put it in there if you need to i have the hard copy that was sent today.

move the microphone. the primary aspect the dr the roar terrace on the second floor sdpt design went to the right hand side fording the director to the side window of the dr's home. and so -- we proposed a solution to create a planter that push its away from the corner. and creating a hard separation with the planter and the terrace that is the basis of the resolution. >> great. >> does the dr requestor want to comment in addition. the main thing was privacy and trying to restrict the viewpoints into the window you

see there is a -- into the bedroom and the closet and bedroom. and -- wanted maintain as little visibility and i think with the planters and the clear separation and the potted pleasants that starts to restrict in the principles that we talked about. >> great. >> thank you for working together. should we take public comment? >> we should. is there public comment? >> public comment is closed. and this merit is before you, >> thank you. we need a motion to take dr and approve with modifications if there is a motionch moved >> second. >> thank you. on meegz take dr and approve with modifications on the screen commissioner braun >> aye >> ruiz >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> imperial >> aye >> koppel

>> aye >> president tanner >> aye. that passes unanimously and concludes your hearing today. >> thank you all for being here and i great hearing we are adjourned. clear clear

please stand by for the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of november 28, 2023. >> good afternoon and welcome to the meeting for tuesday november 28, 2023. please call the roll. >> [roll call]