welcome to the historic preservation committee sfgovtv is broadcast and streaming live and we will receive public comment for all discussion and action items on the upon agenda. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes. i will announce your time is and up take the next person.

public comment from city hall first and open the remote access upon lines. for those participating via web ex the password is hbc2023 and raised hand icon. those call nothing to submit testimony call 415-655-0001, access code: 2662 926 7836 ## to comment enter star 3 you will hear the prompt. and need to speak until the host callos you. that is your indication to speak. best practices call from a quiet location and mute your television or computer. for those attends nothing person. line up on the screen side or to

your right. peek clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. i will ask we silence mobile device. i will take role. president matsuda. >> here >> nageswaran. >> here. >> commissioner campbell. >> here. >> commissioner foley. >> aye. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> here. >> we expect commissioner wright to be absent the panama river is general public commentful members may address on items of interest to the public in the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. agenda items the opportunity to address the commission is when the item is call in the the meeting you have up to 3 minutes.

department announcements. >> good afternoon. i have no report, thank you. >> great f. there upper no questions move on to commission items item to adoption of draft minutes for november firstment arc and regular hearing as well as november 8 and 15th. special and regular hearings. members it is your opportunity to address the commission on minutes. if you are in the chambers come forward. remotely press star 3. seeing no requests to speak. public comment is closed and minutes are before you. >> motion to approve. i second >> thank you of that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner bald off? campbell. >> yes. >> mr. vergara. >> yes >> commissioner foley >> aye >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes

>> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> that passed unanimously. item 3 comments and questions. >> any comments or questions from the commission. >> i'd like to welcome our new historic preservation commissioner wad off. welcome. i don't know if you would like to say something? may be the public would like to know a bit about you? >> thank you very much. i am honored be on the historic preservation commission. i have grownup in san francisco and had my practice as an architect here in san francisco and i am passionate about the cultural and heritage of our city. i headed the maybeck foundation and worked on the restoration of the palace of fine arts through

this project and i have been fortunate to work on icons of the building including the ferry building. the businesses this make up the city and so i'm excite body the broad mandate the commission has. >> look forward to work with youing. commissioner vergara? i had a question. on the place am of san francisco landmarks on the state registry anything new to report in the last few weeks. well is an item at the end of the agenda today informational presentation about state law and will cover those landmarks. >> thank you.

commissioner nageswaran. >> a quick note when we have the arc happen it would be really helpful if the planners could provide a summary of what they order in the arc and have what e mailed to the commissioners so they can confirm and what we will help i think the sponsor as well as the planners and the commission. >> thank you. commissioner. those comments are entered in the case report. at the last arc meeting we talked about that process. if you like to change that and have a different process we are welcomeed do this. >> i think what i heard is commissioner nageswaran interested in getting a sum row before incorporated. i will forward this on to staff. yes. thank you. >> other comments or questions

from the commission. wee can move to item 4. review committee for your appointment. i'm sorry i thought i had made the appointment of commissioner campbell for the architectural review before i would like to do this now. so welcome commissioner campbell to the arc that will remove me from. >> you are always add as an exfish i don't in case of absence. great. thank you. questions about item 4? if not commissioners we should move to item 5. the 2024 hearing schedule. the historic reservation commission is schedule today meet on the first and third wednesdays of every month.

we general low adopt that and cancel meetings as we go forward but today i will suggest that we look forward and cancel 2 or 3 hearings in advance. just based where they land and holidays. january third, is close to the new year you may consider canceling temperature july third the day before fourth of july you may consider canceling and september fourth is the hearing on labor day week. the planning commission just adopted their 2024 hearing schedule and for the second year in a row they are taking the board of supervisor's lead and canceling their month of august. in this instance there were 5 hearing in august they bumped it down to preserve the first hear nothing august and cancel the first hearing in assessment for labor day. you miwant to follow suit in a

fashion. but at least january third, july third and september 4. we should take public comment. member this is is your opportunity to address the commission on the hearing schedule. if you are here come forward. if you are remote press star 3. no requests, public ment is closed. it is now before you. i do hear a motion? assessment. third and fourth. do i hear a sect. schedule canceling january third yes. >> yes >> i have gara. >> aye

>> nageswaran. >> yes. >> and president matsuda. >> that motion passes 6-zero. and places us on consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 6. 109 liberty a certificate of appropriateness for to january 17 of 24. item 7. members this is your opportunity the continuance calendar on the matter of continuance. the chambers come forward. call nothing remote press star 3. public comment is closed. and continuance calendar is before you, commissioners. >> motion to approve

continuance. >> is there a seconded. >> thank you. commissioneros this motion to continue items proposed commissioner. >> yes >> commissioner campbell. >> yes. >> commissioner i have gara. >> yes. >> that motion passes 6-zero and place us under the calendar. 2023-0152, 0580, 0583. 585, where are 5888 and 589 for 113 sacramento street. 828 valencia. bryant street.

irving street and 3138 noriega and 24th street these are all legacy business registry applications. >> good afternoon. elena planning staff we have 6 legacy businesses staff will present and then members can share thoughts during public comment. application >> a there are year old mexican restaurant in the heart of the financial district. it is a true family owned and family run business. opened by brothers carlos and manuel.

>> today office workers, resident specials towerists visit for their delicious salsa and famous margaritas. and their salsa won first place in the 96 california state fair salsa comp tigsz and food in the press both in the u.s. and mexico. beyond that the restaurant is a part of their community. active in the embarcadero community and participate in events such as the holiday light ceremony. ice skating rink. the core of their business. the traditional hispanic taxria and the food and restaurant's

logo neon signage and sign. staff supports this application and recommends to add the business to the legacy business registry and i will hand is off to edgar next. thanks. >> good afternoon. edwardo department staff. before you is a request historic preservation commission recommending that city art gallery adopted by small business commission to legacy registry. the art galleries or city art cooperative at 826 valence why an art gallery that sells art by local artists. foundod july first, 98. by katie gillmartin ran it for 17 years. the gallery managed by robin

since 2015 and a changing valencia corridor. the idea emerged when friends also artistsmented create a formula for a group operated business and show art. and open membership with quality work not had an outlet. city art gal row providing a space for san francisco and bay area art irrelevants to exhibit work. provide them with experience and how art gal reese work and how to sell and display art. >> the art gallery is managed by volunteer board numbers and artists membership is diverse. a range of members lbgtq+ artists women. african-american. latino, asian-american and pacific island artists. they are involved in neighborhood community, participating in street fairs

and other community events and very act ever in the valenciaistry merchant's association. host free art shows every month. in closing the served san francisco for 25 years not 30 but per code the business is eligible program since the not yet 30 years old. not included that would -- face a risk of displacement and stated by application, lease will expire in 2 years rent will increase. artists discretionary purchase and sales are varied month to month and year to year it is a matter of time before rents off strip the gallery to sell and insurance costsum due to break

in's. now elizabeth is next. >> good afternoon. planning staff. the third legacy application before you is for lamp lighter [inaudible] the oldest beater company in san francisco. 4 twine bryant street. the music theatre mission to be the producer of the art of sir williams and [inaudible]. since the found nothing 19 pooshgs lamp lighters put up 320 productions. with a total of 1,000 performance and performed in 21 venues in san francisco. lamp lighters theatre a family tradition for generations. long time audience members raising children and grandchildren attending. lamp lighters theatre

demonstrated commitment to the commute through out reach programs schools and educational promise. lamp lighters is committed to maintaining a music theatre company providing productions of musicality. staff refers and recommends to add them to the legacy business registry. my colleague heather will present next. >> good afternoon commissioners heather samuels planning staff fourth legacy today is san francisco women artists. san francisco women artist system a historic nonprofit art organization operate in the san francisco for 98 years. artists maintains a gallery that exhibits and sells art, jewelry, sculpture and ceramics. mission is it be a presence in the san francisco art's

community this supports and empowerhouse representation of women in the arts. diversity of artists. and careers. the organization in 1925.

museum in thaen 31 they exhibited farewayed and diego at the exhibits in 13 tloochl this exhibit marks the first showing of frida's work. the member of women artists include but not limited to [inaudible]. and the kungham and eleanor dicksong. it is a woman run organization. through dedication providing art to be exhibited for not only created by women but people of all walks of life. members are inspired by art this allows one to imagine a world free of bias and discrimination. a westerlied hear is diverse, equal and inclusive difference is valued and celebrated. believes in the power of the art

and bringing people together and imagining a better future. staff support this is application and recommended a resolution to add the women artists to the legacy business registry. i will hand it off to maggie to present the next legacy business. good afternoon. maggie dawn planning staff. the fifth business before you is pauli ice cream a skeet year old parlor on noriega and 39th known for international desert in icing flavors brig defera and ginger and turkish coffee the business a garthing pace for generations and continues to support schools through donations. >> and found in the 1955 by husband and wife joseph.

at 3132 noriega. in 1959 and introduced flavors that won ribons at the state fair, turning it to a local attraction. they sold it to ted and lee in 1967. and their under their ownership they served cones in the shapes of dogs and the big wheel of flavors which is still there today. charlie purchased the bye-byes in 85 and he was the first asian student at cornel university food science program and learned make ice cream there. doubled the amounts of flavors from 250 to 500. and introduced asian flavors including durian, red bean, sesame,00 long, green tea and

many more. tworm 003 and 5 when the original building was rebuilt and continued supplying before muraling in the new building. safe grgd the flavor wheel. premium ice cream and international flavors. staff support this is application and recommends to add polyiana to the legacy business registry. my colleague will will present the next legacy business application. good afternoon will commissioners will, planning

staff. the final legacy application for firefly restaurant. 30 year old restaurant founded by bradley and viva, and now run by bradley. at 4288, 24th street. identified by the firefly you sculpture above the main door. designed by william today. firefly special ized. the menu that emphasizes vegetarian. vegan and gluten free options. firefly is a place for the noe valley community and beyond to meet in dim strounds and create community. on the 20th anniversary, hundreds of dineers wrote e mails describing how the accident impacted their lives in meaningful ways. dog ordinance stop by for a pumpkin peanut burt dog treat

and it is jewish community rely on them as the few restaurants that service jewish food on the holidays. restaurant has donated 20% of january sales to different public school in san francisco part of their mission. firefly is recognized best now restaurant in 1985. award of distinction from zagat in 01 and the san francisco board of supervisor in 2014 they are committed to maintaining the features and traditions that defiant organization and made it a thriving community space for diners on 24th street for 30 years the department is supportive and supports a resolution recommending the firefly restaurant legacy business registry this conclude will the presentation. thank you.

>> please come for the remote press star 3 to raise your hand. via web ex. >> good afternoon commissioners woody from san francisco heritage. natural low we support all of the legacy businesses. i want it call out 2 in the sunset district. san francisco women artists. is excellent place to do christmas or holiday shopping. i go there and i love temperature and there is always amazing art well and i would say their prop is what this city wants. about highlighting diversity of the artists and the cultures we have. check out. and i can't tell you how excited i am that the ice cream.

beware of avocado. it is a terrible flavor or an acquired taste. 've charlie as well exit was worried when the building was taken down we would lose this business and this it had survived is wonderful. and quick. we have a heritage legacy business happy hour next week. so if you can join us it is 5-7 next thursday december 14th. and you have to buy your own drink. i will be there. >> nice tie. goovend adam with supervisor mandelman's office in expressing our support on behalf of firefly

restaurant. hope you accept the nomination. no members coming forward go to remote callers. on any of legacy business applications. >> seeing no requests to speak.

public comment is closed and the items are before you. >> great. thank you. commissioner foley. >> is there a member of the public this wishes to make public comment? we took public comment. >> well is -- hello. i'm robin bore doe the current owner and directoring manager of city art gallery.

>> i applied city art and accepted and that was in 2002 i sold hundreds of pieces of my work there. and shall you be lynn klineed think that quality is an issue and that's why so many artists don't get accepted 11 of our members are currently in the dem show. our galleries supply income to

artsists 185 thousand in sales per year and minimum of 71% return to the artists. compared to 50% for most galleries. we have no exclusivity our artists are free to show anywhere else they choose to our gallery supports the art buying community with prices that enable local working people. to own art. the gallon real promotes a sense of community among artists and buyers. with monthly meetings for the artists and a reception welcome the public to neat all the artists that are showing and enhance the sense of local community. >> rising rents and missteps as the sfmta policies closed many

valencia businesses. this year alone our front window was broken twice. 3 thousand dollars. and we were mandateed install ad a compliant door costs 14 thousand dollars. i urge the commission to affirm the contribution this gallery makes as the board of supervisors did with their certificate of honor. >> thank you. that is your time. >> we weathered covid. >> ma'am. and the gallery saved many in spite of that. >> ma'am i'm sorry but your time is up. >> i have -- we have that is your time.

come forward or raise where you are hand via web ex. i'mary sing are here as vice president of the board of trustees. during my 22 years i worn many hats. of commissioners, you are charged among other things the preservation the significant historic and cultural resource of the city. we at lamp lighters feel we are similarly charged with preservation of works. that shaped music and sa tire. those were the great duo gilbert and sullivan. interpretation and presentation of works and musicality the principal the past 71 years.

>> pandemic and today. i would like to share a little about the beginnings of the lamp lighter the idea from 2 native born san franciscansan and orba attended presidio junior high school first exposeed gilbert and sullivan piare thes of pen zans the lead tenor. i am likely the only one who know this is side of the story. my late voice teach and she did not catch the bug from that perform she got aid degree >> jeweliard and returned marry paul taylor. and son stepson to the

photographer. the point of this store sethis, the arts and artists of the bay area are intertwined and impact on the world is undeniable and while this may be san francisco story, hardship for the art system not. we have a planning department on a mission to recognize community serving accidents of valuable are valuable cultural assets to the city revitalization of the pedestrian for the future is the essence of when lamp lighters aspires to do and educational promotional assistance we look forward to our viability and success. so we may bring a new generation of audience. joy, sa tire, music and life we are ghoen san francisco and the world. the past 71 years lamp lighters provide work for thouz ajds of artists and will look forward to

help the city realize revitalization goals. i'm an owner for [inaudible]. i didn't have anything written i was here to observe. my dad and uncle dpram mexico. and they were hoping for the american dream. and 1989 they came to san francisco and fell in loch. they said open a restaurant. they did. my uncle passed away special in 2002 we retired my dad. i think they would be amazed we were up for this award. would not believe it. >> so, i wanted throw our halt in the ring.

>> hello, everyone alex i'm owner of polyan ice cream and happy to know that we have the support of the community. for the business to be open and the excitement to know that the business is being recommend to be because a legacy business. and i want to express my gratitude to the city of san francisco. for acknowledging the importance.

thankses to you. we have people work for 30 years special we have young kids that they that is their first. job and my february story when someone calls me from a service. and say, you know what we are offering this. but it was my first job. and also when people like several families go there. grandsons and different

generations and share stories. that is amation. that is a wonderful feeling that even when i have been always loved and always wanted have the kind of place for like my own to -- my creation there is as limp i really did not expect it to have that feeling when people express that -- happiness and they received their favorite ice cream or oh , this is the best of [inaudible]. my life or the most beautiful sunday. try to make it very nice. it is just a short moment of happiness but metropolitan by moment you will be happier every day. something that also has me happy today is that -- i see that all the businesses that have been recommend all of them are driving happiness to the people in the upon community. all of them. raul of the businesses this have

been recommended. i'm happy to be part of that group. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. final, final last call for public comment on any of these legacy business registry applications. no requests. public comment is closed and the matters are before you >> thank you. commissioner foley. >> i'm glad it is a happy, happy day. >> i would say the commission loves legacy business program and love the businesses but today it has been stunning. i'm going spin wheel and hope i get avocado i will acquire that taste. i read an article about fire floichl amazing story about you all. and i want to say to all of you you create the fabric of the city and without we don't have a

city. planning staff and legacy business you kill it this week. thank you. why commissioner vergara. >> my students ask when is like to on this commission and i tell them fulfilling and fun and never more fun then and there when we listen to the businesses applying for legacy. wonder to feel see how much you love your business and part of san francisco expect it is -- makes the job fun. and always gives us more places to visit. >> thank you. >> commissioner nageswaran. i'm saying this over and over again. but -- you know as much as the architecture of the wouldings that we -- see in front of us. our part of the city structure and the history. i have learned so much more. from the businesses that have come and told us their history in the backgrounds with

immigrant family and families here for generations and -- you know irrelevant worthy businesses this are bringing you know food and art and culture to our city. so important so much a part of san francisco. it needs to be preserved. and i would highly encourage you know -- however the people learn about becoming a legacy business through the small business commission or the -- planning department or word of mouth. i encourage this more arts related and also come forward and -- you know become legacy businesses and pleased with all of the variety, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner. >> yes, i concur with all of the comments said and i have a

couple of questions. the 30 year horizon or original thing. i'm supportive of this application by city art gallery and i'm curious about the or gin of the 30 year parameter clearly, this application raises thespecter at 25 years this will be important in the next lease negotiations i don't know how much we get out in front of the issues with many of the businesses may be in a fragile state after what we have been through over the next year. i'm curious how often do we -- not observe the 30 year rule and is the 30 year route right rule?

>> du want to >> thank you. il ask elena to speak to that. we had businesses before that are not 30 years. but e 11a can speak to this more >> elena moore planning staff. on the last couple rounds of applications i say that it seems one application every few months tendses to be below between the 20 and 30 year mark. i don't have background on the choosing of the 30 year date but i can -- ask may be rick from the office of small business to comment on that. the planning department was not involved in selecting that. thanks. mr. carrillo.

san francisco heritage had we create the legacy bar and struntss and program we had before the legacy business registry we had a 40 year number. and when were it was decidesd that was not inclusive enough we went it 30. there are business in that are -- provisions for businesses 20 and 30. to take advantage if they need t. to get on the registry and that is driven by the supervisor's office. who approachd and knows about this. but i can tell you it is arbitrary. it was the idea of the time there is a program the anchor business program that i know is try to have a lower threshold of 15 years. which i'm not sure where that is with planning.

>> does you have other questions commissioners? great. thank you. >> i also.ed thank all of the small businesses that have put their heart and soul in oo00 making san francisco special and mr. carrillo i know that i ask many things of you.

but -- this time i wonder federal there would be a way we can partner with something like sf travel. where we can create a calendar of events of -- small businesses and their activities as mr. labounty said it is the holiday season. i think gifts from local artist system something well received and well presented. i'm wondering not to put further burdenow but if there is i way to partner with another city entity to highlight the activities not only of the holidays but of a special flavor at the ice cream or new performance. would be great. i don't know how that can work but we would be willing to help.

not for december holiday season with you we have shop down sf. we have rebrand. . rebranded. and -- you can finds that on the office of small business. website. which is sf. gov/osb. you can get access throughout legacy business website. sf. gov/legacybusiness. and we have part of that we are perfect legacy business days. we did union square. on friday. we issued that. we have 7 neighborhoods now and we have perfect days and other nonlegacy neighborhoods. yea. so encourage people to check

that out and shop and dine. and our local businesses of the holidays. great. >> thank you. do i hear a motion for our legacy businesses? >> il move to approve all 6. >> second. >> seeing nothing further. there is i motion that is seconded adopt recommendations for approval for off the legacy business applicationos this motion commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner campbell >> yes >> commissioner vergarasm >> yes. >> foley >> aye >> nageswaran. >> aye >> that passes sick-zero. and will place us. congratulations to all of you. [applause]. item 9 >> permit to install business signs it history irk buildings

or buildings in conversation districts. in the c-3 area a planning code amendment. thank you. >> good afternoon. michelle, planning staff. ordinance before you would amend the planning code to require compliance requested procedures of planning code article 10 for work involving a business sign on a landmark site. or in a historic district and to require hearing before the historic preservation commission review by planning staff. applications for permit to install business signs to a significant work to building or

in a conversation district downtown area provided for a major permit alteration. since 2018. planning staff revowed new business signs on article 10 and 11 buildings. through the over the counter process. additional low and article even well districts improvements to entries and new awning are eligible for overnight counter permits this . means signs and other projects and article 10 and 11 properties are eligible for same day permit this is don'ts require additional review times or hearing from the preservation commission. a summary of permit review procedures for article 10 compleven buildings are out line in the your packets. >> prior to 2018.

the scopes i mentioned were all reviewed through the certificate of appropriateness. or minor permit to alter applications. however, in an effort to stroll line review of the projects. the board of supervisors with preservation commission and planning commission support approved an ordinance to review signs article 10 properties and other minor scopes article 11 buildings through overnight counter review process. the stream lining efforts were later supported by 2 probusiness legislative changes. in response to covid-19. the first are small business initiatives or prop h. a voter backed ordinance aimed reduce processes for small businesses. second a series of initiatives and improvements referred to as the downtown economic

revitalization ordinance. city agencies, mayor and board of supervisors work together to counteract the harmful affects of covid-19. on many sectors of the city including downtown commercial businesses. as a result, the ordinance included improve accident stroll line permit review to support businesses and attract new businesses downtown. the following changes would confirm all new business signos article 10 buildings require a certificate of appropriateness application and hearing before hbc. all new business signs and article 11 conversation districts downtown would require a major permit to alter application and hearing before h pc. as well article 11 district improvement will relatedent rows, nonvisible or top occurrence and new awning would

still be eligible for overnight counter permit review. preservation staff would be required draft findings detailing how improvements met the guidelines and requirements of planning code sections 111. 6 as and proposed the ordinance would require the following implementation efforts for new business signs and article 10 and 11 buildings. first low. the ordinance requires a hearing, new business signs could be reviewed. as delegated by the commission under motion number 468. this means article 10 signs reviewed under a certificate of propertiness. and article 11 signs reviewed under minor permit to alter the cost of an article 10 or 11 sign review by planning will increase

from a flat fee of 225 dollars for and 2 increased cost of 4-600 dollars covers the cost the permit and time and materials. unless today a permit under guess same day review and approval process through the over counter permit process the. ordinance would take the department to-3 months process, review and approve mule permitos article 10 and 11 good buildings. minor scopes eligible including awning andent rows and nonvisible roof tom would require additional findings confirming compliance. under department code signs and other scopes of work reviewed

all signs meet article 10 or 11 guide lines.

meet the preservation guideline and ierments of planning section 1111.6. the department is proposing modifications to maintain the stream lined review of article 11 signs consistent both with

the department's commitment to preservation of the city historic properties and reduction review costs and times for downtown businesses. all work meets the requirements out upon lined by the preservation commission the additional requirements out lined under planning codes 111.2. which includes additionaling gooiz guidance. modification of the ordinance to allow continuance of business signs for downtown buildings through over the counter process will ensurety permits to a high standard of review. >> the department has not

proposed modifications to the ordinance as relate to over site of article 10 landmark builds the finest example of the city's historical architectural and cultural past and the ordinance will ensure that new business signs permits reviewed are thoeld a high standard of review and the qualities of history being propertieses will be preserve said. the planning commission will consider this tomorrow at on december 7. this concludes my presentation and available for questions. thank you. >> thank you this concludes staff presentation take public comment. members this is your opportunity to address the commission on the item. come forward or are press star 3. >> honorable commissioners i'm mark martin i'm here to support

supervisor supervisor peskin's legislation. i urge to you adopt it without amendments. as he craft today. i lived in san francisco since 1976 in and out since i was a little kid. my mother and aunt lived here. i seen a lot of changes. some good some nod good the planning staff protected historic landmarks and sometimes they have not. this legislation is common sense to help protect those thing this is need to be protected. so i urge to you do the right thing. thank you. >> thank you. seeing nonotch member in the chambers. go to remote callers.

eileen with speak. buildings. the board president states that the planning department was [inaudible] would introduce new legislation to address the issue. before the h pc today is the board president new legislation.

the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods of which speak is a member is strongly supporting the president introduce legislation. this ordinance requires review by h pc of new signage on historic buildings most think is already required. mrnlg department recommended amendments would weaken the new ordinance. and the amendments are strategy low opposed by speak and the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. planning department alleges the soerns unnecessary because there are few appeals.

thank you. >> commissioners. david of rincon point. i ask you to support this reasonable ordinance. but oppose the planning department's amendments. we need you folks to act as historic preservation commissioners not as stream line government bureaucrats there are mrent of people to do that role. but we need you to preserve historic resources i was the

lead of rincon annex sign issue. which i did not realize was unique. i concur with the previous caller the reason for number of appeals. because they know about the project. duh! there is no, no secret about that. except how do appeal these things. basically i do believe that many property ordinance are -- behaving properly. and are not seek an appropriate signs. but you can't count on that.

>> good afternoon will commissioner i'm ken rich i'm calling representatives the union square alliance. they are the business improvement district representatives the 20 block district. . we support legislation.

before you -- with the modifications by planning staff. as you know the district includes conversation direct district and several landmarks. as stewards. in the last couple years dealing with the aftermath of covid we understand the importance of the historic februaryric inheritd and recognizing the spfrnls stream lining process for new businesses to open. as many of you know. downtown and union square is suffering from high vacancy rate at the ground floor. we are working with the city partners to fill the spaces and it is important to provide the quick process for doing so. we believe that the proposed legislation with the ma'ams by planning direct the right balance with the 2 priorities and we urge the commission to

recommend approval. >> good afternoon kathy howard. pass this ordinance without planning [inaudible]. i support [inaudible]. [inaudible]. [choppy] special historic values. there have been signage due to bad actors [inaudible] and the planning department why this is necessary. i want to say when you hear the word, economic vitality and stroll lining [inaudible]. [inaudible]. watch out when it come out for historic preservation.

please pass this without the planning department's amendments. thank you. >> okay last call for public comment on this item. >> if you are here come forward it remote press star 3. >> commissioners public ment is clez third degree merit is observe you. >> thank you. commissioner foley >> thank you. i have a few things to say about this. when board president proposed this ordinance, he came out and explained why. i think the board president is not here i think he locked at the planning staff did and made sense. we have to make things easier or we are going to suffer. i think that the board president ordinance was good. i think the change the planning

department made it better. i have a 14ed had a restaurant i 21 and told me to get a sign of the building. 2 years for them to get a sign on a [inaudible] building. i think that there has been a balance with board president legislation. commissioner nageswaran. there are 2 lines that we could go down. obviously, with landmark and article 10 and 11. typically we would review those. for compliance with the secretary of interior standards for rehab this is what we look at primarily. and -- i -- i think with review

of projects similarly to commissioner foley. i worked on -- you know -- buildings with signs and had -- you know one sheet drawing of an oftening that took a year with 3 rounds of -- comments.

thank you. department staff. in for rich >> it is helpful to provide context about the levels of review for 10 and 11 property in thes city. >> on the surface the planning code require that alterations have reviewd and approval by historic preservation. that were to occur. staff would have no time -- the

planning code provides you the power to delegate work for review that require entitlement and public notice they are sent the staff level delegated scopes of work. provided you with entitlement letter and 20 day window and certain member of public this is the middle tier. >> repeat that. >> yes. >> so, well is historic preservation commission rerue and approval for scopes that on the surface not delegated or made and exempt from article 10 and 11. middle tier requires rerue and approval and entitlement. with 20 district attorney appeal periods and notice to commissioners and interested members. that is the bread and butter when we do daily. those that is how it functioned i'm here i was one of 2 staff who was managing all sign

entitlements. two of the us that were. and i'm not here to speak on specifics about agreeing with sign approvals that was the process at that point. the ordinance passed stroll line housing done to help fro up staff. each sign permit there are manying many of in article 11 or downtown took 3 months review. that was not about housing it was freeing staff time to allow flexibility and focus on housing projects. that made signage ad a accessibility and things like that codified exempt from 10 and 11. not from secretary interior stoornsd.

i particular is helpful to have this context and provide that information the staff levels. that is the recommendation i wanted i think it is helpful to have the 3 tiers laid out. that's what i can speak to. we do a noticing press with appeal period. staff level. so00 eye may add to that. and the city attorney that was excellent information. the second bucket is you do

delegation. authority to review everything. and delegate minor scope under the planning code in the second you have delegated and delegated sign review prior to 2018 and the board said signs should not be within your purview at all. you know your perspective -- matches when -- our perspectives had been. when i had the prejudicial that toosh's year there was a project i was working on that took a year to review. well is a huge you know thing that improved. i could see the improvement in the last 10 years or 5.

there was more time. things processed quick and focus on the projects to move them forward. i do appreciate the stroll lining process and sounds like well is bake in the to the 3 tiers a noticing process. between had -- president supervisor peskin had provided or -- and what you amended. what is the bridge happening difference between the to? i will try first. do you want to handle this. >> thank you. >> i can take this it is original principle by president supervisor peskin locked at making all article 10 and all article 11 signs reviewed

through a full hearing in front of the hpuc. the smaller overnight counter scopes of work. accessible entry. adding push buttons on doors. roof top apartments. new awning. how they met the standards. the what we are proposing as an amendment is this article 10 buildings would be -- they would -- go under the article under the administrative certificate of appropriateness

program. they would still go through staff review and in the to full hearing. article 11 would continue and without any changes. they would continue overnight counter review. and just to clarify all signs they are reviewed by qualified staff and we look at preservation guidelines and our code. and we look at the secretary of interior. >> and both require noticing? >> overnight counter does not. one question i had on page 3 line 8. it says to strike signage.

the next line has signage awnings and transparency in it. with the second strike out signage. upon line 8 says signage. awnings and transparencies and then -- line 9 or 10 says signage awning with the sign acknowledges in the stricken. i want to double -check. probably aboversight on drafting. >> why is awning are not part of this? um. do you have? i'm not certain of the

backgroundos this. >> i'm -- if i understand. awning exempt from article 10 and 11. and -- they are not currently proposeed require entitlement. they are requiring written findings. awning were part of 2018 of exempt. included signage and up greats and other things. it is saying signs need entitlements the scoped need written findings. >> in the amendments you have, this is second. the scoped added in 2018 were

proposing we keep those overnight counter reviewed without findings. >> for awning you do that. >> it would well, our recommendations we don't do awning we can. butt recommendation is we don't. >> okay. >> got it. >> the scopes exempt are exempt we're not doing an added -- a fourth bucket prepare writtin findings but not an entitlement. this is layerd and complicated the signage for entitlement level for both 10 and 11 are recommendations we maintain our downtown area for downtown recovery efforts as exempt from entitle am process. >> okay. upon commissioner vergara. >> this is for mrs. tailor.

the way you describe today oolterations are reversible? in terms of installation. >> all new should be fully reversible. one of the civic interior standards a reversibility. signage change when is a new business come in and they will remove a sxien put one up inspect about the same location. so -- it -- we are not seeing a lot of changes it may be as a change of -- what the sign says butt locations are the same. >> yes. they are reversible. >> sounds like there was a problem with signage rincon annex were there other problem this is is meant to solve? we have in the received any

other appeals since 2018 when the stream lining come in. i am not aware of complaints. john, are you aware? i am not. and we dom have already a robust hand out. pertaining to signage speaks to attachment location and materiality. size, height, number. we are going to be bringing to you downtown guidelines. >> matching and signage. because the code does require we adopt the guide lines but we have a policy document that exists and is very much public and used for roughly a decade that speaks to all the points raised. including things like

prohibition. the board it support businesses and -- small businesses and promote economic recovery and the fact that no one from president supervisor peskin's office is here to voice concern about the 2 recommendations given to us by the planning i would be in favor of passing along with the 2 amendments proposed by planning. >> thank you. >> commissioner campbell.

>> >> i am -- i promoter of preserving but i irrelevant like stream lining in the spirit of economic >> wonder looking these are striking numbers. 10 a big volume of permits coming our way and if not problems -- with the counter process -- >> are we fixing something not broken. i support the amendments. was president supervisor peskin's office consulted.

>> absolutely. by the planning >> right and did a voice opposition to the amendments. >> great. and my second question. i know this mr. you went over that, can you for purposes of clarity for me, the recommendations is to prepare written top not prepare written findings can you give me our explanation so i have a clear understanding about this i'm concerned about the making sure they don't feel this is arbitrary type of -- i think you can answer the question. our recommendation is this when it come to signage in article 10 tell go to entitle am review process. our recommendation is article 11 in not a process and also that the other scopes made exempt from article 11 includes.

they don't require written finding its is slight low confuse whatting it would look like as written it is in the in the entitle and want need the findings. the scopes when an applicant or customer come in and we do an analysis and take our time and design review and don't approve it that happens a lot when it is ready we do prepare an article exemption check list and a record approval. level findings and written findings suggest entitlement letter t. is there is a disconnect we are not handling it. >> our recommendations they are exempt >> >> further comments. commissioner. >> yes.

i like to dig in a bit to the increased fees and whether the increased fees guarantee increase staff time. with all freezes in hiring i'm concerned about delays for applicants. because we don't have the staff even if the fees go up. so. i want to understand is the increased fee a guarantee of increased staff time to manage this process. >> so i will clarify our fee process for this. signs are a flat fee of 225 dollars for planning review over counter review. if this were to be the second tier review administrative certificate of appropriateness in addition to the 225, we would have to add-on staff time and materials that is our fee

process. that level of review. >> and so in looking at our -- permit review time in 2016 and 17 and 18 >> when we looked at signs through this process. we determined that in today's dollars it would cost 600 dollars in staff in time. amount of hours -- tieed that it is a great increase because intake staff has to review it. and there is more administrative process and there is staff time as well. and -- take review process

michelle and i are simple staffers but in the aware of commitments to provide additional staff specific to this ordinance. >> can you tell me how many staff would be required to administer that program? >> we have not -- i mean we have um -- several trfrgz on file on staff.

2-1/2 full-time employee. which is considerable -- where we can say all required to historic preservation commission. i'm asking with your amendments. like all there is a good consensus here -- among my colleagued. we want to find a middle ground i'm concerned that we have not planned for the middle grounds. that's what i'm concerned about. so, i guess just because i'm new at this also. the same -- legislation going to

the -- whether the plan what are we doing here with this? now it is for your consideration. the planning commission will take up this matter. the code uses the word approve. the planning commission shall approve or disapprove. recommendation to the board of supervisors any legislation has to be adopted at the board of supervisors level before it is codified. you are a reviewing agency.

>> thank you. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> the planning staff are you comfortable with this -- ordinance or ordinance or -- that with the amendments or would you rather have it the way it is? the department supports recommended amendments to president supervisor peskin's legislation. the way it is without president supervisor peskin. >> we -- either supervisor peskin or not. our recommendation is support modifications. motion approved with recommends by mraveng staff. >> second. >> second line.

adopt a recommendation -- with staff modifications on that motion commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner campbell. >> yes >> commissioner vergoverna. >> yes >> foley, >> aye >> nageswaran. >> aye >> matsuda >> yes. that passes unanimously. item 10 for coa the property at 740 tennessee street a certificate of appropriateness. note that on september 62023 after hearing public comment the commission continued the matter to the november 15, 23 vote of 5-zero. and seated at that time.

in order to participate you need to put on the record you have the previous hearing and materials. >> good afternoon. planning staff. >> the item requests a certificate of appropriateness for the project 740 tennessee. 18th and thenth. the property built 1881 and dog patch lan mark district. 4 store, 4 unit residential belling. planning case 004570enf work beyond the scope what was approved under historic preservation commission. the project includes installation of equipment facade and interior work.

revised on comment from thes architect committee. on november first of 23. and the project revised. relocate androus in system and stream electric meter in wooden closure. relocate the condensetory roof. all are equipment on the exterior to the interior. remove the faucet on the north. remove partitions from behind all blocked windows. install a new 6 foot tall transparent painted metal gate. on the south and north elevations. and legalize the raised roof use. a list of all scopes of work can be found under the description section of the sum rein your case reports. scopes of work will not damage or destroy the qualities or

character of the building or of the dock patch district. the project will retrain and preserve the character of the building and will not result in a removal of historic fabric. commission approve the project and adopt the attached motion of the fact. it meets article 10 of planning regarding alteration to contributing resource in a landmark. and secretary of interior standards. further the project is in compliance with the provisions of the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions and my supervisor and enforcement staff. thank you. >> this is the second time we are hearing you want to reduce time. >> very good.

>> thank you. i will be less then and there 3. tom tony good afternoon. nothing to add to the staff report. our planners for working with us put a lot into this. i appreciate it. >> work with us i was hopeful. and there was one -- meet the

codes and emergency e egress requirements. but other than that -- we hope that is -- ready for your approval. >> open up public comment. members this is your opportunity address the commission on this item. >> the chambers come forward. >> call nothing remote press star 3 via web ex. >> no requests to speak public comment is closed. and this merit is before you. >> thank you. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> i was -- duly impressd that you were able to get everything sorted out on that side yard. so this it was not visual low. you did not see a difference. and the appearance of the

building. it is greatly appreciated. as far as the condensers going. how are you dole with buffering noise because if it was a noise issue on the first floor i'm glad they are up on the roof now. but i wonder upon is there noise issue that would come up for you know the properties or the building itself. and then -- we had talked to arc that the height of the fences on the one side wanted to be higher. was there talk of temporary extensions on the fence? those 2. planning staff am i will got project experience buffers for noise. regarding the temporary elemental, kelly let us know

this during construction you can put up bear dwlaers can be removed before final inspection and does in the require a planning approval or permit. >> this was in regard to the adjacent fence. this is high issue than the 19s is low. and a question whether they wanted have a higher fence for that purpose. you know until something was built on that property adjacent that is when i was talking about.

right. we i guess we had not do enclose

ure which -- a foot or so from the condensers and it is -- they are higher and elevation hopefully that helps. can you see them from the street. >> and then noise wise ignore

the will of the people through the planning department. we can ask ms. wong to give us the status. kelly wong code enforcement manager of planning. if the work is completed per approvals of the planning department and all other project approvals. and opened. for any work -- in the future that did not comply with approvals. then that work could actually --

being be what is this word. the new legislation for violations up to thousand per day and the penalty structure you will be hearing about later today in today's agenda. up to the 500 thousand dollars per structure could, ploy. >> uh-huh. why could you give us the status of the case? >> with this, and the case because the experience has been work nothing faith with planning. we don't have assessed penalties at the moment for this case because hay did go back and obtain the certificate of appropriateness the first time. they came back and then once they discovered that because there was a change of contractors once we discoverd that the w that they did was not with what was previously approved. address all of our concerns.

you don't have concerns? right now -- >> have been paid and whatever that amount of -- staff time and materials to work with them. thank you. motion approved with continues. >> i will sect second this. >> on that motion to approve with conditions. >> aye >> campbell. >> yes. >> commissioner vergoverna. >> yes >> foley >> aye >> nageswaran. >> aye. >> matsuda. >> yes. >> that motion passes 6-zero. commissioners that will place us on 11a and b, 1737 webster certificate of appropriate know and the za consider a variance.

i'm also going to call up item 12 for 1942 sutter the certificate appropriateness only in respect to matsuda's question for recusal yoochl i need to recuse myself for 11a, b and 12. a motion? notion recuse president matsuda. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to recuse. >> aye >> commissioner campbell. >> yes. >> commissioner vergara. >> aye >> foley. >> aye >> nageswaran. >> yes >> matsuda. >> yes. >> that passes unanimously. president matsuda leave and you need to file with ethics within 10 days.

secretary ionin. commissioner foley has to leave. we are down 4. >> commissioners. as stated already items 11a and b. thank you. >> good afternoon again, commissioners michelle planning staff. the item before you is request for certificate of appropriateness for the property, 1711 webster. webster is a stick style 2 story over garage single family. built circa 1876 by samuel new some. the vulner house the wood frame building ornamentation the front facade including deck ritted bay

windos. bracketts and trim, arch bay window. the sun bifrt and stick work. grooves and steeple. the building was individual low listed on national register of historic place in 73. around that time relocate friday 773 turk street. to the present location in response to the redevelopment agency removal of homes and properties in the western edition one of 13 historic properties relocated by san francisco heritage foundation. under the management a contractor and preservationist of merit. the project involved rehab of 1737 webster. includes construction of a fourth story vertical addition. roar extension on the second level. a bay window on the south side

elevation and excavation for basement and 1 residential dwelling unit on the ground floor. siding on the addition will match the wood siding and new windows on secondary elsituations will be wood. addition slopped officer and setback from the building face 10 feet and 21 feet behind a tall parapit. sky lights and solar panels on the roof the proposed project any alterations to the front facade. tell be reviewed by the za for a variance request required for the expansion outside of the buildable. staff finds the proposal over all is appropriate for consistent with the purposes of article 10. and complies with the secretary

interior for rehab. the letter opposition from properties typically behind the property and face cottage row. relate to the the impacts of the massing of the addition in relationship to the neighboring properties. based on historic preservation analysis, staff recommends approval. this concludes my presentation

and i'm available to answer questions. now over to the project experience team. thank you. >> you have knife minutes. we other home ordinance remodeling the homes for the needs of our growing family we value the significance of the home. we tried asemble a team of experienced landmark properties. so to flail architecture lots of experience from the board for 11

years special jay here from page and turn bull. we seek to add a second dwelling unit on the ground floor. [inaudible]. children are young and rent it out after. and upstairs we seek. third child special everybody to be together.

i believe it was in the building moved it was impacting the backyard. like the required backyard. one thing to note there was the bay element in the back remove in the 2008 we seek to fwling back. that is a request. and here is how it looks now. different. here is how the interior looks the prior home ordinance made it modern. we plan to make it traditional and appropriate for kid my son fell through the stair once. this is the expansion temperature is within the envelope it is like on the deck which is covered above and below. it does not impact the backyard.

should not extend toward people. the rendering of how it looks. specifics of i believe are meeting the variance they can talk to typical requirements. the pack my point is it -- this tells the same story the sun bourn map the home is 21 feet in 25 foot lot it is thin home even with the addition it has a somewhere map you see on bush street and webster. many are 31 feet and many are large -- and here is this is the all the work gone had these for 360 degrees the rendzerring how it would be visible the 3 orange dots are images in the middle on

bush and webster and traffic at the home. you see here well is a dot there with a triangle. it is glass. you can not see it. this is because of the work to make it slopped. the back. and -- yea. we have 2 letters of support. backyard both read the plans and support it. appreciate heritage for supporting the plan and thank sue and veteran voice michelle and liz. worked so hard and proud of the plan. i think everything helped. [inaudible]. members of the public this is your time to address the commission.

come on up. ma'am. i'm mary king i'm a resident historic district. but i can't see this house. mine is interior block. i'm here to represent an aushth who lives in number 5 cottage row. he's done w with michelle on this project. when he provided is -- i'm not a techy i don't have that. one view of what the house looks like.

is this is another project the carson mansion in eureka. you is k have this if you like. and i just want to point out to you that i don't think the city of eureka would ever allow this sort of look to add-on, you can't see it from the front but the people hor affected the tourist it is know. they can't see it i point out

the house and -- they can't see it. one thing well well the cottage people comprehend one thing i have note i walk my dog on webster i like to see something coming up on the south side between the paira pit and the officer. i can see there is air. your time is up >> okay. >> good afternoon commissioner. this is an important bell to san francisco heritage. we work closely with the redevelopment agency to move temperature november of 1974. it was a rendering was the first lego. we are attached and hold a

conversation easement on this build and as such, we were -- welcomed the project experiences to present to us the plans. we had a couple of rounds. i the admit we were very attentive to the original material this was there. the back of changed before the owner had it and our projects and policy committee formed. we -- made congratulations. the project experience were open and attentive and we wrote the letter we are fine with the project. we were careful what being be viewed if the public street. keep were happy with what planning brought about moving

the top back. the south side elevation. there are new openings and compromised on the size. those. so san francisco heritage told the easement supports the project as is. and thank you for your time. left call for public comment. public comment is closed. buzz we are down to 4 and have 2 new commissioners. i would like to note that to take an action you need 4 votes to approve or disapprove this

request. except for procedural action a majority of the 4 of you to continue the matter. public comment is closed. >> our purview. and my understanding is we would be viewing the building from the street and what is visible from the right-of-way. is that correct? the role of the historic preservation commission for this district is to ensure that the building meets the standards. and individually and in

relationship to the district. -- commissioner? well, a beautiful building. a pleasure to see images. i'm familiar with it by passing by. and to me it seems the ownership group done all the right things. in their community out reach. close workings with planning and engaging system f heritage and made a lot of compromises. along the way to reach the vision for the project. i take no issue i think it is -- a wornful compromise in order to get when they need and not disturb the fabric of the building. i appreciate one time 2 unit made to single family and returned to 2 by adding the additional down stairs i think in adding housing we can

applaud. the variance is the very thing. issue here. so -- we were saying here -- the

issuance of that take in consideration comments you had related to the variance request. i know they are different. the solution from. historic -- preservation building design. they seem censored. recommending something -- the add administrator by my action. the backside are what is being

affected by this project. presented and i think that the neighbor who was not here who is a known architect did rough approximation. i think this is a project that live in the land of nuance. and the design team put effort in the nuance and i think that it should be evaluated on that level that is as much as i will say. . mr. teague, would you address us? absolutely. a segue to my comments we are look at i'm definitely preservation planner and -- your

purview is looking urn the standards. the districts the variance very much from -- does this project meet the 5 required findings. there is a bar to meet there. and this -- you know -- i think the design seems to be contextual to the challenges were. as mentioned the challenges i knowledge that00 autohone nothing you are doing the elements. i think from the variance perspective more so from c of a well are challenges. and -- discussed the building move in the 74. begin the nature of the building as it was. required a variance at that time to replaceod that lot. understandable. and then in 2007 does not fix under the variance was granted

for -- and -- i understand the desirability of it but from variance perspective we are looking at extraordinary circumstances. hard helps and difficulties if not granted. and the existing building as is

is over 4,000 square feet is a good size build and home that makes it argument more challenging. and i think a bit over lapped with our decisions the vertical addition. the first year requires the portion to be no more than 30 feet in height. the major of the proposal. with the aspect. the it was 14 feet higher than permitted urn code. begin the context of the cottages to the west, it exacerbates that conflict this . creates challenges stwr i variance per spic and i have preservation perspective easier to get behind.

second unit proposed get administrative waiver for -- exposure and get a full on waiver from that. also there is the proposal for the rear yard to be shared and 2 units that ground floor only access is the rear yard. design work for the shared space to be sensitive there at the rear. and the major issues are the context of the prior variances. and the existing building and the nature of that. rear addition this context here. so. i think the architect would like to speak. and we will get some -- 2

minutes. thank you. i appreciate it. we don't need to give him time. >> that's true i want to hear the perspective as well.

rather not. >> can we have the over head? >> the actual size of the addition not the can you peek

admit microphone >> relationship to the pink envelope that the architect did. >> thank you. >> so. i think if we request the variance we don't fall in the position of not getting the vote. so. and having to wit a year. asking for continuance. >> we would have one more commissioner so there would be 5 of us. to have to recues. that's the situation you would be in no matter what now we have 4. this hearing does have the variance and the certificate of propertiness on it. so i think men we make our comments. and may be the za can provide guidance on next steps.

>> commissioners. i want to reiterate the commission action is sprit from the zoning administrator what action you take the za will take under considering special make his own decision. >> i was i guess talking about whether the continuance i don't know who is. >> i mean -- i heard support but not your opinionful sounds well was passport for the certificate of appropriateness and no need to condition. i will leave that to you. >> so. in terms of the variance we don't need to provide feedback? no. the za either will make a decision today or take is under advisement and work with the experience for future consideration he does not take his action today this is the public to comment.

>> okay. >> my decision is based on the letter does not happen here. the onrecommendation there is an intersection with the preservation issue and the variance issue. and the sponse is request to work on the issues well is potential for a proposal that can help the project get over the finish line for a variance not consistent with had you have in front of you today. there is value to keep not a requirement well is value to keep them paired i would follow the lead continuing to c of a it would be appropriate to continue the variance to the same date and continue the joint hearing.

we need to do our process. i think we don't want to take. can you sit down. thanks. jonas what is where you are next. >> it is entirely up to you i understand the za is saying. although the variance portion is the rear of building not public fating. i'm not sure how much impact that will have to your decision if all 4 of you are in favor not recommend you continue it. and you approve it and let the z ado his job. i appreciate that. i think the concern i have is that we don't know how the design would change. and i'm not saying it would

change in a way is that would be constraints or alter or impact the certificate of appropriateness it would come back >> correct. why for no other reason than an informational update to the commission. >> okay. yes. commissioner, do you have another comment. no , i think the strategy of moving forward i'm in favor of all of the effort that has been doneful i think there are issues that are really outside of our purview. to get over the finish line and so i'm i i keep the process moving. >> is that a motion. >> so moved. >> with the amendment this staff suggested.

do i hear a second. gi will second that. >> nothing further, a motion and seconded to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conscience as amended include a requirement that if the za variance determinations trig are anything different it come back to the commission >> >> aye yoochl commissioner campbell. >> yes >> vergara. >> yes >> and commissioner nageswaran. >> on the motion for the certificate of appropriateness? >> the only thing before you. >> yes. >> very g. that passes unanimously 4-zero. za what say you? close the hearing for the vains and tang the item under advisement. >> thank you. >> that will place us on item 12 case 202, 1942, sutter street a certificate of appropriateness.

planning staff. the. observe you is a request for certificate of appropriateness the property at 1942 sutter street. located in the bush street cottage row historic district. designated. 1942 sutter is an italian style 2 story residential building. built in 1875 by cycle us ford. the wood frame building a became at the first and second store.

horizontal wood siding. enclosed porch. windows and bracketted ease. the project would abate a planning enforcement case 2021, 011260enf the project scope includes localization of work without permits removal and infill of existing windows and removal of siding. removal of the wood entry stairs and removal and reconstruction of concrete steps. proposed new work include repair and limited we placement of front windows. replacement of siding. reconstruction of wood entry stairs and replace am of concrete pillars at front steps. the removal of front siding would exceed the thresh holes of

10005f1. the case on file under taken without permit. previously approved scopes of work. scope of work modifications to interior. rear addiction. sides addition and changes to windows on secondary elevations. the scope to not include will alterations to the front facade. the sponsor had 3 perits with modifications. the events associated with the project are included in the case

report. the project buffer today will both legalize unpermitted work performd and restore feature damaged and altered without a permit. staff is determined this the scope of work as out lined in your case report is conformance with the requirements and article 10 of planning code and secretary standards.

i come kelly wong are available to answer questions. i will turn it over to practical sponsor team yoochl practical sponsor. you have 5 minutes. >> hi. commissioners i'm ethan young and -- my wife amy scombang we are the owner of 1942 sutter street. my wife and i live nothing san francisco for 20 year. we went it, cad me of art. and always loved the historical beauty. my was 3 year old and daughter was born. we have been working with mark

english an aushth in san francisco. to work with a project since the beginning. in intends to design and renovate a house for my family. as a general contractor there would be issues during the construction process the house was built in 1874. 149 years ago. up until we started the house has no waterproofing in the severe water intrusion impacts the windows and the siding cause dry rot cracks and deteriorations. working with [inaudible] and also [inaudible]. from [inaudible]. to address the water damage issue in hope to finish had project for my family in order for the house to formy gloer tow last another 150 years thank you

for your time. good afternoon i'm with page and trumpbell helping since 2022 to work through the planning dppt requirements so the proposed work at 1942 suare completed. several times including very rainy days left march and shock to seat amount of water ill filleration the house endurd. the project will include removal of the existing side to install waterproof and reparity existing windows the project dpoel is to address the deficiencies dry rot and water. one of planning requirements condition assessment conducted determine the conditions of the house. a building envelope expert retained to conduct the assessment and now i will turn

it over to mark to go over findings and recommendations. we support the findings and recommendations. >> good afternoon commissioners. we evaluated the siding and windows at the property and found the east and west elevations the existing siding was over the framing watt barrier. interior congresses indicated moisture intrusion. the east elevation the poorest conscience. and large open joints with course of siding. the lower course of siding exhibit damage were crackd and missing course. south elevation has shading but no weather resisted barrier. again we serve water

infiltration. stains and damage that were related. the damage noted at the southeast exterior. we recommend removing the existing install sheeting and barrier and flashings. damage course that are not damaged beyond repair should be repaired. sideingly damage beyond repair replaceed match xifth. recommend all siding be prepped, primed and paintod all 6 and prior to reinstallation. siding with bad joints sealed. and damaged frame exposed during the removal should be repaired with like materials. >> on the south elevation. disrepair and no long are function to control the source of fresh air and protection from

weather. we saw criticed glaze and failed, pudy. open joints and frames. decayd and migsz sashes. damaged jams. missing stools and subcomponents. we befshd interior frame at the windose consistent with moisture intrusion. rerecommend removing all of them and replaced with match the size, material, shape. >> that is your time. commissioners may have questions for you. >> >> commissioners or member of public this is your tune to address the commission. if you are here come forward or call nothing press star 3. or raise your hand. it is me againful mary kingful my house in the middle of the block looks down on the

backyard. i don't know if you know adjacent on the west side is cottage row min park and his house and on the other side is another house built the real estate socialities the same house looks different now. but i like to say is that -- will my husband and i bought our house in 1986. she did absolutely nothing. no maintenance the thing she did was got a cost loan after the quake to fix repairs and built illegal garden unit. my husband died a year and a half ago i'm a scomploen had a number. unhoused coming over the fence from the park. mr. ylang has security lighting and microphone telling to get out. neighbors called saying lights going on people are using phones

in the backyard it is nervous for me i recognize that you know you want to slap his hands for doing illegal work but it needed to be didn't steps you could not walk up them. the house was in terrible shame could not have workmen it was in terrible shape. told me he wants to bring it become to the the way it lookd and saved a couple of elements of it to put them back. suggested i live in a victorian it is rot. that's what happens. when there is nothing don it. will no care. i benefitting you. for my sake please let him phenotype house the neighbors are tired of looking at this -- pile. and know thering is nothing to do nothing it is approved he can work on temperature for all of us the cottage historic district please, let him 99 house.

thank you. commissioner campbell. can we get the last talking points and -- team? we replace all the windows.

it is appropriate? i would say that was [inaudible]. question. but. was it not assessed the stair was already gone by the time that both mark and i got. >> talking about the stir that he built. whether that has been assessed

this it is -- done in a manner that is appropriate. historically as well as the materials that were used. not like pine wood out there for the. 10 years and it will get rotted. entrance has nots been constructed there is a temp refer stair. >> i see >> that would be a comment i would have. the materials that you use are going to be as upon important as how it is built and when it looks like. especially if there is a wind on replace. they be of heard wold that we can no long are find the old guess wood. so may be mahogany or another type. that is important in terms of language term, longevity. for replacing them do them correct low. >> sure. >> other comments from the

commissioners? >> i am curious about the front door. the photographs are -- covered. i mean it looked boarded up. is the original front door and are there side lights. this goes that consistency question. are there side lights that will be retained by front door? had is the status of the front door? good afternoon commissioners. as i recall it has been year since i have been to the site it has been waiting. there were no side lights. there was a 41 door i believe that the -- projects the owner and contractor retained.

but -- not sure at this point. i will add to that that we are fortunate that the house, i forget the address is a twin of this one. and so we have a reference you know a reference to the look to so to make sure that what is constructed there is you know is -- complies with standards. and so i guess just to follow up i have no problem with you replacing the windows personally. you know for in the name of consistency. in this house if you have the front door and use that, that's an person thing. in terms of character. of the house.

is there a motion or deliberation? i want to ask the planners now this we are this introduction of doing the windows and has not been defined on this set of sponsor's packet; what would you have us do in terms of providing a condition of approval? or having them come back? thank you. department staff. so. during the -- review of the project. the project applicant did request to replace all of the windows in kind. under the secretary of standards we only recommend full replace am if they were beyond repair. so at that time we asked them to evaluate each sash of each

window to determine whether it was beyond repair and so you will see in your window schedule it details the condition of each window and beyond repair and i believe it is one window that was beyond repair. >> thank you. i would say a motion to approve. with the condition that planning staff review materials that will be used to reconstruct elements for dur ability and -- material review is in the part of the motion. the continue of approval. >> the other amendments that the continues that is recommended.

move to approve with that. amendment. you are the chair. i was move to approve i'm new at this. >> i second that. >> thank you. i did not hear it as a motion. there is a motion seconded approve as amended to include staff review the materials as relating to the window repair on that motion. >> and the stair and other elements reconstructed >> aye. >> commissioner campbell. >> were upon vergarasm >> yes >> nageswaran. >> yes. >> so moved that motion pass

unanimously 4-zero. president matsuda you are welcome today rejoin us. for the remaining 2 informingal items. commissioners that will place us on item 13 for the enforcement penalty guideline informational presentation. >> welcome back. corey teague zoning add administrator for planning staff. joined are enforcement manager, and as you all know the

preservation as limp the item is request to adopt a resolution it define terms and provide factors and criteria for consideration. when assessing new penalties for violations impacting historic resource. you may remember i will give background we came early 30 year in march or april. with this ordinance. that really proposed a number of changes to enforcement program. and you may recall our program is really not punitive. it is much designed to bring abatement hoist and work to correct violation and if this is in the happening we use daily pens to leverage and encourage that. we don't have citation authority or punitive components to the program that ordinance changed that it does add to very

specific purposely punitive penalty this is the za can assess. it also increased our daily pens up to 250 dollars a day it a thousands a day. it created notices that we can sends and also tools for noticing and collections we can -- record orders of abatement on the property and leans to correct when properties are sold and those are things we did not have codifies prior. the reason we are before you today is because of the 2 new penalties that was adopted and specific for hbc is authorizes the za to assess a worn time penalty up to 500 thousand dollars. for violations resulnothing the demolition or significant alteration or damage to certain qualifying historic resource buildings. and it is important to note how that could apply and only apply

to buildings like an adopted city left lane mark building. the buildings a criminalitior to one or more conversation districts identify in the article 10 and 11. or a property on the california national register of historical resources or historical places. this would not apply to more standard ceqa rated category a single family homes. those are not capture in the the new penalty. it is important to note this is not retroactive it states can be assessed 2 that occurred after the affective date of the ordinance. april 28 of this year. so an important distinction not when did we issue the notice when the violation occurred to the best we can assess that information. >> is it for your information

the other penalty that was added was -- up to 250 thousand dollars penalty. for the unauthorized removal of dwelling or unauthorized creation of 4 or more. after the case report for this case we could not property then. but what was passed around are the upon 11 factors that the planning commission did adopt for consider when asession them. i wanted you to have this for your information since we could not put it in your packet before. so similarly, this ordinance requires the planning the h pc

to take 2 actions within 12 months of the date. one is -- an action of -- adopting definitions the terms. and then once they are adopted the second action is the planning commission action adopting adoptions had assessing pens. the 2 terms required to be defined are demolition and the term significant alteration or damage. and again the definitions apply to the purposes of the violation when had they could be assessed. and -- as you imagine, the -- making a determination on assessing the high pee system in the a light matter.

and we the start with -- the definition of demolition you will see here we have the 2 part approach the definitions for dem scompligz for significant aterationor damage depending on the resource it is that the appropriate way to handle it. we would recommend that demolition defined pursuant to the article 10 definition for resource per article 10 and 11. that will be removal of 25% surface of all wall facing a public street. or removal of more than 50% of external from function. or removal of more than 25% of walls from function as external or internal. or finally removal 75% of building internal framework or floor plate unless removal is monies to meet seismic load and

the latest adopted version of the level and building code. that would be the definition for demolition for resource per article 10 and 11. all other category a historic buildings recommend this demolition defined pursuant to existing de facto demolition definition in planning code 317. and this includes any work in a residential building for which dbi determines application for demolition is required the most you have to demolish the build to get a permit. or a major alteration residential building prosecute poses removal 50% of the sump front and rear facade and the removal of 65% of the sum of all exterior walls in lineal feet at

the foundation level. or a major alteration of liberaling building prosecute poses removal of 50% of vertical element and horizontal.

then a repeat offense by a responsible party warrants a larger penalty. number eight, a larger scope of overall planning code violations at the subject lot may warrant a larger penalty. number nine, the suitability of allowing payment

or penalty payment of penalties over time, such as annual installments, should be considered. now take a break. there just to talk about that one a little bit, because we can sometimes in enforcement find ourselves in a bit of a catch 22, because when violations are found, a lot of times the abatement work will cost money and some property owners are only have so much funding available. so if we at the same time are assessing a very large penalty, that could also impact their ability to actually conduct the work necessary to abate the violation. so we want to make sure that that consideration is made so that there may be scenarios where a high penalty is still warranted, but we may not assess it all in one lump sum. we may spread it out so that that property owner has means to funding early on to address the violation. so then moving to number ten and this is the one that was added by the planning commission to which is the penalty amounts assessed for

past violations, subject to the penalty of planning this penalty essentially. so and the idea there is that we want to try to make sure to the extent we can like for like even though every situation is a little bit different, that we're being fairly consistent. and so this is a very forward thinking criteria because as we get ten years down the road, maybe we've only issued this maybe 5 or 6 times, hopefully none. but we want to make sure that we're not finding ourselves in a situation where a zoning administrator is kind of issuing wildly different penalty amounts for, again, very similar cases over time. and so again, that was added by the planning commission. we are recommending it to be added for the hpc as well. and then finally, number 11, the absence of any of the factors and criteria listed in the planning code or this resolution shall not mean that the zoning administrator shall not assess any penalty and such penalty amount may be based on the other factors and criteria that are

not specified to an individual violation. and we felt like that language is important because we didn't want the planning commission or the hpcs resolution to imply that these may be the only factors, right? that there aren't any other relevant factors. and if you don't, if you don't check any of these boxes, then the penalty should be zero. we still want to make sure that the guidance is the zoning administrator should consider all aspects of the violation, even some that we maybe not thought about here and may still be relevant to making that decision. so those are the 11 that we have proposed for the commission today. again this is a new thing for us. we've we've never had these types of large punitive penalties. and also it does follow to one position to make the final decision. so it's not a light decision. so having this kind of feedback and guidance from both commissions, there's a reason we ask for this to be in the in the ordinance. we really take it very seriously and we really want your your

thoughts and your guidance on that. and then last but not least, again, the planning commission has taken their action once the hpc takes their action and we have these all this guidance adopted, we plan to obviously update our website and relevant materials and also do some active outreach to people in the industry. again, when the original ordinance went forward, there was there was a good bit of awareness in the industry, but especially once we have this guidance from both commissions, we want to do additional outreach to folks in the industry. just to make sure that they're very much aware of this situation going forward. and again, if this these new penalties are very successful as a deterrent, we almost never need to use them. and that's definitely part of the rationale behind them. but feel certain there will be cases at some point in the future where there will be projects that qualify for these penalties. so thank you again for considering those recommendations. again, i'm available for questions along with with kelly wong. thank you.

with that, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three. my name is mark norton. this is the item that primarily got me to come to the meeting today. i'm strongly in support of these new guidelines. i own a home in noe valley and the property directly behind me has two two earthquake shacks on it. that are combined into one earthquake shack cottage and a real estate speculator. buyer bought that property a number of years ago and proposed to demolish that earthquake shack cottage and take it to the dump for the planning. staff said, no, no, you can't do that. and that has set off a multi year process that still isn't resolved as to what exactly is going to happen on this property. but that's a discussion for another time and place. but i, i think these new

guidelines clearly send a message to the unscrupulous and or confused developers that they need to take a historic properties seriously. and for that reason i think they should definitely be adopted. i'm not quite clear whether or not the valley street earthquake shack cottage is covered by this particular set of guidelines. but be that as it may, this is definitely a step in the right direction. and i thank everybody involved. thank you. okay anybody. you may miss kindly? well, i can see them while i'm follow along. i think.

can i can i have the overhead, please? tv thank you. hi, good afternoon. i'm georgia. swedish and i'm the woman who sent you three emails about this item. and on the overhead you can see, i think probably the main impetus for this legislature, and that's, of course, the willis polk house on lombard street. you can see what happened to it. and just quickly, here are some pictures of it. and it's original and glorious condition. but i'm here today to primarily talk about that. you should i think i hope the hpc will consider adopting more stringent values for the definition of demolition for qualifying a rated historic resources to correctly assess penances and to meet the intent. and i want to particularly focus on this house if i have the

overhead again on radcliffe and there it is. that's the second bay tradition by h.c. baumann and um, you know that your own staff has said there aren't that many, many second bay tradition homes in san francisco. so and that one's no longer there. and my issue was because i think it turned into that. now, if that's not a demolition, i'm sorry, i don't know what is a demolition. and here's another picture of it there. and so what happened during the enforcement was the demo changed? and that's why i'm asking you to look at these values and make them stronger, because what happened was when it turned into that, which is what it is now, the calc started out, if you look on the sheet, they were very minimal for such an extensive permit. so during the enforcement, the calcs became more detailed and you can see that they're not quite above

the threshold, but one is. but what happened with the final calcs is they avoided being determined to be tantamount to demolition by changing the design of the penthouse during the enforced rent. so they weren't over the threshold and many of them so my point in this is i think these numbers, these values need to be more stringent in order to prevent this kind of thing. this house was a contributor to a historic district. i just think that there's a loophole there that if somebody can get away with it, enforcement and this is a very extreme example, i know i don't think it's right now i made a recommendation for numbers. it's on that the sheet. you may find those too stringent. i don't know. i i think it's up to you to look at those numbers and think are the numbers recommended by the wsa stringent enough or is there something between my recommendation and his recommendation of what those

values should be to prevent this kind of thing in the future? and other than that, i'm very supportive of this property. excuse me? this property. not that property, no, i'm not supportive of that. i'm supportive of this legislation and all the work that mr. teague and miss wong have done. thank you very much. okay. last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. unfortunately. this matter was advertised on the agenda as an informational item without an action for you to take even though the language does say adoption. so i think just for the benefit of procedure, you should deliberate and indicate your intent and then we can continue the matter and schedule it on the consent calendar with whatever consensus you come to today. great. thank you, commissioner vergara. i'm

afraid i'm easily confused and i am right now. question for mr. teague on on the recommendation that you've given to us 11 on i think i'm off by 1 or 2. can i'm not sure what's the best way to go over it, but number one begins with the words all relevant factors. i'm sorry. i believe that may be again the criteria that the planning commission adopted. right. that was okay. well, i'm not sure all relevant factors. number two, the uniqueness of the historic property. oh i see what you're saying. yeah, i think you're right. i think we did leave one off in the presentation in the case report. okay which i don't have the case report here, actually. thank you very much. yeah thanks. yeah yes, you. you're absolutely correct. i apologize that that was, um, the

planning code already lists certain factors that the zoning administrator should consider for when determining that there's a violation and assessing the daily penalties. okay. and this was part of what was recommended and adopted by the planning commission. and i failed to call that out for today. you're correct that that should be number one. and there's actually a total of 12 proposed for the hpc today. and not 11. so i apologize for that. okay. that confusion, the staff report is correct. okay thank you. thank you for pointing that out. thanks. commissioner campbell. excuse me, commissioner baldauf. yeah, i have a bunch of questions and some of them are a little bit legal, but first of all, i'm curious how we in our purview

define interior demolition, because i don't know that we have jurisdiction over our interiors. unless they're landmarked. well but yeah, no, but the interior itself has to be separately landmarked from the exterior. and that's why i'm just curious about how we are weighing in on, on an interior for demolition criteria. for kelly wong code enforcement manager for landmark properties. if they are designated in, you know, as a landmark in their designation, then we do have purview for qualifying category a historic resources. if they're publicly accessible. we do have purview under sequa. so those are the two. and this is where we go on the to the interior in terms of planning department review, we also review interior

demolition demolition calculations as part of our regular project review, whether or not it actually exceeds the threshold for neighborhood notification under planning code. but that's planning code. i'm i'm talking about our purview as a historic preservation commission. i understand that in planning you have this that ability. but i'm i'm just having lived through some of these definitions and all of this, i think it's very important to be very, very clear about this stuff and who has what authority. sure. and i think just to be really clear about what we're recommending, the interiors relative to the definition, we ask you to adopt are only those interiors that have already been designed, dated as part of a historic resource. so it's not just any interior out there or even in

the interior of a historic building. it has to be, as was called out in the draft, it it has to be specific types of interiors for specific types of historic buildings that that are designated in that way. so but but let me make any new determinations as part of this recommendation. these are already interiors where the department has reviewed a purview from a preservation perspective. okay. i guess just though, to be clear on this, buildings that are part of a historic district fall into to this set of definitions in certain if there an article 10 or 11 district. yes okay so but but again that's a zoning issue, i think not a historic preservation issue. no. i mean, the article ten, article ten and 11 are articles of the planning code. so obviously it's wrapped into our land use controls, but

they are specifically preservation controls. okay. so long as you feel that you've got this very clearly defined. and i also want to talk a little bit about this notion that you can levy fines differently for different people. how is that legal? well it's not necessarily differently for different people. and again, the ordinance that was adopted is already been adopted. and the. a responsible party is defined in the code. and essentially it's going to be your the property owner. that's the ultimate responsible party. and the levy of the fines mean again we didn't have this authorization to do these big one time punitive penalties before this legislation. but that was very much the purpose as part of the purpose of this legislation was to assess these

large fines. so without without any guidance, i mean, we, the zoning administrator, would have the discretion to charge the maximum to any violation that meets this. so you know, really this guidance is going to just help, right size the kind of way we, the zoning administrator makes that final decision. and looking at these factors to determine is, does this warrant a higher fee or maybe does it warrant a lower fee? the only thing that's specific in here about persons is repeat violators. if you have a property owner who has a history of established and upheld violations that if this if you know, if these criteria were adopted by the commission, would be a factor to justify a higher fee for a particular penalty. but again, the zoning administrator administrator

would have the discretion to charge the maximum. either way. it's just this is providing more guidance on how to be measured in that those determinations. so just ask the follow up that where i'm concerned is that let's say someone in a less affluent neighborhood in our city, you know, goes to town and egregiously she makes some mistakes, let's put it that way. and they're asked to remedy those. and we know that there are many people who do things like we've seen the pictures of today where they certainly can afford whatever fine. the 500,000 won't even be that much for them, to be quite honest. but you charge the person who can pay the 500,000 without impunity and you charge $20,000 to the person in in the poorer

neighborhood and you get a lawsuit from the person who got the 500,000 because they've got their high powered attorneys. are we creating a scenario where we're going to end up actually being county productive to the prior approach to this, which was work with people to get to a place? i don't know the answer, but i'm just asking the question because i'm very sure that the first $500,000 fine, you're going to levy is going to be against someone who can more than pay it and can more than pay the attorneys to take you on . and i just want to be sure you figured that out. sure. no, i appreciate that sentiment because that was obviously something we thought about on the front end of that legislation. and that's part of the rationale why we had this requirement baked in for the planning commission and the hpc to provide help, provide this guidance so that we can make sure, again, that whether it's

me or a future zoning administrator is having to make this tough decision that we have criteria to that are already given to us to consider. and again, we can consider other criteria, we can look at it, but i can guarantee you any decision that's going to be made to levy a really high penalty penalty like this, we're going to have to craft that and be able to back it up on appeal to the board of appeals. and if there is a lawsuit. so you know, ability to pay by the property owner is not one of the criteria that's currently proposed and listed on here. but again, one of the criteria here is that we can consider things outside of this list. so there's every case is somewhat unique. i think a lot of the buildings that are captured in the qualifying historic buildings that this is subject to tend to not just be random homes out in the neighborhood is because it's a higher level of historic buildings. i think most people who are in those buildings know what they are pretty well. if you're that level of a historic

building. but i agree with you. there are going to be cases that are less egregious than others. there are going to be some cases that there was very clear intent and there's going to be cases where there was very clear lack of intent. and we will factor all of that into any final decisions. thank you, commissioner campbell. considering just the irreversibility of demolition, i'm curious where the percentages came from, how we quantified that. i guess i'm surprised how high they are knowing that that could almost be a calculated loss in somebody's pro forma. so are you referencing the percentages for de facto demolition for the right for the various category? vries yeah, yeah. for the lower categories. i mean, the primary factor behind that and kelly can speak to it more than i can, is simply that this is new, like

this threshold is new at and that was an option that existed already in the code that we already use. we know how to analyze us and it seemed like the most logical option to use anything beyond that is possible. like, you know, we mishra thinks we can use that same methodology but lower the percentages to make it more restrictive and that that could happen in. but then there is the question of, well, do you lower it to x percentage or y percentage or z percentage like i'm not going to say it would be arbitrary, but i don't know where a good where a good place to land is. whereas what's already in the code is something that we've used. i'd like people in the industry know it. we know it. we use those numbers all the time. that's the rationale. of course it's the commission's purview. if you think the number should be lower, then that's that's something that you could consider and adopt. thank you. commissioner nageswaran um,

yeah, it's a lot of information to take in. and consider. i really appreciate commissioner baldelli's questions and commissioner campbell's. i'm just wondering if some of the. items are, i mean, some of, some of them are quantified, but then number 11 is a little bit ambiguous. and then i also want to understand, is there a schedule of values attached to any of these or how that works? yes, that's a great question. and actually, i meant to address that in my presentation. so i really appreciate that question. um, because as i mentioned, we already have a set of criteria for consideration for the zoning administrator, for the daily penalties, but none of them are weighted. they just say these are all things that should be considered part of the intention

with what's before you is to put some weight behind them again. so if it's a repeat violation violator, that's not just something that should be considered. that means the penalty should be higher. right? if we know it was willfully done, that's just not something we consider. so that that puts the thumb on the on the lever. and we should charge more in that situation because there was a willful violation. so that's part of the purpose of these. the other thing is that these are really intended to be principles and not like sentencing guidelines where the where we have like objective kind of specific. fee amounts that are recommended based on anything just because every case is so unique and complicated and has, you know, a myriad of factors that interplay and that really wasn't the intent here. the intent is really just to have these principles. and then at the end of the day, you know, the zoning administrator is going to have to put it all together and figure out what that means for that case. and

what the appropriate fee is. but by having these guiding principles to back them up, but not having something that's kind of very objective and rigid or kind of method like a very specific quantitative methodology. these we're talking about cases that are very intentional, correct? these are things that it's not by accident that these things are happening. they they would be very intentional. there would be substantial certainty about what they're doing that that these this policy would kick in. i mean, i can't speculate. i mean, obviously, we know that we can find lots of cases in the past that seemed intentional, but we also have plenty of cases that aren't intentional. now, again, this is a higher level of historic resource here. and so i think typically property owners have a higher awareness of what they're dealing with with these types of buildings. but again, i

think whether or not we can kind of clear document or have good documentation that it very likely was intentional and unwilling violation, then then we would use that information in that document to support a higher fee. but if we didn't have that information, you know, that wouldn't necessarily be a factor in assessing. i mean, i think that's what i was getting about in terms of the documentation of the identifying differences between somebody that could be maybe unintentional to someone that is intentional. i think if it's repeated or if there are particular actions that have taken place, it it definitely shows me that there was some intentionality to that. you i think, kind of mentioned. but i was wondering if you could elaborate about the industries comp rates. i mean, i think this is a good policy. it's a good public policy because it shows that we take our historic resources very seriously. and it's a message to people like this is what will happen. should

should you disrespect the policy of the city and county of san francisco? we believe that these are very important resources that we want to preserve, protect and cherish and so if you don't do that, this is what happens. but what kind of messages or what kind of feedback have you gotten back from the industry? you know, to my knowledge, we haven't gotten a lot of feedback from people in the development community or the preservation community. i'm not sure if kelly's had any direct conversations with anyone. again, i know that that there is a certain level of awareness. it's i don't know how far reaching that is because the industry is quite large in some ways, and obviously property owners is a whole different population that may not technically be in the industry. so i'm not aware of any real specific feedback we've gotten. but again, our goal, once this is all wrapped up with both commissions, is to try to educate, get awareness out there to people who may be in the

industry, including in the real estate industry, who maybe aren't related to the developing or doing construction projects, but are basically talking to potential buyers of properties about what you kind of can and can't do or are representing to future buyers. what a property is or is not. so that's that would be our the primary purpose of that kind of small campaign. once this is all wrapped, is really more educational, more educational to show what the what the city's policies are right. and what the potential harming and right. because again, one of the big policies behind this is not just to be punitive when this happens, but very much to be a deterrent. but it can only be a deterrent if people are aware of it. so the awareness is an important thing. that's why i hope if we get the word out there, we don't see very many of these. there may be some actors who this isn't as big of a deal as we would hope it would be. but i think for a

lot of people it will be. and that we do actually deter a lot of these from ever occurring in the future. so i wanted to ask you, ms. you brought up a good point about kind of the level, the percentage of what is being proposed and what she has brought to our attention on. what do you think about that in terms of i know it's you know, this is a very new area for us, but i'm just i would if we could do anything to in any way prevent it. and i know we can't stop people from doing things, but i think as a public policy message about you know, wanting to continue to preserve our historic resources, particularly those that you know, are our landmark designee and what what what are your thoughts about that? well, again, we didn't falling, right? yeah, we didn't

undertake any specific analysis on different numbers because we did think that just relying on what we've used would be the most straightforward. one thing i will say again is that these can be updated in the future too. so even if the commission felt comfortable adopting what we use right now with de facto demo for now and just wanted to touch on this again at some point in the future, to think about whether those numbers should be pulled down. i mean, we can obviously go into the future and see what happens and see if there are cases that would justify changing those numbers just for this purpose in the future. that's definitely an option. but we don't really you know, we did not undergo any specific analysis for using different numbers below. and i honestly don't know what metrics we would use to determine that. instead of 50, we use 40 or 35 or. right. and i think that's a good idea to be able to come back for us to reread view within a certain period of time

to see, number one, if there are cases that have fallen into this particular area. and number two, if they have been effective or if we have to re review that and even though it's not required in the ordinance, we can have this conversation with planning commission last week. i think whenever we have these fees assessed for the first time in a significant way and they're upheld hopefully on appeal and no lawsuits, i mean, we will be reporting back because this is such a new thing, thing that i think it's in all of our interests that we keep the commission as informed and don't have a specific timeline like a six month check back or anything like that. because again, hopefully we don't get many of these. luckily so far since basically since may, we haven't had any of these that have come across our desks that would trigger this right now. so hopefully it stays that way. but we would definitely be reporting back on kind of early results when we first start assessing these penalties is great. great. thank you. commissioner baldauf,

did you have other comments? yeah, i had a question on is there a best practice misses on this nationally? are there other cities that have have, you know, approached this challenge? thanks for that question. we had a similar question from the planning commission. i mean, we've not conducted that type of analysis, as i believe whenever the original ordinance was going forward, the sponsoring supervisors office did do some outreach and research, kind of with a bay area city to see if they had things like this. i don't think there's a lot of examples as of these types of significant fees for these specific types of violation actions. we can obviously look into that further, but we've not done any specific research on on that issue. does heritage. no, i mean, do you know the answer to that question by any chance? i have not found. i want to say 4

or 5 years ago, we looked very closely at this when this was first brought up. and it's some of the egregious examples that were happening around russian hill and other places. but we didn't find anything that sort of compared. and that's why we pushed for this actually to happen. and i would hazard to say san francisco is a little unique in the sort of venn diagram of resources and property values. so i don't know if you'd have an apples to apples example anyway, but. thank you. uh, commissioner nagaswaram. so i wanted to just ask, you know, using that i forget what the address was. 1737 webster that had the siding, is that the one that had the siding removed or that was

sutter street? sutter street and so as far as, let's say it was article an article 10 or 11 and we were looking at the external walls on the first point that you have for demolition, if we're looking at that, does that include the framing and the sheathing or does it just include the sheathing. are you asking about the demolition. for under 105, the first definition that you have, number one, yes, i'm just using sutter street as an example because they have one wall where they want to replace a bunch of siding and so there's the percentage that you would assess under the planning code

just to do the project. and then there's the enforcement, right? and so i want to understand first, like, what are we talking about? are we talking about the sheathing or are we talking about the framing and the sheathing and then second, i want to understand how the how close the percentages are for exceeding the numbers like if they were trying to be under the demolition and the planning code and they went over it just slightly because they saw a little bit more dry rot. okay yeah, great. so kelly wong, code enforcement manager. uh, so under planning code, section 1005, that first the, the. a removal of more than 25% of the surface area of all external walls facing a public streets. that's only the siding and that's the only place under the planning code where we're only looking at siding. so if you just remove stucco, wood siding,

that is removal. everything else is down to the studs. so you would have to remove the walls wall, all the studs for that to be considered removal. that's the same, um, under planning code section 317, which is the demolition definition for the qualifying category. a properties. okay. understood that. so you're saying removal versus demolition? i'm not sorry. yes. under planning code section 317, we considered removal as part of like what to include as remove all for demolition calculations. so it is considered sort of like these these thresholds would would say if you removed more than this percentage you are, then defined as a demolition under the planning code. that's where the removal versus existing. what's existing and what's removed in terms of existing fabric. okay.

and then how close are the percentages is between the planning code, what they define as a demolition versus what would be under the, you know, if someone came to you with a project that was under the threshold of demolition, but during in the field, they just went over that threshold. and is that a violation? and what are the percentages so close between what you have in your. yeah, yeah. so i think you're asking is what if someone intentionally or unintentionally, what gets approved is not de facto demolition and then what they actually do in the field where they were limited to like 49.9. they actually did 50.5. right so it's kind of a two parter. i mean, if you go over the percentage, you're over the percentage like, you know, that triggers you into this realm. but then that triggers into the

question of like, well, should a penalty be assessed? and if so, what should that penalty be? right. so theoretically, there is some pop population of violations out there that will not get assessed. any penalty, even though we could assess a very high penalty, there could be factors involved where it could be a situation where, for example, again, every case we would look at individually, but if it's clearly unintentional, i'll barely you know, microscopically over the limit. and there may be very specific factors or reasons why that happened in the field, that's kind of no fault of the property owner or something like that. it those are all factors we would consider for when if we should assess a fee and what that what that penalty should be. but the trigger would be triggered. i mean, once you go over the once you go over the percentage, you're over the percentage is not really a way to move away from that or provide exceptions to that. it would it would be a violation. okay. and so what

we're doing here is defining it under article ten and 11. what what the percentages are for demolition. yeah, we're setting those hard limits so that we can identify why we can say, okay, this is a project that did work without permit or work beyond scope of permit. we know that is the case. the second question is, did it go so far that it meets one of these triggers such that it would be eligible for one of these large penalties? and those are the numbers for demolition and significant alteration or damage that we're asking you to set. it's like, where are those thresholds that once you go over that threshold you're in, that penalty world? and then the second part is and here are the criteria to consider when you're thinking about those penalties. okay thank you. sure. enough. uh, commissioner baldauf, i'm sorry. my brain is ricocheting around and it's late. i guess i'm just

going to sort of start because i think we need to summarize where we are. i'm very. i need some more time with this. i think the consequence of it are huge. i, i really. i totally appreciate the need and the desire, ability of having a hammer to enforce discipline. and i'm just worried that you're going to open yourself up to all sorts of unintended consequences. is that are i mean, i think i sort of asked this question on an earlier thing. i can see where you could spend $50,000 of department time just writing up. the $500,000 penalty number. i mean, i just think that, you know, to be bulletproof from a

legal point of view, you're going to need a ton of resources , sources. and is this really the best way to achieve of, you know, what we're trying to achieve? and i'm new to this. so i just have to be honest. i'll abstain. or if whatever you we're not even voting tonight. but i'm just like, i would not want this on the consent calendar. let's put it that way. if i had to talk about it and if i could just to respond to that a little bit. i mean, i think those issues were very much considered for the original legislation. and obviously, again, any final assessment of any of these fees is we will be consulting with the city attorney's office. and while 50,000 may be a bit a bit high, you know, that also gets captured in time and materials like we you know, the violator is responsible for that that time as well. so we do get cost recovery for violations. um, but i think everything that the

structure of this requirement and the request or the requirement of the hpc and the planning commission to adopt these definitions and findings is all in the furtherance of the point. you're making, which is these should be very deliberate decisions and not decisions that are not backed up by, you know, solid information and rationale. well, um, and so that if we do get to, you know, if they appeal to the board of appeals or if they sue in court, that that we will have that structure and that deliberate nature and the final letters will be able to call out the specific factors that went into why the fee or the penalty was what it was. so that, you know, to the best that we can under what's been adopted by the board of supervisors, as we will have a, you know, a legally tight decision. well, i'm i'm of the opinion that, you

know, anyone has the right to sue. right. and that happens all the time. but i think this message is to talk about policy and talk about, you know, the policy of the city and county of san francisco that we want to promote. and the preservation of our wonderful historic resources . and we're going so far as to create this type of legislation or this policy to protect them. so i look at it as a very positive thing, hopefully as a as a really good deterrent. and i think the definitions that have been proposed are very reasonable. well, and i, i don't know. i personally think that it's fine to go forward when we have the ability to do so. i do. and i would like to see this be re reviewed, particularly if any case, even with the potential of a case coming up, so that we can further review and maybe step back and look at the numbers

that have been proposed. but i just i'm sorry, i just think it's a good thing that we leave this kind of message. commissioner nagasawa on, you know, i think it would benefit the folks that are on here newly to listen to the previous hearing that was discussing this particular item when it was first establish published, i think it was in april of this year, which gave some background to why this came up and why we looked at it and set the set the momentum to come back to us with these definitions. so that might be helpful. and at this point, i think we had a suggestion to have it come back within the next month. so i would, you know

, propose that it come back in on january 15th when we. oh, no, you won't be here. um maybe on february, the first hearing in february. any other comments or questions or about having this be continued until that time? uh, commissioner vergara, i'm sorry, i even be willing to discuss it. even even sooner than then. yeah. sorry. if you. if you will, um, i was just curious if the intent is to come back for more, more discussion or just have it come back to be adopted based on what's proposed today, i just want to make sure if there's more information or more discussion or more information that you need from the department for whenever this

gets continued. i just want to make sure we understand that so we can provide that to you. commissioner i believe that you have provided us with very good and very clear information on. i think that we could have more time to have this discussion within amongst ourselves on the commission. uh it could happen. yeah, it could happen as early as our next hearing. we will have, i think, the full commission on available to participate. then certainly continue it to the next hearing. and then if you so chose, continued it again. right. so maybe we can make that motion. do i hear a motion? commissioner vergara i'll move to continue this to the december 20th meeting. very good. is there a second? second. thank you, commissioner, on that motion to continue this matter to december 20th, commissioner baldauf. yes. commissioner campbell. i'm going to say nay. i'm in favor of

adopting this, knowing that we can, as corey mentioned, revisit these percentages and these values in the future. so we today can know. but today we're scheduled. i understand your your point. but because it was advertised on the agenda as information. i'm sorry. i forgot that. i'm sorry. okay. so all right. so i guess yay. yeah thank you, commissioner campbell. commissioner vergara. yes, commissioner nageswaran. yes. and commissioner. president matsuda? yes so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 commissioners for. fortunately, we did not see this hearing going this late. but fortunately the police commissioner, whom we it's not meeting today, is not meeting today, nor the rest of the year for that matter. so we can go on till as long as we need to today. otherwise for the new commissioner, we would generally have a hard stop at 430 and we rarely get to that point, but we have a new

commissioner. so it's just sort of it's just sort of murphy's law that we're going to go the full time commissioners that will place this on the final item on today's agenda. number 14 for the state legislation. and this is an informational presentation. thank you, kate connor, planning department staff. and then jonas, could i have the overhead. so good afternoon, president matsuda and members of the commission. today i'm going to provide an overview of five pieces of state legislature action that may affect planning department and planning commission review of housing development projects in 2024. i'm going to touch upon the following pieces of housing legislation ab 2011, which actually became effective in

july of this year. sb 423, which extends sb 35 but will have a more expansive impact on san francisco sb four, which allows for 100% affordable housing developed by nonprofit religious and higher education institutions, runs ab 1287, which modifies state density bonus law. and then finally ab 1114, which governs and defines post entitlement phase permits. so what are some of the trends that we're seeing this year? is there were over 60 housing bills that were signed by governor governor newsom this legislative session topped this included ministerial housing production programs, expanding state density, bonus tenant protection bills, homeless housing, sequa as well as accessory dwelling units. my focus today will include the five bills that i

mentioned, which touch on housing production programs, state density bonus and building permit appeals. so a recurring reference throughout this presentation will be compliance with objective standards. objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official for all of the housing production bills that i'm going to discuss today, the projects must be considered code complying with the understanding that state density bonus projects are also considered code complying, even with the requested waivers and incentives . so the first bill is ab 2011. this was actually part of last year's legislative session, but it became effective july 1st of this year as a ministerial

program. ab 2011 projects do not require review under sequa, nor do they require any discretionary applications like a conditional use authorization and they must be located on a site where office retail or parking are principally permitted. and there are on site affordability required payments and projects must contain five units and be considered code compliant. so ab 2011 actually provides two different ministerial review programs. there's one for 100% affordable housing projects, which has broader application, and the other is for mixed income housing projects and includes stricter eligibility requirements as ab 2011 uses the term mixed income, which is essentially market rate with

between ten to around 20% affordable. all notification has to be made to the california native american tribes for sites that are vacant. and this is a familiar process that we follow with sb 35, which requires the same notification. but for all sites, regardless of whether they're vacant or not, project must meet minimum construction, labor standards, including paying prevailing wages and for projects of 50 units or more, providing health care coverage and apprenticeship programs. there are strict timelines for review. these are also the same as sb 35 from submittal of an application for projects with 150 units or fewer. and i'm sorry, that's 90 days for projects with 150 units or fewer and 180 days for larger projects . eligibility criteria include some of the same eligibility criteria that are within sb 35, and most of them are locational

criteria. there is also additional eligibility criteria that restricts the use of the program if the site is located within 500ft of a freeway or on a site or adjacent to a site that has been used as an industrial use. so these are the sb 35 location requirements with the exception of hazard waste sites and a handful of protected habitat areas. most of these do not apply in san francisco. so these location based criteria will also be used for the majority of the housing production bills. i'm going to talk about. so i'm going to start by providing some of the details about the mixed income program, since it is more restrictive than the 100% affordable mixed income projects must be located on commercial corridors between 70 and 150ft wide. and this typically means property line to property line

and includes the sidewalk. there are on site affordability required agents that must be met as as many of you know, our local inclusionary rates were recently reduced and we have to merge the local and the state programs together. and so the affordability requirements that are shown on this slide is kind of where we end up with that merger. generally speaking, the affordability requirements are around 15% and projects that are providing ownership projects can choose to provide moderate income units as an option. in addition, there are commercial tenant relocation requirements for mixed income projects. there is also a prohibition on the demolition of housing that's been occupied by tenants in the last ten years, or housing that is subject to price controls. and finally, there is a prohibition on demolishing a local, state or national historic resource as part of the development project. this is another requirement you're going to see in many of the following

state programs, and it is more protective of historic resources than just density bonus law itself, which currently does not protect local locally listed resources, but only state resources. so under ab 2011, the 100% affordable program is more flexible than the mixed use or the mixed income program, and more sites are going to be eligible. i'll you will notice that there's no commercial corridor requirement. and so that definitely increases the eligibility. also, there is no restriction on on the demolition of units or historic resources. this is in contrast to sb 35 and the mixed income program. so our affordable housing partners will have to kind of way which program works best for them if there is the need to demolish residential units, maybe ab 2011 works better, but let's say the sites within 500ft of a freeway, there may be sb 35 would end up

working better. so currently we have three projects that have filed for ab 2011 review and we have two that are mixed income and one that's 100% affordable are are they? so moving on to sb 420, could we interrupt? where are they? oh so there is one. the 100% affordable is at 3300 mission and then we have 530 howard, which i think has been kind of in the news recently. and then the last one is on market street, upper market, and it's a smaller project of about 24 units. the exact address is slipping. my mind right now, but it's in the 2000. thank you so moving on to sb 423, which is an extension of sb 35, which included two programs that involve the construction of at least two units on sb 35 was structured to have these kind of two programs that are really

kind of dependent upon the arena obligations and whether a juristic person is meeting them for jurisdictions, not meeting the arena goals for low income projects. this will receive ministerial review when providing at least 50% of the units as affordable goal for jurisdictions not meeting the arena goals for above moderate income projects receive ministerial review when providing 10% of the units as affordable. and this only applies for projects of ten units or more. it's kind of generally discussed or i'll discuss it as the 10% requirement. this 10% program also allows for ministerial review without any affordability requirements for projects with. 2 to 9 units. so currently in san francisco, we are subject to the 50% program because we were meeting arena targets for above moderate it. but with the new kind of adjustment to the arena targets, we will be subject to the 10% requirement next year.

one effect of the change in program applicability is that any housing project that will be providing on site inclusionary housing that meets the eligibility criteria may be eligible for ministerial approval. so sb 35 has been in effect since january of 2018 and it has resulted in the approval of over 3000 dwelling units. the vast majority were 100% affordable. so given the fact that we are in that 50% requirement, it it creates a ministerial approval process for multifamily housing development of two units or more. they have to be two thirds residential. there's no sequa or discretionary approvals. projects must be considered code compliant. and there's on site affordability requirements. in addition, there is a provision that's very unique to san francisco that will make this 10% requirement effect active in the city in early 2024. while

other jurisdictions in the bay area that are moving from this 50% program to the 10% program because of the adjustment in arena targets, will not have to comply until 2027. so the eligibility criteria in for 23 are almost the exact same as the sb 35. there is the prohibition of demolition of housing, both rent controlled and units occupied by tenants in the last ten years. examples of housing that could be demolished include owner occupied single family homes, maybe owner occupied condos. as the notification to the california native american tribes remains unchanged and which is required for all sites, whether vacant or not. and then the labor requirements are very similar to ab 2011. however, the prevailing wage requirement kicks in at 11 units and there's the addition of a skilled and trained workforce, and that's dependent upon the height of the project. the timeline for review

also remains unchanged, and it's also the same for all the other programs, which is great. because san francisco's soon going to be subject to this 10% requirement. we do anticipate that this program is going to be used a lot more widely than sb 35 was in the past. so our local inclusionary program does apply. we do consider it to be an objective standard. that must be met for the project to be considered co compliant. so san francisco's inclusionary program applies to projects with ten units or more. sb for 23, of course, applies for projects with more than ten units. so it's a little bit different. so again, we have to kind of merge the state and the local requirements for affordability. please also keep in mind too, when it comes to inclusionary, we have a variety of different rates throughout the city depending upon the zoning. so kind of this slide, we're really looking at the citywide rate, but there are certain carve out

areas that have higher rates for projects that have ten units. exactly we only the local inclusionary would apply. and that's because the affordability requirements for sb for 23 only kick in over ten units. this would also mean then that since you are subject to local inclusionary, you could pay the fee and still receive ministerial review. and then finally there's no local or state affordability requirements for projects between 2 and 9 units. and so this is going to be a really big shift in how we are processing smaller projects. a project would be ministerial if it is considered code compliant and meets the eligibility criteria. and that means like no neighborhood notification and no discretionary review provided that all the requirements are met. so another really notable change that sb 423 made to sb 35

is to require a pre application public hearing. but this is only in certain geographic areas. so if the property is located on the california tiktok hcd opportunity map and it's designated as a moderate resource area, low resource area or an area of high segregation and poverty, a public hearing at the planning commission is required and this hearing must be held within 45 days of the notice of intent to file an sp 423 application. the notice of intent is not a development application own, but will contain basic plans and a project description. the hearing must be held at the planning commission and would be an informational item. it's really intended to allow the opportunity for the public to comment on the project. the sponsor does have to attest that they've reviewed those comments, but there is no requirement for the sponsor to revise the project based on input from either the planning commission

or the public. our last housing production bill for today is sb four, and that becomes effective on january 1st and it creates a ministerial approval process for multifamily housing developments. two units or more. these projects must be developed by a nonprofit religious institution, local public entity, independent institution of higher education on land owned by all of these entities. this project is reserved for 100% affordable housing and it must be considered code compliant. the eligibility criteria are similar to the other programs with some minor deviations. it includes that same sb 35 location criteria, but also contains restrictions for the proximity to freeways and industrial uses. this is similar to ab 2011, but of course not exactly the same for these projects. they can be

located within 500ft of a freeway if there's merv 13 air filtration installed. also, there are some additional industrial use requirements as there is the restriction on the demolition of housing as well as historic resources. and these requirements are the same for ab 2011. mixed income as well as sb 35. and then similar to ab 2011, that tribal notification option is required for vacant sites. projects must meet similar construction, labor standards and then there are the same timelines for review as the other programs. we do anticipate that sb four will have some utility within the city, but kind of given our local programs for affordable housing as well as other existing state programs, we think it will probably be pretty limited. and so what would be a state legislative session without an amendment to state density bonus law? this is ab 1287, which we

are affectionately calling the double double ab 1287 allows for an additional density bonus on top of what's currently in state law. if a project maxes out on the underlying density bonus, they can be eligible to receive an additional density bonus and an incentive. this extra bonus may be achieved by providing additional very low or moderate income units. so here's an example project just to walk you through. so if you have 100 unit based project and you have 15% of the units of very low income, 50% ami, the near entitled under the regular rules of density bonus to a 50% bonus, and that would be 50 units if you provide an additional 10% of the units at very low income. and this is again on the base project, then you're entitled to an additional bonus of 38.75 or 39 units. so

your resulting project is 189 units, 100 in the base, 50 in the bonus as law stands right now, and then 39 with this and 39 additional for this amendment . so the resulting project has 25% affordable and then there's 164 market rate units. and so then the effective affordability rate is approximate. 13% so switching gears a bit to permit processing and the last state law for today, ab 1114 will affect all permitting agencies within the city by providing streamlined timelines for review. this bill defines a post entitlement phase permit. it also imposes a requirement to provide sample plans and exhaustive lists of requirements for these permits. in addition, the bill sets timelines for

review. this is for all city agencies collectively. and then finally, it prohibits any appeal from the public of these permits. the only exception is the appeal from a project sponsor. the definition of a post entitlement phase permit is shown here. it's pretty broad. it applies all housing development projects with at least one unit that are two thirds residential. all it includes all non-discretionary permits that are required after an entitlement process. but then it also includes all building permits, and that could include construction, demolition or alteration of buildings, whether discrete or non-discretionary. so for the city of san francisco , that would include any building permit for a housing development project. and so an example could be a site permit that follows like a conditional use authorization. but it could also include a building permit to construct one unit. so there

are two timelines that are stipulated in the bill. one is for completeness and the other is for approval, all permitting agencies have 15 business days to determine completeness and provide written notice to the applicant. 15 business days is approximately three weeks permitting. agencies must be very transparent about what is required to have a complete permit and have that posted on their website. if are incomplete, an agency must provide the applicant a list of all the items that are missing, and those items must be on that published list. the applicant may submit the missing materials. however, an agency may not require new items that were not included on the list or in the first and complete letter for any revisions. the city would have 15 days to review. and then, if the timelines are not met, the permit will be considered complete at. so the

timelines for review are depending upon dependent upon the size of the project. the city has 30 business days about six weeks after a complete determination for projects of 25 units or fewer, the city has 60 business days after that complete determination for larger projects, the city must spell out the non all noncompliance to the applicant. and then once the revisions are submitted, the city will have 30 days to review and approve the permit. so as i'm sure that you can imagine, implementation of this bill requires an immense amount of coordination between all the different permitting agencies. as the department has been working on implementation efforts with the permit center for a couple of months now. although our strategy is not completely fleshed out at this time, i'm happy to provide a separate informational on the implementation efforts just around this bill. there is an interagency working group that is meeting to make sure that we

can clearly flag which permits are subject to these timelines. we also need to ensure that review is completed simultaneously. currently, we have kind of a routing system. um, so we want to make sure that every agency is looking at it at the same time. yeah, because all of the timelines are really applying to city review rather than individual agencies. and so we'll definitely keep you posted. but this bill will be in effect january 1st. implement one of the other various ministerial programs are also going to be challenging in their own way. we have drafted bulletins to detail the implementation of sb 423 and sb four. those will be posted on our website, probably within the next week. we're we've already posted an ab 2011 application and a bulletin that goes with that process. back in june of this year. and then of course, we're revising our bulletin and

instructions on state density bonus as well as our density bonus application to reflect the additional bonus and the incentive that can be afforded through state law. and then at the end of your i think yes, you guys should have a matrix that was passed out. and so this kind of goes through all the different ministerial programs for our multifamily housing developments and kind of goes through all the different eligibility criteria. so you can compare it doesn't include like sb nine, which is also ministerial or ministerial adu program, but it can be a useful tool when comparing all the requirements. one bill that is on here that i didn't discuss is ab 2162 and it is for 100% affordable supportive housing. it became it went into effect in 2018, but when we were making this tool, we wanted to have our affordable housing partners be able to weigh out all the options. so what are our impacts

to the role of the planning commission now? there's going to be an increase in these informational hearings for some of the projects that are subject to sb 423, but in many cases, code compliant projects with on site inclusionary are ministerial provided that all the eligibility criteria are met . this will likely result in a reduction in state density bonus projects that require planning commission approval. since state density bonus projects are considered code complying, the mayor's housing production ordinance could also further reduce the number of state density bonus projects that go to hearing. and then finally, code compliant projects of under ten units that meet the eligibility criteria will also receive ministerial review. and so this will probably result in a reduction in the amount of conditional use authorizations for demolition as well as discretionary review. but definitely keep in mind that a project is not eligible for sb 423 if it requires the demolition of rent controlled

housing or housing that's been occupied by tenants in the last ten years. so although this is a very big shift for us, there are some kind of safeguards around the demolition of units. and then finally also, please understand, this is our initial analysis of how these bills are going to be implemented in san francisco. you know, at this point, the state has not published any guidance on these particular bills, and we may need to adapt if we hear if we're required to do so by the state. i think kind of, you know, at this point, it's a pretty it's a pretty quick timeline. you know, the governor signed most of these bills on october 14th. and so the turnaround is very, very quick to figure out how this works in a given jurisdiction. but i can definitely provide additional information on ab 2011, probably in the new year. and this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. a lot to take in members of

the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on all of this stuff. i just want to say, you know, the planning department. this is woody labounty from san francisco heritage. i'm sorry, i'm a little tired. um, the planning department gets a lot of grief, and i can say that i think everybody should feel a lot of sympathy for them right now because this is a ridiculously tall task to implement all of these changes. i just want to quickly, in addressing commissioner vergara's question about talking to the shippo, about putting the local landmarks on the california register. i did get an email like two days ago that julie polanco hopes to have some answer on that in january. so but what but about these i just have a couple of questions. i'm wondering if the commission can ask ms. connor i'm curious about

ab 2011 and its definition of local, state and national resources. i assume that's designated resources. yeah okay. and then the other was, which is back to the point we're making about the california register. and the other one is i'm curious if historic resources are actually called out in. ab 111 for no, they're not. so basically if there's a post entitlement phase, whether it's a historic resource or not doesn't really matter about. yeah. okay. thank you. i have nothing else. last call for public comment. seeing none public comment is closed and this informational item is now before you commissioners. okay. thank you, commissioners. commissioner negus warren yeah.

so you know, this is what will be needing to know for sure and thank you for this fabulous presentation. i think we're continuing to absorb over the last year and a half what is happening with the housing element and you know, the state density bonus law and how it affects historic resources because we've had at least two projects that kind of introduce the idea of how we're going to see these buildings rise up above our historic districts. time's up and so, you know, two of the projects, one was in the northeast waterfront and then the other one was in pacific heights that just came before us

in the last couple of hearings. so those are good ones to review. again and we have to be very particular about what we say and we have to, you know, go through what ms. connor has put together here and make sure that our comments are are pertaining to those specific topics so that we can provide good recommendations for these projects that are under our purview without out exceeding any limitations that the state density bonus does not allow. thank you so much. yeah. thank you, commissioner baldauf. yes, thank you very much for that amazing presentation. i i'm curious about, about what this means for the department's other half. i mean, i feel like this is going to consume the department on some level to be able to meet all these deadlines

and everything. and i feel like our process in san francisco on other projects is already way slower than i would like. and the problem with slow projects is we end up with this kind of legislation, right? and so i'm i'm just curious how the department's thinking about the other half, if you will, the projects that don't get all this expedited time line and where the resources, how the resources are going to get allocated. i think that's a wonderful question. thank you, commissioner. i mean, i think it's something where time will really tell. it's always very hard for us to predict how many projects sponsors will end up using these programs. arms you know, a perfect example is, you know, sb nine when it went into effect in january of 2022, you know, we were imagining a whole bunch of projects and we've had, you know, a good amount. but not necessarily what we were anticipating. you know, the ministerial programs to with the

prevailing wage requirements for the ones that do have a skilled and trained workforce. that definitely factors into the feasibility of the project. and then also even with the potential for ministerial review for smaller projects that involve like the demolition and construction of units, there's still feasibility to really consider like does that make sense to demolish a single family home and construct two units? does that really end up penciling out with just with the cost of land? but yeah, i think in terms of staffing, we're just kind of trying to adjust and just kind of see what ends up happening. i think also in the planning department, we've been making a ton of different improvements, just about requesting complete applications , meeting the permit streamlining act. you know, our project applications are incredibly robust as far as we have many exhaustive lists. we've we've definitely satisfied that portion. and so now i think it's just working with all of our sister agencies and the permit center to ensure that we can actually have this very quick review for these post

entitlement phase permits. but i think we're very optimistic that we're going to be able to do to be able to try and meet those requirements. that's definitely the permit is really leading the charge with dp and fire and everyone else. so we're hoping. but yes, it's a big challenge for sure. thank you. thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? thank you, miss connor. it was a yeah, sorry. commissioner vergara, just a big thank you for that presentation. yeah, of course. so all encompassing. thank you. yeah. all the missing pieces to this puzzle. thank you. thank you. i think that concludes our commission hearing for today. thank you, everyone. welcome again, commissioner. the next. (

>> i started the o was with a financing and had a business partner all ended up wanting to start the business and retire and i did was very important to me so i bought them oust and two

weeks later the pandemic h-4 one of the moments i thought to myself we have to have the worse business in a lifetime or the best. >> we created the oasis out of a need basically so other people bars and turning them into a space and when the last place we were performing wasn't used turned those buildings into condos so we decided to have a space. >> what the pandemic did for us is made us on of that we felt we had to do this immediately

and created this. >> (unintelligible). >> where we would offer food delivery services with a curbside professionalism live music to bring spectacular to lives we are going through and as well as employ on the caterers and the performers and drivers very for that i think also for everyone to do something. we had ordinary on the roof and life performances and with a restaurant to support the system where we are and even with that had terribly initiative and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt had to pay our rent we decided to have an old-fashioned one we

created club hours where you can watch to online and or be on the phone and raised over one quarter of a million dollar that of incredible and something that northbound thought we could do. >> we got ourselves back and made me realize how for that people will show up if i was blown away but also had the courage but the commitment now i can't let anyone down i have to make the space serviceable so while this is a full process business it became much more about a space that was used by the community. and it became less about starting up a business and more about the heart of what we're doing. this

building used to be a- and one of the first one we started working on had we came out what a mural to wrap the building and took a while but able to raise the money and pay 5 artists to make a design around many this to represent what is happening on the side and also important this is who we are this is us putting it out there because satisfies other people we don't realize how much we affect the community around there when he i want to put that out there and show up and show ourselves outside of those walls more fabulous. and inspires other people to be more fabulous and everyone want to be more fabulous and less hatred and

hostility and that is how we change the [music] >> office of initiative start in the 2017 and started as a result of community advocacy. our transgender nonbinary community advocates were really letting our government know that we needed to be heard. we needed to be considered and policy and budget decision and so, then the mayor lee and founding director of spark created officeof initiative that allow us to advocate for

equity for transgender and nonbinary communitiful we focus on 4 areas. training, education for the city employees. we focus on civic and community engagement making sure our leaders have a voice and are heard by our elected officials. we work on policies and programs to make sure our city is responsive to transand nonbinary community and add voice to departments to integrate transinclusion in policies, procedures and practice. >> we still have, lot of work to do to improve and address equity in san fran for our community upon i feel that we are on the right track and seeing how people's lives are improving thanks to those changes. i do think it is unique that our local government is sponsive to transgender communities so i hope that people can remember

that despite the work we had, we seat progress. we seat change and there is hope for transpeople in san francisco and wherever we come together and organize to improve our lives. [music]

[music] maintaining fire safety is everyone's responsibility. for your safety, if you see an active fire or fire safety hazzard, report it immediately. here are tips on reporting fire safety hazards in san francisco. depending you may call 911 or 311 the city 24/7 customer

service center. when to call 911. call 911 when you see a fire or open flame source in public. call 911 if you bench a person using open flame device you believe will result in injury or property damage. call 911 if you bench an open flame in public location including situations involving flammable materials like wood, paper and cardboard or liquid fuel propane or gasoline used for cooking recreation or other purposes. call 911 if you see smoke inside or outside a building. call 911 if your smoke detector sounds here hear a fire alarm. be sure to provide the location where this is happening. >> fire safety concerns that don't involve an active or immediate threat to life or property it is best to contact 311, submitting a request on sf3

lon or the sf upon 311 mobile app. reported built up of trash blocking a sidewalk or a structure. 311 to report encampments that don't have criminal activities associated with them. contact 311 to report a fire safety hazzard, concern that does not involve an open flame. 311 to report lost or blocked exits paths out of a building. contact 3 thrown report a malfunctioning or out of service fire alarm in your building. and contact 311 to report fire safety concern or complaint that does not involve an immediate threat to life or upon prosecute. >> remember, your reporting can save lives you can report unanimously. if you need to ask a fire inspection question call the san francisco fire department

415-five 58-3300. to finds outer more about the san francisco fire department visit our website. and learn more about the 311 customer service >> this meeting will come to order, welcome to the december 14, 2023, i'm supervisor catherine stefani share and to my left is supervisor dorsey, the clerk is mr. brandt felipa and i would like