they require c.u.?>> all hotels in san francisco require conditional use. >> no matter what size. >> interesting. >> president hillis: we have seen in the past like new residential projects that sometimes have hotel components that may fall into this, but i think that's the only thing i can think of that may, that that would be that small. >> commissioner richards: didn't we approve a hotel in the c2 school district recently? in this area, down near the trader joe's? >> moxie -- >> commissioner richards: two-unit. >> ginsberg's pub, formerly, on bay and mason. but it was actually too small and has not been built. and did not support an elevator shaft and stairwell and such. >> commissioner richards: would not have been inside this area? >> i don't think so. >> commissioner richards: i guess where the legislation is going, and i, i'm generally pro free market as you are. however, you know, neighborhood serving versus tourist serving is a delicate balance and that balance needs to be struck somehow. and i

give one person a c.u., they knock maybe six, seven, eight storefronts out.o what kind of bargain is that re one new store friend versus knocking out and leaving vacant other ts. siportour work in this. it reallyha makes san francisco unique. we don't need to have the same thing onve corner, even though that pleasure is extremely high. i applaud all of you here for standing up and saying, no, in your own neighborhood. because that's what's counts, is the neighbor and no outside force should be coming in thatdestructive. >> commissioner zouzounis. >> thank you for the presentation. it makes me feel proud to be part of the small busin community. i think we can continue to be that advocate. let the supervisors know that they cannot keep passing anti-retail legislation without applying the same regulatory logic to e-commerce or big box retailers and notg our context. the most important piece of this is the yare, be the different forces at play. we need to keep providing that. sionwe need to echo our fellow s. we to need be that vehicle. let's continue to work tog

if there was a c.u., for example, that supersedes the notification. in the case there's something such as a more intensive level of review, the notice for the hearing, which is a 20-day noti foris hearing today, for example, that would be the notice the neighbors would receive that the project has been proposed. >> president hillis: that would be the postcard notification. >> right, and we're proposing that the postcard knostfication be for both purposes. >> president hillis: that makes sense. yeah. i generally think -- i think most of what's in here is not controversial and is smart, good planning making our noticing procedures efficient and modern day. as i was sitting here, i got a preapplication notice, but it wasn't from the planning department, it was from my neighborhood group about a project on fulton street converting an old service -- auto service station. and what's terrible, they explained kind of what's happening, and then, they pasted the planning department's preapplication notification. what we tell people, you need to be a legal schol

it would come to a c.u. i think we should add into the ordinance because we've seen it happening, to notice to existing tenants. that makes sense, i would add that to this, because tenants don't necessarily know you're going to take laundry away, but adus have been one of the most successful programs in getting units into the city. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i'd be supportive if the adu was with the demolition. if you add the adu onto the existing structure, i'd support it. >> under the authority allowed, you can add an adu into the existing structure. >> commissioner richards: into the buildable envelope? >> for single-family homes, yes, that's already allowed. presint hillis: but i think the iu is where we can add the most units is in the west side, which is all rh 1, you can add an adu anywhere. you can add an adu to an existing home or demo-richards richards but you don't have to do it through new construction. that's what i'm saying. if you'd take the new construction out, i'd supp

i'm going to come a c.u. to raze the house, and they're going to threaten us and saying you can't stop me from razing the house because i'm adding another unit. >> we're adding that as a finding if you are able to add a unit, then, you'll be allowed directly to demolish your existing house. it's not, you know -- it's not kind of like an incentive to do it. >> commissioner richards: i think this is an incentive, absolutely huge incentive. >> hi. monica from supervisor katey tang's office. i'm not sure how this is an incentive. the democodes that are currently in the planning control still apply, so anyone who has the planning to alter a single-family house, like, that's, like, existing, just apply. >> commissioner richards: but what i know -- >> please let me finish. what this is saying is if you are doing new construction, you can add the adu at that time. projects, what they can do, built a single-family home, wait three years and build the adu. it doesn't incentivize the demoof existing housing. >> commissi

in the rh district, you can't get a c.u. for a hotel, can you? >> you can, but it's more like a bed and breakfast type use you can do. >> commissioner johnson: so, it is really interesting these two have, the last two items have been next to each other, just looking at one, how do you protect the character of a neighborhood and find a balance, and i think on this one in particular, and both of them, frankly, i hear the concerns around community protection, and i think it's really interesting point that you just brought up about prioritizing the use that ultimately gets approved, and that's something that we are all kind of like-minded and looking at as well, we want more housing, and i think the approval housing can be done through working with community groups, working with offices and working with us, and so i just have a question about again whether the legislation as is truly gets to the heart of hitting some of the goals that you have laid out and making sure that there is a balance, making sure that where prioritizing housing production, wh

and people are freaking out. >> i attended the healthy spot c.u. meeting as an observer, just to observe. i was curious to see what the commission was going to do and how they were going to make them decision. i was very impressed with the mobilization of the merchants and citizens and the residents in noe valley in opposition. it was an interesting process to watch play out and see if it had influence on the commissioners and i think that it did. i don't know where -- i can't know which way they were leaning before they came into the room, but it was very clear that they were taken aback by the number of people that were there for public comment. a lot of people made public comment. it's in the record how many. it must have been 30, 40 people doing public comment. and it was actually even the public comment was well orchestrated. people did not dwell on exactedly the same issue. theres with a range of issues. so it seemed that they will been well organized. even had t-shirts printed up that said deny on it so it was clear who was in opposition. it

the c.u.as written as one of the conditions or thresholds within the corona heights residential district is this requirement for any building, that any portion of a building beyond 45% require a rear yard needs acu. for this project there are two or three features that need that see you. there is the legalizing, the expansion to this day, and those have already been constructed. again, they were not, they have not been permitted. >> and it is just the expansion of the bay? >> it is making that square bay protrude out to an angled bay and adding roof form to the roof deck. the project sponsor is also requesting this kind to clean up the lowest level deck. what they are doing is there was the access to the rear yard. it was flush against the rear wall. they want to move that to a spiral staircase. and also now infill where the stairs used to be. i think the variance will be needed for any of the railings that when d.b.i. goes to look at it, there has to be solid fire rated. they are close enough

jersey he would merely at c.u. and he's predicting a russian win tonight despite despite a lot of negativity in the russian press. if i was. checkers off i hope by sharing his name not so lots of wrong i'll be happy because. no expectations no positivity no optimism everybody expects the worst and it can be in this moment in his auto with this players preparing everybody for their. for their country pride. for their let's do it for the country let's do it for ourselves let's do it. against the ones that don't believe in don't believe in so i think can be can be a good thing for them you want my personal opinion i give my personal opinion i think there is a little bit of identity crisis in the russian team we are used at least i think my generation used to have. the russian teams with a certain identity i think they lost a little bit of that identity there in the search of that talent is not in men's. but they have enough they have enough to win tonight they have enough to through the the group phase and of course l

so the reason that demolition of buildings, a finding that exists within this modified c.u., is if you are demoing a commercial building, a gas station, it's not -- it's just to say that the project has to efxplain what wa in that building. if it was a commercial tenant, what did we do for that tenant? i want to make that clear. that there is no demolition of housing allowed. >> commissioner richards: thank you for that clarification. >> vice president melgar: thank you for that clarification. >> i don't know if the mikes are low -- >> vice president melgar: i just turned it on. sorry. i had several questions. first, let me say, i'm generally supportive of this legislation and its intent. but i do have some questions and concerns over the nuances and perhaps i can get some clarification. so the number one is to staff's recommendation 3. and i would like to hear from you and ms. mohan because i perhaps misunderstood. i heard you and supervisor tang that you had opposite, you know, opinions, but the same reasoning i heard her say she was opposed because of it financing and you are for it

i remember the c.u.attle we had a couple of years ago and to get that over the finish line was significant. so we're going to continue to see more progress building 100% subsidized affordable units here hopefully in the near future. also big fans of the downtown residential project authorization. jobs and housing next to each other totally makes sense. regarding the pop-outs themselves, we're talking about 100% code compliant projects. the reason we don't see a ton of these coming through is because they have to notice and so if you are going through the process, ok. let's get beyond the tweaks and do the bigger expansions. if it is just

we have to think of neighborhood notice as a way to deter similar developments, like a c.u. if we want this moderate expansion over monster houses, we should remove this. as you can see, architects encourage clients to go down the path of least resistance. people are more likely to take this approach than out-of-scale expansions, the ones that typically do get d.r.s. taken together, it's smart, common sense improvement that makes it consistent, minor changes, consolidate hearings for projects and eliminate mandatory hearings for 100% affordable projects. this displaces no one, creates w, affordable housing faster and helps families stay in their homes. we know there are calls for more time to consider this legislation or that the changes proposed are too broad and overreachi overreaching, as we hear with every smart piece of change. i ask you to consider that what is in front of you are good, government fixes, the fixes this body has been asking for. we heard similar concerns with the a.d.u. program, which is so successful we have 1,200 university in the the pipeline and twe

i remember the c.u. battle we had a couple of years ago and to get that over the finish line was significant. so we're going to continue to see more progress building 100% subsidized affordable units here hopefully in the near future. also big fans of the downtown residential project authorization. jobs and innext to each other totally makes sense. es, rding the pop-outs 're talking about 100% code compliant projects. the reason we don't see a ton of these coming through is because they have to notice and so if you are going through the process, ok. let's get beyond the tweaks and do the bigger expansions. if it is just a small pop out like an extra bedroom for a growing family, something that can be simple and straight forwarthat ithe type of stuff we want to incentivize in order to create naturally affordable housing in the city and allow families to live here. regarding the knowfication period, this is a conversation of 20 to 30 days, san francisco's got a really knowledgeable and engaged civic commun