Skip to main content

tv   BOS Replay Land Use Committee 42516  SFGTV  April 25, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am PDT

9:00 pm
9:01 pm
9:02 pm
9:03 pm
9:04 pm
9:05 pm
9:06 pm
9:07 pm
>> good afternoon, everyone. good afternoon. supervisor cowen okay how is everybody doing. >> good. >> let's look alive we're talking about land use & transportation thank you, very much. so this the meeting will come to order the regular meeting of the sfauvengs i'm supervisor cowen the chair and supervisor wiener the vice chair and supervisor peskin and our clerk is andrea ashbury i want
9:08 pm
to thank jesse larson mark that are troifg via sfgovtv madam clerk, any announcements? completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the may 3rd i 2016 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you so much please call item one a planning code to modify the measurement of roof line no the c-3 district colleagues we've heard and continued this i got a request from the sponsor to table this item before that open up for public comment. >> item one. >> seeing none, public comment is closed thank you so much all right. i'd like to make a
9:09 pm
motion to table this. >> so moved. >> all right. we'll take that without objection. madam clerk are you with me call item 2. >> an ordinance designating the 90 to 92 steward second street as article 10. >> supervisor kim is i imagined in route to speak to item number two but my name is to the planning department that will make a short presentation. >> good afternoon. >> shannon department staff i'm here to present the landmarking designation at 9092 an excellent the corner of steward the historic preservation commission at this for the program on may 12, 2012,
9:10 pm
in 20159 hpc initiated that and an excellent 2014 it was recommended to the landmark designation. >> the bureau net building was in 1903, 04 a salon an excellent the ground floor a small building and the offices of those an excellent the second story. >> it is local designation for the direct association what the kwaeshth and fire this disaster in san francisco history this picture shows this engulfed in flames the burnett is a survivor of the 1906 san francisco earthquake in the heart of burn district the building was the only small-scale commercial building in downtown san francisco is
9:11 pm
survive in the downtown in the 1906 san francisco earthquake the architecture is significant and one of the most prolific architects in the 20th century of san francisco the storefront were alternated that has district for the association in the 1906 san francisco earthquake and fire no known neighborhood option the letter 2k5i9d 2015 from a trustee of the property is in favor that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you so much i don't think we have questions we want to commend bring up ms. april in the supervisors office to make a couple of remarks. >> good afternoon, supervisors and land use & transportation i wanted to speak on behalf of the
9:12 pm
supervisor kim's office and thank the planning department and shannon ferguson and hpc for brought to your attention we support the left hand survive from the kwaesht o 1906 san francisco earthquake in the second street historic preservation district. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> i want to say to the staff onto the planning department that the landmark designation case report was fascist read and a lot of 7, 8, 9 went into that i wanted to thank you and to the historic preservation commission for bringing that forward and thank you to supervisor kim and like to be a co-sponsor. >> open up for public comment anyone wish to comment an excellent item 2. >> all right. seeing none, public comment is closed at this time thank you all right. let's see is there a motion for
9:13 pm
this item >> all right. motion by supervisor peskin and we'll take that without objection. that motion carries unanimously thank you now item number 3 madam clerk. >> item 3 an ordinance with the two go prohibitions this is like da gentleman have you supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair cohen and vice chair wiener for voting for this a wagon i nounlsz at the full board of supervisors on tuesday last there are some additional exemptions we failed to include in the original ordinance and those are included here in and i respectfully ask for your support to send 2 babe the full board as a committee
9:14 pm
report anyone wish to comment an excellent item 3 item 3? >> calvin will be speak an excellent item 3 no seeing none, public comment is closed all right. is there a motion to move out of the committee as a report. >> motion by supervisor wiener without objection that's the committee report. >> it passes unanimously all right. madam clerk item 4 >> an ordinance for for the administrative code to increase the sustainability fees with the establishment of the advisory committee. >> supervisor kim is the author and doesn't look like her office has any remarks anyone presenting. >> all right. supervisor peskin. >> i don't care if deputy city attorney kate stacy is here but
9:15 pm
we have a number of monthly technical amendments that are sitting before you - the city attorney can speak one additional one there are no through the chair to john gibner, deputy city attorney is ms. stacey joining us. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney yes. i believe she's an excellent her way. >> that's how we get things done. >> so there was one little typo that i noticed in rereading this over the weekend that is an excellent the findings at page 5 where oh, where did it go 67 - .0 one 5 needs to be
9:16 pm
changed to a comma there she is i was stalling for 7, 8, 9 ms. stacey sorry made that typo suggestion suggest to public comment and a number of additional changes on page 22 line 13 section 14415 insert the word income perimeters of the programs page 24, line 19 section 4 one 5 after zoning district insert as they existed an excellent january 2016 and on page 26, line 17 the same words after zoning district so is it read zoning district as
9:17 pm
they existed an excellent january 12, 2016. >> on page 27 same section at the sentence notwithstanding it shall not pay a fee in the total amount greater than 33 percent of number of units constructed an excellent site from the same page after program add performances for the small sites program on page 28 lines three and four add did sense such deadline maybe extend with the seeking of the validation of the city's litigation duration a litigation enforcement, if you will, on page 28 insert shall after deadlines such deadlines
9:18 pm
shall be extended and page 28 add the sinus the inclusionary housing some be the requirements contained in the projects approved and stick to page 35 line 7 unit supported by monies from the fund should be designated as housing affordable to delete qualifying protecting to moderated low income and insert the qualified households delete the word defined and in section 4 one 5 for no less than 45 years the same effect an excellent the - later line 14 the principle project has been the demolition of selling the household at income levels for a income or price although, the
9:19 pm
thresholds for unit affordable to delete the word qualifying and inserted low income households i'll keep reading the project sponsor replace a number of affordable units for a xhashld number of bedrooms delete 12 and insert 25 percent of all units constructed as part of the new subject should be affordable for slash middle-income households whatever is greater and page 27 as well all onsite united will be lower case affordable to low income household and insert low income household make is lower case a page 46 lines - any adjustment
9:20 pm
insert the sentence any adjustment in the income should be commemorate for obligation for inclusionary housing is not reduce by a change of income levels and finally on page 26 line one jumping back and we'll hear about that at. this section will be revised to read notwithstanding provisions in subsections b two a, b, and c of section 4 one 5 proposing the buildings over one hundred and 80 feet as and so forth in the planning code except up to one hundred and thirty feet between the special use district within the height and bulk of the building height of one hundred and thirty feet and then at the end of that sentence add the
9:21 pm
sentence any buildings up to one hundred and thirty feet looked at within the special use district that allows the building shall comply with the provisions of subsection b and c of the section 445 for the periods so forth and those are the provisions that escalate depending on the year of one environmental application offsite are in lui of households. >> do you have language for the last languages pertaining to the section you're reading. >> that is there. >> question. >> sure. sure. >> through the chair question to supervisor peskin the last one you read - the last amendment you read supervisor peskin does that respond to the
9:22 pm
concerns that the cathedral hill association raised. >> that's correct. >> okay all right. thank you very much for the introduction of many amendments i have a couple i'll make after we take a vote and - take public comment. all right. there anything else mr. wiener >> okay question point of order shall i go ahead and make any amendments i'll read them and we'll take public comment. >> colleagues two amendments i've circulated to you and i'll make an excellent the request of the supervisor farrell to changes to remove two changes the committee made the first amendment an excellent lines 28 the fossils text will be removed any residential or predominantly
9:23 pm
mixed use development that as submit an environmental application after january 2016 and/or june 6th him that replaces a non-conforming shall provide affordable units in the amount of 15.5 percent of unit constructed onsite the second chance on page 28 and removes the last word of line 8 through 11 in section c the following text will be removed or for any housing development projects that other than june has entered into an agreement between the project sponsor and the city demonstrating the affordable units are not subject to
9:24 pm
costa-hawkins you should have that language let's go to p.m. members of the public that want to speak an excellent item 4 as a courtesy remind you have 2 minutes. >> all right. public comment is closed. >> thank you very much i love it when the public engages. >> (laughter). that was a joke okay. okay yes supervisor peskin >> make and supervisor wiener and to supervisor kim and her staff and my staff sunny particularly to deputy city attorney kate stacy and the members the community i want to thank you all i think we've heard done a remarkable fashion and look forward to hearing this matter at the full board of supervisors tomorrow. >> i want to acknowledge supervisor kim's aids as well as my legislative aids and everyone
9:25 pm
has been truly remarkable in work this through supervisor wiener you have a few remarks. >> yes. >> i actually have a question for the planning department so the legislation before us today putting aside the grandfathered projects that has been the discussions what should be grandfathered and under what circumstances this is in the transmission piece of legislation i mentioned at the hearing last year and other concerns has to do with with the fact we are setting a 25 percent inclusionary envelope level and not done a feasibility study or nexus study so my question do we know again putting aside the grandfathered projects only for
9:26 pm
future projects that we'll start 25 percent if not changed he know the board can't change those numbers at 25 percent the rate for the 25 or more units what will be the impacts an excellent the now of below-market-rate affordable units produced in san francisco will this legislation make more affordable units produced than the old rules were applied or a lower number. >> good afternoon emery rogers planning department staff i don't think our office has the ability to project that into the future we have not seen the performa of the projects that will be coming forward but the feasibility study will help you to maximize production.
9:27 pm
>> the feasibility study didn't exempt correct. >> correct. >> we're to vote an excellent the 25 percent 234r59 percentage four projects 25 or more without the feasibility study. >> that's correct. >> okay. so again without that feasibility study we don't know whether this legislation is going to lead to more affordable units fewer affordable units are no change. >> that's correct it would be many things. >> i assume i believe we have a shared role of maximizing the number of affordable units created self-in san francisco that's probable. >> everyone spoke to that. >> how about housing production with all forms of housing do we know planning department know this legislation is going
9:28 pm
to lead to more housing created in san francisco, less housing or no change. >> certainly raising rates of inclusionary can result in the reduction of the an affordable units your producing for wlr units if there are projects that no longer pencil out that means no market rate housing and also no below-market-rate because 25 of zero is zero. >> projects an excellent the margin that pushes them into the feasibility give up their projects. >> or if a 40 unit project is a 24 unit in order not subject to 25 percent that is fewer units of housing. >> that's correct. >> any projections any projections indicating that
9:29 pm
under this whether this legislation we're seeing more housing produced or less or the same number amount of housing there the. >> our department has not done the work the housing department did it spoke to the production of market rate and bmr under the charter. >> no feasibility study. >> that's correct in feasibility study the xrol didn't have a feasibility study to it. >> he must not have my own of the mechanism the controller used is there a way to know what facts that will or won't have without knowing whether that makes certain kinds of projects feasible or infeasible. >> that's the best way. >> through a feasibility study. >> which we don't have.
9:30 pm
>> that's correct. >> okay thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> all right. >> actively i'm sorry one other questions are aware of any project in san francisco that is 25 percent without some sort of up zoning. >> we're not aware of anything. >> okay and that's you know okay. thank you that's a telling answer. >> so colleagues, i supported prop c and continue to i endorse it, it is important to take the inclusionary percentage out of the charter and important to race the inclusionary rate when
9:31 pm
we put-down proximate cause an excellent the ballot i think a lot of us were in the mindset that, yes, we should take it out of the charter and increase but do that in a way of actual analysis in terms of what is going to maximize the number of affordable units built in san francisco and instead what we have a piece of legislation that simply sets the 25 percent with the blanket percentage for anything 25 units or more without diminishing between types of projects and a thirty unit or 8 hundred unit without distinguishing between parts of city where the economics are different in terms of how much lewd and none that have 3 is take into account that's the point of doing a
9:32 pm
feasibility study you get that kind of information and make a good judgment where you should have a one-size-fits-all that end up been what the feasibility study shows or different ranges as far as i, tell no basis for choosing 25 percent over some other percentage whether it is thirty or 40 or 31 percent whatever the case again, we don't have a feasibility study and we won't i don't think for several more months we all want to maximize the number of affordable units not about the percentage it is the number of units we are producing and, of course, as mentioned zero percent or 25 percent is still zero is still zero in order to show we're strong in affordable units has to be 50
9:33 pm
percent affordable at 50 percent of the unit why not that or 35 percent or 32 or 75 percent we can that is but if it renders the projects infeasible with less housing few affordable units produced and so it really concerns me what we are seeing the fact that there - didn't appear to be any projects that don't appear any projects in san francisco that have hit 25 without up zoning district can you see me concern this legislation can effecting be a de facto moratorium an excellent housing and that's the last thing we need in san francisco to have a moratorium an excellent housing were finally starting to sesee
9:34 pm
rents level off we've produced more housing over the last few years the other night i was at a pass over where one of the attendees was a small landlord that owns several buildings that was concerned about the affordable units 50 or 60 units of housing that was going to cause landlords to start losing money because represents with going to come down and i was very polite but that's a good result we want rents down they're not come down unless we meet the needs of growing population putting in place legislation that creates a d factor moratorium or the press
9:35 pm
production - reducing the number of hearing and seeing none, 25 percent sounds like a good number it sounds like we're doing something when, in fact, we may actually be reducing the amount of housing and affordable units that is produced not something i'm comfortable with so i will not be supporting this legislation i just don't think this is the direction for a affordable housing it is counter productive i know the feasibility study will come out and the board will have the option of taking a thoughtful approach i hope that happens there is no guarantee it will happen i know supervisor cohen's has been quite critical of the board of supervisors in 2011 reducing
9:36 pm
the inclusionary if 15 to 12 percent i see for see a lot of arguments three or four 6 months don't lower it below the trying he fought for 25 don't lower it below 25 theres a hard thing to do in feasibility study shows 25 percent didn't work and undermining the housing policy will be hard for elected officials we should wait for the feasibility study before we put in place the inclusionary percentages i'll not be supporting this legislation today. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. >> first of all, i want to say that legislation that is before us today, i neglected to name by name supervisor kim's aid that has done exonerated work the
9:37 pm
legislation we should be proud of we have managed to produce over 200 additional units of affordable housing not for this legislation would never have been produced supervisor wiener is right. i took expectation to the 2012 charter amendment that without a feasibility study lowered that number from 15 to 12 percent and put it in a our constitution in essence not changed in 2013, 2014 are 2016 we would have built thousands of affordable housing but fundamentally supervisor wiener respectfully you and i part company the fact that all 11 of us voted anonymously to put 24 charter amendment an excellent the ballot i assumed we did see
9:38 pm
knowing the language with the 25 percent was talked about that lets talk about that it is 15 what we call low income housing that is actually not that low 55 percent for medium and an additional layer of 10 percent that would be available to moderate and middle-income individuals i have a landlord finally all 11 fuss voted for supervisor yee's resolution i wanted to thank supervisor yee for the other co-sponsoring of this legislation and we have through that process adhered to that's the process that said what i think we self-festive to attract the amount level of affordable housing in san francisco and that we would endeavor to undertake a feasibility study being undertaken by the controller and all 11 of us voted for this is
9:39 pm
the implementing legislation while that is our right to vote against it, it is inconsistent with the previous two votes supervisor you've taken an excellent this matter be that as it may i'm delighted to get to that point and want to thank the executive branch and the mayor it was an inheritance trust with that, i'm ready to take action on the amendments before us. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much and i appreciate the comments supervisor peskin he actually don't think we voted inconsistent with the previous votes i was happy to support prop c and continue to support it i think that is good to remove it from the charter. >> charter. >> i think that was actually really i will say it has the responsible thing to do so they
9:40 pm
a temporary board and the board does the legislation that was a good process my objection we don't have the analysis to study the ongoing inclusionary rate and we should be dock the feasibility study first i understand why you're heading in the direction our heading i'm saying i have a different point of view we're talking about something that is critically important affordable housing in san francisco we need to make sure we are bagging it an excellent the numbers an excellent the true feasibility my concern that especially, if you know, i understand now that we're not getting the feasibility study until sometime over the summer so we have protective recess by the time everything is done eve we make the provisions to 25 percent it
9:41 pm
might not be until next year i don't know what the timing will be and all of a sudden we're going to see the gap in terms of the project 25 percent is not feasible for them and then we'll see a slow down in housing production those are my thoughts. >> if i may. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair if i may part of the reason we treated the pipeline as lightedly and judiciously as we treated it because and indeed we could have gotten a higher percentage and the math would bear it the fact this room is not full find developers who are screening for one and a half to 20th century to percent fully understanding with 10 thousand units of hours in the pipeline and the rate that didn't hit 25
9:42 pm
hundreds units we have 4 years worth of projects already in the pipeline i remember very clearly sitting in those chambers some 15 years ago had i any colleague senator leno absent a feasibility study transferred a measurement to create the first 12 and every developer in town said that was impossible and the market will come to an end and indeed that didn't happen and, of course, we have a robust economy in those years and later on that is raised to 15 percent the fact you're seeing rent stabilize is no the fact we built units it is the market conditions and ted egan made it clear we have to build over one hundred thousand units will not happen in a if one or years but
9:43 pm
a shift in market conditions. >> well, thank you gentlemen for your comments and thoughts letting what public comment has to say any public comment do we take public comment. all right. so thank you let's deal with the amendments open make a motion >> i moved any amendments which i previously read into the record and circulated and would love to have a vote. >> i'm sorry i don't think we took public comment an excellent this item. >> okay yes, we absolutely did. >> did we take public comment. >> they're saying yes. okay all right. well. >> the city attorney is needing his head. >> i'm sorry public comment is
9:44 pm
closed. sorry. >> i run an efficient meeting you have to get here an excellent time i'm happy to reopen. >> whatever reason people want to comment i move we reopen public comment to have an opportunity to speak. >> opening up for public comment if you want to comment please come up 2 minutes. >> thank you first of all, i want to thank the supervisors for taking care of the pipeline projects last week supervisor peskin thank you. >> i'm here to speak in support of planning department comments an excellent the density bonus in the trailing legislation and those comments were really to number one that the language is legally problematic and the second is that right place to take care of those issues is
9:45 pm
passing density bonus legislation for the city i'd like i said last night a copy of the properties latitude against the city and the city to miami a john ramming that pretty much explains why that language is problematic california i'm sending - i've sent it to him and presume providing a copy to the city attorney and restructuring person in the tech space i've done that for 15 years i can fulfill in the tech space a lot of stress not as bad at 2000 and 20- this is a head
9:46 pm
not part of tech cycle anymore. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for opening public comment again, i'm here as a product of mission district in support of this legislation i think there is still things i'd like to see work out particularly after 2016, 2014 and 2015 options the percentages for offsite dedication refer back to building 1, 2, 3 and after 2014 that is mucky what happened i'd like to see that cleaned up and also encourage you to pay attention to what is happening in the mission if we are bleeding families and i think that we should be going towards more affordability empower affordability there not
9:47 pm
less so thank you very much. >> >> next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors alex where carpenters local 22 thank you for reopening public comment those of us not fast enough to get down here first of all, thank you for the amendments you've preserved to make or considering this advances the effort from the capital resolution to really turning this into a considerable product that will not effect the pipeline that we have we spoke last time about the smaller projects that we are kaufrtd of the legislation that spoke about the legislation we've uncovered the safety violations and he real fact those are often done by
9:48 pm
contractors that don't pay the good was this and increase our requirement and needs forces affordable housing because our affordable housing feasibility analysis don't take into account issues we realize the charter amendment we don't deal that with right now but as is feasibility study move forward we'll be coming back and showing you violations your of the in those project we hope you'll look at them and we don't allow low rode contractors to profit from misery of the families in the mission and thank you. >> thank you i'd like to point out that 20 percent of the units need to be affordable to one
9:49 pm
hundred percent of ami if they're built offsite and supervisor wiener they have been several projects built offsite at the 20 percent for most of the 20 percent requirements of the high-rise office buildings have chosen to pay the offsite and even though fee is set at 20 percent i don't think we're talking about most of a stretch not nearly the stretch that occurred in the language used inclusionary zoning program is not an affordable housing podium it is a below-market-rate rate and the highest prices market in the united states you can produce a unit below-market-rate but still not affordable to even the workforce that builds it and it is the situation we face in san francisco there was a study done a feasibility study actually an
9:50 pm
nexus study an excellent the amount of affordable housing people able to make one hundred that is to offset the housing impact of market-rate housing pretty much and what that study indicated was that there needed for about everyone one hundred units of affordable housing about 18 unit of truly affordable housing needed to be built in order to offset the housing demand by the 345u6r9 so not totally the situation that is been described we have market rate housing that we have affordable housing that we have below-market-rate housing and they all have a iron relationship the rate we're - >> thank you anyone wish to
9:51 pm
comment i'm going to close all right. published at this time all right. we have amendments to take up aba motion to accept the amendments by supervisor peskin motion to accept all of supervisor peskin amendments unanimously and a motion to accept the amendments i've made made when i supervisor peskin and we'll take that without objection. any two amendments passes unanimously thank you very much now the legislation at hand any last remarks gentlemen all right. let's take a voted an excellent vote. >> i'd like to to recommend to
9:52 pm
the full board as a recommendation to the full report. >> let's do a roll call vote please. supervisor peskin supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen you have two i's and one supervisor wiener dissenting the the i's have it. thank you for everyone that worked an excellent the legislation call item 5. >> item 5 is a hearing an excellent short-term rentals enforcement. >> all right. thank you supervisor wiener is the author and will lead the discussion. >> thank you very much madam chair and thank you for maybe i'll let the folks filter out
9:53 pm
okay. thank you very much madam chair for claernd this claernd this hearing today colleagues this is a quarterly oversight hearing that i called for and we held the first thing in january that's the second hearing months later to hear from the office of short-term rentals and to monitor how the implementation of the enforcement around our short-term rental law is going to make sure that we have full public transparent and object in terms of the number of for the trajectory registration for the short-term rentals we want to make sure that more and more hosts are registering as well as enforcement to make sure we're enforcing the law to look at the big picture before early 2015
9:54 pm
with only arbitrate more than a year ago that san francisco actually implemented regulation of short-term rentals before i believe it was february 1st of 2015 there have were no rules other than a blatant or blanket law the rules went into effect 15 months ago now and then a few months later the legislation created the office of short-term rental in the budget we adopted last summer we increased the resources available to the office of short-term rental for enforcement so we have role not that long into the process less than a year since we created the office of short-term rental we have should keep in mind that last year within probably a
9:55 pm
month less than a most of the effective diet of then commissioner crews short-term rental allow alu there was people that with respect bound to failure no way of knowing on a month after the effective date if we are succeeding or failing and shortly after that folks got together with signatures on a ballot measure that became prop f that significantly changed our regulatory approach to short-term rentals and significantly restricted the ability of people if engage in short-term rentals so that unscott taylor caused a flattening coming down and rermg w when prop f lost there was a spike in registrations we've seen an upwards trajectory we
9:56 pm
need to support the office of short-term rentals and make sure those good enforcement we're getting good information to the public and encouraging people to register and be compliant with the law i hope we'll do that and have stability in the law so we can allow that to happen so madam chair, i guess i'm the chair at this point so the chair returns i'd like to start off by calling up guy from the office of short-term rental who will give a presentation an excellent enforcement and hand registration trends. >> thank you, very much my brother's keeper i'm kevin the director of office of short-term rentals i'm here to give you a status update on the
9:57 pm
registration the office current data lifted in san francisco as well as a brief item an excellent the quarterly reporting now in the second cycle of reporting i'm not going to reiterates the information supervisor wiener provided regarding the history of the project but a program but nevertheless of our registration numbers as of april 2016 we received over 17 hundred applications and the chart was back in january where we do had the conversation we have 13 hundred applications over 12 hundred verse 8 hundred and 749 in january the applications that wither rejecting will be not seen a increase in the applications i'll go into we're at 4 hundred and 25 versus 70
9:58 pm
the number of applications pending has dropped from 200 and 69 to 2016 to 2 and 12 this charter shows month to month since the launch in the vertical bars at the bottom registration applications received to date and then the letter at the blue line is the total number of applications received to date with an estimate of april. >> so that's between january and april of this year a 3 month period we saw i guess that is - about a 25 percent increase in almost a thirty percent increase in the number of registered host. >> that's right and a data point not an excellent the slide but the numbers from around 6
9:59 pm
months ago doubt the metrics of the application received and folks registrationed so anyone watch from the public can be educated and understand the first step to obtain a business registration with the taxation collectors to make sure that that person is in terms of paying hotel taxes and the second part of progress it is separate in services to apply to the office of short-term rentals and this is typically through an enforcement to submit the application to the prove the resiliency and prove of insurance so someone that eligible but a permanent resident and complying with other aspects of the requirements of the program so
10:00 pm
we have taken overseeing application materials and review them to verify the accuracy and issue a certifies or a denial letter with an explanation why the application was denied so this i wanted to touch an excellent the media outreach we've conducted to be trying to educate the public and the process so the interviews to local print, tv and radio media including did chronicle and k b i x and the other radio chinese radio as well as presentations to groups that are interested like the small property owners of the institute and home schaffer's of sf in an effort to bring the services and bring the program more to the people outside of our normal circulation employment process we held a city registration and
10:01 pm
a presence for the earthquake and retrofit program and i have no speaker cards the accessibility to try to remove barriers by - people interested 2, 3, 4 registering but phobic about whatever schedule a at this time they have general questions before they submit their application they can do that to 4:00 p.m. he are we have evening hours first monday of each month and a couple of upcoming events in the community first, the branch library the castro branch library an excellent the 19 and those will be evening events as well so, now i want to transmission into listing data a lot of this
10:02 pm
information is embodied in the recently published report about the number ofizing and that are located in san francisco as of the november 2015 data using web script analysis and/or is a policeman had 7 thousand listing and 54 unique hosts it is important to understand that certain host can be illegal and not legal an excellent and/or so 57 percent were for entire units in which typically the guests has the run of property while their state government as a guest and typical rooms the hosts is running out of bedrooms but they're actually present an excellent the location with a guest and a shared room location
10:03 pm
and/or self-recorded data in march that those number of listings have increased to 95 hundred r with 7 thousand hosts and other platforms that operate the major placements b&b has up to 18izing and others up to nine hundred listing i want to note it is common practice so reenlist their properties across multiple podiums and the units even that is done in way in corneas with the ordinance and illegal but add up the numbers of listing you see here that is not necessarily the numbers of units for short-term rentals. >> so decking deeper allows us to understand the types of hosts
10:04 pm
not rent-controlled unit for the program so categories i believe that will be ineligible to register those are individuals with few vacation rent-controlled units or reviews and the posting stiff we see represents 18 percent and 7 percent of host are listing multiple properties and the regulatory program you want to host legal you have to be a permanent resident with multiple properties and smaller subsets of listing that are being offered for over thirty days that are technically not subject to the ordinance they're not short-term rentals and traditional hotels and time sharing with the hosted rooms represent a somewhat subset but those are indications of individuals not eligible or
10:05 pm
don't need to register for the program another interesting database that is listing that have no reviews we understand the majority of guests that stay in short-term rentals have reviews we also have a pretty good list of individualizing no reviews and i've even discounted the postings from 2015-2016 so in 2014 backward around 13 percent have no reviews this suggests that those are properties that are represented out infrequently are not at all dormant and the users decided not to continue with this activity and forgot about the lifrgz yet still an excellent the hosting sites another population of listing that quality those are tenants that may not have a sub lease
10:06 pm
that is common or individuals with condos in a situations is a homeowner association prohibiting short-term rentals those individuals this is a quality for the city for a short-term rental host for the residency and insurance and all the other requirements but their sort of afraid to come out of the shadows we have a matter a no the property owner the record only short-term rental applications and plenty of individual we're a city of renters that are doing the activity but have afraid to get recommended they don't want their landlord or homeowners association to be aware we've had an recent increase but a reservation either inpilot applications or the information an excellent the application
10:07 pm
contradicts other goiblth in terms of we find other ways they're not eligible for the program it pertains to the profiles 6 users that are the delta of people that are listing currently not rent-controlled unit in some of the difficulties that i think we're finding in terms of getting certain popula terms of there's a large host of podiums we'll be able to register by the way, we don't want to get everyone to come in to apply to get recommend one of the initiatives we've worked an excellent cooperating with the tax collectors office to identify individual that are sort of getting their business registration but not come to the office of short-term rentals to prove their residentscy
10:08 pm
what to do with the population that is not render we've we're disposal enforcement in recent months, we've really cracked down in a pro-active woo in focusing an excellent the types of some of the types of population we've described people are full-time rentals people that ray a smaller population in their second violation they've not updated their activities buses now are subject to additional enforcement with higher penalties that runs up to iron thousand dollars i want to significantly mention we've give notice of violations to several host platforms under 41 a to provide information to their
10:09 pm
users an excellent san francisco's requirements the lunge in the legislation specific so what their formulas are and the hosting platforms are not do that so we've given notice of violations in terms of how to utilize our web scrapes and other data to not only shorten the timeline but really prioritize our cases trying to focus our proof active an excellent the egregious offenders that take the unit off the short-term rental marketed i want to emphasize we're not looking at and investigating people that are not registering but don't fit into the categories we get complaints and not everyone that wants to do this legally gets registered we've opened up 4. hundred mrs.
10:10 pm
cases and issued notice of violations an excellent one plus affordable housing and closed many cases and 61 units or cases with 95 units involved that are pending closures those are recent notice of violations and $700,000 in penalties for those people listing without being registered. >> and then briefly want to talk about the reporting another aspect of the reporting once rerngd in order to maintain with our office and be able to legally host short-term rentals they need to be quarterly report back to the data for the last registration we began that in january 1st of this year and that reporting cycle is recorded a month literary this was to get four anyone that
10:11 pm
registered and received 62 percent response rate the data from the host is 52 percent hosted conducted hosted that registration they're in the unit and guests are staying with them and 18 are unhosted and 23 percent hosted a combination of hosted and unhosted rentals and 67 were no notices during the reporting period we resumed the quarterly reporting beginning an excellent april 1st we're in a period we are seeing better response rates the second time around to people are getting used to complying with the process we've worked with the department of technology to make improvements to the podium thankful created the former was a fantastic help to i think both our office and users back in january they've been making lots of
10:12 pm
samuel but meaningful improvements to the few minutes outlet and the form easier to use and most importantly sending out to hosts not heard from p them they need to log an excellent and give us in information so you to plenty other information i can go over i'm happy to do that just wanted to close with our contact informs restraining order information if anyone is centered in the general inquires they can contact us via e-mail or general information number as i mentioned we have walk in hours every week the first monday evening of every month hosting event to try to bring the program into the registration into people and remove any barriers they have in terms of coming down physically
10:13 pm
to our office thank you very much. >> thank you for the author presentation supervisor peskin has a few questions. >> thank you chair cohen and mr. guy for your work in this evolving field and evolving office i have a few questions he apologize if i've already mentioned them how many staff do you have. >> we say total of 6 people including myself we became truly staffed in february of this year so i joined the office in september of last year, we've been ramping up our staff and full staff now. >> and i noticed the last report that you made was janu y january 11th to this committee that was a year ago january - >> no what was included in your packet
10:14 pm
says at the bottom land use and transportation january 11th of 2016-2017. >> i'm sorry if there are of was a typo in the last presentation to the land use committee was the quarterly update was supervisor wiener mentioned january of this year. >> okay. >> so i apologize no problem that make sense i of these comparing the two and one of the questions i had was an excellent that report i actually differentiated between penalties assessed and penalties collected and in this report you show penalties assessed but not penlites collected i was wondering how that number has changed. >> we've collected been one hundred and 60 of the penalties assessed there was just - >> so in terms of the
10:15 pm
penalties assessed have gone from the last report you assessed 4 hundred plus and collected one and 34 thousand now up to 6 hundred and 95 thousand and collected one and 60 thousand so in terms of penalties collected to date - we're over $160,000 20047 approximately is pending i should know penalties about one hundred and 23 thousands of litigation and then for some of our older cases and more significant penalties amounts collected $380,000 have been returned for the bureaucracy of revenue. >> in some cases eave issued
10:16 pm
notice of violations or notices of decision against the host platforms have they complied with those. >> the first notice of violations for the platforms went out an excellent april 1st to the b rb o the second one the issue you're seeing today, we just started xhufksz with home away slash ar b o and yet as violations are going out today. >> understood relative to the self-right to left numbers of the largest mayor's office of and/or which you have at 8 thousand 47 the math clustering the other hosting platforms if but look at the total number of registers off of your sheet that shows
10:17 pm
that 12 hundred and 10 have registered and 4 hundred and 25 have been rejected and one hundred and 12 are pending revenue at that rate i assume 1/3rd of the one hundred and telephone remaining 40, if you will, would going forward likely westbound registered so to a number of 12 and 50 that showed me a registration of 17.17 percent in the first months of this program and a a little bit less than one hundred a month which if we continue at that rate assuming that the number of hosts don't go beyond 7 thousand 47 will take 5 years to reach the compliance is there any thoughts. >> that's true i think we have successes in terms of the registration numbers but i nodded there is an increase in
10:18 pm
the number of hosts listing dwoup for the reggie this is an - the applications fluctuate we've noticed a down turnover the last couple of months in the application coupling spiking in november and december and january so it primaries remains to be seen an increase or reduction we would like to see more that's why we're out to the community more hosting more evening hours and walking hours and trying to remove barriers for people to get registered but as i discussed in detail i think we're experiencing some of a phenomena subsequent number that
10:19 pm
we are categorically excluded will be hesitant to come out of shadows to get rent-controlled unit no amount of education or outreach will reach those types of population or. >> fewer registerable individuals out there than number of hosts. >> ultimately know that they shouldn't come in they don't meet the criteria. >> correct. >> no incentive for you to be in the showed if you actually fall within the confines of the law day. >> that's why this pro-active enforcement we've done rooming up but education and outreach is important at some level their may be people that are
10:20 pm
eligibility but for a variety of reasons not that's why the enforcement really becomes could he and hopefully start shifting the numbers never mind the applications we see. >> are there additional tools that you need that you don't have you lived like to have this board could give you. >> i mean, i think one of the things a process by which consistently updated sxreenz for our enforcement staff we're learning how to work smarter and utilize the available data we have so we've bang utilizing web scrape and make sure those are refreshed this is a industrial thing people cot in and out and the listing, possibly related to the super are factors to note
10:21 pm
and what reigns people are new registration rantsz and this population having the updated webs we'll be implementing will allow us to prioritize and easily identify violations so should the nature of host we to have the full information but, get a sense how they're operating by looking at the registered data. >> relative to the enforcement numbers of the - can you tell us exceeded percentage rough numbers how many are complainant versus those proactive that you had. >> really the entire casework 16 percent to date have been
10:22 pm
complaint griffin from the public or other agencies with our recent rounds of enforcements we're shifting to to 50 percent of the violations we're pursuing are pro-active cases we're building and focusing an excellent these sort of most egregious multiple listing out there for multiple units unit that are full-time vacation rent-controlled units which is not to say again not everybody wants to do this legally didn't need to worry about enforcement but register and comes in from individuals that have expense effected we want to strike a balance continue the pro-active and enforcement but the pro-active activities. >> out of the 4 hundred and 23 cases can you characterize the
10:23 pm
types of violations and percentages. >> i mean quantify and quantityly all sorts of violations the most common we've seen that hosted without registration and certain as part find enforcements process we managed to engage with them in a way they're probably not happy about it bus gives us an opportunity to open up a dialogue to make them better understand the rules to get them rent-controlled unit. >> do you have out that have 4 hundred and quarter caseload half of those is what percentage. >> i would guess about probably 2/3rd's of those individuals are residents eligible for registration that's
10:24 pm
a historic caseload as we get intoing up and - one of the more important programs is - >> an interesting number if you on about 2/3rd's 4 hundred and 25 were folks that either compliment driven or pro-active you essentially made them register that is almost a award of your total registrations are a result of enforcement that tops that one hundred and 50 number down significantly relative to the folks that register volunteer will i and just to be clear an excellent the numbers 4 hundred and 23
10:25 pm
cases that represents all cases open since the program was launched there are a number of cases where we find as we investigate the violations is an excellent the wrong property somebody has their information wrong with the rental information or someone's liz is down that stopped the activity not all 4 hundred cases plus mean a violation. >> i understand and relative to and/or in an article a couple weeks ago they were going to self-police after or around the egregious things that are occurring ♪ town individuals who list multiple units and that they were going to self-police 0 house the rip between our office and airbnb courtroom a source for the supervisor the largest
10:26 pm
source of my angst about the units held off the market are being done in contradiction of the law about but with their cooperations >> as you recall we reached out to several the platforms in january this which is one of the items we talked about as angle operational change we will like the platforms to see if they said want to be collaborating with your office i think that is that announcement and category of yourself that category of short-term rental listing is problematic really it is clearly individuals are not eligible they're taking long-term rent-controlled units off the market the announcements that and/or made is lewdable the idea of taking down the units is admin admissible we don't have unfortunately any sort of communication of auditing to fully understand as a city
10:27 pm
agency around this issue why the amount of people their truly liz are sort of an explanation of the certain listing were taken down. >> in january you saw the information but that has yet to be recorded you're saying. >> right we were not able to reach a discussion with and/or about that around-2 is not consistent with the ordinance they don't want that type of activity but not reach any sorts of conclude the amount of data kind of data auditing that would go on gone under our office and
10:28 pm
jaribaribnb and the 17.7 registn rates between the first year and a quarter of program is definitely relative for the 17.7 percent do you think that remaining or 85 percent or all not able to comply with the terms of the program what's your guess an excellent that. >> as we talked about before and you've said in our statements getting that data can be tricky but if we built or drill back into some of the conclusions we can reach if i can have the
10:29 pm
overhead but the profiles eve people unregistered the four indications and compare around 44 hundred unique hosts that the dictated reports and aribnb between 16 hundred and others that are categorically ininevitable not able to register and as i mentioned other populations that are may or may not eligible but not come in for registration other things found out by a landlord any number of circumstances. >> when we say some 2000 or 25 hundred people it would be way more than 25 hundred units; right? is that units or
10:30 pm
actresss so some of the hosts again are - they may create 6 listing for one unit and another 5 for separate bedrooms so there is not easily to sort out the numbers there be, be a delta of hosts and listing that's an example of someone has legally 6 or 7 or 8 allergies an excellent a registered unit but so many hosts that are listing properties and are not registered in the number of eligible listing. >> understood relative to legislation that was subject of an newspaper article today that would be more
10:31 pm
stringent to the hosts compliance around individuals with multiple units list would that be helpful to your program. >> i'm not been given it in detail again kind of thinking back to the our operational performa's in january about - registration so, yeah i mean, i would hold off comment until i see the legislation proposed but with that said, it is a question of whether or not the supervisors feels the pace a adequate and it will accelerate an excellent the registration and enforcement or the changes need to be made it
10:32 pm
is up to the board. >> thank you. i have no further comments. >> or questions. >> madam chair i'd like to open up for public comment. >> open up for public comment. >> any members of the public wants to come an excellent item 5 keep in mind you have 2 minutes line up. >> my name is mark a 32 resident of north beach part of district 3 to clarify i thought something was yeah mr. dry and i have several conversations he was friendly when i complained with another member of the district about a particular place an excellent filbert street an ongoing case not closed i've been asked by people that he short-term rental office
10:33 pm
not to refer to it but it's under my name this answers the question that was closed by supervisor peskin and i feel was not answered that question if you have 16 hundred people who are not abiding by the law does if represent 16 hundred units an excellent fillmore street one of the cases the owners a husband and wife have 6 units by nature of the law on this lives in one of the units they live in acton the assessors oversees office they don't live in the city of san francisco but if they live in one of the units they can on ceqa sub let's see lease one units so as mr. guy is one type of circumstances with a single person but what about the person that rents 6 units in a building
10:34 pm
where everybody was evoked they remember part of neighborhood that's grossly unfair that that is chases going on i ask you to seriously consider supervisor peskin legislation i heard supervisor wiener answer an excellent k cbs a question about do we need more legislation or do we need more enforcement one didn't preclude the other we want an agency that agency this is the best - >> all right. thank you. >> (inaudible). >> your time is up. >> next item, please. >> it looks my name is - i'm in supervisor wiener's district i'm a host i'm registered and legal
10:35 pm
i have a bus line and pay property taxs i want to address supervisor peskin concerns about the registration rate there are those among us other hosts and myself and wife who are conducting registration workshops in an attempt to accelerate the registration process so we're working hard to attract those hosts who have not registered to those workshops in an attempt to improve that registration rate and get everybody as legal and quickly as possible we like the legislation that exists i'm not opposed to our proposed legislation i wanted to know we the people are trying to side something to help to improve the registration rate that's all i have thank you.
10:36 pm
>> is there any additional public comment on item 5 all right. public comment is closed. >> scomplooenz your name is an excellent the cue is that left over from before looks like it and supervisor wiener any racks. >> thank you, mr. guy for the update the this think an ongoing xhvengs it is important that we see what is going on what we can improve and there has been enforcement we want that to continue and increase the enforcement for people that are violating the law the e combrergz violations converting hotels and for evictions procedures and short-term rentals need to crack down in a serious way and i think we're in the right direction we have work to do never mind of registrations but as the data
10:37 pm
presented we are head in a continue positive direction in fact, after prop f lost in the chart and presentation there was a spike in registration so when people have confidence there are a law of the land and rules in place stability people will registration that will take work it was in law over a year last year so let the law work i'm not sure saying no amendments i've not seen commissioner peskin but it may make sense i look forward to reviewing that proposal but for now, i'll continue to do those hearings to exercise oversight and strong transparency to be enforcement for the administration of that law that is occurring so madam chair i'd like to move to continue this through the chair. >> all right. a motion and
10:38 pm
without objection that passes unanimously thank you colleagues additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, this meeting is adjourned thank >> i like to remind the commission [inaudible] outbust of any kind, please siliance your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission if you will state your name for the
10:39 pm
record. well wolfram, here, commissioner [inaudible] commissioner johnck, here, commissioner matsuda, here, commissioner pearlman. >> first on the agenda general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> any member of the public wish to speak on non agenda item? seeing none we'll close public comment. >> director announcements, >> no director announcements >> past events. >> just have one announcement for the commission regarding the legacy business registry at the last hearing. commissioner hyaline requested report from office of small business on the number of applications to date. planning staff met with rugina [inaudible] and discussed the current status and there are been 10
10:40 pm
applications. apairptly apparently a number still need work. we requested a brief report which i'll distribute here. this first batch of 10 applications are anticipated before the department may 9 for reviewing comment and hps hearing. the office oof small business expects between 5 to 10 application. in preparation of the june first hearing we scheduled for may 4 rchlt this will allow discussion of case report and to insure you have all the information you fleed to discuss the pending applications. >> thank you. >> nothing further we can move to commission matters, item 3,
10:41 pm
prez dchbt report or announcements, >> no report or announce mentds >> draft minutes for arc 2016 meeting and hpc april 2016 hearing minutes. >> commissioners any revision to the minutes? does any member of it pubplic wish to comment on arc of april 20 and april 6 for historic preservation commission? let me close public comment. seeing hearing no comment bring back the commission. >> commissioner johnck, >> i noted the port of san francisco water front working group meeting on historic preservation was going to be in may but it is not in may, it is april 27, which next wednesday and encourage the public to come
10:42 pm
and hear our discussion about the port planning and historic preservation on the waterfront and at the port. >> thank you for the comment. at the hearing knrou did say may so think we'll leave as it was. >> okay. >> maybe we can add to the minutes for todays hearing. seeing no other comments do i have a motion to adopt? >> make the motion. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for march 2 arc and the prl 6 historic preservation minutes. commissioner hasz, yes, commissioner johnck, yes. so moved the motion passes 7-0 and places us on item 5, commission comments and questions.
10:43 pm
>> commissioner johnck >> my comrade commissioner pearlman recommended i comment that the meeting of the port of san francisco water pup front working group will be april 27. also i want to bring to the commission the comment discussed yesterday. i attended 3 sessions, one was on the route of the preservation movement in california and noticing the early founders and early group jz the first land mark club fsh mentioned of 1895 in los angeles and los angeles [inaudible] hollywood heritage and there is a foundation. the reminder to all of us
10:44 pm
was that advocacy and activism is still very important feature the preservation movement while the professionalism has virgined which is wonderful and we have wonderful staff to reflect that professionalism is great but advocacy and activism is important connected neighborhoods and communities. the other session which was really great was on facadem, new attitudes and was a extension of comments we have been looking at and idea said so far. there was my [inaudible] from san francisco heritage, our own justin grieving who isn't here today but he was there. and also flora chew from page and turnbull she was the moderator. great idea said came up about how to-can we avoid facadeism, the aspects to it
10:45 pm
that maybe are not so acceptable but if we look at better use of ceqa and consideration of alternatives maybe we can go that route. as far as solutions go, the discussion pretty centered on two, one which we talked about last time and that was the idea of developing guidance around certain design elements for materials. the other arena was on overall policy changes looking at a idea such as a mitigation fund raising up the downtown plan and looking at that again. incentvising altnchatives and allowing projects to shift density and height was another idea. these are
10:46 pm
some the policy ideas that were discussed and warrant further discussion here. those are hrf wanted to bring that to you for the record. really excellent- >> thank you. commissioner hyland. just to add on april 27 meeting is pier 1 between 6 and 8 p.m. >> thank you. any other comments? seeing none we can move forward. >> item 6, historic preserve vision fund committee report. welcome [inaudible] >> good afternoon my name is robert tourney and the representative on the historic preservation fund committee. i submitted a written report but it was late monday evening and wasn't in time for you to have a copy of it. i will give you a very quick summary and think you will get a digital version
10:47 pm
of it in your e-mail sometime soon. during the past 6 months we have had 3 projects that have been completed in various ways, one of them i hope you have seen peoples palace the document on city hall which reserved part of the funding from historic preservation. the second is assessment of mothers building at the san francisco zoo. we funded an assessment of that severely indaijered land mark. the report was compleetd in july and received our copy in december and found it is a excellent evaluation of what needs to be done and there is a lot that needs to be done so hope ful
10:48 pm
the park and rec will find a way to do that. the third item you acted on just recent-no, i guess you continued it at your most recent meeting, the san francisco african american city wide context statement funded by the fund committee, we reaved it january 2015, the planning department did a lot of work on that draft and saw their revisions in february of this year and we thought they were excellent so we certainly ca-mind that to you. in the pash 6 months we funded 2 projects one was supplemental to a existing project on the sacred heart church complex to
10:49 pm
address the entire complex and prepare a national registration for that complex. we approved funded for historic context statement on great depression and new deal era in san san francisco. this was the highest priority when we established a list for when chwe would seek funding and very pleased to receive that. the project will include a historic context statement from that time period of 1929 up to the 1940's, but it will also include individual landmark nominations for joj washington high school, thedor roosevelt high school and hill top school. hill top school is a
10:50 pm
priority of the planning department as well. we continued oversight on 7 projects in progress. one of them we reviewed and approved the final draft, the city wide historic concept for lgbtq history in san francisco, something your group approved last november and also funded by our committee and thought the result of that was excellent and model for other city wide historic context statements. last may we established a list of priorities for projects we would like to invite proposal to use up the remaining funds in the fund committee. we are down to about $300 thousand and our top 8 items we now have either funded a proposal
10:51 pm
or have proposals in process for 6 of those 8 and the other 2 seem likely to be funded by sources outside of our committee, so we are very pleased by our progress with those 8 items and will begin to look further down the list of priorities. you will have a written copy. >> commissioners any questions. ? thank you very much. public comment on historic preserve vision report. anyone wish to comment? seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. there is nothing further we can move to consideration of items for continuance. item 7 [inaudible]
10:52 pm
consideration to initiate land mark designation. item 8 for case 2015, 0140 pta, 1 stockton street. >> commissioners any comments on the continences? does any member the public wish to speak? seeing and hearing none close public comment. motion to continue these item snz >> move to continue. >> second >> thank you on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call vote] the motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 . consent calendar. all matters are considered to be retune and may
10:53 pm
be acted on by single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion unless a member public or staff requests and shall be removed from the calendar. item 9 case 2015-[inaudible] 2249 webster street. certificate of appropriateness. i have no speaker cards >> any member wish to speak to remove the item from consent? seeing and hearing none bring back to the commission. motion to approve the consent calendar? >> on that motion to approve item 9 under consent. [roll call vote] so moved. the motion passes
10:54 pm
unanimously 7 to 0. case number 2015-00030848 liberty and 2015 var. you will be considering the certificate of appropriateness or the zoning administrator will list toon the matter jointly and consider a request for variance. >> good afternoon commissioners. [inaudible] department staff. the project is certificate of appropriateness to 38 liberty street. consists of alterations including garage and driveway rsh increase building height from 32 to 34 feet. the facade illustration
10:55 pm
includes remove exterior windows [inaudible] a new flat front pairpet. finally, construction och a 3 story horizontal addition which includes side facades alterations. overall the projnect crease the scare footage from 2200 to about 3900 square feet. several public expressed [inaudible] expressed certain over the front of the property and sides of the rear addition. copies of all the correspondences are included in the staff report. since publication of the staff report the department received several letteroffs support for the project which are e-mailed to the commissioners. since the march
10:56 pm
16, hpc hearing the department followed up and requested information and provided up aidating site plan showing a site plan of the existing condition and proposed projeblth. the project sponsor provided 3 d rendering of the project. [inaudible] confirmed the offset drive way is feasible 6789 the dpw bureau of urban forestry will exam the [inaudible] offset driveway can be accommodated without impacting the [inaudible] by reduction of the size of the tree well surrounding the tree. the department updated the project description and analysis of the building height. in addition the project architect provided a updated side elevation which i provided hard copy which show a accurate
10:57 pm
representation. the deerment pastuff recommends approval with conditions to insure the work is undertake wn the certificate of appropriateness staff recommended, one, prior to approve of the site permit the project sponsor submit a detailed landscape plan which provides the site wall landscaping and paving orphthe new driveway. the plan should reuse any historic materials such as the rot iron fence. should be consist wnt the character and [inaudible] final approval for all new site work. two, prior to approval the site permit the project sponsor submit a material [inaudible] to planning department preservation to verify the final material choice and finish all the materials. the material board shall demonstrate the range of finishes as well as paint color. 3,
10:58 pm
prior to approval of the site permit the project sponsor submit additional information including on scarring or shadowed lines that denote drip or [inaudible] conduct the site visit upon removal of the exterior stucco and shall submit a revised elevation of evidence uncovered once the stucco is is removed. if the orig 2348 wood siding is present shall restore the siding. [inaudible] reviewed and approved by detarmt preservation staff who shall insure that the proposed trim and details are compatible with the district. new trim and [inaudible] based on documentary evidence from the original wood siding and reflect the evidence. the subject properties original construction [inaudible] wood elements features a painted or met finish. prior
10:59 pm
to approval the project sponsor shall submit additional information on design of the [inaudible] consist wnt it other historic entry stairs evidence within the landmark district. the project sponsor is present and prepared a presentation and i'm available for questions. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. can the project sponsor come forward? you can use either one. >> commissioners thank you for hearing us today. you heard the- >> sorry, -
11:00 pm
>> [inaudible] went over the project description and hope fall you saw the e-mail yesterday, we have letters of support [inaudible] for the restoration so we [inaudible] i should address the [inaudible] you can see that the tree well was under sized and the tree was [inaudible] further to the west we show a offset as you can see just not by enough. having it corrected and you will see the offset is about 3 feet more than was originally proposed. we have been in conduct with dpw, this is-never heard of this before, this is
11:01 pm
a [inaudible] that dpw [inaudible] the idea is prove you get a car safely into the driveway. dpw indicated they were okay with it. update on forestry they have given the go ahead for reduction in the tree well so dpw basically said we can go ahead with the offset. this is somewhat new to this point and had a [inaudible] they provided detailed report and that conclusion it is okay to [inaudible] tree well by 4 feet without damaging the tree. so, hopefully that gets us back to where i think you would like us to be which is concentrateing on the project. apologies for this mistake.
11:02 pm
the good news is it forced us to engage with dpw and make sure they were okay with the offset. the property originally back when the nomination for historic district [inaudible] 1976 [inaudible] two stories and basement stripped and stuccoed by [inaudible] we don't know when it was stuccoed but guess 40's would be the best guess i think. there we see the house next to the -behind that tree is the house. it is actually smaller than the surrounding properties. there is a close up of it and you [inaudible] there is
11:03 pm
nothing left of the original-they did a good job of stripping it. now, on the front there is literally nothing left from the original house. we do have a photograph. this isn't primarily of a photograph of 38, 38 is off to the right, but highlight that particular side. 8 feet hof house at the top but do see the entryway and the window with the arch over the window and so we have quite a lot of detail there and very confident in the sizing under the stucco is original. you expect it to be . they wouldn't take the siding off to put on the stucco, the stucco was placed over the siding.
11:04 pm
imagine there is scarring that will help inform whether it is [inaudible] we don't have to guess about the detail the window or the rest the windows because around the side there is a original window. [inaudible] the next slide you'll see that there is very very detailed paragraph measurement we took of all the detailing of that window. the window above it has the same thing but dopet have the arch. on the second floor it didn't have the arch on the first level. we think it is reasonable to assume this detailing if what we are seeing on the photograph that window.
11:05 pm
we had very very detailed drawings of the trim in the package and think 7.01 to 7.04 and [inaudible] have these turned over to the wood turner so that we can [inaudible] representation of the original trim. so, that's the way it will look. this is a view from across the street. you notice this is the view from someone about 6 foot tall. because the first floor is set back 32 feet 6 inches from the front of the house, in fact set back all most 50 feet from the sidewalk it is not visible. there is another view from the
11:06 pm
east and there is another view from the west. we did have these ready for the last hearing, we just didn't submit them for inclusion in the package and didn't realize it is something you have to do but these were ready about 2 months ago and planning to present them 5 weeks ago. so, very briefly i would like to address the variance. you see from this property it extends back into the rear yard. the rear yard is 26 feet 6 inches. those properties on the side have a rear yard of 23 feet. as i'm indicating the property does already extend back beyond the 25
11:07 pm
percent which is 28 feet 6 inches. we are already two feet into it. so, what we are proposing with the variance is really we think it is modest is that. we are still 2 feet shy of the property on the other side but what it will allow us to do is have a floor plan on the upper two floors that make sense given the scope of the work. the basic level there is no material impact because it is [inaudible] that is a view. this is the property to the east. there are no windows at all on this side so there is no impact. property to the west we are set back to respect the light and privacy of the property to the west. that
11:08 pm
extends all most to the rear of the lot t is quite significant. a view of the back. finally, addressing the open space, below that midblock is actually parking. it isn't very green. what i try to do there is outline the area that is relatively green so without the variance not granted it would look like that and with the variance it would look like that so we argue the impact is really minimal. that concludes my presentation and should note [inaudible] the architect is here and he can answer detailed questions much better than i can. >> thank you vaer very much. any questions for the sponsor? we
11:09 pm
are good. at this time we'll take public comment. i have several speaker cards. lawrence [inaudible] >> good afternoon commissioners lawrence [inaudible] i live directly across the street from the subject property at 33 liberty and lived at that property 33 years and on the national historic register. part of what is so charming about the block is victorians and beautiful soreing trees on the block and my concern with the tree to the subject property and the extent you authorize the project i want to make sure the curb cut is grant jd tree remanes. i remained concerned though, the project sponsor described the problems with the original
11:10 pm
drawings submitted that misstated the size and location the tree. i'm hopeful the new changes will address those issues. after the last continuedhering thrfs a nob nub out to the subject property and was trimming the canopy and i asked why and he said so the tree isn't destabilized. i believe the tree is destabilized if the roots were cut. the next day there was a trench dug and roots were exposed and the arborous was back with one the owners of the property and raised concerns that the roots would be trimmed. this is where the driveway would go so without trimming the rootatize is likely the driveway would hump up and if the roots were trimmed it appears the
11:11 pm
tree may become destabilize squd have to be removed. that is the kwrust of my concern. if they do the project the roots not be trimmed in such a manner that will cause the tree to be destabilized. if they reduce the well the tree that should be okay, but the problem is the bump where the roots go on the side where the driveway is. >> thank you. jeffrey gainer. >> good afternoon. i'm jeffrey gainer and live across the street in number 29. my concern also is the tree but not happy with remaining parking let out. i attended the open house a developer had where he proposed the s curb driveway plan and asked
11:12 pm
for a copy of that plan so i can confirm it clears the tree routes and haven't received anything yet. it was just yesterday but want to make sure it is clear of potential damage. on the projector here dimension-the left over space after taking out a 10 foot curb cut and this is without a [inaudible] to either of the driveways and get 12 foot space on one side and 13 foot on the other. if [inaudible] is okay with leaving street spaces that side to feed the garage of there dimensions that is alright by me, but as for the clearance to the tree roots i like a chance for change to confirm the dimension and clearance from the proposed driveway before i offer support. thanks >> thank you. brent hatcher.
11:13 pm
>> brent hatcher and live at 33 liberty. so, i am with the other two folks concerned about the tree. so, i and my partner larry who you just heard from went to open house that the fowlers hosted on thursday last week and i was greeted by renee valor and she said she was the owner/investor in the property. i posed my question about the curb cut and the tree well. she wasn't able to answer the questions so directed me to her husband and stephen came over and talked about the tree and driveway curb cut. he
11:14 pm
asked me what i thought and said i was skeptical of this plan and primarily because the original existing condition drawing he submit today the city was off by 1100 percent off in location of the tree and side of the wells. it made be and other neighbors skeptical. and then some otd happen jd he said look me in the eyes and teal me i'm a liar. i said i'm not calling you a liar i'm just skeptical. back and forth he told me had cancer 3 time squz chemo therapy and i said can we talk about the set back, what is your hardship you need to infringe on the 25 percent rear yard set back and said it is 2 and a half feet, what do you care. i'm like, i care. i care about the open green space. so, i
11:15 pm
recount the story for you because it afs difficult conversation. for someoneing have open house to convince people his project was great and go forward it didn't leave me with a good thought. he asked me to leave his home. they don't live there and don't intend to live there and if you grant this variance i think you are telling people in san francisco their homes are not as valuable as the developers profits. >> thank you. john barby. >> good afternoon. john barby and live at 50 liberty street doors aiwaon that side about 30 ought years. i'm a original founding member of
11:16 pm
liberty hill historic district. in 1985-i have 9 copies of it and hope that is enough. i wanted to summarize what i was going say. i don't know if this is working--oh. thank you. sorry. there is a old photograph the fold out in the letter of 58 liberty street not long after it was made and the house there is completely different from my own which we constructed in 1888 along with the house next to it. they are constructed as a pair. mine was 1 unit and the other 2. they were constructed by a man who lived at 1 block up i think at 120 liberty and i found it curious there was a entire house nearly or at least half the size of
11:17 pm
the one i'm in and whether it burned down or whether it was moved two lots over. in any case, it is identical to the little strip that we see in the paragraph which just appeared about 5 years ago when dan sullivan died. his family owned it before the earthquake i believe and he had been there much of that time. it showed the front with a leded windows with all the [inaudible] where they ought to be on the house and also showed this identical bit. either these were constructed as a group-it is hard to research because the maps started in this area about 1890, so we don't have something for earlier to determine exactly what happened. the oldest house is a trio directly across
11:18 pm
the street which had its own water mill. the owner was [inaudible] using the old round well for wine seller. very exciting we can get the original appearance. i wanted to note the trees briefly. it trees are ash trees and mont rea ash but there is a ash blight. i live in england half a year and have a graitd one house. it is very difficult. they are very worried it will say 100 percent extension of the ashes is expected in europe. it already hit the united states. it will be some years before it reaches us and still have a chance to save the trees. >> thank you. >> it is there in the thing. basically in sport support of this. >> any other member wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none we close public comment and bring
11:19 pm
back to the commission. i have a question perhaps i can ask. it is about the new stairs that are proposed. was there a proposal to look at a straight run stair without the landing? and think about the issue the access to the the garage if the stairs would straight it would be easier to make it more credible access >> we haven't looked at alturninate vision of the stair knowing we typically want more detail provided in the drawings we were happy to defer the other ish sues were resolved. >> a straight stair wouldn't be unusual in that district? >> no, it isn't unusual >> commissioner pearlman. >> i think this project sponsor
11:20 pm
has gone quite a long way to bringing something back to the district that obviously was long lost at least 70 or 80 years ago and it appears from the documentation we have that it is going to be done in a professional way and a quality to it that will have it be not specifically a re-creation but kind of a re-creation because none of it exists now. i agree and have the same comment about making that a better entrance to the garage and just for the neighbors who are concerned about the trees, we really can't do anything that about the the tree. it isn't in our purview relative to what our role is here relative to the house itself. i would support this. i think it is a
11:21 pm
well done project in terms of the house itself. >> you stold my thunder. i will support it too. i think that the staff did a pretty good analysis and very pleased the project sponsor seems to have taken the comments the prior hearing. >> any other comments? do i have a motion? >> commissioners would you like the sponsor to explore a straight line stair? we can alter the condition of approval >> i think a straight line stair is appropriate. i think about not for historic reasons more the practicalty of access and seems it would be historically compatible so think we can approve it with the condition
11:22 pm
that they explore that and it would be aminable to it. >> suggesting you are not requiring it? >> not requiring it but with staff they can make that determination. >> the conditions don't need to be modified? >> i'll make a motion to approve without a condition. >> okay. >> second >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to improve the matter with conditions. [roll call vote] thank you commissioners motion passes 7-0. >> grant requested variance noting the set back that [inaudible] the third floor set back which is [inaudible] preservation concernwise the project and also the side yard set back
11:23 pm
provided. overall that forces development to go towards the back of the subject property and encroaching 3 feet 9 inches to the rear yard but not encroaching into the the property so not having a impact on the open space. [inaudible] if people who disagree with these decision can appeal that to the planning commission. in regard to the street trees those are under the purview of department of public works. i don't know if this is city maintained tree or privately but if it is city maintained tree they should be responsible for doing the pruning of the tree. there are requirements that must be fallowed and can make complaint tooz the department of public works. if there are alterations made
11:24 pm
to the tree public works should be made aware of that because there are fines and penaltys. there are preservation concerns there for public works and be addressed through them. >> thank you zoning administrator. nothing further we can move to item 11, academy of art university. informational presentation >> need a motion to be recused. >> motion to recuse commissioner wolfram >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to recuse commissioner wolfram. [roll call vote] motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioner wolfram you are hereby recused.
11:25 pm
>> good afternoon commissioners. shelly [inaudible] preservation staff and here to present on the academy of art existing site technical memo. this presentation is intended to prepare the commission to review the large environmental review document that will be published on may 4 examining impacts of past non permitted work at the academy of art properties. you have review and comment hearing scheduled may 18 and it is our intention to sends you the report with our staff recommendations on the 4th that you have two week tooz review the materials. can i get the
11:26 pm
screen, commission secretary? today i will explain what the estm is and how it is organized and i'll explain how the historic resource study was conducted and how the information is organized within that. i'll leave you with recommendations for what you may want to focus on while you review the documents. i have a lot of information so feel free interrupt any time. >> maybe it is important to let the commission know that this will be going to us may 18 and immediately following go frg the planning commission. that is why it is important to hear it today and get the documents next hearing so we have two weeks to review it. >> that is correct. the planning commission review is scheduled for may 19. intention of staff to attend the planning commission hearing
11:27 pm
next day and deliver your comments, however if any commissioner would like to attend the planning commission hearing as well and speak directly to commission you are always free to do that. i'll go over the full timeline for the project so we can talk about that more. i will provide context. the acadome artuneversity established in san francisco in 1929 and since that time the school has expanded to 40 locations throughout the city. occupying the sites the school has typically changed the buildings use and made improvement said without the benefit of building permits or entitlements such as conditional use authorization or certificate of appropriateness. since 2008 the department devoteed time and staff resources on the aau which is the academy and made progress with inspection of all properties,
11:28 pm
correction of life safety issues. in order to compet the school to complete a eir for expansion the department modified their penalty accrual resulting for code violation. however, in march the department sent a notice to aau that penalties would commence accrual july 1 of this year. by which time the esten and eir are expected to be completed thmpt zoning administrator scott sanchez is here and can speak more to the project timeline with regard to the publication. i'll introduce scott to speak on that. >> i don't know how familiar you are with the enforcement process but it is ongoing for quite some time. we have done our best to compel the academy to come into compliance with planning code. we used our enforcement tool and
11:29 pm
notice of violation and penalty to establish deadlines, keep work moving on the environmental review. this is critical because we cannot take any projects forward for approval by the planning commission until we have the environmental review issued, otherwise we can only take projects for denial and want to be able to have full hearings on these items so the commission can properly have them before them. over the year jz this goes back to 2006 when we identified the violation jz ishuded notice in 2007 and filed environmental review 2008, progress wasn't always as swift as we like so we did need establish a deadline and first the deadline for publication of the draft eir so issued notice and set a deadline for the publication of the draft eir. they worked to get that done once we had the threat of penalities. we
11:30 pm
didn't meet the deadline for the draft eir butd worked in good faith and had the eir published last february and had hearings thoon planning commission. moving forward we were not satisfyed with the progress over the past fee months. previous timelines had much further advanced at this point so over the past few weeks issued-if they don't have response in the draft which you are hearing about today if it isn't done by july 1 penalties will accrue. we issued 22 notice of violation and pen elty and will accrue 220 dollars a day. that said, the process we want you to have the appropriate
11:31 pm
amount of time and why we are bringing you this to you and shelly will outline the scope. the draft eir was a thousand or so pages and estm is about equivalent but shelly can own on critical review elements for you and if you need more time we can discuss that through the process but we believe we have achievable deadline of july 1 and it is our goal to work with the academy to see that is done. >> this map shows the location of all 40 properties. did you have questions at this point? >> mine was on funding of all the staff time because that would have been paid for if they did it properly with permits. >> certainly. there are for one property now we have
11:32 pm
outstanding penalties of half million through the course of permits to remove signs there are about $80 thousand paid. we have enforcement fee we collect on the permits. there is time and materials for the work on the environmental review and review the applications that the a cademy is libel for. >> and right off the bat an you map of all the properties only because i know one building, 60 federal they took over and it was a weir house they stuffed hundreds of people and had no existing close to standard so seeing if that is on your list and that has been-- >> we did a joint task force inspection a few years ago with dependent building inspection and fire. we did some quite serious violation jz as a result they had to file building permit
11:33 pm
applications to undertake the work necessary to insure the buildings are safe and dbi is work wg them and most if not all the permits are addressed. >> thank you. just from my experience bad actors putting people at risk. >> that is what i was going ask is while those violations were being handleded were the buildings closed down if they didn't have existing? >> we worked with dbi and in one case it was so severe, this is property at 1849 van ness one the classic [inaudible] they did have to have a fire watch. they had someone in the biltding 24/7 to insure that fire issues will be addressed. there have been severe and had a great relationship work wg building department to help bring them into compliance and address these concerns. >> thank you. >> so if we go back to the slides, the map we are showing has all 40
11:34 pm
locations of properties. the 6 properties marked in red are sites proposed for school expansion and they were studied in the draft eir for the project which was published and reviewed by the commission last spring. the [inaudible] are historic resources and two of those are city land marks. 34 properties marked in green are subject of sites technical memo representing all the other properties not in the eir so there is no work at the sites, only patch work. 21 were determined to be historical resources. what exactly is the existing site technical memo and why did we produce two
11:35 pm
environmental review documents? [inaudible] you typically find in a eir, the work that they examine isn't technically subject to california environmental quality act review. projects are evaluated under ceqa from the existing conditions at the time of publication of a notice of preparation to the future conditions. past actions even if they occurred without attaining necessary permits are considered existing conditions therefore the legalization of 34 locations occupied prior to the notice of preparation publication in 2010, are part of the baseline condition frz academy environmental impact report. therefore, we need separate environmental review document that could look at the past work and make recommendations to decision makers about how to remied environmental impacts caused by that work. unlike the eir, the [inaudible] isn't required
11:36 pm
to go through a certification process by the planning commission and its recommendation to decision makers like the historic preservation commission are notd binding. to legalize work at aau sites come to the commission in the future the commission is free to modify recommended conditions of approval however they see fit. the document that comes to you on may 4 will contain all the typical environmental study topics included transportation, land use, population and housing. it will be organized as shown here on the slide with introduction containing background information, existing site description, purpose and methodology. the type of action required for legalization of work at the existing sites will be described in chapter 2. chapter 3
11:37 pm
looks at combined and cumulative work. historic resources will look-impacts related to historic resources will be in one subchapter. chapter 4 explores transporpation in more depth. which was a larger issue. [inaudible] found in chapter 5 organized by site with environmental study findings for each topic. the commission might enjoy reading the este to get a full picture of aau past work the primary focus of the review should be on historic resource findings founds and appendix which is the document on my right. the main estm document summarizing
11:38 pm
the findings but the analysis is all contained in the appendix. if you look at the estm document i will give a look at the preliminary findings and these are from the draft so may change before may 4, just to let you know. so what we found is that 6 of the 34 properties are found to contain legal uses and need no further action regarding their use once the environmental impact report is sit iifyed. non properties are operating non under the planning code and require legislation action to legalize the use. 9 require conditional use authorization approved by the planning commission. 10 require historic preservation review for c of a or permits to alter. most the sites will require a building permit application to legalize
11:39 pm
physical alterations which would be subject to department preservation design review for historic resources. if you don't have questions i can jump fl to historic resource evaluations. when we began the study for 34 sites we had 26 sites that were historic resources category a properties in the ceqa regulations and the rest of those 26 sites were properties over 45 years of age that had not been previously evaluated for historic significant or category v properties. they were either not age eligible or previously determined not to be historically significant or the properties required no action by the city. we have
11:40 pm
the preservation consultant from swca review the 26 sites. first they conformed the known resources retained the character defining features or evaluated for the first time the eligibility of age eligible properties. in the end we found 21 of 26 sites they studied do qualify as historical resources. evaluation scope were focused for category a properties meaning the consultant summarized previously developed historic context and findings and supplemented with character defining features or integry analysis as needed. scope for the category b property more comprehensive and included original research development of new context statements and evaluations that are at the
11:41 pm
back of the appendix. once the consultants yoirfed the 21 resources they conducted [inaudible] the analsis was reviewed by staff of all 26 properties this past december and that included walk through for the buildings with character defining interior spaces. of the 21 resources, 11 are listed and planning code article 10 or 11. 19 require legaliationization of alterations. 10 require a certificate of appropriateness or permit to alter and remaining 9 will require preservation design review for the building permit application.
11:42 pm
so, this is how the historic resource appenx is organized. the summary first then individual evaluations and then the co-comprehensive evaluation for category b properties. the summary table is a tool for quickly understanding the types of resources and amount of work requiring legalization so i will walk through the summary table structure and typical evaluation report. this is a typical page of the summary. all of the property information included address, [inaudible] construction date and resource status are listed on the left. next are a used acquisition date and list of alterations they performed and the final document they receive on the 4 the section will be more fine
11:43 pm
grained. alterations that occurred with a permit will be listed separately from those that occurred without a permit. and then here the table states if the consultant recommended modifications to remied past alterations or recommend approaches and what the entitlement is required for the work. the final draft the recommended modifications will also be separated into required for legalization or recommended for standard of compliance and i'll get fl to that nuance in a few more minutes. so, these 4 column contain the most critical information. what to do and how to fix it. signs and awnings
11:44 pm
installed [inaudible] become condition of approval for permit or entitlement is remove awning and repair damage and replace windows with compatible windows. now i'll weak walk through a resource evaluation for the report. i know you are very familiar with this type orphreport so i'll go fast but wanted you to see the layout and organization. it starts with a photoproperty information and building description including primary features at all elevations. more typical photo's of important features included at the side and rear. interior spaces were found to be significant those are also included of those spaces. the next section is site history where historic photo's are included when available. other historic
11:45 pm
images and maps are included including the series of san born maps. the next section is california registry evaluation followed by the character defining features if the property was found to be a resource. a summary of site alterations prior to and subsequent to aau [inaudible] and this is followed by secretary of interior standards analysis and article 10 or 11 code analysis where applicable. the recommendation for compliance with the standards or with article 10 or 11 when applicable. frm the most part the work performed has caused relatively mining alteration tooz the site. typical scope of work is instuation of cameras, security gates, signage, awning and window replacement. these are
11:46 pm
typical recommendation such as approval of a small security camera at 430 townsend. this was found to be compatible addition to 2209 van ness avenue. the consultants found that much the signage by aau is inappropriately positions or scaled so recommended for changes such as this over sized sign at 625 suter street that is article laevl 11 building so review for permit to alter. the sign distracts from the [inaudible] obscures views of the ornamentation. we recommended for repluvl where they obscure or cause damage to special features such
11:47 pm
as arch interest here at 620 suter street. in some cases they are recommended to stay installed if no damage has occurred from the installation. and here at 860 suter street the windows and main body of the building were replaced with vinyl framed window and recommended approach is remove the vinyl framed wendo and match the wood frame found on the ground floor and top story. so, here summarize issue frz review and made session suggestions how to focus reading and comments. the first issue is finding consistency and accuracy and the approach to information provided in the individual property studies. since most the properties 22 to be exact are
11:48 pm
known resources when the study began, you can prioritize review of the 4 properties listed in appendix hrc at the back of the historic resource study reviewed for historical significance for had first time. these are more robust and change thd resource status of the property. so, i will run through paragraphs of theicality gore b property wheres the status changed so you have a visual and they are more familiar when you see the document. the first is star motel found to be a contribute toor a potential historic district orph1940-1960 tourist motel on lum bard street. this is the first time we had good documentation. we suspected there may be a hotels
11:49 pm
in the area but have research now to support that. the next is 1899 residential building located at 1916 octaveia street and pacific heights found not to be historically significant. the next is 1921 commercial building located at 1069 pine street and knob hill and also found not to be historically significant. the last is 1970 commercial office building located in north beach found not to be historically significant. the second issue to review should be consultant application of the screert of interior standards and here we recommend you focus on analysis for the 10 properties
11:50 pm
that don't require c of a or permit to alter and staff would review without the commission input for legalization of work. i will quickly slow show the 10 properties now so you have visual familiarly. this is 1080 and 1153 bush street where aau installed awnings and signage. here are 1055 pine street and 817 suter street where security camera, awnings and some window replacement occurred. this is 860 suter street where windows were replaced. this is 460 and 466 townsend where cameras were installed. this is 1846 and 2209 van ness avenue where various security measures were installed at the
11:51 pm
properties included gates, cameras and fencing. the next issue to review is the recommended conditions of approval to remied the work performed without permit or remied past improved work doesn't meet the standards. here you may want to focus on the ininstances where the consultant recommend improved to previous work to bring into compliance. i'll give a example. so, this is-the consultants recommended improvements for permitted work at 7 sites where they found that the earlier permitted work doesn't meet the current policy pr preserve vision which have become more robust and
11:52 pm
restrictive. some the work occurred up to 15 or 20 years ago. in these cases even though the work was legally pursued the recommendation is to improve upon the work to remied the overall impacts of other non purpted permit work adthe site. 491 post street which is land mark number 177 we have a example of the scenario. in 2008 the land mark board approved the legalization of the two statues and banners seen in the photo. the consultant recommended removal of the items as the installation damaged materials and because the apeens is inconsistent with the style of the building and detracts from features. this project will be before you footo legalize cameras skate board deturnts and board.
11:53 pm
lastly, we like you to think about how the estm information will be used during the legalization process for these sites and here you can focus on the properties that will come before you for a certificate of appropriateness or permit to alter and if you prefer to hear all the items collect ivly or separately or if there a specific information you would like to see in the application. that brings us to next steps. this is the ends, i promise. review and comment hearing is may 18 beginning of the item. you will receive the packet may 4. we would like to send the information digitally on a cd or as a downloud because of size of the documents, but if you
11:54 pm
prefer a paper copy we can arije that. the planning commission meeting is scheduled next day and our intention to report your comments to the the commission unless one of the commissioners would like to attend in staffs place. in terms of moving forward the comment period for the estm will close june 3. the department is committed to respond to all comments by june 29 and by july 1 as the city admint strairt noted, the penalties begin acrural. later july the eir will go before there planning commission for certify case ication and the rest of up to aau how we proceed for the application for legalization. that is it in a nut shell. let me know if you
11:55 pm
have questions. representatives from aau are here and we can also take public comment. >> i just want to start by thanks you shelly for all your diligence on this and presented it in such a clear way for us to digest and forthought of getting it to us ahead of time as much as possible. do we want to have questions? >> one question. so, i was trying to understand the schedule. so, the enforcement will start before the eir is certified? so the question is, all of the particular changes that will happen, all the applications will come to us throughout the summer, fall and into next year, so-it is really just a question a curiosity that would happen it would start before they had a chance to apply. >> enforcement actions have
11:56 pm
been ongoing since 2007 and at our discretion when i issued the notice of violation letters there are 22 issued over the 3 weeks and first batch was appealed on friday to the board of appeals and will have a hearing on that in june. the deadline we put there was for the publication of the estm and the response to comments. it is to get them to that point. the dead line is to get the next round of materials and they are in violation on the 22 properties and more. they admitted to being in violationoon the properties. penalties could occur today but we are using those penalities as a way to compel compliance. >> any other questions? we
11:57 pm
open this up for public comment. any member wish to address this? state your name if you would and you have 3 minutes >> i won't take 3 minutes. my name is zane [inaudible] morrison and forester representing the academy. i think mrs. [inaudible] and the zoning administrator have done a good job stating the staff positions on the matters. the a cademy doesn't necessarily agree woo all the statements and look forward to presenting time information that may be helpful to your consideration of the estm and various matters may come before you after that is completed. we have been involved in this matter only for the last several months as
11:58 pm
the staff and zoning administrator are aware. i have been working very hard as have the academy to provide information to meet the needs of the planning department and the consultants to produce the esm and response to comments to meet the deadline set on the notice of violation by the zoning administrator. we hope that we will be able to bring all these matters to is successful and agreeability resolution because the process is a very long process for all involved and a very costly process. it is time we hope to bring this to successful conclusion and resolution that will be good for the city and will be good for the academy of art
11:59 pm
university, which has provided quality education for thousands and thousands of art students working in their field today for many many years. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. any other member wish toaddress? close public comment and bring back to the commission. any questions, comments thoughts? >> so, we will receive the two binders may 4 but that isn't a agenda item. the agenda item is may 18. so, the only thought that i thought is worth talking about today is whether we felt the may 18 to may 19 turn around time was adequate for us to actually
12:00 am
give this the due attention it nee >> it's 1 o'clock i want to week you to the san francisco rent board super bowl sunday mr. clerk pledge of allegiance and then roll call put your right hand over your heart stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all all right. thank you could you please call the roll and commissioner cohen commissioner ferrigno it expend commissioner makras commissioner meiberger commissioner paskin-jordan commissioner stansbury will not be present we have quorum thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, the first one on the genocide

64 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on