Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation 20240711

1465162849. When we reach the item youre interested in speaking to, press star and 3 to be added to the queue. Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes to speak. When you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime. I will announce that your time is up and queue the next person to speak. Best practices is to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. At this time, i would like to take roll. [roll call] thank you commissioners. First on the agenda is Public Comment. Members of the item can address on agenda items. You can address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. [inaudible] members of the public, this is your opportunity to request to speak by pressing star and 3 for items that are not on todays agenda. Commissioners, i have no members of the public requesting to speak under general Public Comment. We should move on to department matters. Item one, directors announcements. Staff, do we have any directors announcements . Sorry. Good afternoon commissioners. Just a few updates from the preservation management team. The contracts for 2020 will be received in the end of october. We will hear the legislation at the meeting on november 19 at 10 00 a. M. The ucsf landmarking designation namesly recommended by the committee to the full board on monday, november 2nd. In addition, ucsf announced they hired for the preservation and they should be on site in january. Staff will update the commission as we learn more. This concludes staff updates. I had a question for you on the murals. We can discuss it now, but i wonder if you can find out and report back to us at the next hearing. Are they allowed to remove the character defining feature ahead of it being certified . I dont know the answer to that, but i can certainly get back to you. Okay, if there is nothing further under directors announces, item two, the staff report announcements. I imagine that would have completed that as well. Item three, president s report and announcements. No report, thank you. Item 4, consideration of adopt draft minutes for the review Committee Hearing for september 19, 2020, and regular hearings for the Historic Preservation commission for october 7th and october 21st, 2020. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes. Please press star 3 to get into the queue. I see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. Public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. I move for the approval of the draft minutes. I second it. Thank you commissioners. On that motion to adopt the review committee and regular hearing minutes. Commissioner. Unanimously 60. Comments and questions . I dont see any so unless anyone has any issues. I think diane is raising her hand. And i see commissioner john as well. Sorry, i was not fast enough to put my name in the chat. I was wondering if shelly could help me further about the discussion we had on friday with, i believe her name is erica. She convened a meeting with the Planning Department staff talking about intangibles and i think and thought it was a great initial discussion and im going to ask shelly to provide more information for the commission to learn more about that. Shelly, we cant hear you, but youre not muted either. [laughter] i think shelly is asking for one second. Okay. Sorry. Shelly, are you ready to go . No, still cant hear you shelly. Im sure shell get back to you diane. While we go to commissioner john and then were going to check in with shelly before we move on. Is that okay . All right. Thank you. I was very interested in what progress they have made and their celebration, whether or not theres going to be maybe a request to extend that and where are we on the issue of nighttime lighting . If we can have a report on the general subject of the ferris wheel at some point, i think that would be a good idea. Dually noted commissioner. If that concludes commissioner comments and questions did you have another item . Yes, thank you. I was contacted by the office of Small Business to participate in a request Proposal Evaluation Panel as you remember, they have a logo now in place where the legacy businesses, and this r. F. P. Is to select the marketing component of it. That will take place well, i think were going to get an orientation next week and we will be asked to submit our comments by the end of november. Thank you commissioner. If there are no further comment from the commissioners, i have a personal favor to ask of the commission, if you would be so kind. The manager of Commission Affairs that works in my small office is leaving to take on a position with the sfmta board as their secretary, so my loss, the departments loss, but sfmtas gain. It comes with a little bit of pride because shell be taking on my role at that body. So, the request is to and i will share my screen, to adopt a resolution commending christines 13 years of service with the Planning Department, the last 6 which were in my office. She was invaluable in helping me set up these remote hearings and allowing the citys business to continue. She led the digitalization of records to allow for easier access to members of the public of the departments records and previously she also worked in the current Planning Session of the department. So if you would indulge me commissioners and adopt this resolution, i would be greatly appreciative. So moved. Second. All for it. Second. And [inaudible] adopt this resolution. Absolutely. Thank you christine. I just personally and on behalf of the commission, thank christine for all her hard work and please stay in touch. I want to add one more thing. She has been phenomenal. I am really happy for her and her career goals and i look forward to continuing to benefit her ability to work across multiple city agencies and also on the digital platform and just going to be clearly missing her, but well see her around. Yes, we will. It will be difficult to replace her. So thank you and ill be asking the same of the Planning Commission tomorrow and presenting her with a hard copy at some point. Thank you commissioners. Now we can move on to calendar 6, 10. 36emv. This is an Environmental Impact report for your review and comment. Is staff prepared to make their presentation . Yes. Hell need to share his screen please. Yes. Do we see the presentation . We do. Okay, great. Joining me today are my colleagues, environmental planner, senior preservation planner, and architecture and design manager. Members of the project sponsor team are present on the line as well. The item before you is a review and comment on the project, draft environmental report. San franciscos local procedures for implementing. Under chapter 21, as amended in 2013, the Planning Department will be scheduling a public hearing to obtain any comments that the Historic Preservation commission may have on the draft d. I. R. For a resource that the Environmental Review officer determines based on substantial evidence to be Historic Research and close. The building on battery street has been identified as a Historical Research and we will discuss this later in the presentation. The draft d. I. R. Was published on october 21, 2020. Public review period began on october 22 of this year and will continue until 5 00 p. M. On december 7, 2020. We have not received any congressmens related to Historical Resources thus far. In advance of this hearing, the commission numbers were sent electronic copies of the d. I. R. And the project that pertained to Historic Resources. The evaluation part one, significance evaluation, the Historic Resources part two, impact analysis, and the preservation analysis at random. As you will recall, a public hearing was published for you in october of 2019. To receive your comments on the draft project alternatives, as we mentioned at that hearing, the design of the proetc. St proposed project was modified using some of the principles that were later include in the retained element guidelines. They were here to provide an opportunity to the commission to receive public testimony, discuss the Historic Resources issues, and to formulate any comment you wish to submit on the draft d. I. R. I would like to introduce my colleague who will describe the proposed project and the alternatives and provide you with a brief summary of the findings of the draft, with regards to the Historic Resources. Thank you rachel. Good afternoon president hyland and Planning Department staff. The project site is comprised excuse me. Its comprised of a single parcel with one three Story Building. They would demolish the internal structure and nonvisible side facades, retain the east and south facing facades and 18 stories, 200 foot tall Hotel Building with 2 restaurants and 2 conference rooms. Public open space will be provided along merchant street. The building at 447 battery street also known as the jones Coffee Company building was constructed in 1907 and was designed by frank. It was identified as historically significant in the here today survey, in the 1970s as the official citywide survey and inventory of significant structures in San Francisco. More recently, this determination was confirmed by the Planning Department in the 2017 Historic Resource evaluation response, which found the building to be eligible for listing in the california register of Historical Resources under criteria 1 with reconstruction and the San Francisco coffee industry. Under criteria 3 as a notable example of the brick store and warehouse building type. The subject building is not locate in the california register eligible at the district. 447 battery street retains significant integrity to convey architectural significance. Features include a three story height and rectangular footpr t footprint, openings for storefronts and building entry on battery street, regular rhythm of window openings, slightly projecting window openings, and brick corners. Based on this, the 447 battery Street Building is a historical resource. The draft e. I. R. Concluded that the proposed project would result in an adverse change to the significance of the Historic Resource at 447 battery street. This was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact due to the fact that the proposed project would demolish the existing building, negating its status as a building. The proposed project does not meet the secretary of standards and the new construction of an 18Story Building would overwhelm the remanence of the h Historic Building. Three mitigation measures have been identified for the unavoidable impact to individuals Historic Architectural resources, resulting from the product. The first measure includes the project sponsor to documentation of the building. The second is an Interpretive Program concerning the history and architect ral features of 447 battery street. The third is video documentation of the subject building. While these mitigation measures would reduce the projects impact on the Historic Resource on 447 battery street, this will remain significant and unavoidable. To address the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project on the individual resource, the draft e. I. R. Identified three alternatives to the proposed project. The note project alternative, the full preservation alternative, and the partial preservation alternative. It was developed in consultation with the members who provided feedback during the october 2, 2019, hearing. They recommended the design of the partial preservation alternative to be more compatible with the existing individually eligible resource at 447 battery street. Also, to draw from the design language of nearby Historic Buildings. Suggestions for improving this compatibility include an organization which the retained walls of the existing building would serve as the base of the taller building, which also included a shaft and another element at the roof line and they recommended making the building taller. H. B. C. Feedback was incorporated into the revised set of alternatives, which was in the draft e. I. R. The existing building would be kept as a commercial building and would not construct any addition. While this no project alternative would not have an impact, it would not meet the project objectives. Under the full preservation alternatives, the character defining features of the Historic Building would be rehabilitated. A two story addition and mechanical penthouse would be set on top of the building and set 15 feet from the visible south and east facades. Some openings will be enlarged and new awnings would be installed. This alternative would avoid Significant Impact and no mitigation efforts would be required and would partially meet the projects objectives. The partial preservation alternative would construct a new 12 Story Building behind and above. This a ternive would have similar impacts to the proposed project. It would not avoid the Significant Impact related to the demolition of 447 battery state and mitigation measures would be similar. This will partially meet the projects objectives. The purpose of todays hearing is to provide comments on the adequacy on the Historic Resource analysis in the draft e. I. R. Now i will direct you back to my colleague rachel to conclude the presentation. Thank you. Before i conclude, i would like to remind everyone that your comments today should be directed towards assisting this commission in formulating its comments on the draft e. I. R. Comments made after the hearing will not be responded to in the document. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for november 12th. In order to be responded to and the comments to be in the document, it must be submitted orally or in writing to the Planning Department by 5 00 p. M. On december 7, 2020. After the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Department will publish a response to comments document, which will contain our responses to all relevant comments on the draft e. I. R. Our comments will be followed by a certification of the final e. I. R. At the Planning Commission. This concludes our presentation. As i mentioned, city staff and members of the project sponsors team are available to answer any clarifying questions you may have. Otherwise, i respectfully suggest that it be open to commission comments on the draft e. I. R. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have questions or comments on the opening presentation . We can afford you 3 minutes if thats sufficient. It looks like my camera isnt on, which is fine. I feel like staff has adequately described the project and the alternatives, but were here for questions. Christina who conducted the alternative analysis, jeffrey and rob who are the project sponsors who are all here to respond to your questions. Thank you, thank you for your time today. Great. Then we should open Public Comment. I have one member of the public requesting to speak. Yeah, this is catherine howard. I wanted to speak about commission matters, which i believe were allowed to do Public Comment on. I dont want to interfere with this e. I. R. Process. Why dont you hang on and maybe after were done with this well afford you the opportunity to submit your testimony. Is that okay with the chair . Commission president . Yes. Very good. Do i do star 3 again or just wait . No, ill just mute you now and as soon as this item is done, well take up commission matters again. Commissioners. I have no other members of the public requesting to submit their testimony so if i see any additional hands raised, i will certainly let you know. For now, well close public dement and allow the commissioners to deliberate. Thank you. Would you like to go first . Sure, thanks very much. This is a very interesting project. Its particularly challenging, i think, from a preservation point of view. I certainly appreciate the project design versus the partial preservation design. I know that we kind of drove from the a. R. C. I think we drove some of those in the direction of the response. My question and comment is that we talk about partial preservation but in this case, the partial the amount of demolition appears to be the same from the partial preservation as the project. So therefore, there is no partial preservation because its a demolition. Its considered a full demolition under the code. So, it feels like there is not a partial preservation alternative since this one is for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same as the project, in terms of the building itself. So the difference between a 12 story and 18 Story Building makes no difference relative to the preservation of the building itself. In this case, the same amount of demolition is taking place actually, more demolition is taking place. You know, than the full preservation, but the same as the project. I dont know how the project sponsor would respond to that but i feel that this partial preservation alternative is not adequate because its not partial. If i could add on and then we can let staff make further comments if they see fit. I think this is you know, weve improved our process and the whole notion of evaluating preservation alternatives should be a process. Up until recently, we didnt see those that work, those studies until this stage of the project. So we ask project sponsors to bring their project to us sooner. As a result, if we remember the partial preservation was a much sho shorter building stereo so we were trying to take this project through the process and get it as close to the proposed project as possible. I think i understand that the partial preservation, we label it that because it doesnt meet the standards and therefore cant be a full preservation. So, while its not a full i would agree that its not adequate as a full preservation project, i think its adequate to include in the e. I. R. , because it documents the process we went through and it shows that the proposed project, even though its much greater, its less environmentally superior, which means the proposed project could end up well, i guess its going to be a demolition. Well, did you want to add on to that . Yeah, the comment is recorded and well definitely include it in the letter. I just want to go off of what you were saying commissioner. Its a challenging process because in this case, because this is a retained elements project, basically developed parallel with the adoption of the retained elements policy. We were we are still struggling with how exactly to incorporate a partial preservation alternative in a case where the project is a retained elements project. I think we that the design landed where ultimately because we felt, or it was felt that the materials, the demonstration patterns and were sort of more compatible with the facades of the existing building, which has been noted to be a demolition. With that said, it will be slightly smaller than the proposed project. Finally, it would be more compatible with the built fabric in the area, with other Historic Buildings in the area. Primarily, i think because of the materiality and the pattern, this was thought to be something, you know, would have a lesser impact than the project. Yeah, i just want to jump in there. So i appreciate that, thank you. This is so challenging. You know, i always find this process so challenging because we want to encourage the development and you know, our role is not to do that. Our role is to look at the preservation of the specific building. I think the project is substantially better than the alternative, but thats a qualitative evaluate of t evaluation of the overall project. So as a retained elements project, its fine. It makes total sense as a retained element. Then were just looking at the facade and were keeping the basic character and shaping the project above to be, you know, less certainly from the street, obviously impactful, but less impactful because of the setbacks and the area floors and all of that. So i appreciate that. Its just that this middle ground is always this kind of dicey place where we as preservationists have to look at it one way and then as planners in a sense, you know, it has a whole different there is a whole different kind of response. So any way, i appreciate that. Thank you. Yep. Thank you commissioner. I will add on or reiterate, i think that the process has allowed us to from our perspective, improve the proposed project and have it be more in keeping at least with the context of the surroundings and maintaining the facade. So commissioner i agree. Did you want to make any comments . Yeah, im sorry for the feedback on my mic. Im not sure whats going on. I also agree that its a greatly improved process. My question is about how racial and social equities can be incorporated. We have made it a priority and an important part of the process, but im not sure how to incorporate it into this kind of document, so i would like to bring that up and see if we can talk about that in future e. I. R. S with staffer staff because this talked about Cultural Resources and there is one line about the chinese community. I thought we just need to figure out how to further incorporate history and all cultures and all contributions. Perhaps one area that can be done is through the e. I. R. Process . I dont know how much study has been done at that stage, but we obviously havent heard. San Francisco Department staff, i just wanted to follow up on that. The other department is definitely looking into further incorporation of our racial and social equity goals. First there was a resolution passed by the h. B. C. , so were not only doing outreach with our Historic Resource consul tablta but our processes through the department and were happy to come back to you with those ongoing goals and processes as we move forward. Commission president , the commissioner is requesting to speak. Yes, thank you. So where are we now . I think were at the point where we need to decide whether this proposed e. I. R. Adequately points out the preservation issues and if im correct, then i just like i think it does. I think the commission has established a pretty good record of how we have struggled with this particular project since it really is mostly a retained elements thing. I think that is pretty clear from the record and our commission and from the e. I. R. Mr. President , is that where we are at in the process . Yes, thats correct. As far as the Planning Commission and our desire to communicate our concerns and issues with all projects that have impacted the Historic Resources, theyre looking to us for advice and guidance because they will be improving the design and the project overall. Right. If i may, essentially this is the draft environmental report opportunity for the public and the Historic Preservation commission to submit their testimony and certainly i think your advice to the Planning Commission will be considered by them. Your comments will be included in the responses to comments document that staff will be preparing for the final Environmental Impact report. So is there anything further for us to do today on this . Theres no action on this matter. We will be selecting the comments and staff will incorporate that into the draft e. I. R. And the Planning Commission will review our comments, along with other comments as they certify the e. I. R. The question is then, does the staff feel that it has adequate information from us so they can do its job . You know, yes, i believe i do. Just to summarize, i think there was a comment. Excuse me to interrupt, we still have a few other commissioners that need to speak and comment and then we can but to answer your question commissioner, probably. There may be additional demecom from other commissioners. Commissioner black, do you want to go ahead and comment . Yeah. I understand completely the struggle. I remember we struggled with this at a. R. C. You know, i think one of the difficulties is looking at graphics, especially some sort of small Computer Generated graphics. Its sometimes hard to translate what it looks like physically. The partial preservation design. I think it would actually look better in the field than it does in this graphic. I think it works. I think they did take into account our concerns about the call, the capital. I think it works. Its less sexy than the proposed project by a long shot. Its very difficult to struggle between the Design Review hat and the a. R. C. And the levels preserving a building. Thats part of our job. So, its a struggle. Its really a struggle. I think both projects work. The proposed project is further away from pure preservation, no getting around it. On the other hand, in this kind of a context, its a better building. So, here we are. Those are my struggled comments. Thank you commissioner black. I completely agree. The proposed project is a much improved project. I think its a success for the most part. Obviously, you know, were going to be seeing many of these projects coming before us. We have one other that i think is as successful as this. Successful is a relative term. I think the proposed project has achieved the goals of what we were attempting to achieve. The partial preservation, i think, in comparison seems a little heavier. While the tri par tide is stronger, the delicacies of the proposed project is superior. So initially i was thinkings that i like to see it stronger on the proposed project, and comparing the two and the fact that they changed the plainer qualities of the wall above and below the cornice, i think its successful. For the direction that we given them up until now, i think its a very i appreciate the design team. I know that they struggled. I really appreciate them taking the project this far and really, i think incorporating their thoughts. On the existing building. I do have three points. Historically its a stucco building. This is the only one in the area that hadnt been sandblasted over the years. Luckily it didnt damage the brick as much as other buildings in the neighborhood, so i think we expect to see a brick building because thats what were use to. So i wouldnt propose any changes where the original storefront on the ground floor was more historic and they have been lost. Thats just part of the evolution so i wouldnt ask for any consideration on that because were going to be having more storefronts and they will be more in keeping with the contemporary building. I am wondering, the windows, if there is a possibility to have something a little more in keeping with the Historic Windows that have been lost. I think we have sliders in there now. So, anything would be better than what was currently there. So having a single pain of glass, which i think theyre proposing seems like a missed opportunity to put Something Back that would make the Historic Building more compatible. So thats one thing i dont know where were at with the process or if we can ask for that as part of the mitigation measures. Thats one item that i would add. I believe it wants to install double hung windows. That is a comment that the project should include historically appropriate windows. Okay. Also, as a point of clarification, does the commission find that the e. I. R. Analyzes inadequate ranges of alternatives or is there a request for an additional partial alternative at this point . No, im okay with that. Yeah. Great. I would like to add excuse me sir. I would like to add that i forgot to mention, i think the hyphen in this project is extremely successful. I like the double story and you can view a story and half and the treatment of the curtain wall so you dont read the two stories on top of it. I think thats very successful and i hope we can see more of this kind of treatment in these hyphens. Great, thank you. Very good commissioners. If that concludes your comments sorry, i have one more thing. Sorry. You dont need to record it, i just want to know that the base of the project with the top, the cascade top, is it just because they need to max that out as an e. I. R. . Is it related to what the president mentioned about the tri part of this . It is really odd, by the way, designwise. Thats kind of how they need to maximize what they can do. Its like putting a weird cap on top of a building. I believe it was the shadows, the light and shadow requirements. It drove the setbacks and this outdoor space. Thats my understanding. So the facade and also the topography of the language, its like a spaceship landed on this building, you know . I like the transition, you know. I really like the double height curtain wall delineating the old and the new but when it gets to the very top, i just want to know, are we expecting seeing similar things coming to us when the project is going through. Are we going to see all these cascading terraces that have nothing to do with the rest of the buildings design . Thats a very good points. Commissioner pearlman, do you want to add to that . Yes, i wanted to comment on that. I think the design, the project its part of the e. I. R. Because its the project thats being reviewed. The alternatives are the things that we have gotten involved in that process. So, the idea of the tri par tide basement capital as the partial preservation is one that we encouraged them to do. I agree with the president that its a clunky, odd design, but again, i dont think anyone really cares. I think its just the question of have you studied like if that were the appropriate solution, i dont think that would be the project that would be the final project. There would be a lot of evolution of that design if that partial preservation was the direction that the project would move in. So the idea it has this stepping terrace, upper floors, thats a design element thats related to the quest for some open space, stepping away, reducing shadows in the street and things like that. Thats the architecture part. It does explain it. The reason im bringing it up is so that the staff can look into it. If they can incorporate these setbacks with the shadow and light exposure for the street level, there is a way to make it a part of the building instead of this is where the planning code dictates us and this is where we have to look like this. Its something that i wish i like to share with the staff to see if there is a way you could recommend and suggest and shepherd the project sponsor for incorporating a better building as a whole. Eventually it will get further tuned and tweaked, but when i see a project like that, the time it takes to go through all the processes, they usually exhausted their design resources and they end up to stick with what they have. Its been daylighted to the public. So thats something im concerned how many more designs they can go in and polish. Its just a general comment that i like to share with you all. I think its a valid comment. I would like to add that as we shepherd these projects through the process, youll have more involvement at the beginning of the project so you will be able to help us evolve the project. Excuse me. I think that the designer would probably prefer not to have these cornices, and maybe thats one of the ways which you can resolve it. Im thinking the conservatory and the shape of the building, while one considers it to be interesting looking, whether you like it or not, but interesting. It was totally driven by the light and the shadows and the requirements and then the program. So they took advantage of the Program Element of that. So, i wouldnt suggest we i would suggest that we continue in the course of direction we taken them on. We can certainly include your comments, if you think there is something more to be looked at. I think it was more of like a comment in general, like a general observation. I am all for this project to move forward, to do what you need to do. I mean, what the staff needs to do. Just really in general, overall, if we could do a better transition in terms of like the flow of the design in respect to historical significant contacts and to take another stab at it. There are challenges to do that. I would encourage it more. Commissioners, i just wanted to say i understand your comment. You refer to the upper set back stories into the building in a more harmonious state, is that correct . Yes, just the project ended up chosen goes with that option, yeah. Okay. Well, i mean if you look at it right now, i guess its like this is kind of like a schematic level. If you look at the window treatment, the language of it, it is three different distinctively different ones. The base one, which is historically significant, is retaining. There are certain things i believe a designer can do to incorporate design language in the demonstration and the facade pattern. To setback those cascade pieces to be more in coherent with the bulk of what theyre adding into the hotel portion. You know, the cornice should be there and it is there. Its one of the previous where now im aware of and now im just talking about in general, maybe it is clearly designed to make it look like three different things, where i think that if this option, should it ever be chosen, the designer should be incorporating the m d middle part together as a whole piece. I know there is a way to do it. I just wish that i you know, that you can highly encourage them to take a good look at it. [please stand by] i do agree that maybe theres some other ways to bring the penthouse or the massing above the cornice, a little more pleasing design. And one more thing. It is acknowledged that this does not meet the standards, so, you know, were not in a place where were evaluating it relative to the standards because weve already acknowledged that it doesnt meet it. So then, we look at then, its just an Architectural Design program where these retain the facades. Yeah. Thats a struggle. Its always a struggle, yeah. Very good. Shall we move on . Clerk yes. That concludes your deliberations for the draft e. I. R. Through the chair, well go back through the commission matters and accept Public Comment. Miss howard, are you still there . Yes, that was very interesting. Ca cath catherine howard, friends of the museum. Rec and park did hold a meeting last week, however, with only one weeks notice given to the public. There is a sign to, quote, let rec and park know how you feel about the wheel. Nevertheless, there were a number of people objects to the wheel and letters submitted. It includes the bright lighting of the wheel, and pulsing and vibrating lights that can be seen from parnassis. Last week, we contacted rec and park and asked what further steps they will be taking in regards to your directive regarding comments and feedback. We are delighted to support commissioner johns request so the public can express their concerns directly and propose mitigation to this intrusive feature in the music concourse. Another member of the public had called in, and she had trouble with the system. She just texted me. She gave up, but she seconds the request for a report and a hearing, and thank you for sliding me between items. Clerk great, thank you. Commissioners, we should now continue with your regular calendar for item 7, case 20209508, d. C. O. For administrative technical issues. This is shelley. Can we hear you now . Clerk we can hear you now. We can hear you now, but i have to recuse myself before staffs presentation. I live within the boundaries of the project, so i will have to recuse myself. Can i have a motion . So moved. Second. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, on that motion to excuse commissioner brock [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioner johns, you are excused. I also need to recuse myself, as well. So moved. Second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. On that motion to recuse commissioner so [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That [inaudible] commissioners, please tell me that no one else needs to be recused, other sides, we would lose a quorum and otherwise, we would lose a quorum and not be able to proceed on this matter. Hearing none, thank you very much, shelley, the floor is yours. Thank you, commissioner secretary, and i apologize for technical difficulties earlier. If youd like to ask any questions that you posed at the beginning of the hearing, im happy to go through all that. I wanted to start my presentations by sharing a statement that the Human Rights Commission has drafted with the help of the American Indian community. This will be considered by the board of supervisors at their meeting next week. So with that, we want to acknowledge that we are on the unceded Ancestral Lands of the ohlone. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ohlone have never ceded their territory and allow all people to reside in their traditional territories. As guests, we realize we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. I know this commission has asked to start including a land acknowledgement in their own hearing, so well bring it back before you after its hopefully approved by the board lanext week. Today, we are presenting an administrative code to expand the boundaries of the American Indian cultural district and provide Additional Details regarding the cultural and historic significance of the district. This extends roughly from 17 street at sanchez over to folsom, and iffi im allowed t pull up my map, i can share my screen and further discuss the boundaries. Thank you. So were looking at the proposed boundaries, which i just directly described. After speaking with the district staff yesterday, i learned that the boundary that were currently reviewing was the area first envisioned by the community when we were first forming the district, and it was after discussions with supervisor ronens and supervisor mandelmans offices, that this district was approved. There is now general agreement among the districts about the boundary. While theyre speaking about the boundary, id like to explain staffs recommendation to modify the text description in the ordinance before you. It was not clear to us whether or not the lot on either side of the boundary streets were intended to be included as part of the district. So, for example, as you [inaudible] avenue, with the buildings on the northside of duboce be included in the district . So wed asked that the language be amended to be more explicit. After speaking with the director of the department yesterday, ive learned that it was meant to include both sides of 17 street as well as the whole of dolores park. In other areas such as Market Street and duboce avenue, theyd like to see the boundary drawn at the midpoint of the street. This is particularly significant because it Market Street represents a shared boundary with the castro lgbtq district, and it also reflects important boundaries and areas for the American Indian community, so theyd like both areas included in the district. I think this language adequately captures the description of the land that carries such cultural significance to the American Indian people. Staff is generally of the opinion that the community [inaudible] our best positions to understand what boundaries are most appropriate. We think that the proposed area will provide more strategic opportunities and opportunities to honor our history here. It also gives the community more opportunity to engage with the district concerning people in the community. That concludes my presentation. I want to note that paul monge of supervisor ronens office is also on the line today to speak to the ordinance, and the executive director, sharia souza, of the American Indian cultural district, and one of her assistants, april gill, is also on the line. So that concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions, and i will stop sharing my screens. Clerk okay. Thank you. Commissioners, if there are no immediate questions from commission to staff, we should open this up for Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing , 3 to enter the queue. I see one member of the public requesting to speak. You have three minutes. Go ahead, caller. Caller, would you like to submit your public testimony . Hello . Hi, can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Okay. It was showing that i was still muted. Thank you very much. My name is mary travis allen. I am seneca on my fathers side. I am a member a board member of the American Indian cultural district, and i have been living in San Francisco all my life, 64 years, and im also an elder in the community. This district is long overdue in establishing, you know as a community, as the American Indian community, our community has been misrepresented in so many ways. And this opportunity gives the establishment to give the recognition and respect to our people that has been disregarded through history but also to educate others that would stop the misappropriation of our culture and misrepresentation. We also need to vitally establish and express ourselves as a community so that we can establish resources to build and support our elders as well as our youth. And so thats been in desperate need. We have had our offices ive been here since weve gained and lost indigenous members a couple of times, but most importantly, to give recognition to the ohlone people and their lands that we use. I thank you for this opportunity to talk, and i look forward to your support in not only establishing the district but establishing the boundary. Its much needed. Thank you. Hi. This is [inaudible], assistant director of the American Indian cultural district. I just wanted to second what mary and one of our Community Elders said. This [inaudible] raised the consent that shelley brought to the table. I read the planning document yesterday, and this isnt doubling the size of what we had, this was what was originally proposed. [inaudible] with some of our surrounding cultural districts prior to this, which is why you see some of those cutouts along duboce and Market Street. They were proposed by mandelman as cutouts to protect landmarks in the lgbtq cultural districts. I also wanted to comment on a park brought up by shelley yesterday during one of our meetings. I confirmed with our shohlone board members, and it would be disrespectful for folks to claim any other right to that. That site has been claimed for generations as 27 different village sites. It would be highly inappropriate for any other folks to claim just because of the level of sensitive of that site, so were doing that as a special expansion to honor greg and to honor his folks and the people that he works with. So i just wanted to echo that. We didnt want to bring it up until we had proper consultation. And as far as we go to duboce or do markto market, i think y the map that reflects our intention how we want to go to market, and how we want to go to duboce, as well, and how we share that important space. The last thing i wanted to touch on in the planning document. Were one of the few communities of color in San Francisco that does not have a historical statement, and you can clearly see that were most impacted by housing, most impacted whats clearly missing for our community, and thats the last thing that ill cap on, and we brought this up to the mayor and the board of supervisors and the Human Rights Commission. The way that this is capturing our American Indian data,. 3 is not capturing who we are today [inaudible] and thats not who we are. After thousands of years or hundreds of years of genocide and termination and relocation. We need to be mindful that we arent. 3 . We are working on that with the Planning Commission, so i just wanted to i know my times cutoff, but jui just wanted to make those points, and i hope that the city moves forward on this without any red flags. Thank you. Hello. My name is jennifer forester. Im a member of the Cherokee Nation of oklahoma. Im currently the treasurer of the board of the San Francisco American Indian Cultural Center. I want to thanks shir thank shirea and mary for their comments, as well. I support the American Indian cultural district as proposed. This expanded area more effectively embraces the cultural and historical facets of the neighborhood past and present. This expanded area, which is what we originally proposed, will support the efforts our Community Organizations are making to work collaboratively with our cultural district neighbors. So thank you for this consideration. Good afternoon. This is april mcgill from the American Indian cultural district. Im the executive director, and i just wanted to share my views on the expansion. We have worked really hard to advocate for a cultural district for American Indians. And similar to what shirea had said, were asking for our original boundaries. Its morn for americ its important for American Indians to have a visible boundary in San Francisco. It wasnt until recently, during black lives matter, that weve seen this unity within our people of color here in San Francisco. So we really think its important for us to have this visibility. And what were asking for is not much, considering were on indigenous land, and the ancestral land of the ohlone people. Its really not much that were asking for, and weve seen that theres many places throughout San Francisco that are indigenous to ohlone people, and and we we see that theres many spaces, many places of ceremony, many places that we see ourselves gathering, so i just ask that, you know, this is just the beginning of what we seek to be bringing us together and honoring our relatives. So i just want to thank you all for listening to all of us here. Again, my name is april mcgill, and im also an enrolled member of the San Francisco round around tribes. Clerk very good. Members of the public, this is your last opportunity to submit public testimony. Press , 3 to enter the queue. Commissioners, seeing no further oh, one last person. Go ahead, caller. Apologies. This is [inaudible] one last time. I just wanted to give a huge thank you to ronen and to paul and to mandelmans office and to all those who helped push this. I didnt do that within the time limit, so thank you. That was all. Clerk okay. Second bite at the apple. Commissioners, Public Comment is now closed, and the matter is now before you. Commissioners, i do see that theres a representative from supervisor ronens office. I wonder if hed be interested in making Public Comment. Would you be interested in making Public Comment before we hand it back to the commission . [inaudible] great, yeah. So thank you to the Community Leaders who spoke in support of this measure. I just wanted to offer a little bit more background and context around why this is returning to you all a second time. So in in march and april, during the early stages of the crisis, we had managed to reach consensus with supervisor mandelmans office and Community Stakeholders both in district 8 and 9 around these very extended boundaries that were considering today. The reason that the ordinance that established the cultural version of the district boundaries was during the lockdown and the inability for the h. P. C. To meet we didnt have a mechanism to have the boundaries as amended by the original ordinance. It would have had to return to you for consideration. What it did was establishing the cultural district with the agreedupon expanded boundaries which would prevent us from deploying Critical Resources from the Mayors Office of housing to the American Indian communities in response to covid. So the sequence that we decided was most expeditious and responsive to the Public Health crisis was approving the amendment to the ordinance regarding the boundaries and returns once things stabilized and committees and commissions were already meeting again. So before you today is a followup on that, an agreement on the boundaries that had been agreed on several months ago, but included something that was a recommendation from this commission, will yincluding a g around the American Indian Cultural Center. We took it very seriously, and Many Community members were also very committed to following up and through, and so youll see that new level of detail around the sort of Historical Context around the American Indian Cultural Center and its earlier versions. With that, i thank you all for your reconsideration. Were excited that this has brought Community Support from other cultural districts and sister districts in the area. Ive had the honor and opportunity to partner with American Indian cultural and Community Members who have made it clear that this is a long overdue gesture, so im happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Were going to take it back to the commission. I see commissioner black, did you want to make a comment . Yes [inaudible] from several of the callers that this is overdue. Native people were here longer than anyone else. I also would like to make a motion to approve, provided that staff continues to work with the community on mapping the boundaries, including dolores park. I second the motion. Okay. I just had a few comments and questions for shelley. I believe its directed to shelley, and i really appreciate the comments the Public Comments that were made, particularly about being sensitive to the other sister cultural districts, why theyre respecting the boundaries. But im expecting that cultural districts need to be as expanded as possible, and the American Indian cultural district and the American Indian people have been here for centuries, and now were recognizing them as a very important part of our community, as part of our cultural district. Im just wondering, now that we have this approved framework, one of them was mentioning that they didnt have that chest document. Does this start or trigger that process . Thats my first question. And then, my next question is were talking about a community operation, a people who have been here hundreds of years, but there have been people that come after them. I dont mean to offend anyone, but there are layers of history now in our nation, and im just wondering why we wouldnt be able to do some kind of overlap and, you know, i dont want to offend anyone, but there have been people who have come its like layers of an onion, people who have come and who will continue to comafter us. Also, i take into consideration the sensitivity of making sure that we dont exclude particular boundaries, but im just wondering how we can be more inclusive in that conversation. [inaudible] i think im getting some feedback from someone. Thanks. To start with the questions about the chess project, the American Indian cultural project, as i understand, is actually already initiating that process. I believe the onetime funding that we were that mohcd was able to provide like this fiscal year will, in part, be used by the district to initiate that process, and i believe they also have a consultant already on board to help them plan that effort. So theres the ordinance in front of you today will not interrupt that effort in any way. If anything, it allows them to now focus more attention on that broader area and will make their chess more effective, i believe. In terms of what cultural district boundaries need and should they overlap, can they overlap, the original ordinance establishing the program used the language that the districts should not overlap, but it does not use the term shall not, so its a recommendation to the boord that they should consider trying to avoid or prevent overlap when they can. Thats my understanding of how it can be interpreted. And as you may know, the soma filipinas and the lgbt cultural district do overlap almost in their entirety, as well as the transgender district and the [inaudible] also overlap long sixth street. And my understanding is that that has not caused any conflicts. So although the programs still relatively new, it appears not to be problematic in the implementation of programs so far. However, the program was set up to try to avoid avoid conflicts and try to avoid overlapping those boundaries [inaudible]. Thank you. Commission commissioner pearlman, did you want to make a comment . Yes, thank you. I think this notion of the overlap that commissioner matsuda brings up is pretty important because the whole purpose of the cultural districts is to acknowledge the people who have created our place. And, you know, you take certain particular areas that have had so many people create the place, that it only enhanced, you know, the protections, ultimately, and future development, because there were protections if its, for example, the castro Lgbt Community and the American Indian community are overlapping, some communities and parcels of one community affect the other. But it makes the clarity of our reality as, you know, a melting pot culture sort of clear that we all are participating, and then, another one comes in and takes over at a distinct line in the ground. So i appreciate this in the south of market, there are the overlapping districts, and i agree with commissioner matsuda that these two districts, you know, or three districts that are all related to have a border that would not diminish any of the three. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner black, did you want to make yeah, just very quickly. With those comments, architectural districts are defined by their physical presence. Theres bound to be overlapping, especially, as commissioner matsuda talked about, the layering over time, and i think we need to respect that, and i dont think it takes away from any one group where theres a layering of overlapping districts. Clerk if theres no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded. Ill call that question, then. Theres a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications as were amended to include direction for staff to continue working for the boundaries. Hopefully that captured the motion. Yeah, im sorry. Clerk on that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 40. Commissioners, that places us on your final item on todays agenda, number 8, case 2020003248 p. C. A. For the statemandated accessory dwelling unit controls. This is a planning code amendment. Thank you. [inaudible]. Yes, im prepared, and ill request that you pass me the ball for my slide. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica florez, Planning Department staff. The item before you is the statemandated a. D. U. Ordinance, as mandated by the mayor. The goal of the ordinance is to align our a. D. U. Programs with the recent changes to state law by clarifies the ministerial review processes for state a. D. U. S. This is focused on things that we are required to do to comply with state law. As a reminder, the ministerial review means theres no discretionary action on these a. D. U. S if they comply with the state requirements. These are not subject to ceqa review and cannot be reviewed against any subjective design standards. Additionally, per changes made last year, state mandated a. D. U. S amended last year have a shortened appeal period. So state mandated a. D. U. S actually have two buckets that i faretured on the slide here. The first bucket, were calling streamlined a. D. U. S, and these are permitted and existing proposed singlefamily or multifamily dwellings. Under this bucket, the Property Owner can only add one a. D. U. To the property. However, streamlined a. D. U. S are more flexible for the Property Owners because they cannot approve planning requirements such as backyards or open space. We can only mandate what state law requires. The second is what were calling the ministerial a. D. U. S, which applies to existing singlefamily dwellings or existing multifamily dwellings. So this bucket here most close closely resembles our current planning code requirements. That includes things like rear yard and open space. The only thing that they are exempted for is the requirement for the density on the property. Under this bucket, theres also a new type of a. D. U. Called the junior a. D. U. So junior a. D. U. S can convert up to 500 square feet of a singlefamily dwelling. It requires an efficiency kitchen and may or may not share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling. One requirement of the junior a. D. U. Is that the owner needs to occupy either the junior a. D. U. Or the primary dwelling. So with a different bucket under state law and also keeping in mind our local program, a Property Owner may actually qualify for more than one type of a. D. U. , and in that case, staff will work with the applicant to clarify what they qualify for, but ultimately, its up to the qualify to decide which type of a. D. U. They would like to pursue. So just going over some of the big picture changes in the proposed ordinance. State law now requires that all permits for state mandated a. D. U. S are issued within 60 days of receipt of a complete complication, so this is currently half of the time that we have right now; and we do want to mention this week that the Planning Department has taken the primary role of accepting and issuing new a. D. U. Permits in San Francisco. The new online submittal process will help us streamline the new a. D. U. Permit review in the order it was received. It amends sections 10 and 11 to say that state mandated a. D. U. S outlined in articles 10 and 11 would be exempt from state reviews as long as they comp certificate of proopsness aapp and permit to alter review. There is an additional change related to the architectural review standards that you adopted last year. Some of those standards actually conflict with some of the new state law requirements, so the ordinance included in your packet proposed striking reference to the architectural review standard to remedy this. After more discussion with staff and the City Attorneys after this packet was distributed, i also wanted to highlight that striking this language takes away your ability to adopt or modify it in the future, and i want to make sure you consider this during your discussion. Of course, we are able to answer additional followup questions on this matter after the Public Comment period, and i see that commissioner pearlman already has some questions for us later. But ill go ahead and continue with the presentation, and we do have some other big picture changes listed on the slide here. One is related to impact fees, and the ordinance outlines that state mandated a. D. U. S would either be exempt or have a reduced impact fee. And then, the last change is related to a 30day noticing requirement that was added to a. D. U. S within singlefamily homes last year. So the ordinance changes this requirement only to be required if there is a tenant within the singlefamily dwelling. If so, then, the Property Owner would need to complete the d. B. I. Screening permit if applicable or proof of completing that notice of planning code. That would need to be complied with to be considered complete. It also helps ensure that we meet the 60day review time frame mentioned earlier. In this ordinance, there are also two clarifications made to the local program. These are nonsubstantive and essentially clarifying to the code, and i have them featured on the slide for you today. The first clarification is relat related to waivers from the planning code and clarified that these are only for a. D. U. S proposed in existing buildings. The logic here is new construction buildings should be able to design to comply with code requirements such as an open space and rear yard, for example, which is more difficult when working with an already existing building. Only the density waiver may be granted for a. D. U. S proposed within new construction buildings. The second clarification under the program is related to noticing. So with last years change to permit a. D. U. S and new construction buildings, there was a little confusion on noticing requirements, and what was exempt or not. So the change in the ordinance is to explicitly state that new constructions themselves are subject to neighborhood notification, but the separate a. D. U. Is not subject to neighborhood notification. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance which, again, focusing on bringing our code in compliance with recent state law changes. The ordinance also supports state law ordinances and allowing more a. D. U. S in the city and also adds different types of dwellings to the housing stock. This concludes staffs presentation, and im available to answer any questions, along with the rest of the a. D. U. Team that is on the call today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Should we go to commissioner pearlmans question before Public Comment . Sure. Yeah, its a qual its a question just about the program itself, so probably before Public Comment. Should i go ahead . Please. So i thank you for your presentation. Very much appreciate knowing about this, and im trying to get some clarity on understanding the streamlined or ministerial and, you know why would a person, lets say within an existing singlefamily house, why would they choose one or the other which when, let me just for example, if i wanted to put an a. D. U. In the back of my property, i could literally put it up to the back property line, ignoring any, you know, rear yard set backs, which might significantly impact someone whos living behind, with a wall, then, there whatever. So im just curious how one would qualify, and why one would choose one path over the other . Sure. Thank you, commissioner pearlman. So this goes back to the the different potential paths that the Property Owner can consider for the for their a. D. U. , and let me share yes, i still have control. Let me share this to help illustrate the next point. So i just strolls to the draft fact sheet that was featured in your staff so i just scrolled to the draft fact sheet that was featured in your packet. This includes some of the dimension that would be required for streamlined versus ministerial. Clerk im sorry to interrupt you, veronica. The screen youre sharing is just gray. I dont see what youre referring to. And can you see this now . Clerk no, its still the gray screen. Okay. Let me stop that, and let me just narrate through this, and then, ill see if i can pull that up momentarily. But going back to the question for Property Owner with a singlefamily hope, there are certain requirements on, lets say, five restrictions. So they would have to think about their goals for the a. D. U. To they want to have a bigger a. D. U. And the biggest the biggest detached a. D. U. , for example, would be 1200 square feet, that they can only pursue under a streamlined a. D. U. Bucket, so that would be one consideration. If they were okay pursuing something that was smaller, and just staying on the example of the detached a. D. U. , if they were proposing one that was 750 square feet or smaller, they would be eligible for both the ministerial or streamlined a. D. U. Bucket. So in the packet, these different dimensions and other requirements are outlined, so its really thinking about what homes that the Property Owner has. And then again, one key or two ski distinctions for streamlined or ministerial, is that streamlined only needs to comply with the state law requirements, and they can only have one a. D. U. On the property. For the ministerial bucket, they still need to comply with the planning code requirements, such as rear yard or open space, but theres a little more plexibility in terms of the number of flexibility in terms of the number of a. D. U. S that they can have on the property, and it will depend on whats on the property already. So i apologize i was not able to actually pull that draft on the screen for you, but, commissioner perfect commissioner pearlman, can i check if that helped you answer your questions . I do have clients with singlefamily homes, not getting to the historic part of it. If i have further questions, ill give you a call, but that was very helpful. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Clerk commissioners, we should open this up for Public Comment, even though there are no longer any attendees of the public. Members of the public, if you would like to submit public testimony, now is your time to press , 3 to enter the queue. Commissioners, there are no members of the public wishing to speak, so the matter is now before you. Commissioner jones . Thank you. So veronica, i was wondering, there are a lot of, i think, previously illegal units in San Francisco that you might call potential a. D. U. S. Could a Property Owner who has one of those illegal old inline units, they used to call them, take advantage one or another of these programs to have that unit legalized . Yes. And this is in the case of a junior a. D. U. , that new a. D. U. , we anticipate that we will be seeing interests in that type of a. D. U. So yes, they will be able to legalize the unit through some of these recent changes. As a reminder, we also do currently have the legalization program, which people are able to pursue authorizing any of the illegal authorized dwelling units. Commissioner pearlman . Yes. So if i understand this correctly, what were approving today is so that this Program Comes into compliance with state law, so therefore, all that we can do as a Planning Department or as a San Francisco is to tweak things that might be more appropriate to San Francisco than to los angeles, for instance. But basically, were approving this were asking for approval for something that we need to do you know, that we need to do to be in compliance with state law. Is that correct . Yes, commissioner pearlman, that is correct, and its again, the focus is to comply with state law, and i do want to highlight the clarification that i had regarding the architectural standards that you adopted last year. So under state law, we are still allowed to apply objective standards to state mandated a. D. U. S. That includes those streamlined and ministerial a. D. U. Buckets. In the ordinance, the ordinance strikes out the reference to the architectural review standards . That was our initial approach to remedy the conflict between those standards and the recent changes to state law, but again, i want to highlight that removing such reference to those architectural review standards removes your ability to adopt or modify any of those standards in the future. So as part of your motion today, the two additional options i see are that you would two initial options i see are that you would recommend approval of the ordinance. You can also recommend approval of the ordinance and keeping that language that references the architectural review standards, and depending on the rest of the discussion, if you have any other ideas on that manner that you would like to consider, again, we do have the City Attorneys here on the line with us today if you had more technical questions on that aspect. Arent the architectural review the architectural review issues, arent those subjective, so therefore not allowed because we have to be objective . It can only be an objective review . So the architectural review standards that we adopted last year are objective, so we can apply them. And as as in the ordinance strikes the ordering to those architectural review standards. So part of your considerations today would be if you still wanted to reference those or be able to adopt or modify such standards in the future or if you want to move forward with the ordinance as proposed. I do also want to share that a lot of those tstandards are featured in our a. D. U. Standards which staff used to approve the a. D. U. S, so its the objective standard that we have on hand. I know its confusing, but i hope that answers your question. No, i just want to know why we wouldnt want to include those architectural standards. I dont remember them, but i remember the process. Im not asking you to remember them. It feels like we should adopt the ordinance and retain the a. D. U. Standards. Yes. Part of that, if the commission is interested in retaining those standards and being able to apply them, we will, as a follow up, need to review those architectural review standards to make sure that they comply with the architectural state law requirements. In the architectural review standards last year, detached a. D. U. S were permitted under one story. However, under state laws, we are actually permitted to have a. D. U. S up to 16 feet tall, so we figured out they could be up to two stories call. Thats a district conflict between the detached a. D. U. Architectural review standards and the state law. If youre interested in retaining those architectural review standards, we would have to modify those from last year. Is that an onerous process or are there just a few things you would have to modify, challenging the is there hundreds of things you have to consider or is it just a few things to modify . It was a few pages. That resolution that you adopted last year, it was a few pages, and just as a reminder, part of the minor scopes of work for a. D. U. S were going to be revisited in your delegation agreement, so theres already an ongoing larger effort that does tie into what were talking about right now. So i wouldnt consider it an extremely onerous process, but we would just have to make sure that we are explaining that process and why were striking that portion. Okay. Thank you. I will recommend that we retain those standards. Okay. Thank you. To your point, commissioner pearlman, are we if we retain them, are we delaying the process . Is that going to be the impact. Ill turn that to veronica. Yes, its veronica. So we can move forward with the ordinance since those architectural review standards do not live in the planning code, and that was the intention last year so we can amend those standards separately . So if you were to include that and ill invite the City Attorneys to chime in after i speak right now, but we can continue with the Planning Commission scheduhearing as scd tomorrow, and as soon as possible review those Architectural Design standards, and depending on the timing of the legislative process in a perfect world, we would have that reviewed by the time the legislation is enacted, but whatever the situation, we would make sure to resolve it as quickly as possible. And if peter, andrea want to chime in, please do so, just to make sure that i shared the correct information. [inaudible] peter . Hi. Deputy City Attorney peter milnius. Can you hear me . Yes, you can move forward on your recommendation of the ordinance. The city would not be forced to apply any of the architectural review standards that conflict with state law, but this can move forward in the process, if you may. Do you have further conversation on this, commissioner pearlman . No, im good. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner so . Hi. Thanks for this report, and im just going to cut it to the chase. I have two clarifications i wanted to ask to to clarify to veronica. This is only politicable to adding a completely detached singlefamily a. D. U. And a multifamily complex . And the question is were waiving the certificate of appropriateness and the c. F. A. , is that concluding all the category a building and category b buildings . Thank you, commissioner so. Regarding your first question, the ordinance does include the opportunity to convert existing habitable space under the a. D. U. Under the streamlined bucket, were able to have some expansions, so its not specifically just to detached. And regarding the second question for waiving the certificate of appropriateness, all of this pertains to the state mandated a. D. U. S. You would still see certificates for appropriateness for or potentially see certificates for appropriateness for a. D. U. S proposed under our local program. But to date, youve only seen nine certificates of appropriateness for a. D. U. S in front of you, so its not a large number to begin with, but the changes weve listed today are for the state mandated a. D. U. S. And i do want to see if [inaudible] has anything to add to this question since shes been involved in the daytoday processes and managing our a. D. U. Team. Good afternoon, commissioners. [inaudible], Planning Department staff. Rememb veronica is correct. There are a couple of different a. D. U. To be added to state law. Prior to this, a. D. U. S were limited to singlefamily homes. They are allowed in existing or proposed single and multifamilies, and there are a couple of options that veronica mentioned. So theres the detached, and then theres opportunities for a. D. U. S in the existing buildings as well as expansion. So all of those, if theyre added under state law, would be exempt from a certificate of appropriateness or permit to alter, so thats correct. And thats regardless whether of those houses or building has already been a landmark . So it is limiting it just to the article 10 and 11 buildings and districts . So if theres a building within the boundaries of a district, it would be exempt from the certificate of proposeness. If its a category a building, but its not under the article 10 or 11, that is already not subject to a certificate of appropriateness. Thank you for clarifying that. Commissioner. So if i understood the City Attorneys comments, there may be some instances in which our standards conflict with state law, and therefore, our standards could not be enforced. Billion, if thats true, then i think wouldnt it be a benefit for the commission and for the public to know what those conflicts are so we can eliminate them from our standards . And if thats the procedure that we should follow and i think that basically makes the most sense. I guess we should need someone i guess it would be you, veronica, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to come back and tell us which of those standards are no longer enforceable. And thats what i was driving at, as well. The same going the same way so we understand what the issues are. Yes, of course. And that is something that staff can certainly work on and make sure we review with the City Attorneys office to have the clear list for you. Unfortunately, we wont have that list for you today. I did share the one example with the detached a. D. U. , one story versus 16feet tall, and the conflict there, so thats something we can come back to you with. I also just want to clarify that the changes in this proposed ordinance are actually already in effect under state law as of january 1 of earlier this year, and so we were making sure that we can tailor this to the San Francisco code and our circumstances here. So just want to be cognizant that we want to be able to allow Property Owners to pursue the state mandated a. D. U. S as soon as possible. So if if you are open to it, again, we can follow up with that specific lift, but i suggest that we are able to move forward with that ordinance today and have your recommendation and approval with that modification to retain that reference to the architectural review starndard and then, we will come back with the high level list and discuss how we want to remedy that at the subsequent hearing. Veronica, i think thats a perfectly appropriate way to proceed. Im not suggesting we hold up the ordinance. This is for me, and i think its the same for commissioner pearlman, this is a housecleaning nature so everyone can know what they can and cant do. Right, yeah, agreed. Commissioner black, did you want to comment . Yes. Once we do our housecleaning [inaudible] theres nothing wrong in my mind, as long as its expressly stated, to have suggestions. The kinds of things that we had previously codified available to applicants, and these are typically things that are Good Neighbor policies that tend to lead to more successful designs or more successful anything. I dont think its necessarily bad to have a document like that available to people because they many people want to do the right thing. As long as they know what the code requires, you must do this, and youre good. I dont think its necessarily inappropriate to have suggestions, but that might be helpful to people. Clerk do i hear a motion . I just wanted to clarify and just make it abundantly clear, is there a reason why we do not continue the guidelines with this . Yeah, that was my question. I mean, it seems pretty basic. Is it a Research Issue . We certainly dont want to hold up the ordinance. Is there a i havent heard why we would consider not including them. Sure. Thank you, commissioner hyland. So, again, part of this is that after the staff packets were published, we realized that in order to make our code comply with state law, it was actually the standards themselves that came into conflict with state law requirements, not the reference. Its the fine details as included in your ordinance, and thats especially why we want today highlight that for each day, so thank you for your questions and the discussion on this matter. To answer your question, no, there is no distinction reason that we would want to remove the reference to these standards. It is appropriate to be able to apply these standards, architectural review standards to the state mandated a. D. U. Excellent. Commissioner johns . Sk so i move that we adopt for approval the proposed changes. However, we should continue to have our the review standards apply insofar as they do not conflict with state law. Second. Jonas, youre muted. Clerk sorry. My apologies. Commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval as amended to include a reference to the architectural review standards as so much as they could not conflict with the state law. On that motion [roll call] m and im sorry. Just one question for clarification. Is the commission proposing the actual language of the motion to say insofar as they dont conflict with state standards or [inaudible]. Well, it doesnt have to be in the ordinance. That is the intent, but what i want to avoid is a situation where theres confusion about one of our standards which does not comply with state law possibly being imposed on people. And so i want, so that the commission knows and the public knows, that there must be compliance. Clerk if i understand correctly, commissioner johns, your motion is simply to reference the architectural review standards, and with the understanding that they be revised to eliminate any conflicts. Absolutely correct. Yes. Clerk okay. Very good, commissioners. Then on that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60, and that concludes your agenda today, commissioners. Very good. Were adjourned. See you in two weeks. Hi, i doing a special series about staying safe. Lets look at issues of water and sewer. We are here at the San Francisco urban center on Mission Street in San Francisco and im joined today by marrielen from puc and talk about water and sewer issues. What are things we should be concerned about water. You want to be prepared for that scenario and the recommendation is to have stored 1 gallon per person per day that you are out of water. We recommend that you have at least 35 days for each person and also keep in consideration storage needs for your pets and think about the size of your pets and how much water they consume. The storage which is using tap water which you are going to encourage. Right. Of course at the puc we recommend that you store our wonderful delicious tap water. Its free. It comes out of the tap and you can store it in any plastic container, a clean plastic container for up to 6 months. So find a container, fill it with water and label it and rotate it out. I use it to water my garden. Of course everyone has plastic bottles which we are not really promoting but it is a common way to store it. Yes. Its an easy way to pick up bottles to store it. Just make sure you check the label. This one says june 2013. So convenient you have an end date on it. And there are other places where people have water stored in their houses. Sure. If you have a water heater or access to the water heater to your house, you can drink that water and you can also drink the water that the in the tank of your toilet. ; not the bowl but in your tank. In any case if you are not totally sure about the age of your water or if you are not sure about it being totally clean, you can treat your water at home. There is two ways that you can treat your water at home and one is to use basic household bleach. The recommendation is 8 drops of bleach for ever gallon of water. You add 8 drops of bleach into the water and it needs to sit for 30 minutes. The other option is to boil water. You need to boil water for 510 minutes. After an earthquake that may not be an option as gas maybe turned off and we may not have power. The other thing is that puc will provide information as quickly as possible about recommendations about whether the water is okay to drink or need to treat it. We have a number of twice get information from the puc through twitter and facebook and our website sf water. Org. People should not drink water from pools or spas. But they could use it to flush their toilets if their source are not broken. Lets look at those issues. Sanitation is another issue and something people dont usually or like to think about it but its the reality. Very likely that without water you cant flush and the sewer system can be impeded or affected during an earthquake. You need to think about sanitation. The options are simple. We recommend a set up if you are able to stay in your building or house to make sure that you have heavy duty trash bags available. You can set this up within your existing toilet bowl and once its used. You take a little bit of our bleach. We talked about it earlier from the water. You seal the bag completely. You make sure you mark the bag as human waste and set it aside and wait for instruction about how to dispose of it. Be very aware of cleanliness and make sure you have wipes so folks are able to wash up when dealing with the sanitation issue. Thank you so much, hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos elected assessor. Buying your first home is a big deal. For many of us, its the single largest asset that well own. Thats why its really important to plan ahead for property taxes so that there are no surprises. A typical question new homeowners ask is what is a supplemental tax. So understand supplemental tax, we need to start with proposition 13. Under californias prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to a 2 growth peryear, but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we set a properties assessed value to market value. The difference in value between the previous owners value and the new value is the supplemental assessment. How does the supplemental assessment translate to the tax you need to pay . Supplemental tax is calculated by applying the tax rate to the value and then prorating it for the amount of time that you owned it in that tax year. In generale, the tax rate is roughly 1 . Lets walkthrough an example together. Here dan is the original owner of a home with a prop 13 protected value of 400,000. With a tax rate of 1 , he pays 4,000. Dan sells his home to jennie at a market rate of 700,000. In this case, jennies home will be reassessed to 700,000, and jennie is responsible for paying property taxes at that level from the time she first owns it. Many times, people might have already paid their property taxes in full by the time they sell their home. In that case, dan has paid 4,000 in taxes already for the full year. Jennie would likely payback dan through escrow for her share of the 4,000, depending on the proportion of the tax year she owns the home. However, shes also responsible for paying taxes at the higher market value from when she begins to own the home. How does that work . Lets say jennie owns the property for nine months of the first tax year, which is approximately 75 of the year. During the escrow process, shed pay dan back 75 of the 4,000 he already paid, which is 3,000. On top of that, she would owe taxes at the higher rate for the proportion of the year she owned the house. In this case, she owes the amount not already billed through dan or 700,000 minus 400,000, multiplied by a tax rate of 1 , and multiplied again by 75 to reflect the time she owned the home in that tax year. Here, jennies supplemental tax is roughly 2,250. Going forward, jennie will be billed at her new reset prop 13 value. Are you still with us . If this isnt complicated enough, some new owners might receive two supplemental tax bills, and this has to do with the date that you transfer property. But before we get to that, you first need to understand two concepts. First, what is a fiscal year . In california, local government runs on a fiscal year. Unlike the calendar year, where the year begins on january 1, a fiscal year begins in the middle of the year, on july 1. Property tax follows the fiscal year cycle. Second, state law requires property be valued as of january 1 every year, in other words, new years day. The value as of january 1 is used to calculate property taxes for the upcoming fiscal year. This means Property Value as of january 1, 2018 will be usedtor fiscal year 18 used for fiscal year 1819 covering july 2018 through june 2019. Similarly, the value of january 1, 2019 will be used for the fiscal year covering july 2019 through june 2020. Now back to whether you should expect to receive one or two supplemental tax bills. The rule of thumb is that if the property transfers happens in the first half of the fiscal year, in other words between july and december, then you should expect only one supplemental tax fill. If the transfer happens in the second half of the fiscal year or between january and june, you should expect two supplemental tax bills. Heres the reason why. Using dan and jennies example again, dans 400,000 value as of january 1 is used to set the tax bill for the following fiscal year beginning july through june of the next year. Jennie buys the property from dan in october. The taxable value is reset to 700,000 as of october, but the bill issued still reflects dans lower value. In this case, jennie would expect to receive one supplemental or catchup bill to capture the difference between her assessed value and begans fr begans dans from october through june. Because of january 1 we already know of the sale, we would have used the following year to set jennies property taxes and no other supplemental bill should be received. However, if dan sells the property to jennie in march, instead, jennie should expect two supplemental bills. Like before, jennie would receive one supplemental bill to cover the time in which she owned the home in the current tax year from march to june. But because as of the next january used to set the tax base for the following tax year, dan still owned the home, the following years entire bill still reflects the values not updated for jennie. In this instance, jennie receives a second supplemental for the following year covering july through june. After the supplemental tax bills, new owners should receive only one regular tax bill peryear going forward. Remember our office values the properties, but billing and collections are handled by another Organization Called the treasurer and tax collectors office. If youd like to learn more, please visit our website at sfassessor. Org. Thank you for watching. Welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission. The mayor declared local state of emergency related to covid19. April 3, 2020 the plannings commission received convening. This will be our 28th remote hearing. Remote hearing requires everyone attention and most of all your patience. If you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. To enable public