They would most likely apply to these projects as well. The five the limit of five public hearings include can ten humans hearings and appearance and appeal hearings as well. Last category is the rules around unit replacement and Relocation Assistance in the event of existing units being removed as part of the developing projects. In general, any type of unit, if you have a project that proposes removing these units regardless who is living there, the project would have to produce the same or more units then the project being removed. There is also a definition of protected units in the bill which includes units that are housing household on section eight, housing choice it develop meant, belowmarket rate units, restricted affordable units, rentcontrolled units, units that were vacated by ellis active actions, in any unit that is occupied by a low income household in the past five years that is also a change from what you had in your case report and at that time it was only units that
He said it would offend his personal sensitivities. Thank you. Anymore members of the public who wish to comment on this item seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Definitely an appeal case. The orientation drives a lot of the comments that they brought forward. There is no doubt that the new building is taking the west of the existing appellant building. There is going to be a lot of shadow there. The question is how much. However, i was not quite satisfied with the permit holders approached in this. They could have easily given up some the height and the upper living floor between dining and the living room could easily have dropped some. Similarly, the setback could have been handled a little bit better. Maybe not as much is what the adjacent neighbors want to, but i would have expected this be in San Francisco because they would have been some movement there. We didnt see any. Commissioner richards . I have a few issues with this i think commissioner moore said som
Humans hearings and appearance and appeal hearings as well. Last category is the rules around unit replacement and Relocation Assistance in the event of existing units being removed as part of the developing projects. In general, any type of unit, if you have a project that proposes removing these units regardless who is living there, the project would have to produce the same or more units then the project being removed. There is also a definition of protected units in the bill which includes units that are housing household on section eight, housing choice it develop meant, belowmarket rate units, restricted affordable units, rentcontrolled units, units that were vacated by ellis active actions, in any unit that is occupied by a low income household in the past five years that is also a change from what you had in your case report and at that time it was only units that were rented at affordable households. It is regardless of what the rent or rent restriction is. The question is, is
Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Definitely an appeal case. The orientation drives a lot of the comments that they brought forward. There is no doubt that the new building is taking the west of the existing appellant building. There is going to be a lot of shadow there. The question is how much. However, i was not quite satisfied with the permit holders approached in this. They could have easily given up some the height and the upper living floor between dining and the living room could easily have dropped some. Similarly, the setback could have been handled a little bit better. Maybe not as much is what the adjacent neighbors want to, but i would have expected this be in San Francisco because they would have been some movement there. We didnt see any. Commissioner richards . I have a few issues with this i think commissioner moore said sometimes it is 20 pounds and a 10pound bag. I have been looking at that here i think the unit size in relationship to the a. D.
Walton, present. Mr. President , you have quorum. Thank you madam clerk. Colleagues, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor ronan . Made by supervisor walton and second by supervisor melgar and we take that without objection. Supervisor ronan is excused. San francisco board of supervisors we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, please join me in the pledg