Square footage. And again no permits for five years. And all penalties go to the s. F. Small sites fund. So we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317. Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled t
For the past three years, i have not had a Single Family house. Every project i do has, if its an rh2 district, two units and rh3 we try to get three units in there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is luke. I have been the principal of an Architecture Studio in San Francisco for the past 20 years. Im also a member of the a. A. I. A. Public and policy committee. I find most of the specifics to be overly restrictive with a clear bias towards the radical historicallism. For instance, the grab bag to qualify for conditional use demolition is clearly designed to be unachievable, particularly egregious is the subject building not resemble the height scale and architecture of surrounding buildings. This language is so deliberately vague, and subject to personal interpretation, that it could easily disqualify nearly all potential candidates for demolition consideration. Doesnt every existing Single Family house in San Francisco recommend assembl
Previous Floor Area Ratio and Square Footage. And again no permits for five years. And all penalties go to the s. F. Small sites fund. So we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317. Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the plan
Need. I think in all of my projects, starting i think after the 08, there was a huge wave of money that came into the city. And a large number of houses smaller houses that were either added on or in cases where they were no longer structurally sound were replaced with larger Single Family houses. For the past three years, i have not had a Single Family house. Every project i do has, if its an rh2 district, two units and rh3 we try to get three units in there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is luke. I have been the principal of an Architecture Studio in San Francisco for the past 20 years. Im also a member of the a. A. I. A. Public and policy committee. I find most of the specifics to be overly restrictive with a clear bias towards the radical historicallism. For instance, the grab bag to qualify for conditional use demolition is clearly designed to be unachievable, particularly egregious is the subject building not resemble the height
Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled through section 176. So it would increase the daily fine from up to 250 a day to up to 1,000 im sorry, to 1,000 a day. There would be no discretion, a straight 1,000 fine. And the board o