For continuance until july 14, 2016, item 2 south van ness 26 street is proposed for continuance until july 21st 2016 items 3 ab for cases pears street conditional use authorization and various are proposed for indefinite continuance commissioners further on our agenda in under the discretionary review calendar im pleased to announce that case at 21st street discretionary review has been withdrawn the dr application has been withdrawn i have no other items and i have no speaker cards. Are there any speakers for the continuance as proposed . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner wu move to continue items 1, 2, and 1926 a thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and director rahaim could you be so kind as the acting Zoning Administrator continue the variance yes. Ill continue the variance indefinitely commissioners, that places you under your under your consent calendar are considered to be routine may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item 4 case no. C and d think o on Fourth Street condominium conversion and castro street conditional use authorization are there any speakers on the content items Public Comment . Seeing none, commissioner moore move to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve both items on your consent calendar commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places us on there commissioner matters item 6 considerations of adoption of draft minutes june 2016. Commissioner moore. Oh, im standing for the previously. Any Public Comment on the draft minutes seeing none, commissioner wu. Move to approve draft minutes. Second. Second. Thank you, commissioners that on on that motion for the minutes commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us on item 7 commissioners comments and questions. Commissioner moore. I wanted to comment on 16 airbnb that was taken and resolved a. M. Kablth by the opposing parties like to use that has an example for the conduct dialogue and give direction for the considerations how a dr is approached and elevate that has an example. Youre referring to item 19. Im sorry ive read the wrong one our correct 37, 21st a long drawn out conflict im glad to see that resolved. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, well move on to Department Matters dourments. Thank you jonas good afternoon, commissioners the only announcement a request to adjourn the meeting in honor of carla the director be she was much good young and tireless advocate for the disabled in San Francisco she actually had a long career with City Government going back to retirement as a carpenter for public works and many different jobs and her recent stint a strong advocate for the disabled ill ask we adjourn new her honor. I got here late and ask for adjournment of all the victims that died saturday night as well. Commissioner moore. I want to add a comment about Carla Johnson she served on the dbi commission was as strong advocate so far candid discussions and a remarkable person im sorry to see her gone and glad you asked to adjourn in her hours. Streamlining the Affordable Housing proposal as you commissioners that is our presentation today to give or give up on a current analysis of the governors housing proposals the title of the legislation this is legislation that is intended to make certain types of Residential Property by right meaning when something by right it means there no discretionary action and no discretionary actions of any kind of course, that is easy to say the the devil is in the details were going to give you a memo of our work this last week and recognize youre getting in information now it is a fast moving target the legislation changed 3 times and fully expect to change before that move forward if you can bear with us ill appreciate that the second thing ill caution you guess this is our current read of how the legislation will effect San Francisco it is really kind of a best guess because of the nature of the legislation the fact it the state legislation that applies statewide and a lot of the words that is used in statewide legislation if match the types of words in our planning code a bit of a champ but our best estimate how it affects us in San Francisco with those qualifications if you will ill ask ann marie to go over this and others kate conner our and liz and others that have been heavily involved in the review and again taking a lot of time we were not planning on but it is work we absolutely have to do with that, ill ask ann to make a presentation. Thank you director rahaim emery rogers Planning Department staff ill go over the bill and kate connor will talk about the specific project so let me start off that is a fundamental shift in how housing is reviewed by the city and i know there is not a day that didnt go by we dont think about the housing crisis it was this credible need for housing that drove the governor for to bill today is presentation is an informational item of that bill i know that you and the public are getting the memo ill keep my presentation and follow the all the memo as john said we are very cautious how we describe this is specifically the bill as vague language that was introduced in may and rapidly changing the third version came out and likely to change again what we say today can evolve the Housing Project has 2 units or more and consistent with obviously standards in the general plan and the planning code and the zoning map it is consistent with those and if this project is in certain areas that shall be approved provided it provides certain levels of affordability to lets look at the location the locational controls for the sites they use the streamlining provisions called the designated housing sites those sites are those that theyve about this already approved in the general plan or planning code or zoning map or an eir that mitigates any potential harm in the housing further those sites must be adjacent to what we Call Development urban used or bound by a natural water and these sites are not on farm lanes era or hazardous sites or differentiate earthquake zones or fema zones to be clear i dont know if i can have the overhead this effects most of San Francisco additional once again or once again we know that is important to know that is available to projects that provides affordability and the affordability go depends on how close to transit so if this site would have been a transient priority area a 10 percent protecting arrest 5 percent very low income thank you, thank you very much. So on this map we can see the way atheism defined the transit priorities the green areas are the maps so the few areas in San Francisco outside of transit priority higher levels of affordability will be required the intent it operationally is in the gray ears with less assess to transit it there is less support so in the gray areas of the map it must provide 20 percent at 80 percent of ami or less so keep in mind by providing this level of housing it is available for the streamline process and projects need to comply that the San Francisco in our local go inclusionary housing requirement if they apply so in addition to that level of affordability replacement of consisting housing is required rent control or income re12r50ik9d those must be replaced at greater levels of informational affordability and tenants must be paid relocation expenses so lastly the review process the city has thirty days to determine if the project complies that with the standard and document if it does not if so not consistent it is failing to document this within thirty days it is consistent so thats the first review those that comply that the standard and i did city can conduct Design Review from the thirty days of the small of the application it cant chill, inhibit approval so thats the the bill says ill go over what the bill doesnt say how this sgakz with San Francisco if youre looking at the handful this is the f a q portion those ceqa applied to the streamline projects theres no ceqa review the city could in the future codify the standards in the planning code but no ceqa review and what does it mean when the state says their Design Review limited to those that doesnt i think habitant approval this like any aspects is unclear but it appears that the projects couldnt be denied for design issues, however, the commission and department can request the Design Reviews as ive described San Francisco inclusionary housing do still apply the streamline process is available to projects meeting the lower thresholds as outlined in the state bill how, however, the triggers are higher than. 25. A lot of change those days a theyll have our higher local requirements will on site bmr units be allowed so here we go or heres where we if we lost the discretionary this is where we lose the costahawkins in court cases projects that want to have onsite bmr maybe consideration, however, it is important to note that the state is considering legislation that fits this irk that bill is pending and i believe the outcome how will the cities protect the resources howe all of our protections occur during the ceqa will not occur the new vefrths bill streamline cant be used only sites designated as resources or that are listed as a state resource it is unclear how locally landmarked buildings in the downtown conservation can apply those are codified in 10 and 11 with the objectives the review process and our consideration of the process is typically discretionary so this next question is relevant as kate connor says what happens to projects when they need a vaurnls ever conditional use authorization youll not be surprised the bill is unclear and it has changed with the 3 versions but generally it appears the project needing an exception b will not be obstacle for streamline if this is correct the projects needed the 329 large project authorization will not be eligible for streamlining, however, projects needing a conditional use authorization could be eligible for streamlining review from the project met office of disabilities conditional use criteria they cant apply in deciding whether or not to approve that and further while the cu process is allowed it needs to conclude within this timeframe permitted by state law this means the process needs to happen during the thirty day window of standards and not during the 90 days review for design so far not only have no jurisdictions been exempted from the bill but the most recent makes it clear and provides a number of reasons as to why it needs to comply in the bill other objectives not called out in the bill needing to be reviewed not clear what will happen with the obviously standards and most importantly this is likely not the final version my personal guess and then the last one an more o important one when in takes effect it could have a moment we thought the whole thing needed to be resolved that was yesterday but the state met even though budget deadline and some procedural changes while the protective to consider to consider until the end of august this is the overview of the bill and kate will show you some projects. Thank you jonas i have a couple of handout and get the computer so good afternoon members of the commission kate connor Planning Department staff the Department Name and occupation with the City Attorneys Office is beginning to work through the implementation of the state bill to streamline the Affordable Housing bill and has made initial conclusions first lifestyle to reiterate this is an evolving process and the city is working to clarify the portions of the bill to determine what my presentation is a preliminary discussion of those types of projects that maybe eligible for the streamlining and please understand this is based on the citys understanding of the third version that was issued on friday evening a work in progress so first, lets look at the projects that can be eligible for the process projects that can request the streamlining must be housing that are completely code compliment without expectations and must provide Affordable Housing on site if it it is seeking an exception to be part of a variance or expectation as a large project authorization planned unit or downtown authorization only code compliant may have the styling stipulated in the bill the majority of projects that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and are using downtown project authorization or a large project authorization or a planned development are entitled that are utilizing those stipulated in the code unless this type of project seeks no exception it is not eligible for the streamline form of Northern Hotel or others are not eligible for the streamlining there are limited instances where the Planning Commission reviews the code compliant Housing Project that and as of right Housing Projects my come to you in a discretionary review and youll end up seeing it typically not as right Housing Projects those provide the Affordable Housing onsite maybe eligible for the streamline through under the current bill the conditional use authorization maybe eligible for the streamlining provided that the obviously finding are made and take for example, a conditional use authorization for a project over 50 feet in height provided that is the only applications before you we can function under the adopted process and bring that before the commission the applicable conditions are the standards when you look at the finding for conditional use authorization anything that is substantive will be off the table and not make the finding for necessary and desirable or compatible and this process as marie mentions will be subject to the thirty day timeline were working how the applications will be processed a little bit hard to read on the screen that is start and maybe easier to look at the paper that outlines potential hypothetical projects so kind of starting from the top if youre looking at a 13 unit as a right in the eastern neighborhoods area and theyre providing inclusionary omitted required to go have not neighborhood notification all maybe that potential for discretionary review to be filed ceqa will be handed in a community exemption now potentially if this bill goes through it will be obstacle for the streamlining the rational for there will no exceptions is it so as of right and providing Affordable Housing onsite now take a project that can be similar but lets say it is elected to pay the fee even though an right to project because it is paying the fee not eligible for the streamlining so the comments typically one hundred unit in the emeralds and theyre providing the unit onsite and have a large project authorization and getting some of the more reserving requested rear yard closer and open space so that will not be eligible there are exceptions theyre requesting look at a 15 unit project in the rc4 providing their that unit obesity and coming in with a clufks u conditional use authorization because the building so is over 50 feet in height and rear yard theyll have a class of 32 exception there is not eligible because there is a a variance the variance is counted in the exception take a similar project but lets remove the variance and theyre coming in are a conditional use authorization for the height this is potentially eligible as kur7b9 drafted, however, take the same project with the conditional use authorization for height but lets say located in the upper tenderloin historic conservation district because this is a National District no longer be eligible for the streamlining process so there are a number of potential considerations that may influence the development because of this bill the developers may rethink the exception warrants the longer than process and second if we believe 24 bill maybe used for the smaller projects would developers be more likely to provide understanding on site to get a predictable process historically ma of the smaller projects paid the fee that incentivizes them to pay the fee likely the first of many conversation may concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions. Opening up for Public Comment on this item any speaker cards Public Comment on this item mr. Cowen. calling names . Good afternoon steve i wasnt lane on speaking i want to point out that one thing that ann marie said if ceqa didnt apply the city can constitute obviously requirement for the impacts i want to point out youve done that for all renal projects we have the g h g collect list the new tdm the ordinance relates historic conservation clean up of soils we have the shadow ordinance on parks and the wind ordinance so a lot of these things that if you in the absence of th