tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 11, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PDT
>> june 7, 2018. i will remind members that the commission does not tolerate any outburst of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during the meetings. when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration for items for continuance. item 1, 2018-004612cnd, 228-230 clayton street, condominium conversion proposed to continue to june 21. item 2, 2016-009062drp, 505
grandview avenue. proposed for continuance to august 30, 2018. item 3, 2015-009015drp-03, 75, 77, 79-81 leland avenue, discretionaryreview, indefinite continuance. item 4, 2014-003160cua, 3314 cesar chavez street, indefinite continuance. item 5, 2018-002007cua, 318 main street, conditional use has been withdrawn further, item 15, 2014-001400enx, 2750 19th street, proposed to june 28.
item 17, 2014-0231cua, 331 pennsylvania avenue, june 21, 2018. the last two requests come from the supervisors office. >> president hillis: do we have any public comment on items being proposed for continuance? >> mr. president and members of the commission, i'm one of the developers of 331 pennsylvania. and the developer for that project is myself, my brother sergio, my daughter, gina, and edward melo. we're ready to go for conditional use permit, but on monday, i believe you received a
letter from supervisor malia cohen asking for postponement. the supervisor said she would meet with us yesterday, wednesday, we've been trying to meet with he been unsuccessful. so i' proposing that you hear the conditional with a provision that if we meet with the supervisor and work whatever her concerns are out with her. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for a continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commission comments. >> move to continue items 1-5,
as proposed. and move item 17 to -- >> june 21, i believe. >> second. >> president hillis: commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: is there someone from the supervisor's office that's here on item 17? okay. thank you. >> president hillis: just a comment on that product. we normally grant the request from a supervisor and i apologize that this came late to us. it seems like a good project. we didn't have any real opposition to it. i think seeing that it's two weeks is not a ton of time. so, you know, hopefully we can work this out in the next two weeks and be back here and looking at your project. >> seeing nothing further, a motion seconded to continue matters as proposed.
on that motion -- [roll call] so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. that places us in commission matters, consideration of adoption draft minutes for may 17, closed session, regular session, and may 24, regular session. i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes may 17 and 24 -- [roll call] so moved. commissioners, that motion passes anonymously, 7-0. item 7, commission comments and
questions. >> commissioner richards: i've been gone nearly three weeks, so i get a little extra time to do dennis's corner, as commisoner johnson says. i was in pennsylvania. i went there on a tuesday night, may 22. may 23, woke up, ""pittsburgh post gazette" bloomfield high cost of housing riding. i had relatives that lived there. they interviewed some people that lived in bloomfield and one of the persons that lives there doesn't own a car. she takes the bus everywhere, but she's concerned that she will not be able to live there because of high rising costs. pittsburgh doesn't have rent control. the price on average went from $116,000 to $179,000. that's still a big jump for somebody that doesn't make a lot
of money. the other thing that was notable, and i'm drawing a parallel to san francisco and everywhere else, the woman that was interviewed said in previous years she used to hear that more residents wanted to attract development and investment, but they don't hear that anymore. what they're hearing is, how do i -- how am i able to stay here in bloomfield and live, because of the rising costs and quoted, "if no one living in bloomfield can afford to rent a unit, will that be reflective of what bloomfield really is or will it ultimately change the neighborhood that everybody's buying into?" goog google has set up offices nearby and people are buying homes, displacing. they had a quote from a city official saying, "we're not quite seattle yet." when you hear what's going on around the u.s., it's not just here in san francisco. one other interesting -- while i was in pennsylvania, "new york
times," sunday, june 3, on the front page talks about vancouver. and vancouver has become so expensive that the new provincal government in vancouver wants to tax real estate mark into submission. and many homeowners, most who will use money on their investments, support that idea. what they're talking about is the fact that supply in vancouver has increased more than the population and yet prices have not decreased. so homeowners and their relatives are actually very concerned and have a high level of anxiety that their children cannot live in vancouver anymore and something needs to be done. interestingly enough, our own gill kelly, an alumnus of this department here is quoted here saying, "vancouver consistently produced new housing. over the past decade, housing stock has grown by 12% and
population has grown only 9%. it's getting out o the mind-set that just more is better. we need to do something different." so they're tking aavinbo h an increase in vacancy tax and foreign buyer tax in vancouver and potentially, i think that's something that this city should at least investigate and look at the data around what's going on here. a couple of other things. i had lunch with joe taboni yesterday and we were talking about why things aren't getting built and he said the tariffs that were just put in place by the trump administration increased the cost of concrete by 40%. so he said if you don't have a future contract to purchase concrete, it will be so much more expensive to build buildings that contain concrete in the future, we'll see building go down even further. i did get a chance to see the very opening of the commission hearing on the week that i wasn't here and we were talking about the housing balance report
and the fact that the westside needs to contribute more housing. i remember commissioner melgar said that and the director said, we have a capacity of 125,000 with the current zoning. we're investigating why things aren't getting built. i would really like to understand once that investigation is done in an informational hearing here at the commission about what the deal is, with why things are not gettingt. thanks for talking time to listen to me. >> president hillis: thank you. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to item 8, director's announcements. >> no new announcements, except to say that i lived in bloomfield neighborhood and it's interesting to see the changes there. >> item 9. review past events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> commissioners, good afternoon. dan sadder, department staff,
standing in for erin starr, who was out of the office. quiet week at city hall. three particular items to report it you. firstly, land use committee on monday heard a reauthorization of what we've referred to as the hooper legislation. this was a planning code amendment sponsored by supeor cohen that reactiva reactivated a provision in the code that had a sunset in the provision, incentivize the construction in more p.d.r. space allowing for the development of non-p.d.r. uses, namely office space. you heard the item on may 3 and unanimously recommended approval. land use did feel very similarly and unanimously voted to move the matter forward to the full board with recommendation for approval. the second item to bring to your attention is the full board action on first read for supervisor peskin's increase to
the transportation sustainability fee for large, nonresidential projects. this ordinance was amended at the board to exempt projects with a development agreement, approved prior to january 30 of this year, namely mission bay pier0 from the increased fees. commissioners, you reviewed this on may 17 and you similarly recommended approval. final note, commissioners, some of you may have read this in the paper, mayor farrell and supervisor peskin introduced legislation to introduce flexibility to the proposition and office allocation program. the legislation would allow in general terms office space constructed before prop m was effective -- would allow office spa of that sort that has since been converted to non-office uses to revert to the office allocation cap so it could be reallocated for new
office development projects. that's what i have to report to you, commissioners. happy to answer any questions. >> and board of appeals did meet last night. two items that may be of 70. 799 castro street. you had heard this before as a conditional use authorize and d.r., nonconforming residential use. addition of a.d.u. the board heard an appeal of letter of determination request made by the adjacent property owner seeking clarification on the process. they then appealed the letter of determination to the board of appeals asl as appeal of the variance decision required for the new construction. at the hearing, boaf appeals unanimously upheld both of those decisions. that's all. and the conditional use, as you probably know, was appealed to the board of supervisors and unanimously upheld by the board of supervisors. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff.
here to share a few items from the historic preservation commission. the architectural review committee met before the full hearing. they heard the civic center presentation that this commission heard several weeks ago. overall are supportive of the design process under way, however, they did request that design group come walk to a.r.c. before the hearing date that's scheduled to show the proffered plan. the primary reason was the commission or the a.r.c. members would like to provide some additional feedback before the final plan is presented publicly. the second item the a.r.c. heard was for the new floating fire boat station at pier 22 1/2. ths iust below the bay bridge. fire station 35 is an individual
landmark structure. this was the only opportunity that the commission would have in reviewing the design of that new station and its relationship to the landmark structure. overall, the a.r.c. members were very supportive of the design and felt that the new structure would complement not only the waterfront but also the landmark structure very well. only one item to share with you from the full commission hearing is the commission provided review and comment on the amendment to the administrative code for a process establishing cultural districts. as you know, this ordinance was passed by the board of supervisors a couple weeks ago. however, the commission was not part of the review of the item before the full vote so the h.p.c. requested the department bring the ordinance to them for review and comme.
planning department does have recommended amendments to make the program more inclusive and to reflect current practice between the planning department, the mayor's office, housing and work force development and mayor's office housing and community development. and overall, we're very supportive of those amendments. supervisor ronen's office was in attendance, along with members of the public and mohcd and moewd. and we'll continue to work with supervisor ronen's office to see if they're ameanable to the proposed amendments. that concludes my presentation and my comments unless you have questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a question. mr. sadder, the buildings you are referring to pre-prop m, adapting to in some cases housing now being able to revert
or recapture? there's a difference. revert, housing disappears, office moves in. recapture, using the amount of office space dedicated to housing and adding additional office space not counting against prop m. i would think that would be a more conducive strategy because we do not want to lose housing. >> as we understand it, the ordinance would not result in a direct physical change to the environment in that fashion. it would simply recapture the square footage for proposition m, accounting purposes, if you will. >> commissioner moore: that's great. glad you are saying that. it wn't clear with your talk and offices of housing and now back to offices. great idea. thank you. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public can address the commission on items that are in
the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, with the exception of agenda items. with agenda items, you can comment when we reach that portion of the meeting. you can address for up to 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any general public comment? >> good afternoon. this is for ms. jensen. i sent to the commissioners and welcome back, mr. sanchez, and to the director, an email with attachments with a letter suggesting that you use your powers under 317b2d. why do i suggest that? i said it before. what prompted me this weekend? this open house on chattanooga. it's not really a demolition, but it's sort of a demolition. it's a merger of units. they're asking 7.65000.
that's a mortgage of $36,000 a month. something has to be done. i go in there. it was two units, but the agent tells me that, oh, you open this wall and you can connect them up. they're selling it as a single-family home. with all the things that i've shown you over the last four years, during that four-year time, the zoning administrator, mr. sanchez, has raised the numerical calculation for the rh-1. he's raised it three times. that's in the email i sent you. you haven't raised it. i'm asking you to follow 317-b2d, which i attached, so the letter and four pages after that, to please consider doing
that to deal with the democalcs. he's raised it three times. 1.5 to 1.6 to 1.9, to allow demolitions in rh-1 admistrative approval. you have the ability to do that. i really hope that you will consider doing it and i really hope that you will consider doing it the three times like he did it, making up for it, catching up to the four years. as we know, in the four years, the cost of housing has just zoomed, as we always talk about. one more thing to put a fine point on it. somebody told me about a house on church street that got its entitlement for an extensive remodel and it was sold. the neighbor didn't do a d.r. so i thought about all those i've known -- forgetting about speculative projects, but the ones sold once they got the entitlement from the staff. church street, jersey street, homestead, duncan, castro, 21st
street and outside of noe valley, i know there's a lot more. between the speculative development that turns them into $4 million, $5 million, $7 million and those that are sold and accelerate the price and resold. i think it's time to do something. that's my suggestion. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we can move to regular calendar. >> commissioners, that places us on item 10. case 2018-003260pca, public parking lots in permitted use in the glen park district and adjoining locations. this is a planning code amendment. >> we have someone from supervisor sheehy's office. i think we'd like to hear from her first. >> sharon johnson, supervisor
sheehy's office. thank you, dan. i'm here on behalf of supervisor sheehy. he is not able to be here today and sends his regards and regrets. we've been working with the family that owns this property for a number of months. and it's been aublic parking lot in the neighborhood for a number of years. we've received a number of phone calls both from people that want to see it as housing right away and from people who really enjoy the pleasure of having the parking lot there. the supervisor recognizes that we are a housing-first, transit-first city, as does the family that owns the property. they would like it to be used as a parking lot for a certain amount of years until they can get enough money to make it a housing place, to build housing
there, because it is right across from the bart transit station and makes it very valuable piece of property. so he is respectfully asking you to consider a set of amendments that he will be making at the board on june 12 board meeting. and he really wants to stress that he is really for housing-first and there's been a promise and a commitment that the neighbors -- i mean, the owners really want to the do that. and he will introduce the legislation that will rezone the rh-2 portion to fall into the glen park commercial transit area. and he really hopes that you will keep it as a parking lot. and he owners take good care of it. it will be a way that they can gather some money to be financially able to build the housing that is so needed in the
glen park area. so i thank you for your consideration. >> president hillis: thank you. >> supervisors, thank you, sharon. from a technical perspective, supervisors, you have a proposed ordinance that would permit a public parking lot use on really a particular property right across from the glen park bart station. if we can get the overhead, you can see what we're talking about. the overhead, please, rather than the computer, sfgov-tv. we'll just keep going. that's okay.
as sharon mentioned, the property straddles two zoning districts. it's a bit unusual. this is the subject property. and this is the glen park bart station right here. scoot this down just a bit. it is, as sharon mentioned, currentry used as an existing, public parking lot. there is no enforcement action on this right now, the owner has in good faith come fward to the city with the intention of both legalizing the parking lot and beginning the process to develop housing here. without this proposal, commissioners, this ordinance, only the n.c.t.-zoned portion of this property and only with your conditional use authorizization and only for a period of five years could a parking lot be permitted. the yellow portion of the property, rh-2, could not under any circumstances have a legal, public parking lot. i do want to briefly touch on
the history here because we believe it's relevant. the parcel itself was created no the that long ago, in the 1960s, when bosworth street was widened. it's been used as de facto parking lot since that time. since about 1971, we think, could be a little bit before. it was actually slated originally to be a city-owned parking facility. the plans were obviously abandoned. in 1974, the property was sold to the same family that continues to own it today. commissioners, public comment-wise, we do have a good deal of neighborhood outreach. one letter and 37 emails from primarily residents in the immediate vicinity. the comment categorically, in fact, is opposed to the ordinance it is, however, generally supportive of two things. first, the rezoning of the entire property as sharon mentioned. and secondly, willingness to have a temporary parking use on
this site, while that proposal -- while the housing itself moves forward. policy-wise, we recognize the longstanding parking use here. our position is that housing is and has been for years appropriate here. this is a prime site, directly across the street from the bart station. allowing use of it as a parking lot in perpetuity would be a missed opportunity, one we're not comfortable with and could be an impediment to housing development in the future. we do believe the owners of the property. and, again, they've been forthright with us, that they intend to build housing here. we remain supportive of that, but we're also supportive, as sharon mentioned, with the supervisor's position to rezone the portion of the lot that's rh-2 to n.c.t. to promote a higher-density project, but that's not before you today. we urge that you support that in due course. on balance, we are taking the
position that you adopt the draft resolution before you to recommend the board not approve the ordinance as currently introduced by supervisor sheehy. happy to answer questions on this somewhat unusual case. thank you, commissioners. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll open this item up for public comment, if there is any. >> hi there. i'm mike shereldi. i live in glen park. i'm about 1,000 feet away from the parcel in question. i want to let you no he that there is much support in the community for building more housing here, even if it's at the expense of parking, to the extent that we've created a mailing list in march that is now up to 120 members. unfortunately, i did not announce that mailing list that it would be before you until less than 24 hours ago, but 100%
of the feedback so far including 34 of those 37 letters that mr. snyder mentioned are all in agreement that it's fantastic and be able for a temporary, 5-year conditional use approval for parking, not a permanent one, where we would have to trust that the property owner out of the goodness of their heart would continue to proceed with the development. and i just want to make sure that those emails made it to your attention, even though they arrived, some of them, just a few hours ago. they include the president emeritus of glen park association, vice president, several board members on the g.p.a. and i hope that you will go along with the zoning, but not with the -- not supporting the legislation to make the parking right.
>> president hillis: thank you. >> afternoon, commissioners. steven bus. i'm also strongly in favor of the n.c.t. rezoning, when that makes it in frontf o u. in the meantime, like mr mr. sheraldi said, i urge you to not allow the parking in perpetuity. i also -- i don't doubt the owners that they want to develop it into residential, but a lot can happen while they're raising the funds to redevelop it and it could end up changing hands and the new owner may want to keep the parking forever. so it's best that we, you know, prevent that going forward and we allow the temporary use as parking with the ultimate goal of high-density development near the bart station. it's exactly the kind of development that we advocate for. it's near transit. it displaces no one.
and it will add desperately needed housing to a very great spot next to high-quality transit. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i think the case that the department made is critical clear. we are asked to consider temporary public use as parking but not enshrining it in perpetuity. analysis in front of us clearly speaks to supporting the department's position. move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner richards: this is a strange one. the property owners have owned the property since the '70s. it's been a parking lot and now they want to build housing on it, which i completely support. i guess waiting another five
years, are they trying to generate enough cash to build for cash and not get a loan? i mean, this is a very prime, lendable parcel in which to develop and i think five years is too long to wait. i would actually move to amend or ask the motion to amend to three years instead of five. >> president hillis: it's a recommendation. >> if i may, commissioners, what -- all that's before you right now, is the ordinance to change the planning code to allow this as of right basis indefinitely. you could amend this in order to allow this as an as right basis for three years. i think what was referred to is requiring conditional use and limiting that to three years. i think those are your paths. >> commissioner richards: but to be clear, the temporary use as a parking lot would only be allowed 90 it was n.c.t. under current zoning.
if it changes to n.c.t., you could consider conditional use for temporary parking lot. the part that's n.c.t., tre are already cars on it, a parking lot? >> that's correct. >> commissioner richards: is that allowed in perpetuity? >> right now, the parking lot is operating without the benefit of permit. that's the condition it's been in for the last 45 years. what this proposal would do is provide a path to permit that on as as of right basis in perpetuity. we struggle with that. one of the options available, that goes to your point, commissioner, is that you could modify or recommend that the board modify this ordinance to allow that as of right permit but only for three years. >> president hillis: that's what commissioner richards proposed. to modify the recommendation -- >> commissioner richards: to
three years. >> president hillis: i'm comfortable with staff's recommendation and commissioner moore -- i think allowing it to be paid parking is less of an incentive for it to turn to housing. i would ask if we knish -- initiate -- is the n.c.t. change of zoning under way? >> i defer to sharon. my understanding is that that would be done at the next board hearing. correct? >> yes. >> president hillis: i would be supportive of n.c.t. zoning to get more housing. so it's good to hear that. i think -- i can't support it as parking, paid parking. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i believe that the supervisors and the committee working with the owners rather than coming down to the numbers of three years the dynamics of reality of why people do things need to be given some room, but extending a message about how we feel about parking and the future is very
clear. >> president hillis: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: doing the three years encourages housing faster than the five years, correct? >> president hillis: this is no years. the disapproval is parking is not allowed on a temporary basis. >> commissioner richards: okay. >> president hillis: so it's not three years or five years. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: you said what i was going to say. >> commissioners, there is a motion seconded to disapprove this code amendment. on that motion -- [roll call] so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. places us on item 11 for case 2018-004633pca, mayor's process improvements ordinance planning
code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. there's a pair of sunglasses up here that someone may have left. i will set them on the side-bar. there they are. little housekeeping item. can we go ahead and have the slides, please? good afternoon, commissioners. we are here to have an adoption hearing for the proposed ordinance on process
improvements from mayor farrell that we spoke about on may 17 and informational hearing. we're going to go through, again, very briefly the contents of the ordinance, talk about some of the proposed modifications that were included in your packet for the ordinance. and then look forward to discussing that with you. before i begin the presentation, i would like to bring up a representative from the mayor's office. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. economic work force development office here on behalf of the mayor's office, sponsor of this legislation. three weeks ago, you heard the informational presentation about this package of amendments, designed to freem line the review and approval of projects. we heard a lot of support for the majority of the changes. we thank you for that. this is a result of the planning department's response to mayor lee's executive directive to put the city on a path to support the delivery of 5,000 units
every your for the foreseeable future the planning department looked at how much staff time was needed, so you can focus your energy on where we need it most -- approving and building new housing we heard your concerns about two components, the standardized 20-day notice and pop-outs. given that the 20-day notice is what is required for large projects and projects seeking exceptions, we think it makes sense to apply that same stan standard to code-complying prague rockets. remember, a variance is noncode-complying and gets 20 days notice and the other 30 days. it can feel like the notice is being reduced going from 20 days to 30 days, it's being expanded
by going to tenants where it wasn't previously. it will be multilingual and on-line for broader reach. 20-day notice will be more meaningful. preapplication is required as well as notices from the building department. the proposal to remove neighborhood notice for pop-outs is a significant part of the legislation that we think will be heard today. pop-outs at 300 to 350 living space, a bedroom and a little extra living space, usually to accommodate growing families. they're code-complaint, because they're part of the neighborhood character in all of the residential neighborhoods. it's the expansion encouraged by the department. they never enroach into mid clock open space or required rear yards. of the 250 permits filed for rear additions, only 5 of them get a d.r. filed and only two or three are modified by the commission. we have to think of neighborhood notice as a way to deter similar
developments, like a c.u. if we want this moderate expansion over monster houses, we should remove this. as you can see, architects encourage clients to go down the path of least resistance. people are more likely to take this approach than out-of-scale expansions, the ones that typically do get d.r.s. taken together, it's smart, common sense improvement that makes it consistent, minor changes, consolidate hearings for projects and eliminate mandatory hearings for 100% affordable projects. this displaces no one, creates w, affordable housing faster and helps families stay in their homes. we know there are calls for more time to consider this legislation or that the changes proposed are too broad and overreachi overreaching, as we hear with every smart piece of change. i ask you to consider that what is in front of you are good,
government fixes, the fixes this body has been asking for. we heard similar concerns with the a.d.u. program, which is so successful we have 1,200 university in the the pipeline and tweaked it every year to make it work better. we propose these changes because it will not change the planning outcome. 99% of pop-outs are approved without modification. if we cannot approve t quickly, how can we ask our departments to approve housing quickly. jacob will present the details of this legislation, including some modifications that the mayor's office is happy to accept. we believe these compromises address the very real concerns that were raised. thank you for your time. i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you. >> commissioners, i would like to mention that, of course, we did include the public comment that was submitted in time for the packet, in your packet. we received other written comments, that's included in
what jonas passed around for you. that will be in the record. we've received 28 letters, 16 opposed to the legislation, mostly commenting on the notification, and 12 in sun -- is in support of the legislation. that's before you as well. all right. let's talk about the ordinance. there are three pieces of the ordinance. there are three sections in the ordinance the first of them relates to our review for 100% affordable housing projects. specifically for the 100% affordable housing projects, we have the ability to do code complaint approval, but they often need minor exceptions from the planning code to be approvable and we're limited in our ability to grant those depending on where the project is, and site is. the proposal is to allow us to still under administrative approval approve the projects at the same level of modifications that you could get through a
planned unit development process. so that is any modification reasonable but cannot include height or increase in density. it would be tantamount to rezoning. so it will be donald minnesota straig -- done administratively. for the projects that can get up to three floors of add usual height and get relaxation of density controls. the ordinance would establish an administrative review and approval projects for bonus projects as well. there would be no design review hearing before the planning commission. instead, it would be complaint with the affordable guidelines and approvable by staff. in addition, your resolution, draft resolution, would also delegate discretionary review authority for the projects to staff so they can be approved administratively.
related to large, residential downtown projects, we have a number of requirements that are often waved. those include the open space requirements and dwelling unit requirements and the open space and how it looks out on. those projects require a variance because they're not compatible with high-rise developments. it would allow for you, the planning commission, to accept the exceptions with the others at 309 rather than the duplicative appearances that takes up staff time that are typically approved. i would like to point out one proposed modification that was in your packet. if the mouse will cooperate. to this part of the ordinance. that is to in section 315 for administrative approval for 100% housing projects to make a
reference that they conform to the urban design guide lines and any other designs as well. that was based on comments from commissioners that we received. in addition, to highlight the benefits of this. there are 1,700 affordable housing units in our review or pipeline that could potentially benefit from the exceptions and administrative approval that is proposed in the ordinance, related to the projects that are downtown, 1,100 or so units created in the c3 district that get an exception every year. all of those units could potentially benefit from the exception in the ordinance for you to grant. the second section relates to minor alterations to historic structures and structures in historic districts. the issue here was that for some relatively minor alterations to buildings, planners are not able to approve them over the counter currently. they have to be held and they have to go into the queue and that can delay the project being
approved by a matter of months and takes up quite a bit of staff time. the proposal is to amend articles 10 and 11 in the ordinance to allow for these specific minor modifications to be made administratively on the same day over the counter with no hold. that would be for a.d.a. automatic door operators and grading work on a.d.a. ramps. also business signs, awning, nonvisible rooftop equipment, skylights and historical landmark plaques. they would need to conform for the guidelines as set forth in the code. the benefits of the section of the ordinance are to primarily reduce the time that our staff spends doing these administrative permits, of the permits that are approved, 1/3 are coming from the small scopes of work. it would free up time for staff to attend to other, larger matters. in addition, small business
owners changing their signage, it would take it from a matter of months to the same day when it came in. finally, the third section of the ordinance relates to the public notification procedures and the planning code. i want to remind everybody that this one section of the ordinance has a distinct operative date. the provisions would not come into effect until january 1, 2019. this was a request to the mayor's office from the planning department to make sure that we have time to make sure that the materials are correct, to implement that, have further conversations with the community and commission to make se that the notification materials are doing the job keep that in mind as we go through that we do have the additional time to consider the specific proposals around notification. so, first, the current requirements, as we developed our process improvement plan issued in december, we asked ourselves the question that commissioner richards asked at
the informational hearing, where are we adding value and where are we not, with our time? we want to see that our planners' time is spent on work that is changing outcomes in the city rather than work that ends up having the same outcome regardless of how much time is spent on the procedural requirements themselves. we really look through the planning code, looking for where procedural codes can be done without making policy changes. his ordinance is not about debating what uses are appropriate or how tall buildings should be or about what uses go where or any of the procedures. this is just about the procedures, not about policy changes. so when we looked at our neighborhood notification procedures, which have been established and added on to over the years from time to time, what we saw is that they've become unnecessarily complicated and wasteful. there are 30 different combinations of notice and formats and times, depending on
the project coming through. it invites opportunities for error and can delay projects for months, even if it's minor. it's also just that extra thing on your desk when you are a planner with 30 or 40 projects that you would like to do at in doing your role as a planner. in addition to that, as looked through,s lot of paper involved in sending out the notifications, because the code is descriptive and indicates what we have to send out as part of the notice including 11x17 plan sets. 311 notices, generating 3 tons of paper being mailed out each year. in addition, tenants were not being noticed, in many cases such as conditional use, downtown and eastern neighborhoods, and those are some of the most common approvals in that tenants are not receiving notice. the mail notice is not required to include multilingual translation instructions.
finally, when projects otherwised permitted, meaning they don't end up here in discretionary review, those projects still have to go into our review queue, which extends our backlog. so it means we have to wait for a plan tore get to it because the planner is busy planniing planning. i will get to that in a most. the proposal is to have procedures for all of the notifications. the consistent procedures that are proposed would be a 20-day mailing period for all types of notice. also to replace newspaper notice with on-line notice. and also to replicate, provide the mail and posted notice as
part of the on-lineice as well. so it's available to the general public immediately regardless of when you gohe mail or not. so that would obviously reduce some paper. in addition to that, what the proposal is is to allow us to have mailed notice that could be postcard size and allow us to have posted notice be 11x17 or larger. currently, there are different requirements throughout the code. it's very prescriptive. the idea is to establish in the code what is the required content of the notice. who does the notice have to go to and when and what is the minimum size and format of that notice and leave the details up to the planning department and planning commission to figure out how to make sense over time with different technologies and sites and circumstances, rather than having to go through the legislative process any time a change is needed in the very detail detailed types of requirements. finally it, would include the
multilingual and translation instructions on all forms of notice. having trouble with the mouse today. everything i've mentioned is related to the procedures to notification. there's one change what would be required that wouldn't be under the notice. the limited rear yard expansions that are personal mitted under section 136 of the planning code in the dimensions of 12 feet back. no higher than 10 feet in height for a one-story addition, lot line to lot line. that can be in section 136 or addition that it's two floors in head, no higher than the second floor of the existing building. in that case, it must be set in five feet from either side from the lot lines. that is the diagram in the planning code right now. these add up to about 300 square feet or 360 square feet for the
typical 25-foot-wide lot. they're currently allowed in the planning code because they're consistent with the guidelines by definition. when we have projects that do come through for this type of work, what we're actually doing with that type when it's under ouriew is talking to the project sponsor for it to be closer to dimensions so it c be consistent with the residential design guidelines. that's why it's in the code and typical to be approved over the counter same day without requiring neighborhood notification. a couple of things to mention about the first floor addition permitted under section 136 is that, as i said, it can be no higher than 10 feet in height. that's a fence that can be approved or a deck that can already be approved over the counter. so it's just allowing there to be livable space in that envelope as well without notification. we think we get about 250 of these scopes of work per year and it takes up about two f.t.e.
of staff time to review this, again, like i say, just because it needs notification. 99% of the cases, the project is not getting a discretionary review. half the cases where you do have discretionary review, the commission is approving the project without modification because they're very prescribed and by definition consistent with the residential design guidelines. most of the conversation at the may 17 informational hearing on this focused on the notification procedures. we would like to discuss a little bit about the concerns we heard and walk you through the proposed modifications in your draft resolution today. regarding the notification peri period, it was summed up in the opening remarks, but the notifications are 10 or 20 day so we looked at 20 as appropriate. appropriate.
right now our applications are paper-based. one of those applications would be for discretionary review itself. right now to file a cautionary review, if you want to do that once you have noticed, you have to come to our office between monday through friday to drop that off. when we move it online, you could file at 24/7. agn, when yolook at the full package of bringing the notification online, you look at the fact that we have preapplication on the fact that we have the board of appeals to appeal the apartment after the notification period and you look at the ability to file more of these requests online. of the difference between 20 and 30 days is not a demonstrable increase to weigh in. that is why the planning department felt it was reasonable and appropriate to suggest a 20 day period as a uniform standard for notification for all of the forms of notification that we do. we also talked about the required content and one of the
comments we heard it loud and clear was the language was a bit wonky, and the notification itself a little bit legalistic and technical. so we totally agree with that and took a crack at writing it like a human for humans to read with words that people can understand. again, that is a kind of thing that seems like anopriate conversation to have at the staff level and with the commission rather than before the doors before the board of supervisors which is why the proposal would allow us to have these conversations without getting legislative changes every time. something i handed to you at the beginning of this commission was a mockup of what co possibly fit on the postcard -sized mailer. there is one for a notice of planning commission and one for a notice of building permit application. both of them give instructions for how to contact the department, how to file for discretionary review and in the case of a building permit for how you would access the plans
online or contact the planner. i think we found that it was pretty easy to get the information that people need to know on the mailer like this. in fact this is quite noticeable if you receive something like this as opposed to a very large envelope that looks more like this. again, there is a lot of different ways to exercise public notice and we want to do it the right way and have the conversation here. in addition to that. the proposed modifications to the ordinance would be to increase the size of the mailer. also, for the postage notice, there are two modifications that are proposed. one is to restore language that is currently in the code that gives a zoning administrator the ability to come up with a different way of meeting the postage requirement when it is not physically feasible. you know, mail is always the same and mail is already the
same and the internet is always the same. co the historic preservation oneonpointed out to the ferry building has a 700-foot frontage. would you put that many as 47 posters up? we would rewrite the ability to make those modifications to that. in addition, the other modification would be to add language that requires it to be visible from the sidewalk or right of way. there is language that says it needs to be close to the street in t, but based on the comments from commissioners and the public last time, they can often be hard to see and we thought it was important to emphasize the best goal and the standard we are aiming for. all right. in relation to the additions, we had a couple of proposed modifications in the pocket as well. the first of them is to deal with the serial permitting issue
that was raised at the informational hearing. this is a possibility that someone could come in, expands the current structure to the maximum envelope allowable and while that permit is still open or wild the work is still underway, come in and without notice tack on another 12 feet. in order to address that issue, the recommendation is to amend section 311 so their rear yard edition would only be allowed without notice if the existing structure has not been expanded in the past three years. this is the standard that is currently used with accessory dwelling units and we borrowed the standard here as a means for preventing people from doing this. in addition, we also recommended not a modification to the ordinance but a modification to the commission policies on the preapplication. that would be to require a preapplication meeting for the rear yard edition even if the requirement is removed in proposed to the ordinance. even though