tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 5, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> clerk: please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]
>> clerk: we do expect commissioners melgar and johnson to be absent today and for commissioner moore to arrive later today. first up are continuances on your calendar. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda it [agenda item read]. >> clerk: further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, the project sponsor just advised me that they are requested items 13 a and b at 95 hawthorne street shadow findings and downtown authorization to be continued.
they are requested july 25. that hearing date is closed on your calendar, but entirely up to you what date you continue this matter to. >> is there any members of the public that wish to comment? mr. reuben? >> yes, commissioners. i'm jim reuben, reuben, junius, and rose. you received a letter the other day from john elberling. he's here, and you can talk to him, as well. we ask for july 25 because we think 30 days is enough to get our issues resolved, on our way to get being our issues resolved -- getting our issues resolved, or can't.
reuben, junius, and rose removed 300 masonic from your calendar that day, so there should be a spot to fill, so we stipulate to that continuance. thank you. >> thank you. a any one else wish to comment on item 13 a and b? >> our client is not available for the august 29 date, and we would request july 25, as well. >> okay. thank you. thank you. anyone else from the public? >> good afternoon. daniel bornstein. i'm the attorney for the project participant. we're asking for a continuance while we continue to dialogue with the tenant who has requested discretionary review,
see that if we can negotiate a further potential resolution. >> clerk: which item? >> commissioner hillis: item 17. >> okay. thank you. >> so i move to continue items 4, 5 -- >> that's the consent calendar. >> excuse me. wrong page. items 1 and 3 to the date specified, item 2 to july 26 -- >> clerk: 25. >> commissioner richards: 25, since we've heard it once before. item number 13-a to august 29.
>> if i might, just for one moment, speak to the continuance dates. we had requested july 25. i didn't hear that in the motion. if the commission is inclined not to give us july 25, then we'd prefer to go into september because of some schedules and other issues. >> commissioner richards: okay. how about, then -- i appreciate that. how about september -- >> 12 would be the date. >> commissioner richards: sept 19? >> commissioner hillis: why not -- why not in july? >> commissioner richards: because the san carlos one, it's already been heard twice. you don't have to vote for my resolution. you don't have to second it. >> second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded as proposed, item 2 to
july 25, item 3 to august 27, and item 13 to sept 25. [roll call] >> clerk: your discretionary review item, number 17, has been continued to august 29. commissioners, that'll place us under your consent matter. all matters here in are considered to be routine by the commission and will be voted on by a single vote of the commission.
it [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> clerk: i have no speaker cards. >> are there any members of the public that would like to comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: move to approve. >> commissioner hillis: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve items 4 and 5-a under your consent calendar -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. acting zoning administrator, what say you? >> on item 5-b, close the hearing and inclined to grant that variance.
>> clerk: very good. commissioners, that'll place us on item 6, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for june 13, 2019. >> vice president koppel: any member of the public like to comment on draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards: move to approve. >> vice president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to approve the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that item passes 5-0. next item, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner richards: thank you. what happened in oregon started with a rent cap of 7%. i know we have some laws here in california part of the protect, preserve, and produce.
new york, when i was gone, actually had a sweeping rent law passed. i'll just read a couple of excerpts from june 19, 2019. just imagine hearing these words from california and imagine that you could have this great leap of faith. new york law makers three fridays ago passed a package of sweeping rent protection laws and dealt a blow to the state's most powerful real estate industry. the law signalled a seismic shift not only in relationship between tenants and landlords, but also in the power balance of albany. try to put the word sacramento in there. where deep pocketed developers had enjoyed strength and influence. the real estate industry had lobbied fiercy against the
proposed changes, warning they would discourage landlords from investing in properties and award thousands of contractors of jobs. their appeals met skepticism from the legislature. for far too long, this legislature gave landlords tools to game the system, referring to the years of alliance between the industry and republican law makers. in a radio interview on friday before the bill's passage, govern governor cuomo said, at the beginning of the legislative
session, i called for the most sweeping protections in state history he said in a statement. i'm confident the measure passed today is the strongest possible set of reforms that the legislature was able to pass and a major step forward for the tenants across new york. can you imagine that happening in this state? i think it's a dream, but i think we can actually get there someday. secondly, while i was away, and not coincidentally, we heard the thursday i was here last the large home piece of legislation proposed by supervisor safai on the number of homes in a conditional use requirement exceeding a certain number of bedrooms. i don't know where it ended up in the land use, if it's been heard yet or not. as well, i wasn't here for the marathon demolition hearing, which i'm glad i probably wasn't. i did watch the whole 5.5 hours
on sfgov on tape. there is a nothing burger bill from senator scott wiener. on march 27, he morphed it into a cosmetology bill, requiring the cosmetology board to update the address of a licensee if the address changed. then, when he substantial amended it, he replaced it entirely with some of the text of sb 50. it includes single-family homes, a.d.u.s, and additions to single-family homes. i would request that this commission ask staff what the impact analysis would be, one, in the workload of the department, whether it goes down or up in terms of making
additions to single-family homes, especially bedrooms, redefining the division of what a unit is, if it doesn't become a unit, it becomes a bedroom, on how this would affect your ability to do discretion year reviews, and role the public is going to have anymore in terms of these additions. there's one other thing in the law that i read that i'm going to note on market rate housing. a city cannot disapprove any housing based on density unless the state -- the city finds within 30 days that all three of the following applies. the density process is mandatory white powder laws that cannot be amended by the
planning commission and general supervisors. if the project has adverse impact upon public health or safety -- we've been down this road before with the h.a.a., and third, there's no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact of the project. i think we need to shed the light on what this actually is and have a hearing on what this actually is. thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to item 8, director's
announcements. >> two things. first, i wanted to introduce you to the summer interns that are in the audience. want to ask them to standup for a couple of minutes. we have -- it's a 12-week program that started on june 3, ends at the end of august. there are a total of 23 interns this summer, which includes interns from the city's high school interns program. they're working on climate resiliency program, environmental justice policies in the general plan, the southeast mobility stat gee, guidelines for public -- for popos, guidelines for institutional master plans, and the housing affordability strategy, the historic context statement and the citywide historic survey. as you know, each intern is paired with a planner who
mentors their work. in the final week, the interns will present their findings to staff during a week long lunchtime lecture series. we are very excited about the program, and as you know, many of our staff started at interns with the department, so we think it's a great training for the department and we get some work for the department as a result, so we welcome you to the department. [applause] >> director rahaim: secondly, commissioners, i have a bitter sweet announcement. i think, as you know, andrea green is leaving the department. tomorrow is her last day. andrea's been with the department for 24 years, and for the last 15 has been the executive assistant to the director, which means she has been my assistant the entire time i've been here. andrea has become the heart and soul of the department in so many ways.
i think one of the great assets she has brought to the department is kind of the ability to treat everybody with equal respect and kindness no matter who they are and how upset they are. she is one of the front doors of the department, if you will, where she is the face of the department and has really kind of helped us in putting a personal face forward. i will miss her terribly, and i know the department will, and i know you will. i just want to honor her. i might reiterate a thanks to supervisor peskin who honored here at the board of supervisors on tuesday. the board signed a commendation in her honor on tuesday which was quite lovely. we will miss her greatly, and andrea, i'd love for you to come up and say a few words. [applause] >> first, i would like to say
thank you so much. john, it's been a pleasure working with you. i'm not going to cry, because i am a cry baby, but i'm going to fight them back. but thanks to all that i've worked with at the commission, the staff, and everyone. it's been a long road, but a fun road. it's had its ups and downs, but the ups have been greater than the downs, so i really appreciate working with all of you. i know commissioner hillis from way back. city attorney, kate, we go way back, so i appreciate all of you. my heart will be with the department, which is the best department in the city and county of san francisco, so thank you so much, and i'll miss you -- and i won't be a stranger, i promise.
thank you. [applause] >> vice president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: andrea, we will miss you. we wish you the best, and you've just taken away one of the best reasons for me to visit the department. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i won't be able to be there tonight, but i have very fond memories on that side of the aisle. as a pipsqueak activist, you treated me with respect, and i appreciate what you did. >> vice president koppel: commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: yeah. it's been great knowing you all these years, and you're kind of synonymous with the department. i never liked calling john rahaim or dean makras, but i
called because i like talking to you. so congratulations. >> vice president koppel: commissioner moore? >> can we convince you to stay? new desk, new everything up there. if not, congratulations, and thank you. >> vice president koppel: yeah. congratulations on everything. well deserved. [applause] >> clerk: item 9, review of items at the board of appeals. there is no historic preservation matters yesterday. >> first on the agenda this week was the mayor and supervisor brown amended street licensing ordinance. [inaudible] >> -- and allow outdoor
activity areas to operate between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. commissioners, you heard this item on march 7 and voted to approve with modifications. your vote was to retain the conditional use authorization for outdoor activities associated with a bar use. during the hearing, there was significant debate around whether the restricted use districts in the city should retain their quarter-mile buffers for l.c.u.s and l.c.c.s uses. supervisor peskin recommended going to the individual communities to let them decide whether to retain the buffers. many members of the public came to speak in favor of the legislation, along with neighbors, a few neighborhood advocates who came to speak in opposition. supervisor peskin submitted his proposed changes to the committee. the committee voted to continue the item with all proposed amendments submitted at the hearing by supervisor brown
included and with the request for the committee to consider the additional amendments submitted by supervisor peskin at the following hearing on july 8. next, the committee considered supervisor mandelman's amendments on building standards. you heard this item on june 8 with required amendments. the full board only had one planning item this week, which was a ceqa appeal for the safe navigation center at seawall lot 330, which would include 200 beds to serve the city's homeless community. the port commission approved the unanimous agreement between the port and h.s.a. on april 23 of this year. the appellant raised ceqa issues with regards to contaminates soil, adequate emergency services, and impacts on noise and transportation. nonceqa issues were also raised during the -- in regards to the
state lands commission, fair property value and merits of the project. public comments were nonceqa. the few ceqa comments were about contaminated soils and emergency services. public comments in opposition to the appeal were primarily nonceqa and related to the need for homeless shelters and services. supervisor haney was the only member of the board who asked questions, most of whom were aimed at jeff kosinski, director of homelessness and supportive housing, elaine forbes, director of the port, and ron ewashima, the port's engineer. supervisor haney did not believe the comments raised by the appellant were related to
ceqa, and therefore voted to uphold ceqa. just to let you know, i had been reviewing the hearing from last week. i had a long-planned family vacation, so i couldn't be here, but i did want to be here, not necessarily for the four or five-hour hearing, but i wanted to be there to support audrey, who did spend a tremendous amount of time working on that, and i wanted to support her in that, so thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you, mr. starr, and i have no questions from the board of appeals. >> clerk: and at this time, we'll move on to general public comment. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: i do have several
speaker cards. [names read] >> good afternoon. i'm going to resubmit this e-mail that i sent you on june 24, 2015, and i was -- it was about public comment that i made on june 25, 2015, so almost precisely five years ago. and what's in that e-mail is about what's been happening in noe valley and other neighborhoods. de facto demolitions, however you want to call them, unstable housing in noe valley and the mission. many units in noe valley are being absorbed in large single-family homes. students are disheartened and
disgusted with the fact that they don't feel it's a democratic process. neighborhood character. the residential design guidelines being ignored by staff and abused by developers and their attorneys, and the economic and social impact. to quote from my e-mail directly, i said i believe that a greater oversight is needed at the building and planning department to make sure that developers are following the rules that would at least regulate and temper these developments, most especially those that are alterations that may be did he fae facto demoli when they are filed. staff needs to use their considerable professional skills and zeal to make sure that the rules are being followed and neighbors are being informed and active in the process when projects arrive at the planning department, and i guess i would add the building department to that, too. this would help all of our
citizens. regulation is not a pejorative. i also urge you to please watch the sfgovtv public comment that day. there were three speakers. myself, talking about this, miss hester, and miss petron talking to things that were important to them, but the important thing in that public comment which runs about 14 minutes is a colloquy between commissioner richards and director sanchez. four of you were not on the commission at that time, so please watch that hearing. i submitted it again, and if you want to read it again, maybe ill -- watch it again, i'll submit it again in the e-mail. >> vice president koppel: thank you so much. >> i need the overhead.
good afternoon, commissioners. i'm richard frisbee. you should have a copy of all the slides, so i'm only going to show a couple. the first slide's a comparison chart which shows the community smart growth plan. as noted previously, the community plan matches a number of proposed unit by the developer. the community calls for 56 units of moderate income housing, something that the developer is silent on. considering the fact that middle-income housing is the most underserved component by a factor of five is unacceptable.
so the question needs to be asked, who was looking out for middle-income families such as teachers, nurses, blue collar employees, and many others? the study called for all the housing to be completed in three years. the developer has a much more leisurely understanding of our housing crisis. after three years, the developer has completed a mere 196 units. we built a salesforce tower in five years. somehow this doesn't jive with our housing crisis. the third slide which i'll show you which is pretty clear here, not surprising, expedited completion is the number one item for increasing affordable housing. so the question before you, does san francisco have a housing crisis? if we have a housing crisis, then the 7-to-15 years entitlement is simply immoral.
add to that many properties aren't being built but are being sold. 4 and 5, which i also have, are the community rendering render you've probably seen in the past. first is california front, which is where the affordable middle-income. also, the fully repurposed historic main building. please note that pedestrian way that already exists through the main building. and the last slide which you also have shows the wall and building on the seven-story variant, the four-story building is shown by the black arrow. and on the right is the 56 middle-income town houses. thank you very much.
>> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. i'm here to present an amendment to the environmental impact report, and it's not the topic of teacher housing and 100% affordable, per se. this addendum for 100% affordable housing for sfusd and college teacher housing -- [inaudible] >> -- and is approved as part of 2004, 5, and 9 housing e.i.r. my question is more about the process and what -- how this came about as far as an environmental 2019-00601 e.n.v.
board of supervisors file 19437. i'm wondering why was this addend addendum letter formalizing -- i'm trying to understand what the process flow is, and i don't understand it. will this be coming before this commission, and what nexus might this have with ballot initiatives on this matter? thank you, and i submit this under sunshine. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> chair koppel, and members of the commission, kathleen henry, housing commission. the decision not to replace housing expert tim frye and to
disburse the preservation planners to the various quadrants might save the department $100,000 plus or minus in salary, but it is a disser disservice to the community. with the loss of tim, we've lot a senior preservation planner who could be a consultant, advisor, ally, and oftentimes a challenger to the neighborhood associations. the preservation planners that have now been disbursed to the different kwaund rants have lost a seen -- quadrants have lost a senior manager, director, and mentor. putting your senior planners in the quadrants is like putting oil in water because not only do the city planners and community planners agree on a certain situation. as far as we are concerned, it is not an optimal solution.
we strongly urge the commission to give consideration to suggesting that the planning directory consider his organizational structure. thank you very much. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. audrey brown. i'm here to echo the same sentiment as miss courtney. it is really disturbing that mr. frye's position is not being replaced. the field of preservation planning is a specialized discipline, as you know, that cannot be mixed and matched with garden variety city planning. no disrespect to the quadrant leaders, but this is a specialized field. there's no reason for not filling mr. frye's position. this move is effectively dissolving the historic preservation department because a department without a department head is not a department. preservation planners need guidance. they need to be mentored, they
need support for standing up for preservation matters. they need independence from other departments, and none of this could happen without a department head whose expertise is rooted in historic preservation. i strongly believe that we do need to have a replacement for mr. frye's position particularly because san francisco is a unique city in north america. not very many cities in north america are so rich with architecture, so we desperately need this position replaced. secondly, i do want to bring up an issue that occurred today.
i'm sure it occurred many time before. there was an item that was supposed to be heard, item 16, and the d.r. requester never heard about it. it's the tenant's union, and they were not notified of the continuance of item 17. so i don't know if this is standard operating procedure or this is just the one-off, but i just want to bring this up to your attention that this is not a good practice. people that file d.r., they have to takeoff from work. in this case, tenant union have a full load, and they planned on being here, and they just found out that the item has been continued. that's it. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon,
commissioners. i'm kathrin petron. i'm here to address the commission on the same topic as the two previous speakers, although i have a little bit less specific information than they do. i really just wanted to make some comments about the restructuring -- pending restructuring that i don't know so much about. but with so many department efforts and programs underway or about to launch, such as the implementation of the arches system and the much-anticipated city surveying, it is more important to have more robust not less preservation program, together with solid leadership and training for existing staff. in addition, the department's property information database doesn't work as well as it has in the past. information such as d.p.r. forms from past survey efforts
and texts that used to be easy to find are no more. from my perspective -- and keeping in mind how things worked better in the past, now is the type to support the h historic preservation program. and finally, i would like the commission to know that it erodes public trust when the mo members are trust attorneys. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners.
todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i wanted to take a moment to maybe respond to commissioner richards' comments about sb 592. so sb 592 has absolutely nothing -- zero to do with sb 50. in fact, i would challenge to say he said there was long from sb 50 and put into 592. i'd like to know what that long is. sb 592 is a clarification of the housing accountability act. as i was here last week, the -- i said that there are municipalities that are currently denying zone complying projects, claiming that there are ambiguities in the housing accountability act, and sb 592's purpose is to clarify those beiambiguities. there is misinformation being spread that somehow this is a gutted amendment for sb 50.
so i am looking forward to when there is information before this commission as to what's actually in sb 592 because once again it's to clarify ambiguities in the housing availability act. it has nothing to do with sb 50, which was a zoning accountability speak. >> vice president koppel: thank you. anybody else wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just a couple of things. i was concerned because on the continuance, it was the developer asking for the continuance, and not the d.r. requester. that was my bad. i should pay more attention to that, but the d.r. -- the applicant's actually the person who should be requesting the continuance, not the project sponsor. i was giving them more time to
work that out, but i was confused that it was the developer when it should be the d.r. requester. question i had on 333 california is the -- you know, that there is this community alternative plan that we talked about when we had, i believe, the informational or two, and i think we -- i had faulted the community when the scoping document went out on the e.i.r. for not having the community plan as one of the plans being evaluated. it's a question i have, and you don't have to answer this now, but maybe you can get back to me. is the community plan being considered as an alternative or not in the e.i.r. evaluation? okay. great. the other thing, first, on the tim frye thing, honest, first i've ever heard of it. i don't want to micromanage how things work in the department. i just do think with the preservation element, needing to get that over the line with the survey still being 70% not complete, and the development pressure we have coming from sb
50, sb 330, i'll mention sb 592, and the fact that commissioner hyland and i went to supervisor fewer to request additional work for survey work and survey staff that would be -- and the money's apparently being considered let loose to do this work. potentially, we can replace mr. frye with some of that money. i understand the preservation fund actually stepped up and put forward some money, as well. i believe it might be able to pay for mr. frye. director rahaim, i'm not trying to manage the department, but i think it's a valid point. finally, on sb 592, i can't wait to see the clarification. expansion, bedroom is density versus not density. clarification, i think it's expansion. so maybe there was no sb 50 language put in, and i can't wait to see what the analysis
looks like looks like, but clearly to me in my humble layman opinion, it's density considering what we've been considering on the housing accountability act. >> vice president koppel: director rahaim? >> director rahaim: i think there's a couple of points of misunderstanding. one, the preservation planners have always been in the quadrants. they have for a number of years, and one of the reasons for this restructuring is they were essentially reporting to two bosses, and it was creating a lot of confusion in the department because they were reporting to the community as well as mr. frye. secondly, i think we have triple the numbers of preservation planners that we have on the staff now than we did five years ago, and all of
them have the same technical experience that tim frye had. so for the workload function as well as the staff, we think this system worked better and more efficiently and actually brings consistency into the program and more closely ties the work in the quadrants otherwise. having said all that, i think what we've said to the his torque presidenter -- historic preservation commission is we're willing to hear from them about how it's working, and we're willing to rehear this in a few months if they think it's not working. but i just wanted to mechanics that preservation planners have always been part of the quadrants. thank you. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar, item 10. [agenda item read].
>> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is an informational presentation that was required as part of a mixed use development at 1066 market street. the project sponsor will provide you an overview of the installation. in march of 2016, the commission approved a conditional use authorization and provided downtown project authorization for the construction of a 12-story building with approximately 300 dwelling units and 4500 square feet of retail space. pursuant to planning code section 429, the project required a public art component valued at an amount of 1% of the construction costs of the development. the project sponsor has chosen to satisfy this requirement by installing a sculpture on the
market street facade and the building's main entrance. ivan navarro is an artist that uses light as his primary medium. the cost of the proposed art is at least 1% of the hard construction costs. the piece will be visible from the public right-of-way and is not considered an architectural component of the building. the project's condition of approval also requires that the final art concept and location be submitted for review by the planning director in consultation with the commission. in today's hearing, staff is seeking comments from the commission as to the concept and location of this proposed art installation. this concludes my presentation, and i will turn it over to the project sponsor. thank you. >> vice president koppel: thank
in san francisco. one of his first shows was as galleria de la raza, and he's had shows in new york and is in museums around the world, and he explores principles of minimalism. and this is his piece called the ladder, which is a 10-story neon ladder which is going to go on the front of 1066 market, on the market street facade. i think it's a really conceptually wonderful piece. i think it's also -- i certainly remember in my childhood, fire escape ladders. i know for some, it's something you also see in photos, but it also brings back the concept of a marquis that used to be on market street. it's his first public permanent artwork, and the budget is
$755,000. i don't know if the commissioners have any questions. >> vice president koppel: we may. you have 3.5 or 4 minutes. do you want to say anything else? >> it's a very conceptually strong artwork, so i don't think it needs much more description. >> vice president koppel: why don't we go ahead and open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? come on up. >> i'm just wondering, will it be different colors or will it always be white like it's in the picture? >> no. we definitely know that. it will be white, and we'll be able to work -- we'll have the ability to dim or strengthen
it. we'll also have the ability to turn it on and off, so we'll have regularly scheduled hours, and we'll be working with that, you know, once it's installed. it will not -- the knneon ligh doesn't go -- there won't be any light bleed into the windows. neon is not like l.e.d. it doesn't project out, so it won't have that strong, kind of l.e.d. light. >> vice president koppel: thank you. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: i know we're not -- we don't necessarily vote on this, but i think it's a great piece. thank you, miss keen, for showing it to us. i kind of like the fact that it's referencing back what we've seen on buildings on market street, so thank you. >> vice president koppel: just another couple comments. definitely supportive of this piece. being an electrician, we're at home on a ladder, and we don't
>> all right. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jacob bent live -- bentliff, planning department staff. we're here on a presentation of senate bill 330, the bill is titled the housing crisis act of 2019. the bill was introduced by s a senator nancy skinner of berkeley. in may, it went on to the housing and development committee just last week. there were amendments at that committee hearing that were only published yesterday, so one of the materials that i just handed around was a short, two-pager just showing the things that changed and didn't change because obviously it was amended the day before your case packet was due so we
related to the removal of existing units that i will talk about as well. first category of items in the bill art restrictions on local zoning action. these actions taken by the board of supervisors that also include action taken by initiative ordinance as well. what this does is it applies to affected quote unquote jurisdictions, which we believe would include san francisco. you wouldn't be able to have legislative action that reduce the intensity of housing as compared with what they were on january 1st, 2018. there is a running theme and that is where the bill draws a reference point throughout the bill. so the city would be prohibited from doing reductions of high density housing for -- there will be setback requirements, minimum frontages or maximum lot requirements. it could include more types of
actions, except, major caveats, down zoning actions can be undertaken if there -- there are corresponding actions for up zoning for housing so there is no net loss in residential capacity. that is very important for things like area planning efforts and we can talk more about that. there's also limits on new types of standards, specifically moratoriums or caps on the number of housing units to be approved. no new minimum parking requirements, not an issue here in san francisco, and no new design standards that do not meet the criteria for objective design standards that were implemented or passed after generally first of 2018. we will come back to those implications for san francisco. one of the amendments to the bill was summarized for you and there would be some further exceptions to these restrictions if the legislative action is taken to preserve existing affordable housing including mobile homes, s.r.o. and rent-controlled units.
with regards to project review and approvals, there are a number of requirements in the bill. first of all, there are amendments the housing accountability act. what they would do is say that a project that proposes the number of units that is within the maximum allowable density at the zoning or the general plan for 2018 would have to be approved at that level if it is proposed unless there are overriding considerations that commissioner richards was talking about. this would include the reduction of density through conditions of approval, there's something like a conditional use permit, and the bill would also somewhat strengthen the enforceability of the housing accountability act by implying this reasonable standard, reasonable personal standard, meaning if there is a reasonable case to be made, the project is within the density allowed, that someone could claim that it was not in
compliance. there is also a provision that essentially provides a vesting, if you will for projects when they come in on their initial application. the project would be subject to the law of the day or the zoning regulations in effect of the time that the application is being complete throughout the tenders -- tendency of the project, however, there are important caveats to that. that would go away if the project doesn't start building in three years after approval. the law of the day provision would not apply. the city would still be able to impose mitigations for sequent to the project. this also applies to preconstruction standards. building code changes that come after the fact would still be allowed to be applied depending on what the specifics are. regarding historic resource determinations, the historic resource determinations, when needed, which generally is a parcel that we call a category b. or unknown, those
determinations would have to be reached at the time the application for development is deemed complete. what that means is that the type of document that we typically get, which is the historic resource the valuation with an application would need to be evaluated, and we would have to do the best we can to reach a determination within the 30 day time frame which is usually applicable. there are some exceptions. there are some changes to the streamlining act. these are not too major. basically projects that are e.i.r. level projects would have to be approved. that is not an alarmist change. that is a change related to the number of public hearings, which will be of interest to this commission. there would be a limit of five public hearings for approval of any housing project, but that would only make -- that would only be for projects that meet all the planning code rules.