tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 11, 2018 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
[gavel] >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to our june 11, 2018 land use and transportation committee meeting. i'm katie tang, chair of this committee. we are also joined by supervisor jane kim and supervisor asafi. our clerk is erica major. madame clerk, are there any announcements for us? >> please make sure to silence
all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 19 board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. please call item number one. >> it is planning, build codes for acter is sorry dwelling units to waive or modify bicycle parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit and affirming appropriate findings. >> is thank you very much. so, i am the sponsor of this item and unfortunately it did not make it out of planning commission on thursday and so i our colleagues to contin this item to the july 9 meeting. so, without any further comments or questions, any members of the public who wish to comment on item one? >> good afternoon, supervisors.
my concern with this legislation is the word "proposed." i hope that when you see this legislation or what comes from the planning commission, tht it does not mean demolitions to insert an a.d.u. when an a.d.u. should be an existing building and to maximize affordability, there's been a project that did demolish a perfectly fine house in noe valley and the rationale was it was ok because we'll put an a.d.u. in, so i really hope that you'll consider proposed to not mean demolished. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is rose hillson, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i turned in a letter on june 4 and you were all copied on it. and i want to summarize that the letter was unclear as to
the fee out, not requiring street trees for a.d.u.s and requested number of trees planted within a certain period of time. requested noticing for nonliving spaces to living spaces, fill-ins of existing structures may not coincide with rear and back setbacks for the code. it can include any existing a.d.u.s meeting fire code regulations. at planning commission, there was an issue regarding the housing accountability act in regards to the a.d.u.s and the issues involved the conditional uses that would be as of right approvals to the h.a.a., housing accountability act, and planning commission pushed this out to june 21 to be heard. i'd like these bullet points to be put into the minutes under sunshine 67.17 and i have copies for you. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. catherine howard. in san francisco, our open
spaces provide not only habitat for wildlife, but also habitat for people. families use their backyards and children can play safely there. therefore, there can be significant impacts for the enjoyment of people' properties with the introduction of people living in previously unoccupied structures. neighbors deserve to be notified of this possibility. please amend the draft legislation such that neighbors shall be noticed when conversions are proposed. also under the proposed legislation, fill-s in of existing structures may not comply with existing code for rear and side yards. if these setback areas are not respected, two-store pop outs would be allowed to go into the entire width of the lot and rear of the yard. lastly, the possibility of
blanket upzoning of areas of the city must be evaluated. we just fought sb-827 at the state level and the board voted to oppose it. it idiscouraging to see legislation that might inadd verdict tently have the same result. i'm hoping that this will be corrected in the revised legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. supervisor tang, your amendments effectively are back door upzoning which is exactly what the planning commission called them. we are concerned about the possibility of creating a situation that is going to put the city in jeopardy of lawsuit by organizations that are going to be using this and using the housing accountability act to come back and stop us from demolishing affordable and sound housing. we really urge you to take away
this particular amendment that is going to allow addition of an a.d.u. in new construction that are not in-fill. it's ok if you are taking the approach of zoning, a gas station or up zoning infill such as the one that is in my neighborhood, the real food that's been siting there for 15 years empty. but allowing people to demolish their homes and use that to put up a mcmansion of 4,000, 5,000 square feet plusan 800 square foot so-called a.d.u. is not a good approach. we don't have any issues with bringing certain neighborhoods, certain parts of the city, add more housing. even on the west side, i'm sure there are areas that could be studied and e.i.r. that could be issued for them that they could be upzoned. but this is too broad of a brush and i certainly urge you to reconsider taking that amendment off. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please?
>> good afternoon, supervisors. teresa flanderic can senior disability action. i'm so happy that this will be delayed at least until july. that was our intent in asking to please put this on hold because there will be perhaps unintended consequences in this as it currently reads in that number one this violates the housing services rights to tenants so that if laundry areas are removed, or if storage areas are removed, these are also laundry -- everyone needs to wash clothes. this is also happening at time when laundromats are actually closing or they're being demolished. and so we need to remember that there are people that may be affected and to make sure that we have things in place as safeguards. the other reality, which is really ugly is there are some very bad actors out there who
have been abusg permits, getting serial permits, etc. or going ahead and actually digging out the backyard saying they were doing landscaping. a permit was there just for landscaping. but the entire yard was dug up so that a foundation could be laid to put in three a.d.u.s. this is outside of the building envelope and this is today. so these are -- these are people who will be affected, of course, by any building and so what safeguards are in place to ensure that they can continue to live in their home while building is happening without risking their health as well as -- and again there will be those who try to get around that. so, we need to make sure that we have safeguards in place, that there is safe construction and that services are not cut off by intent to get people out so i'm glad that this is put on
hold also so that tenant rights groups can meet to discuss how this affects the rental ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jeff hodges, a tenant at 14th and i'm in support of this legislation. anything that gets us more housing, housing capacity that is lower than the amount of people that are being born here. it's far too low. we need more and i'm excited about this position. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco action coalition. also disapointed that this isn't moving forward today. dwelling units are one of the best ways we can get affordable housing. it has been a goal of many supvisors for about 15 years now. so figuring out the right way to move it forward is certainly necessary. i also just saw a fun fact recently regarding open space that every single san franciscan lives within a 10-minute walk of a public
park, which i thought was a neat statistic. thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jersmy paul. i'm a permit consultant working in san francisco. around i'm in favor of anything that increases transparency and openness in the public process. and this a.d.u. exception for a new unit going in makes perfect sense. there are many situations right now, buildings in the pipeline that have vacant spaces being built for recreational use or use with the other units that are intended for a.d.u., but an a.d.u. can't be put in until a building is completed and certificate of final completion and occupancy is issued. it doesn't make a lot of sense
as public policy to have a process that works that way. we should be transparent and say what our intents is as we start the process and discuss it with our neighbors and our community. thank you. >> thank you very much. o wish to comment on item one? ok. seeing none, public comment is closed. i'm going reserve most of my comments on this item because it will be continued and imagine there will be some changes made to the legislation. be but i would say overall the goal and intent of the legislation was to ease some of the process that some property owners have shared in terms of trying to safe fill under canty lever decks to create full a.d.u. units instead of having this empty space that exists underneath some of these areas. again, as some of the public commenters said, i do feel that a.d.u.s are a great way to be able to provide affordable housing and allow multigenerational families to live together. it's a great way to accommodate seniors who might not want to
access the second floor, you name it. but i have jotted your concerns and read your letters and we'll be in further discussion with the planning commissions and community members on all of those comments that you relayed to us. with that said, colleagues, we close public comment and i'd like to ask that we continue item one to the july 9 land use meeting. can we get a motion, please? >> motion to continue the item to july 9. >> ok. and we'll do that without objection. ok. this item is continued. item two, please. >> item number two is the ordinance amending the planning code for review on downtown and affordable housing project, notification requirements, review of altercations to landmarks and appropriate findings. >> and we have commissioner chang here to present on behalf of the mayor's office. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisor tang.
i have a power point. a little background on the or dinance before you today. in may of 2017, we were directed to come up with plans to build or rehab 5,000 units per year. in december, the planning department issued their process improvements plan in response and follow up with more specific legislative change needed to implement that plan in march. this legislation includes some of those changes. the ordinance can be grouped into four buckets of changes that is will quickly cover. so, the first one is streamlining the entitlement of 100% affordable housing projects. these projects no longer require hearings and and could be aproved administratively. there are roughly 1700 affordable units undereview or in the mocd pipeline that could benefit. the second is streamlining the approval of downtown residential projects.
we would reduce duplicative processes by allowing the planning commission to grant stanrd variances, thus eliminating a redundant variance hearing. 1100 units are approved each year in such projects. the third is minor alterations to historic structures. we would exempt minor scopes of work from the requirements to obtain a certificate of appropriateness or minor permit to alter from the h.p.c., allowing for these to instead be approved the same day at the counter by a preservation technical specialist. these minor scopes include a.d.a. push buttons, business science and the historic landmark plaques. these new processes would save about one-third of preservation staff time to be focused on more important preservation issues. and lastly we have changes to the public notification. notice requirements have become unnecessarily complicate and wasteful. we have 30 different combinations of notice and format which are time consuming
and invite simple areas that delay review. the requirements alone generated over three tonnes of paper last year. as you can see, a majority of notices essentially for larger projects are for 20 days. if you are requesting a variance, you get a 20-day notice. if you are doing a code-compliant process, it is a 30-day process. 10-day notice is currently requiredd.hearings, ladowntown projects and eastern neighborhoods projects. ny forms of notification do not reach tenants. they are not provided in multiple languages and not access tonight the general public. notification requirements for retained scopes of work today the planning department review backlog. planners have 40 to 60 ectsoj assigned to them and keeping track of various notice requirem eas room for error and delays. this ordinance proposes a simplified notice that becomes ive jaary 1, 2019. consistent notification requirements for all application hearings, including
a 20-day mail notices to 150-foot radius of nanls and property owners. one poster every 25 feet and 20-day period of online notice will e accessible to the public than the newspaper notice. plans would no longer be mailed, saving three tonnes of paper annually. instead, neighbors will receive a half sheet with a link to plans. all notice will be multilingual and available online during the entire notice period. this is an increase in notice for large downtown, eastern neighborhoods which are mission and soma promise, getting longer notice and going to tenants as well. and timely, we're proposing one substantive change to notice. the extremely common rear yard pop-outs would no longer require neighborhood notice. as for any other building permit, permit approved purchase saounlts to this section will remain appeal tonight the board of appeals and to address concerns of immediate neighbors, we're happy to require preapplication meetings for these pop-outs. the department of building
inspection will also conduct mail notice to adjacent notice with a $15 day period to the board of appeals. they are limited to extending 12 feet into the rear at a single story. they're about 300 square feet and do not exceed the height of a fence, which is permitted without notice a. two-story pop out must be set back five feet from each side lot line and doesn't exceed 360 square feet. approving these modest additions will save two full-time staff positions every year. time that can be spent on permitting housing. these pop-outs cannot encroach into the rear yard or mid block open space. you need a variance for that. they are code complying and enalistent with the resid design guidelines. and they're very much prevalent throughout our city's lower density neighborhoods. in higher density areas like soma, north beach and the mission, lot sizes are often smaller precluding these from being built without a variance or full lot coverage is already the case. in conclusion, i'm going to leave up a summary of the
ordinance and jacob from planing is here to discuss the planning commission's recommendations. >> thank you. i'd like to quickly go over a number of modifications proposed by the planning commission at their meeting on thursday, june 7. first of these is to trefrns urban design guidelines in r the n 315 fo administrative approval for the 100% affording housing. secondly a number of amendments related to the notification requirements, the first to restore language that the zoning administrator can give staff more clear direction for specific sites for the poster requirements when the requirements in the code are not ysically practical on the site. the third modification to require hfp -- to add language to the posted notice requirements that will be visible to the nearest right-of-way. fourth amendment to the notification requirements to require a minimum size for the
mail notice of no smaller than a half sheet, 5 1/2 by 8 1/2. that is a half sheet postcard mailer at a minimum. the fifth recommendation was to have a notification period, universal notification period of 30 days rather than the 20 days proposed in the ordinance. another amendment from the planning commission, number six and the resolution that you received is to have the limited rear yard additions that she was speaking about to continue to have notification. and i should also clarify that you have been provided with a corrected resolution from the planning commission which i provided to the clerk at the beginning of this hearing. there was one minor correction which was issued by the correction affairs staff this morning. simply to strike out a finding in the resolution that was no longer applicable given the commission's recommendations. that is the resolution that is before you right now. finally, there were a few other modifications suggested by the
planning commission. again, in the notification requirements, commission recommended that the specifics of what should be mailed and the size and content of posters should be specified further via a planning commission policy so that we can have that discussion at thenin an commission and with the community. so the commission to that end recommended a modification to the ordinance to reference that planning commission policy on notifications that the notification would have to be delivered in a manner that is consistent with what's written in the ordinance but also consistent with that commission policy. the commission also recommended that such changes to the mail notice not go into effect until the commission policy has been adopted. the commission also recommended regular reporting from staff. that's not a matter before you as part of the ordinance, but so you know that was another of the recommendations from the commission staff will be complying with. and section 315 again going back to the 100% affordable housing, commission recommended that for those projects, for the administrative approval, that projects should be required to provide a
prevailing wage, a san francisco prevailing wage for those projects to be approved administratively. similarly, the commission recommended that those projects should -- that the planning code ould specify those promises be consistent with the san francisco building code to be approved administratively. finally, the commission recommded that those promises, the 100% affordable projects approved administratively by staff should also be in conformity with all applicable standards for affordable housing development as according to the mayor's office of housing. i'm here to answer any further questions about the commission's recommendations. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for those. we did follow that lengthy planning commission hearing so thank you for those recommendations. colleagues, do you have any questions or comments before we go to public comment? >> i'll hold my comments until after. >> ok. all right. it oks like we'll hold our comments until public comment. so, if any member of the public who would like to speak on item two, please come on up.
>> hi, my name is nicole holden. thank you for taking this time. my husband and i purchased our home, singley ho famil three years ago. it's a two-bedroom, one and a half bath. we have two children and one on the way and our proposed expansion of our home is to go back into our yard 10 feet to accommodate two children's bedrooms and the only way to get those bedrooms is to go back 10 feet. to give you an idea of our property, it is 120-foot-deep t. our home currently takes up 45 feet and will be taking up 55 feet in total when the spronlt done. which is less than half our property. we met with the neighbors and showed them the plans per the city's requirements and then in addition to that, we sat down with both of our neighbors who our property will be directly affecting and went over the plans with them and they both gave us their blessing, if you
will, and said that they thought our changes were reasonable. our project has been within city planning since early november and we have not really had any resolution on it. and to get a little bit more personal, my husband and i are san franciscans. we want our children to be san franciscans. i'm from the east bay. he is from the east coast. we want to raise our children in this beautiful, diverse city. i'm a family photographer and i've had my business in the city for nine years. oh, no. is that it? >> 30 seconds. >> 25 seconds. >> ok. my busi is onhestnut street. my husband works in corporate. we're just two really hard-working people who have earned enough money -- [voice breaking] to keep this our home and it makes it really difficult and we don't want to move out of the city and that is where we're headed. and i think that our plans are really very reasonable and i
just hope that you take the amendments into consideration for young families like ours. ok. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is neil schwarz, i'm a practicing act nekt san francisco. for the past two-year, i've been chair of the public polic and advocacy committee, working closely with the planning department on procedural and policy changes to clarify in speed the process of design review in the city. we've been impressed with the planning's willingness to listen and a see in this initiative, willingness to take action. we support their efforts to make these rational adjustments that will streamline processes for all. as part of the package of rational improvements, with removing the requirement for 311 neighborhood notification on rear-yard pop outs. these small scale additions often allow families to make modest improvements to their home, as we just hear, allowing them to create an additional
room for an expanding family. currently because the triggers for 311 notification are so low, it encourages clients to build larger projects. the thinking is that since almost any addition sends you into a lengthy and expensive process, then you might as well make it worth your while and expand the project scope once you already have to go through a 311. if clients knew that these modest additions could also aroid the cost and loss of time, with the 311 process, it would make these limited scope projects more attractive for many. there is a bigger point here, gh.ou in this city,there ismore ple thopportunity for neighbors to monitor, comment on and control the development of their neighbor's homes. at some poi the systems for public comment can be abused by those reluctant to support any change in their neighborhood. good architects with sensitively designed projects see this every day and diminishes our ability to help
the city evolve and change in a positive and well-designed way. neighbors sometimes just oppose everything because they're the ones that have the time and energy to do so. allowing these small additions to avoid the cost of the process makes common sense. [audio stops] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my is lya. for identification purpose, i'm a san francisco arts commissioner. i'm on board of asian-american architects ens aerociation and a member of the american institute of architects. but retodayrepresenting myself as a licensed architect. i moved to san francisco 20 years ago to practice architec and ner left. i have a small child as well. i tried to raise my family here. i founded my company to improve the quality of lives in our
communities and our environment. some of my clients are hard-working middle class first and second generationimmigrant families with young children. they want to stay here to raise their kids in our city. with this housing market, they cannot afford to buy homes but to move in with their parents. when we found out that it took months and years to get approvals to expand a modestly sized room in their parent's backyard, my clients were desp moedd out of the city. i lost my clients. we lost those good families. i applaud everyone in the planning domestic that work tirelessly for what we can do to streamline the approval process. i have high respect for all of you sefrk on this land use committee with your experti you serve because you believe in improving the lively hood of our community and local small businesses. you serve because you care. you serve because you have the
power to drive changes. i would urge you to consider making the rear yard additions where code allowed so those families just like my clients and all san franciscca afford to stay here. it is our duty to mitigate housing displacement and thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. peaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ross levy. i'm a practicing architect here san fncisco. a member of the a.a.a. i'm the incoming co-chair of the public policy advocacy committee and i'm a 20-year san francisco resident and i raised my family here. i'm also an advocate for sustainable design and for livable cities. we're here following last week's meeting at the planning commission regarding streamlining permanent processing for affordable housing projects in the city. i'm pleased to once again stand with the mayor's office and the planning department in support of the proposal to make
permission for so-called pop-outs, small additions that are explicably within the lot per s.f. code sb-86 ab one and two, that is not subject to lengthy notifications and permissions. i believe this can be achieved while maintaining the public's right to comments, via the normal neighbor's notifications. as the planning department staff has documented, 99% of submissionsfor the types of permits are approved without discretionary review. while the directive is aimed at producing badly needed housing, genelyaddressing processing time for larger projects, it requires streamlining. the planning department has made an analysis and suggested that streamlining measures, not only did they anticipate saving two full-time positions, but theirs proposal supports housing and families on a neighborhood level. this item in question, these pop-outs are precisely the kind of addition that allows growing families to draet space that they need to stay in the city.
equally important, the process as it now stands prejudicial. it's increasingly difficult for normal citizens to make simple expansions to their homes. it's not uncommon for people, as you heard, to give up and move away. this is a rare common sense opportunity to improve government by simplifying processes and empowering staff. if we envision a sustainable future, we must consider simple steps to address populations, housing and sprawl. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again. i gave ms. major a handout which i believe you should have now so i just want to summarize that. i think the all-around 30-day notice period recommended by the planning commission is a very good idea. the second thought i want to present to you is the plans must be mailed through the mail to occupants and neighbors, have to be 11 by 17 in size.
people cannot print off 11 by 17 in their home. it's just not possible. people don't have printers that do that. they don't have paper that does that. if they have a printer. if you want to reduce the amount of paper that goes out turn 311 notice, make it a smaller radius. but it's very important to do it for immediate neighbors and interested parties and neighborhood groups to understand what the plans are. there have been many cases where people have seen the plans they understand that something needs attention. and it is also very important to do this for c.u.a.s that involve demolitions and new constructions. that is current lift not the case now. if there is a demolition next door to you, you don't get the plans in the mail. you just get the notice. the preapplication process should be expanted and more formalized. planners can update neighbors and interested parties by e-mail to let them know what's going on.
ongoing dialogue is very important. the limited rear yards should not be approved over the [inaudible]. when you decide to change whatever notice, i think it needs to have a meeting with community members prior to implementation. post cards or even half sizes are not enough. again, 11 by 17 plans must be mailed to immediate neighbors, occupants and interested parties when they are finalized by the staff. plans must show the relationship to the adjacent buildings and must be accurate and must be complete and have a graphic scale and show -- [bell ringing] [audio stops] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. submitted a letter on may 24 and i'll add it to the pile of papers over here that is on the ledge. to summarize the letter, there was initially an issue i showed on the overhead of lack of public out reach and
stakeholders did not include the neighbors. the notification, we want -- we don't twanlt reduction of the notice time and the removal of newspaper notices and we thank you for the inclusion of tenant notification and we requested a continued notification for pop-outs. we had concerns with section 136-c and at the june 7 planning commission meeting, planner bentliff did go over some of these things in the motion. it was adopted 6-1 to keep the 30 days' notice straight across the board. not finalize notification without policy implementation steps and for affordable housing, use the building code for performance standards and paid prevailing wage. what i didn't hear is i believe there was something about a lookback after implementation for one year and again leave all these documents on the ledge. ou.nk you very much. xt speplea.
>> hi, i'm jeff hodges, a tenant at 14th and guerrero. the tenant changes are fantastic in notifications. it's good news. also that we haven't talked about this yet but there is a 100% affordable housing streamlining in this bill and that is one of the most important pieces of it. the legislation will allow us to reduce the rent pressure and displacement happening in the city that, as a tenant, i feel every day. i grew up around black and brown kids. i wished that my kids that i have would be able to do the same here. the kind of displacement we've seen is because of the xenophobic neighbors using the san francisco process to delay and deny house house to all of those kids. every delay in our process is another opportunity for them to enact their fear. every shout of local control is another echo of the racist redlining san francisco still reels from. these changes, including the
100% affordable housing streamline, good and worth your vote today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm a tenant at 21st and guerrero. i just want to remind everyone that we're in a housing crisis because we don't have enough housing for the people that want to live here. everyone says we need to build more affordable housing and this legislation streamlines that. i'm in favor. why am i here? i have two friends, a couple who live in a rear a.d.u. and combined they make almost $100,000 a year, but they're still struggling to pay their rent. they're in their 30s and there's solutely no way that they can afford to raise a family here. so that is the level of affordability that we're at right now in san francisco. where people making almost $100,000 a year can't even have one child. so they can't be here today because they have to work to
pay their rent. so, please approve this legislation to make things better. thank you. 't ve anissues with the ord, we 100% affordability streamlining that. and as i have pointed out to the folks that were commenting at the planning commission, we already have sb-35 that gives the same advantages in streamlining for projects that are only 50% affordable so i'm sure it's the same thing for projects that are 100% affordable. on the issue of the [inaudible]. i just want to make the observation go on the record that i have been in the business of community organizing for only maybe less than four years. but in the past two-year, we've been receiving notices for the entire neighborhood of noe valley, i've yet to come across a project that is only a
pop-out. it's usually a huge, humongous project of 4,000, 5,000 square feet plus the pop-out. i am sure any of the architects and project sponsors that were here, mr. levy, and mr. paul, they're well aware that all of the projects that have come out in the past four or five years consists of humongous mcmansions mraus pop out. as such, the neighbors do deserve to get a notice. what is so terrible about notifying the neighbors about a pop-out that will be a huge project. we only have the right tor about this. and also another thing i wanted to point out is the planning commission did vote for these changes, plus the modification. however, they did not decide on the format of the notification.
yes, maybe a postcard but we don't know what will go on that postcard on how big or small that postcard will be. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm benjamin marks. i wanted to come out, first of all, to voice my voice in support of the additional notifications for tenants. i think that it is really good that these notifications are moving primarily online. it's environmentally-friendly and makes it more accessible in addition to being multilingual. i wanted to speak in favor of the affordable housing streamlining. san francisco is in a huge housing crisis and we desperately need more house, especially affordable housing. i think anything we can do to ake 10 affordable housing projects go faster is going to be in the best interest of the city and in the best interest of those who can't afford to take time off of work and come and voice their support for this today. thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. ction f san francisco neighborhoods. we support the planning commission's recommendations and i want to point out that these were hammered out after a -- i believe it was a five-hour meeting and there were a lot of compromiinlv so i hope that you will incorporate them. in particular, we'd like you to keep noticing for the rear yard pop outs. as one member of the commission pointed out, he would not want to make up one more when the cement mixer pulls up at his next door neighbor's backyard and finds that the time that a two-story building is going up right next to his home. so this is something that is very important to people and they just need to be notified about it. if there had been very few objections, there shouldn't be a problem with this. one of the problems with the legislation and the reason there was a five-hour meeting is that the planning department
worked with stakeholders who they defined as architects and land use consultants. you may notice someone missing from that formula and that is the people of san francisco. that is one of the reasons why so many architects support this. of course, they were part of the planning process and they were able to give i on what they wanted to see but the neighborhoods and the public were left out. we hope -- i know this wasn't something you guys did -- but we hope you will encourage the planning department to start a process of outreach for the neighborhoods for all the legislation that's going to be coming through. after all, this does concern us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. laura clark, m.b. action. really excited about this legislation. streamlining affordable housing
is something that i hope that san francisco can agree on. bringing us into compliance with notifications around the downtown project, easy fix. the thing i'm most excited about is streamlining the notifications. it means that by contacting tenants we have the opportunity to notify more people of their rights. we can include and start to think creatively about what kinds of content can be included in those notifications. a lot of people do get worried when they see the construction is going to happen in their neighborhood. it's a good opportunity to put know your rights materials into the hands of tenants immediately. additionally, if the 11 by 17 print-out thing is a real concern, we can say that all the things on the website have to be 8 1/2 by 11. that is an easy fix. we can start to think creatively about our notifications. the last thing is the pop-outs and, you know, it is going to get a lot of attention. poo em who don't want to see a zoning compliant addition go into their next door neighbor's yard, we do have a word for that.
it is someone who might not want to see something in their backyard. [laughter] so i don't have a -- you know, i think that we've decided that pop-outs are zoning compliant. we have decided that families should be able to add a bedroom. and people were not talking about co-ops. people with different kinds of lifestyles who might want to bring their grandmother or, you know, their other partners into a home. these are people who do not deserve to be raked across the coals for adding a bedroom that we've already decided is zoning compliant. the thing i'm most interested, those two staff members at the planning department being able to get back to the work of planning for our city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. held >> hello, again. corey smith of the housing action coalition. i remember the c.u. battle we had a couple of years ago and to get that over the finish line was significant.
so we're going to continue to see more progress building 100% subsidized affordable units here hopefully in the near future. also big fans of the downtown residential project authorization. jobs and innext to each other totally makes sense. es, rding the pop-outs 're talking about 100% code compliant projects. the reason we don't see a ton of these coming through is because they have to notice and so if you are going through the process, ok. let's get beyond the tweaks and do the bigger expansions. if it is just a small pop out like an extra bedroom for a growing family, something that can be simple and straight forwarthat ithe type of stuff we want to incentivize in order to create naturally affordable housing in the city and allow families to live here. regarding the knowfication period, this is a conversation of 20 to 30 days, san francisco's got a really knowledgeable and engaged civic community. i think this is the third
public hearing when talking about gathering public input. that is literally what we're doing right now. so we have always found that the 20-day notification period is absolutely sufficient in order for people to understand what's going on. reach out to elected leaders to appoint planning commissioners to get the details and encourage you to move the legislation forward with the 20-day notification period. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> again, teresa flanderic. above all, it's people having access to information. and as a democracy, we know it can be messy at times. and there can be delays. but for everyone to be notified as to what is going to be built, my land lady said to me at 94, the first thing you do when you get a 3-11 noice you think of is this going to be good for the community? that is the most important thing.
also at that age, she did not have access to internet. and this is what i brought up at the planning commission. that low-income folks, as well as many, many seniors do not have access to internet and that is why i asked again to be sure that it not just be online. but be accessible to everyone. and to continue the mailing until there is another time when more people would be includn gettg notifications online. i'm really happy this this includes notices to tenants in all languages. that is so important because, again, it's about participating in democracy. with affordable housing, with 100% affordable housing, i'm still not 100% of how that is defined. i would like to see clear language in terms of what a.m.i. levels is this only
going to be at a higher level, is it going to be inclusive, truly inclusive, from low-income on up. that would be important to me and certainly to the people that i serve and to our community. again, the community involvement in having time to also participate in discussions, not just developers and architects, etc. that would be really nice. so, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jimmy law. a resident of the sunset and native of san franciscan, born and raised here. i'm one of those overly concerned crazy neighbors who pays attention on what's going on and i get all of your notices and i have to say i'm really disappoint because a lot of these notices are regarding stuff that's trivial and not important to me. for example, lots of notices on pop-ups. i don't know why anyone would care about pop-ups. you know, i have family. i live with my dad and mom and
we have to share the house with my sister and her husband and the baby because, you know, it's so expensive here. and sometimes people just need to expand their house sometimes. a pop-up is good and reasonable and a loo these pop-ups in these application meets reasonable so i think, you know what? let city planners do their job and make it easier for them to save two city planners and moves on with everyone's lives because we're in a housing crisis right now. you know, we should be focusing on building 100% affordable housing unfortunately in my district, it is difficto bill affordable housing. i would be happy if there was 15% affordable housing. unfortunately those projects get killed as well because some neighbors don't like that. and also speaking of which -- which is pretty sad, of course. speaking of which, i'm in big support of things such as, you know, the building notices. i know some people want it to be dirty. but i feel 20 is a good compromise. because some are 10, some are 20 and some are 30. this notice over here is for
construction work. like it's for tending notice. i feel like if it's 30, way too long. 20, good compromise. but in short, you know what? please focus on making things more streamlined and easier for city staffers because they have a lot of work. i'm a busy person, i understand. so, yes. help us build more affordable housing and make things more efficient in city hall because there are things that are taking way too long to get done. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. i haven't been to a meeting in a while. anyway, i'm here for something else. but i had to come up for this. because i'm really tired of hearing building, building, building that is going to
change the housing crisis. when it's not true. how many empty buildings are there being built? how many buildings that have been built that have empty units. we are talking about the white washing of san francisco. we're talking about letting go of people of color and low-income people. i think you need to [inaudible] affordability. somebody came up here and talked about having thr friends and [inaudible]ed not being able to move forward living here. well, there are people with a lot less who are living on the
streets and i want to know why we always looking at empty units and units that are being used for airbnb. let's get real. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [applause] >> the public had a grand total of five minutes to speak between the hearing on thursday and the hearing today. this legislation is rushing too fast. it will not hurt you if you separate and send out the 100% affordable housing piece to the board and keep the rest of it in the committee for another month. [please stand by] [please stand by]
the 311 process, which is really affected here was a result of prop wh it passed, the potty department head over a year of public meetings at their office. to do, what are we going to say is the context? they struggled with it and finally came up with giving notices to 311and 12. the project process needs to be changed. there should be some discussion of it. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm one of the handful of people who regularly gets involved in project opposition and it regularly appears before the planning commission in that capacity.
i have a real understanding of the way the neighbourhood -- ighborhood processes work. i want to say that i am a huge fan of the preapplication process. that is where the real work can get got -- done. that is where project sponsors are open to modifications. they haven't put too much money into it and they haven't already gotten the blessing of planning staff, on the residential design team. a preapplication is where it is out. by the time 311 happens, it's frankly, too late and not a lot of good changes are ever made on behalf of neighbors who are inquiring. frankly, it is the enemy of good architecture. what happens is architects come up with great plans and neighbors opposes them and it gets a planning commission and maybe they are taking into consideration the neighbors input, but what they do is dumbed down the project. the practice of architecture is gone.
the thing with these pop outs at the rear, you have to consider our housing stock is aging beyond its intended time limit. that the single family homes in the city, most of them were not built to last 150 years and we are askin them to last 150 years. when a family that has lived in a house for a long time needs to upgrade, section 317 is way to retreat difficult and complicated for them to make major changes. they want to do a pop out. they have to go to 311 and there architect assuage them. next thing you know, they are selling the house, and who can buy it? a developer that will get the cheapest architect they can and do the fastest build they can that is really a bad thing for our neighbors. we need to encourage architecture in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live in belmont, south of here. a lot of rich people moved to
our area every year and we can't do much about that. but if we don't do -- build housing, they will push out existing residents and people willve down to my town of belmont and push out low income residents in belmont. every you not -- units that we are not adding in san francisco means more displacement in belmont and more track homes in belmont -- in oakland. more families moving to places like arizona and texas were you have to run the air-conditioning 24/7 and not just good public transit and not as good community struraure. we should be extremely differential to people who are trying to add housing, especially affordable housing. i think we need to balance a community and we need more notification of new projects against the community need to just -- to prevent displacement. a notification does you no good if your are forced to leave due to high rents. what i've heard a lot in the comments is neighbours have
gotten used to blackmailing applicants and delaying their projects. especially zoning compliance projects and they're worried they will lose their ability to do that. neighbors should not be able to block may -- blackmail projects. it should be easy to predict whether the application will succeed or not. that is the number 1 goal of the planning compartment -- department in an application process. we should make it easier to build affordable housing in other parts of the city. especially the sunset in richmond. you cannot add very much affordable housing, i don't think we should move discretionary review online which is one of the proposals. we should make it harder to file discretionary reviews. sat fiscus go handles five times as many discretionary reviews as new york city. a city that is five times larger. we should move this office to alcatraz and charge $5,000 to file one. thanks very much. >> speaker-01: thank you. any members of the comment to want to -- public who want to comment on item two please come
up. is this the correct mic? >> hello my name is norma. i was planning on coming to support this great effort that the planning department and also o. e. w. d. has put together as well as many community members including really talented architects, i was going to come anyway to cheer for the 100% affordable streamlining, but over the weekend, one of my good friends who is a first-generation immigrant like i am, she was telling me that the community where she lives in is in danger of making, the community wants to make accessory dwelling units harder to build and wants to band them unless a lot size is 6,000 square feet, which sounds big. so, we were talking about the hour of -- i reviews and we told
her san francisco was about to make it easier to pass a pop outs and make it easier to build them and so i come here on her behalf, in thinking that if we streamline small projects here, perhaps other communities can get some ideas and feel inspired and help you become, you know, a source of evidence that this stuff works and it provides much needed housing and get help a lot of immigrant communities who do not have a lot of existing wealth to continue to stay in the high cost, high employment areas like san francisco. thank you muc so >> thank you so much. any members of the public who wish to comment on item two please come up before we pollute -- closed public comment. seeing done, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone who came out to speak on this item. a lot of it is likes to the legislation that i also introduced aroundaccessory dwelling units and the overarching goal of streamlining the process and making it easier
for families, property owners to be able to accommodate to, again, whether it's additional generational -- intergenerational living, seniors, it's a much more affordable way than to buy another homeor if someone is facing a high rent as a tenant, really, we hope this can be a solution. a couple things i heard during public comments that i want to address. one is that early on i heard that there was a concern around demolition of homes, and then somehow that getting swept up with some of the aid to use and the pop outs. one of the things that was noted in the planning commission that i heard clara fired was that there is a conditional use permit process that a project sponsor has to go through first if there was a demolition that were to occur. we have pretty strong demolition controls in san francisco at i want to throw it over to the planning department or our mayors office to confirm that. >> that is correct.
demolitions require authorization from the planning commission. with that demolition, a sponsor would have to present what they are proposing to rebuild in that case as well. >> in that case, that would involve neighborhood notification at all that. if that -- if there was a proposed demolition. >> that's right. we would need a newspaper notice and we are proposing it would go to an online notice add a posted notice. >> okay. that would be different, additional changes to our current demolition notification process? >> no. that is our current process and it would continue. >> okay. ok, great. that was one issue i heard around demolition. the other thing has to do with the fact that we are here today with legislation amending the planning code. i think