Jefferson street two years ago and when they bought the property, they had just one daughter. Since time has passed with the pressure of a growing family, they now have a second daughter and theyre expecting a third. With this, theyve informed me they would like to add a level and do a vertical expansion and put three bed rooms and two baths on one level to have a more functional layout. They would like a more modern esthetics. The parents have expressed interest in relocating from vancouver to be with them to assist in the childminding as she transitions back to work. In order for them to do this, they would like to build a master suite on the ground level behind the garage. They will need to negotiate the size and the scale of their expansion obviously with their neighbors, however, as i am sure you can appreciate, this is different than being exposed to the Legal Process of a conditional use. In closing, i respectfully request that the commission make a recommendation that allows meaningful expansions and demolitions as a permitted use and eliminates the restrictions to size or mapping. We all know how hard it is to achieve planning approval for these home additions. Why are we making it harder for these families . The process is already way too difficult. We need an easier, more transparent process. T nex thank you. Next speaker, please. Hell oh im an architect in San Francisco and ive lived here since 1984. I have a small practice. Your name please . Wesley arnold. Many of my clients are middleclass families who are starting young families and they need to expand and add another bedroom or family room so my clients want their parents to move into with them. The ex pension and the time to go through a conditional use will some of these families will just move out of San Francisco. These are the very families that send their kids to San Francisco public schools. So it also effect San Francisco unified school district. We dont have families wanting to send their kids to public schools. I urge you not to take this up. Thank you. Thank you ms. Arnold. I would like to make an announcement. If you are here for the regular commissioner meeting at 1 00, were still in the joint building inspection and i expect that our commissioner hearing regularly scheduled for 1 00 is not going to start until at least 3 00. So, im just let yo letting you. Next speaker. Im Michael Robins im an architect. I lived and practiced in San Francisco for the last 20 years. Im also a member of the aiais Public Policy Advocacy Committee and i was a chair of the small firm. I know theyve written a letter to you expressing their disapproval of this legislation. I wont go through that in detail but it summarizes my ideas as well. I think this is a far too expansion expansive legislationi think it should be focused on individually. Also, in my observation and my readings, i think its been recommended that the board of supervisors not get involved in legislation that affects city planning without independent of the Planning Department. I worked with the Planning Department over the last two years with Public Policy committee. Theyre very effective. Theyre very knowledgeable about the city and they understand what is possible and perhaps about what is not very possible to achieve. I would encourage the board of supervisors, work with the Planning Department to come up with legislation that addresses the concerns of the board of supervisors. Its something we can use to inform our clients about what is possible and what is not. The twoyear waiting time for a vertical addition on a property is not acceptable. Its just not acceptable in todays day and age. Thank you, very much. Next speaker, please. My name is jerry and im with the San Francisco land use coalition. Reparing unsound housing maintains affordable and rentcontrolled housing. Demolition does not. I agree with mr. Oreardon its a demolition and we need a concise workable demolition rule. An online Building Permit app is long overdue. The app would provide immediate consistent lowcost demo calculations and result in a safing of staff time for both d. B. I. And planning. We need to apply Smart Solutions to the existing problems. I dont see d. B. I. Or planning embracing these types of solutions. Current penalties for unpermitted demolition are not a deterrent. Theyre based on the value the unpermitted work. Which is very low because demolitions only involves labor. Not Building Materials and not much labor is required to tear something down. The planning code should be revised to require planning to assess penalties for bad actors if we want to reduce repeated bad behavior. I agree that the proposed legislation needs a lot of work to meet the objective of a workable, concise, demolition definition. The challenge for both commissioners is to address the bad actors and find solutions that provide the right balance between needed housing and maintaining affordable and rentcontrolled housing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Despite what i saw as a wellcoordinated assault by staff on this important piece of legislation, i believe it is important, its needed and well intentioned and we need to work on it. Let me say we need the legislation. We need it to give us the objective and enforceable definition of demolition that will protect us against illegal demolition and more wildly unaffordable homes and the encroachment and laws from sacramento. Overhead, please. This little map is is a map of the demolitions within 600foot radius of 20th and sanchez. Under todays law, none of these demolitions will need a hearing. They can be administratively approved. They dont need to be demo of unsound housing and not one single net housing created. Just new mega homes that will be worth multiples for the housing around them and no new rent controlled housing. We need a non dis correction ary definition to defend against the Housing Affordability act. Sb592 will exact the act in remodels that as a single bedroom. So they need for objective quantifiable implement able, demolition controls is becoming more and more dramatic. We need to retain a subjective definition, despite what i think may be a coming call to sweep away or deregulate residential expansions and demolitions and replace them with an e an expann threshold, a new threshold to replace demolition objective will not be acceptable. Thank you very much. Thank you, neck speaker, please. Overhead, please. Hello, my name is christopher roach. I am principle of studio of architects. Members of the aiappac as well as the San Francisco house of Action Coalition. Im here speaking both as a professional and a private citizen. A resident of over 20 years in this city, father of a young family and like many others are struggle to go stay in San Francisco and raise our children here. I want to start by acknowledging the stated intentions of the legislations are good to clarify what counts as demolition, to increase enforcement and prevent bad actors and prevent and preserve housing in San Francisco. However, the supervisors legislation is using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel with addressing demolition will have a significant effect on the loss of rent control dwelling union i had. The housing balance report that and report thesupervisor referet only 413 of the almost 4,300 protected units lost in the last 10 years were due to demolition. This is less than. 1 of the over 400,000 units of housing in San Francisco. These are far more the exception than the rule. The legislation is a solution looking for a problem. In addition, when you look under the hood and really analyze this legislation, as many have done today, its clear the means by which its being implemented will be the opposite effect to preserve housing stock. The consequences are on large multifamily projects has been analyzed by landuse attorneys at the San Francisco Action Coalition and i would like to submit that report to the commission. Which i will show here. But i want to talk about the effect on small property owners. Your time is up. Share with the staff your data. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners. Audry with no Neighborhood Council in San Francisco land use coalition. It was almost a year ago that you were here convening on a joint Planning Commission hearing and i am utterly disappointed that this staff has come out with this utmost attack on this legislation that is not warranted. You know what the problem is. The reason we were here and it was because run away demolitions. A near later, all were hearing is this is not going to work and anecdotal evidence. I really love what commissioner fung was asking. Do you have any numbers to substantiate what you are saying that these are bad actors . Bad apples. I hate to say this but, some of them were just sitting right here in this row. President melgar and you werent here when we brought to you the case of carl jenson on 26 street. The project sponsor was right here and talking fondly about how we do not need to have any standards demolitions because the system is working. If it wasnt for one neighbor bringing it up the discretionary review against that project, that house would have been demolished. We have a problem and i wish you would acknowledge this. I wish we could all Work Together to solve it. Im going to leave you with what the chief inspector put out last year, overhead, please, to show how we are going to have demolitions from just vertical additions. And were not doing anything about it. Because evidence of someone wants to change their siding and thats going to be demolition . How many of those do you guys see . How many of those does the planning staff see . Thank you. Thank you. Hello commissioners, my name is jeff. Im a realtor in San Francisco and i have been since 1994. I agree with many of the parties that have spoken today about all the flaws in this legislation. I believe it creates very owner us restrictions on homeowners, developers, contractors and everyone involved in the city, planning and building departments. I would like to speak about specifically though is an example of a client of mine and how through their timeline in their home, this legislation would impact them. I have a complaint that lived in the open neighborhood and had lived there for many years. About throw years ago, they saved money and they were happy to live without parking. They used Public Transit with uber and there was just the two of them. They were happy with that. They were happy with a small home that had broken up kitchens and bedrooms and it all worked. They just needed a place to live and she needed a separate office. This couple likes to celebrate and nine months from the day they closed, they had a child. And this home they purchased did not have a garage. So, they searched and they found parking three blocks away. They found this was painful with a child having to go three blocks a day. They added a garage and they had a great expense and trouble with home equity line and two years later they had another child. Now in order to have family time, they need an open floor plan. The small kitchen doesnt work, it doesnt allow them to have time with their two children and with the two of them themselves. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Overhead, please. So, the demolition definition in the legislation controls is too large demolition and eviction would be incentivized and in regards to the far it was never ever used for residential loss in the planning code and it treats lots the same. It leads to larger buildings city wide and lessons affordability. Potential loss of neighborhood to charter. Adus. What is allowed and what is not allowed and how many can go in and how many cant so if the Square Footage is not part of the far it needs to be and it is not reviewed by Planning Commission otherwise the v. A. Can grant all sorts of waivers. The Building Permit application for a. D. U. S is not subject to notification review for 311 and i gave you the stats on how big you can do the f. A. R. S are not included. Row pair and reuse exiting housing the grown way. One thing i noticed after going through housing, building and planning codes is no one brings up the Green Building code in terms of definition alteration. This only accounts in Building Code to things that are residential 25,000 square feet and this is all i have for today and i dont want to bore you. So, i just submit this under sunshine 67. 16 for the minutes. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, loraine petty. District five resident and member of senior and disabilities action. I support the proposed legislations goals of fairness and preservation of Affordable Housing. It is a work in progress. I thank you for this informational hearing and we are here for all sorts of takes on the proposed legislation. As a work in progress, its to preserve and enhance safety concerns and ward off the bad actors who hurt tenants and remove existing Affordable Housing. The legislation seeks to apply consistency and clarity and it will reduce speculation through transparency and consistency reducing the destruction of sound housing and exist existing Affordable Housing. This legislation will protect seniors and all groups threat end with the unfair loss of this affordable homes. I urge all parties to discuss and workout the requirements of this legislation not in attack mode. Not in scare mode, not in namecalling mode but in good faith and with an open mind and a goal of protecting and serving residents keeping them in their homes and stopping the egregious abuses no matter what the euphemism. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I was going to say good morning but good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time and effort today. I am here, my name is johnathan and im here as part of the realtor and development community. I am here to strongly urge you to oppose the proposed legislation which would greatly hinder Housing Production and the city. The legislation would hit everyday San Francisco residents particularly families. Id like to bring up an example of a client of mine as have many other realtors which wanted to live closer to her son and daughter. She initially sought out to search good housing but could not find housing which was in good condition. She decided to purchase a home and disrepair and to work on it and her architect submitted plans for two units one for her and one for a rental unit which she would use the rental income to her retirement income. After two years in planning, just the planning effort for what would be considered as of right, she finally obtained approval to start the process which can take a couple of additional years. My question to you today responsibly, hopefully that you can answer is can we really afford to lengthen thennen tightment process. Does the Planning Commission have the bandwidth to hear this number of conditional use hearings, cases, which would basically be every one, two, three unit building proposed in the city. I believe the commission calender is burdened as it is since with larger projects that are particularly more important for this commission to hear such as 2030 up to 100 plus union its are out as far as scheduling. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is martin cassidy. I was born and raised in San Francisco and my family has been in the Construction Business over the last 40 years. This legislation will be devastating to homeowners and general contractors as it makes it impossible for anyone to remodel their homes. The process of obtaining a permit to remodel a Single Family home takes one to five years. Anyone, neighbor, citizen can object to the Planning Department, the board of permit appeals and file a d. R. With the Planning Commission. Now this legislation adds yet another road block by requiring homeowners to submit a conditional use permit that will end up in front of the board of supervisors for approval. When talk to go my friends about owning a house in San Francisco, i tell them that most likely we will never be homeowners here in our hometown and thats because the over regulated process of obtaining permits and building has driven prices through the roof. Thank you for im a realtor. I learned people with young families are looking for three bedrooms on one level and the last 15 years theyre looking for open space so they can have family time together because it seems they work so much they need that time to be together. And i feel that this goes against all that those families are looking for and i urge you to vote against the legislation. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, laura foot. Ive heard about 10 different explanations for what the purpose of this legislation is. I think muddied would be the best explanation that i could say is the purpose of this that were against monster homes, is it some kind of scheme to incentivize triplexes . I dont know. I know that the cause will be that it will shut down Housing Production across the city and amount to a denial of Service Attack on both of your departments who will be overloaded and unable to handle doing really anything. There is a great way to incentivize triplexes and fourplexes and that is to up zone. And so im going to provide an article that was in the New York Times about up zoning and how many cities have overly restrictive Single Family homeonly zoning. A. D. U. Are nice but they wont get us there. We spent about a year now thinking and talking about this legislation. I dont want to anymore. I would really much prefer talking about how were going to up zone and making sure we protect tenants while we do this kind of up zoning and make sure we do right to returns, right to remains because were going to need to up zone. Either the state will do it for us or we can do it. We have now time to decide how San Francisco wants to up zone. And so this body could spend that time directing the departments to explore when and how we up zone and this is not the way to do that. Elaborate demolition controls is not the way to protect tenants. Protecting tenants can involve pro tenant legislation. Right to remain and right to return are things that other cities do much better than we do. And so that is something we can spend im happy to spend our time on that. That is a really good use of time. Because either the state is going to make us up zone or were going to do it ourselves but it will happen in the next couple of years and San Francisco is not prepared. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Stephen boss with the umb action. Id like to submit this banana for the record because as you all are aware this legislation is bananas. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. Please enjoy the banana or throw it away like we should throw away this legislation. Id like to focus on page 49. Its amazingly long bill. It shows what gets removed from what the Planning Commission is allowed to do. The Planning Commission is allowed to consider things like whether the protect conserves cultural and economic diversity. Whether it protects relative affordability of existing housing. Whether the project i am creases the number of permanently affordable units. Whether the project increases a number of familysize units or creates new Supportive Housing or increases the number of on site dwelling units or bedrooms. All of this has been struck and been replaced by anesthetic. Its no variances. The replacement structure will provide where did your discretion go . Why can you no longer consider economic and racial diversity in the neighborhood . Why is aaron peskin removing this from the code . I think you should reject it because this is a bad change. This is a bad law. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is seth brookeshire and before i moved here 20 years ago to start a Design Build Firm i worked in boston, miami and san santa barbara. I thought architecture was already illegal here except for the wealthy but boy, that does it. Thinking about this, i could only come up with two things that made sense about why we would be doing this. The first, well, you know, multiple generations 50 years, mayors, Planning Commissioners, yourselves included, plus your predecessors, in a massive conspiracy to eliminate the middleclass from the city of San Francisco and make this a nice haven for the wealthy and the tourists. I dont see thats the case. I think it would probably be above your abilities to hold that for so many years but the alternative is you are all really, really ignorant and stupid because we have 50 years of failed policy and if were not able to look back at the years of policy that we already have and understand that making things harder and longer makes things more expensive and continues to limit the amount of housing that we need. Were 30 years behind on housing. We need Affordable Housing because we dont have any housing. Making developers the evil fear mongers doesnt really add up considering unless someone on this board is tremendously wealthy, we all live inhousing developed by developers. Thats how housing is built. Its your job and the Planning Commissions job, the Planning Departments job and the zoning administrators job to make sure we have enough housing not to shut it down or make it more did the to build nedifficult to bui. I guess im done. I have one last thing to say and that is simply, what is the job of planning . Isnt it to make sure we have housing and we have infrastructure and we have subway systems . We have a subway system that is brand new and doesnt go to the stadium or trance bay term ina its a failure. He have a new trance bay terminal that is built for a train that will never a arrive and yet doesnt connect to bart . What are we doing . This makes absolutely no sense. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon commissioners, my name is timothy right and im a field representative with carpenters local 22 and i was born, raised and still living on the west side. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Im here today to speak against the proposed legislation. The legislation will be at odds of the citys over all goal of increasing Housing Production and improving affordability for residents. This legislation goes far beyond residential demolition. This would difficult in decreased Housing Production in the city. We dont need anymore layers or challenges for critically needed housing in San Francisco. We do not need any jobkilling legislation in the city of San Francisco. Thank you for the opportunity. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Dan, im a district 1 resident and researcher for carpenter local 22. Were opposed to this legislation for many of the reasons already stated. Throwing additional zapped into the gears of the citys development entitlement process is the exact opposite approach the city should be taking to address the housing crisis. Further, the proposal legislation will mean perhaps thousands of opportunities lost for our local Construction Workforce which means less Work Opportunities for citybuild grad squats other lola prentiss. Slowing or completely stopping Housing Production means more than just less housing, it means fewer jobs, shrinking tax revenue and cut off construction careers before they even start. Like many members of our union, i live here. I rent here. I hope 2 to raise my daughter here. We know the importance of protecting tenants in todays Housing Market and of course we support exist, Strong Tenant prediction and preserving Affordable Housing units. We urge you to enforce these already exiting policy or do something to make them stronger but do not prohibit change just for the sake of prohibiting change. Thank you for your time. The carpenters look forward to working with you to address our current housing crisis. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is leo cassidy and im a builder here in San Francisco. Some familiar faces here for the last 30 or 40 years here. Im looking at Long Range Planning and long range visions that the commissioner and the Planning Commission and the future of San Francisco, if you look at what happened in the 8d 90, were talking about the same thing. Why were here today. We talked about transit corridors back in the 80s and 90s and we were down at 40 feet. We were capped at 40 feet and we couldnt go up. Look, i dont know where you are coming from aaron this time. You are at the wrong side of this. I just dont understand it. You need to gather together and they need to Work Together and hammer and get back on track and im sure someone there eat that banana. Talk to you later. Commission walker wants the banana. I do. [laughter] you dont want an avocado . At home i do, yes. Im georgea. My time. I want to start over again. Ill wait until you set it. Thank you. I think the findings are really very, very good and they get to the point that i only heard i heard heard from loraine and thats the speculative problem weve had. That is where this is all coming from. Thats the genesis. Thats why people are upset. I think thats why supervisor peskins office and mr. Heppner worked so hard on this. Both of these commissions have seen my list of 70 projects that show an average increase of 3 million. In the last four or five years, because they screwed the demo merger rules. 70 projects. Mostly in knowy valley. I think the legislation has these new definitions of demolition that were referenced in the Building Code or referenced by the planning code in the Building Code and they suggest that you are all going to Work Together and thats a good thing. I think all the regulatory aspects of the legislation are really good in dealing with the bad actors. We can all agree that a vertical expansion, especially with a facade removal, is a demolition. And that is the reality and that is mostly on my list. And thats what needs to be taken care of. I do worry about the tenants. I think the flat policy is good. Im glad its there. I hope it stays there. I worry about the 75 interior demo of multiunit buildings because i think its a way that tenants can be forced out. Im not really totally comfortable with the f. A. R. In section 319. I understand it but i think because it hasnt been in babes beforeneighborhoods before, its worrisome. Its a pandoras box with the state and stuff. I think those who like the r. E. T. Its a good thing. Thats t i kind of feel like i need a nap. I guess you all do too. Next speaker, please. Thank you. If we have anymore speakers lineup now so we can get a read. Hi, commissioners. My name is robin and im here to speak in opposition of the legislation. I do currently work as a real stor and has been in San Francisco my whole life and i am married to a native so i said my chancing. In 1992, my husband and i decided back of the room, thank you. Please. To purchase a property in bernal heights, onestorey over a garage that was 1,050 square feet. At the time we werent married. We were married by we didnt have children. And i want to look at this from a practical standpoint or maybe you currently have a house that you live in or an apartment. I dont know where you came up with the 1200 square foot singlefamily dwelling being a reasonable housing size. I had 1,050 lot. I went through this expansion and vertical addition and at the time in 1995, interestingly enough, it took me three years to get through d. R. We had to do massing. We have to do design set backs. Thats what your planning code did and we got about an 800 square foot addition. At the time, interestingly enough, we were required to put a freeze on our rh2 lot so we only would have rh1 so we had to promise that we would put in a second unit. We had to add a garage space to the space. I recent the fact, for my clients and for myself, that you think the 1200 square feet. My daughters are home from college. We couldnt live in 1200 square feet. How dare you think its a reasonable family housing. How dare you think we cant do our own remodels of our bathrooms or kitchens. How dare you think you cant take a wall away to make an open floor plan. How dare you do anything in my house . Thats my house. I tell this to people that im here today and im going to this. People think were crazy. Were crazy. Thank you. Next speaker, thank you. Good afternoon, my name is christopher peterson. I agree with the goals that are supervisor peskin articulated. I dont think they would accomplish those goals to primary concerns that i have. First of all, i think it would require devoting a disproportionate amount of resources to the review of innocuous or benign projects. The primary position of the Planning Commission should be planning. I think it would be farber for those resources to be devoted to planning for increasing, the density, the amounts of housing in neighborhoods that are not currently supplying that especially in the western parts of the city. The other concern is although the ordinance has some language on its face would seem intended to allow for additional density, the requirements are so strict in reality it would not result in that so i urge you to ask to be sure that the final version of this ordinance, if its enacted, would in the world result in the creation of additional housing. Thank you. Thank you mr. Peterson and next speaker, please. Thank you. Hello, my name is brigitte duffy. They havent gotten the memo yet. The planet is at risk. Human life, i dont know if youve heard it. The u. N. Just put out a report if we dont lower our Carbon Emissions within 12 years, human beings may go extinct within 100 years. This is dire warnings and everything and living small and living less is the way to go. I appreciate you are making efforts towards that in San Francisco. There is more than enough space. We have lots of public land. We can put tiny house communities on public land. These sorts of theres a way being made for that to happen from the top and realtors, builders. Its to understand when realtors and builders show up to oppose something, chances are its a really good idea for people and planning. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Throughout the city for many, many years and i spent half my time on this. Its tremendous. The owners process is existing is already difficult and expensive and we all know that. To make a more bis process to accomplish what we know what we need. It doesnt make sense for anyone. Interestingly enough, i have a Young High School incompetenterh us and i was explaining what this legislation was about and in particular, he asked me a question which i found profound and interesting and how could at least how could with the residential additions and new construction, for example, new buildings, go off a major expansion and new construction projects, how could the new be as affordable as the old . How is that possible . Its not possible. Its not possible. You know the Construction Costs of what they are today, everyone knows that and theyre between 600 and 1,000 a square foot. We know that. Whats the end . How does this get improved. Next speaker, please. Ive been here in the city as a builder and working Construction Since 1982. I just had my speech going until i heard the previous speaker saying when you see builders down here, its usually for the wrong reasons. This legislation is a total attack on families. I mean future families. They want to be in the city. Period. They cant live in miniature homes and drive bicycles around with their kidsment bring them to school and bring them to the doctor. Where do these people come from . It took a year for this guy to write this garbage. A year. Oh, its partially demolition and its what . No one knows what is going on here. I dont even i hope some of you understand some of it. Its hilarious. Me, as a builder, i build anything. We will do whatever it takes. We listen to the building department. You have heard them today. You heard the experts understand it. They can explain it to you. Some of it actually they couldnt explain. Planning says one thing and building says another thing and politics say another thing. This is all politics. And its total b. S. Politics. Please, turn it down. Thank you. It is, mr. Cassidy. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, im arnold mcgill. Thank you for holding this hearing on this anti housing legislation. I got involved in this problem back in the 1970s with what some of you may remember were called richmond specials. Planning codes, d. B. I. Regulations have been changed since then in an attempt to correct the problems. The schemers and scammers will always be with us. We need something to handle it. This is not the way. Legislation and enforcement can overcome the problems, particularly enforcement in my mind. Its a ledge hammer approach. Approach. There are far too many negatives that unnecessarily effect perfectly logical, legitimate and standard projects. It puts massive unnecessary it must be scraped completely. Break it into and problems and consider whether theyre go from there. Take a fresh start at it. Something that is as incomprehensible to the general public and judging from your own questions, some nearly three hours ago, some of it is incomprehensible to you. When laws and codes are not clear to all of the effective parties, this piece of legislation is ridiculous. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, president mccarthy and melgar and commissioners. Ryan patterson here in the city. The proposed ordinance before you implicates core constitutional interest and it likely constitutes a taking of private poverty without compensation in violation of law. As youve heard today, it would amount to a radical down zoning of the city. Displaced growth and traffic and other communities will occur as well as other ceqa impacts and im a land use attorney and people should not need a attorney just to get a Building Permit. The rules should be simple and easy to understand and easy to apply. Penalties should be commence it just just enough. So, i think were to the point in the conversation where we should be considering alternatives. So i think there are some good alternatives we can credit and and the interest and that can be done pretty simply by redefining what a demolition is under the code. Its allowing more housing not less. If were trying to penalize the defenders, we can do that under the existing laws and it will be more effective if the laws are clarified. The demolition calculations are very difficult to apply. Especially for a contractor in the field. Simplify that and have a standard across the board between departments and have a appropriate penalties for that. If we want to move forward, we can do that and we should look at starting over. Thank you, mr. Patterson. Thank you, very much. Im the president of sunset park side Education Action Committee also known as speak. I am here on my own behalf. In many municipalities, d. B. I. And planning are a single department. The department is not face issues of inconsistency, San Francisco has two separate departments. Theres the need for a demolition code that both departments are clear, consistent, enforceable and have objective requirements. This would provide predictability for developers and help curb speculative behavior. Expansion limits themselves and Square Footage wont pre vend the housing and i would surgery the additional improvements to this legislation. Lower tolerances to avoid gaming the system and include use and far based expansion and limits for and lower floor and require provided by the project sponsor. I support the that plans are submitted and true and accurate as some of these 311 notices are questionable. It is my understanding that there are cities in Southern California which already have the requirements. Next speaker, is that the last speaker . I have one more. Commissioners, gary. Weve been practicing architecture residential and commercial work here . San francisco for 35 years and just a quick synopsis. Weve been challenges by legislation thats come down from both the board and the Planning Commission recently. Its a parent to us that many of our clients are many cases we have families that want three bedroom units and this is a mandatory requirement in the program. We want to continue that. Theres some families that require parking in their residents whether its addition or new construction. So we clearly need something much more simpler that allows us to work within these parameters. Im requesting a recommendation allowing a meaningful expansion and demolition as mighted and eliminate the restrictions for size and massing and typically in our experience, weve done new correction in San Francisco and its taken at least four years for us to get through the planning reviews and for new correction to include larger project and smaller projects. Thank you very much. Thank you. [ please stand by ] who that having policies like the flats on the mergers of units, you know, it is as intended. Aside from that aside from that legislation, you know, it is supported by folks that i really respect. Like the tenants union, senior disability action, and i think it is folks like it, because in the narrow slice that you are dealing with in terms of the problems it addresses that. The way that i am saying, is it doesnt outweigh the unintended consequences that it will have. I am afraid of that. I, you know, support living smaller. I think we definitely need that for the environment. Im not sure that this legislation addresses that. I live in a 2700 squarefoot home but i live with six people. For that, you know, each person gets about one of 50 ft. , and i think that that is living smaller than most. Like i said, families come in different sizes and we use the land differently. I would like to have an approach that is much more targeted to solving our issues. I think the fundamental question
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.