[bell ringing] and so were not given the opportunity to expand. How do we accomplish that . How do i take care of my family . How do i invest in this city, when i cant even invest in my own home. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im jennifer fever with the San Francisco tenants union. So the easiest way to protect tenants and affordable rents to keep them housed in the first place. Its been a very frustrating few years for us. Weve had a bunch of tenants come to us worried about losing their homes during extensive renovations. So we started experimenting with filing d. R. S and weve learned a lot about the Planning Department and their process. Most surprising to me the planning staff had no directive to consider how permits affect existing tenants. The planning code is written so narrowly, they can claim to have hamstrung rather than considering humans in their plans. Tenants are 65 of the population. We should matter. I challenge the architects in this room to hold the public forum about their role in our displacement. Surely you can see how this system can be abused by speculators, looking for any way to get rid of rentcontrolled tenants and avoid compensating them. I support the legislation for the tenant protections, notification and penalties. Its a declaration under perjury, you dont need new data. If you need data, call us, we have the data. The projects where we filed discretionary review created no new Affordable Housing. In fact, several projects eliminated the sound, reasonably sized units on the ground floor and substituted monstrous twostory pent houses. Because the result was the name number of units in the building, we were told that this not considered a loss of rentcontrolled units. When obviously it is. [bell ringing] anyone can look at the plans and see that that small unit disappeared. This kind of speculation does not benefit our city. It just increases the potential value of destroying sound housing. On our d. R. S, the planning staff always recommended approval, even after we pointed out that tenants living there now would be displaced. And the commission would say no. So you can see where wed be without a commission process. The legislation will benefit us all in this room. It will reduce my workload and your workload. [bell ringing] we need clear thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello, good afternoon. Eye name is kathy and i work with senior and disability action and the antieviction project. I live in district 8, which has suffered more rental unit losses than any other district. Its gratifying to see the sensitivity thats gone into the Housing Preservation and expansion reform act, regarding tends. Im sure that all tenants appreciate that they would get a notice, existing tenants, with accurate plans, work description, counseling service. Revelation of all work done and the last five years to avoid incremental demos. Declaration of whether work will be a loss of a rentcontrolled unit or whether a tenant has occupied the unit in the last seven years. Mergers of rentcontrolled units should not be permitted. We like the Planning Commissions criteria and project review will not result in loss of Affordable Housing unit or rentcontrolled unit. Also its great that site visits of the d. B. I. Staff with the planners would be in the work. Its very demoralizing to suddenly see buildings go dark in ones neighborhood and then demo crews move in to gut, pull apart a building. What happened to the People Living there, who can afford the new bulkier product. Who can afford it are less than 20 of the population in San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good morning, commissioner. My name is joel. I live in lower hay. Per parents rented an apartment and attended Mission High School as a teenager. I bring this up because supervisor peskin brought up a on racist history. In the early 1900s, rich white people Westwood Park and eagle side terrace. They need the requirement by pie flag to neighborhood detached housing and guarantee mad no apartments would be guilt to keep people of color out. Today these places barely have any apartments and still the same wealthy homes and the defense letter of white people of provisional white people. This bill rewarded the sorry, im a little upset. It requires that the height scale of socalled character of neighborhoods be prevented by proposing housing project. The Mission Always have apartments. This language will ensure that ingleside tenants will never. While congress is currently talking about [inaudible]. Please dont let this bill get away without the permits. Thank you. Thank you. Full disclosure, ip live on the west side. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is robert. I also live in lower hay. Im here because this bill does not, quote unquote, incentivize density as supervisor peskin claims, in order to create what legislative aide hepner claims to be a quote fast track for expansions that will turn Single Family homes into duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes unquote, source from twitter. In fact, this bill proposed expansions will be subject to a complex and one sight onesizefitsall. Most would be required to receive conditional use authorization to proceed and as we have heard, would be ineligible for approval. Also remind you that the budget and elective Analyst Office of the board of supervisors has found that the average conditional use authorization takes over 290 days to issue. Thats the new default process. The purported fast track process would consist of the current process of receiving a permit from the Planning Department. That would be the least accurate definition of fast tracking i have ever heard. [laughter] supervisor peskin wants to, quote, stem the tide of demolitions, but over 88 of losses of rentcontrolled housing in the last decade came from ellis act evisions and owner moveins. Its hard to understand why the public must wade through 70 pages of legalease in a threehour meeting for legislation, which would have farreaching consequences in every area except the affect its trying to achieve. If the supervisor truly wants to fast track expansions, then i propose a very simple solution. Minimum zoned density. Lets not forget that rh1 zoning is mansion zoning for a Single Family home. Get rid of rh1 zoning and set minimum density requirements for rh2 and rh3. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. [applause] good afternoon, commissioners. Greg, a realtor here in San Francisco. I oppose this legislation. And im specifically im here on behalf of my middle class homeowners, who i help find homes here in the city. Theres one family in particular that comes to mind, just in the last few months. A family that was renting a house in the outer richmond. They were able to scrape enough money together to buy a very small house in the outer richmond. This is a family thats lived here for many years. They have two daughters that go to Public School in the neighborhood. And they have an elderly mother that lives with them as well, extended family. And they were able to get into this house that needs lots of work. And with the intent that over time they will be able to open up the floor plan, so it makes sense for their family. And to add another room for their mother to live there. The idea of adding a conditional use process for something as minimal as this, would just really add a huge burden to a family like this. And other families that want to do similar type projects. So i ask you to please not accept this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good afternoon. Im here today to strongly oppose the proposed legislation. I understand and appreciate the spirit of this piece of legislation to prevent the few bad actors from lying on their permit applications, like what happened recently. The key phrase is a few. A 70page legal document is not required. In fact, this could be handled with one page of section. Sections 103. 1 requiring a preman inspection what the city of oakland does. And to call out for another inspection when dry rot is uncovered, solve the problem, by requiring inspections. I support those changes fully, as well as additional penalties and fees. This is one of the most terrifying pieces of legislation i have ever seen in my 18 years of practice. The change to section 317 to remove building and Fire Department ability to oversee imminent safety hazard buildings and decide what to be done and wait for a conditional use for over a year is absurd. It affects not only the Property Owner but also the adjacent properties that may be impacted by an imminent safety hazard. On average, my residential clients will spend two to five years going through a permitting process on a conforming addition. Those projects dont even necessarily come to your commission. Thats how long it takes. I had a client recently wait fives no variances, no hearings. In that span, they had a child, sent the child to school, their marriage failed, and they filed for divorce. Thats a snapshot of how peoples lives change while they wait for permits to be approved. [bell ringing] not only that, the Construction Costs have doubled in that timeline. Now they cant even afford to do the project. These are not my my clients are not rich, theyre small family having their first time or having an elderly parent move in with them. This legislation makes an ard ewous and timeconsuming process much worse. We need legislation that makes it easier to modify the homes and businesses. Maybe people wouldnt lie on the permit application if the process was simpler and faster. Thank you. Thank you. Terrify stop you i have to stop you there. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello, my name is neil schwartz. I have run an architecture practice in San Francisco for nearly 25 years. Im a professor of architecture at the California School of arts. Worked closely with the Planning Department, often supporting vocally their expertise and efforts to create thoughtful policy around complex issues. Well, many of us can emphasize with the goals of this legislation, it represents a grab bag of goals and scattered shot policies, none of which are yet supported by careful consideration of the realworld implications. These are Critical Issues for our city and they deserve the full expertise of planning and building staff, and others to craft targeted policies to address them. This legislation may feel good to many of those who seek action, but from a policy perspective, its one of the worst ways to make thoughtful, targeted and lasting change. I urge you to reject this legislation in its entirety. But break down its goals and work with the planning and Building Department experts on crafting more targeted policy with more assured outcomes. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Schwartz. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im nancy warfell. I support the proposed draft legislation. To address the unlawful demolition of sound housing and to set uniform standards. There are so many loopholes in the current planning and Building Codes that both codes fail to stop the destruction of housing, much less actually deter the continuation of these practices in the future. New controls to preserve our existing Housing Stock are long overdue. We need to require all Building Permits, planning applications and revisions to be submitted under penalty of perjury by the project sponsor or representative. Next, we need to support greater financial penalties for violating the codes as proposed in this legislation, that will truly impact bottom line of profits for developer, who see the current fines as just the cost of doing business. There are many appropriate recommendations in this legislation to enforce the goals to preserve Affordable Housing neighborhood character. To facilitate this new work, i request that both commissions add more money to your annual budgets, submitted to the mayor, to fund and implement the improved review procedures and Enforcement Actions for code enforcement. This money will be spent on the money spent by the city to be actually preserving housing. And we can afford it with a 12. 3 billion city budget. I am here to give you the tools to do the job that you want. [bell ringing] and to get rid of all of these complaints that it costs too much money or takes too much time. I want you to have whatever it takes to keep our housing in San Francisco the way it is. And with improvements. And with standards that everybody can live by. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im karen payson, i practice architecture here in the city. I lead a firm in north beach. I live in noe valley and im a member of the a. I. A. Public policy action committee. Stop illegal demolitions and mergers is a worthwhile goal and it sounds great. But the legislation, the way its written, reaches far beyond that mission. The proposal is written more like a wish list of various interests. It has a grab bag of regulations, which will have a lot of unintended consequences. And will ultimately undermine the citys stated goals of providing more housing and retaining families. A lot of measures run counter to the goal of retoring and retaining existing Housing Stocks has been said today, for example. Classifying the removal of dry rot and temporary removal of structural elements during construction as demolition. Its not productive. These are important issues. And i would hope that they could be resolved with the Planning Department and the Building Department, working carefully together. Its not the purview of the board of supervisors, even mr. Hepner acknowledged that he did not understand the case studies presented. I urge you to reject this legislation in its entirety. Instead as i mentioned, i hope that these the departments under these boards will Work Together to craft a more targeted policy with much more sustainable outcomes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, president and commissioner melgar, president and commissioners. My name is ross, im an architect. Im the current chair of the a. A. A. Public policy committee and i lived in San Francisco for 23 years. I wouldnt be standing here today if this legislation were in place when i moved here. I built my first house myself over a period of many yearswork the benefit of many permits. Because it was all i could afford and all i could do. This law would have prohibited my presence today. This is an aspirational piece of legislation. And we all agree that there are holes in the definitions of demolition. Beyond that it goes far greater with the aspirations and it suffers from a tremendous amount of overreach, attempting to lump density, housing growth, control, and residential design into a single law and creating an additional demand on an already overburdened system and overburdened commissions, that railroad struggle with the permit streamlining act. As a result, there are a host of contradictions written into this single piece of legislation. A lot of which you have heard about. First and foremost, i want to say very clearly that this is a prohousing proposal, that is wrapped in an antigrowth law. And that is a fundamental contradiction from the outset. Id also like to say statistically i currently 35 projects in my studio, 30 of those are in San Francisco, five of them will be before the Planning Commission in the current code, in this new legislative environment, 27 of them will be before you. I also spoke with lewis butler, who san architect, who im sure youre familiar with, he had 30 projects in San Francisco, all 30 of them will come before you, in this law passes. Weve already talked about the 1200 square foot maximum and where this number may arise and whether or not it truly represents Family Housing. So i wont take your time with that. I do want to point out that we make proposition m findings when we come before these commissions. And these findings demand that we make a maximum preparedness for earthquakes and when you take that in concert with the even temporary removal of walls, constituting demolition, we simply cant create the earthquake preparedness that we know we need. Finally, in terms of process, i want to say in regards to transparency, im deeply disappointed by what i see as politically motivated piece of legislation. That is divisive, exclusionary and despite our as a thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is tim rooney. I lived in San Francisco for over ten years, during that time i moved among seven different apartments before finally abandoning the dream of making a permanent home in San Francisco and heading east. I now commute in daily. My story is frustrating, but it is not unique. Im sure everyone in the room would agree a dire shortage of housing in San Francisco. Its the single Biggest Issue we face. Its difficult to understand how the proposed legislation would not make this situation worse. We desperately need Affordable Housing and yet a single unit of Affordable Housing could not be demolished to create 100 in its place. This is not hyperbole. No further than 400 or 450 ofarrell. I would encourage the commission to work with a trusted architect or planner to perform a retroactive study and determine which other projects might not exist today, had this legislation been in place. We need more rental using and a single unit cannot be demolished. Meaning to create additional housing one needs to leave a unit vacant for seven years, we dont need vacant housing and we cant wait seven years. We need housing today. We need more safe and code compliant housing, yet unauthorized unit would need to be brought up to code before eligible for demolition. This is wasteful. Its irresponsible. We dont need to repair dilapidated housing only to demolish it. We need to build safe housing give quickly and efficiently. Replacement in any demolished unit needs to be comparatively sized to those demolished, not exceed the average size of any units within 300 feet, yet be no larger than 1200 square feet and the list goes on. We need large Family Housing and we need small affordable by design housing. We dont need arbitrary rules impossible to abide by. Most insidious if the impact this legislation has on the permitting process. Thank you, mr. Rooney. Thank you. Hello. Im megan silver. Ive been a resident in San Francisco for over eight years and concerned that this legislation has a negative impact on the city. My husband and i are looking to start a family, which starts with buying a house. As we all know, its extremely difficult for ordinary residents, like myself, to afford any type of housing in San Francisco. The average person will have to hire a landuse attorney just to help them navigate through the red tape. While i understand that people dont want San Francisco to change, this will unfortunately lead to older homes rotting, because no reasonable home buyer will touch them giving the new additional costs and timelines. What happens with the homeowner needs to retroactive fit the home for an earthquake, based on the proposed legislation, they could be waiting years. This will make already old Housing Inventory of San Francisco virtually impossible to improve. I strongly believe the permitting process should actually be faster and more streamlined, so we see more housing of every type on the market to meet the everincreasing demands in San Francisco. If passed, this legislation will further impact the already overstretched Planning Department, and will divert resources away from getting housing on the market in a timely manner. As a result, supply will be restricted and housing prices will increase. As somebody who is looking to buy a house in the near future, this scares me. All of the costs and uncertainty will price me and a lot of other people out of San Francisco. I hope you take these points into consideration. Thank you. [ please stand by ] its counterproductive to create affordable houseing. The topic was addressed in the report that was prepared by the Planning Department in 2017. As well as defining the need. The need is there. San francisco currently has the lowest percentage of children of any u. S. City. We also have the highest Construction Costs of any city. Only 18 of households have children. Compared to 29 nationwide. Its occasionized by the response sponsors, families want a three bedroom homes with two baths and room for the family to grow and change. Next speaker, please. Y , my name is mina young. Ive been a resident for 40 years in San Francisco. I have two kids in college, i have a house, Single Family house in the richmond. And its zoned for multiple units. When my kids grow up, i wanted to ive been saving money, but things are just not going the way that we were planning to. [ please stand by ] please stand by stop this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Im a california licensed architect and ive lived and practiced in San Francisco for 25 years. Im a member of a a. I. A. For architect and the problems these requirements create i appreciate the supervisor peskin understands the value of architects and the ordinance requires the california licensed architects be retained for projects requiring 311 and 317 notifications. However, some create professional situations because they demand work beyond the professional standard of care and practice these demands are practical, uninsurable and unethical and unlawful. I have consulted with two lawyers, my Insurance Broker and a Risk Management consultant. Through the heavy handed requirements for criminal penalties for in acree sees, they suggest the perfection is required and this is a complete lack of knowledge about architectural contracts, construction responsibilities and the flow of information that takes place during the course of a project. Perfection is not the standard and under common law and state statutory law, perfection is considered impossible and it could be improper for San Francisco to require it. Negligence is not a lie and perjury wouldnt apply. According to the same expert is inconsistent with the duty of a designed professional to the client and these examples illustrate several problems with the unfounded overreach right throughout the ordinance which will cause more legal, financial, ethical and practiceel problems than it solved and they cannot participate in the reconstruction of a demolished building that had as pose tim hortons and be against our professional duty to practical that in the event of an illegal demolition. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is iver collins and im a real estate agent. I am here to voice my concerns about the proposed legislation and its impact on my clients. A list will impact many of my clients theres one set of clients that id like to tell you a story about. I helped them to find a house on 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 FranciscoPublic 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 PolicyAdvocacy 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 FranciscoAction 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 buir