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 ofarrel