Do you have announcements . Yes due to the Health EmergencyCity Employees and the public the board of Supervisors Chamber and Committee Room are closed. However, members will be participating in the meeting remotely at the same extent as if physically present. Public comment is available for each item on the agenda both channel 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker is allowed two minutes. Comments to speak during the Public Comment are available by calling 8882045984. The access code is 3501008. Then press pound and plowed again. When you are connected dial 1 and zero to speak. You will beelined up in the order you dialed. The system will be silent when you are waiting. They will notify you when you are in line. Callers will remain on mute. Account for time delays between live coverage and streaming. Best practices call from a quiet location and turndown your television or radio. You may submit comment in the following ways. Email me. If you submit via email it will be included as part of the matter. Written comments may be centuryithroughcity hall. Thank you. As i have done for a couple months i would like to thank the behindthescenes staff making this Virtual Meeting happen. Thank you john, arthur, brent, john carroll as well as the folk at sfgovtv. With that, madam clerk, would you please read item two out of order. An ordinance amending the planning code to provide that in the urban mixed use district all office uses are prohibited except that a professional service, Financial Service or medical service is allowed as conditional use on the ground floor when primary open to the general public on a client oriented basesis. Call 8882045984 and bles prese and zero to speak. If you are on hold, standby. My understanding is that the sponsor of this legislation, supervisor ronen who is trying to call me and i am trying to call her back would like to have this item continued. I see that her legislative aid is participating in this meeti meeting. Ms. Binart is my understanding correct . You are welcome to speak before this committee. Amy, come in. Amy binart. Thank you very much for accommodating our request to continue. We would like to request the same one more week. We would like to hear this on may 11th. With that, i would just defer to your actions. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to item number 2 that is sponsor has requested a one week continuance on . Madam clerk. I think you might be on mute, madam clerk. I cant hear you. I have two callers. I will call the first caller. You have two questions remaining. You have two minutes to speak starting now. I would like to remind callers to turn down the tv. We are getting feedback from the television. Next caller. You have two questions remaining. Hello, you have two minutes to speak. I am calling in regards to item 2. It is insane you are going to make it harder to open job site offices in this current economic climate. Wwe are going through a terrible recession. We need every possible office space. Anybody trying to open an office needs to do that without conditional use hearing. Sorry i have a job or i am retired, and i dont care. It is the wrong set of priorities for the board. You shouldnt have to beg and plead with a bunch of over concerned people that my job, office cant be in this neighborhood. Any job now is valuable and we need to make that happen. Think about the workers in the offices. Think about the tax money to generate for the city and think about the revenue that other businesses in the area would get by having more workers in place. That has to be the number one priority going forward. Think about that instead of whether the neighborhood cares if a coffee shop is open. You have two questions remaining. I am garrett. I am a resident of San Francisco. I am calling in regards to item two. While i support to spirit of the proposed legislation to promote housing over office uses in district nine. I am concerned by lack of out reach to the handful of sponsors in district nine whose projects would be impacted, particularly the lack of grandfather the projects would receive should it pass a written. Given the extraordinary amount of time and money and project sponsors must obtainness approvements for the land use environment, it is utmost importance for consistency. I recommend that all project that were in the pipeline prior to the introduction of this legislation be granted grandfathering clauses. And that all future proposals are accompanied buy out reach to the sponsors whose projects may be affected. Thank you. Next caller. You have two minutes to speak. Hello, caller. That conpleats the queue. Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public, Public Comment is closed. Madam clerk, on the motion requested by the representative of supervisor ronen to continue one week to may 11th, a roll call, please. Motion to continue to may 11th. Supervisor preston. Aye. Safai yes. Aye. Peskin. Aye. You have three ayes. Can you please the first and last item. Ordinance to demolish a Single Family residential building on a site zoned as rh1 or rh1d when it is not affordable or financially accessible housing. Members of the public for this item call 8882045984. The access code is 3501008. Press one and then zero to line up to speak. For those on hold, please standby. Thank you, madam clerk. I want to thank and welcome supervisor mandelman, the author of this legislation. I am proud to be the soul cosponsor. This is an issue that has been kicking around for a long time, and as supervisor mandelman will remember, i believe supervisor safai will remember, supervisor preston was not on the board. I have a history of fixing infirmities in 317 of the planning code to prevent demolition of extent Affordable Housing and i rant to thank supervisor mandelman and his staff for bringing this forward. I believe supervisor mandelman has tweaks and i have tweaks based on the suggestions in both of our cases that came out of the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Department is ably represented in the meeting so if we have any questions of the Planning Department, they are here. Of course, the recommendation of the commission are set forth in the package that is before this committee. With that i will turn it over to supervisor mandelman. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Thank you, chair peskin. Thank you for your leadership on demolition issues. For a long time the item before us today is an ordinance that i drew with supervisors cosponsor to close a loophole for Single Family homes that encourages speculative demolition of existing housing to be replaced by very large and more expensive and less affordable Single Family homes. Currently 317 of the planning code requires conditional use approval in most cases where the demolition is proposed. There is an exception. Some existing Single Family homes can be demolished if the value of the property, not the value of the home, is above a certain amount. Currently 2. 2 million. That is set by the Zoning Administrator and adjusted periodically. These are demonstrably unaffordable that is referring to the property and not the home. They are exempt from the conditional use requirement. When 317 was added in 2007, part of the original logic was the loss of expensive housing was less concern in terms of preserving existing units. The average sale price tripled and the value is on the development value. Speculators are willing to pay 2 or 3 million for a lot with a thousand square foot home not worth anything near that on its own because they know they can build a 5,000 square foot mansion and flip it for 5 or 6 million or 7 million or more. Bizarrely, this practice triggers a special exception to allow the old house to be demolished without any public review any other demolition would require. This is not about saving 2 million homes as some suggested. It is about stopping or stalling the 7 million mansions being built or giving those projects the same level every view as any other demolition. I also want to be clear that it is an exception only applies on property zoned for rh1 or 1d. Those are subject to fink el family zoning. It doesnt make good sense to get an expedited review when the demolition of the same home in the area for two, three, four or more units have to go through conditional use process. This is to level that Playing Field and ensure there is a chance to look at these sites and push for appropriate replacement be in terms of design, scale and density. Before i conclude i will describe the two amendments i ask to be considered today. A non substantive change for clarity we arrived at with the deputy City Attorney jensen who is here today. I want those amendments in front of this supervisor. I want to confirm with my colleagues on this panel, supervisor safai that what is before you as well, is that correct . Let me doublecheck. Usually i just hand one to my left and one to my right. I am sorry to interrupt. I have them. Supervisor preston. Yes, i have those as well. Sorry. Please proceed. This first change is simply to retain reference to the remaining exception related to unsound buildings in the list of exceptions in 317c. You will see at the bottom of page 2 in the current version of the ordinance that c5 is struck out. In the proposed amendment this language worry tained. Secondly, i would like to incorporate the grandfathering provision for projects in the pipeline prior to february 11th of this year. That would mean projects filed Development Application with planning prior to february 11 would continue under the existing review process. Those after that date are subject to the conditional use requirement. That is fair in this case. To make the change that i think we should make. In summary, colleagues, this would make a narrow amendment to eliminate the double standard favoring luxury mansions offer existing homes and new desert projects. As we continue to address the housing from multiple angles this will allow scrutiny and slow the loss of existing housing throughout the city. I ask for positive recommendation to close this loophole as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration today. I want to thank chair peskin for the work done on the issue of demolition and the good ideas that were generated through our efforts around antidemolition last year. This is one of those good ideas. There are more. I want to thank jensen, jacob in my office and audrey and aaron star. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor mandelman. I dont see my colleagues with questions at this time. In so far as names are not on the roster, i thought that i would speak to the amendment that i would like to suggest at this meeting that i believe, and we can check with deputy City Attorney pearson, who is our Legal Council to this committee. I believe those two would require a one week continuance for additional Public Comment. This was actually discussed in the Planning Commissions hearing and in some part because of a piece of analysis that was done in Planning Department staffs report to the commission on supervisor mandelmans proposed changes. The relevance analysis is in the Planning Department staff report at the top of page 3 where in staff points out some of the infirmities in section 317 that was well intended and over the 13 years it has been on the books has been the subject of attempts to make it more effective and meet its Public Policy goals. As a matter of fact i might point out that i attempted to do that. I already mentioned that i attempted to present then the demolition controls but ran into a political buzz stop. In the staff analysis, they really point out and the Planning Department is concerned about the ability to enforce. I think there are a couple easy changes that we can make that meet the intent of supervisor mandelmans legislation and make the legislation more enforceable. I would suggest adding this additional text to 317 on page 2 at line 14. This is under definitions and this is actually very simple. Right now the definition of residential demolition shall mean any of the following work on a residential building for which the department of building inspection determines the permit is required. That is first one. Or major alteration of the residential building proposing removal of more than 50 of the sum of the front and rear facades, and the removal of more than 65 of the sum of all exterior walls. Then it goes on to say three, a neutral. You said and. You said or here not and on the last part. What i am proposing in this amendment is to strike and and replace it with or. Okay. Good. I am proposing the exact same thing, and this is pursuant to a conversation that the Planning Commission had that was received favorably, none of them made a motion to make it part of their actual recommendations to this body, but the third is a major alteration that proposes removal of more than 50 of the vertical elements and more than 50 of the horizontal elements of the existing building. I suggest in that definition to strike and and insert or. I know that my staff has discussed this with supervisor mandelmans staff. This was well received in the discussion at the commission, but nobody made a motion to make that part of the recommendations to the panel. I would ask i would add that to it. If this panel. Wait. Can we hear from the department because i actually watched the tape on this conversation. I know you spent a lot of time and your staff spent a lot of time in terms of the conversations about demolition. What you are proposing is a significant change. I would like to hear from the Planning Department to see if this was something there was consensus about. I understand there was consensus about what supervisor mandelman is proposing. What you are proposing seems to be a significant proposal. I am interesting to hear how the Planning Commission received that. Absolutely. We will hear from the Planning Department staff what supervisor mandelman is proposing relatively to grandfathers is actually, as you will see in the committee package, is actually a formal recommendation of the commission. What i am proposing was discussed by the commission, does not need to be rereferred to the commission and we will let the Planning Department staff characterize it. It was well received. This is based in some part on the actual analysis by the manning Department StaffPlanning Department staff and let me read the top of page 3 of the staff report. Quote. The proposed ordinance will not solve one of the major this is supervisor mandelmans proposed ordinance. Let me start again. Proposed ordinance will not solve one of the main problems problems with 317. It does not prevent those under the demolition threshold. As a result projects originally qualified as unaffordable will Submit Application for extensive remodel which does not preserve the relative affordability of homes. Worse yet. Section 317 controls disincentivize adding new units extremely difficult to accomplish without demolition. I think what i am proposing deals with precisely what staff raised and the commission discussed. Pursuant to vice chair safais request, mr. Maloney, the floor is yours. Mr. Chair, before do you that. Who do we have here from the Planning Commission . I mean from the Planning Department. Aaron star and Audrey Maloney. Audrey maloney is the chief author of the report. Good afternoon, Audrey Maloney from the Planning Department here to first of all, give the presentation briefly. The commission did hear this on april 23 and voted 51 to approve what was before them with the additional modification suggested and outlined by supervisor mandelman including grandfathering provision for submitted applications before the introduction of the ordinance february 11th. As to supervisor peskins recent amendment, we have not had a chance to look at this in depth. Just going off what supervisor peskin announced, it is my recollection the Commission Voted on a very particularly specific and limited scope of changes to 317. Although the verbiage change may seem simple, at first glance it appears to dramatically change the scope of the ordinance. What section 317 would do in april of itself, i believe this would create a massive amount of work for the department. It would have fundamental changes. The commission. I have to interrupt you. You cannot you can do what you want. You cannot in one breath say that the proposed ordinance doesnt solve one of the main problems. And your department opposed many of the changes that i proposed last year to actually fix those infirmities. It seems a little and i mean this not in a prejourtive way. Schizophrenic to say you recognize the problem, identify the problem. You say if we actually put into words or those two sentences that it will cause too much work for the department, lets analyze that a little bit. Which is you still have a quantitative measure that you have to consider, which is the removal of more than 50 of the front and rear facades and more than 65 of all exterior walls. You still have a quantitative threshold that requires an amount of staff work in the definition of demolition at b . Same at sub c. I dont understand how it adds more staff work. Having said that it does address the infirmity