end up in the ice cold winter in the summer of san francisco without the sun. i think we have an ordinance or something that says that no back yard fence should be greater than 6 feet. there's a reason for that. you want some sun to come in, but you don't want your neighbor to be overlooking your activities in your back yard. that's a nice thing. we have nice big back yards in nis big blocks where people live, but these back yards are not big, they're postage stamps. they're being reduced and reduced and reduced, and without any knowledge, i'll wake up and find somebody building a 20 foot fence next to my back yard and killing my plants, depriving me of the enjoyment of my back yard. i'd like to have a little bit more time to consider this about what effect this has on me personally and perhaps extend that to what it has on other people. so please, don't rush through this and run through this

particular piece while you're doing the good things with the rest of it. this is really abusive, and i hope you would think twice about it or at least give you more chance to think seriously and soberly about it. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. just to tag onto the last speaker, it feels more and more like alfred hitchcock's real window where things are closgeg closer and closer. i've been a real estate broker for 43 years here in the city. i'd like to address two points: the pop outs and the lack of notice of a pop out.

allowing the approval on a -- by over the counter of a pop out disen franchises neighbors from the approval process and from the give and take of negotiations between developer and neighbors. secondly, the problem of notification, lack of notification of a pop out amounts to a disingenuous process between developer and neighbors. a developer can enter into discussions with neighbors about their project and give no inclination as to their addition of a pop out. that's just deceptive. a neighbor can file for a

discretionary review and then on the basis of what they thought was the project and then find out after the project commences that there'll be a pop out. is that honest? this is just not right. it -- the problem, also, is that pop outs in themselves have many problems, which you commissioners have recognized in previous cases that you've reviewed. you know, the additional units they're put in the rear of buildings, they're small, nanny units, often the ingress and egress is through alleyways. is this the kind of housing we want to promote? and that's what will be happening if you pass this full

ordinance package. it's not that it doesn't address the main core problems everybody is aware of and that you as commissioners are trying to deal with, which isn't so much supply of housing, it's about affordability of housing. that's the core. so how much of what of this ordinance deals with affordability? >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. >> lisa petrucelli. i just have three comments, actually, the first is about the 20 days, actually even 30-days is a little short. i mean, i don't think you should extend it. mail is an issue for a lot of people, and people are busy, and they might not get it open, and they might not have the time to respond.

and then, the second issue i have is not mailing out paper copies of the plans. i would love a paperless world, but until this city provides high speed internet access for all families, and they all have computers, it's prohibitive for them, and they should have the same access as everybody else. and then, the last thing is for the adu units. i'm a residential designer, so i've submitted my own projects and have to go through p.p.a. and neighborhood notification, but i feel like the adu should at least have a p.p.a. so they can notify immediate neighbors. the point of the p.p.a. is to get good conversations, and it's a good thing, and the neighbors should have an opportunity to know. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. bruce bowen from over sights improvement club. we're all for process improvement.

it's aet great plan, but not for simplification that stacks the decks against neighborhoods and neighborhood groups. just twoment coulds. one is allowing the pop outs, which pop outs by their definition are things that will intrude into neighbor spaces and neighborhood open space. i looked up section 136(c) 25 in the planning code and saw that there are ten interpretations of this single section in the planning code, which -- most of which i don't know what they are. one, i do know. it's that such permitted obstructions are not allowed in the special use district. the other nine, it seems that these interpretations indicate that this is a matter that can be somewhat complicated. if it's complicated, it may not be something that should be allowed to be approved over the counter and may require more neighborhood improvement, more

opportunity for neighborhood involvement. so notice should not be eliminated. as far as the 20 days goes, 20 days for 311 notices is not enough time for neighbors and neighborhood groups to respond to at -- at least in many cases, respond to projects to be able to organize, meet with the sponsors, meet with the department if necessary, prepare a response, especially without other process improvements put into place first. so i would -- i don't believe that the 30 days should be reduced to 20 days unless and until it's demonstrated that process improvements that are increasing transparency and consistency of access to information. right now, projects -- some projects, there's a lot of information on-line. some projects, information is not available on-line. it's kind of spotty. as we've already heard, i think these -- what happens between the preapplication notice and the mailing of a 311 needs to

be fixed up first, and that -- that -- improvement and transparency that will come from that needs to be in place in the time period before it's reduced to 20 days. this proposal with the benefits that can come from it should be continued, give us and you more time to think about what changes need to be put into place. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. these changes are not about process improvements, these changes are more about public -- removing of the public input from the process. cutting ten days from notification is not process improvement, it's more like process reduction. in a city where developers can submit versions for the same plan over and over and over

again ad nauseam and drag the project for years, what's a ten-day reduction in the notification process? is the planning department that contemptous of the planning input that they're scheming and cutting off our voices? i'll show you examples of what takes two years to approve a project. not us, it's them. overhead, please. what i've highlighted here in yellow shows the date that an opdr -- pdr, eligibility for inclusion in the california registry. march 23. next is the date that they got the last revision. ten revisions later, in 2017. now folks, do you actually think that this is right? do you think that this process

needs to be improved here as opposed to the ten days that the department is proposing for cutting off from our 30-day notice? so if you want to improve the process, improve this: three strikes, you're out. five strikes. you're out. ten revisions? do you actually think an architect would have gotten his license if he had failed ten times? think about it. then, what about this pop out notification. this is another thing that you should not make any mistake. these days, pop outs are about extensions to an already megamansion that the developer builds to the maximum limit allowed in rh-2 zones, 55% of the lot. and they take the 55%, and then they add the pop out on top of that. so this is another case for serial permitting. we were here two, three weeks

ago, with a joint bic and planning commission hearing, and what were we talking about? the loss of trust. this is not going to encourage a transparent process. so allowing pop ups -- pop outs to be permits as an over the counter is not prudent. commissioners, my last word, this is sb 827, in your back yard. we were here fighting for continuing local controls. we are the local controls because in the city of san francisco, the public is involved in local controls. so please, reject this-and extend it. extend the -- well, you know what i mean. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss hilton. >> good afternoon, commissioners. rose hilton, executive director, 1702 specifically

states it's not intended to constrain the intent of the public to forally comment on projects. that's true. we're here commenting on j pros all the time, but the situation in the directive and what's in the ordinance, the directive does not tell you how to do your job, so what i'm trying to find out here was more information. so i did sunshine the planning department on this topic, and i found out some interesting things. first of all, on page ten, line eight through 18 of your -- of the ordinance -- i'm sorry to get into the weeds, but that's what i am, section 309 has been deleted. but in the legislative digest, executive summary, the actual agenda item, nowhere does it say anything about a removal of section 309, particular lines 8 through 18. they do -- the presentation that we saw today from the planner, planner bintliff was

there's two exemptions but not the deletion of these lines. okay. let's move on. page 41, line 23, no notice for the as of right pop outs. so the planning department a while back had this proposal for residential expansion threshold and floor area ratios and the community came out, and i guess they kind of quashed everything for a filwhile. the pop outs, it's a good way to increase the f.a.r.'s of this building. the larger the building, itthe more it's going to sell for in the end. i don't see the affordability of that. today, we have 30 did i 30 signs, and what i'm seeing missing in the legislation is it doesn't address that the signs cannot be obstructed.

now i've gone around the neighborhood, and there's those signs up, but they have scaffolding behind them, or they're on tinted windows. maybe the legislation has to put something in about being readable from the sidewalk or something. page 62, lines 13 to 14, the digital copy, it was talked about 11 by 17 paper, that's true. there's no ten day notice. there's lines 10 through 14. it's a certain little section that no one pays attention to. so lines 17 -- there's more, but i think we should continue this four weeks because there's a lot more that's involved. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a long time resident of noe valley. i'm here today to strongly oppose the changes proposed by the planning department in the name of process improvement. reducing neighborhood notification time from 30 days to 20 days is not process improvement, this is process reduction in the interest of developers and to the detriment of us, the people of san francisco. we live here, too. what is the justification for issuing over the counter permits for rear yard expansions? the most controversial issue is this day and age when developers build to the maximum allowance for building to yard ratio. this will encourage serial permitting and allow developers to conceal their true extent.

it's bad enough that developers pull over permits for things that are really rent evictions, and now this. our recent battle against scott wieners sb 827 and its attack on local planning and zoning controls should have been a reminder that we don't stand for these undemocratic attempts in shutting up neighborhood voices. there has been no public outreach, one informal hearing and then adoption that is scheduled for the following week? at this rate, we don't need to worry about the second coming of sb 827. the planning department is doing what sb 827 started, getting rid of local controls. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my time already started. greetings, commissioner hils and fellow commissioners. the legislation before you

proposes changes to the approval process that limits the involvement of the public in the planning process in matters affecting their lives and the communities they live in. i'm against shortening the neighborhood notification process from 30 days to just 20 days. what's the rush now? shortening the process to 20 days would mean neighbors, neighborhood groups and organizations that have a stake in a proposed project has less than three weeks to conduct research, consult plans and planners about projects, decide whether to challenge a proposed project, and prepare required documents timely for a review of the matter before the commission. this proposed change is unacceptable. commissioners, please do not support it. i also do not support the issuance, as you have heard many say, of over the counter

permits for the expansion into the rear yard up to two floors and 12 feet deep. plans for excavation will be unknown, and developers will be able to build beyond the maximum allowance. this would lead to developers misrepresenting what they are building, the rubber stamping of everything and rendering neighborhood voices mute, and not allowing the commission the opportunity to weigh in on projects. also, compliments of jennifer fever from tenant's union who had to leave, if you look at these rear yard pop outs, who's to say if there are any tenants living in those buildings? they'll have no notice of what's going to be going on. this isn't fair.

so commissioners, don't support the over the counter permitting. do i still have a mic that i can speak to? okay. all right. that's okay. thank you. i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you, and that you can weigh in on planning issues that affect all residents and businesses in san francisco and look to you to respect and uphold a democratic process. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. hall? >> yeah. maybe i'm just -- maybe i'm just tired. i don't know where i am on this one, except that i want to ask for the same four week delay that everybody else asked for 'cause, you know, maybe i wasn't -- didn't study or wasn't ready for this one or it

snuck up on me. but i came in here, and i heard that presentation and felt like there was a fire hose, you know, of stuff that i can't possibly absorb in this hearing. and you know previously, you know, i'm involved with planners on a lot of stuff. and we knew this was happening. in map 2020, we got some overview of yeah, we're going to do some process. it came with, we're not going to damage community input at all. you know, in fact, it'll be enhanced. that's not what i heard today. today, i heard legislation that's got everything from change of process to over the counter approvals of stuff. you know, this is major, this is not just a little process improvement. because it's major, it needs some outreach to the communities, and it needs some

time to get real feedback, you know? this isn't real feedback yet. you give us four weeks, i'll be back. and i must say, you know, that a lot of us have -- love what you guys do. we want your judgment involved in what's going on in the city. you know, we fight sacramento and scott wiener and other -- all the yimby's, they're trying to take away your involvement, and now, i come and find your own department's trying to do that, take away our involvement and yours. don't let it happen. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> well said, rick. i just want to kind of echo what everyone has been saying in the room. i'm only going to touch upon a little bit of this process just because it is kind of like a fire hose, a lot of different things. but let's focus on something that happened today. let's talk about 1863 mission.

it was a d.r., that the public missed the original time to appeal and that's why it went to d.r. today it turned into an equitiable and satisfying result that this commission even highlighted today. so to actually improve these processes, we want to make sure it rude imtally works for -- rudimentary works for the public and the commission. i also don't degree with proposing to issue over the counter permits for expansions into the rear yard up to two floors and 20 feet deep. it should really be a 60 day notice for mail posted on-line until we have internet access for our most vulnerable

residents. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner warshell? >> i'm jim warshell, and i'm speaking for myself, not as a commissioner. i'm going to pile on. whenever you say things can be no smaller than a postcard and no smaller than 11 by 17, that's probably what we're going to wind up with. those are both really, really small, folks. you can't get much information on a posed card, and 11 by 17 is legal. it's small. one of the speakers said even now on a 30 did i 30, they're sometimes posted so -- 30 by 30, they're sometimes posted so that you can't read them from the streets. we can talk about having a wide neighborhood notification, maybe keep the 300 feet with

postcards, talking where you can get the access through the internet or go to the site, and they will have a laminated detail of all the notice, 30 did i 30 laminated detailed poster up. realtors are really good. they're all to put out those lucite boxes, and they have copies of all those right there for you. i don't know why we can't require developers to do the same and monitor it over the 90 days to make sure they have adequate supplies on them. enough on notification. again jumping on the back yard bump outs, i've been here lots of times waiting for a case to be heard, but i think that reducing this to a no notice over the counter permit is

going to not be very popular, shall we say, so i would ask you to reconsider that. the other gentleman was also talking about the strong effect that you've had on a lot of projects. when i was listening to 100% affordable, the commission should delegate approval to staff, i think of things like richardson housing and some of the excellent affordable housing things that were done. and then, i've seen some of the junk. and just because you're poor doesn't mean you should live with junk. the ak tekt that you did richardson said it doesn't really even cost more to do something nice, it takes more work. so i would advise you not to delegate that. your input has been incredibly important to maintain the integrity of the most affordable, 100% affordable housing. last in notices, i wouldn't ever be up here without talking about historic things, but if

there is a preliminary historic research evaluation, make it part of the notice and post-it, as well. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker.

>> -- these values are quickly shoved aside when any buildings are proposed, and that is the problem with the pop outs. so due to the lack of outreach to the local communities and due to the impact on open space and habitat laws, further consideration of this program should be postponed at least a month, and neighborhood meetings in the neighborhoods should be scheduled. and as a footnote, i was amused about the concerns expressed by three tons of paper. it's a little bit ironic considering that the planning department requires 15 hard copies of all documents submitted to the commission eight days before the meeting.

that's 15 copies, so apparently, the department thinks you need paper, but the public can do without it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss howard. next speaker, please. >> gamood afternoon, commissioners. lorraine petty, member of senior disability action. i'll be very brief, really. i would like to add my voice for additional time to study, to study, to be able to grasp what's in here and understand it and time to think about it and talk to each other about it both on the part of the community and the part of the commissioners. so there is that -- a month sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask by way of time. on a philosophical note, it strikes me that several things in here are desperate measures, not economy or efficiency measures but desperate

measures, and i ask who are those desperate measures for? who in the community are they for? and who determines if it's time for desperate measures? if you think about a ten-day shortening of notification to us in the community or no notification at all to back yard extensions, is -- is that -- in the scheme of balancing things, is that worth the decades of agony you might put neighbors through just for that ten-day shortening? so i thank you for your consideration. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. miss hester? >> sue hester. i want to ask to the commission to please continue the part of

this legislation that is not the 100% affordable part, which is front voted on the legislation. you can do that next week, but the rest of it should come at least a month away. i listened to the presentation by sarah dennis philips. mayor lee introduced his request, and the planning director responded 12-1-17, and mayor farrell released something on 5-1, and we plan -- you plan on having a hearing when everyone is leaving for memorial day weekend. this legislation was received by people last friday after 5:30. that you even have people here today doing some kind of quick

analysis is mind boggling. one of the things that was not mentioned at all was the mayor died a couple days after john rahaim's memo got to him. i don't know that he read it. perhaps his staff did. the public and the city has been in upheaval because of an election that's due. cramming this is indefensible. you are the public. the planning commission should not be fooled around like this, and you should not reciprocate the public. i have to do an analysis of this in writing. i have no time to do it because

it would have to be there today. no one can act on this schedule unless you're totally intending to shutdown public input. and if you're going to shutdown public input, you should state so. one of the things that i know is that very few low-income people have computers and have printers and can do the jumping through hoops that you're assuming that everyone can do because they have computers and printers and can understand and have 11 by 17 plans at their computer. people who have got to pay to use computers are poor people. they use libraries, and they have to print out at mission and chinatown and tenderloin libraries. >> president hillis: thank you, sue.

all right. thank you. >> so continue this. >> president hillis: all right. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. open it up for commissioner questions. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: okay. so first off, the reason why we're hearing this a week after -- a week before adoption is my fault. i'm actually going out of town, and i asked the president of the commission to schedule this when i'm here. so i want everybody to know that. now, being given all that, there's a week between now and the scheduled adoption hearing. so we're supposed to hear this on may 3rd, and i asked to hear it today. so i'll take responsibility for that. i think one of the things -- there's a lot here. i went through almost a whole pad of these little yellow stickers as everybody was talking. you know, every time there's a change, based on the stuff that we see every week, there's a lack of trust from the public to the department, the

commission, maybe except for mr. hall, certainly the building inspection department, where, you know, there was a meeting yesterday and there was a lot of issues around demolitions. we see it every week, so i can see where people are coming from. first question is -- so this is an ordinance -- there's a transmittal date, and is is there a 90 day transmittal back? there's no thing here that says the time frame -- >> yeah, the ordinance was introduced on april 24. it was conveyed to the planning department on may 2, so the 90 day deadline goes from that. that's the july 1 date that's on the packet -- i'm sorry. this is an informational presentation -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: july 31. >> july 31 is the 90 day period for transmittal. >> commissioner richards: okay.

i guess there's process improvements in terms of things that we do, things that we're not going to do, and it involves -- we've got some departmental things we can do that i think make a lot of sense. then there's some things that we want to enshrine in the planning code. one of the things that i want to talk about is this section 333. it says hey we're going to scratch out everything on all these different sections pending 333 and people are going what's 333 going to look like? i think people want to see 333 before they actually agree to what those changes are. it's a big leap of faith for people to go yeah, i trust what 333's going to look like fair and equitiable and all those different good things that people talked about. so that's one thing that i wanted to kind of register. i guess the other question i have is are there any immediate

projects affected by what we have here, big projects. like, is there something that right out of the gate, if we do this, and the mayor are, and the board does it, i want to make sure we're not holding anything up. i want to make sure we're not holding any big 100% affordable project if we take a little more time. mr. bintliff -- i never get that right. i'm sorry. >> bintliff. >> commissioner richards: so where do you -- this is a question directed for mr. bintliff -- please. my -- i was the big process improvement guy years ago that said we've got to, rah, rah, rah, there's this big project 8,000 coming in.

where do you think on all of the things that you're proposing here, especially from a commission point of view, where do we touch things and don't add any value? that's really where i think things should change. if you were to lift all of these things you're proposing, where don't we add any value and we have a review. >> you're asking us where you don't have value? you're asking a director? remember, we're your bosses. we're your bosses. we add value everywhere, however -- seriously. i mean, this seems to be -- we get things, why are we looking at this, how much paper did it take? but here, what do you think the biggest ah-ha, what are we doing here? >> well, that was one of the things that we asked ourselves when we went through this process, there's no shame in asking that of ones self-.

just to such on your question, there's no particular project that's going to be devastated by any of these changes. however, for the affordable housing components of 315 and 315.1, there's 17% of affordable housing that are either in the pine line or in the ocd's hands that could also benefit from the 315 and 315.1. for the 309 improvements, i looked back over the past three years, it's about 1100 units a year that would benefit for the streamlining of those projects. the pop out, which understandably, people are very concerned about because it's an intimate question in the back yard near their homes, that was a piece that takes up a lot of staff time. it takes up about two planners' worth of time to handle those cases coming upstairs when it is already permitted in the planning code with very

pripttive requirements that are consistent with the residential design guidelines that a planner can approve over the counter. [inaudible] >> that's a very similar ratio when you look at all of the thousands of 311 and 312 notifications that come out. it's a small percentage, but that doesn't mean it's not an important conversation. it's just to say the notification procedures themselves are not necessarily the content of what we're talking about, the planning work is really the work that we want to be doing. >> commissioner richards: of those 5%, how much did the commission take d.r. and approve the projects? >> yeah. i looked at three years of the projects, and i think there were eight where you took d.r. and denied them.

>> commissioner richards: i guess the section 315, 100% affordable housing. we had this heard by senator wiener proposed it. it's overkill, everybody's saying, we've got to do something about 100% affordable housing, i agree. go to down -- by the way, on the yimby ballot measure, what's the difference? >> our understanding it's something that could potentially appear on the september ballot. it's not on the june ballot: it is not in any way related to these administrative approvals. that would be an additional

procedure for these types of projects. >> commissioner richards: that would be an overlay here, so the department would -- department would make a decision but it's not appealable anywhere is what you're saying. >> just to be clear, i believe their ballot measure would make them completely nondisclosure so ceqa would still not apply. ceqa would still apply in all of the projects that we're talking about here. maybe at some point we could -- if it actually qualifies, we can get an analysis on that as well as 827 -- 828. >> actually, we have a little bit more information on that. >> thank you. kay conor, planning department staff. so when you're looking at the ballot measure, in addition to 835, what those two bills are prescribing is for ministerial approval, so it's ministerial versus ceqa. sb 35, for instance, does not

require the ceqa process for the planning review. so there is that distinction. it would, perhaps, be an overlay, but both sb 35 as well as the ballot initiative do require that you meet all of the objective standards, and both 315 and the proposed 315.1 would allow for additional exceptions to be granted on an administrative basis. there's a little bit of a distinction there. >> commissioner richards: and 30's appealable, but when

people want to own hotels. there is something here on feasibility if we want to get our arms wrapped around this whole issue with somebody saying i can't built it because it's not feasible. i think -- >> president hillis: can you clarify, we're not giving up any -- we are a changing the noticing for downtown project notifications. >> the 309 amendments add two exceptions to what is permissible through 309. the threshold of the 75 feet in height or the 50,000 square feet in size of the building threshold to have a planning commission hearing is not changed. so there's still the same situation under this ordinance where very small projects in the c 3's can be administratively approved -- >> commissioner richards: okay. this changes it from a variance

to an exception. an exception can be granted by the -- okay. i'm confused. there's a lot in here -- okay. >> yeah, absolutely. >> commissioner richards: so there would still be a hearing. it's not something that -- >> president hillis: right. >> right. >> commissioner richards: okay. a couple of other things. we have this -- and i understand there's a movement on the demo -- demolition stuff that a supervisor's proposing and there's notifications and things like that. i want to make sure that we're not going on some of these in opposite direction, so before -- i know once this gets to the board, the supervisors that are in opposition to that, they want to make sure that they're defined. the process timelines, so it's great we have all -- you know, we're saving time, etcetera, but one of the things that you know i looked at that i thought

was pretty impressive was when we do our annual report, we talk about the numbers of things that come in and the time frames that they have to go through and how they met those targets. i'm assuming that the things that you're doing here doesn't have to meet the annual report threshold, but you're going to give us a report and say hey, you guys decided this and this is what happened. we got more through faster, lesser roers less errors, so i would hope that would be a part of anything that we approve as a condition. this issue with tenants, have we had a situation where adding a pop out has displaced a tenant? i mean, i know, you know, there's -- now, it's like he vacation by renovation, it's eviction by adu. i just want to make sure we're conscious of that and we look for examples where that is the case or that wasn't the case so we can actually look ourselves in the mirror and say hey, we're good here. the other things are on the

noticing, specifically on the size, so the parklet program is administered by dpw, i believe, the park -- or mta, the parklet on the street, the parklets. so they required an 11 by 17 notice stuck in front of the business. we had one in my neighborhood that was an issue, where they took the inside of the restaurant, and they put it in the parklet, and there was a big extension of the restaurant. it went against everything the whole parklet program was designed for. they had 11 by 17 notice as required by mta in the window. every day, we played this game that week where we knew it was up for rhea professioneapprova would have tho go so go throug

restaurant. a 30 by 30 sign, it's noticeable, and i'm wondering, what does that save us? we're requiring them to put a sign up, and i'm wondering, why we don't require them to put up a sign we can really see. i'd love to do my taxes on a postcard. i think somebody promised that in a presidential election many many years ago. >> president hillis: senator cruz, i think. >> commissioner richards: really? two things on the postcard. i think in principal le it sou really neat, but when i get home after a planning commission meeting, and oh, i'm tired. i'll put it in this pile over here. putting that additional step between receiving the notification and getting the information is a barrier for a lot of people who lead busy

lives and things. is there something between three tons of paper that have to go out and getting a postcard? if you look up here at the number of commissioners that get paper copies, i think that tells you something because i have a 15 inch screen at home on my lenovo, i kind of have to move my arrow unless i make it so large -- we need to think about how that's received. i'll let commissioner melgar talk while i comb the rest of my notice here. >> vice president melgar: actually, i said all the points that i had thought about. the one thing that i will say is that there's a lot of really great stuff in here, and i do

believe it will lead to greater efficiency, transparency, and greater democracy. however folks in the community gave us an example, just three things. i was wondering -- it was the size of the notifications -- actually, four things. the radius, the timing, the 30 days to 20 days, and then, the pop outs. and i'm not wondering if we're not letting the perfect get in the way of the good here because there's so much good in this that will make the process more efficient, save staff time, but we're trying to put everything in there, you know? and obviously some things are not quite sellers. i hope that by the time we hear this, we can pass it no problem, and the sections that are problematic, just take more

time. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the public comments gave me a lot to think about, and they were actually quite alarming to the extent that they used words and descriptors that are not normally used here, which is undemocratic, muffling voices, and it's difficult for me to bring this into the discussion that we're having in front of us. the discussion that we're supposed to have is an informed discussion about process. i think it is the timing that this is coming out and the speed by which you're asking for reaction that makes me uncomfortable partially because the amount of material that is given to me does not get into the full depth when you look at

the ripple of things we may be supporting or not be supporting as it affects much deeper layers of process and code that we are currently only scratching the surface on. what is most difficult for me is that for me, the strength of san francisco planning lies in its public process and enabled participation. i have watched this process for almost 35, 40 years, and i have participated in, i've marveled in it. it's a city that allows to have a civic dialogue about controversial issues but has tools in place to go about conflict resolution in a manner that many communities, particularly across the united states, have not adapted yet, and that in europe are still in the making, although we are -- have -- san francisco in particular has set an

exemplary -- has been an exemplary model for that type of planning. it's called public participation. the neighborhoods know very well that for years and years, i've said the strength of san francisco's planning lies in the neighborhoods and what they bring to the table. the challenges they pose, and what we are then as mediators as public invoices working with the planning and working things out. i personally believe that the interaction between this commission and the planning department has always been a constructive and positive one, and even when we point things out that sometimes don't work, it has always resulted in a speedy and good out come in the majority of cases. and so i'm asking myself why are we trying to improve something at levels that some run counter to proper public notification and proper timing of public process?

i look more at the timing aspect of what we do as being in the way of how we execute planning efficiently, and i'm all for simplification efficiency, but i think it is sometimes in the way how we time things, not necessarily in the process of 30 days versus 20 days, a postcard versus 8.5 by 11. that is not where the problems lie. now we had many people stand in front of the commission saying bring architects and neighborhoods together with planning staff together earlier, talk about process of planning before you even start doing anything, you cooperate with your establishment of the basic parameters that need to be involved in the process, but talk about the ideas of designing a project at the onset and create efficiency there. for me, personally, it is not in many of the things that are

proposed in here, including curtailing discretionary review, roousing time frames from 20 to 30 feet, reducing distances of notification from 300 to 150 feet. there are a whole bunch of others. it's critical, eliminating participation in pop outs and how they affect adjoining pieces, which is a contrary i would actually work on finding better rules to deal with pop outs, that they become constructive expansions rather than destructive expansions. and i could go on. i don't want to dominate this discussion, but i believe this particular piece needs more time, it needs more informed dialogue, and it needs consensus on many important pieces in order to be effective. at this moment, i think it is a little bit too strong, too

abrupt and too forceful to be effective and basically supportable. and that does not include the position on 100% affordable housing, although i do believe that the comment that one speaker made is that affordable housing needs the same scrutiny in terms of quality as all other housing does, too; requires a special kind of attention, an even larger attention to the qualities of what we're doing in affordable housing. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. i've got to keep reminding myself that this does apply to 100% affordable housing. i'm fully in favor of this, and i'm not trying to hold up a -- the ordinance whatsoever. the requiring of the compliance to the local building code, i think should be a no brainer and shouldn't have any

opposition. i mean, everyone should be doing that already. and then, one other thing i wanted to add, you know, i think some people are nervous or afraid that this may get taken advantage of, and people may find loopholes in it. that's why people and residents may be so worried that -- that the control is going to be a little bit out of our hands, and some people may still do things by the book. some people may try to take advantage of that. so i think that's why we're seeing some concern in the voices of the residents speaking up. i'm kind of looking at this as in relation to senate bill 35 and ab 73, both of which are streamlining processes, and i wanted to add one more -- one more additional comment besides the building code requirements, but i wanted to add a prevailing wage requirement. and once again, this should be a no brainer. this is what the nonprofit housing developers are already

doing. when you're publicly subsidizing, your prevailing must be minimum wage. in the efforts of streamlining, i think they should have to check a couple boxes on the way there that would just secure people's trust in the process. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i just want to agree with the comments of commissioner melgar that i think there are a lot of good things here. and i commend the department and the spirit of these efforts to work really hard and to use data to use the process to guide applicants and to make a better user experience. i'm support the introduction of pry to present 100% affordable housing and to make sure we're getting to renters and tenants, and that we need to do something about the current

process for noticing to make sure that we're getting what we want, making sure that the right people are properly noticed about changes that are happening without any of the inefficiencies that we don't. i also just agree with some of the comments around making sure that until we provide access or wifi to all residents to be able to see the plans, paper has been really useful just to be able to see the plans. but i like -- i think somebody made a comment that it could be possible for us to provide -- or for project sponsors to provide plans at the site. kind of -- i don't know sometimes when houses are for sale, there are little boxes that will show you an ad for the house for sale and all the information, and i wonder if plans can't be provided on-site as people are walking by at the cost of the project sponsor or the person doing additions.

in addition, i think there are these three kind of issues that persons have brought up around the radius, the issues and sizes of pop outs. i also don't know what we get by shortening the period by ten days. i look forward to when you come back here, i'm hearing more about those three issues. >> president hillis: can i ask you a couple questions on this? so i -- i agree, too. there's a lot of good in here. i think you're -- you know, you're trying to do the right thing and simplify this process, not short circuit neighborhood notification, but to make it better. i've gone up to the 30 by 30 signs and with the years on the planning commission tried to understand them sometimes, and half the language, if not 80% of it is