the commission policy has been adopted. the commission also recommended regular reporting from staff. that's not a matter before you as part of the ordinance, but so you know that was another of the recommendations from the commission staff will be complying with. and section 315 again going back to the 100% affordable housing, commission recommended that for those projects, for the administrative approval, that projects should be required to provide a prevailing wage, a san francisco prevailing wage for those projects to be approved administratively. similarly, the commsion reco ended that those ects should -- that the planning code should specify those promises be consistent with the san francisco building code to be approved administratively. finally, the commission recommended that those promises, the 100% affordable projects approved administratively by staff should also be in conformity with all applicable standards for affordable housing development as according to the mayor's office of housing. i'm here to answer any further questions about the commission's recommendations. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for

those. we did follow that lengthy planning commission hearing so thank you for those recommendations. colleagues, do you have any questions or comments before we go to public comment? >> i'll hold my comments until after. >> ok. all right. it looks like we'll hold our comments until public comment. so, if any member of the public who would like to speak on item two, please come on up. >> hi, my name is nicole holden. thank you for taking this time. my husband and i purchased our home, single family home three years ago. it's a two-bedroom, one and a half bath. we have two children and one on the way and our proposed expansion of our home is to go back into our yard 10 feet to accommodate two children's bedrooms and the only way to get those bedrooms is to go back 10 feet. to give you an idea of our property, it is 120-foot-deep lot. our home currently takes up 45 feet and will be taking up 55

feet in total when the spronlt done. which is less than half our property. we met with the neighbors and showed them the plans per the city's requirements and then in addition to that, we sat down witthof our neighbors who our property will be directly affecting and went over the plans with them and they both gave us their blessing, if you will, and said that they thought our changes were reasonable. our project has been within city planning since early november and we have not really had any resolution on it. and to get a little bit more personal, my husband and i are san franciscans. we want our children to be san franciscans. i'm from the east bay. he is from the east coast. we want to raise our children in this beautiful, diverse city. i'm a family photographer and i've had my business in the city for nine years. oh, no. is that it? >> 30 seconds.

>> 25 seconds. >> ok. my business is on chestnut street. my husband works in corporate. we're just two really hard-working people who have earned enough money -- [voice breaking] tep thiour home and it makes it really difficult and we don't want to move out of the city and that is where we're headed. and i think that our plans are really very reasonable and i just hope that you take the amendments into consideration for young families like ours. ok. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is neil schwarz, i'm a practicing act nekt san francisco. for the past two-year, i've been chair of the public policy and advocacy committee, working closely with the planning department on procedural and policy changes to clarify in speed the process of design review in the city. we've been impressed with the planning's willingness to listen and as we see in this

initiative, willingness to take action. we support their efforts to make these rational adjustments that will streamline processes for all. as part of the package of rational improvements, with removing the requirement for 311 neighborhood notification on rear-yard pop outs. these small scale additions often allow families to make modest improvements to their home, as we just hear, allowing them to create an additional room for an expanding family. currently because the triggers for 311 notification are so low, it encourages clients to build larger projects. the thinking is that since almost any addition sends you intoa lengthy and expensive process, then you might as well make it worth your while and expand the project scope once you already have to go through a 311. if clients knew that these modest additions could also aroid the cost and loss of time, with the 311 process, it would make these limited scope projects more attractive for many.

there is a bigger point here, though. in this city, there is more than ample opportunity for neighbors to monitor, comment on and control the development of their neighbor's homes. at some point, the systems for public comment can be abused by those reluctant to support any change in their neighborhood. good architects with sensitively designed projects see this every day and diminishes our ability to help the city evolve and change in a positive and well-designed way. neighbors sometimes just oppose everything because they're the ones that have the time and energy to do so. allowing these small additions to avoid the cost of the process makes common sense. [audio stops] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lydia. for identification purpose, i'm a san francisco arts commissioner.

i'm on the board of asian-american architects engineers association and a member of the american institute of architects. but i'm here today representing selas a licensed architect. i moved to san francisco 20 years ago to practice architecture and never left. i have a small child as well. i tried to raise my family here. i founded my company to improve the quality of lives in our communities and our environment. some of my clients are hard-working middle class first and second generation immigrant families with young children. they want to stay here to raise their kids in our city. with this housing market, they cannot afford to buy homes but to move in with their parents. when we found out that it took months and years to get approvals to expand a modestly sized room in their parent's backyard, my clients were despaired and moved out of the city. i lost my clients.

we lost those good families. i applaud everyone in the planning domestic that work tirelessly for what we can do to streamline the approval process. i have high respect for all of you sefrk on this land use committee with your expertise. you serve because you believe in iming the lively hood of our community and local small businesses. you serve because you care. you serve because you have the power to drive changes. i would urge you to consider making the rear yard additions where code allowed so those families just like my clients and all san franciscans can afford to stay here. it is our duty to mitigate housing displacement and thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ross levy. i'm a practicing architect here in san francisco. a member of the a.a.a. i'm the incoming co-chair of the public policy advocacy

committee and i'm a 20-year san francisco resident and i raised my family here. i'm also an advocate for sustainable design and for livable cities. we're here following last week's meeting at the planning commission regarding streamlining permanent processing for affordable housing projects in the city. i'm pleased to once again stand with the mayor's office and the planning department in support of the proposal to make permission for so-called pop-outs, small additions that are explicably within the lot per s.f. code sb-86 ab one and two, that is not subject to lengthy notifications and permissions. i believe this can be achieved while maintaining the public's right to comments, via the normal neighbor's notifications. as the planning department staff has documented, 99% of submissions for these types of permits are approved without discretionary review. while the directive is aimed at producing badly needed housing,

generally addressing processing time for larger projects, it requires streamlining. the planning department has made an analysis and suggested that streamlining measures, not only did they anticipate saving two full-time positions, but theirs proposal supports housing and families on a neighborhood level. this item in question, these pop-outs are precisely the kind of addition that allows growing families to draet space that they need to stay in the city. equally important, the process as it now stands prejudicial. it's increasingly difficult for normal citizens to make simple expansions to their homes. it's not uncommon for people, as you heard, to give up and move away. this is a rare common sense opportunity to improve government by simplifying processes and empowering staff. if we envision a sustainable future, we must consider simple steps to address populations, housing and sprawl. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again. i gave ms. major a handout

which i beeve you should have now so i just want to summarize that. i think the all-around 30-day notice period recommended by the planning commission is a very good idea. the second thought i want to present to you is the plans must be mailed through the mail to occupants and neighbors, have to be 11 by 17 in size. people cannot print off 11 by 17 in their home. it's just not possible. people don't have printers that do that. they don't have paper that does that. if they have a printer. if you want to reduce the amount of paper that goes out turn 311 notice, make it a smaller radius. but it's very important to do it for immediate neighbors and interested parties and neighborhood groups to understand what the plans are. there have been many cases where people have seen the plans and they understand that something needs attention. and it is also very important to do this for c.u.a.s that

involve demolitions and new constructions. that is current lift not the case now. if there is a demolition next door to you, you don't get the plans in the mail. you just get the notice. the preapplication process should be expanted and more formalized. planners can update neighbors and interested parties by e-mail to let them know what's going on. ongoing dialogue is very important. the limited rear yards should not be approved over the [inaudible]. when you decide to change whatever notice, i think it needs to have a meeting with communmbermeprior to implementation. post cards or even half sizes are not enough. again, 11 by 17 plans must be mailed to immediate neighbors, occupants and interested parties when they are finalized by the staff. plans must show the relationship to the adjacent buildings and must be accurate and must be complete and have a graphic scale and show -- [bell ringing]

[audio stops] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>ood afternoon. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. submitted a letter on may 24 and i'll add it to the pile of papers over here that is on the ledge. to summarize the letter, there was initially an issue i showed on the overhead of lack of public out reach and stakeholders did not include the neighbors. the notification, we wa -- we don't twanlt reduction of the notice time and the removal of newspaper notices and we thank you for the inclusion of tenant notification and we requested a continued notification for pop-outs. we had concerns with section 136-c and at the june 7 planning commission meeting, planner bentliff did go over some of these things in the motion. it was adopted 6-1 to keep the

30 days' notice straight across the board. not finalize notification without policy implementation steps and for affordable foperformance standards and de paid prevailing wage. what i didn't hear is i believe there was something about a lookback after implementation for one year and again leave all these documents on the ledge. thank you uch. m >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jeff hodges, a tenant at 14th and guerrero. the tenant changes are fantastic in notifications. it's good news. also that we haven't talked about this yet but there is a 100% affordable housing streamlining in this bill and that is one of the most important pieces of it. the legislation will allow us to reduce the rent pressure and displacement happening in the city that, as a tenant, i feel every day. i grew up around black and brown kids. i wished that my kids that i have would be able to do the same here. the kind of displacement we've

seen is because of the xenophobic neighbors using the san francisco process to delay and deny house house to all of those kids. every delay in our process is another opportunity for them to t their fear. every shout of local control is another echo of the racist redlining san francisco still reels from. these changes, including the 100% affordable housing streamline, good and worth your vote today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm a tenant at 21st and guerrero. i just want to remind everyone that we're in a housing crisis because we don't have enough housing for the people that want to live here. everyone says we need to build more affordable housing and this legislation streamlines that. i'm in favor. why am i here? i have two friends, a couple who live in a rear a.d.u. and combined they make almost

$100,000 a year, but they're still struggling to pay their rent. they're in their 30s and there's absolutely no way that they can afford to raise a family here. so that is the level of affordability that we're at right now in san francisco. where people making almost $100,000 a year can't even have one child. so they can't be here today because they have to work to pay their rent. so, please approve this legislation to make things better. thank you. >> just to go on record, we don't e issues with the 100% affordability streamlining that. and as i have pointed out to the folks that were commenting at the planning commission, we already have sb-35 that gives the same advantages in streamlining for projects that are only 50% affordable so i'm sure it's the same thing for projects that are 100% affordable.

onthissue of the [inaudible]. i just want to make the observation go on the record that i have been in the business of community organizing for maybe less than four years. but in the past two-year, we've been receiving notices for the entire neighborhood of noe valley, i've yet to come across a project that is only a pop-out. it's usually a huge, humongous project of 4,000, 5,000 square feet plus the pop-out. i am sure any of the architects and project sponsors that were here, mr. levy, and mr. paul, they're well aware that all of the projects that have come out in the past four or five years consists of humongous mcmansions mraus pop out. as such, the neighbors do deserve to get a notice.

what is so terrible about notifying the neighbors about a pop-out that will be a huge project. we only have the right to hear about this. and also another thing i wanted to point out is the planning commission did vote for these changes, plus the modification. however, they did not decide on the format of the notification. yes, maybe a postcard but we don't know what will go on that postcard on how big or small that postcard will be. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm benjamin marks. i wanted to come out, first of all, to voice my voice in support of the additional notifications for tenants. ththink that it is really good these notifications are moving primarily online. it's environmentally-friendly and makes it more accessible in addition to being multilingual. i wanted to speak in favor of the affordable housing streamlining.

san francisco is in a huge housing crisis and we desperately need more house, especially affordable housing. i think anything we can do to make 100% affordable housing projects go faster is going to be in the best interest of the city and in the best interest of those who can't afford to take time off of work and come and voice their support for this today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. we support the planning commission's recommendations and i want to point out that these were hammered out after a -- i believe it was a five-hour meeting and there were a lot of compromises involved. so i hope that you will incorporate them. in particular, we'd like you to keep noticing for the rear yard pop outs. as one member of the commission pointed out, he would not want to make up one more when the cement mixer pulls up at his next door neighbor's backyard and finds that the time that a

two-story building is going up right next to his home. so this is something that is very important to people and they just need to be notified about it. if there had been very few objections, there shouldn't be a problem with this. one of the problems with the legislation and the reason there was a five-hour meeting is that the planning department worked with stakeholders who they defined as architects and land use consultants. you may notice someone missing from that formula and that is the people of san francisco. that is one of the reasons why so many architects support this. of course, they were part of the planning process and they were able to give input on what they wanted to see. but the neighborhoods and the public were left out. we hope -- i know this wasn't something you guys did -- but we hope you will encourage the planning department to start a

process of outreach for the neighborhoods for all the legislation that's going to be coming through. after all, thidoes concern us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. laura clark, m.b. action. really excited about this legislation. streamlining affordable housing is something that i hope that san francisco can agree on. bringing us into compliance with notifications around the downtown project, easy fix. the thing i'm most excited about is streamlining the notifications. it means that by contacting tenants we have the opportunity to notify more people of their rights. we can include and start to think creatively about what kinds of content can be included in those notifications. a lot of people do get worried when they see the construction is going to happen in their neighborhood. it's a good opportunity to put know your rights materials into the hands of tenants immediately. additionally, if the 11 by 17 print-out thing is a real

concern, we can say that all the things on the website have to be 8 1/2 by 11. that is an easy fix. we can start to think creatively about our notifications. the last thing is the pop-outs and, you know, it is going to get a lot of attention. poo em who don't want to see a zoning compliant addition go into their next door neighbor's yard, we do have a word for that. it is someone who might not want to see something in their backyard. [laughter] so i don't have a -- you know, i think that we've decided that pop-outs are zoning compliant. we have decided that families should be able to add a bedroom. and people were not talking about co-ops. people with different kinds of lifestyles who might want to bring their grandmother or, you know, their other partners into a home. these are people who do not deserve to be raked across the coals for adding a bedroom that we've already decided is zoning compliant. the thing i'm most interested, those two staff members at the

planning department being able to get back to the work of planning for our city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. held >> hello, again. corey smith of the housing action coalition. i remember the c.u. battle we had a couple of years ago and to get that over the finish line was significant. so we're going to continue to see more progress building 100% subsidized affordable units here hopefully in the near future. also big fans of the downtown residential project authorization. jobs and housing next to each other totally makes sense. regarding the pop-outs themselves, we're talking about 100% code compliant projects. the reason we don't see a ton of these coming through is because they have to notice and so if you are going through the process, ok. let's get beyond the tweaks and do the bigger expansions. if it is just a small pop out like an extra bedroom for a

growing family, something that can be simple and straight forward, that is the type of stuff we want to incentivize in order to create naturally affordable housing in the city and allow families to live here. regarding the knowfication period, this is a conversation of 20 to 30 days, san francisco's got a really knowledgeable and engaged civic community. i think this is the third public hearing when talking about gathering public input. that is literally what we're doing right now. so we have always found that the 20-day notification period is absolutely sufficient in order for people to understand what's going on. reach out to elected leaders to appoint planning commissioners to get the details and encourage you to move the legislation forward with the 20-day notification period. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> again, teresa flanderic. above all, it's people having access to information.

and as a democracy, we know it can be messy at times. and there can be delays. but for everyone to be notified as to what is going to be built, my land lady said to me at 94, the first thing you do when you get a 3-11 notice you think of is this going to be good for the community? that is the most important thing. also at that age, she did not have access to internet. and this is what i brought up at the planning commission. that low-income folks, as well as many, many seniors do not have access to internet and that is why i asked again to be sure that it not just be online. but be accessible to everyone. and to continue the mailing until there is another time when more people would be included in getting notifications online. i'm really happy this this includes notices to tenants in all languages.

that is so important because, again, it's about participating in democracy. with affordable housing, with 100% affordable housing, i'm still not 100% of how that is defined. i would like to see clear language in terms of what a.m.i. levels is this only going to be at a higher level, is it going to be inclusive, truly inclusive, from low-income on up. that would be important to me and certainly to the people that i serve and to our community. again, the community involvement in having time to also participate in discussions, not just developers and architects, etc. that would be really nice. so, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jimmy law. a resident of the sunset and native of san franciscan, born

and raised here. i'm one of those overly concerned crazy neighbors who pays attention on what's going on and i get all of your notices and i have to say i'm really disappoint because a lot of these notices are regarding stuff that's trivial and not important to me. for example, lots of notices on pop-ups. i don't know why anyone would care about pop-ups. you know, i have family. i live with my daand mom and we have to hare the house with my sister and her husband and the baby because, you know, it's so expensive here. and sometimes people just need to expand their house sometimes. a pop-up is good and reasonable and a lot of these pop-ups in these application meetings are reasonable so i think, you know what? let city planners do their job and make it easier for them to save two city planners and moves on with everyone's lives because we're in a housing crisis right now. you know, we should be focusing on building 100% affordable housing unfortunately in my district, it is difficult to bill affordable housing. i would be happy if there was

15% affordable housing. unfortunately those projects get killed as well because some neighbors don't like that. and also speaking of which -- which is pretty sad, of course. speaking of which, i'm in big support of things such as, you know, the building notices. i know some people want it to be dirty. but i feel 20 is a good compromise. because some are 10, some are 20 and some are 30. this notice over here is for construction work. like it's for tending notice. i feel like if it's 30, way too long. 20, good compromise. but in short, you know what? please focus on making things more streamlined and easier for city staffers because they have a lot of work. i'm a busy person, i understand. so, yes. help us build more affordable housing and make things more efficient in city hall because there are things that are taking way too long to get done. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi.

i haven't been to a meeting in a while. anyway, i'm here for something else. but i had to come up for this. because i'm really tired of hearing building, building, building that is going to change the housing crisis. when it's not true. how many empty buildings are there being built? how many buildings that have been built that have empty units. we are talking about the white washing of san francisco. we're talking about letting go of people of color and low-income people.

i think you need to [inaudible] affordability. somebody came up here and talked about having their friends and [inaudible]ed not being able to move forward living here. well, there are people with a lot less who are living on the streets and i want to know why we always looking at empty units and units that are being used for airbnb. let's get real. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [applause] >> the public had a grand total of five minutes to speak between the hearing on thursday and the hearing today.

this legislation is rushing too fast. it will not hurt you if you separate and send out th100% affordable housing piece to the board and keep the rest of it in the committee for another month. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> but i do consider that there are people who try to take the products -- projects without getting total input of the committee. the 311 process, which is really affected here was a result of prop ten. when it passed, the potty department head over a year of public meetings at their office. to do, what are we going to say is the context? they struggled with it and finally came up with giving notices to 311 and 312. the project process needs to be changed. there should be some discussion of it.

>> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm e o th handful of people who regularly gets involved in project opposition and it regularly appears before the planning commission in that capacity. i have a real understanding of the way the neighbourhood -- neighborhood processes work. i want to say that i am a huge fan of the preapplication process. that is where the real work can get got -- done. that is where project sponsors are open to modifications. they haven't put too much money into it and they haven't already gotten the blessing of planning staff, on the residential design team. a preapplication is where it is out. by the time 311 happens, it's frankly, too late and not a lot of good changes are ever made on behalf of neighbors who are

inquiring. frankly, it is the enemy of good architecture. what happens is architects come up with great plans and neighbors opposes them andit gets a planning commission and maybe they are taking into consideration the neighbors input, but what they do is dumbed down the project. the practice of architecture is gone. the thing with these pop outs at the rear, you have to consider our housing stock is aging beyond its intended time limit. that the single family homes in the city, most of them were not built to last 150 years and we are asking them to last 150 years. when a family that has lived in a house for a long time needs to upgrade, section 317 is way to retreat difficult and complicated for them to make major changes. they want to do a pop out. they have to go to 311 and there architect assuage them. next thing you know, they are selling the house, and who can

buy it? a developer that will get the cheapest architect they can and do the fastest build they can that is really a bad thing for our neighbors. we need to encourage architecture in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live in belmont, south of here. a lot of rich people moved to our area every year and we can't do much about that. but if we don't do -- build housing, they will push out existing residents and people will move down to my town of belmont and push out low income residents in belmont. every you not -- units that we are not adding in san francisco means more displacement in belmont and more track homes in belmont -- in oakland. more families moving to places like arizona and texas were you have to run the air-conditioning 24/7 and not just good public transit and not as good community infrastructure.

we should be extremely differential to people who are trying to add housing, especially affordable housing. i think we need to balance a community and we need more notification of new projects against the community need to just -- to prevent displacement. a notification does you no good if your are forced to leave due to high rents. what i've heard a lot in the comments is neighbours have gotten used to blackmailing applicants and delaying their projects. especially zoning compliance projects and they're worried they will lose their ability to do that. neighbors should not be able to block may -- blackmail projects. it should be easy to predict whether the application will succeed or not. that is the number 1 goal of the planning compartment -- department in an application process. we should make it easier to build affordable housing in other part the city. especially the sunset in richmond. you cannot add very much affordable housing, i don't think we should move discretionary review online which is one of the proposals. we should make it harder to file

discretionary reviews. sat fiscus go hands five times as many discretionary reviews as new york city. a city that is five times larger. we should move this office to alcatraz and charge $5,000 to file one. thanks very much. >> speaker-01: thank you. any members of the comment to want to -- public who want to comment on item two please come up. is this the correct mic? >> hello my name is norma. i was planning on coming to support this great effort that the planning department and also o. e. w. d. has put together as well as many community members including really talented architects, i was going to come anyway to cheer for the 100% affordable streamlining, but over the weekend, one of my good friends who is a first-generation immigrant like i am, she was telling me that

the community where she lives in is in danger of making, the community wants to make accessory dwelling units harder to build and wants to band them unless a lot size is 6,000 square feet, which sounds big. so, we were talking about the hour of -- i reviews and we told her san francisco was about to make it easier to pass a pop outs and make it easier to build them and so i come here on her behalf, in thinking that if we streamline small projects here, perhaps other communities can get some ideas and feel inspired and help you become, you know, a source of evidence that this stuff works and it provides much needed housing and get help a lot of immigrant communities who do not have a lot of existing wealth to continue to stay in the high cost, high employment areas like san francisco. thank you so much.

>> thank you so much. any members of the public who wish to comment on item two please come up before we pollute -- closed public comment. seeing done, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone who came out to speak on this item. a lot of it is likes to the legislation that i also introduced around accessory dwelling units and the overarching goal of streamlining the process and making it easier for families, property owners to be able to accommodate to, again, whether it's additional generational -- intergenerational living, seniors, it's a much more affordable way than to buy another home or if someone is facing a high rent as a tenant, really, we hope this can be a solution. a couple things i heard during public comments that i want to address. one is that early on i heard that there was a concern around demolition of homes, and then somehow that getting swept up with some of the aid to use and the pop outs. one of the things that was noted

in the planning commission that i heard clara fired was that there is a conditional use permit process that a project sponsor has to go through first if there was a demolition that were to occur. we have pretty strong demolition controls in san francisco at i want to throw it over to the planning department or our mayors office to confirm that. >> that is correct. demolitions require authorization from the planning commission. with that demolition, a sponsor would have to present what they are proposing to rebuild in that case as well. >> in that case, that would involve neighborhood notification at all that. if that -- if there was a proposed demolition. >> that's right. we would need a newspaper notice and we are proposing it would go to an onlin notice add a posted notice. >> okay. that would be different, additional changes to our current demolition notification process? >> no. that is our current process and

it would continue. >> okay. ok, great. that s one issue i heard around demolition. the other thing has to do with the fact that we are here today with legislation amending the planning code. i think i see representatives year from the department of building inspection but i want to clarify what sort of notification would be involved for our so called pop outs that we are talking about and that it has become quite controversial somehow. there is notification, i believe from d.b.i. can you explain what that actually is? >> supervisor, i am from d.b.i. that is correct. we would normally notify the adjacent neighbours and the one behind and that would inclu the appeal window, 15 days from the permit issued. >> okay. that appeal goes to which body? >> to the board of appeals. >> okay. even if we were to make the change today to the planning code, d.b.i. would still continue his neighbourhood notification and appeal process

for pop outs? >> that is correct. >> thank you. ok. >> thank you. i like the thought behind 100% affordable projects. i like the thought behind downtown historic. i definitely want to spend time talking about, and then -- putting a uniform notificatn process for the number days. something we've been talking about with planning for over a year. i am happy to see this move forward. i like one of the commenters. it is true. the preapplication is the part where the majority of the work is done, and if it is done correctly, that is when it should happen. it is -- if there is a requirement in this the talks about the preapplication process. that is my first question. >> thank you.

i am with the planning department staff. right now, anything that requires 311 or 312 notification also requires a preapplication meeting. that is a way that things where it is. >> with that remain under this proposal? >> if the ordinance were to pass as currently written, the popout would not require notification so there would be no meeting. however,, the commission did recommend there should be a preapplication meeting for the pop outs if there were no notification. they didn't alternately make that recommendation formally, because instead they recommended they keep notice for the pop outs. however, it would be possible to do the preapplication meeting through a commission policy. >> when you say notice for the pop outs, what did they recommend? >> they recommended they should continue to have 311. >> okay. i don't agree with that but i do believe that i mean if we are good to move something forward today, we should say there would be a required preapplication, and then i do believe the immediate neighbour -- neighbors and similar to what happens in

d.b.i. for appeal, and then the lot right behind you, should be noticed. so is that in the current form of this legislation? so it is still 311? >> that's right. the preapplication meeting is a commission policy. what we would do is return to the commission to advise them as to what the board amendments where and they can establish in their policy that preapplication meeting should be required for the popout. >> right. i would do a hybrid of the two. i think there definitely should be a preapplication. that should be a requirement if we are going to do over-the-counter for pop outs. i believe that more than just a postcard and something online. if you are an immediate neighbors in the lot behind a property that is getting a ut, u should get a full set of plans and have the opportunity, whether it is

certified mail, or something, to know that neighbour -- that neighbors and the lot behind has received the plans as proposed. >> that's right. currently with a preapplication materials, what is sent would not be change for this ordinance. >> the preapplication would include the immediate neighbors in the lot behind. >> that's right. and the plants for the project. >> and the full plans. if we want to have a requirement for p. application, it would covered the things i just talked about. >> it would be up to the planning commission to adopt that policy. they expressed of notification were to go away that that would be their preference. >> that would be my preference today. >> thank you. i'm a little confused because maybe planning staff or even d.b.i. can clarified that the preapplication meeting, that is a particular set of notification that d.b.i., similar to what d.b.i. spoke of, right? or is it the same thing. >> it is similar staying in that it is a jason neighbors but it is a different process. it requires preapplication meetings as a first thing before we can take the permit. test to be two weeks before we receive the permit and then there is a 311 notification period. it is only mailed out what's a

planner has determined the project is code compliant. after the vote building permit has been signed off on by the planning department, that is when the notification from d.b.i. comes out to the adjacent neighbors. >> great. and so, i apeciate that clarification because i think my preference is that yes, there is still some level of notification to the neighbors if he had their preapplication process, but not to the full on 311. neighbors would still have the ability to appeal the d.b.i. permit to the board of permit appeals, but you are allowing that window of time for a project sponsor to be able to, you know, do the process a little quicker and easier. again, still keeping in mind that our existing demolition control is applied and so forth and so there is still a process for that. >> right. >> just to finish that thought, i mean, for me, it is really important -- the people that are the most impacted by a popout are the two immediate neighbors

and in the lot behind, if there is a lot. i think that requiring preapplication which would cover all of those things is the appropriate way to step forward. it also accomplishes, similar to what we introduced with 312 reform where we are reducing staff time. we are really allowing folks to focus on some of these larger missions in the city which is affordable housing and getting more units online to deal with the overall demand in the city and reduce staff time overall. at the same time, respecting the interests and the desires of the neighbors. if we were to make that recommendation today, it would go back to the planning commission. >> yes. the ordinance would not have to return to the planning commission, because everything that is before -- >> it was ready considered. >> we could make the amendment to say that neighborhood notification would be required for pop out. >> the planning staff would recommend you include that in your resolution urging the planning commission to adopt

that policy rather than instituting this in the codes because a preapplication meetings are not something that are set forth in the code. >> we would have to do a separate resolution? >> as part of your resolution on this ordinance. i just mean, as opposed to an actual amendment within the ordinance. >> maybe the way to do that would be to add in on codified section at the end of the ordinance urging the planning commission. >> got it. we could make an amendment today that would say, for pop outs, that we would require preapplication process, and then add the end the ordinance, that there would be, urging this to become part of the planning commission's -- >> the full amendment would be and on codified section urging the planning commission, when it considers as policy, to require preapplication process for the pop outs.

not to amend section 311 to say that specifically. >> right. i think that's right. okay. but we don't have any language, right now as proposed from what i am saying? >> it is not currently in the ordinance because we would direct the commission through your resolution language, that's right. >> we can amend this today? >> that's right. >> to require preapplication and remove 311 notification. >> that removal of 311 is already in the audience -- ordinance. >> what we can add it? >> yeah. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i also have a set of amendments that i want to introduce. they are substantive and must go back to the planning commission. i must implicate the file to put these amendments into the adjudicated file. i have distributed amendments to committee members and also to city attorney john gibbon or. this is around amendments to the permit to alter a certificate of

appropriateness process. it is to add, with ending -- within planning code section 10052 add each to the code at ages 65 through 67. notwithstanding the foregoing signs, camaros and exterior paint to install an event or anniversary of an event of national or international significance, relevant to the historic context of the landmark or district regardless of the size, should not be subject to the provision of the subject. this is aligned in section 1006.6. i want to add to planning code section one 11.12 add subsection d. and page 67, 68 that notwithstanding the foregoing, science, mirrors and exterior paint same contacts should not be subject to the provisions as long as they follow the rules.

this is in regard to something previous to my time in office, but in my district which was a mural that was put up at the theatre, at the plaza. and this is to ensure that that signage gets to continue to stay in place. we also want to himand into planning code section, and this is a question for the city attorney in termsof where it is appropriately placed, the sciee of any size and celebration of an event et cetera et cetera, where it is located. i will make a motion to keep the file and amend the duplicated file so that it can return to planning to be heard by the planning commission. >> thank you. john get better? >> thank you. there are a few issues that my

office has looked into with this set of amendments, including where to put it and some other issues that i'm discussing with your office. i would recommend, today, you duplicate the file as you suggested so we can work out some language and discuss further with your office. after the committee makes an amendment next week, it would then be referred back to planning. >> okay. that makes sense. we will work with your office over the next week to do that. i just had a follow-up question for the popout and this was a question or a statement made by members of the public which was that often thieves popout spoke her with a larger housing buildout. my understanding is that, in that case, you know, other notifications and processes would be triggered along with the popout. i just want to get verification of that. >> that is correct. if you are proposing a project

that is larger than the popout, it triggers a section 311 notice. the architects brought up that if their clients know they have to do notice, they will propose a larger project because they have to. our hope is that by making pop outs over-the-counter, it will guide people to do it in a more reasonable way instead of going to be a jerk -- bigger projects that require notice. >> is there any reason for members of the public to be concerned about the popout in and of itself going over-the-counter in a blue of a larger project that the project sponsor is actually considering? >> there is concern about that. we have discussed another amendment to address the concern that someone could propose the monster house situation and try

to add a popout in addition to that to exceed the monster has limitations. so we have prepared an amendment that would say that you cannot add at wiin thre years of another expansion. >> i see. >> if you do, it would require notice. >> even after the three years or within the first three years? >> within the first three years. >> what can we do beyond that? i imagine that neighbors and members of the public would have concerns beyond, you know, the envelope of the monster home project beyond three years. >> the three year proposal would be to deal with that cereal permitting potential to make it difficult or very unlikely for someone to want to hold off on doing their main project for a period of three years so they can try to take advantage of the regulations. in terms of whether or not neighbors would have concerns about the popout, we've heard the concerns at the planning commission. the staff analysis, because the pop outs themselves are compatible with the residential design guideline, and because they are almost, in every case, approved without getting a discretionary review and they do come to the planning commission, they are infrequently modified. we feel the popout footprint

itself is quite appropriate to be with over-the-counter approval for those reasons. the cereal permitting issue would be dealt with through the -- dealt with through the three year proposal. >> in general, what is a scope in terms of the number of simple popout applications of the planning department gets in an average year? >> we believe we are getting 250 applications that have that scope of work in them. most of those have other work as well. as he mentioned the guidance that we have gotten from architects and from ourst that has been with the department for a a while is they have heard from sponsors that if they had known there was the ability to without the, you know, lengthy process, they would have done something smaller. in addition, windows and larger projects come to us. we tend to whittle them down for the design review process is something close to what the popout is because it does match the residential design guideline. in other words, many of those application start with something larger and they end with

something as close to the popout by virtue of what we're doing at the planning department when they come in. having them over-the-counter, they would sit within that small envelope. >> thank you for those clarification pieces. the other thing that was brought up is around the 20 versus 30 day notice. i am looking at this chart at shows all the different current requirements for the mailing odrifor all sorts of different notifications, 311, 312, conditional use, you name it. for the map -- for the vast majority, and i see why the legislation proposed 20 days e rsus 30 is that most of them days. in fact,, i count only one, to walk, three, rougher on this page here that again, represent the typical types of notification that people would receive a 30 days. the vast majority are 20 days. that there is a whole bunch that would have required ten day notice that would be going to 20

days. it would be increased. this is something we are agreeing with the original legislation which is to go to the 20 day notice uniformly instead. so i guess that is a recommendation that i don't plan on taking from the planning commission. >> with that said, are there any further cup questions or comments? i would say that amongst the different mentdt see, i want to preserve the pop outs. that is very important. but to have the notification, the neighborhood notification required, and specifically, that is the 311 notification if there was an existing structure that was expanded in the prior three years, to prevent cereal permitting as the planning department mentioned. and then, i know the supervisor spoke about talking about directing the planning commission to adopt the policy for the section 136 pop outs to require a preapplication meeting

between the applicant and adjacent neighbours before a rear yard addition can be submitted. i would like to include that provision as well. i'm willing to take a couple recommendations from the planning commission, which is recommendation number 2. amending section 333 allow the zoning administrator to determine the requirements for posted notice for unique sights. the recommendation number 3, in the same section, to require the posted notice to be visible and legible from the sidewalk or a nearest public right of way. a recommendation number for all that is also in the same section 333 to require a mailed notice with minimum dimensions of five and a half by eight and a half inches. that is half a sheet. and the last one is to amend the same section to require notification procedures to be consistent with applicable planning commission policy. so, again, to reiterate, i would like to take planning commission recommendations two, three,

rougher and seven. to do the preapplication meetings and require 311 notification for pop outs where the existing structure would extend in the prior three years. >> colleagues? questions? thoughts? i would like to make a motion for those effects. >> can you read the last one? you lapped read it pretty quickly. you want just to keep 311 for pop outs? >> for when the existing structure has been modified in the last three years and that is to prevent cereal permitting and scope creep. >> do you have those amendments? you said you had them. here they are. okay. >> for clarity, the item was duplicated in the amendment draw for the original? >> that is correct. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> deputy city attorney.

it would be cleaner if you amended both the duplicate and the original so we have consistency. >> yes. i would like to make those amendments to both versions, then. >> so that captured the requirement for preapplication. >> yes. >> okay. >> i have that in there and i have the request too -- well, to keep the 20 day noticing so we don't have to make an amendment, actually. >> i'm fine with that. i will make that motion. >> okay. we will do that without objection, then. okay? both files were amended to that

effect. >> and then do we accept your amendments? >> yes. did we? for the duplicated version? >> she is just touching them. >> on the duplicated version around signage, i think there is a motion from supervisor kim for those amendments, sorry. >> yes. that set of amendments would be adopted next week. you are just continuing that last item. >> i did want to comments that there was a mention about continuing that portion to the july 18th and next land use committee meeting but it will be cancelled because of the budget hearing. it would be july 25th. is that okay? i mean june 25th. we have a few meetings before recess. up to you. depending on the schedule. but i wanted you to know there is no june 18th meetings. >> it could be june 25th or if you would like another