that was raised at the informational hearing. this is a possibility that someone could come in, expands the current structure to the maximum envelope allowable and while that permit is still open or wild the work is still ce ta on another 12 feet.hout in order to address that issue, the recommendation is to amend section 311 so their rear yard edition would only be allowed without notice if the existing structure has not been expanded in the past three years. this is the standard that is currently used with accessory dwelling units and we borrowed the standard here as a means for preventing people from doing this. in addition, we also recommended not a modification to the ordinance but a modification to the commission policies on the preapplication. that would be to require a preapplication meeting for the rear yard edition even if the requirement is removed in proposed to the ordinance. even though you would not

receive notice for this work happening, if you are in an adjacent -- if you were an adjacent neighbour, you would be invited to the preapplication meeting and they would not be up to take the building permit, unless a preapplication materials are provided to s. that way we will be sure folks have an early heads up about the project. as i say, they can request more information from the apartment and sign up for e-mail notifications to keep abreast of that and they will know to look after that modification coming up. we think that addresses a lot of the issues people were concerned about with the work happening next door without giving advance notice. finally, just to summarize, the benefit of the section of the ordinance that relates to notification would be to put these materials online and available for the entire notification period for the first time. to expand the notification and put the translation instructions on their consistently. also to reduce opportunities for delay due to minor errors to

provide a significantly larger amount of notification to the public with a significantly lower amount of paper. in a way we believe is more effective given what we can do today. also, the ordinance would give us the required bare minimum content, and dimensions and formats while giving flexibility to staff in the planning commission to make them work as time goes on. finally, the modifications around the limited rear yard additions would save staff time will not demonstrably changing the character of the community. that concludes the presentation from staff. we will look forward to discussing this with you further and answering any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. we will open it up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards.

you can line up and come speak and others can line up on the screen side of the room. that would be helpful. go ahead. >> good afternoon. my name is patrick. live in thty and a work in the city as a not so young professional. i would like to own a home in the city. and increasing the housing stocks of affordable housing would make that that much more possible for people like me with regards to the notification, i feel it is often used as a tool for neighbours to bully or extort their neighbors. we need to make housing more accessible for more people. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> afternoon commissioners. i am a practising architect in san francisco. i am a dissing architect in san francisco and a member of the aia. i'm here support this permit streamlining initiatives. i'm very pleased to have an opportunity to work with my colleagues in city planning and support an initiative to make the process more transparent and more fair for people who seek to improve their living situations and their structures in the city. i think it's important to make things easier for our constituents, and it is also important to note that sometimes the pr sscreates divisiveness divisiveness. the common decency of a meeting in place of prolonged political processes should engender better

behaviour neighborhood and associations. it would be our pleasure to work with staff planners who are more empowered by their own discretion. that would help. that would function more effectively and provide a better service. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> i sent you three letters on this. the last talked about were in the back of a pocket. i'm not sure if you got that far. i read it and i noticed that the correspondence with the names of all of the people that had ended a meeting, i think it is unfortunate there wasn't at least one person from the neighborhood there during that time, it was shocking to see that. i hope you read my letter. i think people need to see the plan. i didn't see the size that they

put up, but this is at. this is the size. this is a shiny thing. this is the building i told you bout. this is the size. this may get lost in the mail. think of all the mailers you got in the election. those things got lost in the mail. they need to see the plans. as i said in my letter, and i gave the examples, those plans had not gone out and certain people had not seen those. he would never have seen that project. it would have just dated. and same with the flats on 26th street. you would have had a little thing behind the garage that would have been sold as a single-family home. the neighbors had not gotten the plan and they had not reached it to that people -- those people. i got this the other day. it was mailed on the first. it arrived on the fourth.

it is about the hearing on the 21st for a demolition. it was not 20 days, armed no plans. people who have demolitions near them don't get the plans. they struggle to get the plans. i understand you don't want to mail things to people, i can get that. but immede neighbours, may be needs to be broader, should get the plan. neighborhood people who run organizations, need to get the plan. people that no need to get the plan. eleven by 17. youcan't go online and look for everything. you can't printed off. we said that before. you really need to take this as goldn opportunity to expand the preapplication meeting. if you've ever been to one of these meetings, you know, they very. some are nothing. sometimes the people don't even come with a sign in sheet.

i've been at a couple where i had to run home and print off a sign in sheet so the project sponsor could prove to you that he had a meeting and not have to hold another one. use the preapplication meeting to expand neighborhood involvement. is a golden opportunity. get them involved with the planner. send out the planner. make it easy to do. and over the counter saying, i don't know -- >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> too late. it's in my letter. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is karen, i live in san francisco and i practice architecture and i am also an a.i.a. member in the city. in 26 years since establishing my firm, i've experienced an incredible increase in the complexity, cost and time involved to gain planning

approval for even simple code compliant single-family residential and a small commercial projects that here in the city. i a no other jurisdiction that we work in, or have worked in comes close to san francisco in this regard. time, money and complexity. planning staf in general and planning policies in particular express an intent to retain families and promote affordability in the city. the approval process, with all of it's uncertainty, you been to make minor changes to a building envelope, adds cost and delays that underlined that goal. any change to the exterior of a single-family residence or small commercial -- commercially zoned coding maybe occupied by a nonprofi and now routinely takes a year or more to retain planning approval and that is before the planning department does its reviews. i know you all know this. i'm here to strongly support the

following process changes which impact the lives of our clients, and obviously planning staff as well. that is modionsat the notification process to make the processes more uniform across to ma ocess quicker.roval, and making rear yard pop outs as are permitted in section 136.25 a provable over-the-counter and allowing minor changes to historic buildings without obtaining a ticket of appropriateness. the public policy cottee,we worked productively during the couple of years, over lots and lots of meetings to identify procedures and regulations that aren't working as intended and to seek ways to modify them. we hope to continue to have this process with staff and commissioners. the process changes you are considering are a really good

step, they are relatively modest and a good step towards improving a system that has been failing the city's residence and wasting staff time. thank you for your support. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is lydia. for identification purposes i am an art commissioner. i am on the board of the art and engineers association and a member of the american... i'm here representing myself as a licensed architect in the state of california. for 20 years practising architecture, i found my company could improve the quality of lives in our community and our environment. some of our clients are hard-working middle-class, first and generation immigrant families with young children. they want to stay here and raise their kids in our city. when we found out that it took

months and years to get approvals to just expand and modestly sized room in their parents back yard, where allow, my clients were dispte and moved out of the city. i lost my clients. we lost to those good families. i applaud the leadership and staff at the planning department to work tirelessly with all community stakeholders to identify what we collectively can do to streamline our approval process. i have a high respect for all of you who are willing to serve on this commission. you surf cause you believe in improving the livelihood of our community and our local businesses. you serve because you care. you serve because you have the power to drive changes. we need to make the rear yard additions when it is in performance with the code, over

the counter approval process. there's one more thing. we need to make 100% affordable housing projects a provable administratively without planning commission hearings. so these families, just like my clients, and all san franciscans, you can afford to stay here. it is our duty to mitigate housing displacement. commissioners, today you have the authority to make this happen, and i thank you for all your service. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is neil. i am a practising architect in the city and a professor of architecture as well. for the last two years, i have been the chair of the a.i.a. san francisco public policy and advocacy committee working closely with the planning department on procedural, and policy changes to clarify and

speed the process of just -- design review in the city. through these interactions, we have focused on the seemingly mundane procedural quote unquote low hanging fruit that blogs the system and adds tremendous confusion to the process. at times, we have been very well aware of the issues, and at times increased interaction and collaboration with their tech -- architectural practitioners has made them aware of the large negative impact of current proced and the abili work professionally in the city. regardless, we have been impressed by their willingness to listen, and as we see in this initiative, the willingness to take action. i support their effort to make these rational adjustments that will streamline processes for all. as we design professionals have become more organized and articulate, we've realized negative impact of our absence during the public comment period of the planning commission hearing. our clients encourage us to express our professional opinion

when it is related to a specific project, but for broader based policy and procedural changes, it is the case that other voices outweigh the voices of the design professional because we do not find the time during our business -- busy days to show up and express our voices. this is our fault. we are trying to initiate mechanisms to make sure we are occurred at the planning commission in equal measure to those who maybe resistant to modest and positive proposals such as the use. it seems there is often an ordinance here for any institutional change, even when rationally positive. please note we are out there, and eager to support many of the recent initiatives of the planning department such as the use. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you next speaker, please. >> mr president, members of the commission, director ram, my name is larry from urban planning. i am here today representing

myself and no client, but here is a former zoning administrator and assistant director of the planning department. i am really happy to see these modest proposals on notification to streamline them and make them consistent before you today. it is long overdue. i had worked with mr sanchez to start this idea over ten years ago. it was beaten back. there are over 43, i think, different kinds of notice in 2,008 or nine. that is a recipe for failure at the staff level. there is no way that any staff person can ge to do those things incorrectly. this is a great process if you are doing it right. it is a great spot start and i applaud you for it. the exceptions in section 136, i believe that is the only

exception in 136 that requires notice. as was pointed out, this is equivalent to side yard fences. or it is set back 5 feet from the other side. i will ask people to do a modest expression and i would urge you to do that also. i think the steps to perform section three '09-329 will allow additional exceptions that don't require variances that make a lot of sense. what has happened in the code over the years, it is an added process. it is very hard to go back and say, hey, we had a great idea and we allow the planning commission to grant dwelling units explode -- exposures. why don't we go back and do that to section 309? it is hard to do it. you are doing it now, that is great. this is a start. i also applaud you for

empowering the preservation staff for the staff to do preservation work but you need to go further than that. there are many things that your excellent staff can do that don't need to go to the hpc, and i would argue many things that don't need to go to the planning commission. this is a good start. it is great, and i applaud you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you. i'm with the filipino cultural heritage a district. we don't approve of this amendment. there was no affirmative outreach done to neighborhood organizations regarding this amendment. this amendment is said to be a way to close and streamline the affordable housing approval, it is misleading and unacceptable. the amendment notification protections negatively affect the public's ability to have a say in these projects are know

about development that is happening in their community. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is christopher. i filled out a comment card but i'm not sure it was picked up. i am an architect in san francisco and i am also an educator, father, and citizen of thisfine city. i come here to speak today in support of these process improvements, as has been said before. i think modest, adds important to our city. in my firm we work with those private clients, families that thr homes and stay here in thee city. and with nonprofit developers who are working to build affordable housing, to address, i think, what we all know is a very acute housing affordability crisis in the city. at both ends of the spectrum, we experience significant delays,

the cost, and risk associated with the entitlement process. that prevents our clients, both families and affordable developers from building, renovating, and improving housing that so bay need in this city. as we know, planning staff are professionals trained in their jobs and they have limited time and resources available to them. we see many of these processes as cumbersome, unnecessary, and unreasonably long. it they encumber the planning staff from doing the jobs that we all so badly need them to do. so, i commend and support the mayor's office, and the planning department on implementing these process improvements. specifically improvements to the

notification process. making them more uniform and universal, accessible to everyone here in the city. as has been said before, tok things like rear yard pop outs. improvements that are code compliant free from neighbourhood notification. making them over-the-counter. allowing minor changes to historic buildings without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, and making 100% affordable housing projects approvable minial ri without planning commission hearings. while there is always a fear of change, and there are always going to be projects that get by that may have a negative impact on a minority of people, these improvements will benefit all san franciscans, both current residence and future residents. people who want tome here and live here and share in the

prosperity and beauty we have in this city. so i urge you to approve these improvements and make san francisco a more affordable, just and beautiful city. >> president hillis: thank you. miss gomez? >> afternoon commissioners. i am here to speak on behalf of our members who live in the city, an who are, in some cases, them and i are -- minority of residents who are very often racial minorities and two are very often excluded from the ability to have a meaningful impact on the project that would impact their lives. some of these proposed planning code amendments are very good, and should be supported. some of them, we need to oppose. all of the proposed changes that would affect projects that are hoing and containing 100%le affordable housing projects, though should be supported. assuming, of course, there is no

watering down of restrictions on the quality of the housing and the safet of the housing in the name of streamlining that process. residents of affordable housing deserve housing that is every bit of us -- as safe and high-quality as those who pay $3,000 a month for a tiny condo and central soma plan are? need is projects to be built faster. the mission for example, has built 070 units of market rate housing and 144 units of affordable housing. we desperately need 100% ge past with all deliberateto speed. in my job, i opened what feels like thousands of notices every year for every single project in the city. on behalf of all the trees, i ice their lives.sa i applaud the decision to include furious facsimiles and plans. i also applaud adding tenants to the notification list. having spoken to many neighbourhood residents who had no idea about a project because the notice went to their

landlord instead. and they are there -- there are also changes we need to oppose. there are changes thatuld affect projects that are not, in fact affordable, but our market rate. and even a quick read reveals problematic changes on that score. i also applaud the idea of streamlining notification requirements to make them more uniform. but i see no reason for it to result in a loss going from 3 30220 and some -- at there's also a problem with the process. you are going to hear from me and from other representatives of organizations who really tried to mobilize the neighbourhood to gain as many benefits as they can from developments, that in many cases, is not designed for their benefit, and designed for new residents who are overwhelmingly wealthier and whiter than those who are being here. we can't do anything that is actually going to disturb the ability of those folks to have an impact on developments that

are going to impact them. so, again, i urge you to take everything that has to do with streamlining affordable housing, because it is so sorely needed and i urge you to not pass something that is going to add on more problems along with the variables to accomplish it. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. the coalition for san francisco neighborhood letter is on the overhead. as you see in your pocket, we have a few concerns in sections of the mayor's process improvements ordinance. one of them was a lack community outreach in formulating legislation. here is a list that was referred to earlier. that is a list of all of the developers, architects and land-use attorneys in the meeting and there were no neighbors. a reduction of time for notifications will become an issue for us and some of the

residents. a reduction of notification radius, and some go from 300 feet down to 150 feet. changes to noticing disenfranchising some of those residents. it is good to have occupants for transparency. the pop outs in the rear yards, it there could be serious impact from excavations and foundation installations. notifications were noticed. i turned in on may 29th a letter, 17 pages. mostly images. on the overhead you will see i turn to that end. i haven't received any comments or responses, and i did a sunshine and i found this document housing in agreement april 15th, 2018.

on the overhead, that document tells you the future plans of how this will go, even though there is no notification now for what is seen as co- complete -- code compliant, the variance notices won't go away because there won't be any variance for some of these things. i suggest you look at these documents on theann plg website. i leave this outlined for inclusion into the minutes for sunshine 6716. >> president hillis: thank yo you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am the cochair of affordability. i am in agreement with the coalition of san francisco neighborhood and some of the other speakers speaking on behalf of community organizations with not enough neighbourhood outreach that was done on this proposal. i believe you guys heard it last week, and now you are proposing to push it is a big mistake.

i can give you three examples where, you know, i'm glad we're talking about the preapplication meeting, because we would like to have more notice on preapplication meetings, not less. when we formed the community plan, we asked for 60 days. doubling the notice requirement, not bringing it down to 20. and the reason being, when we have major proposals, for example, on to visit darrow, it is not the immediate neighbours, it is not just the neighborhood associations that are interested in these projects. it is a much wilder -- wider community. people deserve the opportunity to learn about what is happening in their neighborhood. the p. application is the first opportunity to weigh in on the neighborhood and what we want and what we can get from developers. the p. application meetings,

right now, i told you i had three examples. for example,, 400 to visit darrow, they did a lovely boring presentation and held no q. and a. and so, a bunch of neighbourhoods thought, how are we supposed to get our questions answered at this meeting? another example, a new formula of retail use is trying to move them to their. they did not have a presentation at the preapplication meeting, much less a q. and a. we showed up voicing concerns about the formula for retail u use, and i read the summary. the summary that they produced saying that everyone loves this and we want to go forward and everyone likes this. it was not a reflection of what the comments where that evening. it just seems like its really not rigourous. the last example i have is on 1355 fulton street. there is a new nine story building being proposed here.

it is close to another street. most buildings are... the height limit is 65 feet. so this project has requested a state density bonus. and, you knht we. i e-mailed the planner what was the base calculation for the density, and how many affordable units? he said they did not provide it but they will go ahead with the preapplication anyway. we are confused how that can happen. it seems like there is a lack of rigour there. >> next speaker, please. i will call out a few names. kevin wallace, stan hayes, kim colin, david gast, and toby leavy. actually i think toby leiby already spoke. go ahead, please.

thank you. >> hello. i am with the community action network. i am here to oppose the proposed planning code amendment that is being hurt. no affirmative outreach wasne to our organization regarding this proposed amendment and the subsequent scheduling of the agenda item. just on this basis alone, this item should, at the minimum, be postponed to allow more time for organizations to digest the sweeping amendment. while this amendment has been introduced as a way to streamline affordable housing approval, it goes far beyond this and includes processes to streamline approval of nonaffordable housing development. this amendment is effectively a means to streamline all new types of development including market rate development. this is highly problematic and misleading. this amendment works to weaken notification protection for members of the public. therefore creating less public participation in the planning process, and less public accountability for private development. this is a step backwards in the

planning process where the private sector ady has a tremendous advantage over the public in terms of what gets built in local communities. what is needed in the planning and developing process in san francisco are ways to increase public control and put in discussion over planning in their communities, not weaken it. there are other serious issues with the proposed amendment what it -- what includes to be the loosening of approvals requirements for projects seeking exemptions for growing units exposure unusable open space requirements. this is directed to developers and unacceptable. this amendment is carrying components that are outside of what has largely been publicly stated as intention of streamlining affordable housing approval. as it is currently written, this amendment should not be approved. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jack. i am an architect here in the

city, but more importantly i'm a citizen of san francisco. my family is here. and we hope to stay here. i think the proposal today, i want to applaud the planning department on the work they've done. i want to applaud that mayor's office for initiating this kind of incentive program for everyone to streamline the process that is burdened and overlaid in with process. i do think there is a win-win here. it is a win-win the citizens of san francisco by creating more housing. it is the only way we will get out of the situation. is to create more housing for us. it also creates, on a macro level to allow families that are here to make a small addition to their homes so they can stay here and they don't have to go to the east bay, or wisconsin or wherever they need to go. they get to keep their families here. i think that is what is so important about the propositions today, that we want to make this process better for all. i think the planning department

has done a great job of that and i am in support of that. >> commissioners, my name is toby leavy and i am an architect in the city. i applaud the report before you today, and i am actually here to talk about a project that we have which is a rear yard addition which has been caught up in all of this stuff. our clients just wanted to legalize a, you know, below -- partial basement into a units and extended into the rear yard, and they wanted to do that. they wanted to just do that so they could stay in their house and give upper level to their kids. it was always there, i made the mistake of encouraging them to do it legally. because what has happened to us, as we have submitted into the process, and there is no

differentiation between large and small projects. they are often caught up in the same process. it took us four months to get a planner, and then we went to the h.p.c. and now it is a $6,000 fee to have this rear yard, sort of addition approved. it is one story tall. that is $6,000. so now these poor clients are having fees to the planning department, the historical review, that far exceed actually the a and e. fees. without stremlining this process, and making it harder, there is going to be the unintended consequences of not legalizing things and snaking hingtunder. we all know that it went on in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties and it will make it impossible to do that. last week -- even as a

neighborhood activist, we get so many notices, and we want to get pertinent notices and i applaud the level of notification, but now more and more buildings are in a mixed-use neighbourhood. the same project noticed 400 neighbors for the initial preapplication. that is because we were adjacent to two multistory buildings. in that case, you know, no one showed up, of course. it is a one-story addition. it will go through three other notifications. i do applaud the idea of trying to make it simple. trying to make it less expensive so these little projects don't get caught in just all the planning. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. last year, i was the only dr

applicant against this project where the developer had concealed to the existence of his 93-year-old tenant, carl johnson, who had been living there for 63 years. i'm grateful you too this and voted in my favour and i'm sorry that carl did not live long enough to see that. of how i filed that dr and that should give you an insight into the world of the average san francisco resident that gets a 311 neighbourhood notification. i got mine, and looking at the attached plans, i knew immediately my neighborhood development would encroach my light and privacy. i did not know what to do at the time, and i certainly didn't know the property in question came with an elderly tenant who had lived there for 63 years. it was only through a conversation with another person that i learned about this discretionary review and was encouraged to file a d.r. thanks to her i filed the d.r. on the last day of the deadline.

i assure you, if i had only 20 days to react, it would not have been able to do this. it was only after i filed the d.r. that i found out about carl jensen and how we he was going to be displaced had the project been approved. those ten days could hardly matter to the developer who we later found out to be a concurrent builder and a serial e. victor. it was made -- it made a difference to me. i knew nothing about these processes and procedures. those ten days could have made a difference to carl jensen had he lived longer, because you took d.r. and you would have probably rejected the project. that's why i'm here to urge you not to reduce the notification period to 20 days. for a person who is not familiar with the architectural plans and doesn't know the systems, those ten days make a huge difference. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i will read off a few names. james hill, carolyn kennedy, christopher roach, jeff hodges,

john verger and christy wang. >> good day commissioners. i am a tenant and a neighborhood council member. legislation you're deliberating today it is set forth in response to the late marilee's 2017 executive directive on housing production. unfortunately, establishing a uniform notification period of 20 calendar days to all forms of notices would reduce the current 30 day notification to the public on building permit applications. it is of no benefit to the public, and not fair because it would diminish our ability to participate in the developmental review process affecting our lives and the communities we live in. please reject this undemocratic provision. a project sponsor has plenty of time to consult with planning. why not tackle bottlenecks inherent in the system and said pampering and handicapping neighbours and neighborhood

groups by shortening our time to grasp what impacts exactly as proposed to be built, and respond to it effectively and timely? the may 15th notice that we received was received late friday may 18th leaving 16 days until june 3rd which falls on a sunday, if you filed online. and memorial day a holiday weekend, was not taken into account. the proposed notification of a postcard to get mixed in with advertising circulators, and inadvertently thrown out. computer.mited access to a i use it at the library and i don't know how to navigate the website to find plans. it is preferable to receive and 11 by 17 plan in the mail. if i had to request them, it

would take too long to get them. requiring a preapplication meeting for a pop out, instead of requiring 311 notification for a rear d extension, has it's drawbacks. prc or over-the-counter approvals of the structures extending the building is not acceptable. project sponsors often misrepresent exactly what will be built on a permit application, or misrepresent what they say at a meeting to those in attendance. they won't be the same as what gets built. which is what it would indicate. most iortantly, overhead, please. ok. tenants who live in these buildings where a pop out of one story or two stories as propos proposed, wouldn't necessarily

have any notice of what is going on at the rear of the building they live in and could face displacement as a result of over-the-counter approval. >> good afternoon commissionersd president hillis. my name is carolyn kennedy. thank you for holding this hearing on the proposed process improvements and thank you for the modifications that you did make to the proposed plan. despite these modifications, our organization strongly opposes several elements of these proposed changes. specifically, that 2011 notice period and the permitting for the rear pop outs. regarding the notice period, 20 days is simply too little time for residents to object to the

final proposed project plans that we can only access when the 311 notice becomes available. there are several reasons, first, reducing the period by one third for the disadvantages neighbours who entered the process with -- without any training knowledge or skills in a land use, planning, or design and build. i speak from personal experience. i filed a d.r. among all the stakeholders in the planning process, we residents have the least amount of knowledge, skills and typically, money. this lopsided distribution of resources is a major process issue. it skews the process against neighbors and neighborhood. a filing period of only 20 days robs us of our last resource, time. for most of us, because we work and have found the commitments, our time is very, very limited to devote to this process. the second reason i object to this 20 day notice period, is it reduces the possibility of achieving compromise.

the threat of a 311 filing brings the parties to theto sol. again i speak from experience. to negotiate a compromise, we need time. time to explain and understand the prct,discuss e impac of objections on the proposed changes. both sides also need time to change their mind. to get past our emotions. to see that changes won't ruin our lives. these petitions can't be made in a split second. especially when the project will endure for 20 years. twenty days is not enough time to effect compromise. ten more days to produce compromise is in everyone's interest. keep the 30 day notice. if saving ten days is significant, look for time elsewhere. regarding the over-the-counter permitting, mining staff changes in the memo confused me. but they seem to give some notice for some types of filings, and not for others. despite these changes, however,

the net that these project sponsors can slap up a 300 square-foot structure or 360 square foot structure with two stories, with no neighbour appeal prior to pt issnce. essentially this allows an intrusion the en space. i oppose this as well. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. catherine howard. we received many letters asking that the neighborhood be included in the shaping of this legislation. i'd like to draw your attention to the packet and the 17 page analysis. regarding the department's process in writing this legislation. on february 22nd, an e-mail was sent out to talk about process improvements. we are getting together at long

last. we are working on availabity. how very cozy. next, by the way, no neighbors were included in this. the next notice was a march 14th meeting. any party actively involved in residential property development or alteration to existing residential property in san francisco is encouraged to attend, including architects, residential developers, land use attorneys, consultants. no neighbors are listed. no wonder the architects are here and all happy and singing your praises. they got involved in the process. imagine what would happen if you involved the neighbors in the -- of the neighbors in the process? there is a further e-mail. thanks again for joining me tomorrow. i know the idea of spending two hours in a room full of developers and arctste

invite their feedback on our review process is not a very pleasant prospect. it is amazing how people put these things in e-mails. it was important we engage with the folks who know what our process looks like from the outside to vet our proposals. obviously, that did not mean neighbors. i mean, really, what are we, chopped liver? 's ridiculous. so, these e-mails, one of the reasons, other than the fact we all know what you should and shouldn't put in an e-mail, they show that having an analysis, this was 17 pages done by a volunteer. and a member of the public. if you could involve the public, we have people in these groups who know so much about land use and legislation and what we need in the neighbourhoods. this would be extremely valuable. it could also perhaps save some of those staff hours that you are so concerned about. now, as to popout, making a complaint is a hard on the

complainant, and hard on the person who wants to build it. i am sure it is with great trepidation that a neighbors ways and. the fact that there is that few to go through it shows that people really are hesitant, but they do it when it is important to them. on the math, you know, 20 days is less than 30 days, no matter the doublespeak described. as for saving paper, i will refer you again to your own requirement that you would like 15 hard copies when people submit to you. please, let's keep everything consistent. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am david gast, i am a resident of san francisco for 50 years and i have raised three kids here and been enter. i'm also an owner and an architect with my own practice for 38 years in the city and more years before that.

both as a contractor and an architect. i do work in a lot of jurisdictions, both in the bay area and out of the bay area, hawaii, the east coast, in oregon, and know where do we have this type of stuff to deal with. you've made a process that desperately needs to be improved for everybody. not just the developers, the architects, the contractors but for the residents of the city. in one year, i had four of my clients give up and say i am moving. forget the process. i can't afford to spend a year and a half getting standard permits to do a minor motive -- modification to my building. your staff is odour -- overburdened. you need create processes that free up staff to deal with critical issues that are before the staff, rather than a minor addition on a single-family home. you want to encourage families to stay in the city. make the process easier.

you want to encourage the diversity of people to stay in the city, make it so you can actually develop housing. you have a letter from me in your pocket. i strongly support the efforts to improve notification to allow the rear yard popout, and to allow hic buridings to have minor modifications made to them without getting significant appropriateness. you need to think of this as minor start to the process of making this absurdity better. you are killing the city with the regulations that you put in place and make it impossible for anybody to do things. there has to be some safeguards, and your currents over what is happening in the city are appropriate, but the needs to be a way to do it that is much saner than what is going in -- going on now. thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners. i am sam hayes. the cochair of planning and zoning for the telegraph hill dwellers. i'm here today because we want

to express our concerns about this ordinance. in particular the way it is written with the provisions dealing with the public involvement. i think we all understand and value the importance of process and improvements and understand it is s. an essential thing. part of the importance is it must not be achieved at the expense of the public's right to know and be involved. we are concerned, that as this ordinance is written, these amendments, as they would apply to important projects, would reduce tranncyrey internalizing key decisions planng staff, distancing decision-maki from the public and eliminate and reduce public hearing is, a limit and reduce the public's right to call for discretionary review. it would weaken the planning

commission's role in the public forum that it provides. it is so important. it would reduce the public's access to information and shorten the notice time for the public to respond, and very importantly, eliminate the public's right to appeal to the board of supervisors, their elected representatives. we think this isgoing in the wrong direction. we worry that reducing input from the public is false efficicy especially in a city as diverse as san francisco. neighbourhood input is critical to create better decisions. how many examples do we all know if that? we think this ordinance needs further work. we request and urge that you refer back to planning staff or further development. first of all with the kind of public outreach to community neighbourhood organizations and others who we would have hoped it would have been involved prior to this point. and with clear metrics that provide supporting evidence to

demonstrate any of the efficiency improvements that are to be achieved by the provisions of these amendments. thank you very much. >> presi hintis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am an architect in san francisco. i will try to refrain from making snarky comments about the neighborhood organizations you think it is it ok to make snarky comments about the architects who worked very, very hard to make this a very livable city. often times, doing it without pay. i had to put ps on 156 envelopes last weekend to mail out for a notification process, and i did it during the giants game on t.v. so i did not have to charge my clients. there is an incredible expense that we go through. i am almost two years into one project to build a small single-family dwelling in the

marina for an elderly couple. and it will take another year to get a department of public works lot split based on the variance approval that we got. and that means another year for them to wait for them to get housing. in that time, with the increases in housing, the expense is going up and the public -- it will probably cost them ten% more than it would this year to build that addition. i desperately, desperately asked that the neighbourhood groups and the planning department, and the planning commission, we have to act now. we have to do something. it is not ok to not do something, and to pick apart these changes that are very, very minor, and are meant to streamline. i think it is critically important. [please standby for captioner switch]

-- i'm an architect. i live in the lower haight. i've lived in rental buildings all my life. a lot of my clients are from richmond and sunset where things like pop-outs and a.d.u.s have been common for years with or without permits. i'm also part of the 200-member san francisco a.i.a. small firms committee. i'm speaking for myself and also speaking about what i have heard

at meetings that i've had with people from the planning department and other neighbors, also with my clients. we push and push the planning department to hear our voices in frustration and disbelief and to hear in our voices our clients about how adage rear deck will take 4 months at best, maybe a year. after the planning department approvals we take over the counter safyke that. clients are incredulous. they ask to place odds ontting k without a permit. or they abandon the ectoj it's normal. it's fairly common for an exterior project to engage for a month or four in negotiations for neighbors property line

windows. very common. roofed over light wells. we have that over a 3x3 water closet shaft. neighbors want to protect it. we've spent four months trying to appease them. the last three projects had some kind of component like this in that. now preapplication. now to notification. that's where this 4-month to 1-year process begins. as an architect, we're taught to problem solve complex problems combining logic and unrstanding. the notification process puts us to the test solving for the unpredictable and uncodified. i'm happy to hear that they generally go through. the uncertainty is reflected in the department backlogs.

for us to have the planning department hear us and to problem solve to improve efficiency with small improvements like this is fantastic. it's a tremendous step. what seems a minor changes incrediblywell-supported and condition -- constrained by the code, rather than planners listening to the neighbors and you talking about san francisco being all about process when we ask them to problem-solve. we have that. the department and the architectural community look to the commission for direction. it would be fantastic to see the commission step up, support the department, in a logical direction toward improvement. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim colon, san francisco housing coalition. we've seen numerous attempts at

process streamlining. it's widely, even nationally recognized, that san francisco has a pretty bizarre, disfunctional civ culture around land use policy that allows small group of folks to impede, obstruct and delay high-density urban infill. the member before you stands on its own merits. it's modest. the comments you've heard from the architects, we've been hearing for 15 years. it's an intense frustration with a process that's so constricted and illogical that we're paying a huge price. we believe that this measure is a continuation of legacy and mayor farrell has taken it on, the idea that we have to dramatically increase housing production at all levels, but there's a larger context to this

discussion we're having here today and that's the housing crisis. and if we want to be more specific, sb827, which will come back. the issue is whether we'll keep longstanding land use rules or modernize them to improve housing production. a lot of folks, as you've heard, want to keep the rules as they are because changing them reduces their opportunities and the tools they have at their disposal to impede, obstruct and delay high-end density urban infill and that especially includes affordable housing. my neighbors in forest hill successfully killed 150 units of low-in come senior housing ts and the process tandthoke that we have. our good friends at csfn are making the argument that sb827 will come back and why it's so badly needed. >>si