>> supervisors? >> supervisor yee: thank you very much. you have heard a lot of the story today. so i will keep it short. as i mentioned, and there were 13,000 chinese-americans that served in all the branches of the military during world war ii. and one of the things that most people didn't know, is 40% of them were chinese-americans that were not native born and not able to fully naturalize until after the war because of the chinese exclusion act that was still in effect during that ti

time. the bills that i am talking about our hr 2358 introduced by ed brice and cosponsored by our own representative, jackie spear. and the senate bill 1050 was introduced by senator tommy duckworth last may. it has been sitting in their committee, respective committees, and we really want to urge them to move this on because so many of our benefits are disappearing from -- veterans are disappearing from world war ii and the three that came today earlier are all in their nineties and i am fortunate they were able to come. again, this is to urge congress to actually honor our veterans, our chinese-americans with the congressional gold medal. so i want to thank congresswoman

jackie. >> supervisor fewer: for not only sending her staff to press conference but sending our letter. she said that we have been in contact with her office. if it doesn't move forward this year, it will take this legislation and be the primary sponsor next time. hopefully there will be a next time. i want to thank my colleagues who on the board for cosponsoring. i hope i have your support. >> thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam president. i would be honoured to be listed as a cosponsor, and second, my neighbor -- neighbors asked that i invoked the name of eddie fung who was her neighbor for over 30

years when she lived on lombard street before she got evicted. and he was known by another name -- neighbor of hers from waverly place in chinatown as the only kid in school who wore red cowboy boots and continue to be a beloved character in the neighborhood. he is featured in a documentary that captures the experience of world war ii veterans called "the war, then and now." which our own chronicle reporter had this to say about in 2,007. he was born and raised in san francisco's chinatown and was captured by the japanese and worked a slave labourer on the burma and thailand death railway. the experience taught him what it was to be a man and what it was to be proud to be chinese. he had the distinction of being the only chinese american soldier to be captured by the japanese during the -- during world war ii.

he was put to work on that railroad project where over 12,000 pows and 70,000 agent -- asian lives were lost. he lived to tell how his background helped them enjoy it 42 months of humiliation and cruelty and how his experience as a sole chinese-american member of the most decorated techs and unitive any shaped his later life. thank you teresa for teaching me and allowing me to teach everyone about his life and involvement as a proud chinese-american soldier in world war ii. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. i want to acknowledge supervisor yee for his leadership. last year i had the honor of participating and graduating our filipino world war ii veterans when they received their congressional gold medal. it was touching and moving to

see our senior veterans finally honoured for their valour and heroism after decades of their heroism being denied by our history books. i just want to thank the erviss for bringing in one of the final steps of this recognition, which is acknowledging our chinese-american world war ii veterans. i did not know, until this resolution came before us that chinese-americans have fought in every american war since the civil war. these are the parts of our history that we often don't get to learn about. and yet, these chinese and chinese americans fought in a war for a country that denied them citizenship, that denied their ability to immigrate the rest of their family to this country despite the work that they had done. they were denied the ability to own the land in the state of california. they were denied so many different rites and values and principles that we take for

granted today. on this board, despite being an asian-american, i have learned so much about the contributions of chinese and asian americans to the history of our city and our country. and even just over the last few months, supervisor norman he has brought to life some of the shameful aspects of the san francisco history. whether it is around the renaming of a playground or the renaming of james phelan way, it is incredibly important for us to acknowledge not just the communities that are here, but the long-term contributions that i'll -- all of our communities have made, antiracism, hatred and terror that they endured under this city's leadership. the past three resolutions that supervisor norman yee, has been an incredibly important step forward in educating our community, and also remembering our history. which it is so important to do.

not taking for granted how far we have been together. i'm happy to support this and happy to be a sponsor and i strongly urged the u.s. congress to move this judiciously and asse bill to grant the congressional gold medal to these veterans. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you supervisor kim. supervisor ronan? bhi too would be honoured to be a cosponsor. i want to thank supervisor yee for bringing this forward and educating us about this incredibly important history of our country, and also if you could send a personal thank you to your father on my behalf, i would be very grateful. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you. supervisor safai we. >> supervisor safai: i know this is very emotional for you and i appreciate your leadership on this and honoring people who

have given their service and their time. my grandfather was a world war ii veteran and he was so important in my rearing and an important part of my life. it's really important that everyone that was involved in contributing to the greatness of this country, and the sacrifices that they made art honored. >> supervisor breed: thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: i would like to be added as sponsor as well. >> supervisor breed: thank you. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i would

also like to be added as a cosponsor. >> supervisor breed: thank you for your leadership, and thank you for honouring those amazing veterans who are here in the chamber today. my grandfather served in the army as well, and i am just grateful for the service of many of the folks in our military, and they should all be recognized and not forgotten. we truly appreciate your tribute here today and add to me as a cosponsor as well. with that, i see no other names on the roster. colleagues, can we take this item, same house, same form? without objection,e resolution is adopted anonymously. -- unanimously. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. on behalf of supervisor peskin for the late mr lau. on behalf of supervisor fewer,

missed washboard. >> supervisor breed: madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor breed: congratulations to the warriors and although we couldn't be there at the parade, we are there in spirit. go warriors. looking forward to a great season again. with that, colleagues, we are adjourned. [♪] ♪ ]

>> about two years ago now i had my first child. and i thought when i come back, you know, i'm going to get back in the swing of things and i'll find a spot. and it wasn't really that way when i got back to work. that's what really got me to think about the challenges that new mothers face when they come back to work. ♪ >> when it comes to innovative ideas and policies, san francisco is known to pave the way, fighting for social justice or advocating for the environment, our city serves as the example and leader many times over. and this year, it leads the nation again, but for a new reason. being the most supportive city of nursing mothers in the work place. >> i was inspired to work on legislation to help moms return to work, one of my legislative aids had a baby while working in the office and when she returned

we had luckily just converted a bathroom at city hall into a lactation room. she was pumping a couple times a day and had it not been for the room around the hallway, i don't know if she could have continued to provide breast milk for her baby. not all returning mothers have the same access, even though there's existing state laws on the issues. >> these moms usually work in low paying jobs and returning to work sooner and they don't feel well-supported at work. >> we started out by having legislation to mandate that all city offices and departments have accommodations for mothers to return to work and lactate. but this year we passed legislation for private companies to have lactation policies for all new moms returning to work. >> with the newcome --

accommodations, moms should have those to return back to work. >> what are legislation? >> we wanted to make it applicable to all, we created a set of standards that can be achievable by everyone. >> do you have a few minutes today to give us a quick tour. >> i would love to. let's go. >> this is such an inviting space. what makes this a lactation room? >> as legislation requires it has the minimum standards, a seat, a surface to place your breast on, a clean space that doesn't have toxic chemicals or storage or anything like that. and we have electricity, we have plenty of outlets for pumps, for fridge. the things that make it a little extra, the fridge is in the room. and the sink is in the room. our legislation does require a

fridge and sink nearby but it's all right in here. you can wash your pump and put your milk away and you don't have to put it in a fridge that you share with co-workers. >> the new standards will be applied to all businesses and places of employment in san francisco. but are they achievable for the smaller employers in the city? >> i think small businesses rightfully have some concerns about providing lactation accommodations for employees, however we left a lot of leeway in the legislation to account for small businesses that may have small footprints. for example, we don't mandate that you have a lactation room, but rather lactation space. in city hall we have a lactation pod here open to the public. ♪ ♪ >> so the more we can change,

especially in government offices, the more we can support women. >> i think for the work place to really offer support and encouragement for pumping and breast feeding mothers is necessary. >> what is most important about the legislation is that number one, we require that an employer have a lactation policy in place and then have a conversation with a new hire as well as an employee who requests parental leave. otherwise a lot of times moms don't feel comfortable asking their boss for lactation accommodations. really it's hard to go back to the office after you have become a mom, you're leaving your heart outside of your body. when you can provide your child food from your body and know you're connecting with them in that way, i know it means a lot to a mommy motionlely and physically to be able to do that. and businesses and employers can just provide a space. if they don't have a room, they

can provide a small space that is private and free from intrusion to help moms pump and that will attract moms to working in san francisco. >> if you want more information visit sfdph.org/breastfeedingatwork. ♪ ♪ [gavel] >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to our june 11, 2018 land use and transportation committee meeting. i'm katie tang, chair of this committee. we are also joined by supervisor jane kim and

supervisor asafi. our clerk is erica major. madame clerk, are there any announcements for us? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 19 board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. please call item number one. >> it is planning, build codes for acter is sorry dwelling units to waive or modify bicycle parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit and affirming appropriate findings. >> is thank you very much. so, i am the sponsor of this item and unfortunately it did not make it out of planning commission on thursday and so i will, after public comment, ask our colleagues to continue this item to the july 9 meeting. so, without any further comments or questions, any

members of the public who wish to comment on item one? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my concern with this legislation is the word "proposed." i hope that when you see this legislation or what comes from the planning commission, that it does not mean demolitions to insert an a.d.u. when an a.d.u. should be an existing building and to maximize affordability, there's been a project that did demolish a perfectly fine house in noe valley and the rationale was it was ok because we'll put an a.d.u. in, so i really hope that you'll consider proposed to not mean demolished. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is rose hillson,

coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i turned in a letter on june 4 and you were all copied on it. and i want to summarizethat the letter was unclear as to the fee out, not requiring street trees for a.d.u.s and requested number of trees planted within a certain period of time. requested noticing for nonliving spaces to living spaces, fill-ins of existing structures may not coincide with rear and back setbacks for the code. it can include any existing a.d.u.s meeting fire code regulations. at planning commission, there was an issue regarding the housing accountability act in regards to the a.d.u.s and the issues involved the conditional uses that would be as of right approvals to the h.a.a., housing accountability act, and planning commission pushed this out to june 21 to be heard. i'd like these bullet points to be put into the minutes under

sunshine 67.17 and i have copies for you. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. catherine howard. in san francisco, our open spaces provide not only habitat for wildlife, but also habitat for people. families use their backyards and children can play safely there. therefore, there can be significant impacts for the enjoyment of people's properties with the introduction of people living in previously unoccupied structures. neighbors deserve to be notified of this possibility. please amend the draft legislation such that neighbors shall be noticed when conversions are proposed. also under the proposed legislation, fill-s in of existing structures may not comply with existing code for rear and side yards. if these setback areas are not respected, two-store pop outs would be allowed to go into the

entire width of the lot and rear of the yard. lastly, the possibility of blanket upzoning of areas of the city must be evaluated. we just fought sb-827 at the state level and the board voted to oppose it. it is discouraging to see legislation that might inadd verdict tently have the same result. i'm hoping that this will be corrected in the revised legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. supervisor tang, your amendments effectively are back door upzoning which is exactly what the planning commission called them. we are concerned about the possibility of creating a situation that is going to put the city in jeopardy of lawsuit by organizations that are going to be using this and using the

housing accountability act to come back and stop us from demolishing affordable and sound housing. we really urge you to take away this particular amendment that is going to allow addition of an a.d.u. in new construction that are not in-fill. it's ok if you are taking the approach of zoning, a gas station or up zoning infills such as the one that is in my neighborhood, the real food that's been siting there for 15 years empty. but allowing people to demolish their homes and use that to put up a mcmansion of 4,000, 5,000 square feet plus an 800 square foot so-called a.d.u. is not a good approach. we don't have any issues with bringing certain neighborhoods, certain parts of the city, add more housing. even on the west side, i'm sure there are areas that could be studied and e.i.r. that could

be issued for them that they could be upzoned. but this is too broad of a brush and i certainly urge you to reconsider taking that amendment off. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. teresa flanderic can senior disability action. i'm so happy that this will be delayed at least until july. that was our intent in asking to please put this on hold because there will be perhaps unintended consequences in this as it currently reads in that number one this violates the housing services rights to tenants so that if laundry areas are removed, or if storage areas are removed, these are also laundry -- everyone needs to wash clothes. this is also happening at time when laundromats are actually closing or they're being demolished. and so we need to remember that

there are people that may be affected and to make sure that we have things in place as safeguards. the other reality, which is really ugly is there are some very bad actors out there who have been abusing permits, getting serial permits, etc. or going ahead and actually digging out the backyard saying they were doing landscaping. a permit was there just for landscaping. but the entire yard was dug up so that a foundation could be laid to put in three a.d.u.s. this is outside of the building envelope and this is today. so these are -- these are people who will be affected, of course, by any building and so what safeguards are in place to ensure that they can continue to live in their home while building is happening without risking their health as well as -- and again there will be those who try to get around that. so, we need to make sure that we have safeguards in place, that there is safe construction

and that services are not cut off by intent to get people out so i'm glad that this is put on hold al so that tenant rights groups can meet to discuss how this affects the rental ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jeff hodges, a tenant at 14th and i'm in support of this legislation. anything that gets us more housing, housing capacity that is lower than the amount of people that are being born here. it's far too low. we need more and i'm excited about this position. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco action coalition. also disapointed that this isn't moving forward today. dwelling units are one of the best ways we can get affordable housing. it has been a goal of many

supervisors for about 15 years now. so figuring out the right way to move it forward is certainly necessary. i also just saw a fun fact recently regarding open space that every single san franciscan lives within a 10-minute walk of a public park, which i thought was a neat statistic. thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jersmy paul. i'm a permit consultant working in san francisco. around i'm in favor of anything that increases transparency and openness in the public process. and this a.d.u. exception for a new unit going in makes perfect sense. there are many situations right now, buildings in the pipeline that have vacant spaces being built for recreational use or use with the other units that are intended for a.d.u., but an

a.d.u. can't be put in until a building is completed and certificate of final completion and occupancy is issued. it doesn't make a lot of sense as public policy to have process that works that way. we should be transparent and say what our intents is as we start the process and discuss it with our neighbors and our community. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item one? ok. seeing none, public comment is closed. i'm going reserve most of my comments on this item because it will be continued and imagine there will be some changes made to the legislation. be but i would say overall the goal and intent of the legislation was to ease some of the process that some property owners have shared in terms of trying to safe fill under canty lever decks to create full a.d.u. units instead of having this empty space that exists underneath some of these areas. again, as some of the public commenters said, i do feel that a.d.u.s are a great way to be

able to provide affordable housing and allow multigenerational families to live together. it's a great way to accommodate seniors who might not want to access the second floor, you name it. but i have jotted your concerns and read your letters and we'll be in further discussion with the planning commissions and community members on all of those comments that you relayed to us. with that said, colleagues, we close public comment and i'd like to ask that we continue item one to the july 9 land use meeting. can we get a motion, please? >> motion to continue the item to july 9. >> ok. and we'll do that without objection. ok. this item is continued. item two, please. >> item number two is the ordinance amending the planning code for review on downtown and affordable housing project, notification requirements, review of altercations to

landmarks and appropriate findings. >> and we have commissioner chang here to present on behalf of the mayor's office. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisor tang. i have a power point. a little background on the or dinance before you today. in may of 2017, we were directed to come up with plans to build or rehab 5,000 units per year. in december, the planning department issued their process improvements plan in response and follow up with more specific legislative change needed to implement that plan in march. this legislation includes some of those changes. the ordinance can be grouped into four buckets of changes that is will quickly cover. so, the first one is streamlining the entitlement of 100% affordable housing projects. these projects no longer require hearings and and could be aproved administratively.

there are roughly 1700 affordable units under review or in the mocd pipeline that could benefit. the second is streamlining the approval of downtown residential projects. we would reduce duplicative processes by allowing the planning commission to grant standard variances, thus eliminating a redundant variance hearing. 1100 units are approved each year in such projects. the third is minor alterations to historic structures. we would exempt minor scopes of work from the requirements to obtain a certificate of appropriateness or minor permit to alter from the h.p.c., allowing for these to instead be approved the same day at the counter by a preservation technical specialist. these minor scopes include a.d.a. push buttons, business science and the historic landmark plaques. these new processes would save about one-third of preservation staff time to be focused on more important preservation issues. and lastly we have changes to the public notification.

notice requirements have become unnecessarily complicate and wasteful. we have 30 different combinations of notice and format which are time consuming and invite simple areas that delay review. the requirements alone generated over three tonnes of paper last year. as you can see, a majority of notices essentially for larger projects are for 20 days. if you are requesting a variance, you get a 20-day notice. if you are doing a code-compliant process, it is a 30-day process. 10-day notice is currently required for d.r. hearings, large downtown projects and eastern neighborhoods projects. many forms of notification do not reach tenants. they are not provided in multiple languages and not access tonight the general public. notification requirements for retained scopes of work today the planning department review backlog. planners have 40 to 60 projects assigned to them and keeping track of various notice requirements creates room for error and delays.

this ordinance proposes a simplified notice that becomes operative january 1, 2019. consistent notification requirements for all application hearings, including a 20-day mail notices to 150-foot radius of te nanls and property owners. one poster every 25 feet and 20-day period of online notice which will be more accessible to the public than the newspaper notice. plans would no longer be mailed, saving three tonnes of paper annually. instead, neighbors will receive a half sheet with a link to plans. all notice will be multilingual and available online during the entire notice period. this is an increase in notice for large downtown, eastern neighborhoods which are mission and soma promise, getting longer notice and going to tenants as well. and timely, we're proposing one substantive change to notice. the extremely common rear yard pop-outs would no longer require neighborhood notice. as for any other building permit, permit approved purchase saounlts to this

section will remain appeal tonight the board of appeals and to address concerns of immediate neighbors, we're happy to require preapplication meetings for these pop-outs. the department of building inection will also conduct mail notice to adjacent notice with a $15 day period to the board of appeals. they are limited to extending 12 feet into the rear at a single story. they're about 300 square feet and do not exceed the height of a fence, which is permitted without notice a. two-story pop out must be set back five feet from each side lot line and doesn't exceed 360 square feet. approving these modest additions will save two full-time staff positions every year. time that can be spent on permitting housing. these pop-outs cannot encroach into the rear yard or mid block open space. you need a variance for that. they are code complying and consistent with the residential design guidelines. and they're very much prevalent throughout our city's lower density neighborhoods. in higher density areas like

soma, north beach and the mission, lot sizes are often smaller precluding these from being built without a variance or full lot coverage is already the case. in conclusion, i'm going to leave up a summary of the ordinance and jacob from ning is here to discuss the planning commission's recommendations. >> thank you. i'd like to quickly go over a number of modifications proposed by the planning commission at their meeting on thursday, june 7. first of these is to trefrns urban design guidelines in section 315 for the administrative approval for the 100% affording housing. secondly a number of amendments related to the notification requirements, the first to restore language that the zoning administrator can give staff more clear direction for specific sites for the poster requirements when the requirements in the code are not physically practical on the site. the third modification to

require hfp -- to add language to the posted notice requirements that will be visible to the nearest right-of-way. fourth amendment to the notification requirements to require a minimum size for the mail notice of no smaller than a half sheet, 5 1/2 by 8 1/2. that is a half sheet postcard mailer at a minimum. the fifth recommendation was to have a notification period, universal notification period of 30 days rather than the 20 days proposed in the ordinance. another amendment from the planning commission, number six and the resolution that you received is to have the limited rear yard additions that she was speaking about to continue to have notification. and i should also clarify that you have been provided with a corrected resolution from the planning commission which i provided to the clerk at the beginning of this hearing. there was one minor correction which was issued by the correction affairs staff this morning. simply to strike out a finding

in the resolution that was no longer applicable given the commission's recommendations. that is the resolution that is before you right now. finally, there were a few other modifications suggested by the planning commission. again, in the notification requirements, commission recommended that the specifics of what should be mailed and the size and content of posters should be specified further via a planning commission policy so that we can have that discussion at the planning commission and with the community. so the commission to that end recommended a modification to the ordinance to reference that planning commission policy on notifications that the notification would have to be delivered in a manner that is consistent with what's written in the ordinance but also consistent with that commission policy. the commission also recommended that such changes to the mail notice not go into effect until 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 commission recommended that those projects 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 with both of 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]

to keep this our 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 alfamilies 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 into a 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 myself as 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. ha-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 improving 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 believe 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 community members prior 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. >> good 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 want -- 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 housing, use the building code for performance standards and

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 very much. >> 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 enact 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 the record, we don't have any 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. on the issue 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 only 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. i think that it is really good that 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, this does 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 opportunitto 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