so certain sections of the code can be waived for a.d.u.s. >> okay. so i think i'm getting there. so i've always thought of ministerial actions as you have to meet these code criteria, and if you meet the 7 feet here and the 4 feet here and the bulk and whatever the requirements are, it's a min e ministerial, no notice, and i guess the historic -- notice for historic properties -- how does that go? are they going to be considered coat requirements? are they going to be measured? are they qualitative more than quantitative? >> they're intended to be objective content, but they are

included in your packet, and that's the second item is we'd like your feedback on those. >> fair enough. okay. so got it. so that's ministerial. it's sort of a flexible approach to ministerial approval, which is great. i don't have an objection to that. i think that's fine. ok okay. so now that i think i understand it, one of the things i do want to make the comment on is it's good to limit the size. a.d.u.s are not supposed to be the same thing as size for a single-family zone. with 1200 square feet, that's a two-bedroom unit without too much struggle and with a really compact design, you can get three bedroom, so it

accommodates family housing as well as other types of housing. i do support that. i think that's a good idea. i also support the concept of in the multifamily zones allowing flexibility by size because spaces are being carved out. i'm thinking of that fulton street project that we looked at not too long ago where there could be different sized units. so i do support those things, and i think i'm starting to understand the complexities of this, which is it's good to -- i think this is a really good concept. i think it's going to result in housing that's evenly distributed throughout the city as people seek to have additional units in their houses, so i think it's very good and hard to -- hard to develop code wise.

commissioner johns? >> yeah, veronica, this may be a question for you. when i was working, reading through this and trying to work out various scenarios about how things might work, the one that perplexed me was if we could suppose if we were in a district that has single-family homes mostly and are pretty large, and you have a house, a single-family dwelling that some years ago, say five years ago had an accessory dwelling that was built into it, but on the q.t., it's -- it's code compliant, it's kind of to me a slippery term in the sense that the ceilings are the right height and the electrical and plumbing work was all done the way it ought to be done. would the legalization, could that unit then be legalized under this, and would that be

something that would be -- is it something that would be an over-the-counter ministerial act or is it something that would be more required? >> the city also has a legalization program intended for authorized units that were stalled without the benefit of the permit. one eligibility criteria is that the sponsor has to provide proof that the unit was occupied prior to 2013? so that's a separate program? it's under a different ordinance. it is permitted, if an applicant can provide proof that that unit existed? those can't be provided over the counter because there are some restrictions that are placed against the property on the deed? so both the legalization

program and the a.d.u. program are intake permits to allow staff to finalize the review and the sponsor to record any documents. i would say if an applicant does not have proof that the unit existed prior to 2013, they are able to use the a.d.u. program to legalize the unit. >> so it would be retroactive, you would give retroactive approval. >> correct. >> that's been in place three or four years, the legalization program, which is why the 2014 date exists because this was the legalization program to take these units and legalize them was put in place in 2014. by the way, natalia is our a.d.u. person these days. she's living and breathing a.d.u.s 24-7 right now. >> commissioner wolfram. >> so just going back to the

hypotheticali hypothetical examples, if you could go to the duboce triangle, if someone wants to build an a.d.u. and a family house there, what was the requirements in the historic district? because right now, it would come before us with a c.d.a. >> it's a ministerial approval, so it is not subject to article ten. but we have -- we are hoping to develop and adopt objective design criteria which would apply for the single-family no waiver a.d.u.s. so in that instance, that project would have to comply with those objective standards which speak to materials, profiles of windows, opening sizes, things like that. they are phrased largely as making an alteration to an existing single-family home? we have language in them about caffeine, a rear one yard bump

out at one story in height. i think that item is going to be proposed for continuance, but i think it's worth adding in there something pertaining to new construction. but i think what we're envisioning is we have to be strict. they need to be strong and clear criteria that you are basically matching what is existing. so if you're opening up the front facade of an article ten single-family home to put in an a.d.u., you're watching the materials, windows, doors, so i think for new construction, we would have to hopefully have to try to do a similar thing. i think the criteria as they're drafted today don't address new construction. >> right. because they might get into the false sense of history. >> completely sk. >> for new construction, saying you have to match exactly what's there. >> commissioner pearlman? >> this is a technical question

for the building code, but i just don't know -- and this is really an a.d.a. question, and really, natalia, you might be able to answer it. when you have three units, you're not required to have a.d.a., but when you hit four units, even if it doesn't have an elevator, one unit has to be a.d.a. accessible. let's say you have a ten-unit building that obviously was built a long time ago, and now, you're going to built in three a.d.u.s. does anything have to meet a.d.a. requirements? that's a building thing, and you may not have the answer, but that's a question that i've been asked relative to the a.d.u. program in general.

>> thank you. there are some local equivalencies that the fire department and building inspection have agreed upon for a.d.u.s? some of them relate to fire sfrinkleers or a.d.u. access? but i don't know of one that's a.d.u. specific. >> can you summarize what our task is. so we have 10-a, which is -- so the first piece is approving the proposed ordinance, the changes that i covered, and also approving the

recommendations from staff. and the second item is the item we will continue to the following hearing is with respect to the architectural review standards. i understand we have a comment to include some discussions regarding new construction. and this is also the item that i handed out some minor changes to, so that's available for you right now. >> mr. frye. >> yeah, commissioners, if you could provide us some feedback or design guidance on the second item, we would certainly incorporate that at the next hearing, and that would be valuable to us. >> clerk: i think just for clarity's sake, the resolution is adopting for a recommendation for approval. this still has to go to the planning commission for approval. unfortunately, you can't approve the changes to the planning code, so the resolution should reflect that you're adopting a recommendation for approval to the planning commission and to whoever approves the business

and tax regulations code. >> yeah. we're surprised that our purview had suddenly jumped. >> a lot of power over those a.d.u.s. >> clerk: and the second item doesn't need a continuance. it was improperly noticed for today. >> okay. so is everyone clear? >> well, i move to recommend the accessory dwelling unit and new construction item. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to adopt a recommendation to approve -- [roll call] kble . >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7-0. >> so it looks like staff is looking for guidance on the review standards?

>> the key thing here is we have to avoid capability differential or anything -- compatibility differential. these ones with new opens or rear additions, we're just saying that it will match. so we have to avoid, yeah, anything that could be construed as applying discretion, so anything -- any ideas you may have. >> so are you saying these -- the wording would say it will match neighboring buildings, will match defined details -- >> commissioners, if you look at the motion, the second motion, under moved, there are six criteria or standards that have been drafted for your review. >> two on the front and four on the back. >> these are related to alterations. >> they are related to

alterations. we are thinking about existing buildings, so we do have your comment about new construction, which is really helpful. any additional feedback, though, on these, again, to mr. vimer's comment, the compatible but differentiated analysis. so having a property owner match, let's say you have an in-fill for a garage. we're asking them to match the window openings and shade material and profile and scale essentially as the windows on the upper floors. that will be take -- will not require planner discretion, it's a matter of measurement and just matching -- >> but we do need to match it in order to be objective. >> that's correct, yes. >> we have to describe that without being discretionary. >> right. >> it's a challenge. i mean, this is a challenge that we're facing in a number

of situations with state law, where they only allow this review if the standards are extremely objective. just quoted yes-or-no answers. >> it's harder with new construction. >> yeah, it is. >> you know, it's very easy to say you've got a house, and the new thing has to just match the house. that's easy. >> commissioner black? >> so looking at this list, one of the things -- and this is related to new construction, i would say that if there's some way of crafting language that also gets at the prevailing neighborhood massing and roof forms, if there's some way of adding something there, i don't see that here, and i do think that that could have a really significant effect on the

streetscape. >> i think it's -- the intent is that this -- this occur within the existing envelope of the building, right? >> no, but i'm talking about new construction of a single-family house, that that -- the massing -- massing and sometimes as defined by roof form would be something that could be added. not easy. i can't believe it. it's very hard, so -- >> commissioner wolfram? >> well, i had a question about this. the residential design guidelines would still apply to this project, right? wouldn't they need to meet the residential design guidelines or not? >> no, it's discretionary. >> discretionary by definition. >> so a lot of the language that you'd pull is a lot of the language that we'd want in here. i wondering if you can pull more and make them less guideline and sort of more

emphat emphatic. you're looking for a place to start. >> it's creating a residential design guideline for every district, which is almost impossible, as you know. >> it almost needs to be a check list. there's no answer. it's really challenging. >> class 32 cad-x, where if it doesn't meet this category, you start checking the next one. >> the code requires it's often like a box, and it's 40 feet high. the guidelines are looking at what your neighboring properties are doing. >> i imagine the appeals are more likely to come from project support sors thponsors wants a dwelling in a historic neighborhood, you know.

>> yeah. 'cause if you think about, like, seaside, florida, they have these very specific guidelines, but it's a big booklet, and it has lots and lots of drawings, but it basically designs your house for you. >> it's kind of a menu. >> yeah. yeah, yeah. it's more specific than our residential design guidelines. >> so are we suggesting we go down that route? >> i don't know. >> that's the question, right? >> it's hard. >> the problem is seaside is one particular style. >> yeah, exactly. >> you don't have different districts. >> you don't have hundreds of different styles to choose from. i think the way commissioner black was going, to say that, you know, there are certain ratios of window to wall in the district that you have, you don't have ridge heights in the district that you're in,

there's certain typical roof forms in the district that you're in within 300 feet of your property or something like that. >> like that could be a particular menu, you have to -- sorry. >> no, you have to define your district -- >> this is the -- for new buildings, that you say your district is within 300-foot radius within corners of your property and you have to survey this and say well, out of 21 properties, 18 use a gable roof, and you have to use a gable roof, something like that. it would be like a residential design guideline, because you're looking at your neighboring buildings. you're not being discretionary, but you're saying, 50% of the roofs are like this, so you have to use this roof. i don't know how many properties this actually affects, you know -- >> not that many new

single-family houses in the city. >> well, and if it had a demolition, that's another process. >> we're really talking about homes on empty lots. >> so actually, without getting more complicated, so what if someone takes a nonresource and demos it and then they want to take -- >> this would apply to that. it's really interesting. >> they'd take have to intake and do a cad-x on the demolition. >> but if you have a single-family house and it's not considered historic, and they wanted to tear it down, would that apply, would this then apply? >> if i may, veronica florez, planning stedepartment staff, s last example would still trigger or section 13 demolition, so we would still

require neighborhood notification and still require a planning commission authorization even if it's a single-family. >> for the demobut not for what replaces. >> well, then, the project will need to appear because the demow demo was 317. >> so there really aren't that many -- >> yeah, it's not going to affect all that many. >> well, i have a question, because every time i go to al mow squar -- alamo square, the painted gentleman property, the three properties that were never built. there aren't that many, but there are some poimportant locations.

>> absolutely. >> so for when this comes back to us at the next hearing, for that specific, we'd have to have something already baked or realize that's a hole we need to fill at some future time. >> we will rush to get something in front of you but yes, ideally but the time the legislation is effective, we would like something in place. >> right. >> and i think -- to be clear, i'm sorry to delay this, but if we don't have the objective standards in place, technically, we can't review it, the design. that's the way the state law's working on this stuff, right? so it's just the nature of this process is now working on the state. >> you can only review it for code conformance. >> you can only review it for code conformance. >> what's here in the six standards is good. these are good. >> these are for alterations, but for new construction -- >> so -- well -- >> yeah. >> well, they're good.

>> so maybe we can identify the lots when we do our survey. that'll still be two years from now. >> and just to clarify one more point for the commission. the way we have included in this motion for you to adopt, if the lemgs lation is adopted, and if -- legislation is adopted, if we find that there's a pattern of aspects of review that perhaps we missed the first time arc, we can come back with a -- around, we can come back to these review standards by way of an additional motion. >> okay. so do you have enough? okay. great. i think we're done with this item then. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that'll place us on items 11-a

and b for properties at 333 turk street and 2506 fillmore street, respectively. these are legacy business registry applications. >> we just have two legacy business registry applications today to review, and i'll start with the curry center. curry senior center. it's located at both 333 turk street and 313 turk street, two adjacent properties. curry senior center originally north of market health council was established in 1973 as a nonprofit service organization offering primary health care, substance abuse, mental health and other social and community services to seniors. the organization was formed in response to dire living conditions in the tenderloin neighborhood, especially for seniors who at that time made up 37% of the total resident

population. francis j. curry was director of the san francisco department of public health at that time, and through their department research, he and his colleagues found that living conditions of seniors in the tenderloin were deplorable with lack of access to medical care and social services. their work waived the way for a comprehensive care model that focused on meeting the unaddressed health needs of a complex disen franchised senior population. the organization is located, as i noted in two separate buildings. they're located in two adjacent buildings on turk street. both of these are known contributors to the national registry. staff is recommending approval of these applications with both

sites noted, and we're recommending the following features to be safeguarded. the services for the low-income and elderly community, including the primary care clinic, wellness program, case management program, community programs, behavioral health services, peer drop in center, vitality room, and senior isolation project. we're also noting the curry sign at 315 turk street. sorry about that typo. and last, their tall front facing windows at 33 turk street. that takes us to our second application for jackson-fillmore trattoria. it's a restaurant opened in 1985. two weeks after opening, the

restaurant was doing capacity business. it started off doing very well. it was noted in the sf chronicle which immediately boosted their business. recently, casey and cassidy sullivan, a brother and sister team took over jackson fillmore and its dining traditions. staff is recommending approval of the -- i forgot to note one item. the department identified this property as a contributor to an upper fillmore cluster of historic place significant storefronts. staff is recommending approval of the application with the following features to are safeguarded -- to be safeguarded. their antipasti bar, their knee

an trottoria neon sign, their brick surrounding entry, and the terazzo floor. the staff is also noting they note the location at the corner of jackson and fillmore which resulted in the restaurant's name, and that concludes my presentation. i believe some of the business owners are here. >> excellent. great. open up with the public comment. please step forward. welcome. congratulations. i apologize for the long delay. >> we'll be less controversial. i'm dave, and i'm the director of curry senior center. i've been the director for 12 years and i've actually worked in the neighborhood, tenderloin neighborhood since 1989. i just want to add a few notes about our center. the hill center is open five days a week, the senior center is open six days a week, and the dining center is open seven

days a week. we spend about $1100 a month with uber health. this is getting seniors who don't have smart phones to and from their doctor. this is not a commercial for them, it's just that they have comdated our seniors' need -- accommodated our seniors' need to get to and from the doctor. we have seniors that could go to laguna honda, but since it's full, we try to provide everything they can in their own home. one other point is we are the first health center in san francisco to receive a health care for the homeless designation in 1993, and at this point, i think there's 12 health centers that have that designation.

we host supervisor forums, we also have various ballot presentations. also have one of our staff, judy, from the senior center, who's going to talk a little bit about what she does. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is judy sue, and i am the program manager at curry senior center, and i've worked there about four years now. curry is involved in the vision zero project for safe streets for seniors. we've also participated in the 200-300 block of turk safety group. also, i teach the e.s.l. class every friday. and we have a program called senior vitality that helps connect seniors with technology, monitoring their health and also connecting them with family that's far away. we have the current events

where seniors get to discuss news with their peers in their languages of cantonese, vietnamese and other languages. once a month, our corporate partner volunteers provide a virtual reality experience with our seniors, showing the seniors how to use the v.r. goggles with a 3-d experience. we've also partnered up with another agency to provide fresh fruit and see vegetables for our clients? and we participate in the four corner friday. i wanted to give you an example that shows that curry has made an impact on one of the many seniors that we serve in the tenderloin? her name is mina. she came here to curry as a homeless client, and she didn't

have a primary physician. we were able to connect her to the curry clinic for health care, connected her to a case worker who helped her get housed and connected her to the dining room where she got a hot breakfast and lunch every day. she became less isolated by participating in the community program where she learned how to use the computer. and also, we've noticed that her health has improved, and she even got help getting a job at project open hands. i think that all of these things that we do has made a big impact on these seniors, and they are some of the many reasons why the legacy business registry will help curry continue serving in the tenderloin. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is david kavrel. i'm here representing jack

kreitzel. first of all, i want to thank you. that was very nice. and thank you all for considering it. we don't do what curry does, which is pretty incredible, but we do think we have a pretty important place in pacific heights because it's harder and harder now to find restaurants our size that can survive in the -- you know, with the rents going up and whatnot. and what else we do, we provide jobs for our people which we really are very proud of. kelly and casey, thank god i don't have to do anything because i can't do anything. it is really great. we've had the same staff pretty much for 12 years. and in san francisco to be able to provide them with that kind of living, you know, we don't make as much as we did when we first started, but they do, and it's great, and i think it's -- you know, if you go anywhere in the world, you meet people who

spent time in sacramento, and things that have lasted, they're talking about us now. thank you. >> thank you. okay. we'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission. commissioner johns? >> well, i'm quite familiar with half of the organizations that are before us today, although i would like to say that maybe it's not fair that both of them seem to do a lot for seniors. for many years, i had an office just in the next block down from jackson fillmore, and so i've been familiar with it and lynn seigel and some of your other regulars for many years. again, this is one of those wonderful times where we have things on opposite ends of the spectrum, and they're not

competing, they're just there to show the unbelievable ways that these small -- smaller groups serve san francisco and are so important to us. so i definitely think that we should move these forward, and i congratulate you for coming, and thank you for the work that you've done and the services that you provide. >> anyone else? >> move to approve. >> that's great. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for everything that you do. it's really amazing, and thank you for taking the time to come today. appreciate it. >> and waiting two hours -- >> yeah, 2.5. all righty. we -- i think we had a motion. >> yeah. move. >> and a second? >> second. >> okay. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt recommendations for approval --

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> kragss. >> -- congratulations. >> congratulations. >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> and we're adjourned.

>> we can sweep by in front of a house in a matter of seconds. the only people who don't like it are the people who get the tickets. >> this is a street sweeping sign. don't let it get you. pay attention. [♪] >> in the morning, when we first go out, we start at six in the morning or seven in the morning. we call that our business run. we sweep all the main arteries of the city. after 8:00, we go into the residential areas and take care of all the other customers. >> the idea with the street sweeping program is to get the leaves and the debris off the ground. >> we -- for not only appearance and cleanliness but safety as well. >> we will get anywhere from 2- 7,000 pounds per truck depending on the season and the route. the street sweeper and the

choice of the use right now is an error sweeper. they have a motor in the back and it blows winds down one side and carried by air into the hopper. what will mess this up is new -- large pieces of cardboard or sticks or coat hangers. anything that is more than 12 inches. the tube on the tracks is only 12-inch diameter. >> people asked what they can do to help to keep the city clean. there are people that letter. leaves are one thing. any of the garbage you see is from people being careless. [♪] >> one cars parked in the way, we can't sweep under the congress. to deal with this, we have

parking control officers that are provided by m.t.a. and they go in front of our sweepers and pass out citations to people that are parking the wrong way. once the sweepers sweep past in san francisco, you may park behind the street sweeper. we all know parking is a big issue. north beach hasn't been swept since the eighties because of opposition. but we are getting a lot of requests to sweep. basically our trucks are 10 feet wide. we stick the brooms out and they are may be 12 feet wide. >> there are a lot of blind spots when driving a large truck pedestrians and bicyclists and cars. and navigates this 22,000-pound truck through the city. >> we involve the public here -- to adhere to traffic laws. these routes were developed back in the eighties around the capability of the sweeper. things have changed since then so we have to adapt.

luckily, public works is embracing technology and working on a system to alter our maps. this is literally cut and paste -- cut and paste. we will have a computer program soon that will be able to alter the maps and be updated instantly. we will have tablets in the checks for all of the maps. we will send a broom wherever it needs to go and he has the information he needs to complete the safety. what is needed about these tablets as they will have a g.p.s. on it so we know where they're at. you do get confused driving along, especially the inner sunset. recall that to the be made a triangle. >> thanks for writing along with us today. i enjoyed showing you what we do and i urge you to pay attention to the signs and move your car and don't litter. with all

>> the hon. london breed: how exciting is it to be here today? i know many of you are wondering why we chose this location of all locations. it's because this location is the backdrop of what will be future homes -- four to be expect, right, sam? >> yeah. >> the hon. london breed: four new opportunities for accessible homes that will be affordable to folks in san

francisco. these garages and hundreds of spaces like them sit often empty and under utilized while our city continues to experience a housing crisis that is pushing low-income families out of our cities. this is why in 2014 we took the first step into converting these spaces into much needed housing. we saw some initial success, but as we all know, our bureaucratic system in san francisco got in the way, and it's often too complex and people find themselves struggling just to get through the initial permit application process, let alone the construction process. since 2014, over the course of around four years, only 377 units were approved. more than 900 units were stuck

in limbo because city departments could not agree on how to handle certain key issues. that was more than 900 opportunities for new housing, 900 units stuck and waiting for approval. that is why back in august, i issued an executive directive to clear the backlog of more than 900 units within six months, and to make sure that every application from that day forward was acted upon within four months. and today, i am so happy to noun announce that we have met that goal. all of the 919 units -- [applause] >> the hon. london breed: all of the 919 units that were stuck in review were acted upon, and that backlog is cleared. of those, 439 units have been

permitted, and onver 90% of those projects that were approved, those units that were approved, are subject to rent control. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: that's more units permitted over the last six months than over the entire course of the last three years. that's a big deal. all of the remaining applications were responded to and sent back to the applicants with specific instructions on what they need to do to keep their application moving forward through the review process. we are now waiting for those to be approved. that process itself has been overhauled so new applications are not subject to that old bureaucracy. we have roundtable sessions where all departments come together to review all applications all at once, and each department added staff

members dedicated solely to reviewing and submitting a.d.u. applications. we submitted a simple, straightforward, a.d.u. check list, the first of its kind, to applicants get the information they need to start the process up front so that each department can provide consistent feedback. and we conducted outreach to design professionals and homeowners to inform them about these new changes and encourage them to apply. these reforms have been incredibly successful even in just our first six months. since august, we have received applications for 206 new units and 49 new units have been built. that is a 72% increase from the 68 building over the course of three years. but we are not stopping there. i am also proposing, as many of

you might have heard, which is super duper exciting, the waiver of the department of building inspection permit fees for new a.d.u. applications, saving applicants anywhere between 7,000 and $10,000 in fees to encourage people to come forward and produce more units. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: waiving the fees, streamlining the process. it may sound like the simple thing to do, but it is so challenging sometimes to get some of the simple things done in san francisco. what this process has shown us is that approving housing does not have to be and should not be a difficult process. we need clear guidelines, a transparent process for projects to either be approved or responded to. and this is why what i have

done since taking office has been really about moving the process forward and getting more housing built in san francisco so that people can afford to live here. some of you know -- [applause] >> the hon. london breed: -- that i recently appointed a director for housing delivery whose sole job is to work with various departments to get housing built and to provide input on policies that we need to implement to either cutback on bureaucratic red tape or the things we need to do to get this important housing built. and many of you know that i'm proposing a charter amendment so that when we try to build 100% affordable housing that fits within the code of our existing policies, that it is done for teachers and affordable housing as a right. no more delays, no more

bureaucracy. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so yes, we are making progress, and six months may seem like maybe a long time to many of you, but six months in bureaucratic time is really fast. and so i just have so many people to thank because doing this really does take a lot of people. we have a number of commissioners that are joining us here today, and i just want to thank the planning department. and i think the planning -- is myrna here? oh, thank you. the president of the planning commission, myrna melgar is here. thank you for your leadership with the planning department to help make this possible. we have the department of building inspection here, as well, and i want to thank the director for being here -- oh, john rahaim, planning director is here, too. commissioners -- thank you, commissioner mccarthy and thank

you, commissioner deborah walker from the department of building inspection for being here, as well. thank you to chief. >> commissioner hayes-white:: - chief joanne hayes-white from the fire department, and fran see covington from the fire commission and joe hardeman from the fire commission. it takes a village to get this housing built, but this is a first step because we know that there are so many things that we need to do in san francisco to get more housing built and to get it built faster. we are going to be making changes, and it is by any means necessary for the purpose of making sure that we begin the process now to get more housing

built so when we think about the next generation of young people growing up in san francisco, and we think about what's going to happen when they become adults, where are they going to live? where are they going to live in the city that they were born and raised in? we have to start now, thinking about the future and providing more housing opportunities is really what's going to change the future and make it possible so that the next generation of san franciscans can afford to live here, and the people who are struggling to live here have real opportunities to live in the communities that they love. and so with that, i just want to thank each and every one of you and all the amazing people that made this possible. i'm really excited about this. i'm excited that we have shown that government can work, and this is a great day here in san francisco, and with that, i want to introduce serina

calho calhoun who is an architect what is one of the people who is a beneficiary of being able to take advantage of this opportunity and get important units built in our city. [applause] >> good morning. my name is serina calhoun, i own and operate a small firm in hayes valley. we by some nature have become experts in the a.d.u. process. since the mayor's executive order six months ago, we have seen a radical change for the better in the a.d.u. process. we've had 42 new dwelling units that are stuck in the system move smoothly through this process just since here announcement. it's been absolutely incredible. projects that were taking over two years for approval are now being processed and approved in only four months. actually, we submitted two projects at the end of october and they are already approved. all the city departments have

joined together to stream line the reviews and most importantly, the reviews are consistent. i no longer have to make six individual recheck appointments with six individual people for one project. i can do it in one shot, and get all their comments together. it's amazing. i'd love to see that apply to a lot of other project types in the city of san francisco. the mayor's office has just done an incredible job, too, of trying to find ideas and asking us for more ideas to make this process even smoother, and it's such an honor to participate in a process in the city of san francisco. i can't thank her enough. with that, i'm going to turn it

over to sam moss with housing [applause] >> mission housing, we've been talking about this for years, and to be able to stand here and take credit for it, it's just amazing. [laughter]. >> mission housing, myself, we believe it's important to do everything that you can. everyone should do everything they can. from single-family homeowners to developers, to look at the crisis and actually solve it, by adding new units, and that is what we are doing here. it's my hope that san francisco and the bay area and nationwide will follow mission housing's example that we've been tasked to do. it's because of mayor breed's

leadership and leadership of our city departments agreeing with our sentiment that we can do so today. i just want to thank everyone for coming, and stay tuned, because better things are on the way. thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and we also have a tenant who is going to be saying a few words, so dora, you want to come on up and speak? it's okay, if you want. okay. nice. well, thank you for being here today, and again, these units will be accessible, which is really important for those who are seniors and those with disabilities. in thinking about the future of san francisco, we have to think about all possibilities for housing. and i know that, you know, a couple hundred units may not seem like much, but in the

bigger scheme of things, that one unit will make a difference in someone's life, and so we have to make sure in san francisco that we are doing everything we can to capture as many units as we can for the purposes of expanding our housing stock because we know we have a number of challenges, and we know that we need affordable safe spaces for people to live. i'm really excited that we were able to meet and exceed the goal that we set in the directive next year, and there is definitely more to come for providing housing opportunities for all san franciscans, and i want to thank each and every one of you for being here today. thank you so much. [applause]

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years

and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one

time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million.

if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website, sfassessor.org,

>> we can't hear you, is your microphone on? >> again, welcome to the commission on ageing and adult services. we have a new commissioner, and i would like her to introduce