former architects in terms of my load, this is going to make things and mostly the stuff i could, i would say is from middle class. i don't do anything for the super wealthy, for the c.e.o.s. this is going to have a serious impact on the middle class, the stats are already, that i have heard of, 11% families in san francisco. and probably as a result of this, it's going to continue on its current downward trend. i did appear in front of the planning commission five times. i do feel like i got very fair and honorable treatment with the projects. and we came out to a really good resolution. i think the idea of needing higher density is really been the push from both planning and from the planning commission. and the need for more housing, you know, for folks. and i won't call it affordable, but certainly i would call it middle class housing is what we need, that's really a pressing

need. i think in all of my projects, starting i think after the '08, there was a huge wave of money that came into the city. and a large number of houses -- smaller houses that were either added on or in cases where they were no longer structurally sound were replaced with larger single family houses. for the past three years, i have not had a single family house. every project i do has, if it's an rh-2 district, two units and rh-3 we try to get three units in there. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. thank you. >> thank you. hello. my name is luke. i have been the principal of an architecture studio in san francisco for the past 20 years. i'm also a member of the a. a.i.a. public and policy

committee. i find most of the specifics to be overly restrictive with a clear bias towards the radical historicallism. for instance, the grab bag to qualify for conditional use demolition is clearly designed to be unachievable, particularly egregious is the subject building not resemble the height scale and architecture of surrounding buildings. this language is so deliberately vague, and subject to personal interpretation, that it could easily disqualify nearly all potential candidates for demolition consideration. doesn't every existing single family house in san francisco recommend assemble the neighbors some, what according to the loose criteria? a second specific example is the redefinition of demolition to include removal of more than a quarter of a building's front facade. this the absurdity waseloquently summarized in the case study that we saw this morning. where does the sphere of new

architecture come from and why is it driving driving this prop? every age deserves a voice in our city's forum. we are no more or less wise than our predecessors. it is naive to think that everything, which is old has merit, simply because it is old. just as it is similarly naive to think everything that is new is inevitably threatening. [bell ringing] in fact, everyone in the room will some day be the past. i urge the commission to vote against this radical attempt to cast our city in amber. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. my fame is mark mchale. i come in front of awes -- as the president of the eureka valley association, the longest continuously serving neighborhood group in the city since 1881. in speaking over the proposed legislation, everybody was hor fried about the overreach and the ineffectiveness of this

proposed legislation. i would ask that you not support it. and send a message to those people that it's too expensive to live in this city already. and if you're a homeowner and you have to make reparations, whether it's dry rot or needing to add a new bedroom for a new baby, making this more complex and making it more expensive and more time sensitive, would just put a stop to everything that we know as homeowners. i ask you to reject the legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. one minute? okay. thank you. hi. land-use attorney speaking for myself. as you know, i come before the commission almost monthly. i'm extremely busy. i'm not expensive as many people in the room used me know. this will mean that more and more people will be hiring me. i don't need more cases. i railroad turn away some, i'm

too busy. even architects are currently hiring me to advise them, because they don't understand all of the current rules. i don't need the business. please help those people. [laughter] help them not to need me. please. [laughter] i also wanted to mention that it takes away a lot of your discretion. now i don't agree with everything you do. but by and large, you do very good jobs. given how much time you're going to have and given how much discretion is taken away from you, i suggest if this passes, there be two planning commissions. there be a commission of three of you to merely handle the stuff that comes through this new legislation. might as well only have three of you, because a lot of your discretion is taken away. you should add a commission, a full commission to deal with commercial projects, retail projects and projects of maybe 10 or more units. that would be efficient. maybe we should do that. charter amendment, sure.

finally, i wanted to mention. i don't see in the legislation any grandfathering for existing projects in the pipeline. [bell ringing] and even if it's going to be changed significantly to reduce its consequences, i urge you to consider that. thank you very much. oh, one more thing. a mere 10% increase or decrease in the size of an existing rental unit, will, under the legislation, in most cases trigger a hearing where none is required today. that's a tremendous amount of new work. thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm going to read some more speaker cards. if i could beg your understanding to allow folks with disabilities to come up, first, as i read them. so mr. george whiting, joel medina, robert frickeman, carol, theresa, rose h., nancy warfell, harrison dylan and jennifer fever.

go ahead, mr. whiting. >> oh, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is george whiting. the first one i wanted to make is i think the expansion and the demolition part of this legislation should be bifurcated. i think the demolition aspect is quite good. the city needs a clean, clear demolition. for everyone. it's very confusing to me as a regular citizen, not a lawyer, not a land architect.

i read it four times, i have four different conclusions about what i just read. what i think gives me the biggest problem is it is suppose to be to create more density. but what i do see happening is you're taking regular homes, based on f.a.r., for area ratio, for residential housing was never based on floor area ratio in the past, and the staff, for planning, has made egregious errors in f.a.r. they have a history of this. so i don't necessarily trust what they are doing. [bell ringing] but what they are also doing, they're adding a.d.u.s to these f.a.r.s.

and that -- what that does is it means each home can be much different size, because they don't count the square footage of the f.a.r. and those are the points i want to make. so the number one thing is pass something on demolition. everybody benefits. [bell ringing] thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioner. on behalf of the -- >> i'm sorry. if folks standing in front of the door, could please either find a seat or go to the other flow room. it's a fire hazard, thank you. >> in the interest of saving time, myself and the other peek speakers want to stalk through sections of the legislation. we're happy -- this bees of legislation needs some more work. as currently written, we feel it's going to be impossible to do a meaningful, vertical or

horizontal expansion, or a demolition of any kind to add more density in the much-needed rh-# 1, rh-2, rh-3 and rh-4 district. section 106, enforcement against violations. we support the concept of strengthening penalties for bad behavior. but the legislation goes too far and too aggressive without a criteria for how to apply the penalties. the journalist voter of contractor -- the vast contractors have no previous violation. we feel the section needs criteria to distinguish penalties assessed for repeating bad actors, versus good standing contractors who make an honest mistake. the first offense or are they a repeat offender. how long has someone been operating in the city without any issues? has something been permanently lost or damaged, what type of resource was damaged or lost. what impact will a violation have on the neighbors. [bell ringing]

the penalty shouldn't apply for the before the planning department proves a violation. if we're pushing the viabilities to this extreme, we need to make sure the system allows for the flexibility to address much less serious offenses as well. the punishment must fit the crime. section 311, the permit review procedures. forcing the department to hold projects to design guidelines may be difficult when guidelines are in conflict with one another. seems likely the projects could present circumstances in which it would be impossible to be in compliance with all of the design guidelines. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm nadine bradley with the residential builders' association also speaking to section 317. trying areretain -- to provide affordable housing is a failed policy. this false premise got us into the housing mess anded a

justification for code 31. that's not make the same mistake again. we strongly believe that including the prior five years of work on to the demolition worksheet calculations is excessive. the definition of removal should allow additional exceptions for fire proofing, exterior blind wall continues. without this exception, the blind walls will not be able to be firewalls, rated firewalls are the only thing that stops fires from spreading from property to property. fire proofing walls save lives and property. the provision which defines a merger as expanding one unit by more than 10%, while reducing the size of the other unit by 10%, may be well intended, but it's way too restrictive and doesn't recognize certain issues that play into matter, such as -- elevators and pg&e closets. the focus should be on horizontal divides, rather than square footage. in if the department likes a

project, then why does it matter how we accomplish that project? once the project is completed, nobody will care if it was a full demo or an alterations. [bell ringing] and leave the means and methods to the project -- the requirement to have a d.b.i. review proposed construction means and methods to the commission means that the project sponsor has to structurally design the building before submitting to planning. this will cost industry millions each year and structural design changes. prohibiting demolition for units that were occupied in the last seven years will only serve to intensify the shortage of housing. we feel strongly the demolition will be needed to -- >> thank you, miss bradley, for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. steve mcilroy. r.b.a. and i'd like to point out a few specific items here about section 319.

and floor areas don't work in san francisco. done neighborhood-by-neighborhood. the -- with the neighboring two properties are the best tool for determining the square footage of an application. expansion should be large enough to accommodate three bedrooms on the same floor. when we talk about prohibiting new grams or addition in parking this is a mistake if we're adding density to existing buildings. families with young children and seniors need parking spaces. the legislation also reads the planning commission shall find with the keyword shall, this leaves no wiggle room for projects the commission may like. we believe many projects that

this commission has approved would be unable to meet the criteria put forward. pertaining to section 5's building code, residential demolition. dry rot should never be considered a demolition. 25% of an exterior wall, facing the street, would be a stark replacement on most lots, which are only 25-foot. [bell ringing] this threshold needs to be removed immediately. the interior walls that are not seen from public right-of-way, and the removal, regardless of the amount, should not trigger a c.e.u. unless the walls are deemed historic. as written, simple over-the-counter kitchen and bathroom remodels would encounter so much more expense and delays, if design professionals need to research all of the work done in the previous five years. >> thank you, mr. mcilroy.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ritchie hart, r.b.a. i'm going to talk about the tantamount of the demolition. with the exception of historical facades and buildings, why are we so worried if a wall or whole building is preserved? or if the wall or building is demoed? and built from scratch. when the project is finished, can anyone look into the house and to see if 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the interior walls were kept or built from scratch. you can't tell. what is the public benefit to scrutinize new versus existing walls. there was a time when we mistakenly thought that preserving existing buildings would lead to housing affordability. this policy has failed us maize rumblia. -- miserably. the best path so to provide reasonably, equitiable family

sized units and maximize density in the rh-2 and the rh-3 zoning. basic ply and demand. on to tenants, we support the protection of tenants. as an organization, we have no eviction policy. however, we feel that the requirements specified in this legislation are impossible to achieve. how is the project sponsor suppose to prove if he was occupied in the past seven years and vacant units or tenants, neighbors and property owners. we can't add more land to the city. [bell ringing] we need to put more housing on the land we already have, with higher density. demolition is a necessarily step to create more density in our built built-out neighborhoods. despite the good intentions, there was good intention. we understand there are bad apples. you know, the legislation and the bureaucracy will block the process of approvals. and are these commissions and

these commissioners, with their limited salaries as we herd earlier, prepared to conduct three to four extra hearing per week. >> thank you. >> are you willing to double the staffing needed? >> you'll get me in trouble if you keep continuing talking. >> hello, i'm vivian dwyer. i'm also on the a.i.a. public policy and advocacy committee. and this legislation proposal is too broad. it goes beyond the -- beyond the definitions that it expressions for demolition. and it gets into square footage calculations that seem unreasonable. and the definitions need to be more thoroughly looked at and developed, with professionals such as architects and the planning and building commission. and i do not feel that we should accept it as it is. and that the -- it's again too broad. so we need to be more careful in

the way that we look at it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is irene with s.f. modern. a woman-owned construction company. i agree with the concerns other speakers have mentioned. but i would like to speak about our aging housing stock and the negative impact this legislation will have on our ability to maintain it and to meet the needs of homeowners. my clients tend to be families on two endses of spectrum. they're either young families with children or they're empty nesters with young adults like recent college graduates to need to move back home. they also have aging parents who may also need housing and care. these homeowners have a total on ownership in san francisco. they bought what they could afford, which is an older, small home. they have saved five to ten years to be able to expand the

existing home to meet their living situation. young families are having us build three bedrooms on one level, because the parents want the security of having their bedrooms on the same level as their children. the older families want enough space to is that their returning college graduates or senior parents can have a sense that everyone isn't on top of each other. generally these expanding families need a horizontal or vertical addition to meet their needs. these families should not be unfairly burdened with the additional costs and uncertainty of a conditional-use process. doing so would push families out of san francisco into other cities that are friendlier to family sized housing. [bell ringing] what kind of san francisco do we want in the future? a city city of singles, couples with no children, a city that pushes families to move to the suburbs? or should san francisco have building policies that enable construction to suit all sizes and configurations of

households. in closing, i respectfully request that the commission allows meaningful expansions and demolitions a provisional use and eliminates the restrictions to size or massing. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is redman. i'm a contractor, developer here since i think '88 in san francisco. first of all, we're trying to solve too many problems with this piece of legislation. there are issues with demolitions, issues with conditional uses. all types of issues in the construction industry. in 1989, the earthquake hit san francisco. and that showed us what our sound housing stock looked like in 1989. in 1990, i worked on 8th avenue in san francisco.

replacing foundations under all of those houses, that flipped off the foundations in the earthquake. and the only thing holding up that street was the house next door, that it was leaning against. we had to go under them, we had to pour -- build a new foundation in the garage, which would now be an illegal demolition, go upstairs, replace the dry rot in walls. i would like to invite you out to a construction site to see what happens there. when you want to replace a foundation, when you want to go up to the next floor and all of the water has come down two floors between you and the building next door and you have to replace that wall. or you have to patch it up as mr. reardon has shown in his drawings. to do that, to replace the wall, you have to jack up the ceiling, build your wall on the floor. [bell ringing] stand it up, drop your ceiling back down, go back up again, you usually have to replace the floor joists in those houses,

that everybody is talking about existing sound construction. because the 2x6 joists. you sister in new l.v.l.s. you assist them. it's a joke. you put in new ones, you leave the old existing ones there, so the building department, when they come out to see them you put new plywood on top. >> thank you. >> you move on. my time. >> if i could talk for days. >> i know. [laughter] please. [applause] thank you, everybody. two minutes, please. please remember it's two minutes. we have a lot of speakers to go through. thank you. >> hi. i'm an architect here in the city. i have my own practice. i work a lot with residential clients, that are looking to do expansions that i think are modest. but would trigger this major expansion and under this legislation would be tagged as these kind of mega structures

which i think is just not true. i think the spirit behind or the stated intentions of this ordinance would be to create more housing, which i think is great. and i think the impact of this particular legislation would, in fact, stop a lot of residential construction and reduce the available housing that we would have. and so i would just strongly oppose that it be passed in this form or anything very similar to this form. and it also creates a more difficult, more lengthy process for owners. it's already very difficult to permit projects in the city. it takes a long time. some of the estimates that that were shown by planning and building earlier are optimistic estimates in my mind. it takes -- it takes longer always than the estimates. and only adds more to that, it just makes it harder and harder for people to build housing. and that housing that we want is further and further away in the

future. so i hope that we can find a way to make more housing and to make it happen faster. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm going to pull it up. [bell ringing] >> time is passing. >> okay. >> please. >> if i could perhaps ask the next speaker to come up, while the current speaker sets up technically and we can go when you're ready. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is katherine watson. i'm an intern here in san francisco. i'm going to be reading a letter to you on behalf of a homeowner. my name is pete thompson. my wife and i lived in the same

-- my wife and i lived in the same san francisco home on sacramento street for over 24 years. we started as renters, and when the opportunity presented itself many years ago, we were fortunate enough to purchase the home we had represented for so long. it is small, drafty, and older single family home. we reside there with our 3-year-old daughter. like many san francisco homes, it is somewhat short on square footage and storage space and will not accommodate a multi-generational family. we love san francisco and it has been our dream to one day expand our home into our forever home. part of being a forever home, it must be able to accommodate our family an and both of our aging parents. we believe the proposed legislation and policy changes fails to take that into consideration, and culturally shortsighted. we cannot emphasize this enough. my wife and i are aging, and in our respective cultures, the family is accepting. in our culture, we provide a

home for our parents when they lose the ability to live independently as they grow older. the same is true for our younger nieces and nephews, who would need a temporary place to stay in san francisco and try to save money to afford their own place to live. we understand that other cultures may place parents or disabled family members if in assisted living facilities or other accommodations. but that is not true in our culture. [bell ringing] we have been patiently saving our money to be able to expand our home into something that will become our forever family home. this proposed legislation would preclude exactly what we've been working towards for so many years. we do not want a monster home, we simply want to expand our home to include our family and keep the idea of family alive for both older and younger generations. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is dana. i'm with the action.

i'll bring up my map. so can you put this up? so this is a map i made of the effects that this bill would have. so red is any building that would -- from the -- because of the current structure, it would not be eligible for a demolition permit. which means that new housing is tantamount to ban. so this is a megadownzoning. downzoning is incredibly irresponsible to do in the midst of a housing crisis. it's like banning farms in the middle of a famine. what we need to do is like actually get a affordability. we can't get there preserving units that are already unaffordable. we need to build a lot more housing and flood the market with condos. we need to look at like where are we building 24 housing. because like we can't expect the formerly red light neighborhoods to take on the entire burden of

ending segregation. we've tried that. we need to build housing in every neighborhood. but this bill does the opposite. it preserves and embers the neighbors already unaffordable. and we created to be exclusionary. and it will ensure that they'll be exclusionary forever. thank you. >> thank you. would you please share that with the staff, if you can get a chance. next speaker. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is lang. i work for a drawing and design, architecture firm in the city, in downtown. and i just want to say i appreciate the thoughtful questions and the concerns that you brought to us today. because those are also the same things that we've been discussing in our offices, between my colleagues and i. but today i come to you as a longtime san francisco native, believe it or not. there are a handful of us still

living in the city. i grew up in the outer sunset, where i attended lowell high school. to this day, i'm still living in the neighborhood with a family of my own. and fortunate to be able to own a home, just several blocks from where i grew up. now i bring this up with you, because as a homeowner and someone who wants to remain in the city, and invest in our city, the proposed legislation makes it increasingly difficult to expand. and make improvements to my home for a growing family such as mine and for other families who are looking to settle their roots here. the proposed additions in the legislation would put limits in place that are not family friendly. for instance, one of the commissioners mentioned that 1200 square foot limits per unit, which seems unrealistically low for expanded families. particularly if there's an interest in multi-generational living. and in my case, my parents are a couple of blocks from where i

live, when one passes away, we're hoping that they can come and live with us. [bell ringing] and so we're not given the opportunity to expand. how do we accomplish that? how do i take care of my family? how do i invest in this city, when i can't even invest in my own home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jennifer fever with the san francisco tenants' union. so the easiest way to protect tenants and affordable rents to keep them housed in the first place. it's been a very frustrating few years for us. we've had a bunch of tenants come to us worried about losing their homes during extensive renovations. so we started experimenting with filing d.r.s and we've learned a lot about the planning department and their process. most surprising to me the planning staff had no directive to consider how permits affect existing tenants. the planning code is written so

narrowly, they can claim to have hamstrung rather than considering humans in their plans. tenants are 65% of the population. we should matter. i challenge the architects in this room to hold the public forum about their role in our displacement. surely you can see how this system can be abused by speculators, looking for any way to get rid of rent-controlled tenants and avoid compensating them. i support the legislation for the tenant protections, notification and penalties. it's a declaration under perjury, you don't need new data. if you need data, call us, we have the data. the projects where we filed discretionary review created no new affordable housing. in fact, several projects eliminated the sound, reasonably sized units on the ground floor and substituted monstrous two-story pent houses. because the result was the name number of units in the building, we were told that this not considered a loss of rent-controlled units. when obviously it is. [bell ringing] anyone can look at the plans and

see that that small unit disappeared. this kind of speculation does not benefit our city. it just increases the potential value of destroying sound housing. on our d.r.s, the planning staff always recommended approval, even after we pointed out that tenants living there now would be displaced. and the commission would say no. so you can see where we'd be without a commission process. the legislation will benefit us all in this room. it will reduce my workload and your workload. [bell ringing] we need clear -- >> thank you. thank you. thank you for your comments. thank you. next speaker. >> hello, good afternoon. eye name is kathy and i work with senior and disability action and the anti-eviction project. i live in district 8, which has suffered more rental unit losses than any other district. it's gratifying to see the sensitivity that's gone into the housing preservation and

expansion reform act, regarding tends. i'm sure that all tenants appreciate that they would get a notice, existing tenants, with accurate plans, work description, counseling service. revelation of all work done and the last five years to avoid incremental demos. declaration of whether work will be a loss of a rent-controlled unit or whether a tenant has occupied the unit in the last seven years. mergers of rent-controlled units should not be permitted. we like the planning commission's criteria and project review will not result in loss of affordable housing unit or rent-controlled unit. also it's great that site visits of the d.b.i. staff with the planners would be in the work. it's very demoralizing to suddenly see buildings go dark in one's neighborhood and then demo crews move in to gut, pull apart a building. what happened to the people

living there, who can afford the new bulkier product. who can afford it are less than 20% of the population in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. thank you. >> good morning, commissioner. my name is joel. i live in lower hay. per parents rented an apartment and attended mission high school as a teenager. i bring this up because supervisor peskin brought up a -- on racist history. in the early 1900s, rich white people -- westwood park and eagle side terrace. they need the requirement by pie flag to neighborhood detached housing and guarantee mad no apartments would be guilt to keep people of color out.

today these places barely have any apartments and still the same wealthy homes and the defense letter of white people -- of provisional white people. this bill rewarded the -- sorry, i'm a little upset. it requires that the height scale of so-called character of neighborhoods be prevented by proposing housing project. the mission always have apartments. this language will ensure that ingleside tenants will never. while congress is currently talking about -- [inaudible]. please don't let this bill get away without the permits. thank you. >> thank you. full disclosure, ip live on the west side. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is robert. i also live in lower hay. i'm here because this bill does

not, quote unquote, incentivize density as supervisor peskin claims, in order to create what legislative aide hepner claims to be a quote fast track for expansions that will turn single family homes into duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes unquote, source from twitter. in fact, this bill -- proposed expansions will be subject to a complex and one sight -- one-size-fits-all. most would be required to receive conditional use authorization to proceed and as we have heard, would be ineligible for approval. also remind you that the budget and elective analyst office of the board of supervisors has found that the average conditional use authorization takes over 290 days to issue. that's the new default process. the purported fast track process would consist of the current process of receiving a permit from the planning department. that would be the least accurate definition of fast tracking i have ever heard.

[laughter] supervisor peskin wants to, quote, stem the tide of demolitions, but over 88% of losses of rent-controlled housing in the last decade came from ellis act evisions and owner move-ins. -- it's hard to understand why the public must wade through 70 pages of legal-ease in a three-hour meeting for legislation, which would have far-reaching consequences in every area except the affect it's trying to achieve. if the supervisor truly wants to fast track expansions, then i propose a very simple solution. minimum zoned density. let's not forget that rh-1 zoning is mansion zoning for a single family home. get rid of rh-1 zoning and set minimum density requirements for rh-2 and rh-3. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners. greg, a realtor here in san

francisco. i oppose this legislation. and i'm specifically i'm here on behalf of my middle class homeowners, who i help find homes here in the city. there's one family in particular that comes to mind, just in the last few months. a family that was renting a house in the outer richmond. they were able to scrape enough money together to buy a very small house in the outer richmond. this is a family that's lived here for many years. they have two daughters that go to public school in the neighborhood. and they have an elderly mother that lives with them as well, extended family. and they were able to get into this house that needs lots of work. and with the intent that over time they will be able to open up the floor plan, so it makes sense for their family. and to add another room for their mother to live there. the idea of adding a conditional use process for something as minimal as this, would just really add a huge burden to a

family like this. and other families that want to do similar type projects. so i ask you to please not accept this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm here today to strongly oppose the proposed legislation. i understand and appreciate the spirit of this piece of legislation to prevent the few bad actors from lying on their permit applications, like what happened recently. the key phrase is a few. a 70-page legal document is not required. in fact, this could be handled with one page of section. sections 103.1 requiring a preman inspection what the city of oakland does. and to call out for another inspection when dry rot is uncovered, solve the problem, by requiring inspections. i support those changes fully, as well as additional penalties

and fees. this is one of the most terrifying pieces of legislation i have ever seen in my 18 years of practice. the change to section 317 to remove building and fire department ability to oversee imminent safety hazard buildings and decide what to be done and wait for a conditional use for over a year is absurd. it affects not only the property owner but also the adjacent properties that may be impacted by an imminent safety hazard. on average, my residential clients will spend two to five years going through a permitting process on a conforming addition. those projects don't even necessarily come to your commission. that's how long it takes. i had a client recently wait fives -- no variances, no hearings. in that span, they had a child, sent the child to school, their marriage failed, and they filed for divorce. that's a snapshot of how people's lives change while they wait for permits to be approved. [bell ringing] not only that, the construction costs have doubled in that timeline. now they can't even afford to do

the project. these are not my -- my clients are not rich, they're small family having their first time or having an elderly parent move in with them. this legislation makes an ard ewous and time-consuming process much worse. we need legislation that makes it easier to modify the homes and businesses. maybe people wouldn't lie on the permit application if the process was simpler and faster. >> thank you. thank you. terrify stop you -- i have to stop you there. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is neil schwartz. i have run an architecture practice in san francisco for nearly 25 years. i'm a professor of architecture at the california school of arts. worked closely with the planning department, often supporting vocally their expertise and efforts to create thoughtful policy around complex issues. well, many of us can emphasize

with the goals of this legislation, it represents a grab bag of goals and scattered shot policies, none of which are yet supported by careful consideration of the real-world implications. these are critical issues for our city and they deserve the full expertise of planning and building staff, and others to craft targeted policies to address them. this legislation may feel good to many of those who seek action, but from a policy perspective, it's one of the worst ways to make thoughtful, targeted and lasting change. i urge you to reject this legislation in its entirety. but break down its goals and work with the planning and building department experts on crafting more targeted policy with more assured outcomes. thank you. >> thank you, mr. schwartz. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm nancy warfell. i support the proposed draft legislation. to address the unlawful

demolition of sound housing and to set uniform standards. there are so many loopholes in the current planning and building codes that both codes fail to stop the destruction of housing, much less actually deter the continuation of these practices in the future. new controls to preserve our existing housing stock are long overdue. we need to require all building permits, planning applications and revisions to be submitted under penalty of perjury by the project sponsor or representative. next, we need to support greater financial penalties for violating the codes as proposed in this legislation, that will truly impact bottom line of profits for developer, who see the current fines as just the cost of doing business. there are many appropriate recommendations in this legislation to enforce the goals to preserve affordable housing neighborhood character. to facilitate this new work, i request that both commissions

add more money to your annual budgets, submitted to the mayor, to fund and implement the improved review procedures and enforcement actions for code enforcement. this money will be spent on the money -- spent by the city to be actually preserving housing. and we can afford it with a $12.3 billion city budget. i am here to give you the tools to do the job that you want. [bell ringing] and to get rid of all of these complaints that it costs too much money or takes too much time. i want you to have whatever it takes to keep our housing in san francisco the way it is. and with improvements. and with standards that everybody can live by. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm karen payson, i practice architecture here in the city. i lead a firm in north beach. i live in noe valley and i'm a member of the a.i.a. public

policy action committee. stop illegal demolitions and mergers is a worthwhile goal and it sounds great. but the legislation, the way it's written, reaches far beyond that mission. the proposal is written more like a wish list of various interests. it has a grab bag of regulations, which will have a lot of unintended consequences. and will ultimately undermine the city's stated goals of providing more housing and retaining families. a lot of measures run counter to the goal of retoring and retaining existing housing stocks has been said today, for example. classifying the removal of dry rot and temporary removal of structural elements during construction as demolition. it's not productive. these are important issues. and i would hope that they could be resolved with the planning department and the building department, working carefully together. it's not the purview of the board of supervisors, even

mr. hepner acknowledged that he did not understand the case studies presented. i urge you to reject this legislation in its entirety. instead as i mentioned, i hope that these -- the departments under these boards will work together to craft a more targeted policy with much more sustainable outcomes. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president and commissioner melgar, president and commissioners. my name is ross, i'm an architect. i'm the current chair of the a.a.a. public policy committee and i lived in san francisco for 23 years. i wouldn't be standing here today if this legislation were in place when i moved here. i built my first house myself over a period of many yearswork the benefit of many permits. because it was all i could afford and all i could do. this law would have prohibited my presence today.

this is an aspirational piece of legislation. and we all agree that there are holes in the definitions of demolition. beyond that it goes far -- greater with the aspirations and it suffers from a tremendous amount of overreach, attempting to lump density, housing growth, control, and residential design into a single law and creating an additional demand on an already overburdened system and overburdened commissions, that railroad struggle with the permit streamlining act. as a result, there are a host of contradictions written into this single piece of legislation. a lot of which you have heard about. first and foremost, i want to say very clearly that this is a pro-housing proposal, that is wrapped in an antigrowth law. and that is a fundamental contradiction from the outset. i'd also like to say statistically i currently 35 projects in my studio, 30 of those are in san francisco, five of them will be before the planning commission in the

current code, in this new legislative environment, 27 of them will be before you. i also spoke with lewis butler, who san architect, who i'm sure you're familiar with, he had 30 projects in san francisco, all 30 of them will come before you, in this law passes. we've already talked about the 1200 square foot maximum and where this number may arise and whether or not it truly represents family housing. so i won't take your time with that. i do want to point out that we make proposition m findings when we come before these commissions. and these findings demand that we make a maximum preparedness for earthquakes and when you take that in concert with the even temporary removal of walls, constituting demolition, we simply can't create the earthquake preparedness that we know we need. finally, in terms of process, i want to say in regards to transparency, i'm deeply disappointed by what i see as politically motivated piece of legislation. that is divisive, exclusionary

and despite our -- as a -- thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tim rooney. i lived in san francisco for over ten years, during that time i moved among seven different apartments before finally abandoning the dream of making a permanent home in san francisco and heading east. i now commute in daily. my story is frustrating, but it is not unique. i'm sure everyone in the room would agree a dire shortage of housing in san francisco. it's the single biggest issue we face. it's difficult to understand how the proposed legislation would not make this situation worse. we desperately need affordable housing and yet a single unit of affordable housing could not be demolished to create 100 in its place. this is not hyperbole. no further than 400 -- or 450 o'farrell. i would encourage the commission to work with a trusted architect or planner to perform a

retroactive study and determine which other projects might not exist today, had this legislation been in place. we need more rental using and a single unit cannot be demolished. meaning to create additional housing one needs to leave a unit vacant for seven years, we don't need vacant housing and we can't wait seven years. we need housing today. we need more safe and code compliant housing, yet unauthorized unit would need to be brought up to code before eligible for demolition. this is wasteful. it's irresponsible. we don't need to repair dilapidated housing only to demolish it. we need to build safe housing give -- quickly and efficiently. replacement in any demolished unit needs to be comparatively sized to those demolished, not exceed the average size of any units within 300 feet, yet be no larger than 1200 square feet and the list goes on. we need large family housing and

we need small affordable by design housing. we don't need arbitrary rules impossible to abide by. most insidious if the impact this legislation has on the permitting process. >> thank you, mr. rooney. thank you. >> hello. i'm megan silver. i've been a resident in san francisco for over eight years and concerned that this legislation has a negative impact on the city. my husband and i are looking to start a family, which starts with buying a house. as we all know, it's extremely difficult for ordinary residents, like myself, to afford any type of housing in san francisco.

the average person will have to hire a land-use attorney just to help them navigate through the red tape. while i understand that people don't want san francisco to change, this will unfortunately lead to older homes rotting, because no reasonable home buyer will touch them giving the new additional costs and timelines. what happens with the homeowner needs to retroactive fit the home for an earthquake, based on the proposed legislation, they could be waiting years. this will make already old housing inventory of san francisco virtually impossible to improve. i strongly believe the permitting process should actually be faster and more streamlined, so we see more housing of every type on the market to meet the ever-increasing demands in san francisco. if passed, this legislation will further impact the already overstretched planning department, and will divert resources away from getting housing on the market in a timely manner. as a result, supply will be restricted and housing prices will increase. as somebody who is looking to buy a house in the near future, this scares me.

all of the costs and uncertainty will price me and a lot of other people out of san francisco. i hope you take these points into consideration. thank you. [ please stand by ] >> it's counterproductive to create affordable houseing.

the topic was addressed in the report that was prepared by the planning department in 2017. as well as defining the need. the need is there. san francisco currently has the lowest percentage of children of any u.s. city. we also have the highest construction costs of any city. only 18% of households have children. compared to 29% nationwide.

it's occasionized by the response sponsors, families want a three bedroom homes with two baths and room for the family to grow and change. next speaker, please. y , my name is mina young. i've been a resident for 40 years in san francisco. i have two kids in college, i have a house, single family house in the richmond. and it's zoned for multiple units. when my kids grow up, i wanted to -- i've been saving money,

but things are just not going the way that we were planning to. [ please stand by ]

please stand by stop this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. please. i'm a california licensed architect and i've lived and practiced in san francisco for 25 years. i'm a member of a a.i.a. for architect and the problems these requirements create i appreciate the supervisor peskin understands the value of architects and the ordinance requires the california licensed architects be retained for projects requiring 311 and 317

notifications. however, some create professional situations because they demand work beyond the professional standard of care and practice these demands are practical, uninsurable and unethical and unlawful. i have consulted with two lawyers, my insurance broker and a risk management consultant. through the heavy handed requirements for criminal penalties for in acree sees, they suggest the perfection is required and this is a complete lack of knowledge about architectural contracts, construction responsibilities and the flow of information that takes place during the course of a project. perfection is not the standard and under common law and state statutory law, perfection is considered impossible and it could be improper for san francisco to require it. negligence is not a lie and perjury wouldn't apply. according to the same expert is

inconsistent with the duty of a designed professional to the client and these examples illustrate several problems with the unfounded overreach right throughout the ordinance which will cause more legal, financial, ethical and practiceel problems than it solved and they cannot participate in the reconstruction of a demolished building that had as pose tim hortons and be against our professional duty to practical that in the event of an illegal demolition. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. my name is iver collins and i'm a real estate agent. i am here to voice my concerns about the proposed legislation and its impact on my clients. a list will impact many of my clients there's one set of clients that i'd like to tell you a story about. i helped them to find a house on