again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's things, all those things, it's very important that you do so.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style.

it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

>> my s.f. dove -- government t.v. moment was when i received a commendation award from supervisor chris daly. then we sang a duet in the board chamber. [singing] >> happy anniversary san francisco government t.v. happy anniversary to you. happy anniversary san francisco government t.v. anniversary, anniversary, happy 25th anniversary to you. [♪]

>> i view san francisco almost as a sibling or a parent or something. i just love the city. i love everything about it. when i'm away from it, i miss it like a person. i grew up in san francisco kind of all over the city. we had pretty much the run of the city 'cause we lived pretty close to polk street, and so we would -- in the summer, we'd all all the way down to aquatic park, and we'd walk down to the library, to the kids' center. in those days, the city was safe and nobody worried about us running around. i went to high school in spring valley. it was over the hill from chinatown.

it was kind of fun to experience being in a minority, which most white people don't get to experience that often. everything was just really within walking distance, so it make it really fun. when i was a teenager, we didn't have a lot of money. we could go to sam wong's and get super -- soup for $1. my parents came here and were drawn to the beatnik culture. they wanted to meet all of the writers who were so famous at the time, but my mother had some serious mental illness issues, and i don't think my father were really aware of that, and those didn't really become evident until i was about five, i guess, and my marriage blew up, and my mother took me all over the world. most of those ad ventures ended

up bad because they would end up hospitalized. when i was about six i guess, my mother took me to japan, and that was a very interesting trip where we went over with a boyfriend of hers, and he was working there. i remember the open sewers and gigantic frogs that lived in the sewers and things like that. mostly i remember the smells very intensely, but i loved japan. it was wonderful. toward the end. my mother had a breakdown, and that was the cycle. we would go somewhere, stay for a certain amount of months, a year, period of time, and she would inevitably have a breakdown. we always came back to san francisco which i guess came me some sense of continuity and that was what kept me sort of stable. my mother hated to fly, so she would always make us take ships places, so on this particular occasion when i was, i think, 12, we were on this ship getting ready to go through the

panama canal, and she had a breakdown on the ship. so she was put in the brig, and i was left to wander the ship until we got to fluorfluora few days later, where we had a distant -- florida a few days later, where we had a distant cousin who came and got us. i think i always knew i was a writer on some level, but i kind of stopped when i became a cop. i used to write short stories, and i thought someday i'm going to write a book about all these ad ventures that my mother took me on. when i became a cop, i found i turned off parts of my brain. i found i had to learn to conform, which was not anything i'd really been taught but felt very safe to me. i think i was drawn to police work because after coming from

such chaos, it seemed like a very organized, but stable environment. and even though things happening, it felt like putting order on chaos and that felt very safe to me. my girlfriend and i were sitting in ve 150d uvio's bar, and i looked out the window and i saw a police car, and there was a woman who looked like me driving the car. for a moment, i thought i was me. and i turned to my friend and i said, i think i'm supposed to do this. i saw myself driving in this car. as a child, we never thought of police work as a possibility for women because there weren't any until the mid70's, so i had only even begun to notice there were women doing this job. when i saw here, it seemed like this is what i was meant to do. one of my bosses as ben johnson's had been a cop, and he -- i said, i have this weird

idea that i should do this. he said, i think you'd be good. the department was forced to hire us, and because of all of the posters, and the big recruitment drive, we were under the impression that they were glad to have us, but in reality, most of the men did not want the women there. so the big challenge was constantly feeling like you had to prove yourself and feeling like if you did not do a good job, you were letting down your entire gender. finally took an inspector's test and passed that and then went down to the hall of justice and worked different investigations for the rest of my career, which was fun. i just felt sort of buried alive in all of these cases, these unsolved mysteries that there were just so many of them, and some of them, i didn't know if we'd ever be able to solve, so my boss was able to get me out of the unit. he transferred me out, and a

couple of weeks later, i found out i had breast cancer. my intuition that the job was killing me. i ended up leaving, and by then, i had 28 years or the years in, i think. the writing thing really became intense when i was going through treatment for cancer because i felt like there were so many parts that my kids didn't know. they didn't know my story, they didn't know why i had a relationship with my mother, why we had no family to speak of. it just poured out of me. i gave it to a friend who is an editor, and she said i think this would be publishable and i think people would be interested in this. i am so lucky to live here. i am so grateful to my parents who decided to move to the city. i am so grateful they did. that it never

[gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and well come to the land use and transportation committee meeting of july 8, 2019. i am joined by supervisor safai to my left and matt haney to my

right. our clerk is miss erica major. miss clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please silence all cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the july 16 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major, and i hope that everybody had a good extended july 4 holiday. madam clerk, could you please read the first item. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you. this item has been brought to us by supervisor mandelman. supervisor mandelman, the floor is uyourself.

>> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair peskin. i have a few amendments that i would like to offer, and i also understand the chair has some amendments, as well. the ordinance before the committee does two things. first, it extends controls that protected alleyways and narrow streets in transit oriented and neighborhood commercial districts to also protect alleyways and narrow streets in residential zoning districts rh-1, d, s, 2, and rh-3. the ordinance makes it easier to add accessory dwelling units as back yard cottages on corner lots and through lots. now i must admit this ordinance

stemmed from frustration at the board of appeals. in march 2017, the planning commission heard a request for discretionary review on a project in glen park adjacent to an alleyway known to local historians as the old mission trail. no one knew that this little scrap of land could be a developable project. what really burned me up about this case was that when the developer then appealed the commission's decision to the

board of appeals in february 2018, the board took it upon itself to undo two of the modest concessions the commission had required, removing the light well and allowing the roof deck. now by the time i took seat on the board, all the work had begun, and there did not seem to be a clean way to roll back a project gone wrong. i did learn that although our laws protect alleys and narrow streets in back yard and commercial districts, it does not apply to back yard alleys and narrow streets in residential districts.

the alleyway protections in this ordinance are relatively straightforward. ordinance mak basically, these limits require that upper stories be set back at least 10 feet at the property line starting at a height 1.25 times the width of the abutting streets, and . the main provisions of the ordinance addressing rear-yard cottages are as follows. second residential buildings will be permitted on both

through lots and corner lots where the existing building has an adjacent building on permitted corners of the lot. in order to create space for secondary structures on corner lots and lots, the ordinance would allow these lots or rear yard a structure equal to 20% of the total lot depth but not less than 15 feet. and then for existing nonconforming buildings, the ordinance provides that for the person creating habitable space and as long as the number of li living space is increased -- i understand this is also going to have some additional

amendments. i do have my own amendments to propose today, and they reflect feedback our office received from the planning department and planning commission. i understand these are considered substantive, and that even if introduced today, they will need to be voted on at a subsequent committee meeting. changes are shown as page 2, lane 14, and page 3, lines 5 to 9, and page 17, lines 6 to 7. specifically, if a property owner does choose to increase the ceiling height of an existing tonight or to change a flat roof to a pitched roof, such changes are not subject to 311 notice requirement but would need to adhere to residential design guidelines. a second amendment focusing on

structures that faces a back alley or lot. currently, the code requires the maximum set back of 15 feet from the property line or 15% of the average density of the lot, whichever's greater. our initial draft reduced this back to 15% of average depth, the thinking on a nary alleyway, a left ward look might be appropriate. shown at page 5, line 14, modifies language regarding the purpose of rear yards. the ordinance adds a purpose to section 134, which in the

original states that rear yard requirements were intended among other things to provide residents with open space and views into green spaces. our amendment clarifies that the purpose is to protect views into rear yard green spaces. a fourth proposed amendment at page 5, lines 15 to 16 provides the ordinance's height limits for narrow streets and alleyways will not apply to building frontages with a street wider than 40 feet. the purpose of this amendment is to respect and give effect to long-standing guidance emphasizing height at street corners. and my last amendment at page 16, lines 4 to 5 limited set back to 15 feet of buildings

that are higher than two stories above grade. i want to thank everyone who helped out, and finally, i want to thank all of you committee members for your time and consideration. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor mandelman. as you indicated, i also have a handful of amendments which your office is aware of, and i think are acceptable to you. they primarily actually amend the concept of habitable space to the notion of accessory dwelling units. [please stand by]

proposed a few modifications

very quickly. clarification of the process. further studying the effects for narrow street and allie's. that concludes my presentation. setback requirements, clarification for narrow streets on allie's and the rh or rm districts and modifying the language around the purpose so that concludes my

presentation. >> thank you mr. sanchez. supervisor tran15, if it's acceptable before opening this up for public comment, i just want to eat to the amendments that i mentioned. would provide that the rear yard depth would only apply. i will read the language. that we would add, provided however that the administrator may reduce the total depth to 20 percent pursuant to section 307 of this code. if reduction is for the sole purpose under section 207-c4 and provided further that any reduction or waiver of this requirement is in consideration of the property owner entering

into regulatory agreement pursuant to section 207-c4 h subjecting the adu to the san francisco rent stabilization arbitration ordinance. i think i spoke to the rationale for that which basically is - if we are conferring an increase in property value, it should really be done for a public purpose with some public value recapture. the cities waiver program pursuant to exception and hawkins is the only way to do that. the second amendment would be at page 12 to modify the language on lines 24-25 with regards to increase ceiling height which would provide, however, that the purpose of creating delete habitable space and insert an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to 207-c4. i did not add, in what is before you, but have since discussed with

the city attorney also adding the language providing further any waiver of this requirement is in consideration of the property owner entering into regulatory agreement for the stabilization ordinance. i would like to add that language. as with the language that the supervisor mandel men that it would require a continuance to a future hearing, presumably next week. the third amendment would be at page 13 to modify the underlying language on lines 5-nine. if a building is a historic resource are located in

the historic district alterations comply with applicable secretary of interior standards and other code provisions pertaining to historic properties. finally, the fourth amendment under x-band alleyway and narrow street height limit to all of our districts. currently it reads. [reading items] i would like it to read modify our, so that would also include residential districts in the narrow street. those would be the amendment that i would offer, why don't we hear from the public on item number one. we will open this up to public comment. >> good afternoon super divisors. - - - supervisors. i

want to express our support for this support. as he mentioned, many cities are really looking at these low density zoning districts that they have. these cover half of san francisco's land area is our h-one and our h-two. adding building owners, if to make bigger and bigger and bigger units. we have a weird work in our zoning code which says you can build a monster home in half of the city you just cannot build a smaller building or add units to a building or add a cottage in the back. which is a ridiculous thing to do. it's making the city less affordable. it is encouraging owners to destroy sound housing not to create more units about to make bigger houses. it's not adding to our diversity of housing. it's pushing us further and further

of affordability. starting with corner lots and rear lots in terms of a way to add cottages seems sensible. we are big fans of private open space. there would still be a rear yard between front and rear buildings. we are trying to preserve those areas also there is some provisions here which says if you are building a single-family house speaker, nancy pelosi one an next speaker, please. it cannot cover as much lot as it does now. the goal is, let's preserve existing housing area just want to comment on the proposed modifications. the provision that allows you to increase height. allows you to increase in existing unit into that or - this would only allow you to add and adu. >> that's the thing i was going

to ask about. the amendment. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here in support of this ordinance, oddly enough i was involved in this particular project, the neighbors actually reached out to me back in 2017 i believe. it was a very odd situation. this particular parcel is a triangular-shaped that is barely 900 square feet. those types of lot are not necessarily uncommon in the city of san francisco. we are dealing with a couple of them. i just wanted to bring up this issue that even within this small 900 square-foot wedge looking lot, the developer was planning on building close to 3000 square

feet. 3000 square feet, i assure you is more than enough for having a single-family home, plus and adu. i reckon it's enough to have 2 adu's in a single-family home. i want you not to give up your original text of the bill that would leave some yard space and would have a requirement to have the rear yard. because once you actually go to three stories, four stories, you could definitely have enough to have aiden adu and a rear yard. anyway i am so ready this legislation and the amendments opposed by supervisor peskin. so thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public for item number

one? please come forward. >> lewis dylan, making san francisco great again coalition. i have reviewed this ordinance and i just want to open up your perception to the fact that we would not be talking about this ordinance if it was not for pay to play politics that run rampant in city hall. much like a lot of societies that have failed in the past, by chopping down the last tree in their environment, this ordinance seeks to take away what little respect and dignity most humans have in their neighborhood which is lack of overpopulation and a little bit of space. it also takes away people's skyline and

compromises people's neighborhood because it adds a lot of density. basically it tries to rework san francisco's historical planning codes which, by the way have been bought and paid for by the people in the city that seem to have no respect for voting right honest election and basic human dignity towards residents in the city. where is the environmental impact of an ordinance that all of a sudden allows people to jump into your neighborhood and build a dwelling? or, allow a dwelling or another person to all of a sudden live in your

neighborhood, when previously they didn't. a bill of overpopulation. >> thank you, sir. are there any other members of the public for this item? if you will please line up to your rights, my left, the floor is yours yet >> my name is karen curtis i'm a practicing architect in san francisco. i'm here today in support of this ordinance. we really think you for creating a path forward for density, and more livable city. our residential districts cover more than half of the lamb in san francisco but hold under 30 percent of the population. as the growth increases we need more places for people to live. i do appreciate this ordinance. i'm going to read one sentence from a letter in support. this is a well-crafted limited in scope to sections of the

planning code and rh districts and promotes the creation of more and better residential units in those districts. it is in support of this proposal. we are just reading the amendment so that will get taken back to our committee. we are definitely in support. and without it would like to turn this into the court. >> good afternoon. i am chair of the public policy and advocacy committee i am here to week in support of this legislation and to think the supervisor and staff are hard work to create common sense initiatives that streamline the code and also promote the kinds of housing development that we would all like to see here. i would like to take one moment to refute what we heard earlier which is simply to say that we as citizens of the city and county and of the state and frankly of this planet need to do our part to house and sustain our population in pattern that are smart growth and make sense. i

believe this legislation represent some of that and we need to shoulder the burden. thank you. >> thank you. no other members of the public prior item number one. public comment is closed. the matter is before the committee and supervisor mandelman. i just had one question. what is the impetus for the notion that flat roofs may be replaced with a pitched roof area does may be subject in your amendments, what is the impotence for that. >> i think the idea is that we are creating more livable spaces that meet code requirement for livability by raising roofs or by converting flat to pitched roofs. >> when we talked about