a preapplication is where it is out. by the time 311 happens, it's frankly, too late and not a lot of good changes are ever made on behalf of neighbors who are inquiring. frankly, it is the enemy of good architecture. what happens is architects come up with great plans and neighbors opposes them andit gets a planning commission and maybe they are taking into consideration the neighbors input, but what they do is dumbed down the project. the practice of architecture is gone. the thing with these pop outs at the rear, you have to consider our housing stock is aging beyond its intended time limit. that the single family homes in the city, most of them were not built to last 150 years and we are asking them to last 150 years. when a family that has lived in a house for a long time needs to upgrade, section 317 is way to retreat difficult and complicated for them to make major changes. they want to do a pop out. they have to go to 311 and there architect assuage them. next thing you know, they are selling the house, and who c

the preapplication meeting is a commission policy. what we would do is return to the commission to advise them as to what the boment where and they can establish in their poli tha preapplication meeting should be required for the popout. >> right. i would do a hybrid of the two. i think there definitely should be a preapplication. that should be a requirement if we are going to do over-the-counter for pop outs. i believe that more than just a postcard and something online. if you are an immediate neighbors in the lot behind a property that is getting a popout, you should get a full set of plans and have the opportunity, whether it is certified mail, or something, to know that neighbour -- that neighbors and the lot behind has received the plans as proposed. >> that's right. currently with a preapplication materials, what is sent would not be change for this ordinance. >> the preapplication would include the immediate neighbors in the lot behind. >> that's right. and the plants for the project. >> and the full plans. if we want to have

the same project noticed 400 neighbors for the initial preapplication. that is because we were adjacent to two multistory buildings. in that case, you know, no one showed up, of course. it is a one-story addition. it will go through three other notifications. i do applaud the idea of trying to make it simple. trying to make it less expensive so these little projects don't get caught in just all the planning. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. last year, i was the only dr applicant against this project where the developer had concealed to the existence of his 93-year-old tenant, carl johnson, who had been living there for 63 years. i'm grateful you too this and voted in my favour and i'm sorry that carl did not live long enough to see that. of how i filed that dr and that should give you an insight into the world of the average san francisco resident that gets a 311 neighbourhood notification. i got mine, and looking at the attached plans, i knew immediately my neighborhood development would encroach my light and privacy.

so we give them a packet that explains how to do the preapplication meeting, which said who you have to mail, you provide the plan sets and shows you all the things that you need to bring back to us no sooner than two weeks after that time, to give people time to attend the meeting. and show us and prove that all of the information is true, so show that the preapplication meeting happened. at that point in time, we'll do the intake of the permit application. we'll create the record within a week electronically. and it will wait to get on a planner's desk. >> president hillis: will the notice go out at that point? >> no. >> president hillis: why not? >> we need to look at what has been proposed. [please stand by] >> -- rather than the building permit in that case, so you would come in, apply for the c.u., see if we need to have them apply for what the right type of environmental use permit is. we do the plan check, make sure the environmental planning is all in order. >> president hillis: but the same general process would happen. you have a general app meeting, followed by whatever c

it's a preapplication. >> it is a preapplication meeting. what happened -- i don't know what our typical process it in determining the base density bonus. it is challenging because there's no more base density limits, so we have to minimum some assumptions based on bulk how many one would get in the base. we did it on patrick kennedy's -- >> president hillis: we did it on mission street. >> we did it in mission street. i suspect that's probably why we don't have it yet, but i understand the concern that we don't know the actual numbers at this point in time. we can make sure that the project sponsor, when we do get that calculation, then goes back to the community. with that number, we can try to make sure that happens. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i hear the concern miss sciuto brought up, and i think the project sponsor has to said, this is that, open me. we can do something to make sure people pay attention to anonymous looking pieces of mail. >> i think last time you directed us to w

preapplication is required as well as notices from the building department. the proposal to remove neighborhood notice for pop-outs is a significant part of the legislation that we think will be heard today. pop-outs at 300 to 350 living space, a bedroom and a little extra living space, usually to accommodate growing families. they're code-complaint, because they're part of the neighborhood character in all of the residential neighborhoods. it's the expansion encouraged by the department. they never enroach into mid clock open space or required rear yards. of the 250 permits filed for rear additions, only 5 of them get a d.r. filed and only two or three are modified by the commission. we have to think of neighborhood notice as a way to deter similar developments, like a c.u. if we want this moderate expansion over monster houses, we should remove this. as you can see, architects encourage clients to go down the path of least resistance. people are more likely to take this approach than out-of-scale expansions, the ones that typically do get d.r.s. taken toget

the money and drawing it up at least get something in writing from the planning department a preapplication meeting is in ord. >> the question is if converting a two unit into a 3 unit building is raises the risk category up and window opening allowances are reduced because it is a higher category building and setbacks of stairs and stuff like that do they have to be separate move if he's converting from a 2 to a 3 unit and the new exit requirements apply it is a case by case for each building and should be reviewed under a preapplication with the dbi and planning and fire and staff. >> can i add into my answer in section 311 we were reviewing we will be reviewing expansion under the residential design guidelines so that will still be a component for adding an adu all projects will be reviewed from the guidelines and policies and code so that should be noted for none adding an adu there is still the existing guidelines you'll have to conform to. >> last question for jimmy let's say we're undergo a legalization process we have plumbing inspections and other inspections he went through is it

it's totally a item that we could come back and talk about what the preapplication policy is. for example, we've made some changes over the years to make sure that it is -- they have to be after working hours, because it is common sense. that's better to do that here with the commission to again, rely exclusively on what's in the code. so preapplication process is always something we can look at and make sure it serves this purpose to its best intent. i certainly welcome that. >> commissioner richards: i completely agree, it's just we hear so many times, neighbor a to neighbor b, i didn't hear about it. do we continue it because of that? and we do, more often than, err on the side of caution. i think we all agree on the affordable housing piece. what do we do? >> president hillis: well, one, there's stuff that could be done without an ordinance, so, you know, we talked about if you remove pop outs from not having notification, there's improvements to the process that are not -- that are not needed. the legislation is not needed. your common residential expansions can be done,t

so, i think what we have to look at carefully with this is the preapplication way you are going to be looking and notifying people with a.d.u., how are neighbors going to be notified? how much more space outside the building envelope are developers going to be given? and adding additional a.d.u. to a new building under this legislation may mean the number of dwelling units in the building exceeds coach. i think we are headed that way very quickly. and lastly pack language regarding permitting unauthorized units needs to be stronger. i find this legislation a little bit vague and easy to interpret and would like to see it tightened up. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good day commissioners. i am a tenant and tenant advocate concerns that tenants residing in properties were a.d.u. would be added do not have a say in the planning process. tenants don't get a heads up about what will happen where they live because no notification is required, and now there is no plan to include tenants in the newly proposed optional pre-op meeting. that a property -- property owner would be able to

we should do further exploration around pop outs as it relates to preapplication meetings. i'm open to doing that. i think we have been used to do that. i think if we want to get the most important part done, which is the streamlining around 100% affordable, while maintaining the kind of level of neighborhood "-right-double-quote and inclusion, we've got the right formula for today. >> locate. for the points our clarity, it was my understanding the amendment that you provided two arsenals are equal to your original amendment. so i thought we had done that. >> we did. i put it in writing because it was verbalized by deputy city attorney. the addition, which is on page 47, which i handed up earlier and handed out again in this clipped copy, the clarifications around language access, and no caps, would be an additional amendment. >> so you're making at a motion to amend that particular porti portion, and that would amend your current amendment? is there a second? colleagues, can we take that without objection? without objection, the motion passes. >> to buy. several, although

the preapplication process should be expanted and more formalized.lanners can update neighbors and interested parties by e-mail to let them know what's going on. ongoing dialogue is very important. the limited rear yards should not be approved over the [inaudible]. when you decide to change whatever notice, i think it needs to have a meeting with community members prior to implementation. post cards or even half sizes are not enough. again, 11 by 17 plans must be mailed to immediate neighbors, occupants and interested parties when they are finalized by the staff. plans must show the relationship to the adjacent buildings and must be accurate and must be complete and have a graphic scale and show -- [bell ringing] [audio sts] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. coalition for ancisan fro neighborhoods. submitted a letter on may 24 and i'll add it to the pile of papers over here that is on the ledge. to summarize the letter, there was initially an issue i showed on the overhead of lack of public out reach and stakeholders did not incl

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

i think a mandatory preapplication hearing forces that conversation, forces a full set of plans, and i think that one of the issues that i have is we're trying to truly just free up some staff time so that we can put some of this important housing development on the agenda and move it forward. that's the only issue that i had, and that's why i think this warrants a little bit more conversation. so -- but i'm happy to hear from the sponsoring supervisor. >> president breed: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: as i tried to say at the beginning, rear yard pop outs aren't about solving san francisco's housing problems. the reality is this -- our housing department is fee driven, for better or worse. this whole notion that it frees up staff time is rather questionable, if not dubious. they're not being paid with ad valorem tax revenue, they're being paid. so the notion that you stop fees in one place and somehow this is going to miraculously free up staff time, this doesn't make sense. if you've got this other project, this project has fees, whether it's lennar at the shipyard or th

. >> will we be having a similar preapplication or project review meeting with d.b.i.? or do we give you a normal plan check process, fifth floor? is that a detailed -- >> you don't need that. ok. >> do we need to clarify for the record what the building department requirements are? >> sure. [laughter] >> these first meetings back and everyone is coming back from vacation and they are always challenging. >> what i would have to do is contact the deputy director of the plan review and ask him if a member of staff can review the drawings for conformity. i know what i want on them as well. it includes a different scope of work and the language on the permit applications are wrong, as well. not just the plans. the description of work which could be modified on the drawings. because of the number of windows that we are dealing with with the notice of violation. i can have plans reviewed. it kind of -- it's ok. i can figure out a way to do -- review the plan. >> i heard earlier, you want structural plants. that's one thing that you want, right? >> yeah. >> okay. >> architectu