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 its an rh2 district, two units and rh3 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. Im 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. Doesnt 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 buildings 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 citys 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 its too expensive to live in this city already. And if youre a homeowner and you have to make reparations, whether its 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. Landuse attorney speaking for myself. As you know, i come before the commission almost monthly. Im extremely busy. Im not expensive as many people in the room used me know. This will mean that more and more people will be hiring me. I dont need more cases. I railroad turn away some, im too busy. Even architects are currently hiring me to advise them, because they dont understand all of the current rules. I dont 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 dont agree with everything you do. But by and large, you do very good jobs. Given how much time youre 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 dont see in the legislation any grandfathering for existing projects in the pipeline. [bell ringing] and even if its 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. Thats a tremendous amount of new work. Thank you very much. Thank you. Im 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. Its 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 youre 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 dont necessarily trust what they are doing. [bell ringing] but what they are also doing, theyre 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 dont 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 im sorry. If folks standing in front of the door, could please either find a seat or go to the other flow room. Its 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. Were happy this bees of legislation needs some more work. As currently written, we feel its going to be impossible to do a meaningful, vertical or horizontal expansion, or a demolition of any kind to add more density in the muchneeded rh 1, rh2, rh3 and rh4 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 shouldnt apply for the before the Planning Department proves a violation. If were 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. Im 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. Thats 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 its way too restrictive and doesnt 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 id like to point out a few specific items here about section 319. And floor areas dont work in San Francisco. Done neighborhoodbyneighborhood. 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 were 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 5s 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 25foot. [bell ringing] this threshold needs to be removed immediately. The interior walls that are not seen from public rightofway, and the removal, regardless of the amount, should not trigger a c. E. U. Unless the walls are deemed historic. As written, simple overthecounter 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. Im 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 cant 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 rh2 and the rh3 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 cant 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 builtout 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 . Youll get me in trouble if you keep continuing talking. Hello, im vivian dwyer. Im 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 its 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 womanowned 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. Theyre either young families with children or theyre 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 isnt 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 conditionaluse 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. Im a contractor, developer here since i think 88 in San Francisco. First of all, were 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. Y