The height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. The project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. So it wouldnt be approvable under that criteria. And the units, although similarly sized and with similar exposure, full floor flat plus down, and the other is floor floor unit and up, it exceeds the cap placed in the ordinance. Both roughly 2,000 square feet each. And lastly, the project includes the garage, which is also prohibited under this ordinance. Under section 319, just to sort of weave in all of the implication of this project, some of the criteria are redundant. It wouldnt be permitted under 319, as it adds a new garage. Architectural features are inherently, because its a demo, all of them are being removed. Thats a criteria that makes it prohibited from being approved. The project is less affordable. And the rental question. So again a lot of those criteria are cross referenced. With that ill turn it over to my colleagues at d. D. I. So d. B. I. Doesnt know how many reviews that this project went through with planning. We dont get to see that. Thats entitlement process. But now with every iteration, with planning, there has to be new structural drawings and calculations submitted for d. B. I. To review every iteration, constructability, what not. So if this isnt going to be approved during the new process, regardless of how many iterations thats done, all of the your when you front load the project to retain a design professional, to review and to prepare all of these, you know, the structural drawings and calculation becomes mute at the end, when you cant get approved for the c. E. U. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner. Very quickly. Mr. Reardon, please. First of all, the case study is very helpful in planning in d. B. I. Thank you. Just on slide residential demolition definition there on slide 30. Just i just want to kind of put it in realworld terms for me, as i understand it. 50 of the exterior elements. 50 include the back of the house . The exterior elements would be inclusive of the exterior walls. And the roof structure. Okay. So those would be it would be what literally boxes in the interior of the house. The back of the house. If you remove 50 of the back of the house, that would trigger it. The back of the house would be extear wall. Stairs probably a good estimate. Thats probably about 25 of a front of a house, right . The way it reads, it reads 25 of surface material. So it could just be stucco or shingles. Yeah. Or such. The big one for me is the 75 of the interior. So most of the homes that i look at right now, theyre kind of open floor plans, right. So if im remodeling a kitchen and ive got to make an open floor plan, its probably safe to say that you would be removing close to to that 75 inside your home. Its very likely based on the drawings that we see coming through our department, because there is a push towards having the open floor plan. And not only that, but in as my colleague sue will probably explain to you, theres typically a requirement to upgrade the structure of the floor, to make to spend for this new open floor plan. So that would also include removal and replacement of the floor structure itself. Okay. All right. That could potentially be another calculation that would move the number upward. Okay. Thank you. All right. Madam president. Commissioner walker. Yes. Thank you. In general, you know, im looking at the sections that section 5 specifically in the criteria does not contain a belowmarket rate unit, a rentcontrolled unit or a unit that was occupied by a tenant within the last seven years. I think all of us know the state of a lot of these old buildings. And it i dont want to create a situation where rental units are not upgraded. And so this really needs some attention. I think that the issue is eviction not occupying. So i just want to make sure. Maybe you could clarify if youve had a conversation about this. I know a lot of this stuff is rental units. So i just want to how do we manage that . Right. I would like all of the rental units to be actually habitable. A couple of comments. One, as to the dry rot issue, which i think is rightfully causing consternation among folks, i think we were driven by an imperative in this ordinance to prevent the demolition of sound housing. I think the flip side of that coin is that we should be incentivizing the rehabilitation and maintenance of unsound housing. To the extent theres a conflict here between the planning code and the Building Code and that the planning code says that the removal of verified, documented dry rot, whether weatherization, with likeforlike replacement, does not count towards the demolition replacement. That is the intent of the legislation. I will be the first to admit that in the course of working on this, the Building Code came second. And i dont think that enough attention has been paid to the particulars of the Building Code, in this ordinance. But i just want to be clear that the removal of dry rot, the notion that the removal of a dry rotted deck could require a c. U. Is absurd, even by the sponsors assessment of this ordinance and not the intent of the ordinance. So let me just be clear about that. That we should be incentivizing the rehabilitation and maintenance, thats not the intent of this ordinance to say that dry rot triggers demolition c. E. U. Okay. And just one more comment about the affordability question and i think planning mentioned that the enforceability. Sevenyear lookback on the presence of tenants. This is an emerging idea, an emerging consensus. I do think its interesting that, you know, that standard becomes unenforceable in this context or assigning that burden to and in other contexts its the basis for standing up and im thinking about statewide legislation that uses a similar standard, to say that this is an enforceable tenant protection. So i just want to be clear that its, you know, addressed one way in another context, when were actually talking about making our regulations much more per missive, relative to upzoning and demolition of existing housing. Commissioner moss. Thank you. For mr. Hepner again, please. A lot of the upcoming rehabs, as weve called them, that the housing bond is going to pay for, are hope s. F. Projects. Im just wondering if you believe any of those, what might be full demolitions will be affected. I think its a good question. If theyre likeforlike replacements and actually rehabilitating Housing Stock that needs to be rehabilitated, thats not in the crosshairs of this legislation. Commissioner hillis. Just a question for planning staff on mergers and conversions. Its my sense that weve seen less and less of these, because of the controls weve put in place. Do you have any data . I know this ordinance goes into some detail on changing definitions and adding additional controls to that. But do you have data on how many vergers or conversions weve seen or approved or disapproved . Because i dont recall. Sure. Or at least i recall ra dwindling number. We dont have data in preparation for the hearing. We do anticipate well pull together as much data as we can. Anecdotally a decrease in mergers. I think the commissions policy has been incredibly effective at the staff level. A ton of projects have come in, removing flats and weve been able actually nip those in the bud, because no one wants to come before the Planning Commission at a hearing and changed the project to retain the flats. I think thats been a big driver of the reduction in mergers, as well as the commission being really strict about really not tolerating the loss of housing. Okay, great. I think thats good to codify that. Mr. Hepner, on the last example that miss watty went through, which, you know, we talked about, it was the it was a demo. What i would call sound housing. You know, it wasnt historic and twounit house built there, it could be a three unit. This is where i kind of get just the goals of the legislation kind of conflict with the legislation itself. So on that example, do you think thats a what are you trying to do in this legislation to get at that example . Do you want to see that approved in the and and the process quicked to get at the density increase or seeing that goes through more process. Thats what the goals of the legislation dont quite line up is the language in the legislation. Yeah. Honestly im not familiar with that case study. Id be, you know, probably irresponsible to apply on the particulars of that case. So i wont. But, you know, in as much as the intent of this legislation is to preserve the existing sound housing, as a supervisor mentioned at the outset of this hearing, our existing sound housing tends to be our most Affordable Housing. Even if its not the rent controlled or the deedrestricted Affordable Housing. The existing housing that we have tends to be the more Affordable Housing. I see this case study, its a compelling case. We see this all the time. Sure. We see a Single Family, nonhistoric home thats in an r3 going to three units, is that good or bad, the demo . I think you have to answer that to get at what youre doing here. Respectfully, commissioner, i dont know the particulars of that project. Again thats generally. How can i opine on a project that i dont understand please, be respectful. The intent of this informational hearing is precisely to illicit this type of feedback. That is important for me to take back. This is the first time i have seen this presentation. Its the first time that i have seen this criticism and these case studies, in spite of meeting with the departments regularly for the past six, seven months. The intent of this informational hearing should be to illicit . Of this feedback. I appreciate that. Im not opining on the i agree. And i appreciate that, too. I think when you know to write legislation, we should have your goal, one of the goals up there was to increase density. And if you have a nonhistoric home in an rh3, should you be able to build three units, 1200 square feet or 1300 square feet or are we making that harder or impossible . Yeah. I think its an important point. On some level to that simple question, absolutely yes. Should the density be at the cost of an existing tenant, 120,000 single homes in the city, a third of which occupied by renters not protected by rent control. Theres some exceptions to that. Single family homes are protected. So i look at that case and another question that i have, and i, you know, this presentation is not geared toward understanding what the impact on tenants is. I will i think thats apparent. But i want to know. You know, how many tenants evicted in the past seven years. Should we have the metric before the commission . Absolutely. I think nobody disagrees with that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner koppel. Question for mr. Hepner again. Im not going to get too granular with this question. Im going to kind of take a step back. Im only speaking for planning here. Whether its b. O. A. Or b. I. C. Were up here every thursday. Commissioners moore and fung and myself have some constructability or kind of jobsite knowledge. I feel that we do a really good job in taking all of these projects seriously. And i think we do a good job making our rulings. And, you know, without taking this personally, this kind of language and ordinance is almost slighting us, saying, haney, i dont think you guys are honestly doing a good enough job. Is this even necessary . Let me answer that with a sort of broader assessment of the context that we have trying to address. And this is i think a secondary goal of the legislation is to confront what we perceive as real efforts to eliminate discretion from the approval process. I think that there are merits to that, as long as our code is as long as our code is clear and serves the purpose that it should be serving. But the removal of discretion for this commission is not is happening in other spheres. I think the residential flat policy that this commission has adopted is amazing. Its the reason that weve tried to codify it here. I do believe it has led to a reduction in problem projects. I believe that when staff tells me that. I believe that. I think that codifying a Good Practice so that it has not changed administratively by a future commission. So, you know, also honors some of your work in that regard. But i do believe that creating clear and objective standards in the schedule, provides better notice to project sponsors, provides better notice to departments, provides better notice to community members, who might object to those projects down the line. I think that that is a good thing. Now what those clear and objective standards should be, that should be the topic of debate. Where we set these thresholds, where we set the percentage, where we set the size of existing occupies. That should be the topic of discussion. I agree. So, sorry, commissioner more, before i let you ask, i just had a followup question to commissioner koppels question in, in that, you know, aside from the a bit unfriendly language towards the commission. This legislation is going to have a lot more work in terms of the commission and conditional use applications. We get a couple hundred hours, you know, before 30 and 40 hours of work every week. So im wondering if this legislation is going to provide a raise for the commission or any other, you know, outlet for the increased workload . [laughter] i appreciate the comment. I will say that a comment was made by planning staff earlier, this might actually lead to a reduction in c. E. U. S in as much as youre not getting the c. E. U. You apply for capital e you shouldnt apply for the permit to get the c. E. U. I think that planning staff and our office agree that theres a version of this. That hits that intent in the proper way. And actually leads to a decrease in the number of c. E. U. S. Planning staff is right. If you apply if you meet the definition of merger, that under the current draft of the ordinance and weve submitted changes to resolve this, that the conditions of the merger would prohibit it. Its a little bit circular. Thats to say that maybe we should prohibit mergers and not require a c. E. U. For them. We should just say it. Yes. Commissioner moore. Mr. Reardon. Could you please give me a better understanding of how you define 50 of exterior elements or 25 of streetfacing surfaces. Does that include windows . That question might be more for planning, regarding the definition surrounding calculations based on wall and if that is inclusive of windows or not. For me a window is surface and obviously the numbers get very skewed if you eliminate window as opening, rather than just solidly built wall surfaces. Im curious. Yeah. Like to leave that open. The way i read, if its surfaces, that would be wall surfaces. And it would just be limited to the wall itself. So maybe. Yeah. Sure. So currently those similar type definitions are in the plan code, the definitions are in the Building Code. In the planning code, because this hasnt been cleared, the interpretation that weve made over the years is that if a window opening remains a glazed feature, even if its changed and in the same size shape, form, its not considered removal. But if a wall becomes a window or a window becomes a wall, that would constitute removal. So thats how weve interpreted it to date. If we move into the future and still using percentages, i would encourage us to include windows as surfaces in order to get a better handle of whats the amount of demolition really entails. The one comment id like to make thank you, mr. Reardon. I appreciate the examples, except when we join to really struggle with the more unified definition of what demolition is, we looked at cases which were far, far more egregious than any of the small examples we saw today. Because none of the examples we saw today, and i appreciate the physical presentation of reallife situations, had anything to do with the discussion which originally touched on the need to find more Common Ground for demolition means. Thank you. Thank you. We can go on to the next section. Okay. So moving on to the changes regarding major expansions. This would be a new section in the planning code. It would be called section 319. So the new control again be called major expansions. And we would truly like to thank the sponsors supervisors, both supervisor mandelmans office and supervisor peskins office, through the conversations that weve been having with them on almost a weekly basis since december. This section has been reenvisioned and does include our preferred way to measure what constitutes a major expansion to a home, by using our Floor Area Ratio calculations as they are sizable. We believe it Floor Area Ratio also incentivizes density. Were hoping that the offices are open to continuing talking about the specific numbers that have been set forth. Right now the allowable f. A. R. That you are given doesnt incentivize density, rather it just provides the generalized set amount per unit, whether youre building one unit in an rh3 or three units in the rh3, equaling about 1500 square feet when you look at the average size of lots in residential districts. We know thats a work in progress, though. Were hoping those are something that can be a topic of conversation and amendments in the future. So if you meet if you exceed the if your proposed major expansion or alterations exceeds the f. A. R. Thresholds that are set here in this chart, you would be required to obtain a c. E. U. And so the criteria are fairly similar to the criteria that you must meet for a residential demolition. In order to be approved, the project must add density and affordability equal to or greater than the existing structure. There can be no planning code amendments required, there will be no new garage or parking. Significant architectural features are not being removed. If the existing building is a potentially Historic Resource or any historic district, it must comply with the secretary of the interior standards. There can be no loss of affordable or rentcontrolled housing and there cannotting a nofault he conviction within the eviction within the last seven years. With that well go into the Planning Departments case study. Thank you, audrey. Before i come into the example, quickly follow up on commissioner moores statement. One of the reasons we did choose the examples is to really identify how this ordinance would impact really the bread and butter of what we do. We see an incredibly high volume of projects that the commission never sees. That never make front page of the new and that are process without any issues from neighbors and we really wanted to highlight the high volume of work that we do. And how this legislation would impact the daytoday work that