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 rh1, d, s, 2, and rh3. 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 commissions 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 rearyard 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, whichevers 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 ordinances 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 longstanding 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 allies. That concludes my presentation. Setback requirements, clarification for narrow streets on allies 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 its 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 207c4 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 207c4 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 2425 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 207c4. 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 5nine. 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 xband 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 dont 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 Franciscos land area is our hone and our htwo. 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. Its making the city less affordable. It is encouraging owners to destroy sound housing not to create more units about to make bigger houses. Its not adding to our diversity of housing. Its 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 singlefamily house speaker, nancy pelosi one an next speaker, please. It cannot cover as much lot as it does now. The goal is, lets 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. Thats the thing i was going to ask about. The amendment. Good afternoon supervisors. Im 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 triangularshaped 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 squarefoot 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 singlefamily home, plus and adu. I reckon its enough to have 2 adus in a singlefamily 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 peoples skyline and compromises peoples neighborhood because it adds a lot of density. Basically it tries to rework San Franciscos 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 didnt. 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 im a practicing architect in San Francisco. Im 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. Im going to read one sentence from a letter in support. This is a wellcrafted 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 this, as you know the ordinance does allow the addition of dormers. The idea was these are existing nonconforming buildings they cannot be increased in terms of their Square Footage or footprint. Being able to add a pitched roof and then the Planning Commission wanted a sentence in there about calculation of height using section 2 six zero. I believe peskin, hopefully that is one you will keep in your amendment. The idea behind a pitched roof, if you have a very small living space you can do things that you can put up into that attic space. The hot water heater, those sorts of things. That would allow you to take more advantage of what is going to be in a lot of cases that will be limited Square Footage. Pitched roofs also last longer. Flat roofs tend to leak. A pitched roof will last longer and its a sounder construction. It was also with the idea of lets make the buildings that we are building in this city last longer and be a little bit more resilient over time. At this point im okay with it, it is the recipe for neighbor to neighbor controversy as they will read higher and there will be all sorts of downstream effects. With regard to the ceiling height in existing nonconforming structures, maybe this is a question for mr. Sanchez, but they may be increased interior floor to ceiling height of up to four feet. If you have mr. Sanchez in existing nonconforming structure lets say you have a sub basement that is three feet. Can you turn that into a habitable space at nine feet i would think so. To be honest we have not considered the sub basement question. We are looking at going vertically. We tend to find, as you mentioned more neighbor palms when the envelope is extended up. And this is going underground. I see it could go underground, but theres nothing in here that says that these are rooms down under. This could easily be i mean, couldnt this with this, i guess there is a provision that says you cannot raise the height . All right. With that, supervisor mandelman anything you would like to add . Supervisor safai . Just to clarify, on your Second Amendment. What i would probably do, that was my first reaction. We do not want to discourage someone from increasing ceiling height. If there were a disincentive, and i think the last qualifier in terms of no height to the building would be increased controls for what you are concerned about. I think you could leave the language and say habitable space and that would cover, because it still allows you to capture the promotion of adu if its there. At the same time, it does give some flexibility for somebody to use the entire envelope. I would be in favor of leaving that there. If the sponsor were okay without and you are okay with that. Ive been a broken record on this issue for a number of years, if not over a decade which is that im enthusiastic supporter of the adu program particularly if the adus are subject to rent control. While they might not be affordable today, they will be in the future. So, my thrusts here is, if they are an adu subject them to the rent stabilization ordinance. Maybe supervisor safais suggestion is a good one. It is habitable days. But if for an adu would be subject to the provisions of 207 c four. I can modify that accordingly. Habitable days or an percent to c4 him c6. Subject to the waiver provisions. Okay. Colleagues. All of these amendment if we take them he is looking answer over there, just want to give him an opportunity. On that you might qualify for your language is fine which says that you could increase the site for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit. You might also add to it say that story, or that height could be used to use the size or add to an existing dwelling unit. Would speak to the two purposes. If that dwelling unit were rent cont