is about creating new in law units in the castro area that's purely volunteer it's about creating new housing as we chiropractor our housing crisis in san francisco. and just to also be clear in the castro with the expectation of the new construction we see on market street and because theirs quite a few cranes open market street we're dramatically supporting the housing supply in the market street area that's not the case if i look at upper market and octavia you're talking about one now new units it pails in comparison to the other parts of the city and this legislation will help to address

the housing shorthand in castro we have existing housing stock we can add more unit it didn't expand the envelope and create now construction but using what we already have in the existing favb of our neighborhood. between 2003 and 2012 san francisco's population increased and we added 18 thousand units of housing. we know over the last few decades we see what happened a referral or reversible and people are chu's to stay in cities and raise their families or come back to the cities especially young people who are chu's to make their lives in san francisco and other cities

around the u.s. large and small and with that reurbantion that is so hooefkt for our country creates frustration for housing. we're no longer able to sustain the $3,000 rents are completely unacceptable and if we don't take action to create enough housing in the long-term shame open us and now is the time to do that. there's many thanks things we can do. but in the a right step. there are any lgbt people in the castro and neighborhoods who are absolutely terrified about losing their housing or having to find many housing to stay in their neighborhood i want to give them options.

the castro has welcomed new and especially young people and especially lgbt people into the neighborhood and more and more if you're a young person coming to the castro a very, very hard unless you have a high paying jobs. the in law areas you don't have to research this over and over in law units are probably the most affordable type of no non-subsidized housing. that's not the complete solution we have to build the kinds of units are affordable and until unit are like that they tend to be on the low level and not will

have a view and not the types of places that are typically fancy so et al housing in the city has moved from the bottom to the top of the scale a that's all relative to those units by and large will be more affordable. they're often on the ground floor tend to be more assessable for our aging population and people with mobility challenges. we hear a mantra it's impossible to add new rent control unit it's impossible under state law to add the rent control unit. this will provide in the legislation it's defenseable that any in law unit that's add

to existing rent control building will be rent control. so we're getting good support 90 for this legislation. you received a letter from the castro board of directors overwhelming supported the legislation and they did a survey of castro folks and 69 percent in favor. the bayview reporter wrote an art supporting the legislation. in terms of what the legislation does. it will covers an area between 17 hundred and 50 feet of the castro so from hill street to 14th street to market street open the west to church street

on the east. it will allow up to one in law unit for the intensity restriction up to 10 unit and larger. and must be constructed within the entire building envelope can't make the building bigger and the building is subject to rent control and the noticing will apply and neighborhoods will have the right to discretionary review. so this is purely volunteer no one will be forced to do that. i want to say in doing this legislation in the one of the reasons i disagree with one of the comments in law those are

differences in situations. supervisor chiu's legislation those units exist and how do we bring them into the daytime. the issue here is how do we actually encourage people to create those are unit knowing it's also expensive to rehab a unit and no disrespect to the planning department it sometimes taxes a long time to get small matters through the planning department die to issues knowing there's some units bogging because of plumbing issues are going to be more expensive. in terms of size and other issues that's fine the more restrictions you put on it the more cumbersome it's less likely

we'll have those units. i want to mention there was a letter from peter cohn and katie will rear yards the legislation is clear it has to be whether within the existing envelope. i understand people may want to do an in law unit in a small space. the irresponsible matters the rules are what they are and so i don't want to take on the entire rear yard debate on this legislation but i believe having a permanent ban on the envelope if thirty years ago i add feet but in thirty years later

they're not able to add the in law that doesn't make sense. maybe you can't precede for a few years for the in law unit i'm open to sdugsz discussing that. finally in he remembers of the staffs recommendation i'm generally supportive of the staffs recommendations. in terms of monitoring of the rent i'm fine with that the devil in the details how to do that in a way that respects people's private and want to make sure that the material is not with people's names and having a report back after the year it maybe want to be 2 years

because it takes time in terms of eliminating the 50 feet caps we don't want to have huge fair preponderancecy buildings. so with that, i'll answer any questioning questions >> i don't think there's my questions from the people. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i agree this legislation is different than being introduced that i supervisor chiu. i have 3 concerns first over the years many unit were built as single-family homes and world war ii were chopped into smaller and smaller units. often you'll see people merging

unit to create space i hope this both dilute homes are not large enough for families, and, secondly, in regards to court decisions. you have to make sure that this legislation is viewed as a benefit for the owner not for the public in general that seems to be the test so there's two phases. the first phase you're giving it to him and allowing to take back some of his relevance by putting it under rent control and even if it's under rent control if you start telling him how much he can charge in rent that's harder to have that hold up >> in terms of the single-family home issue in this

matter in this district i can't remember if there's hi, rh one zoning but it's really minimum. there's some i think it's minimum. yeah, it's not largely rh one. i agree we want to have united that are large enough for families to live there. we have to recognize the reality if you try to buy in castro or glen park you better have a big checkbook those those family homes in my district are out of control and not affordable to most of the families that i know. so i want to really focus on the revolt of what people can afford in san francisco and important to have the larger unit but

accident smaller unit as well and we need more housing overall. in terms of the hawkins issue and the rent control building to rent control we've worked with the city attorney and we feel we can defend that in court >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. and i'll stay if there's further questions >> thank you. >> thank you so to continue the presentation i want to first give a definition of what we're talking about when we're talking about necessary dwelling units. those unite are subordinate to the other unit are existing on the same lot because of the location of the entrance or ceiling height or sunlight

explore. they're known as secondary unit and theirs using un plaza used parts of the lot whether or not they're like garages. their primary independent lots and some access to the street they might share laundry or other open spaces with the primary units. with that, densities in mind the proposed ordinance will allow adding ad us within the areas. supervisor wiener went through the main points of the legislation i'm going to say that 10 unit or more can add

building with 10 units are less can add one ad u and they can only be built within the envelope and have certain comments like rear yard and open space and also parking. existing parking garage spaces can be removed to provide space for ad us can't exposed seven hundred and 50 square feet and within the building that's subject to rent control it will be subject to rent control as well. i'm going to summarize the provisions of this ordinance. there are multiple benefits that ad us can offer to the neighborhood a source of avenue and uneasy the housing deficit

and having infrastructure and assisting low and moderate in case homeland security. it amdz to create housing affordable by design and that will be maintained the local red ordinance in cases where the hours t is subject to rental control. the rent control law rent are limited after lease signing it not able that the rent housing were built between 1979 and this ordinance present a breakthrough opportunity if adapt add new unit since the adaptation of 1979 ordinance. they looked at into the affordability of ad u.

the city doesn't have any information to see how affordable those are. a few studies do exist. in law are not ad us they were built without permits so they also known aslogically units. those local studies found that illegal opt offer a source of affordable housing. for example, in the excelsior by the asian caucus the areas are 12 for housing that's affordable to the market recite of units in the same neighborhood which is 12 hundred for a studio one bedroom in the same neighborhood. it remains unclear how much low rent should be attributed to the

illegal status how much is relates to design of those units. the ad u from the proposed orptsz maybe similar to the illegal units and this uses a strategy by first allowing those units to be built within the building envelope that con trains the feet and seven hundred and 50 square feet will be allowed. the proposed ordinance will provide an opportunity for the city to test the affordability by design we can see the result in a small area of the city that will allow us to see how the affordable design will work this is important since we're looking at the current housing rental market in the second degree san francisco.

currently, the rent in the castro that's been reported indicates 2 seven hundred per month for a studio one bedroom. when the city has different areas the city will benefit from any additional benefits to prrpz. the legislation offers to aim to recapture the public values through creating the housing affordable by design and the brings me to our recommendations our modifications. first, we're the staff is proposing to modify this to have

a system the department asks for in exchange of this that would otherwise not be allowed the property owners will disclose their rent rates. if those unite did not prove to middle income folks the department recommended that the city should re-evaluate the provisions of this ordinance. our second recommendations is around the size cap. we recommend to remove the seven hundred and 50 square feet size cap it will be limited to staying with the building envelope that elements the size and they need to relocate like in the spaces like the at i

could see and the department buildings that some spaces are limited to size and will keep those units small by nature. however, in occasions where more than seven hundred and 50 square feet is faibl vanilla it will be efficient to create a slightly larger unit. this seven hundred and 50 square feet cap about keep the space efficient approach in creating this. and the last recommendation is around the terminology that the ordinance is using. the department uses the term assessor dwelling unit instead of the in law word this is a minor change but ad u is a known term used in many injured in california and the department

recommendations changing how those are defined in order to insure that any unit built within the existing framework whether or not they're requesting a intensity waiver. that concludes my presentation in the report we have information about how many units we anticipate to be created. and the department estimates about 3 hundred and 90 ad us that is larger than the built out i can go through the analysis if the commission would like. i want to mention that the ordinance is that was included in the packet overwhelming in the packet that was sent to you and it is wrong i have the correct ordinance her if anyone want to copy. and the commission got it it.

thank you >> open this up for public comment i have two speaker cards. robin and katherine roberts >> rally i'm robin i'm on the board of liveable city our executive director is unable to attend so he asked me. we have a letter sent by tom this morning i want to reiterate a specifically said. the ad u adds new unit without altering the existing buildings and the organization d us are cost effective they add new housing within existing building materials and reduce the materials that would be having used for the construction of new

units. as i have some word of my own as a san franciscan who attend some meetings and i volunteered for meetings. it's been difficult to add housing stock to san francisco and this is a terrific way to be able to do that and conserve the castro beauty and preserving the population need we have >> thank you. next speaker. >> dprooets commissions i'm kathy republican i live over the hill from clayton and market in coal valley this is a huge issue in my neighborhood as well. i'm really, really thrilled

supervisor wiener is introducing this pilot legislation that i hope will work out in the castro and my deeply held wishes it will spread to my neighborhood it is similar to castro the age of the building, etc. etc. and i this legislation i think is something that's just an idea who's time has come. i oppose a 4 unit building in coal valley and live in one of the unit the problem is on the boxes it's actually a two unit building. but two more unit got built on the ground floor two, that fit those descriptions exactly in the one hundred year plus history i don't know who that belonged to its on a blessing and occurs to move into a

building like this. yes. i get the supplemental income that allows me to stay in my home and b i'm able to provide this type of smaller affordable unit that the supervisor wiener and the planning department has been describing right down the street in uscf i get big dogs and disabled dogs so this is a real issue that their dogs can't get up and down the steps i've kicked open the door to live a block away from school and to do it at rent that are sxhivently far, far below the medium for san francisco and this neighborhood. the downside it's been a huge

achilles hill i've been available for attacks from tenants who see this as a way to get out of their lease agreements. they sign those civil codes that say they're not responsible for paying rent and their contract is not valid they depict my belief that is delipidated and it's put me in a precarious position and i would love for legislation such as this to start correcting that injustice and impact on the city >> thank you further public comment? >> members the commission i'm speaking on behalf of the san francisco anti displacement

organization it is seeking to address the displacement in so many neighborhood. i have a letter here i'll hand to the clerk. in essence we think we generally share the goals of the proposal by supervisor wiener we that there's a number of positive elements to it. we have a process concern and a substance concern. regarding the process there's a as commissioner lee mentioned the legislation proposed by supervisor chiu e-cigarette the existing in law illegal in law units but we strongly building

those two proposals should be considered together. granted that the origins for the dwelling units that will be addressed by those two pieces of legislation their existing illegal opt and newly constructed unit what's going to happen later on the ad us are going to be the same whether their legal listed or get constructed under the proposal the concern is the 2350k9 controls can evaporate rat so there needs to be protections built in we know that the supervisor chiu legislation has specific provisions e-cigarette this. granted again that's right specific reasons why those provisions in the chiu

legislation should be adapted may not adapted in the context but the problem is those pieces are not being considered together and that's one of a number of issues of affordability. so you may be and we all maybe supporting the requested we're to be creating housing affordable by design but unless the regulations that come along with the unit protect against the ellis act we're going to see evictions a few years after those units and those protections are going to disappear so consider those proposals together and weigh the strengths of the protections that are inhe