>> good afternoon. welcome and welcome to the san francisco land use & economic development committee i'm scott wiener to supervisor jane kim and supervisor malia cowen i want to thank sfgovtv specifically jessica larson and others madam clerk, any announcements? >> >> yes. mr. pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices items acted upon today will be in the april 14th agenda unless otherwise stated. . okay madam clerk, call item one >> it's an ordinance amending

the planning and administrative code for the in-law unit within an ax letter structure. >> i'm the author of item number one so colleagues before us you today is legislation that will allow for the creation of in-law unit in the castro neighborhood for for the first place in more than 3 decades will add rent control united and was supported by planning commission. the legislation has broad support by the bay area report and the lgbt 0 democratic club and liveable city and by spur. colleagues i'm sure you're aware of we have a housing affordability countries are ♪

the upper castro area other than the projects along market street we've added very little housing in the neighborhood. we know that in san francisco between 2003 and 12 our population increased by 75 thousand people and we have 18 thousand additional unit in the city. many residents in the castro are very understandly concerned they maybe priced out of thecation electro for people who have called the neighborhood home and wondering if they can stay or if they'll be able to find housing if they lose the houser. the castro is welcomed new residents and people coming to san francisco from all over the country and world and

particularly young people. those people as well are having trouble finding you housing. the legislation before us today will incentivize new in-law units in the castro. in-law units colleagues are probably the most affordable type of number one subsidize housing their smaller on the ground floor. their usual not as fancy as other units of housing. in addition because in-law units are typically placed into an existing building the infrastructure costs of new development typically don't apply or in a reduce way because the buildings has the basic infrastructure required for housing. a number of studies have shown that in-laws are cybill more

affordable than other types of housing and studies from uc berkley and hud and aarp have discussed this fact. in addition in-law units are typically nor assessable than other units because they're typically on the ground floor. and so for a neighborhood with a growing senior population like the castro and people with mobility challenges those units are a good option the in-law units can be added to a neighborhood without changing the feel of the neighborhood not new height or bulk or new buildings that's within an existing envelope. i will note in selecting the castro for this legislation one thouft thought that was important the castro is one of

the most transit rich neighborhoods in the district so he know that car ownership is lower than the city as a whole to people are less likely to have cars and lead to more parking challenges in the neighborhood. as i mentioned this legislation for the first time we can think of since 1979 adds new rent controls control to the market because any in-law units under this legislation that's added into a rent control building will be rent controlled. the castro eureka definition contacted a survey to gain support for the legislation and several hundreds of resident participated and the survey found 70 percent support for the legislation.

in terms of the basic details of the legislation or legislation that will allow in-law units to be constructed within 17 hundred and 50 feet of the co- castro exact date in hill streets on the south and church street on the east and approximately where market and clayton come together. it will allow one in-law unit for existing building you up to 10 unit and greater than 102 unit will be allowed. they must be constructed within the building envelope not to expands did building to create the unit and the space utilized will be garages or large ground floor storage places or basements that is partially above ground the legislation

says they cannot carve up those but if space not being used for residential purposes our goal is not to cancel implies the existing stock. the legislation is purely involuntarily we're not forcing people to add those units. the planning commission made several recommendations which i know planning staff will describe we've accepted some and the planning department can describe those representations today. in addition colleagues i've disabled several pieces the planning commission has been incorporated into the legislation as substitute alleviation. we're also for us today, i'm introducing amendments to

protect 9 existing rear yards and technical language for explore requirements. so colleagues, i ask for your support today and we'll call the planning department and i'll recognize supervisor kim >> i'm sorry, i didn't realize there was a presentation i'll hold off. >> so i'll ask the planning department to come up and address us. >> good afternoon supervisor i'm from planning. the planning commission responsible supports this to allow alternated i take it within the castro area this will establish a pilot area. these types of units are affordable housing by any studies and being allowed in

many jurisdictions. the planning commission applauds scott wiener for taking an forest for the dwelling units in the csa 20 electro. the planning commission recommended an ordinance and supervisor applied some of those amendments and most important the commission wants to monitor the prices for the property owners. we thank scott wiener for this recommendation this will allow the city to monitor the affordability of those units for future expansion of the provision. the commission made two other recommendations that are not reflected in the amendments first, the commissioner wants the removal of the cap for the

unit those units are already limited in size duce to the building envelope and on rare occasions larger than 2 hundred square feet available the larger you united your united will be built. the last recommendation as the - the commission buildings the tent unit would be better suited for those units it's a term using other jurisdictions like santa clara that has spearheaded those and more technical term than the in-law units that is limited in this definition >> assessabley dwelling units.

accessory dwelling units. to conclude we're excited to see those and we believe this is a step in the right direction for the existing housing crisis in san francisco we're here for questions >> thank you if i i can say in terms of the recommendations i choose not to accept we did add the language instead of the in-law units we want the other technology and feel because most people know them as in-law units to keep that because people know that term. in terms of the seven hundred and 50 square feet limit this is i think an area where reasonable minds can differ the limit is

one of the things that controls costs and we do want to, you know, do what we can to keep all of our housing affordable so this is one way to do it i agree there are not that many buildings this have enough square footage to go beyond that. in the castro itself we know that in san francisco 40 percent even if people live alone i don't know what the percentage is in the castro it might be higher. we have a lot of single aging people i want to make sure we're creating heirs that's educator to them and seven hundred and 50 square feet is not a tiny unit will help to control costs with

that, supervisor kim >> thank you. i had a couple of questions and bay i really am appreciative to the planning commission. one of them was the report after the effective date of the ordinance to insure those accessory units will be affordable and if the pricing meets the a m i. it's the planning commission report would be enough this is not a pilot program but the opportunity to comment on the legislation and per say a reopening of the legislation >> good afternoon emry rogers from the staff that was put in the the understand the department is engaging in a study of the units and we look

at financial faesht and the affordability of citywide we'll have that implemented and by having this in the castro we'll understand the affordability and if will someone can look at our report and the test area the legislation can go forward as appropriate. >> what was you know, i really appreciate the thoughtfulness was there any other thinking on if the middle income bracket range if the rental if the price i'm sorry were above the 8 hundred and 20 percent a m i any further thought that was directed in the memo. >> not specifically but we'll

have an economic consultant as well as architects to do the cost testing and performs for the different types we'll get more information and as a general rile our department likes to get the cost recovery and in this case it's an untested yesterday we want to get more information. >> thank you. >> just some commits i thought that legislation is thoughtful and captured a lot of the concerns i had about allowing property owners to increase the property value. i appreciate the thoughtfulness allowing it in the envelope and with the hope it will create for affordable housing particularly in the income brackets. i appreciate planning supervisor kim comment not on the seven

hundred and 50 square feet it creates a weird shape but to make sure their affordable i was wondering how did the seven hundred and 50 square feet come about was it a number that was thrown out there >> there was nothing maskal about the seven hundred and 50 square feet. i think this seven hundred and 50 square feet is the size of a larger one bedroom or smaller 23 bedroom i think that was the thinking this was certainly no precise science behind it >> there's no way to average the envelope let's say for example it was seven hundred and 75 square feet and we created an a.d. oddly shaped unit as an

unintended outcome of the legislation but we don't have the data. >> i don't think we do. there's a pretty broad range in the castro. the castro there are a lot of one bedrooms and two bedrooms and a lot of three and four bedrooms in the neighborhood. similar to the hate >> will there be some type of appeal process if it will create - honestly i'm not sure i want to push but not to make something for property owners that's challenging we hadn't thought through. >> i will say as i mentioned reasonable minds can defer on this one i see both sides.

i could suggest perhaps if the logic could moved we will look at the size and there could be trailing legislation for the exceptional situations where it would create a weird situation so maybe we can look at that and study it and is >> the last piece i think i see accident amendment was one we got from the members of the public about insuring we were not allowing property owners to play with their nephew in order to capture more space and so i know the incision was we amended the envelope of january was that incorporated. >> basically there was a concern on the express that the legislation is clearly can only put the unit within the existing

never not to expand the building if someone would do an additional pending into the rear yard and adding into their house a month later turn around and ask this be an in law unit like a serial permitting they do several permits but it's one project. there was a suggestion to define the envelope. i didn't want to go that route because for example, today someone builds 3 feet into the rear yard and two owners later someone wants to put an in law in we couldn't say 92 no, because 20 years ago you can't use that space seems harsh.

so i included an amendment if you impillage into the rear yard you can't seek a permit to include that space of an in law space for 3 years to reduce the incentive. if the zoning summary tells us i can't include living space in those units the zoning administer says that the chance of a permit to expand the rear yard to add more space to a garage or storage unit is slim >> so appreciate the amendments again. appreciate seeing this moved as a pilot in some ways that's a

con restricted you boundary we want to make sure we create more middle income units it's not tied up with a lot of the concerns those are not existing tenants units so no negative outcome from this i'm really hoping this will be successful and produce the outcomes >> i think a lot of people share that hope. i will also is a the monitoring we're very sensitive to the confidentiality of people's rent information so there's information in there it be done in a confidential way so the rent information is separated from the people's identity.