retrofit and making the the appropriate findings. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam president colleagues today before us is legislation that will allow for the addition of accessory dwelling units also known as in law units in buildings either undergoing mandatory or voluntarily retro fits and provide an incentive to add new accessible moderate typically moderate income housing without public subsubsidy and for buildings to provide seismic retrofit and this builds upon the castro

unification that creates new rent control units in san francisco because the legislation provides that if a unit is added into an existing rent controlled building it will also be rent controlled and has the support of various organizations including livable city the hack and was endorsed unanimously by the commission and we know we're in the midst of a housing crisis and we need all types of housing. in law units or dwelling units are the most affordable type of non subsidized housing and tend typically to be smaller on the ground level and they are typically older buildings and most of the infrastructure is already in place in the building and so it costs less to produce the unit than it

does to create a new unit and they are dee centralized and spread out we're not talking about large numbers of units being placed in one location. as i note in various studies have demonstrated that these units tend to be much more affordable than other units studies out of uc berkeley and hud and aarp and of course there's no one solution to the housing crisis but in-law units and a more flexible approach to in-law units are 1 piece of the puzzle and this legislation allows owners of properties to add additional accessory dwelling units within the existing building envelope if they are participating in the city's established and well-defined mandatory or voluntary program and we're

continuing to work with the department of building inspection to establish policies and guidelines to make it easy and as smooth as possible for people for people to be able to add these units within the confines of the building code and other codes. so colleagues i want to thank everyone who helped with this legislation and colleagues i ask for your support. >> okay. supervisor supervisor kim supervisor kim. >> thank you and i want to acknowledge supervisor wiener for his work on this legislation and i'm not going to bring up in this legislation today but just want to note for the future i do think it's important for us to create ways r ways for us to increase density and create new units in san francisco that being said as we provide this valuable

new unit space i do think it's important to prohibit those units from short-term rentals and it came up last week at the land use committee but pertains to all dwelling units that we're allowing through recent legislation over the last year i just think that we have to ensure that these units are specifically used for housing only and i worry that it would be easy to turn these units into full-time bed and breakfast and that's not an amendment that i'm introducing today because i think this is only one slice but i think it's something i want further discussion with as our legislation comes back to the full board so it's a larger conversation about this type of dwelling unit not just the one supervisor wiener is introducing today. thank you supervisor kim supervisor kim supervisor campos.

>> thank you i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this forward and i want to associate myself with the comments of supervisor kim supervisor kim and i think as we have trailing legislation on the issue of short-term rentals that we should consider including a limitation on these types of dwellings i think that we have yet to fully understand the impact of short-term rentals on our housing stock and i think that whatever we can do to ensure that housing units are in fact made available for housing and not short-term rentals is an important consideration so thank you. >> okay. supervisor wiener? >> thank you madam president thank you to supervisor kim supervisor kim and supervisor campos for raising the issue of short-term rentals clearly we want these units to be residential dwelling units and under the legislation that we past late last year like every

other dwelling unit they will have to have a permanent resident living in there under the terms of what we passed and whether the unit is a a 100-year old apartment building or new in-law unit or new construction somewhere we need to make sure people are complying with the law for residential housing units. >> thank you supervisor wiener okay can we take this item same house same call without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously madam clerk can you please call the next item. >> item 16 to rent units with agitmg housing partners and authorize the director of planning to execute an

agreement for the rental incentive option for the residential development proposed at 1201-25 tennessee streets for the period of 30 years. >> supervisor kim supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think when this came forward to us at land use last week i was surprised to learn that within the neighborhoods that we give our developers a rental incentive option within the umu code of our eastern neighborhoods that allows you to further decrease your on site housing from what was already increased via the trust fund back in 2012 and given the lower cost of land because these neighborhoods have typically been a mix of industrial and other type of mixed uses and because of that if you build housing in this

area we ask you to build more affordable housing than less and via the trust fund we have lower and you can lower it even further via this rental incentive option and they are eligible and i will be supporting item 16 and 17 today and we have asked the city attorneys office to draft an amendment to the eastern neighborhood that would take out this rental incentive in the future we need to build as much affordable housing as possible and i do believe given the current housing market that developers can afford this we've already reached out to some of the developers as well to let them know we'll be working on this. >> thank you supervisor kim supervisor kim can we take this item same house same call?

without objection this is adopted unanimously. madam clerk can you please call the next item. >> item 17 a resolution to approve an agreement with rain tree and to authorize the director of planning to execute an agreement for the residential development proposed at 2051 third street for a period of 20 years. >> without objection this is adopted unanimously. >> item 18 resolution to authorize the lease and facilities agreement which will operate for a term of 66 years at a total base rent of one dollar. okay supervisor kim supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to congratulate the members of the mexican museum community who i see here today the resolution

before us authorizes this lease agreement between the city and the mexican museum approximately 48 thousand 48 thousand square feet for a dollar and includes an option to extend for another 33 years after the initial term and i want to congratulate the the group that made this possible it has been a very long road with a lot of challenges and obstacles along the way but this group was persistent and i want to acknowledge the partners for their work to make the mexican museum a reality. this will complete the vision. it is really exciting that we will have a one of a kind institution that will showcase

the complexity and richness and i want to recognize the department of real estate and the countless community stakeholders that have helped to make this vision a reality. >> thank you supervisor kim supervisor kim supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and thank you supervisor kim supervisor kim for all of the work and your office that you have done to move this item forward. i don't want to repeat what the supervisor said but many people many of whom are here in this chamber have been working on this not for years but decades and as supervisor kim supervisor kim noted this will set the city well on our way to realizing the vision of the mexican museum and this is our 7th year and so it's great to

be at this point i want to thank everyone who has made this possible and it's i think a great victory not just for the mexican american, the latino community but it's a great victory for all of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos supervisor avalos? >> thank you madam president and i would also like to add myself as a cosponsor which was a complete oversight and yes i want to thank all of the parties involved that really made this happen i've been a big fan of the mexican museum ever since i first arrived in san francisco in 1979 fell in love with the museum and i have some of their art work in my office right now and may be it's time to swap that out for new pieces as well and i want

to thank and it's a great location as supervisor kim supervisor kim mentioned all around there are great sites to showcase the great art here in san francisco and congratulations and look forward to seeing the new site when it's done. >> thank you supervisor avalos congratulations. it's been a long time coming and really excited to see this day when we're moving forward with the museum and adding it to the amazing museums in yush yerb abuena. >> this resolution is adopted

unanimously. okay with that we're going to move forward with item 19. >> item 19 land use and transportation committee and forwarded to the board as a committee report. it's a resolution to impose interim zoning controls in rh 1, 2 and 3 zoning districts within an established perimeter. the eastern property line of parcel block 19 and douglas street and for the following building types any residential development on a vacant parcel exceeding 3000-gross square feet and any new development that will increase the square footage in excess of 3000 feet

without increasing the legal unit count are more than 100 percent and for residential development that results in greater than 55 percent total lot coverage and making the appropriate findings. >> okay. supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam president. colleagues these zoning controls we're considering today helping to bring some order to a troubling trend that we're seeing of transforming smaller or regular sized existing single family homes and replacing them with massive single family homes not really adding new housing but turning smaller single family homes into very large single family homes and breaking up a bulk of the lot in the process and the legislation has the support of the neighborhood

associations in the area and the neighborhood valley association and the current situation in the neighborhood is becoming chaotic and there's a number of projects that have been subject to the discretionary review or that it appears they will be subject to discretionary review they are going to the planning commission anyway and this legislation will not ban any of these projects or place a a moratorium on any project so we know from the beginning what the process is in terms of moving towards a planning committee hearing doesn't apply to modest home renovations or smaller additions to homes. it applies when a building is being turned into a dramatically larger building and the legislation of course

simply applies conditional use which is a well-established concept in san francisco and provide an incentive not to kill development but rather for all parties to work together to shape specific projects so that they are in fact positive additions to the neighborhood and the legislation would apply to any expansion of a home or building that will exceed 3000 square feet. if the expansion results in the home being expanded by more than 75 percent or if you are adding a unit more than 100 percent so if the project is less than 3000 square feet this does not apply

. this applies to large buildings that we have seen a dramatic expansion of the size of the building. so colleagues, the legislation i think makes a lot of sense. these are interim controls and we can sit down and think about what are the ideal permanent controls in the area. i do want to address some communications we've heard about this legislation somehow being antihousing which is absolutely not the case. as i noted, this legislation is not a a moratorium or ban. these projects are already for the most part going through the planning commission through discretionary review. i also want to note this neighborhood

starts this area this zone, starts a mere 3 blocks from castro and market and for those who have been in upper market recently you will know that between castro street and octavia street we're seeing a thousand units of housing that have been added or in the process of being added and this zone starts a mere 3 blocks from that housing so for anyone who suggests this is about somehow preventing the addition of housing in this area that is not the case a lot of housing is being included in this neighborhood and in addition the castro in-law legislation that we passed last year includes the bulk of this zone so we basically up zoned this area corporate heights and corona heights so that that

people can go 1 unit above the zoning this neighborhood did not object to that and indeed there was a lot of support for that legislation so this is not a situation where we have people simply opposing the development or the addition of new housing. this is a neighborhood that has embraced new housing but turning into a larger massive single family home is not adding new housing. colleagues, we need to make sure as that housing is added, it's done in a in a way that's respectful to our neighborhoods. it makes sense to apply it here colleagues, i ask for your support and i want to thank everyone for their

work and thank you for putting together these controls. >> thank you supervisor wiener supervisor campos. >> thank you very much i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this item forward and i'm very happy to support this item today and i think that it's important the clarification that supervisor wiener made i think it's important that when you have these kinds of interim controls whether you call them a moratorium or whatever the tool that's used, there are individuals who try to label that as being antihousing and i think that supervisor wiener properly noted that these kinds of interim controls are not antihousing and there's an e-mail that i received i think it was received from someone criticizing what's being proposed because in their view as currently written the legislation could block opportunities for new housing

such as unit additions and cohousing and this individual sees any kind of control or limitation as disincentive izing and they don't want that but as supervisor wiener noted, there are neighborhoods that have seen a lot of housing production, a lot of construction that nonetheless, not with standing the fact they have embraced that belief that it's important for protecting the character of their neighborhood and to establish interim controls and what's really striking about what's being proposed is how the comments in support of this measure are comments that could very well come out of my district and i'll preview some some of the things we heard. someone wrote we have long build that the residents of a

community should have a voice when development or other changes are proposed which would significantly impact neighborhood character and that's from the eureka valley neighborhood association and someone said i urge the board of supervisors to adopt permanent controls that will preserve the character of this charming neighborhood. we shouldn't we shouldn't erode affordable housing. there are enough luxury condos being built and diversity is an important ingredient for a city to survive from a resident of city heights those comments have been made by specifically residents of the mission that have proposed their own interim controls for purposes of

protecting the character of their neighborhood and i hope that that as we consider giving corona heights the ability to have control over their own destiny in deciding what goes into a neighborhood, i also hope that we recognize that it's not just corona heights but other neighborhoods that need the same consideration. if it's good for corona heights it should also be good for the mission and other parts of the city to have the same opportunity to provide interim controls because while the issue in corona heights may be monster homes in neighborhoods like the mission, the issue is affordable housing. that's the reality we're facing and i believe we have a responsibility to empower each neighborhood to have a say in its own future that to me is what this proposal is about

and i hope that we pass it and create a precedent for giving other neighborhoods the opportunity to do the same. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos supervisor yee? >> thank you president breed i need some clarification. i was a little confused with this only because there seems to be overlaps in the area for different zoning controls so and i just didn't have the chance to look at the map and to follow this closely. i just happened to look at the agenda over the weekend and said oh my goodness, , which one is this and it's the same author so my question really is -- and there

was some clarification there might be some overlap, but which of these zoning controls would you be or the city would be using for instance the question i had in my mind -- if there's a vacant lot and there's not a whole lot of vacant lots but say it's vacant and they are allowing even r 1 to be r 2, in law, 900 square feet then 21 hundred square feet for one more unit would almost put you over the 3000 square feet so seems like that's not a monster housing to me so was there any consideration with those types of situations in this? >> okay so supervisor wiener, you would like to respond to this? >> oh sure to the president

supervisor yee so if you have a 2100 square foot unit and let's say you add a thousand square foot to it for an additional unit that would not be covered by these controls not only do you have to go over 3000 square feet but you have to more than double the size of the building and if it's a single family home you have to increase it by more than 75 percent so you can have a situation where you have a you know say a 2000 square foot home and increasing it to 3400 square feet and we intentionally made it so it only captured the truly

significant expansives. >> let me clarify -- i don't know if there's vacant lots but if there were and you wanted to build a thousand square foot in-law, would would that be over the limit? >> in this neighborhood that's a very interesting neighborhood in many different ways and one way we have something called through lots where you have a single parcel of land starting at one street and goes back to another street say from state street to or kid court and the building pattern is they would build a home on one side of the lot and on the other side would remain as green space essentially rear yard space and so there's a trend of subdividing those lots and i believe the bulk of the actual vacant lot and if someone wanted

to build a building there greater than 3000 square feet you can still get the yard but if it's over 3000 square feet, you would need to seek a conditional use so only if you are building more than 3000 square feet and so if it were an r 2, and there's a lot of r 2 in this area and they were both 15 hundred square foot units, you would not trigger the conditional use. it's only if it's very very large. >> supervisor yee, does that clarify the issue for you at this time? >> yeah it's more for clarification. it wasn't not to to support this. i was not going to not support it. it was just for clarification. >> okay thank you. supervisor

wiener? >> i do want to respond to supervisor campos's remarks. i agree that in any neighborhood it's important for the community to have a voice and that's what the conditional use process is for the conditional use process guarantees that the community will have a voice and that's what we're trying to do here if you are fwg if you are going to have a dramatic expansion of a home the community will have a voice nobody in corona heights that i'm aware of was requesting a ban on new housing development or a moratorium no one was saying don't add anything new here they simply wanted conditional use and that's very different from what i've heard and again, i just know what i've read and have not