secondarilyly the environmental review came yesterday at 2 o'clock but only half the pages it was the - because i told them they sent the second half of the environmental review every other page came at 9 o'clock this morning have you read it i was looking at the environmental review last time last night trying to see how it talked about district 8 that's been rezoned in recent history eastern neighborhoods andand market octavia the environmental review was not in existence and secondly people will have been trying to get the legislation i've been knocking on doors

trying to get the legislation if varies people i got it a week ago and where is the amounted to the housing element came really late you need to ban short-term rentals where is it in here if you don't band them where is the incentive for a owner not to get as much money i want to building is rent control equals affordability if didn't once a unit is vacant they can charge anything the traffic will bear and hidden units are ideal candidates for airbnb and short-term rentals get those questions answered this is a big protective step please ask questions oh this is the

boundary boundaries that are effected i'll pass them in so if you see a political boundary not a regular bound. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay. not seeing any more public comment is closed. and commissioner antonini. >> i think this is excellent legislation and asking a few questions he assume this was notice as any other issue we have there's been some comments about the noticing being inadequate. >> correct all ordinances are to be noticed 20 days prior to be heard and agendized on the parklet agenda. >> certain people have had no problems hearing about this and others have with exception of a couple of comments i did not

hear anyone with a valid noticing i will ask staff there will be a way i'll assume in the unit is added legalized it will count as a unit i'll expect to be forward to the assessor and there will be tax on that unit. >> that's mite my assumption i forwarded that to the commission so i assume adding a unit - and that's something is more the maker of the motion as it goes forward to the board of supervisors make sure the city gets the revenue and also in regards to comments about short-term rentals those units will be under the same lay any other units within the city whatever the laws in place refer to those you don't need to

isolate a case for a policy that's the same throughout the city a few things that are good first of all districts 8 and 3 are probably among the density in the city along with district 5 and 9 their probability some of the density in the city and parts of 6 are dense but that make sense this be there and those things are affordable by design relatively low cost for the pertain to establish new units or build within the existing envelope no additional parking and also instances where owners of smaller situations where they maybe two or three united building and able to add another unit to keep the owners

in the city and in the unit because sometimes you know with the restrictions on the amount of rent you can be charged it becomes difficult for owners to generate enough income to keep the building they'll have another means of the revenue we've heard all of those particular in district 3 but also in 8 under rent control and also, because you're in the existing nephew you, you have no concerns with the historical issues because the building will not have exterior changes or minimal ones and the other thing that is very important as a lot of these units now exist sort of a in the shadows and not safe and healthy

this will allow those units now become under the restrictions for health and safety but they're not required it's not requiring anyone to create the unit i favor the staff recommendation islam i'll assume the supervisors supervisor wiener is okay with that i'd like to hear but i - it sounds like that make sense to make them uniform and make the numbers that are used to calculate but number of units are the same in district 3 and 8 a beautify zone around the supervisors residents makes sense to me so, yeah i'm in favor of those this is good legislation and a lot of possibility that could be citywide it could absolutely help us to secure a lot of the

problems we have. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks so i've heard a lot of comments about legal listing in-law units there is already legislation that is totally separate. >> that's correct you can legalize legal units. >> how many i know that hadn't been that long how many have been created in the castro and how many under the seismic rules. >> we've currently received two applications in the castro and one for building undergoing seismic receiving. >> and then one more question around the staff recommendations first two staff recommendations staff recommends removing the barrier around the supervisors office and basically in that buffer that is currently excluded. >> why choose the seismic

standard for you remember it why basically the question whether 5 units or 10 units is the cut off. >> it aligns with the city's approach to density controls in the past 10 years the recent planning efforts lean towards controlling density by form rather than absolute numbers but buildings in a larger sized than 5 unit buildings it is used a special balls of the type of structure of the building that is used in they're under seismic retrofitting and bans that more recent approach we used towards controlling density we find there are form related factors

which is allowing adu's only with the existing built and not the corner but not allowing space from existing units so those are like formulated factors that are controlled we think that is sufficient in terms of controlling density rather than absolute numbers. >> okay. thank you. >> i want to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but i have heard a number of concerns around outreach and process around this legislation i think this sounds like we've seen supervisor wiener's legislation before so it seem like this year steps but we've heard a lot of request for outreach for district 3. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate theclarification the majority of speakers that

came out in favor were addressing legal listing the in-law units a complete process that is not automatic, however the city has many tools in place to help potentially qualifying unit to legal depending on how the building code is being met and proper processing through dbi with the help of planning having said that the supervisor knows i was in strong support by which you've introduced district 8 and looking at that carefully there were all the reasons to support it i would have liked to see it you have a large variety the hours types age and density

and topographic size i would have liked to see the representation of the groups that aside the district 3 is different partially because none knew about that i'm a district 3 residents and not aware of the legislation we see pending legislation come through but we given what else we do sometimes out of the corner of our eyes unless it is properly presented and hear if our own district residents and neighborhood groups and been discussed, etc. i would have liked to see a trial area in district 3 i would very much have supported that similar to what you the and i'm in general interested in the

gentrification through this type of adu legislation i'll be ready for it i think sgriktd or district 8 maybe but district 3 not there are many reasons it is not partially we have parcel sizes and one of the biggest things i've concerned the daytime of underbuilding parking in an area that didn't have with only quarter inch left for parking because we're in those neighborhoods where the commuters for rent i'm going to say it slowly and again where the commuters out of town to find cheap parking on our neighborhood streets are making that impossible for us to park our own scars are circulate through our neighborhood without

the ability for the neighbor to properly function it is under the orderly buildings where it is sometimes space to be converted for parking displacement would be detrimental to the rest of the neighborhood for that reason i'm hesitant to not support the two integrity legislation for today. >> staff follow-up question was there a consideration of those new in-law units t if they removed parking spaces if it was in a garage limited parking spaces was interest a consideration to eliminate that or separate those. >> if there's a garage i mean, the adu is only convenient in a residential building so they can the owners allows for the garage

to be removed and it does but your question if you have a 4 car garage and none of your attendance were using the garage you could create 4 units there. >> it is also when in many lower floors the buildings owners have a accommodated cars parking space in odd patterns sometimes in tandem sometimes among the storage areas that informal kind of parking pattern would disappear technically speaking commissioner president fong boiler rooms are not disappeared but those rooms are are used for technical support buildings have not disappeared. >> thank you commissioner richards. >> you had several questions for

a lot of the speakers maybe if you could stay a second this is not legal listing illegal units it is creating new ones the tax was brought up some folks i've heard from folks in any neighborhood and about the sub standard living conditions. >> sure those units have to ply with the building code and fire code requirements that's the basic sits there and some of the planning code requirements it allowed to be exempted to we're not exempting them they can get a waiver if the zoning administrator and that includes the rear yard open space and partial exposure they have to

comply with important compliance right now the windows can face an open area that is 25 feet in each direction and expand up we made it a little bit smaller to the open area can be 15 feet in each direction and not expand up there is requirements in the planning code and a basic building code we have acquired for the quality of life requirements. >> great, thank you. >> i mean, i think folks recall a lot of the conversations about the gentrification it is the right kind of densification people living in large spaces and controls in the neighborhood that that recently about the

conditional use by i supported? one approach to many of the approaches we need to solve the housing crisis and shortage i've not made a concern around the loss of housing around the short-term rentals those housing will not be allowed to be experienced whatever the legislation passed the board will apply i hope we'll not do wrong but leave that enforcement up to the planning department i think from a neighborhood outreach point of view at least in district 8 this conversation was vested a couple of years ago this was a lot of us in the upper market and castro area supported it even though we don't have a huge amount of

applications there will, more now there are issues not understanding how the process works i hope will address there's a letter we had handed out in the association i everything that all the other neighborhood association i've chatted knew about this i think for folks when may felt left out of the conversation i'm a neighborhood guy i used to sit on the other side of the railing and worried about what i was considered about deals and no outreach i think that process is important but sometimes, we have to have hard calls over this process i know that for those folks that may feel left out of the conversation that goes to the land use commission and a lot of questions can be answered by the board of supervisors my

support is for district 8. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much thank you to the supervisor for meeting with us i'll ask you directly how do you feel about the planning department recommendation to make the district 89 and 3 recommendation the same for densification for the size of the building. >> first i'll address those recommendations in terms of the carve anti around the condo where i work and live we've received advise in the city attorney's office i no longer have to include that because of the size of the zone the 5 hundred foot rule and on the advice of the city attorney's office have xutd excluded that that is no longer necessary

we've amended that into substitute legislation in terms of the conformity of the number of units from the commission would like to recommend that i'll have no issue with that recommendation we have in terms of the outreach we've done both for the upper market area and the outreach we accidents last year and with the outreach in other neighborhoods over the last 6 months or so we've talked about the one and 2 units so even though i perp i think this is a good idea in the service adu legislation no caps they tend to be larger building i'll probably feel uncomfortable importing that into district 3 but district 8 there are more large buildings in district 8 there are certainly large buildings but not as many less

dense district there are differences but if the commission wants to recommend that i'll certainly not have an issue i want to say one thing in terms of the district 3 i know that is not my legislation but i think the two go handicap in glove this topic of in-law units is been carefully discussed in the city not only am i on my third legislation that enincumbrance the bulk of the city those have been in the news so many times it was more than 10 years ago that supervisor aaron much to his create proposed citywide legislation to add adu's and we actually r our starting point last year with the castro legislation to get a copy of

aaron's legislation we looked that that was our starting point he was unable to get that through the policy was different around in-law units than today did you that is under debate for so many years what happened in in that what saying that rents are drastically higher than people are unable to afford housing the last thing we need to continue to delay and delay until someone says i didn't know about it even though it was in the newspaper or social media i don't know about it please delay it that's the history of housing in san francisco that's why we're in the country we're in iuoe i hope you move both pieces of legislation forward today. >> thank you, supervisor i'll

add on to that i'm in support of this legislation one i agree with the supervisor this conversation first starting with the in law has been approving throughout the city and focused in the castro area the adu's were piloted by the adu conversations have been going on for many, many years especially on the planning commission remembers the conversations around chinatown and other areas in district 3 i think to that end there's been collective thinking around the concepts i believe that although district 8 and 3 have's differences how their set up and how dense they are i think at the end of the day this is the type of legislation that in and of itself is highly flaebl because of the way that district 3 is set up we'll not see as many units selling set up and

even the planning department is provided analysis that says that we'll get thousand more unit in district 8 from this legislation we would in district 3 because of the set up of the types of lots and buildings i think that in some cases the fears about adu's you know in terms of the flexibility how they can be and basically the choices it property owners co-have to do work their their building sites so for those reasons i feel last week this is something that is worth moving forward i think there is obviously steps there's one public commenter that spoke about infrastructure how the units our housing and new units are support by the housing

infrastructure maybe that's the next phase of conversation not for today i don't think but is good step forward for the city we have a hearing last week about potentially doing mission development and having software development so i don't know we can be selective how to attack this crisis and this is one way of doing that. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i know this legislation is about adding new unit not legal listing new but it is often a gray area if a unit is not recorded with the city and hard to tell whether or not it is there there maybe instances for a legalization for none knows that is there in the

first place i agree what supervisor wiener this issue has been out there for a long, long time i the get leave e-mails from people of the they were not noticed but a lot of people have been diligent to be here when to testify against the loss of a single unit or conversion i find it hard to believe more processes at the board of supervisors as this legislation move forward it is not like this is the last day to make changes i'm going to move to approve. >> commissioner richards. >> one other couple of points to staff someone mentioned a need for an erica you comment on that. >> the environmental review was an amendment to the housing. >> okay. that's what i thought great.

>> i want to add this conversation to the item action list secretary i understand we video a political boundary but want to look at this citywide by the zoning district maybe come up with a policy where recommendations to the board once we have a look back at how this is working. >> i agree that conversation how many applications in the last 6 months. >> perhaps the broilers room or parking. >> yeah. broiler rooms apparently in the morning >> commissioner wu. >> on the larger issue i want to point out the lessons by the record we've losing rental units at this face rate there has to be multiple strategies but enforcements on short-term rentals or evictions or whatever

it is i think we're losing rental units way faster than we can build them as adu's i want to ask the staff about the definition of residential buildings so you've done a number of calculations this only be in residential provision but how are the mixed use categorized it only parking or non-broiler rooms you can remove and not retail or things like that. >> a residential building means a building that contains at least one residential unit. >> one. >> yeah. there's no specific definition of what kinds of space to be taken to create those units so it could be anything anything. >> anything other than space

from a rental unit. >> yeah. anything other than a rental unit. >> so retail can be taken away. >> it can be. >> okay. okay thank you. >> and just for the general public comment autopsy the units are subject to the building inspectors. >> all life safety requirements too. >> commissioner richards to supervisor christensens office here oh there you are i'm sorry and can you talk about the outreach process i want to be clear sorry i apologize. >> that's all right. i spearheaded back in almost have my breath this time we've been talking about this in the neighborhoods for probably 3 months three to four since we starting to look at it we concentrated on the area where

the back might be great lower polk and bush where the larger buildings we thought that would take place we've talked with merchant associations and pertains tenants and so the response we received our first negative comments yesterday evening i think the first couple of letters from non-residents from people that live outside the city a few more came in this morning this is relatively to us new in terms of the impact we're talking about adding units within will existing building envelopes that are subject to other types of reviews and things like that so the assumption was the relative impact on the communities would be anywhere i would imagine a lot of people are unaware this is