unanimous authentic vote supported the castro legislation the seismic legislation the commissioners couldn't say enough of positive comments about the legislation on thursday two of them residents of district 3 voted against the legislation ideal district 8 to spend other neighborhoods and largely dental district 3 legislation when the castro legislation and the seismic legislation could to the board of supervisors land use commission last year and this year there was overwhelmingly support and very little opposition today we have a series of people from district 3 coming out and saying i kind of support it i'll leave to supervisor christensen to talk

about the outreach she's done what has changed between then unanimous support of the planning commission and big support at the land use commission what changed we now have a supervisorial election in district 3 i'm elephant in the room i see the comments that were made i don't know who everyone is supporting in district 3 my own district to worry about but some people are supporting it just i don't want to say stripping nothing in politics surprises me we have a housing crisis in in this city the reason we have a housing crisis is that every time someone comes along with a proposal to try to at least take one modest step to create more hourpz more rent control there is every option

around parking and building code around every considerable things and politics confuses i'll say when i first starting work on the castro. >> next speaker. >> legislation last year one of the first things i did. i had any staff go and get a copy from the archives that the supervisor promote 10 years ago allowing in the in-law units citywide that legislation to his credit supervisor president wesson kin unfortunately inadequacy not successful so we started at a smaller scale ride share was not successful that was our starting wanted in moving forward with the castro legislation that has now become district 8 legislation and district 3 legislation we need to focus on the actual policy of addressing the housing crisis in

this city i know i to let supervisor christensen talk about here outreach ♪ her district this is good legislation and deserves to be supported i said to address a couple of specific concerns i respect short-term rentals that's an issue that came up last time and we have restrictions on short-term rentals and they apply to all housing whether a single-family home or an apartment or condo applies to all units it didn't make sense to say a certain category of hours is somehow doing going to be treated after those are built in 5 to 20 years none will know

f it is under an ordinance but it will be treated district 5 and in addition one of the commentsers spoke about building codes we have to apply and in fact the department of building inspection output out an adu handbook to help people and names of square footage the minimum square footage those units have to ply with the same realize that every other units in the city has to ply with square footage and finally in terms of conversion of retail space and residential space that is governed by general rules that apply to neighborhood commercial districts throughout the city a process if someone wants to convert retail to residential it is not an easy process in my district at least can't think of a single for example in my times where a

retail space has been converted to residential there are two reasons it is hard to do and a lot of opposition but in terms of square footage retail says that a lucrative and i don't see it as an issue i think if you wanted to look at that issue i'll be modern happy to do that we'll be looking and are we looking at the issues but not an issue it is unique to the accessory dwelling units and i'm not concerned it is going to happen here with that i'm defer to supervisor christensen >> thank you yeah. let's talk about outreach mr. shulman i was at the polk meeting i have witnesses ms. turner same thing for the lower

pong that was what ms. ab bet was trying to say she was there i'm disappeared to see politics in this but the idea of housing in district 3 is a conversation since i've been a supervisor the crisis is challenging to meet the crisis in district 3 we've been looking for ways to do that since the first day this is an ongoing conversation and a long list of people i've had the conversation i appreciate the comments i encourage the people reading the legislation is boring but that is a fairly short one and easy to read so some of the concerns that you have are probably addressed in the legislation itself but for those let me go over a few of the items people brought of liability concerns i'll try to do this quickly

rent control first of all i support rent control and anyone that told you different not 10th i think what is exciting is that this will add rent control units this will do that all the adu units will be rent controlled units concern about permanent affordability i'm semiathletic the real challenge in the city not only addressing e adding housing housing but true affordable housing affordable housing this is hard to do we're largely doing it by government subsidized projects we can't build face enough on the other hand the adu legislation is a way to incentivize private property to add to the cities stock we're trying to get people to help us out by building

housing those are not big developers or big investments a lot of mom and pop property owners have the opportunity to add housing stock so in that particular plays i he's to where a that incentive by adding additional financial limits by making it less likely for people to burger to recoup the investment from the creation of housing one of the things we're guilt at the board of supervisors we're quality of it in the city of san francisco every time we take a step we load ourselves up with the hopes and wishes and dreams to accomplish the things and a lot of time that burden keeps us in one spot that is something we can change but nothing today is permanent for the rest of our existence if we see this project underway and the adu's start to tomato take off we'll revisit

the issue of affordability but to get the plane off the runway it is not just enough inform allow things to happen we have to incentivize them my next stooping step not to sit down but to try to encourage people to actually take advantage of this opportunity short-term rentals controls i agree i think often of the trip you and i took around the neighborhood and the hoteling of the buildings in the striblth and what a problem that is the good news that those new units are going to be sub respectable to all the rent control units but we don't believe need to add more controls by the way controls will already be there as we ramp up to be effective in

reducing the hoteling of our rental units it applies to those units right now the law you must be a permanent residents of the unit in order to rent out all the lease agreement between the property owners exist those apply and the commercial conversion question the interesting thing right now none of us time our prime commercial space converted to the residential unit i ask that question about this legislation the first thing that is important to think about right now if you're in a building without a density limit issue i can convert commercial to residential right now we don't have restrictions that is a it's impossible but to supervisor wiener's point it genally didn't happen the reason it didn't happen you can't make as

much money off an residential apartment like the commercial rates they're higher and once you converted a commercial space to residential you can't go back for someone to say i think i'll convert my storefront into a residential unit you have to take less rent and be reynolds they're not due to state law and not change our mind the incentives are not great as a commissioner lee said r sxhpd we have another rent control controls in place as we investigated it was decided it was probably not a big issue if it turns out to be we'll reinvest the concerns son the cap of new units the number of units are capped physical conditions really the envelope of the building you can only add as many units as sit

inside the exist envelope this is important it touches on a concern a number of people you have to meets building code so not a 4 by 4 square feet room and call it anpartment but need to meet egress and other building code so the envelope of the building and those building codes are by their nature going to restrict the number of units we can add what we have in district 3 a large apartment buildings that were built in the first half of the century when space was rare and people were building massive boiler rooms and some of those are looking tasty as apartment sites one of the things that made me push right now under

current code pertains can add bedrooms to existing units and they're doing it right now that means this precious space they're allowing property owners to creatinine thousand dollars apartment when we could be addressing additional dwelling units we're passing up that opportunity everyday since the haste for the legislation parking question that's another tough one i agree because with parking at some you premium hard to imagine we have to find space for more people that may or may not have cars that's an issue to supervisor wiener's point one of the great things about the units we're not talking about all of a sudden putting 2 hundred units in one spot but likely to be dispersed throughout spaed out and as mentioned we are already the

district with the few it number of cars in the district and strategical the people that are moving into the neighborhood now are much less likely to own cars then the people that live there we have some help bus the main thing about the park we at the board of supervisors can't control that the mta controls that we canned do that so again, we can make changes down the line but at this time any goal to do this sensible thing we've talked about in the last decade to take the sensible step forward and if we need to evaluate it we'll adjust it but i think the boyd message if we don't have to just holds hearings and carry signs and protest and ring our hands and

write articles and blogs there are things we can do about it little steps and this is one of them it make sense that is why i was grood to champion it i'm glad for supervisor wiener's leadership in helping and i certainly hope we can support that and get it done. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> thank you and supervisor christensen thank you for your comments obtain a number of amendments requested by members of the public i the have one question and then i want to raise some issues i've raised before without accessory dwelling units in law legislation not only the ones before us i have a question on one of the issues that came up about removing from the notification requirement i guess this is

those that are increasing dwelling units and raising up to 3 additional feet so the heights are suitable for residential use on the ground floors this type of proximity will be exempt from the notification requirement of 311 and 12 i know concerns came up that the neighborhoods want notification on those types of changes and i'm curious as to why that exemption is in the owners and supervisor wiener. >> so the owners and i believe this is identical to the 311 castro legislation and the seismic legislation the 311 it has a 311 nose and people can file a discretionary review but i'll ask the planning department to comment on the substance. >> the increase height

provisions only listed under the seismic retrofit adu so the 311 exception it allowing the height increase that is available through the building code already to move forward out notification it only applies to the seismic adu program. >> thank you for that i believe if i'm not mistaken that is has nothing to do with with the seismic there can be a slight change of the notification. >> i remembered that in the other legislation this is consistent that the seismic legislation so any additional changes - >> sorry the exception from the 311 notification we're providing in the planning code to go along iowa in the height increase to

move forward without an notification. >> specifically. >> so the building code allows if the building is going to the seismic retrofitting to increase the height and basically in provision says if you're adding. >> unit an adu in the building then you don't have to do the 311. >> 311 or 312 so this is consistent with previous ordinances. >> correct it is clarification on the previous ordinance. >> madam chair if i may this has to do with the contradiction you can raise the height. >> it is to accommodate the height to make sure it is to insure the height of the residential unit is appropriate as well. >> correct so it allows non-conforming buildings. >> thank you

so i want to make a couple of specific comments but want to acknowledge that is protective in other districts not only in 3 and 8 in general that we should be careful about allowing adu's within the acd and russ the ground floor commercial i heard from the author that they felt this is very difficult given the lucrative nature of the commercial versus residential i'll support a prohibition of adu's added workplace the boundaries of the adu's i want to be respect but i wanted to state that a couple of other things i side think that the two levels of adu's between 3 and h should be consistent and given the fact that is so relative new i'll support the lower number so on

supervisor wiener's ordinance before us limiting it to one and 2 and think this make sense and finally i'll say i do think a monitoring requirement is important i understand we have not had a lot of property owners take advantage of the legislation that's why we don't have a report yet but i'm curious as those owners go into effect the number of people that take advantage of that and the outcomes of that now moving to what i consider to more citywide issues concerning the legislation i've brought that up with supervisor chiu and supervisor wiener with the in-law units or accessory unit primarily the adu a couple of things i would like to make a motion to amend the first this is consistent with the chiu

legislation last year the current ordinances should be consistent with item 6 and 5 and we should restrict subdividing those units to convert to other fact shunned ownership to increase the housing supplying supply i know that increasing the housing supply similar to what we saw in commissioner crews legislation i'd like to make a motion to amend that subdivision and lots prohibited and have the language of commissioner crews narng the subdivision code with the lyft lot of an accessory units that allows for a adu sold or separately fwindz a condo coach or a separate ownership again i think that is important to the consistent and also your

message we're neurology the supply of reeled we should stick it that there was a comment about mergers prohibiting the mergers post fact i need more time i'll not support this today and the second amendment that i'd like to make a motion to prohibit the construction of adu's in my buildings where tenants are displaced by ellis act and third something i tried most rent controls with the supervisor wiener's legislation adding a provision prohibiting adu for short-term rentals those are the 3 amendments i'm introducing we can take them one by one. >> before we take that motion i have an issue for the city attorney's office city attorney's office and we'll have discussion on the motion can you opine how you'll protect

units from airbnb? a comment i've heard during. one of the commenters was interested in some protections simply those units will not be on the airbnb market is there an opinion you have on that >> deputy city attorney mirena burns i don't have an opinion to the policy ramifications but certainly, if those are turned into independent dwelling units for the short-term rentals legislation that is found in chapter four 1 ab administrative code and under the code the permanent residents of the unit as long as they meet the requirements can offer their unites for short-term rental currently in the unit they can do it for an urban limited dazed but not only 90 days we are jr.

those units are a not treated under that legislation if they became dwelling unit but only the permanent short-term rentals can only be applied. >> thank you very much question i have a question for the planning department and it is my question related to parking now in listening to the decision and the reading of the legislation one of the things that was flagged from any perspective we got adu's they're coming openly and the people going to be potentially renting them could or not have a cars the sponsors acknowledged they have the lowest car ownership i'm curious to know if there is a way to introduce our

prohibition on allowing residential parking permits to those new adu's from my prospective it seems like it will furtheres bat the parking congestion that exists in the neighborhood. >> you know i'll have to defer to the city attorney on whether or not you can add that but not in the planning code it part of the department of traffic. >> you're right i should have addressed it to ms. burns. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns under the charter the jurisdiction over parking is with the san francisco municipal transportation agency agencies so this board can't make an amendment to restrict the parking permits for the residents of those units not - it is within the jurisdiction of the mta. >> thank you supervisor wiener. >> thank you. >> are you puc to the motions.

>> yes. the court: thank you, very much. madam chair, i want to just address the 3 amendments that supervisor kim has promoted proposed first respect to short-term rentals and thank you, madam chair for asking that question these units they will be housing units like all the existing in-law units in the city thirty or 40 thousand of them or or a apartments or house the same restrictions if you're life-threatening in an existing new mexico's been existing for a eliminator your subject u subject to the restriction you you have to live in the unit three-quarters of a year and the insurance and refrigerator and pay a tax those are subject to the same restrictions i don't think that it would be

good policy to say one category of heirs is treated differently with short-term rentals than the rest of the housing unit i understand the concern if someone might create a new in-law unit and use it as a short-term rentals full-time that's illegal should be illegal i know in the legislation we passed and some of the marries recently decisions were increasing the enforcements and didn't matter if it is an in-law unit or single-family home we need to enforce the law it is not the right direction to restrict the short-term rentals and moving it anymore than any other unit in the city in terms of the condo conversion band that was raised when we skrtd the castro in law legislation the concern that we already make it - in the not easy to create a unites you have to go through the planning

process and the building code process come up with a certain amount of time money and some buildings have less expensive you can is a discretionary review authorization to the planning commission a lot of hurdles but we want them to go through the hurdles if we say we want you to build those units and make you go through this process and pay all this money and your award is that your permanently band from the condolence conversion lottery if someone has no intent to do that people will not want the restriction on the building we already reconstructed it, it is band for 10 years it will be a shadow it will apply to fewer building and have a higher owner

occupancy requirement there is not the issue but if we we want to make sure we don't get those unite built then that will be a good direction is we want to see the units built in terms of restricting adding an adu if you have an eviction i would be supportive of having that restrictions for ellis act but not supportive for buy outs as we discussed in the beauty legislation there are beauties are abusive but i'll accept that for the ellis act. >> supervisor kim is indicating she'll be willing to amends that to include limiting the ellis act evictions. >> i appreciate that supervisor wiener i will amend my exactly motion to limit it to prohibit

the construction of adu's where tenants have been displaced by ellis act eviction my first motion to amend and the third, i wanted to add a few more comments i don't think i talked about enough b why i want to prohibit the adu's but a capture things in - this is my concern of in law and career ray being permitted they have the same addresses and this is more common in other parts of the district you're not talking about units but single-family homes and in-law unit the main homeownership will use their address and say they live there full-time to