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 take place so little notices we got from telegraph hill and this is an area we didn't anticipate that will likely happen in huge numbers if we got if one or two we'd be thrived but the epidemic loss of housing anything we feel might make a difference we've got a come up

of pertains they're adding bedrooms or units so a sense of urgentcy in trying to move ahead. >> commissioner moore. >> supervisor christensen while you're at the microphone have you talked about talked to people on knob hill and lower polk. >> that's where we kind of imagined this would happen i've also in addition to my role as supervisor i've been meeting quite a lot of people in the campaign mode and it came up in the one-on-one discussions the reaction so far is positive. >> commissioner wu. >> so i think i will recommend the supervisors look at adding retail i know there's an exception not to encroach on another dwelling unit but the retail is important in the

neighborhood i'll strongly encourage that. >> i'm sorry is there a motion? >> yeah second. >> are you willing to add that to the motion. >> yeah. >> we could ask supervisor wiener it sound like you're open for changing uniformity. >> i have no problem with you making that portion we'll did you say it at land use and which the castro came to land use we initially had a cap of 7 hundred and 50 square feet and supervisor kim raised a concern what if having i have more you'll have to wall off we limited that limit so we're open to new approaches i'll welcome

that recommendation. >> i don't think what's been put forward i'll prefer to stick with what is part of the castro association but we'll see. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i certainly agree with commissioner wu's sentiment because we're talking about the motion now i actually like the idea of conformity where we get it, it is worth putting forward and allowing the board to have further discussion if if they choose to go back to the recommendation for district 8 maybe go back. >> commissioner moore. >> what the supervisor out of the room when i made my comments i want to restate i'm a resident of district 3 i regret i've heard from neighborhood organizations that would have liked to talk to you but never

asked or failed to contact you i would have liked and would have said to supervisor wiener would have liked you to garner the support, however, there was not a thorough outreach that he undertook taking the dna of district 8 into a pilot program and explain it and allow the people to look at the paralyze and buildings and feel xhofb support it without that was not done in district 3 i've lived in district 3 for 40 years and i know all the buildings and many of them are huge problems their i might at first glirpz an opportunity to have the opportunity for you to do a pilot program or some workshop

in which someone explained the building would have been an opportunity for me to say this is a great opportunity i'm a little bit on the fence this is missing and unfortunately undermines my support for this. >> commissioner richards and i'm in sxhaerment with commissioner wu not having consistency and letting it take its own shape for obvious reasons. >> commissioners we have a motion and second for approval with staffs modifications shall i call the question. >> retail. >> yeah. we agreed that the retail we recommend that the retail be included he understand that the peripheries will