as day turns good afternoon and san francisco planning commission regular commission regular hearing for thursday, june 16, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner wu we expect commissioner president fong to be absent and commissioner johnson to arrive shortly commissioners, that places you under your is consideration of items property for continuance item o1 valencia street propose

for continuance until july 14, 2016, item 2 south van ness 26 street is proposed for continuance until july 21st 2016 items 3 ab for cases pears street conditional use authorization and various are proposed for indefinite continuance commissioners further on our agenda in under the discretionary review calendar i'm pleased to announce that case at 21st street discretionary review has been withdrawn the dr application has been withdrawn

i have no other items and i have no speaker cards. >> are there any speakers for the continuance as proposed? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wu move to continue items 1, 2, and 1926 a thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and director rahaim could you be so kind as the acting zoning administrator continue the variance >> yes. i'll continue the variance indefinitely commissioners, that places you under your

under your consent calendar are considered to be routine may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 4 case no. c and d think o on fourth street condominium conversion and castro street conditional use authorization are there any speakers on the content items public comment? seeing none, commissioner moore >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve both items on your consent calendar commissioner antonini commissioner hillis

commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places us on there commissioner matters item 6 considerations of adoption of draft minutes june 2016. >> commissioner moore. >> oh, i'm standing for the previously. >> any public comment on the draft minutes seeing none, commissioner wu. >> move to approve draft minutes. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners that on on that motion for the minutes commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places us on item 7 commissioners comments and questions. >> commissioner moore.

>> i wanted to comment on 16 airbnb that was taken and resolved a.m. kablth by the opposing parties like to use that has an example for the conduct dialogue and give direction for the considerations how a dr is approached and elevate that has an example. >> you're referring to item 19. >> i'm sorry i've read the wrong one our correct 37, 21st a long drawn out conflict i'm glad to see that resolved. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters dourments. >> thank you jonas good afternoon, commissioners the only announcement a request to adjourn the meeting in honor of

carla the director be she was much good young and tireless advocate for the disabled in san francisco she actually had a long career with city government going back to retirement as a carpenter for public works and many different jobs and her recent stint a strong advocate for the disabled i'll ask we adjourn new her honor. >> i got here late and ask for adjournment of all the victims that died saturday night as well. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to add a comment about carla johnson she served on the dbi commission was as strong advocate so far candid

discussions and a remarkable person i'm sorry to see her gone and glad you asked to adjourn in her hours. >> streamlining the affordable housing proposal as you commissioners that is our presentation today to give or give up on a current analysis of the governors housing proposals the title of the legislation this is legislation that is intended to make certain types of residential property by right meaning when something by right it means there no discretionary action and no discretionary

actions of any kind of course, that is easy to say the the devil is in the details we're going to give you a memo of our work this last week and recognize you're getting in information now it is a fast moving target the legislation changed 3 times and fully expect to change before that move forward if you can bear with us i'll appreciate that the second thing i'll caution you guess this is our current read of how the legislation will effect san francisco it is really kind of a best guess because of the nature of the legislation the fact it the state legislation that applies statewide and a lot of the words that is used in statewide legislation if match the types of words in our planning code a bit of a champ but our best estimate how it

affects us in san francisco with those qualifications if you will i'll ask ann marie to go over this and others kate conner our and liz and others that have been heavily involved in the review and again taking a lot of time we were not planning on but it is work we absolutely have to do with that, i'll ask ann to make a presentation. >> thank you director rahaim emery rogers planning department staff i'll go over the bill and kate connor will talk about the specific project so let me start off that is a fundamental shift in how housing is reviewed by the city and i know there is not a day that didn't go by we don't think about the housing crisis it was this credible need for housing that drove the governor for to bill today is presentation is an informational

item of that bill i know that you and the public are getting the memo i'll keep my presentation and follow the all the memo as john said we are very cautious how we describe this is specifically the bill as vague language that was introduced in may and rapidly changing the third version came out and likely to change again what we say today can evolve the housing project has 2 units or more and consistent with obviously standards in the general plan and the planning code and the zoning map it is consistent with those and if this project is in certain areas that shall be approved provided it provides certain levels of

affordability to let's look at the location the locational controls for the sites they use the streamlining provisions called the designated housing sites those sites are those that they've about this already approved in the general plan or planning code or zoning map or an eir that mitigates any potential harm in the housing further those sites must be adjacent to what we call development urban used or bound by a natural water and these sites are not on farm lanes era or hazardous sites or differentiate earthquake zones or fema zones to be clear i don't know if i can have the overhead this effects most of san francisco

additional once again or once again we know that is important to know that is available to projects that provides affordability and the affordability go depends on how close to transit so if this site would have been a transient priority area a 10 percent protecting arrest 5 percent very low income thank you, thank you very much. >> so on this map we can see the way atheism defined the transit priorities the green areas are the maps so the few areas in san francisco outside of transit priority higher levels of affordability will be required the intent it operationally is in the gray ears with less assess to transit

it there is less support so in the gray areas of the map it must provide 20 percent at 80 percent of ami or less so keep in mind by providing this level of housing it is available for the streamline process and projects need to comply that the san francisco in our local go inclusionary housing requirement if they apply so in addition to that level of affordability replacement of consisting housing is required rent control or income re12r50ik9d those must be replaced at greater levels of informational affordability and tenants must be paid relocation expenses so lastly the review process the city has thirty days to determine if the project

complies that with the standard and document if it does not if so not consistent it is failing to document this within thirty days it is consistent so that's the first review those that comply that the standard and i did city can conduct design review from the thirty days of the small of the application it can't chill, inhibit approval so that's the the bill says i'll go over what the bill doesn't say how this sgakz with san francisco if you're looking at the handful this is the f a q portion those ceqa applied to the streamline projects there's no ceqa review the city could in the future codify the standards

in the planning code but no ceqa review and what does it mean when the state says their design review limited to those that doesn't i think habitant approval this like any aspects is unclear but it appears that the projects couldn't be denied for design issues, however, the commission and department can request the design reviews as i've described san francisco inclusionary housing do still apply the streamline process is available to projects meeting the lower thresholds as outlined in the state bill how, however, the triggers are higher than. >> 25. >> a lot of change those days a they'll have our higher local requirements

will on site bmr units be allowed so here we go or here's where we if we lost the discretionary this is where we lose the costa-hawkins in court cases projects that want to have onsite bmr maybe consideration, however, it is important to note that the state is considering legislation that fits this irk that bill is pending and i believe the outcome how will the cities protect the resources howe all of our protections occur during the ceqa will not occur the new vefrths bill streamline can't be used only sites designated as resources or that are listed as a state resource it is unclear how

locally landmarked buildings in the downtown conservation can apply those are codified in 10 and 11 with the objectives the review process and our consideration of the process is typically discretionary so this next question is relevant as kate connor says what happens to projects when they need a vaurnls ever conditional use authorization you'll not be surprised the bill is unclear and it has changed with the 3 versions but generally it appears the project needing an exception b will not be obstacle for streamline if this is correct the projects needed the 329 large project authorization will not be

eligible for streamlining, however, projects needing a conditional use authorization could be eligible for streamlining review from the project met office of disabilities conditional use criteria they can't apply in deciding whether or not to approve that and further while the cu process is allowed it needs to conclude within this timeframe permitted by state law this means the process needs to happen during the thirty day window of standards and not during the 90 days review for design so far not only have no jurisdictions been exempted from the bill but the most recent makes it clear and provides a number of reasons as to why it needs to comply in the bill other objectives not called out

in the bill needing to be reviewed not clear what will happen with the obviously standards and most importantly this is likely not the final version my personal guess and then the last one an more o important one when in takes effect it could have a moment we thought the whole thing needed to be resolved that was yesterday but the state met even though budget deadline and some procedural changes while the protective to consider to consider until the end of august this is the overview of the bill and kate will show you some projects. >> thank you jonas i have a couple of handout

and get the computer so good afternoon members of the commission kate connor planning department staff the department name and occupation with the city attorney's office is beginning to work through the implementation of the state bill to streamline the affordable housing bill and has made initial conclusions first lifestyle to reiterate this is an evolving process and the city is working to clarify the portions of the bill to determine what - my presentation is a preliminary discussion of those types of projects that maybe eligible for the streamlining and please understand this is based on the city's understanding of the third version that was issued on friday evening a work in progress so first, let's look at the

projects that can be eligible for the process projects that can request the streamlining must be housing that are completely code compliment without expectations and must provide affordable housing on site if it it is seeking an exception to be part of a variance or expectation as a large project authorization planned unit or downtown authorization only code compliant may have the styling stipulated in the bill the majority of projects that are reviewed by the planning commission and are using downtown project authorization or a large project authorization or a planned development are entitled that are utilizing those stipulated in the code unless this type of project seeks no exception it is not eligible for the streamline form

of northern hotel or others are not eligible for the streamlining there are limited instances where the planning commission reviews the code compliant housing project that and as of right housing projects my come to you in a discretionary review and you'll end up seeing it typically not as right housing projects those provide the affordable housing onsite maybe eligible for the streamline through under the current bill the conditional use authorization maybe eligible for the streamlining provided that the obviously finding are made and take for example, a conditional use authorization for a project over 50 feet in height provided that is the only applications before you we can function under the adopted process and bring that before

the commission the applicable conditions are the standards when you look at the finding for conditional use authorization anything that is substantive will be off the table and not make the finding for necessary and desirable or compatible and this process as marie mentions will be subject to the thirty day timeline we're working how the applications will be processed a little bit hard to read on the screen that is start and maybe easier to look at the paper that outlines potential hypothetical projects so kind of starting from the top if you're looking at a 13 unit as a right in the eastern neighborhoods area and they're providing inclusionary omitted required to go have not neighborhood notification all maybe that potential for discretionary review to be filed ceqa will be handed in a

community exemption now potentially if this bill goes through it will be obstacle for the streamlining the rational for there will no exceptions is it so as of right and providing affordable housing onsite now take a project that can be similar but let's say it is elected to pay the fee even though an right to project because it is paying the fee not eligible for the streamlining so the comments typically one hundred unit in the emeralds and they're providing the unit onsite and have a large project authorization and getting some of the more reserving requested rear yard closer and open space so that will not be eligible there are exceptions they're

requesting look at a 15 unit project in the rc-4 providing their that unit obesity and coming in with a clufks u conditional use authorization because the building so is over 50 feet in height and rear yard they'll have a class of 32 exception there is not eligible because there is a a variance the variance is counted in the exception take a similar project but let's remove the variance and they're coming in are a conditional use authorization for the height this is potentially eligible as kur7b9 drafted, however, take the same project with the conditional use authorization for height but let's say located in the upper tenderloin historic conservation district because this is a national district no longer be eligible for the streamlining process

so there are a number of potential considerations that may influence the development because of this bill the developers may rethink the exception warrants the longer than process and second if we believe 24 bill maybe used for the smaller projects would developers be more likely to provide understanding on site to get a predictable process historically ma of the smaller projects paid the fee that incentivizes them to pay the fee likely the first of many conversation may concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> opening up for public comment on this item any speaker cards public comment on this item mr. cowen.

>> (calling names). >> good afternoon steve i wasn't lane on speaking i want to point out that one thing that ann marie said if ceqa didn't apply the city can constitute obviously requirement for the impacts i want to point out you've done that for all renal projects we have the g h g collect list the new tdm the ordinance relates historic conservation clean up of soils we have the shadow ordinance on parks and the wind ordinance so a lot of these things that if you in the absence of those regulations will be - would don't think ceqa to deal with them we have in place a lot of

ordinances that may the fees requirements mandated that becomes to have a ceqa document to analyze the issues that will be revolved with the mandatory requirements there is real value as must much as we can pull out of ceqa that don't have a benefit typically no mitigation measures because those ordinances are in place to deal with that weapons with small projects in the serial killer sarah jones staff has hundreds and hundreds of applications that he deal with month or fairly routine they take a long time and so even a typical small project typically a two year timeframe from the application to a hearing and a small project

with no environmental impacts so i think there is real value in with the more we can have projects not requiring environmental reviews i think the better for the city you get more housing sooner froze up the planning department staff for projects that require an environmental review so my point i think you should feel comfortable that a lot of the oufbdz is bringing out smaller projects is a good thing and not worry about that but all of a sudden impacts that are not negative your mitigating through the obviously requirements thank you. >> thank you, mr. cowen. >> good afternoon. peter

cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. i missed the first part of presentation but that was helpful to see how you're thinking of how this plays out in the scenarios it is a mystery to a lot of folks even those that drafted in sacramento so it was interesting there's a lot of i would say higher debate about the content e concept of streamlining is not the purpose today but a few nuts and bolts about this as commissioners in this department think about ms. campbell's one the prescribed timeline for the work i heard the last part of staff talking about that you have to remember 4 hundred and 8 percent 2 communities were for the most part they're small towns the scale of stuff their

pros and the size of the bureaucracy and the scale is different in contra costa to me mesa palo alto you have to have 90 days to review a project i know you this seems accelerated the mayor's office is on record pushing for a longer review pictured it is critical if you believe in the planning department staff qualify review to see that one-size-fits-all explicit hurt you and second the issue that was brought up how variances and modifications play 0 into that the language of the tailor bill is not clear you'll hear lawyers debating whether expectations for the

modifications are allowed under the skirmish i didn't existence definition and i heard from the staff you want to build to get it off the shelf maybe grounds for the buy right but as soon as you modify i'll argue you need to be clear how that works in the state bill and thirdly, this it is the reality check about entitlements entitlements don't lead to unit per say again, it is better than that the mayor's office and the state construction trades that adamantly oppose but folks are not swinging hammers because you folks give approval by cu are minute material your loading up the pipeline how to insure

you're getting unit on the ground that the governor aspires to that believe more housing is creating a benefit our suggestion you be clear that getting projects into construction and built is just as important than getting them entitled two different industries i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> it is a complicated bill and moving quickly in sacramento. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> with sf behalf we're supportive i'm infuriated without pointing out anyone out it is i'm completely i think frurd that someone will throw up objections that reminded me of

the tax ticks of the s r a we've handled the laws we spell need this affordable housing is burned into this affordable housing inclusionary housing the kind of affordable housing is burned into this we shouldn't be putting up obstacles and there's a number of reasons not only about what we should be doing but the fact if we don't get along with this something strongly will coming down the pike thank you, thank you. >> any other speakers on this item ma'am. >> iris a senior lived in the mission for 40 years as a nurse

i care about affordable housing and i know that the gentleman that spoke so anyone without objecting is not on the right track this is the first time i've heard about it but in second is something for me is not going to help to increase after i see on the ground in the city and especially in the mission how it is devastating our community the evictions and the displacements of african-americans and looting families seniors and people with disabilities, low and middle-income people i can only see we think second will continue to get stronger community thank you. >> any other speakers on this item i see speaker cards secretary. >> hi, my name is ed, i work on a project uses the shelter during the day i want to say the

problem in san francisco is critical right now you have a drug epidemic and a lot of old people on the streets more and more old people and sick people i've seen people kicked out of hospitals 63 years old and go to shelter and were kicked out and sent back to the hospital they have to die in the city to get help thank you. >> any other speakers on this item. >> seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> thank you for a very good presentation i have a few questions in regards to the ceqa application there would still be the ceqa as much as community planned exceptions projects that have those already would be

criticism they'll not today is qualify a project in the eastern neighborhoods under the planned community it will be eligible for this i would think. >> you mean if a project was completely as of right the way the bill is they'll not dodo a ceqa. >> this is browns this bill is passes. >> it doesn't matter not be a project as defined by second. >> no ceqa analysis at all. >> i'm saying that those projects in order to comply that the eastern neighborhoods community planned exception has to have a certain their perimeters they have to have to be compliant this kind is before the fact it doesn't matter it operationally is not part of this bill but it would be a small part of the progress and

still be in place prethe page of that bill anyway, that's one comment how about in an urban area or near a body of water did i hear that correctly i mean a body of water could be a tiny lake in the middle of no where what's the rational. >> good afternoon emery rogers i'll point you to the definitions on the memos page sorry they're not numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 page there is a common definitions those are copied directly from the bill i can't speak to any intent we don't know the intent about the language so actually - so it was a natural body of water that was

stated and up i think the overall intent for urban areas and actively include urban areas that butt up against a lake or ocean i think their trying to avoid sprawl development their defining things in the urban setting or adjacent to a natural set of water. >> it is saying both. >> either. >> it is just saying it applies to urban areas eve those are a body of water that is different from this first flush of the thing i understand the difference and i think there was parts about it having to comply that the local city things but it said something about relocation the tenants and rent control will continue i'm not sure if you're talking about the

state or you're talking about our local ordinances. >> so much is not clear that's how i should start of answer any income restricted unit will be replaced at equal of greater interests. >> that's under stated the state law has a law if their onsite they have to be replaced. >> does that mean new unit have to be under the rent control there's a problem with the costa-hawkins. >> they might be more like the bmr in the mayor's office of housing. >> it sounds like the two laws are in conflict with each other let's see what about has to be housing could it be housing with retail on the ground floor or

any use housing is not allowed. >> so state law z did define a generaltion so an office project or something with a lot of rain water beyond the first floor is not eligible. >> my final comment is i agree with mr. cowen for this to be effective probably they'll have to have language that deals with the productions of housing we see a lot of housing that are quickly entitled but nothing gets blt built hopefully, a clock as to when the project had to be built begin construction in order to take advantage of the streamline. >> commissioner johnson.

>> thank you very much. >> not jay marshall on this thing thank you so much for the update i had a chance to read the legislation and the e-mail before the hearing i know that affordable unit marie everything you said i'll start with things are not clear i'm going to ask questions hopefully direction so a lot of the section may or may not make sense and commissioner antonini's what about the body of water i think that was surrounded on the least 3 side these by a body of water not only in san francisco being able to put a housing project there so i'm going to go to a couple of things i know that were ill defined and want our theory what the mayor's office wanted to present cliefrgsz so the first one so it was role unclear whether the

onsite is the middle allowed or the state only because affordability the onsite affordability that allows the project to bypass what we're talking about is 5 percent is it onsite talk about that. >> yeah, so that was part of presentation they are eligible for the streamlining if they provide the lower lovely of the states that laid out in the bill but thai need to be code compliant with all of the objective standards ours housing requirements are objective they need to meet all the standards the existing inclusionary and the voters patsz ones it is certified so they need to meet the bmr that's our current interpretation. >> so the state is minimal

allowed. >> okay. they have to meet the minimal but meet that. >> and your question i have documents i can pass out the last couple of pages the mayors letter to the governor and the changes the governor is requesting and next week the board of supervisors will take up the issue as the city legislative body they'll instruct the lobbyists two quoting resolutions that the board committee will be considering next week and make requests on the part of city of san francisco. >> great thank you okay. so then i have a couple of questions down when a project is not eligible because they're asking for exceptions could we still revert to our

original process with the subjective finding under the cu or 09 standards. >> kate connor department staff we'll be operating under the current plan. >> okay thanks and then i definitely i support looking at a longer timeline for us even an extended timeline beyond the thirty days for a project or an application being complete and 90 a day anything beyond that is less than the process we currently have i'm hoping the states and the governor's office will see some expedition it throw the baby out with the bath water and going back to projects taking years and years to geocome to entitleme

entitlement. >> the gentlemen made great points what we look for in ceqa are objective standards for example, there are a number of standards around air quality as the mitigations for those impacts under ceqa are referring our city and county objective standards i'm hoping out of this comes a looked at our objective and making sure their covering everything we really want to make sure that is important especially those projects that don't have the exemptions b will come to us i guess my final question or sort of i know state hospital probably here's where i miss this can someone talk tb about the difference of objectives this is

a gray squishy area i understand there are certain for example, objective around affordable housing is inclusionary housing requirements; right? that's substantive but the quality of life standards it becomes really squishy and if a project is coming in as of right. i question which what might we not see that is considered objective under state law. >> at the simplest it is numeral value that is objective now i'll give the definition section it does say in state law is independence it israel side standards involve no personal opinion by the officials officials and maybe verifiable and available and knowledge by

the development explained or the proponent and a public official prior to small they may embody a standards by the localist and not to exceed different types of ordinances and plan if necessary and desirable are substantive standards the basis of cu if you are looking at the cu of the loss of demolition of housing there are it looks like objective language like it says is there an increase in the level of affordability the family-sized unit thai look objective but down to the decision you're not required to meet them you can consider them in your overall approval the necessary and desirable even though objective language the

result in the decision is substantive this needs to be rewritten if you want a more objective look. >> thank you that clarifies my thinking so later on we're seeing the proposed orientals around units size it assuming things go down the path we may have to look at more actions to make some what is typically discretionary liking to see building with more units with higher bedroom counts maybe have to make those objective standards to see those in as of right projects sound about right and the other thing is obviously this was more challenging but the same challenge when it comes to the physical building with the planning code and the building code and all that stuff is squishy when it comes to

physical presence and architecture detail there is sterilized around you you know keeping in keeping with neighborhood character and the style of the neighborhood and that is extremely objective so clarify that language and i will close there is one public commenter that said anything that we can weakness the ability of second open projects is not good you see you know what is going on in the mission neighborhoods and i will say we have that problem ceqa explicit really help us when it comes to department until there is maps to build a building somewhere else there is an environmental impact so how ceqa allows us to be open right now thanks. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you to staff and for the examples especially i think

that helps to clarify how the city may interpret the bill as it goes through and following along commissioner johnsons questions about the having ordinances that are already requiring the mitigations for environmental impact i think we should look at what impacts are not guess mitigated so from the tdm or green house gas are there other impacts we don't have ordinances that would mitigate help to mitigate i agree you know there are a couple of things in the mayors letter the timeframe needs to be longer i think a realization how much pressure on staff and advantage that is to developers to be aggressor towards staff i think the instrument needs to be longer they brought up in net

loss of units not just replacing existing units there should be no loss of units and especially the waiver of the bmr's to be rental it is very important. >> i have a followup question so the definition of a residential project emery rogers p said that retail maybe on the ground floor is that there a concrete definition how far can you push it two floors of retail or. >> a prescrip definition a link to the state law and then i have a question of cus if we are looking at a project that is eligible they're on square footage or formula retail or

other cus do those go away. >> cat connor planning department staff for the conflict of interest may not be applicable is it so dealing with the retail use and we're only dealing with residential off the top of my head some of the cus that maybe eligible is the cu for height over 40 or 50 feet and cus for the lot size and cus for density those maybe in front of you, however, it is pretty rare we see those without a variance or some other expectation they're asking for at the same time. >> you okay if we have a follow on meeting that would be helpful what kind of cus to be eligible for by us and so kickoff to the point you just made under the chart a hundred

units in the eastern neighborhoods that needs an lp is certain exceptions how possible to see a one hundred project that wouldn't need those kind of expectations. >> not critically likely this may be encourage the vendors to think about code compliant development. >> but that project the large project authorization is set up to allow for certain exceptions with the larger scale development it is definitely very, very rare. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. i think this as noble goal that didn't need to happen with the second process on a small-scale and took a long time and get those unite online i understand how this applies and

really, really impact small projects and the ability to focus on the big stuff a lot of the small stuff gets approved anyway and it takes work i think something nobody is talking about i'll use of the word infuriates me what does ceqa have has to do with with the budget if you are infuriated the house of representatives tried to attach something to a bill you wouldn't feel happy that's what the governor did no hearings it is a budget bill that infuriates me since an extend timeline throughout the summer we should hold hearing and have the constituents weigh in what are we trade of we're

talking about for years let's open up with public hearings he's pushed those conversations before closed doors with labor lobbyists all go to their senator behind closed doors and that infuriates me the takeaway is if you want to get rid of of ceqa not attaching it to a budget billow that with that said, a question i have many questions i guess of staff is any of this retroactive if we tomorrow decided to pass an objective standard to those areas on map miserably would the bill say no as on recent ordinances can apply we can't

get preempted legislation. >> our current finding of the bill will suggest any of the projects in the pipeline to be obstacle for the streamlining process that has to come and apply for it to utilize it in a retroactive capability we'll not look at the projects and apply the timeline that's our current understand. >> the other part of question could that prevent the city the answer is no didn't say anything about the city not saying this in the future. >> that is great can any or our voter initiatives covered under that flort does this not jive would the

initiative be valid. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns the voters are standing in the shoes of board of supervisors the board of supervisors could not pass a law that would preempt any state law it is true if the board of supervisors could enact later standards that apply certainly our voters can do the same through a ballot initiative but not say the state law didn't apply to us that's the distinction. >> to draw further a state initiative is possible because that is a constitutional amendment. >> sure. >> okay. thank you. >> general plan conformity maybe general plan enforcement

what's that have to do with that give me the relationship. >> well the state law says they have to comply in the general plan and 0 zoning map most of the items in the general plan a subjective we we say is compliant with the general plan you know we accommodate may not be consisted with every policy but we find this consistent with the overall platoon that are some objective standards in the general plan but few. >> can we talk about the demolition of rent-controlled unit i we have the density plan under supervisor breed inclusion of renders and demolitions can

occur tenants would be - this is had an an income requirement that basically becomes a means testing for rent control for lack of a better term what in this law protects people in existing rent-controlled units do they get a pass to move back i'm looking at the practicality from a rent-controlled united i'm not making a lot of money but making my rent 60 percent of my ssi check and i'm having to leave we'll create the unit and go to antioch and start a new life and in 5 years the building gets built i don't want to come back but if i did i wouldn't qualify for the bmr. >> no, no that specific

instance is not flushed out but definitely for rent-controlled units there are provisions that require relocation fees and an affordable unit is replaced but noting not sure. sure. >> any flushing based on the facts i'll appreciate that i think ideally a rent-controlled offered to the same tenant for the same rent and not something that needs it but historic preservation i'll submit for the record a letter from the mayor the los angeles for historical resources under the section of the california code of regulations to be exempt under this secretary - under the affordable housing bonus plan i put up on the genie many, many examples in district 8 percent

of resources potential resources or known resources goodwill ceqa and b cottages on elizabeth street i want to come in an a cottage i wanted to demolish that an r m-3 and demolish that and that cottage and put up a 3 unit building two luxury unit and a tiny third united we'll call that affordable designate a third to be there i'm i hearing increase in legislation no ceqa review that that historic conservation resource can be down the road under ce demolish

this is the example i gave about the upper tenderloin is on the innovate register i think there is definitely inquires how to treat locally designated lockers and historic conservation resources this is on the table depends on the types of resources to determine if they're eligible for the streamlining. >> no categorical exception for the ceqa resources. >> under there is - that coverage cottage an a elizabeth street our reading of current legislation only considered a resource for ceqa designation nostril locally or nationally or state is it so just a local resource that p as defined by ceqa not apply it will be down the road or could be down the

road without the cha knows i think this is a horrible thing i think that san francisco is san francisco because of built environment that is what bought brought us here the city a great place to live and i think that the ability to demolish those kinds of things that hero dense i think there are a lot of people that feel strongly your offering no protection the other question so the historic preservation commission this takes effect no second recognized categoricalized resources how many b structure on survey not known do we have in the city many i showed

cottages on elizabeth street one was an a and 1-b one a resource and exactly next door was a b if only cool register resources are eligible we need to get our act in gear and survey and make sure we don't have groups of california eligible district i hate to say we can don't worry about overseeing structures we don't have time to survey them we found market octavia several district we said hey you can't rezone market octavia but the market street within contiguous district, etc., etc., etc. so what i'm saying we need to figure this out before that goes into effect those resources are very much threatened and submit

the california foundation to the governor that identifies the exactly did same thing i'm talking about i think that one speaker talked about quality maybe mr. co-convention wen could you have another minute or two you can giv >> wrap 24 you a doomsday version of this. >> well, this will be i guess opinion and perspective nuts and bolts but we defeat over thing in the room and people disagree

and folks up here san francisco is an absolute leader in terms of developing creative policy at the local level you know that is not an imaged thing in california and nationally john know that is you love it hero and seattle too as they say not houston it has a no zone no review process they basically look at a project whatever the size or scale and design and make sure that is compliant with the building code and make sure they're parking requirements are met and setback and build this is san francisco we've be able to do with the processes and leadership and folks that like to volunteer minded on commissions we shape our own future some folks say that is too much an obstacle to

process and growth so tells you what to do i think there should be pursue pressure on ourselves not to turn the process into something that stalls we talked with the working group that is the level where i think we should continue to make ourselves perform better to remain as a leader and an example of how to do things at the local level he's a big game-changer we at the state level will talk about how to make land use changes but you can nibble around the edges that's it. >> what about rezoning. >> it's part of package this will be probably subject to the political wind the time but what incentive at the local level to

experiment with things that actually try to incentivize if what can happen is continuing by rate of approval one of the things that san francisco has done i'm choking on my lunch to be able to take a certain amount of leaps of faith with upcoming zoning the city and folks that work on those things what calibrate wlat give and take if you got the requirements set in the state level it takes away a lot of 9 incentives for local planning and up zoning that's in my opinion why would folks want to do a zoning increase they're only doing more zoning increases to get a completely right you can't do in planning there is very little incentive to do that that is wrote think of the

unintended consequences. >> presenter it i was going to call the gentleman to dot best case scenario mr. dulavich how this can be the best case scenario i can come up without the doomsday somewhere give me the best case the gentleman started to talk about it. >> i don't know what the worse case or best kinds i was thinking about the second from dwelling unit merger and excess parking i think that would be good to go through the code and identify how you're over using cu and what is discretionary and how you do that and what is

allowed or not allowed i hope whatever happens there will be a thorough review of the code what can we do within the constraint of the initiative and the objectives do we want discretion and so on but i don't know if it is also be best or worse i've heard this presentation by the way, and thank you. yeah, i'm thinking about all those things that are going to be suddenly fluctuation how to project them or how to come up with a better way to do them. >> what does this go e do to staffing. >> i was hoping you'd ask the best case scenario.

>> i have no personal objective i think one is this is the way month cities work in the country and even in california if you go to san jose most of what they approve the mayor's letter tries to recognize the big projects you've mentioned and others and in fact, now places like the eastern neighborhoods staff approves the small projects having said that, i think there are a number of objectives in the code as the gentleman talked about it changes the service from a tdm is another piece of the puzzle rather than a project by project basis so that won't change you'll still have to review those and others mind preservation and design review are something we have to look at

carefully and i'm concerned about that because that is by most people's definition subject a number of things we can look at i think it is really hard to know the impact on off-street other than we you know the worse case scenarios the scenario that involves the most change with the staff doing less ceqa i see a shifting we have to do all the review and all the objective standards but spend let time on the environmental review process and more on other uses. >> you mentioned the harvey milk club historic preservation commission the absolute before the -

>> all that is possible the way the legislation is drafted it will have to be designated in the state register or on a national register so we could - you could sxheefr ably push that is moving forward but again, all of this is qualified under the draft legislation it is changing everyday it - we'll have to move in that direction is my understanding. >> commissioner moore. >> appreciate the breath of questions i'm concerned what is said do feeling of being on quicksand the speed by which it is appearing all of a sudden and the well described ceqa or lack of transparency by not sdubsz in

4 hundred and 72 cities as mr. cohen said how many coolers from people that are equally concerned as we are so the word we use subject to standards i object to the used of word subject they're not subject to standards but city specific standards that's a big differences we're talking about well developed local cities specific ideas that are be able subjected and not used this is a difficult thing for me what i look for for the 4 hundred and 72 you know director rahaim to have a round table how it is effecting us i know their

communities i couldn't call them cities in california not a functioning general plan so how does this workout are we talking about apples and come cuts i don't think that centralized government can talk about what is in front of us is about entitlements than the response and it is for me, the interest for me, the interest how to be sharper and produce more effective but not create back alleys for entitlements many of the objectives as mayor ed lee carefully outlines in his laser letter and consideration for us

this city is very important that is workforce that is ellis act and all kinds of things point by pointed and so and so, i want to leave with those comments and we're in flux. >> thank you staff that was a great presentation in terms of real world we appreciate those and maybe schedule something at a future hearing thank you. >> i think we'll take item 13 i see supervisor farrell and supervisor wiener and the gentleman from supervisor peskin office welcome taking an item out of order to accommodate their schedules. >> oh, commissioner bobby

wilson. >> i want to add this to a property i co-own they suggested i seek recusal. >> on the adu. >> do you hear a motion to recuse commissioner hillis. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved commissioner hillis our hereby recused we'll be taking item 13 out of order at this time for case the citywide dwelling unit. >> good afternoon, commissioners from the planning department

staff we're excited to have two ordinances that will allow the too many r dwelling unit. >> we're pleased the city agency come back around to adu's

we're contemplating for must assessable dwelling units our city has debating the dwelling unit alternatively referred to a in-law unit for over two decades by efforts by tom shay and more by tom ammiano and as to supervisor peskin over the past two decades in 2002 at the relatively introduced legislation that made it easier four new secondary unit approved legally in the city this is geared with the supervisor and eager to move forward today and more recently in 2016-2017 chow passed legislation to legalize adu's and the importance of naturally affordable housing in the need to protect existing tenants and, of course, last

year, we saw two organizations for the adu's in district 3 and will 8 each time we've encountered the legal searchy dwelling units citywide and it is telling in some ways taken the housing crisis for we're gardening support for this idea and supervisor peskin is pleased this lastly effort has drawn attention and representatives from the board of supervisors i think this is testament to the safeguard if in on proposed legislation for the maximum of rent-controlled unit without needless make sure we're not create new vehicles for speculation our office reintroduced this idea in march

to create a mechanism for legalizing adding several units and not during which the fabric of our neighborhoods a win-win to add more affordable housing to the market and no percepts this is now moving forward quickly and with excitement we're pleased that supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell and we're glad we're taking part ♪ conversation with the ordinance introduced a few weeks ago we strongly believe the accessory dwelling unit is legislation should apply citywide that was with safeguard in place move forward beyond the conversation and want to emphasize our willingness to work with supervisor farrell's office to create a piece of legislation to get behind and ongoing i think that supervisor peskin involvement in this dialogue for

over a decade reflects the dialogue to be open and dynamic and eager to hear what the planning commission has to say without get into the weeds i want to raise one issue around the planning department in mid to large size building toe more than 5 or 10 united units if we roach the cap whether also make sense to elbow sincerity a anytime square footage requirement other than the minimums that are set by the california building code and section 318 of our planning code those are pros and cons to roving the cap and one critical piece of the conversation a reasonable trade off to remove that cap if we are incentivizing

the nut accessory dwelling unit i wanted to raise that's not before you yet with that, i want to concede to the next supervisors and we look forward to moving this towards the full board >> thank you, supervisors. >> welcome. >> thank you commissioners for hearing those items today supervisor mark farrell one of the sponsors along with supervisor wiener obviously at the board we've evolved as lee mentioned with the adu's over time recently passed district specific adu's to supervisor wiener in district and commissioner christensen in district 3 obviously their a 0 positive tool we believe we need

to do this across the city and time to do so i want to address differences with supervisor cohen's ordinance at that point in time and lee mentioned i look forward to have a proposal that works for everybody supervisor cohen's and i spoken about that and the look forward to those conversations we are we there yet? there we're not there yet there are minor disagreements for the most part our proposal allows unlimited adu's in buildings with 5 or more units consistent with the staff's recommendation this is adds a sitting down larger amount of units to the other legislation as you think about adu's legislation this is about adding admonish units with this proposal my proposal allows up to 25 percent of mcds to create ann an

adu in the underutilized spaces we should take advantage of this going forward and adding resident to the commercial strips is a good day good idea and allow the sale of adu's i believe in supporting home ownership and adu's to low and middle-income housing i want to very much support and additionally it in fills underneath the rear extension and allows the autdz to be in permissible space and lastly strong support for existing the schematics program similar to supervisor wiener had last year those are the key differences prosecute from my perspective that as critical policy and move forward as we experience our housing crisis i look forward to working with supervisor peskin and thank you for your time and apologize that myself and

supervisor wiener will come up in a second we're in the military i middle of a budget negotiation so thank you for your time. >> thank you, supervisor wiener welcome. >> thank you, commissioners and first of all, it is existing we feinstein have more and more momentum for understanding that we - that basic privilege is aloof in san francisco it is a reality the legislation before you really moves in a good direction when i came on the board of supervisors putting aside and adding new in-law units was a non-starter for years and supervisor peskin attempted unsuccessfully to do

so and always feel apart a huge step forward when i and the board of supervisors unanimously passed legislation that i authored to allow new in-law units in the castro to expand to district 8 and the beauty was we helped to create a template for how we can deal with the code, how we can add new rent-controlled unit in a thoughtful way so it is a great to see this go statewide citywide and i'm confident we'll come up with a work product to move forward i want to mention this is intentively by supervisor cohen's but in his legislation it essential wastes away the seismic adu's legislation i authored last year that so far is acquit successful

we have people that are existed and numerous interest that applies to larger building that be retrofitted and waited i wipes it away by enforcing the low very low cap on the seismic program not having a seismic cap for larger building we want to make sure the seismic program is retained in the entire outlet a beautiful incentive for buildings not required to be retrofitted for owners to retrofit the building and buildings we're maurnd a retrofit that is a financial hardship while you at it audio those unite not an incentive but a reward for following the law so, however, we move forward the seismic program needs to be

rinse stated in it's entirety so thank you very much. >> thank you very much appreciate you coming today. >> thank you just first give you a little bit of background about the reasons to support adu's in general the department supports adu's as a strategy on housing units where there is under eyed space for more housing for the middle-income and staff estimates that adu's will be affordable to two person household with a combined i combined it from 80 to 100 percent lastly the adu's will provide flexibility and style with

construction costs expected to break even in 4 to 5 years adu's can input and provide an option for families and friends as your neighborhoods helping the culture elderly parents and so forth adu's will support senior hoermentdz that maybe cash deprived adu's have been long promoted by the state and a secondary unit added to homes and starting in 2014 supervisor wiener spearheaded ordinance that have a definition in the controls for the restrictions and adu's have been increasingly popular in the section in most stitsz city's their allowed to attached or detached in the backyard and the

neighbors in berkley have misdemeanor their controls to better facilitate the adu's and state law that is encouraging having that building the fact of the matter streamlined adu's so the first, i handed out some tables that summarizes the existing proposed controls go to the presentation and there is some available at the table for the public i'm not going to go over everything the first page is the control for adu's generally, the requirements bans geography and the type of of the program a number of adu's allowed this one with the most roifkt in district 8 program and it is allowed in zoning district

district are excluded in each the programs and generally an adu has to be within the existing envelope waivers from the planning code offered if those are offered under the existing building and subject to rent control so is adu when the first adu program as a pilot program the department received over 70 applications with one and thirty units some of them are more than one or two adu's per building those buildings are under going seismic retrofitting that is the most successful programs so far. >> so moving to the proposed controls i'll go through them one by one

we can glow the differences between the two ordinances and the proposed modifications first, the number of adu's allowed per lot supervisor cohen's ordinance reflects the district 8 which is the most roifkt and this will limit the city's existing program under soft story seismic retrofits of the one thirty adu's many units will not be possible if those controls are in effect adu's that are 5 or more or more than two or three staff recommends recommends the controls in district 3 for the under used pace in existing building even with no cpa's currently the adu's application

under the retrofitting program averaged less than two units per lot even though some have 2, 3, 4 or 5 and average is less than 2 per building and putting a cap what reduce the average of building and more space not allowed to add more than 2 units as they current do movrg to the next control - related to the zoning district allowed both ordinances allow the adu's for supervisor wiener ordinance clutdz excludes the rh1 district but allow the units in single-family homes regardless of local ordinance so supervisor farrell and supervisor wiener's ordinance make references state law so

basically in the department receives an application in rh1 d look at the state law from the adu matches the controls then we'll have to approve the adu administratively and - single-family detached buildings are the easiest to add and the departments finds in justifiable reason for the exclusion of the 7 rh3 and next is the new construction both ordinances allow the adu's to be added to residential buildings the department recommends allowing the adu's new construction of small sized building this allows the property owner who are

demolishing an existing building and constructing now building for more than 4 units - this aligns the policy for the demolition of new construction projects it will provide equal opportunity to property owners going through renovations or that choose demolition over new construction the two last table - i kept them their they've remained unchanged looking at the second part of the proposed control table both ordinances will provide prohibitions an users recurred and ncd in chinatown and community or visitors retail

district and commissioner peskin prohibits the use of retail entirely and supervisor farrell and supervisor wiener's ordinances allows the reduction up to 24 percent the department support this provision as for conversion of spaces next one regarding mergers the city in both ordinance prohibit the morgues for adu's the city recently passed stricter controls for mergers the department recommends the adu should be subject to similar controls with - as adu's are similar in character to unauthorized units this will impose strict controls for merge of adu's but still

provide flexibility for housing growth in the future if they need to merge the adu's next one regarding the subdivision of sale supervisor cohen's subdivision of sale for adu's and supervisor farrell and supervisor wiener's ordinance as you heard include this restriction and the department recommends the adu's to be sold separately that is especially important for condos or single-family homes a condominium ownership structure provides complexity for 5 adu's because of multiple owners and the way the ownership is structured and permit condominium to be solid will sipth go discourage the owners of adu's additionally adu's are generally smaller with physical lipgsdz

and have a lower than average sale price and an unmet need for more homeowners opportunity next one is prohibiting the short-term rentals for the adu's that supports that prohibition and the next one is go pro bono no-fault eviction history retrofitting both ordinances would probable cause adu's in buildings of a certain no-fault evictions and that applies to retrofitting that means that if a new owner of a building where the previous owner owner move-in a few years back is not able to add an adu for 5 or 10 years the eviction history were added to the planning code recently like mergers or non-conforming

outdoors but those restrictions where are applied research retrofitting that means the timeline toook at the evictions history for evaluation starts when the ordinance was effective and additional in case the temporary vibrations in the tenant preoccupied the unit or offered the unit subsequent to improvements to withdraw the building with the opportunity to add an adu those are built into the president's that are referred to - that use the restrictions bans eviction history the department users recommends using those those precedence to apply the - based on the history and make

overseeing vibration for temporary evictions allocate the proposal that supervisor peskin i'm talking about the last two blue rows in that table the proposal that commissioner peskin maintenance the revisions for adu's the department supports that the restriction and not using the residential unit this is a good strategy to preserve our existing housing stock but for the envelope their recommendations so supervisor farrell's ordinance allows for expansion in the departments zoning administrator billion number 4 those include under the bay windows or rooms and the department supports this recommendation we think that is

otherwise not possible they can't meet the exposure requirements the department recommends to further allow expansions into the buildable area on the empowering only about 60 percent of lots due to the residential units or residential units are anymore 45 percent open and the map shows the darker shades of red with more than 45 percent of lots open this building can expand to the captain area with the existing hounds on the ground floor the department received at least one thousand application in the 10 years for this addition and in the cutters housing crisis in the city the department would like to beforehand the opportunity to provide housing units they can help to make more adu's feasible

in the western portion the city and the extension will be subject to current procedures of 311 and others residential design team process and louse the expansion is key to the city more car independent and moving the parking space is not an option they buildings maintain a small footprint and last year open space in the back to allow that space for adu's would be helpful to create more adu's and lastly the last row in the table a correction and clarification modification we have related to a provision in the planning code that that has an incorrect reference to the planning code so it allows a 3

foot height increase when buildings are undergoing seismic retrofitting only in the building is going on retrofitting on all floors the planning code mistakenly used that soft story with the retrofitting so recommend we correct that reference but still apply that increase that feasibility studies within the existing envelope that concludes my presentation. we're here for questions and kate conner is here the manager the implement housing presentation so you can ask any questions. >> thank you opening it up for public comment on this item and secretary will we have general public comment after this. >> we've taken that out of order we'll be following the

regular calendar unless you want to put that towards the end (calling names). >> good afternoon commissioner vice president richards and supervisor jeremy paul i have been legalizing estrange and oddball unit like we are discussing for the past 25 years and legalized many pathways often working with the building department or the board of appeals avoiding the planning department so things can be acknowledged as resources make me brought into the fold the planning department acknowledged the actual use of those units i think that is imperative we look

at this as quickly available sourced of increased housing in the city right now there is no a pipeline blockage a i've got an application for 3 new units on russian hill it is sitting in planning since february things like this should be approved with great heaviest they'll be opted out within a year this is not a long trajectory so i'll recommend we address the processing of those applications as well i would support the planning departments recommends strongly i think that we should also be considering this merger provision and if we want to retain the merge permission requiring the cu i think that may create problems for property

owners that did understand the functionality of the issues they're getting into when they start to put these additional dwelling units into use if we are unable to separate that merge issue from the regular 317 track i think that would be behove the department what constitutes a between allowing multiple kitchens in a single dwelling unit i want to see a situation those unite could be built in ways that could be easily you know doors obtain opened and sealed depending on the needs of the tenants at the time thank you very much for bringing this up after those years and looking forward to seeing the flowed of new applications that will follow. >> thank you, mr. paul mr. dulavich. >> good afternoon commissioner we wanted to speak in favor of

legalizing in-law units one of the tasks as anothers executive director in 2004 coming to this commission and speaking in charge of the supervisor peskin ordinances it got tangled up we've been pleased to see the progress an various legislation to legalize and protect excited in-law units there are tens of thousands of them we do know how many but great to talk about natural affordability and adding holstering without changeing their character we think this is great for the city you've heard about the differences between the versions i want to talk about two areas we would like to you to consider more permissible on the number of units permit in

the new building the current roles as said if you're using the earthquake retrofit track you can do an unlimited number of unit and if you are doing district 8 percent or 3 track depends on how many units in the building that is restrictive we're talking about within the building envelope and only talking about space not currently an exciting unit that is a commercial space your i would like in that way to further that limit that by the units in the building could be unit that are feasible not built we pointed out an example the 3141 proposal in the soma so the project sponsor was able to find a way through variances and fees to get two units each into 4 unit buildings that is 4 new units on that parcel from the

planning department proposal were in place two of those units would not have bang built they would have gone through a variance process we encourage you to be more likely so your typically rh1 or rh3 but any multiply 4 unit allows an unlimited units one that constraint and listing the building to 3 feet needed flexibility for converting a detached garage but increase that note blot out the sun but make the spaces have meet the ceiling height requirement we consider extending that 3 foot bump lifting a building to create that space an is ground floor to all adu eligible buildings not the ones with the

earthquake safety retrofit. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm charley goes i work on government affairs for the san francisco apartment association thank you to supervisor cohen's as well as supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell for their proposals we're in support of dwelling units see them a as senate greenway to add hours in neighborhoods at low cost and housing that is it possible by nature and promote density quality citywide we think it has the potential to add more than one unit we appreciate your support we've had. >> number of conversations with supervisor peskin office i know the delays need to be worked and see the two proposals merged with the best of both

options our member 28 hundred members are ready to go on those types of policies and ordinances a number of mentioning members that have tried to add units through seismic legislation and echoes two speakers before me a little bit of a bottleneck within the planning department what you don't building that any prohibitions that has to do with with no-fault evictions should be retrofit we'll only apply those moving forward and there seems like partially surfaces we're not sure what that has to do with with the accessory dwelling unit we

believe with regards to permeability - we feel this is not controversial and i live in one of the unit that is cheaper and a lower ceiling and less natural light but helps me to live in district 3 so i appreciate our support. >> thank you, sir. >> mike san francisco bay area federation nevertheless, we support any strategy that creates for housing units with regards to reconciling those two pieces of legislation we're concerned about the built to subdivide and sell adu's the point of accessory dwelling units to sweet an incentive for an owner of an existing property

to make extra money with the units if you don't allow for subdivision and sale that essentially stops the incentive that is bans incentive we need the for this we'll ask especially on that particular clause it be kept in we're overall supportive of supervisor farrell legislation because of that because it do have tails with the planning department recommendations and as a closing note and side you may have noticed from the housing production report housing went down and you'll want to comedy this is a way to fill that gap. >> thank you, ms. swishing

(calling names). >> a minute and a half good afternoon. i read the executive summary very enlightening on the focus on in law rh2 monster homes the part about the examination into the rear yard and you know, i agree with that that you're allowed to build a home in a rear yard but a big single-family but take up the spice that highlights the need to protect the rear yard open space the middle school with this legislation for example, if you expand into the rear yard adu maybe not allow a deck that on on and on that you need to insure the adu is not incorporated or absorbed into the main body of house i think we've sown that a lot happening with remodels where 4 or 3 united or 2 units are there

and it hits the market is single-family home one way to maintain two unit in those properties they're legally existing by eliminating the writing to percent allowable for the mergers keep two units and add the adu on page 11 of the executive summary that talked about what new housing was it said newly built housing is generally smaller horticulturalist i think that is true for multi unit building but not for the single families so again where i started if you want to do this adu thing you should not use the fact that supposedly smaller unit now and then all you're

doing is building smaller unit i think what is happening the new horticulturalist in the single-family homes are 4 and 5 bedrooms that's the premise i would start with not the other one thank you very much. >> i want to make that clear i'm write a letter. >> thank you, ms. wong. >> hello planning commission thank you for super take the opportunity to weigh on the promote legislation by supervisor cohen's, supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell we've been a long supporter of making the in-law units okay. and taking that citywide they serve the household and rented lens other market-rate housing and the density in several ways in all kinds of neighborhood we

appreciate many of the proposals and in general we select a more flexible approach will have more units generally supportive of case report including those related to mergers and subdivision and temporary eviction history we like tom ammiano suggested removing the cap what less than 5 units is based on the program and in lion with other policies and physical liemgdz will help to keep this number within it and san francisco is serious about a large number of units the city should trait this is a a learning process and in the period we've visited the policy and suggestion user suggest

outside of the building envelope and understand the city didn't want to incentivizes the dwelling unit forces short-term rentals but once we have created a set of laws that are exorbitantly we suggest little the occupant should not be treated definitely and the residents shouldn't be treated different from the population and lastly beyond the planning and zoning issues the program success relies an breaking other barriers the marketing program simpler and cheaper and fund those unite we currently to you accept staffs modifications to be effective at making a dent in the hungarian. >> thank you very