marcella, staff, and implementing permits at the planning department. i will give you a brief overview of the monitoring regarding the accessory dwelling units. this report will also be transmitted to the board of supervisors. i will highlight a few overall trends of the data and end with a few key procedural and process improvements and i will be able to answer any questions have you following. can i get the overhead please? the graph outlines the quarterly filing since the inception which really illustrates what we found substantial increase in filings since the program was implemented september 2016, 162-16. 73% of all the a.d.u. submittals have been submitted

since that time. in the case packet also included the map which illustrated the geographical distribution of submittals for all a.d.u. permits. majority proposed to add a.d.u.'s to primarily multi-unit buildings with about 12% filings application for single family homeowners to add one a.d.u. to their property. notably 60% of permits filed since june of 2017 when our local version of state law was enacted. to date, which is illustrated on this map about half of all the a.d.u. permits have been filed concurrently with seismic permits. to date the a.d.u. applications have ranged from about 1-9 a.d.u.'s per permit.

a survey we conducted of the rental rates for the occupied units to date indicates an average of 2,600 for a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit in the city. these have been primarily completed in districts 3 and 8. of note the survey indicated some of these units are being rented to family members at below market rate or not being charged rent at all. so just some interesting findings from that survey. i would like to highlight a few procedural improvements we have been working on since last year. per your direction, through input we heard over different projects from tenants groups and tenants themselves we have developed a procedural solution with the department of building inspection related to the issue of removal of housing services. if you remember maybe a month or two ago we had a last

hearing related to this topic, a.d.u.'s and services, and specifically on the topic of garages. so we have worked with d.d.i. on the topic of increasing awareness of service by owners and to tenants. so this procedural improvement will require both owner acknowledgment of the use of all of these spaces defined as housing services and require the owner notify tenants of the proposed work. so this will be part of the screening process, which is part of the filing process for the accessory dwelling units. so that has been recently launched. i don't have more information on that yet but wanted to follow-up and let you know we have been working collaboratively with d.d.i. on that. though there's been an increase of submittals since june last year we believe there's more we can accomplish. we are working to further

streamline the process for these permits. we are researching best practice for communication to the home owners including researching further communication tools that might be helpful and developing a community outreach strategy planned for this summer to work in every supervisorial units and working with the homeowners. the team continues to make progress on procedural streamlining in response to the mayor's executive directive, including development of counter review process by appointment for these accessory dwelling unit permits. one success we have had thus far and just working with d.d.i., routing, not the most exciting topic but it's actually created some improvements in our planning

process so that once we have met all of our regulatory code requirements we have actually started to see an improvement of a permit sitting with planning from a 166 days to an average of about 68 days. [please stand by...] .

additional housing to the city especially in districts like ours. the changes today would streamline common issues that the department is seeing for dwelling units, like waiver for exposure, changing the street requirement and notification for adu projects. we hope these changes to the program make it easier to move forward quickly as this can be

cheaper housing. we look forward to the commissioner and public comment and thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. so the amendments in this ordinance are responding to input from property owners, adu applicants and staff reviewing the permits. i'll give a brief overview of the proposal in looking through the charts that i just handed out. i'm happy to discuss any of the issues in detail if there are questions. can we switch over to the laptop? for the first item, regarding adu new construction buildings. currently this is not allowed. proposed ordinance would allow 1 adu for three buildings or less. this has modification to provide a maximum unit size of 1200

square foot for adu and new construction only. this would help distinguish the adu from a regular unit in a new building. so the second issue is about adus expanding beyond building envelope and has three components. the first one -- the first one is about filling in under decks. as currently show in this graph, adus can expand the building envelope to fill in under rooms and decks. and there is no neighbor notification required. the proposed ordinance -- the

ordinance proposes to allow this infill if the spaces are required yard and similarly, it would not require neighborhood notification. this would help improve the unit and access to light and exposure for the unit. and will help create better quality units. staff recommendation on this is just minor code consistency modifications. the second which is under item b, is about standalone garages that currently can be converted to adus, but they cannot be expanded. the ordinance proposes to allow dormers to be added. extending the garage to adu. dormers would also allow additional light and vertical space for the unit and it will add to the quality of the unit. staff also supports this

recommendation and has just minor code modification. in addition, supervisor tang has requested that the department look at garages in corner lots and expanding them vertically. so, lots usually -- this is a corner lot, this is an example of a corner lot in -- sorry, you won't see it on there. on corner lots, standalone garages are usually facing the street and they're by the front property line, but they're still considered in their yard. so staff considered this and recommends one story vertical expansion over these garages to accommodate the adu. this will also help create a

continuous street wall, because these are one story buildings in the middle of the street wall and create a gap. and it creates adus that have direct access to the street and better quality adu. under c, it's about again expanding adus within the envelope, beyond the building envelope, sorry. so as i said, most right now are allowed only to be built within the existing building envelope, what is already there. there has been one change in the past year or two that allows only adus that follow the state law program to actually expand the buildable envelope. those are adus and single-family

homes only. staff subjects to make this consistent and allow all adus to expand in the buildable envelope. 3 is the subject of the requirements, similar to all units. the ordinance proposes to exempt adus from requirement. stream line adus, but recommends that instead, the subject adu or allow them to pay into the inlieu fee. in that way, we're still following the principles of the city's better street plan and making our sidewalks cleaner. but also have the stream line review process for adu.

number 4 and 5, these are bicycle requirements and i'm happy to go into detail if you're interested. staff supports these recommendations as they would help and maintain the quality of life in these units. number 6, the ordinance requires that planning staff attend the existing pre-application meetings hosted by dbi. we are also supporting that. and this would help with the coordination and avoid iterative revisions that applicants have to do. lastly, the ordinance also changes -- makes changes to the legalization program in addition to the adu program. about a year ago, the department

sent -- published a memo or sent a memo to the commission about the legalization program and highlighted two policies concerns about the legalization program. one of which was the cap of one unit per lot that can be legalized. and that was a concern. this ordinance removes that cap and allows all unauthorized units to be eligible for the legalization program. so it addresses that concern. we are also proposing that the second concern be addressed as well. which is an eviction loophole that is in the legalization program. to explain that, the legalization program has an eviction prohibition built into it. so if there is no fault eviction on unauthorized unit, that unit is ineligible to use the

legalization program. and the policy behind that was about tenant's protection. in the past few years, there has been more legislative changes that conflicted with that goal and created this loophole. now we require cu to remove unauthorized units, unless you're ineligible for the legalization program. so if someone now has done no-fault evictions in their unauthorized unit, they become ineligible for that program, so someone can evict their tenant, make them ineligible for the program and remove the unit without a cu. that works in conflict with the tenant protection goal. in addition, the city has made changes through the eviction protection 2.0 legislation that happened a few years back.

it added price controls to five different types of no-fault evictions, so that already addresses the tenant protection issues. so what staff is recommending is to remove the tenant from the legalization program and that way, we can preserve the units and remove the excuse of no-fault evictions for removing these units. and also, make amendments to the administrative code, two amendments to the code for the tenant protection purposes. and these are the two ones that are listed in the last basically cell of the chart. one is just a clarification, these unauthorized units, the price control that already exists also applies to these unauthorized units. and the second one is a bigger change that is providing the right to return to tenants

evicted from unauthorized units. and it's basically using the same provisions that are available for three different types of no-fault evictions that is there. that concludes my presentation. i also wanted to emphasize that it was the case report -- when the case report was published, the review was still pending, but the environmental review has been completed and is -- they find this already under the addendum 4 that was published in june 2016. we have also received multiple letters of support from different neighbors and organizations, as well as a letter from csfn. i'm here for questions. >> we'll open it up to public comment.

>> good evening. my name is michael murphy. i'm a retired judicial attorney for the court of appeal, long time resident of the richmond district. i want to call your attention to a mission in this otherwise very commendable ordinance. and that is the failure to comply with state law relating to adus and single-family homes. a bit of background, you know it, but in 2015, the planning department issued an adu manual which was a very good piece of work, but it offered limited options and often unappealing options for single-family homes. that was because it was constrained by the ordinance of that time. no fault of the planning department. in 2016, the state legislature

amended -- enacted amendments to the adu law that imposed certain mandatory parameters to local ordinances. unfortunately, san francisco failed to comply. instead, ordinance 9517 announced the intention of complying to state law, but in reality made no meaningful concession to that law. now, apparently san francisco wasn't alone in dragging its feet, because today pending legislature and expected to pass, is sb 831. which includes enforcement provisions which will require municipalities throughout the state to comply with the terms of this state law on adu

applying to single-family homes. in a memo that i circulated to the staff, i pointed out two corrections that could be made right now. the first has to do with the definition of adus. there should be a separate definition complying with state law for single-family homes. the second amendment has to do with the ministerial provisions, approval provisions. it's the present statute has two avenues and various restrictions and limitations. [bell ringing] it's in conflict of state law and impractical. so that again should be revamped. now, if you want to kick this down the road, that's fine. but i'll be back here in six months probably. and i'll be more specific. i'll try to get a lot more into

my three minutes. but this is what i can offer today. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. murphy. >> good evening. earlier, you know, all i really care about is the affordability issue and how that works out with existing housing. and in the wednesday chronicle there was 9.5 million thing up on chestnut street, it was supposedly four units, but they're shameless. legally a four unit building, it's now a single-family home with detached garden. the one i mentioned earlier on chattanooga, it was two flats. i don't know what they did, but you could have put an adu behind the garage. i don't know how you can be more proactive to do that when projects come in, don't come in, but i want to focus on what i think is a loophole. or could be a loophole. and you experienced it.

and that is 653 28th street. that building should not have been demolished. it was 45,000 over the number at the time. and the numbers hadn't been adjusted. that's why i went to the board of appeals with it and lost there. but i don't think that when this whole thing was proposed, i don't think that you should allow an adu -- or justify a demolition to put an adu in. because you're going to demolish everything that is rh 1 in the city to put a 1200 square foot adu in and the one you approved is 1400, it's too big, maybe i should have it reduced 200 square feet. that's fine, as long as they're totally new and they're not causing the demolition of sound housing that really should be

considered affordable, like that thing up on 28th street. $45,000 over the number. and so the guide used that to justify his square footage. and that is where i see the loophole. i would like to suggest that this commission suggest to supervisor tang and her staff and the board that an adu is fine, proposed new building, but not if it's demolition of a sound affordable housing and even if it's not at the number. whatever that number is for the rh 1, that it needs to be looked at. otherwise, you're going to have a lot of demolitions around the city potentially. i think it's a loophole and i'm very worried about it. thank you very much.

the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods wrote a letter dated june 4. i want to summarize. the street treat planning for the provision is unclear. and coalition asked to amend that to say there shall be assurance that appropriate number of trees be planted within a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 90 days. converting the living space, garages, tool sheds to living spaces causes impact on neighbor's properties. so we asked to amend the codes neighbors shall be noticed of conversions. we discussed popouts ad nauseam earlier, may not coincide with setback areas. amend the legislation for the setback areas. now there is a proposal to add adus to a new building that would result in a number of dwelling units in the building

that exceeds code. we're asking that the legislation be amended so a new building proposal that proposes to put this one unit above the count fort zone, shall not be considered an adu, so the total unit maximum is still within code. here's the definition on section 102 that the legislation relies on. if you notice -- well maybe you can't see because it's too big -- >> you can zoom out. >> i don't know how to operate this. the dwelling unit is second unit to existing envelope, existing built envelope, so when you have a new building, there is no existing. it's a vacant lot. you build it, three units and adu. no it's four units. that's what it is. adu is for the existing building. in regard to unauthorized units, shall meet building and fire code, it should be shelved

because you're doing public safety. turn this in for sunshine. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'll see what i can do with 14 seconds. i'm nikko, representing san francisco coalition of housing, i want to say we support all the amendments. we're excited about adus because they're affordable by design. and as this is an evergreen common, we're in a housing shortage and any way we can create affordability is pertinent to pursue. so i do want to echo the comment that it is our understanding that the creation of adu under state law should fall under a ministerial process, and we just

want to be sure that san francisco is 100% compliant in that. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> nice to see you again. it's been a while. a few hours anyway. i'm sam, from the telegraph hill dwellers. lest you think that we only come down here to complain about something or oppose something, we don't oppose adus, in fact we support them, it's a great way to add additional affordable units to our neighborhood. we want this program to succeed. so we strongly support this. and we're pleased to support a number of aspects of the adu in the proposal that is before you. we support exclusion of adu from the street tree requirements so long as there is no existing street tree removed to construct the adu.

we support a waiver of the bicycle parking requirements. we support the waiver of the codes exposure requirements so long as there is adequate light and openness that is assured to the people who live in the area. and we strongly support the pre-app meeting with dbi and the joint participation of planning staff and the fire department. great idea. we think it should be expanded and used as often as you can. we have a couple of reservations. and we're not sure we're comfortable with the idea of adus in new construction. if adus aren't counted in the total unit count for a parcel, we're worried this is a loophole that is going allow exceeding of the code zoning limits. we don't think you mean that. you need to clarify it. and we think the 1200-foot cap on the size of the adu is large. we did a study of several hundred properties on the top of

telegraph hill and found the average square footage was 800. this 1200 feet is 15% larger than the units. it's too large. it probably needs to be tailored to the specifics of the size of the houses in the area where it's being applied. let's see. also, we're concerned about the category exemption of fill in for code requirements for setback. circumstances can change. there are specifics that can be important. code requirements are there to protect neighborhoods should those circumstances exist. we think you should keep those in play. as a general principle also, we're concerned about the categoric exemption of the adu from neighborhood notice for three things. expansions of the existing built envelope, two, conversion of

nonliving spaces to living and encroachments into the rear or side setback. notice needs to be provided on that. we think that adu should stay the way they are, that they apply to the build envelope. it's pretty big measurable difference. stick with what we have and has been successful here. and finally, just sort of observation, thinking about this relative to the last item we discussed. there is similarities to it. got to be careful about a slippery slope where you start to let public processes take place in forums like this, very valuable one here, you let it start to slip into more -- into more distant as far as line of sight is concerned, processes internally. careful with that. and i'd be really careful about

limiting public notice and engagement opportunities. in this and like everything we've been talking about today. thank you very much. we urge you to take the amendments that are proposed and go back to staff and think about whether any of the things we said here make sense to you, and if they do, make amendments to correct those and bring it back. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next n. -- next speaker, please. >> hello, planning policy director for spur. thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the dwelling unit legislation that supervisor tang is proposing. we're here to support the round of improvements that will make adus easier to create. there are many benefits with them, but i think of the one that is -- one of the ones that is most compelling, they can easily add units here and there, increase density across san

francisco without having very much impact. so, you know, we appreciate the legislation with the planning dertment's recommended modifications. and appreciate that this was based on real experience of the planning department is having and architects and owners are experiencing. so addressing some of the most common challenges of exposure requirements, bicycle requirements, street trees, we like that it is you a lowing for strategic -- allowing for strategic expansion in the exiting buildings and echo the prior speaker's enthusiasm for the combined pre-app process, of getting dbi, fire and planning all in the room to work out the challenge early on. so really appreciate the supervisor tang taking this on and that the planning department is welcoming that and it really feels like san francisco is taking it seriously, that we will keep revisiting this

ordinance and making it better so we can preserve important things while also allowing the process and the requirements to evolve to make it work better. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. please stand by.

>> outside of that, i think there's some areas where this ordinance could go farther. some of those are being discussed at the state level right now, as far as, like, exemptions from rear yard requirements and just providing for flexibility with where adus can be built. i would encourage you to look at any in that regard, as well. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: miss howard? >> good evening, commissioners.

catherine howard. in san francisco, our open space provides not only habitat for wildlife, but habitat for people. families use their back yards. children can play safely there. therefore, there can be significant impacts to the enjoyment of their own property with the addition of people living in previously occupied structures next door. neighbors need to be notified of this possibility. i suggest we amend the legislation such that neighbors shall be notified when changes are proposed. fill ins of existing structures might not comply with restrictions for two steery and side yards. we need to amend the legislation that any structure

fill inshall comply with existing for existing and side yard said back. it seems fit this is due to a delay in dpw permits and perhaps you need to talk to them about streamlining their own system, but i digress. amend this to say there shall be an insurance that a reasonable amount of trees be planted within a reasonable amount of time, let's say 90 days. let's not have empty light wells all over the city when these go in. thank you. >> hello, danger knee -- jeremy shaub, shaub architects. in my office, if -- i think

this is a great way to introduce affordable by design. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. >> teresa landrick. i am really happy about the concept of adus. i don't like how they have been misused in terms of loopholes. we have our standard schmucks or bad actors who are using the seismic retrofit who then say we need to do a whole new foundation, and by the way we're going to add a few new adus in here but the tenants are the last to know. they see a notice that says there will be landscaping done? but suddenly, the rear wall of the garage that they have access to that is part of their housing services is removed and there's a whole new foundation out in the entire back yard laid out.

this is being dealt with elsewhere right now, but this is a reality. so this is my concern is what are we going to make sure that we do to make sure these bad actors aren't abusing something that we want to make sure is an addition to housing because tenants are being forced out because of the work that's going on, and intentionally so. that's the other tactic that's being used, where you just shut off the gas for a certain amount of time, you shut off the water. it's hard to get anyone in to take a look at that and to stop it. so my concern is if you don't know who these bad actors are and you're not flagging them over the counter, okay is not okay. the other thing is is that we as tenants rights organizers are wanting to meet to discuss this. i know this is just an

informational hearing, but we will be working on this because there is a rental ordinance that says your housing services, if you lose those or if someone is trying to take them away, you have certain rights. those are your housing services. they are things that -- you have access to your storage, your garage, as well as laundry. so when you remove laundry services in approxima multiuni building at the same time we're demolishing or closing laundromats, that's a huge problem. so we need to have the big picture in there? i want adu

just a minute. all right. now, let's get to a building that's a new construction with an adu added. you're upzoning without an impact assessment and environmental study. one fellow said it's only going to be -- affect, you know, 120 units in the whole city? no, this is upzoning of every single neighborhood in this city without an environmental study. this is needed, folks.

okay. now onto rent board issues. yeah, you're taking away space from tenants, their storage, their garage, and in the executive summary, it says we are working development -- to develop some kinds of procedures about it. no, these are rights in your tenant contract, and now, they're being taken away, given away to developers to make an adu? this isn't fair. those are a few points. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good evening. i hope i don't break the microphone. just to continue on what everybody else mentioned, this is effectively upzoning in the city, and we're not talking

about upzoning, like, 20 houses here or there, 100. here are the figures: 108,369 in rh-1 and rh 3 that would be eligible for this if the owners of these lots choose to do what happens every day in the city, which is rebuilding remolitions, how ever you want to phrase it, but that's what happens. and this doesn't even take into effect the rm and rto lots, so this is effectively upzoning. so if that is the case, why don't we just go for an environmental impact study instead of hiding behind an adu? if we are taking this vast brush to upzone the whole city, let's do it effectively and do a comprehensive study of what the impact is to the

infrastructure, traffic, water, sewer, school, police, firefighting services. these are all the things that we need to keep in mind when we are having a brush stroke that is so broad. now, i think other thing, 650 28th street, if you recall, that developer was demolishing a very modest size single-family hair foot to build a 4300 square foot mcmansion. when we questioned the wisdom of getting rid of a 2400 square foot house to build a mcmansion, he offered an adu, and he offered an adu as part of his promisary note when he built this 4300 square foot footprint then he could add his

adu. well, how big do you think that adu was? 1400 square foot. 1400 by most people's standard would not be accessory, it's a dwelling. i guess i'm running out of time, but i want to remind you when we brought 505 grandview to your attention, and thankfully, you did side with us. tenants were saved, and this was a case where the builder turned landlord was trying to turn the garage space into adus and because of the light requirement he had to cut into the tenant's apartment. so that tenant was going to be evicted. again, reminding you about proposition f, that is going to cost the city money. thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> hi. thank you for allowing me to speak.

i just want to say that i live in -- i live in an adu, so i think, you know, it's good that we have someone to represent that voice. with that said, i am very grateful for my adu because if i did not have it, i would be homeless. i also know a lot of people that left in there. [inaudible] >> -- which is very sad, because alaska is a very cold place for her. i'm really excited for this legislation because i think it makes it more affordable for people who live in san francisco and people who want to live here can be more affordable. i'm excited that adus can be included in construction, can you imagine me living in a garage and having to share my adu with my sister, her husband and their kid? it's kind of cramped. but that said, it's kind of nice and these are really

beneficial. definitely, i am a little concerned because people do say -- have been accusing oh, there are tenants and there are bad actors, yeah, there are, but there are also good landlords. adus are not evil. there is he a good thing, and a good solution to really affordable housing. it's not the answer, but it does help address it, because otherwise, people like me would not be able to afford it and be homeless, and people like my friend, sasha would not be able to come back. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. commissioners. i see a lot of adus, i've watched the process, and i really want to thank these three people here for all of their efforts because this has been a tremendous push towards

streamlining, and we've seen applications go in for two years ago that are just coming out now through dbi. we're now seeing some applications come out in about four months, so it's a huge, huge improvement to have over the counter review at any level. we're very supportive of all of these amendments? one note on process is that fire is not able to do over the counter review. i don't know if it's because they're backlogged with the regular counter, but they will not do these over the counter, and it would be need ice to sof push that process, as well. it would help things if you don't pay adus -- [inaudible] >> -- so that's all, and thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss allen. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll open it up to commissioners comments and questions. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i guess i have a question, and some of the members of the public raised this.

you know, i kind of breezed through this. oh, it all sounds good, it's apple pie, motherhood, but the allowance -- this commission has actually pushed for adus in new construction, but i'm thinking of the scenarios, and i think i need the city attorney help here, of a 120 square foot out on a 120 square foot lot. today, you could add an adu and push it out in the back yard where it's buildable without a variance. but you know, i'm kind of a jerk, and i just want to raze the house and say i want to build a 4,000 square foot house and an 800 square foot adu, and it's new construction and you can't stop me because it's adding a unit. is that how that would work, that we would be faced with this, we're adding a unit, so you have to allow me to build

what i want? >> no. this would just allow someone to add a unit. >> commissioner richards: and then we'd have someone threaten us with the -- >> president hillis: well, you can do it now. >> commissioner richards: i don't like my house at 1200 square foot. i was to raze and build a mcmansion, and i'm going to get around the c.u. i i'm worried about this. i really am. >> commissioner, any adu requires they come to you. with respect to the housing accountability act, that only comes into play if you're asking him to build fewer

units. >> commissioner richards: so this is like 792 cap. i want to propose two units on a single-family lot -- a single-family house. i want to add an adu which is two dwelling units. it meets the code. i'm going to come a c.u. to raze the house, and they're going to threaten us and saying you can't stop me from razing the house because i'm adding another unit. >> we're adding that as a finding if you are able to add a unit, then, you'll be allowed directly to demolish your existing house. it's not, you know -- it's not kind of like an incentive to do it. >> commissioner richards: i think this is an incentive, absolutely huge incentive. >> hi. monica from supervisor katey tang's office. i'm not sure how this is an incentive.

the democodes that are currently in the planning control still apply, so anyone who has the planning to alter a single-family house, like, that's, like, existing, just apply. >> commissioner richards: but what i know -- >> please let me finish. what this is saying is if you are doing new construction, you can add the adu at that time. projects, what they can do, built a single-family home, wait three years and build the adu. it doesn't incentivize the demoof existing housing. >> commissioner richards: i completely disagree with you, absolutely, completely disagree with you. >> i think we can agree to disagree. >> commissioner richards: we've seen it here. >> president hillis: i think the difference is we've seen demoin construction. >> commissioner richards: right, of new construction. >> president hillis: if you can build a 4,000 square foot

home, i'd rather them build a 4,000 square foot home with a 1,000 foot adu than just a 4,000 square foot home. [inaudible] >> when the commission sees those new single-family home projects, you cannot instruct them to add an adu unless the ordinance states that. >> commissioner richards: i fully understand that. however if you give someone permit to build an adu on a single-family use lot, they're going to standup here and say you cannot order me to build a single-family house with an adu. we've seen it up here. i cannot support this. this is a demolition bomb. >> it is not, 'cause currently, what would happen is that you are making the recommendation. as a planner, i remember coming to many hearings, remember the

commission saying we wish we had the ability to add adus as part of these projects, and we don't because one we're not allowed to in new construction, and the zoning here is rh-1. this would now give you the ability to add the adu. >> commissioner richards: which i'd support, but i don't support demolishing a house to build a bigger house and add the adu. >> but the project sponsor would come, meet the democontrols, and demolish the existing house, and have the ability to build the adu. he's still going to come and still build the giant house. that's my idea. the idea is there -- >> commissioner richards: we can say no. under this law -- >> can you still say no. >> commissioner richards: i think the question is whether the housing -- >> i think the question is because you are increasing the number of units from one to two, then, the housing

accountability might come into play. >> commissioner richards: i think this is 827 junior. >> i think that is incredibly insensitive, commissioner. >> let me add, a way to go around this is an applicant can come and say i'm demolishing, replacing, and i'm also creating space for an adu and three years from now, then, they can come back and add an adu, and you know, they can kind of use the same argument, so they can do that now. i'm demoing and reconstructing and here's the space i'm going to add the adu. >> commissioner richards: right, and we can still say no. two thirds of the housing in the outer sunset and richmond are adu.

there's not enough tenant protections in here. it's not thought through. >> the tenant protections, it's going to be the same thing right now. i think the idea here is that adding the -- allowing to add an adu is an incentive to demolish a house, and i think the response that we have is that it's not an incentive because they already can allow an adu to an existing unit, and also, if they want to demoand come back in three years, they can do that. so i think the response is that they're not creating an incentive. >> commissioner richards: i completely support where this is going. i think there's so many details that need to be thought out, the unintended consequences haven't been thought through. that's what i'm saying. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so i understand what you guys are saying. i don't think you're right, and this is why. i think that your compartmentalizing, which is, you know, sometimes what we're

trained to do. the demolition has nothing to do with the new construction is what you're saying, and i think that the economics don't actually work that way, and so i think it's the combination of the housing accountability act, which is a fairly new thing how it's being applied to what we're seeing on the commission. so i fully support everything that will allow us to put adu's in existing buildings. i want to take over garages, i want to take over sheds, i want to make housing everywhere. i think that we haven't thought through the economics of this enough to make me feel good about voting for it. the tenant protections are key, and i realize that's under the rhenboard, but how is that going to affect -- you know, what effect will this powerful economic incentive have for

that -- well, we have to think through it. we can't just say it's a separate issue because it is a directly connected issue. and then, to commissioner richards' point, you know, i do think it provides -- i get it, that it's -- this is not causing it. i mean, our issue is that people are building monster homes. it's not related to this. that is our issue. i think it exacerbates that issue because it now brings the housing accountability act into the picture. maybe -- maybe we can find a way around it. i just feel like the city attorney needs to look at it and tell us, well, this could happen, this could not happen, and if you tighten the language in this way, you can get around it. so i'm not comfortable with it yet, bo-i do think it will have consequences that are outweighing the good things that this is trying to do. and i think it's doing great

things. i do think there's too many unused garages in rh 1-d in my neighborhood that could provide good housing. i think we're just not there yet. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i join in the discussion. i strongly share commissioner richards and melgar's questions. i do believe the expanding in the build envelope was a great idea. i have questions just as commissioner richards does about new construction and adus because it's not clearly defined what parameters are, what can and can't happen. i believe that many discussions about streets trees, bicycles, waiver, property app done, meetings with all the departments are foundation of a strong discussion which