basis, we do the 60- to 100-day look-ahead. >> supervisor peskin: relative to standards on these projects. yesterday you said in your comments, not just about congestion, but pedestrian safrt, i -- safety, i notice on van ness avenue that on the northbound direction north of broadway, the concrete barriers are such that there is no way for a bicycle to go northbound without being in the middle of traffic. and if those barriers could be moved over a little bit, there could be a little safe space. there were tourists going northbound to fishermen's wharf, i was scared to death for them. is there -- do you have standards that you take into account? >> we do. i didn't want to get into too much detail because we're

pressed for time, but we published the blue book, that lays out the minimum width of sidewalks, appropriate size of traffic lanes, how high a jersey barrier has to be. and we'll make sure that an inspector gets out to van ness and broadway today. >> supervisor peskin: yeah. i remember the death of diana sullivan, who was killed by a cement truck driver in supervisor kim's district in 2013 and i think i recall that she asked for a traffic plan to address the projects happening in the transit center district and outlying areas and to my knowledge that never materialized. anyway. all right, mr. thomas. >> good afternoon, chair peskin, members of the transportation authority commission. john thomas, deputy director for public works, city engineer.

i just want to talk to you a little bit about our coordination efforts and conclude with a brief discussion on other elements affecting our construction. so public works is generally responsible for paving and sewer projects, curb ramps, and things of the like. m.t.a., as you know, has transit projects, signal projects, and street scape, sewer and water projects. many of them are combined projects led by public works, sometimes by m.t.a., and sometimes by the p.u.c. so we share these responsibilities across agencies. the coordination for the projects starts at the beginning at the planning stages. we have our committee for utility liason and generally brings in the outside utility companies to make them aware of

our projects and they see our five-year look ahead of projected projects. we have inter-agency project coordination. we have regular monthly meetings the directors for public works and the m.t.a. and periodically the p.u.c. join together every month to go over issues between the departments, ways that we can more effectively coordinate projects and the delivery of much of our capital work. in addition to that, we have design and paving meetings and transit meetings, to try to limit the resources available with all the agencies. finally, we have what was referred to as envista and now accela to provide coordination and notification of all of our

construction work, as well as private utility construction work so everybody understands where the potential clashes are and work to coordinate those efforts to make sure that they're done in an efficient manner. some of the things we've talked about throughout the day have focused on just the sheer number of construction projects that we have out on the city streets today. we have been working to coordinate, as i said earlier, these projects, but we have been impacted by the bid environment. there's been a supply-and-demand issue, with regard to the contracts we have out and contractors available to do the work. we have seen unforeseen conditions with abandon utilities and/or soil contamination and even archaeological finds, which have

slowed work down. we have -- with the aging infrastructure replacement work that we're doing, much of our sewer and water facilities are in excess of 75 to 100 years old. that means not only the main lines, but the connections to the private properties on either side of the street are also of that vintage. and often require replacement. if you look back 20, 25 years ago, we would sometimes only be replacing on the order of 25% to 30% of side sewers. now we're seeing upwards of 60% to 70%. what that means is significantly more disruption while the construction is under way. additional cuts that disrupt traffic flow and take longer to conclude the work in a given block. other factors include holiday moratoriums, noise restrictions, and sometimes adjacent capital projects and private development.

so that concludes what i had. and i think eric will conclude. >> everything that we've just discussed in my opinion talks to making sure that we properly budget for our projects. in certain resurrects, we're learning about the city infrastructure that we didn't know before. john mentioned it's 75 to 100 years old. it's important to out the appropriate risk dollars in our budget to get the job done and do it effectively and have the traffic management strategies ahead of the projects. i think there will be a need for some robust media campaigns to let the world know that the city will be under construction. that concludes our presentation and open for questions. >> supervisor peskin: any questions for staff? seeing none, is there any public

comment on this item number 11? public comment is closed. thank you for that information item. i know the hour is growing late. could you please read item number 12, so that we can continue that item? >> clerk: item 12, update on independent analysis and oversight services with sjoberg evashenk consulting. this is an information item. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to continue this? made by safai and seconded by sheehy. without objection, it will be continued. any introduction of new items? seeing none. is there any general public comment? seeing none. public comment is closed. m.t.a. is adjourned.

♪ ? an incredible program because we take regular kids teach them the love of the game. we have no emphasis on winning we only have an emphasis on learning and trying as hard as

they can that's it and the chips fall where they may. when students leave our program whether or not adults or kids they'll have a mechanical understanding of what they have. you don't have to be 7 feet tall or be super faster but you do need skwil. once you teach kids how to have control over the tennis courts they'll master. please invest

>> supervisor tang: good afternoon, everyone. welcome it our land use committee meeting of july 9, 2018. i'm katy tang, chair of this committee. to my right, supervisor kim, and we want to wish her a very happy birthday and thank her for joining us, in spite of it being her birthday. and we have supervisor safai as well. and our clerk is erica major. any announcements? >> clerk: please be sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. any speaker cards and copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the july 17 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor tang: i will make this announcement later, but

want to announce that items 6-8 related to sent sentcentral som. >> clerk: item 1 is review of downtown and affordable housing projects notification requirements for review of alterations and to historical landmarks and in conservation districts. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> supervisor kim: i will make a motion to continue this item. conversations are ensuing between parties to work this out and so we want to give all the stake holders additional time.

i don't know if ms. chang has anything further to say? >> no. we're working on it. >> supervisor tang: we'll open up item 1, any members of the public wish to speak. seeing none, closed. oh, all right. i will reopen item 1 for public comment. come on up. >> i'm going to get my medicare next week, so it's a sign that i need my medicare. i want to reiterate that section 311 as it currently stands that the 30-day notice period for the plans, alteration plans, demolition, new construction, anything under 311 by the 30-day notice should continue as it is and plans should be mailed to residents, neighbors, particularly, most important for adjacent neighbors to see the plans early on in the process.

that's basically what i want to reiterate. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 1. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor kim: make a motion for the call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: so moved and without objection. >> clerk: tone 2 is building codes accessory dwelling units and making appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and i will call up planning staff in a moment, but just by way of background, i know there's been a lot of talk about accessory dwelling units and modifications to the planning code around that. over the years, our office has especially felt that a.d.u.s has been a great way to add affordable housing in our city's housing stock. the most affordable, should be

the easiest, but since the legalization program has taken place, we've found and heard that many sponsors are hesitant to create or legalize existing accessory dwelling units or there are hiccups that they encounter over the process if they're in the process of legalization. after listening to people and groups in terms of challenges that they encountered, planning staff worked with my office and i want to thank the planning department for their work on this. but over the course of time, we've tried to identify what the barriers are

>> i will go through them one by one. so first, to allow expansion of a.d.u.s within the buildable envelope. currently, for most of the a.d.u.s, most of the a.d.u.s have to be in the envelope and

it would allow expansion within the buildable envelope. the second amendment is a very -- it's a qualification amendment related to an existing amendment in the ordinance that would allow expansion of a.d.u.s without neighbor notification. the proposed modification is to suggest another section of the code, which is 136c to list them as permit objections. number three is corner lots. the modification would allow one store expansion of stand-alone garage structures limited to existing footprints. this was -- this was added to

the ordinance per supervisor tang's request and planning staff made that recommendation and planning commission approved that recommendation as well. number four, is to clarify that, again, another clarification item. to clarify dormers in existing garages or structures to a.d.u.s and allow expansions even if the structures are in the required rear yard. number five, about city requirements and it's to allow a.d.u.s to pay a fee for requirements and same provisions in authorized units undergoing legalization. number six, something that the planning commission discussed, so that the units should remain accessory. and number seven, is

recommendation with regard to the legalization program and it's to remove an existing eviction loophole that exists in the legalization program. so the recommendation is to remove the prohibition and legalization for no-fault evictions have occurred and amend the planning code and ordinance to clarify that it applies in authorized units and, two, to require the units to be offered to previous tenants evicted, similar to provisions for capital improvements and owner-moving evictions that exists. that includes the recommended modifications from the planning commission. i'm here for any questions. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much and thank you, again, for all of your work on this. so i just wanted to summarize what the original proposed legislation was and what amendments i will propose today. you heard the planning

commission's recommendations and some of the recommendations we're taking and some not. so i'm going to go off the order of the summary sheet i provided to colleagues, but number one, legislation proposed to eliminate street tree requirement to speed up the approval for a.d.u.s. we heard from a lot of project sponsors that they had trouble obtaining the bureau of urban forestry person's time to come out to site the tree. and so -- we also heard that, of course, our city, we want to plant more trees. so the amendment that i will propose today is to allow project sponsors to pay an in lieu fee for the trees instead, so it will still go into a fee that will fund trees being planted in general in our city. secondly, we're not changing anything about this, but we had in the legislation allowed for zoning administrator waiver to permit insulation of a window

facing an open area that is 225 square feet, with no horizontal direction being less than 9 feet. this is getting a little detailed here, but that's in the original legislation and basically, the reason for that is because it's been a common issue where common sponsors cannot meet the 15x15 requirement, exposure requirement, for a.d.u.s. so we're giving flexibility on exposure there. item three is relateded to bicycle parking. we heard from project sponsors that there had been difficulty meeting bike parking requirement, so we're allowing a building with no new corridors to use a 3-foot corridor and allow vertical parking to satisfy the biking requirement. the fourth component of the legislation is to allow the addition of dormers. if you need a picture, we have it in our handout or planning may want to put it on the

overhead. there's a specific definition for dormer windows, but we allow them when a structure or growth is converted to a.d.u. without neighborhood notification even if it extends to the required year yard. so what we're doing today in land use is i would like to clarify the decision for dormers when converting to a.d.u.s would allow such expansion even if the structures are in the required rear yard. and so the definition for dormers is, again, very specific. i think it's, what, 8x8 or something. planning staff can correct me if i'm wrong. and there are other requirements not related to the legislation that they would have to meet. another component of our legislation is that we allow the expansion of a.d.u.s under cantilevered rooms in the rear yard.

this was in the original legislation, but what i'm proposing today in land use is a mandatory pre-app meeting. we've heard concerns about eliminating the requirements, so, today, we're going to propose an amendment if you are creating an a.d.u. under a cantilevered room and/or deck. we're also amending to allow the filling in under a cantilevered room or deck adding an obstruction with an a.d.u. currently, it is not an allowed obstruction. we're also just doing one amendment to ensure that single-family homes maintain a rear yard depth of 25% and no less than 15 feet. most of our legislation is a.d.u.s for multiunit buildings,

but we wanted to make sewer that there's still a rear yard for single-family homes. another component of our legislation is to -- was originally to allow more than one -- sorry, to allow more than one unauthorized unit to be permitted if it meets code requirements. and so that is something that will still remain in our legislation. item 7 is we're codifying the interpretation for unauthorized units that cannot be legalized. there are some cases where there's not a path to legalization, such as an area that doesn't permit residential uses. and so the zoning administrators determine if a unit cannot be legalized under the planning code, it may be removed administratively as the planning commission could not require that the owner legalize the unit if it was not under the planning code. so we want to codify something that's been in existing

practice. number eight, regarding corner lots, we wanted to be able to allow up to one-story expansion of an existing legal, nonconforming structure. so, again, it may be more helpful to see a visual of this, but this is something that we are talking a planning commission recommendation for. item 9, we are allowing for the expansion of a.d.u.s within the buildable envelope. that is something that will be an amendment that i plan on making based on the planning commission recommendation. the 10th item is, we are requiring in our legislation that planning department, fire department, and building department be present in preapplication meetings with sponsors for a.d.u.s. we heard a lot that project sponsors had to go back and forth between architects and different apartments to figure out what they need to do to meet building code requirements and so forth. so we wanted to make sure that

all parties were there in the same room when the project sponsor thought about creating an a.d.u. however, we have it have our building code amendmentses to trail this because that's where the language is housed. we were proposing a.d.u. in a newly built structure of three units or less. but we are actually going to remove this provision as part of our legislation because we heard a lot of concerns from the planning commission hearing about adding new a.d.u.s as part of new construction. so i apologize that this is a lot that we just went through. but that is in summary and overview of the legislation as well as amendments that i will be proposing today. a couple of things we are not taking is the recommendation from planning regarding legalization of units with a

prior eviction. the reason why we're not doing that today is that is in the admin code and it is something that we will considerate a future date. but today, we're interested in making changes to the planning code. and also, not taking a recommendation for a side threshold for a.d.u.s. that would apply to new construction and so i'm make a motion to remove that from new construction. with that said, those are all the legislative changes. i do know that my staff and planning and d.b.i., fire, and so forth, have been embarking upon multiple meetings in terms of a.d.u.s and trying to make that process a lot more smooth for project sponsors. so i want to thank them for that ongoing work that you will not see on this paper. with that said, i wanted to see if marcel wanted to come up to

talk about a new process at planning regarding if a.d.u.s are created and they result in either parking or storage or laundry removal. that was a concern that was raised. if you could speak to the new process in planning. >> thank you. department staff. i will briefly give you an overview on this process. currently at d.b.i., they require a screening form, which precedes the ability to file a permit for a.d.u.s. working with d.b.i. and planning, we've established a new procedure that requires an owner affidavit that requires the owner to acknowledge the existence of housing services, justified by the rent ordinance of san francisco and the removal of that requires just cause. and if the project to add the a.d.u.s would potentially remove said housing services, there's a

notification requirement to tenants in the building and part of the procedure of filing this screening form would be to submit this information as well as the owner signing this affidavit. this has been implemented starting july 2 for all the permits to be filed. and planning is working with sponsors and owners to retroactively update existing permits under review. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. i'm glad we have this in place now. so that's a summary. and if colleagues have any questions or we can go to public comment. >> i wanted to ask one question, for the mandatory preapplication notice you mentioned, tess only for infilling under cantilevered rooms in rear yard, correct? >> supervisor tang: yes.

thank you for that clarification. i have georgia shudish, michael murphy, jeremy schaub, george wooding, rose hillson, anastasia noplis. come on up. >> good afternoon. i gave a handout to ms. major. a lot things that you mention the, you covered. just to say, you know, accessory dwelling unit could stand for affordable dwelling unit and that's the concept of this. that's why a minimum to maximum size makes a certain amount of sense. i understand what you did not doing it in new construction and i'm glad you did that. i don't know if the word proposed is still in there. if it's a problem or it needs a definition, but anything that involves a demolition should be looked at very closely. the -- this will sound a little crazy, but when people add an

a.d.u., and i've seen this a lot when second units are added, they put in a refrigerator that doesn't have a freezer. they put a wine refrigerator in a second unit. i don't see how anyone could have a refrigerator, even with a tiny freezer for ice cubes or ice cream. my point is, people put minimal refrigerators in and the so-called second unit never hits the market. and they pass. they get their certificate of occupancy with a wine refrigerator. and i think it's a little loophole. i don't know if you can do that and be that persnickety and precise in your ordinance, but there is something to think about in terms of what kind of a kitchen you have in the a.d.u.s. i hope at some point, you will consider a minimum and maximum size because of the affordability issue. thank you very much.

>> hello. my name is michael murphy. i'm a resident of the richmond district and retired judicial attorney for the court of appeal first district. there is much to like in this ordinance, but it has one significant omission. it fails to bring the san francisco ordinance in compliance with state law regulating a.d.u.s for single-family homes. three years ago when the planning commission produced an a.d.u. manual, the options for a.d.u.s in single-family homes were limited and unattractive. the following year, california legislature enacted legislation mandating a wider range of practical options. sadly, san francisco failed to comply with state law. ordinance 95-17 announced the purpose of complying the state law. but, in fact, made no meaningful concession to the law.

the a.d.u. manual was not revised. i must call your attention to the fact that the city attorney put its stamp of approval on ordinance 95-17. i have sent to you a memo by way of an email before this meeting showing that the ordinance is, in fact, widely in conflict with state law. now amending the san francisco ordinance to comply with state law is only a first step. but the city attorney's position on ordinance 95-17 unfortunately bars the way to taking this first steptoe ward an effective a.d.u. ordinance and manual. as a lawyer, i would hope that this problem could be resolved by amicable discussion and the city attorney will participate actively in drafting an ordinance or manual complying with this very beneficial state law.

>> hi. good afternoon. i'm dylan casey, california renters advocacy and education fund. i think this proposed ordinance takes a lot of steps in the right direction. i want to talk to highlight three points where i think that san francisco's still falling short of the required state standards for a.d.u.s. first, san francisco's required to allow one accessory dwelling unit in proposed single-family home. this change went into effect in 2017 at the state level. so my understanding is that this will be amended, the san francisco ordinance will be amended, to prohibit a.d.u.s in new construction. and i'm asking that that not happen. second, san francisco applies communication discussion review

to a.d.u.s that expand the envelope of existing single-family homes. i believe this is also contrary it state law standards that require ministerial review processes. so i would ask that the ordinance be exempts from discretionary review notification. lastly, the way that san francisco applies the open space requirements is contrary to state law. they're not listed as permitted by state law and applies independently or san francisco applies a second requirement in the home and there should be only one requirement for the single-family home. i hope the board will consider making a few more amendments to this to bring san francisco's laws in compliance with state law and i am going to submit

more detailed written comments that explain my position. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. george wooding, president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. a.d.u.s with the foot print of a house didn't require notification. supervisor's new a.d.u. legislation would allow a.d.u.s outside the footprint of the house requiring no neighborhood notification. additionally, a zoning administrator will be able to add a second a.d.u. with no oversight. bay windows, elimination of side setbacks, de facto pop-outs,

conversion of freestanding garages and sheds were design standards. when left to subjective criteria in the design standards, that the planning department would apply with the design guidelines. anything will happen and probably will happen. i believe we should, number one, retain the existing code requirements for front obstructions. number two, existing code requirements for rear obstructions. keep side setback areas as is. if square footage is added by projections, the maximum should be included to have accurate

quantification. if it's not adequate, a new one should be created with meaningful public input in the review. thank you. >> good afternoon. jeremy schaub of schaub lee architects. first, i want to commend the three of you for working to help create more units throughout our city. at the end of this, we need to focus on that that is our goal here. so i really would like to emphasize that, the idea of adding an a.d.u. in new construction should be the right way to go. i know there is some consideration at the planning commission, but that all resolved around demolition. we can do a.d.u.s in new construction if there isn't a demo. i have a lot of projects on vacant lots, where we could put in more units. i have about a dozen that i could think of off the top of my head right now. so i think that's something we could focus on, amendments to

the legislation. and the one other piece is wanted to -- wanted to say that having a preapplication meeting with planning and building and fire is going to be re important to make sure that we have all of our code issues nailed down ahead of time. as you can see, we're trying to retroactively fix a lot of things like who knew that street trees would stop prevention of construction. so that's where we're at. preapplication is the way to go. thanks. >> hello. i'm victoria pierce, one of the co-executive directors of housing advocacy fund. dylan, who was up here, said something about the requirements. it is a violation of state law, san francisco would be out of compliance, if it does not allow a.d.u.s to be built as part of new construction.

the state law provisions say that the entire ordinance would be null and void. so it would default back to state law and it would be really disapointing to see the city of san francisco to spend time, energy and money to develop this only for it to go to waste because you didn't follow the rules. so we sue cities in violation of housing law and san francisco might be coming up next if it's not resolved. it would be great if san francisco fixed this. we're in an affordable housing shortage and a.d.u.s is a great way to add some housing for kids, grandparents. it's almost certainly not going to be massive, big developers looking for a quick buck, but looking for housing and looking to make a dent in our housing shortage. it's crucial that it's brought into compliance with state law. do not pass this as it is tonight, otherwise there will be serious repercussions and there

may not be nice actors out there. i want to be sure that san francisco is safe. thank you. >> good afternoon. rick gladstone, land use attorney in the city and have worked on a number of a.d.u.s. first of all, thank you very much for working on this. the amendment is very necessary. i, too, believe that you should check with the city attorney to see if it's complaint to not allow a.d.u.s for single-family homes and the demolition concerns can be taken care of. second, i think it's important for the public to know why the amendment, which i support, is occurring that you can, in fact, do an a.d.u. even though there's been an eviction in the prior three years. as it is currently, there is an incentive for owners to evict

people when they don't want to legalize a unit because the current law says that you cannot do a legalization of a unit if there's been an eviction during the prior year. so your legislation, quite properly, takes away that incentive for people to evict in order to get around the requirement that they legalize an illegal unit. i do share the concern that the building department is not as up to speed as planning on what it means to have no path to legalization. so i wanted to be sure that your legislation includes a pre-op indication not just with the neighbors, but with the fire department and planning department. finally, i support the idea that there will be waivers for open space. i had an a.d.u. case where the a.d.u. process was not useful to

a client because in addition to going through the a.d.u. process, he had to get a variance because there was insufficient open space and that is a very good amendment. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. teresa flanders, disability action. i'm happy to hear of some of the amendments, supervisor tang, and i'm glad that you also, obviously, read the letter from the tenants unit. the difference in single-family homes, usually it's the owner that's there, so they're very aware of -- they don't want delays and they would be the ones inconvenienced and they can be on top of monitoring things, whereas in multiunit buildings, it's not the case. if there are existing tenants, it's those tenants, who are oftentimes dealing with the loss

of laundry facilities, etc., and not knowing their rights, rather. so those of us on the ground advocating for tenants, i'm wanting to push that all safeguards are in place before this goes into effect, as well as an affidavit, i would suggest there be a copy of the buyout of the laundry, the storage, or the garage space that had been part of the services and tenants contracts. for having a copy of that buyout filed with the rent board, means that that proof is there and it's been filed. i would also like to suggest that there be a definite size range so that if it's a space of 1,400 square feet, that not a large flat be built, rather a space where you could actually fit in two a.d.u.s would be great. my understanding of a.d.u.s in

terms of in-laws, grannies, usually between 300 and 700 square feet. so to really take advantage of a.d.u.s adding affordable housing. we need to put a specific range in place. thank you very much. >> good day. i'm anastasia yovinopols, district 8. i'm glad that supervisor tang announced that a.d.u. would not be part of this ordinance in new construction. the intent is to construct units that are rent-controlled and affordable by existing spaces at a property to add to the housing stock. i'm hopeful you will decide to limit the size of a.d.u.s to

1,200 square feet. supervisors, i'm not comfortable about exempting neighborhood notification to allow a.d.u.s to expand within the buildable envelope. issues come up during construction that affect surrounding neighbors and there could be unintended consequences in advance of a project moving forward. depending on truthful disclosures, tenants may not receive the notification of a.d.u.s. as it stands, although the planning department is invited to participate, the tenants are not participants. wouldn't it make sent for tenants to be involved before the a.d.u.s are permitted because if the laundry and garage would be incorporated into the design of a.d.u.s or

had to vacate the units during construction. the tenants in this ordinance does not deal with how long they will be displaced while their homes are legalized and the financial compensation to the tenants is unrealistic. in addition, the zoning administrator must not allow more than one unit at a property to be legalized. thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith, on bee hall of the san francisco coalition action. in the sake of brevity, we share a lot of the same concerns with state law. as somebody who has not an attorney, a plain reading of it, we're potentially going to be outside of compliance for a long

time. the city of san francisco has operated and operated like they didn't care can with what the state of california said that they were supposed to do. we saw another state density project headed to soma. we will not get the opportunity to use a local program with more inclusionary housing. more housing is good, but we can get affordable by design, lowercase a, affordable housing. we want to be sure we're good to go in regards to the state of california. thank you. >> afternoon. jennifer fever, san francisco tenants universiounion. i'm changing my testimony, took the wind out of my sails. we had seen a lot of a.d.u. permits violating the rights of existing tenants. they're using seismic work to force tenants out for a long period of time and not

compensating them and taking away services part of their leases. we hope that the discussions with the rent board continues. we had a case where they were going to put an elevator through tenants apartments and planning department staffers thought that was fine. so for many tenants, they see some letters from the planning department and they trust what their landlords are saying and they don't realize their rights are different from what this official piece of paper is saying. they do have rights and they should be included whenever they will be impacted. i still have questions about how a.d.u.s if approved will take away services from tenants if they don't agree to that. that seems problematic. so we encourage you to keep working with tenant groups to explain the problem so we can find a good solution. thanks.

>> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the a.d.u.s. i would add if a property owner has to displace a tenant, that the -- that property owner is responsible for finding a comparable unit before the tenant is able to return to his or her apartment. and be responsible for the housing cost incurred in the period of vacating. thanks to ms. boudreau that suggested tracking of rental rates as units are completed and ready for occupancy. it's urgent as it's not 100% clear what units will be protected with rent control.

if the tenants return with the same rent, new tenants without rent control would start at market rates. we have to keep that in mind that the landlord can charge whatever they want at the beginning of the new unit opening. so this would be prohibitively costly for most of us in the city. if that's the case, the a.d.u. project is not adequately addressed low and moderate income renters. lastly, in district 8, there are 198 total a.d.u.s filed. apparently in an effort to streamline the process, the planning commission will not have over sight over any of this work no matter what the size. this means neighbors in the public are largely left out of oversight as well. thank you. >> good afternoon. ozzie realm, neighborhood

council. first of all, supervisor tang, i would like to thank you for taking off the amendment to allow a.d.u. in new construction. of course, our concern was always regarding the demolition and whether or not the planning commission could reject demolition. so to the folks that are criticizing this move and the ones that are insisting that we do need to allow a.d.u.s in new construction, i understand and i'm not against that. if we could have some sort of a compromise in the form of, well, a.d.u.s should be properly rent controlled, they should be below market rate. if we can have a compromise and gave and take on that front, i can see something like this happening. if you are going to allow a demolition and construction of a brand-new a.d.u. that will not be rent controlled it, will not be providing affordable housing. that's one issue that you may

want to look into. another thing that i was going to bring to your attention, for the past three weeks plus that we've been looking at this, it keeps on confusing a whole bunch of activists because here it says to defines the envelope, which can different than buildable envelopes. so there's been a lot of confusion on that front and i would appreciate if you could reflect the intent of your legislation, which is no notification on existing unbuildable envelopes. on that note, i would like to ask you to maintain notifications that is so important and, in fact, if you have agreed to allow a tenant to be notified, i would like to propose that landlords should show up for proof as to who is paying for the pg & e. it will show who is living in the building and it will make it easier to notify the

inhabitants. thanks a lot. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kristie long. thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this new round of a.d.u. legislation. we're very pleased to support this round of improvements. since 2014, we've seen such a radical change in how people think about in-law units, which i find incredible and great recognition of the housing shortage that we have and people seeing that we need to do something about it. this legislation builds on the prior efforts to address the barriers of constructing more units in san francisco. we support the legislation as proposed the planning commission have recommended many modifications, many of which improve, but we're disappointed that the new construction was removed from that. the fact that the new building could come back to add a new a.d.u. but at a higher cost

doesn't make a lot of sense and it seems like there are other ways to navigate the legal issues and wanting to ensure that people are protected. thank you for the opportunity to share our support. we appreciate that san francisco is serious about making a dent in the housing shortage. thanks. >> todd david on behalf of san francisco housing coalition. there are a bunch of things that we heard today that there is absolute agreement upon. it totally makes sense if a tenant had to leave their place, the owner of that should 100% be responsible for finding them a comparable location and pay moving fees. that's best practice in affordable housing. i know that mission housing, it's a practice they do. i think it makes sense the other thing is, i totally

think it makes sense that we do limit the size of a.d.u.s. they're accessory dwelling units. we don't want this -- i think it would be bad for the housing world to say, hey, we're going to try to figure out a work-around and add more density, especially when a.d.u.s are supposed to be smaller and affordable by design. so having a maximum size and minimum size, and maybe based on a percentage of the main house, with a maximum, you know, all that stuff makes sense, but i also do want to reiterate what kristie wine said from spur. i'm missing the reasoning behind not allowing a.d.u.s in brand-new construction. there's a lot of different ways -- the concerns that are out there can be addressed simply through a strong definition of what a.d.u.s are, size and suitable by design and things like that. so i do think it's a missed opportunity to not be adding

immediately additional housing that would be affordable simply by its shape and size and that seems to be -- that seems to be a solution looking for a problem. i'm not sure why we're removing the a.d.u.s from new construction. thank you. bye. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jenna new, speaking in support of this legislation and also to lend our expertise if needed to resolve some of the complicated landlord-tenant issues around a.d.u. development. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm rose, coalition for san francisco neighborhood submitted a letter on january 29. i didn't see it in the packet of received letters, so i'm leaving it here.

basically, opposition to nonnotification of a.d.u.s to the required side yard. currently requiring 311 notification. also neighbors advocated for pop-out notification. so that went through. i will leave this because it wasn't in the packet. the other thing is, i communicated with planning staff and i wanted a clarification for the record. legislation 7-12, in the existing envelope and allowed in noncomplying buildings. she meant nonconforming and not confined. page 14, 3-4, i asked about stand alone garage structure, with the size restrictions for dormers remain 90 she said the design guidelines for dormers would still apply. page 18, lines 21-25.

106.8, would a neighbor be allowed to ask for a pre-app meeting? planner responded, only the applicant. that's problematic if neighbors will be involved as part of the process. my comment for a.d.u.s, i know the size thing was removed, but a 1,200 square foot size may not be distinguishable and building projects can bypass zoning, maybe one of the reasons for the removal of a.d.u.s from the new construction. this would occur when legalizing the numbers of a.d.u.s and a summary not differentiating. it was done in the 2016 farrell-peskin legislation. thank you. please submit this into the minutes. >> supervisor tang: thank you i have much. any other members of the public

that wish to comment, come on up. seeing none, item is closed. i want to speak to a couple of issues that i heard over and over again and want to be clear. we will have changes at the board of supervisors to correct language in the legislation, specifically as it relates to the built envelope. it should say, buildable area of existing lot, instead of built envelope or buildable area of existing building. also, i heard comments about how we're allowing the expansion of a.d.u.s within the buildable envelope without neighborhood notification. that's not true. i wanted to clarify that. and when it comes to filling in and creep eighting a.d.u.s underneath cantelevered rooms and/or decks into required rear yard, i will make that at the full board that there will be