i think that, you know, having evaluating an employee cafeteria in the mid market where we put tremendous resources to thinking about turning the neighborhood around and the businesses that are in that neighborhood is a different scenario than for example the first republic cafeteria. i see what you are saying about the criteria. i do think this commission ask thoughtful, at least i like to think that. i respect all of my fellow commissioners and what everyone brings to the table. i do think that, you know, thinking about the conversation we just had about the small business impediments and streamlining. to me there is a jars disconnect

between thinking that we want to make it easier for small businesses that are overburdened with regulation but air bnb and google cannot afford to have a few months more in their process to go through the ceu process. there is a big disconnect about that. this is a fairly small burden to have more oversight into a land use decision that allows this body to on a case-by-case basis see how this particular use will affect the project and surrounding neighborhood. i will support this. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: my fellow commissioners talking about the opportunities and career. if the cafeteria will promote

local opportunities to engage with the city work force including the hiring, partnerships with new local businesses or institutions. you have a pass from what i heard today. check no. five off the list. it is in the findings of the conditional use. that is everything we heard today. if you don't get that you don't get a check, you get a pass. i don't see the difference. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: to that, commissioner richards i agree with you. require that. if that is the biggest issue you have. that is not land use issue anyway. it is a social issue. that is where we are at? the supervisors are better off talking to folks and coming up with a set of guidelines how

employee cafeterias in place would get the wages of the workers at a level that is improved for generally on the high side for food service, committing to a certain percentage for small local businesses. i guarantee we can't retire that. even if we could and people put on the show when we have the ceu and we are going to do that. we can't require it or we don't have the authority to maintain that. even in mid market if one came to us today, i get it, the mid market is different. what we were talking about in prior neighborhoods. these are generally downtown in south market, in th in the offie

neighborhood. we don't have a c.u. resolution for formula neighborhoods that we do from community business districts. i would like to get to the next item because i think it is more important. >> one comment. >> i am really happy to hear the commissioners saying they would not prefer to use the c.u. resolution process. they think it is burden some. i heard that. it is a little disingenuous to be honest. the truth is the fact you don't see people speaking today. we have had multiple hearings on this. you have seen this on tv, in the presses. there are hundreds that have spoken about the impact. we moved away from that. we had a thoughtful conversation since last june. we heard you. we went from a ban back to a conditional use.

i think commissioner melgar said it right. it is also disingenuous to say the companies don't have the ability or resources or time. we did change the 2008. it is effective as of the date it was. anyone in the permitting process would not be impacted. we tried to get everyone to the table. we have had those conversations and almost done it for about a year. to the gentlemen's point with organized labor, i am happy there is currently one. there is conversations with facebook and local two have not been represented yet. we are glad there is that conservation and there is going to be more conversation because

we have shown light on this issue and because organized labor embraced this situationed on what this one says we want to be considerate. there was no intent of having a small business come in. a lot of these businesses do have stations where they have internal cafes, internal break stations. some of those could be paymented and work with some business. some are willing to embrace that. i think you have maze good points. -- made about points. this is about shining light. there is tremendous impact. i think what i heard today the vast majority is positive. allow the companies to go forward with their best foot forward. we will have a better outcome.

we will consider that it has to be open to the public or do x, y, z. we put them in there. the only robe we are here, commissioner hillis did talk about a level so we are back here again to bring more light to this. we wanted to put in many findings based on what we talked about in the industry. i think this is a very fair piece of legislation we should throw the process out for everybody. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i feel a responsibility to clarify that i don't. for me personally this is not about the ceu process being with your den some.

using the ceu process in this way will get to the ultimate goals of this legislation, and again, i have the same concerns as commissioner hillis how we make a decision on that and how we don't actually set up an issue of putting certain things on trial. i just again it is like is there a mechanism. this is the right mechanism to require the types of things in these findings and organized labor and those sorts of things. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: the gentleman from facebook who said give us more time to sit with the stakeholders to give us time for an agreement. would you come up? i thought it was the gentleman

in the grey so. help us on what you think that would look like. >> what was the question. >> you work for facebook. you said give us more time. was that you? >> no it would be somebody from policy. i manage construction in the san francisco. >> was it the gentleman in the grey suit? >> okay somebody said give them more time. you said that? >> i am not sure. we works with the local communities and question lomto union labor in our restaurants, too.

>> commissioner richards. >> i move to approve with recommendations. >> there is a motion and second to approve. (roll call). >> that motion fails 3-3 with commissioners hillis, johnson and koppel voting against. is there an alternate motion? if there is no alternate motion to continue or otherwise, th the fact to recommendation to the board is disapproval.

>> commissioner richards. >> commissioner moore. >> i would ask the supervisor this is the predicament. since you are th the orange optn originator. >> we can appoint a new commissioner, right? >> i want to state that for the record. board of supervisors has to approve a new commissioner. >> i don't have a voice in that race. do you see benefit of acknowledging the work you have done and continuing. >> maybe we should continue until we put the new commissioner in place to have a conversation with that person and also more people in the industry. >> is there an alternate motion. >> motion to continue. >> second. >> for how long? he has been nominated before the

land use committee. >> six weeks. >> april 14 or whatever the date is. >> april 11th. >> that is the day i have to come back. >> we will have a cafeteria for you. >> april 18th. >> is there a second? second. very good commissioners. on the motion to continue this matter. >> can we ask commissioner richards? >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i support most of what you are trying to do, but i am with commissioner johnson. i don't think the c.u. resolution process is burden some.

i just don't think it gets at the issues we heard from and the supervisor what you are proposing. maybe there is the opportunity in that timeframe and commissioner richards you were getting at that to talk and figure out other ways to get at the issues we talked about: i know they are not planning issues. >> we have two options continue the item. or your recommendation just for the general public is advisory. ultimately it comes to the land use and transportation committee. we have been debating this and talking about it for a year. i don't think we need to hold it up any more. i am okay with whatever the outcome is today. i would like to proceed. >> i don't want to continue the item any more. >> i withdraw the second. >> commissioner johnson.

commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i also just want to say and state for the record that i do think that this legislation and the conversation that it has inspired is important for our city and that good things can bloom from this as a starting place. i would, one, sign up to be part of the continued conversations, and two, i hear your direction that you would like to move forward and i respect that. i wanted to say that as well. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i would ask the supervisors if this leaves here today was a denial that at least the message it was a split vote. >> yes, we heard it loud and clear. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: if i were public relations person at

any of these companies i would see the chance to put this in a c.u. resolution because of all of the good things i heard today. i don't see why you are adverse to having a little bit of light shine on you. >> thank you. this places us on item 14. we are going to take a two-minute break to go to the bathroom. we will be back at 4:30 p.m.

>> welcome back. plea silence your -- please silence your mobile devices. we are on item 14. for the accessory dwelling units and new construction. this is a planning code and tax regulation code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the item before you is proposed legislation regarding accessory dwelling units and new construction as proposed by the supervisor who is still here. i will insight him to speak on the legislation. >> thank you commissioners. i always have tremendous respect for the work you all do, but to go from item to item i have newfound respect for doing this all day on thursdays until into the evening except for you commissioner koppel.

on this issue this is about aligning our local law with state law. we want to encourage more identity to build on the previous conversation. this is not about being scared of density. it is the right shape. currently right now as it pertain goes to new construction or in the past to build a new home and then come back and start the a.d.u. process it doesn't seem to make any sense. there are situations where once construction is done, then there is in some cases particularly with new construction the properties are sold, not held any more and less incentive or motivation, let me say, on the property owner's behalf. the idea we can allow for this in new construction outside of the current zoning seems to make sense. i have one project in my district a proposed project that is a large one of the old pieces

of farm in the district about 28 single family homes. in each one of those they are proposing to build a a.d.u. in the past they would not have done that. that is a strong sign of increasing density where we haven't in the past. the idea and i know the planning department has some recommendations one of which is all are great but the one i wanted to call out was that also thinking about that we don't want to encourage a.d.u.s to be so large. what they propose is maximum 1200 square foot in the state mandate. we control for the size of them. we also don't want situations the other way where it is a large monster home and little tiny a.d.u. there needs to be consideration about the balance. this is about aligning local law with state law. we think each and every one of you are supportive.

to go back to i know commissioner moore and richards and i had this conversation in the past. this is new construction this is not promoting demolition. that was a concern. i think that is a valid concern. we also had the historic preservation commission review the legislation. we talked to tenants rights organizations. we are not encouraging demolition. this is new construction and getting the a.d.u.s inside of that. thank you. i will hand it over to planning staff. i am going to leave. thank you for your time and effort today. we will keep the conversation going. >> thank you. planning department staff. before i begin i want to note two quick things. first, lee hepner from supervisor peskin's office is

here to speak. he will speak after the staff presentation, and second staff took this ordinance to the historic preservation commission yesterday. they adopted the recommendation for approval of the ordinance with modification as proposed by staff. i will start with general overview of the a.d.u. program as of today. the current legislation allows a.d.u.s added to existing residential buildings in zoning buildings. divided into two programs in san francisco. since summer of 2017 there have been two planning code sections for a.d.u.s as programs. first is called the waiver program per subsection 27 c-4. this is our local allows

multi-unit buildings or single family homes whenever the a.d.u. requires administrative exception or waiver from planning code program. the no waiver program. this is planning code subsection 207 c 6. this program allows one a.d.u. added within a single family home fully compliant with the planning code. in this case no administrative exceptions or waivers are granted through this program. the ordinance in front of you today would allow a.d.u.s for both the waiver and no waiver program. this means they will be allowed in new construction buildings of single or multi family buildings which is something not allowed by code today. the ordinance also introduces changes specifically to the no

waiver program. these are the a.d.u.s and single family homes compliance with the planning code. i will describe the changes rather than to label as no waiver. the first change is that they will be ministerial. previously only those a.d.u.s in single family homes that did not include any expansions were ministerial. those in single family homes with expansions or required neighborhood notification and an opportunity for discretionary review. there are silsome unresolved issues regarding how the city restructure the approval structure in new construction single family homes and we will work to clarify this matter. the second change is that a.d.u.s in single family homes will not require neighborhood

notifications in expansion or new construction. this is for the fully today compliant a.d.u. projects that would not otherwise require entitlement the new construction will have to go through neighborhood notification and appear in front of you with request for conditional use authorization. the ordinance no longer allows planning commission to take discretionary action on a.d.u.s in single family homes so long as they are fully code compliant. the avenue to appeal ask to the board of appeals. this is to the last change that all appeals filed on a.d.u. projects in single family homes need to be heard by the board of appeals within 10 to 30-days of appeal filing. planning department is recommending a few changes in

the next few slides. first is placing a cap of 1200 gross per square feet in existing single family homes. this is recommended only for alteration to existing buildings not new construction projects. the second change that we are emrecommending is reducing the required use of open space for a.d.u.s in rh-1, rh- rh-1 d ands to 125 square feet. this is modeled after rh2 zoning districts. this is recommended for the proposed a.d.u. primary unit needs to satisfy the open space requirements for the underlying zoning. only the a.d.u.s in the waiver program return to regulatory agreements with the city. this would impact the city's

ability to enter into such agreements to allow the city to place units under rent control. this is not a large number. i want to bring this to your attention to reduce open space requirements. the hope is with the reduced open space requirements it would encourage more a.d.u.s in single family homes. third recommendation is to historic reservation review in single family homes in historic resources. currencurrently it references te historic review. properties individually or in districts within article 10 and 11 buildings are included when reviewing a.d.u.s in single family homes. we recommend the projects will not be subject to subject of appropriateness or permit to

alterren titlements. these should be captured in ordinance to clarify the a.d.u.s are ministerial. the review of a.d.u.s in single family homes in article 10 and 11 buildings will be delegated to family planning staff. they will review with objective architectural review standards. historic preservation commission reviewed and commented on these standards yesterday. staff will revise the standards and return to hpc in the next few weeks for final adoption. the final recommendations to the ordinance relates to more clerical amendments including removing off street parking as potential waiver in the waiver program since the city no longer has minimum parking requirements citing the correct subsection.

we also remember revising residential standards and using tables listed in articles 7 and 8. the change here is to accurately reference the two different a.d.u. programs. it currently only references the lomprogram under 207 c-4. they recommend simplifying the language as the programs evolve there is no conflicting information between what is listed here and in 207. the department recommends approval with the modifications as discussed. this concludes my staff presentation. i am available for questions. lee hepner is here today to speak on the ordinance as well. >> thank you. mr. hepner. >> thank you, commissioner. i will keep my comments short.

they did want me to address the body today. we have been pursuant to the brown act barred from acting closely with the supervisor's office it is helpful to have this form to discuss where we are at. historical context supervisor peskin offered the program in 2016. it was his highest priority when we got to office and remains so. by way of a coin to in 2016 it was the supervisor farrell's legislation that passed. with the supervisors all co-sponsors. it was 15 years before that that supervisor peskin tried the city wide a.d.u. program in 2003. supervisor peskin has seen this

as a valuable form in the city. it values the capacity in rh-1 and rh-1 districts to add the capacity to all residential district in the city to appeal to some of the neighborhoods resistant to that capacity. we have advocated for a.d.u.s for another reason. that is because they are the only new rent controlled housing added today. every single a.d.u. installed since 2016 is subject to rent control that is worth noting. represent control is critical. over time these are most affordable units of housing. that protects tenants in the displacement we see in the face of enormous financial incentives to evict sennants. peskin wants to elevate this

around the dwelling units. i hope that takes place around recommendation number two to relax the open space requirements. current bely open space requirements form the basis for a waiver that is among our only means of subjecting the units to rent control. if we eliminate the open space requirements which i understand are being waved administratively we lose river age to impose rent control on the newly constructed a.d.u.s. i had this conversation with planning staff. i think the point is that it is really fundamental whenever this body is asked to impose density control particularly when the city has the option to add anyone straighttively wave those requirements as we move forward with the processes as required

by the state or as pushed for locally under the banner of streamlining it is important to consider the impact that has on the ability to subject the units to rent control. that needs to take place. as for new construction, on one hand call it what it is. this is eliminating single family home zoning in san francisco, which i think is good thing if we can do it responsibly with the right controls. we look like what that looks like. there is a key distinction. by virtue of the density bonus we can subject the units to rent control. any duplex in rh-1 would be subject to rent control. that is a positive opportunity to see. that is the end of my comments. we are withholding support for or against this until we

understand issues. what does notice look like for a.d.u.s in new construction? but i wanted to elevate the conversation around rent control specifically. thank you. >> thank you. we will now take public comment on this item. >> i made copies. >> i saw this and i was concerned about the demolition factor because there is always unintended consequences. i did send you an i mail which ms. flores was kind enough to send to you. my big concern is the last paragraph in my little memo to you. it is good policy to allow

additions to a.d.u. to new construction as long as it is new and not demolition. a.d.u.s should be considered as you dense fi. the mayor said it. she is primarily in the editorial talked about a.d.u.s in existing buildings. she put them in. i want to show you some quick examples of that. this is one. they are all kind of demolitions. overhead, please. this is one. there is a door there. it meets the pro to type in your handbook. this lovely art deco house here has a door there. you could put an a.d.u. there. this is rh2. this was rh-1. the famous 653, 28th street where you put an a.d.u. in after it was going to be demolished.

this house is fine, didn't need demolished. it was a tunnel entrance. they could have taken that out and put in the a.d.u. and did expansion and preserved the house. it is sitting there an empty lot in the rain. this is another one. this is rh2. that is primed for a.d.u. as well with out being demolished. i hope in your motion you mention it is not your intent to encourage the den molition. 317 when it was written in 2007 was hoping to allow for reasonable alterations. instead you have got 70 homes in the valley demolished at average increase of $3.4 million over the last few years. i understand vacant land and that is fine and putting in the a.d.u. and matching the state. you have got your pro to types,

handbook that the staff worked on that developers and project sponsors and homeowners could look at these and easily and quickly add units without demolishes. if it is rh-1, 2 or 3. most of the city is rh one. i think it is something to think about. the mayor said it in the paper. put it in really quick, lickity split. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i live in district three. my husband and i moved to the city of san francisco in 2004 because we wanted to. i have been here before. like i said last time, earlier this year, this is the most painful room i have ever been in

the entire city of san francisco including my retail jobs, almost hit by a car, seeing my neighbor die in the street from being hit. we are talking about illegal air bnb. i wonder why? because you love air bnb. all of that. they are causing a lot of problems. i have to call the fire department to write a report to make sure the party people abutting our apartment building are following proper rules. not partying on the roof midday? jumping up and down on the roof at 12:00 in the daytime? no. you are not paying attention. you don't care about any resident. you only care about yourself and money. that is it. i am absolutely gutted that you don't care about people. commissioner johnson you don't care either. you were making fun of disabled.

you said it to me, to the speakers. people who got hit by pedestrians it is funny that people had their teeth knocked out as a badge of honor. it is on the timestamp. i wrote it own. you were making fun of people hurt in the city i living in the city as pedestrians. every single day it is so stressed from the illegal air bnb. it is all over the place. they are taking everything. messing everything up. you don't care. you just want money. you have your friends. you don't care about you. you don't have permission to ruin any city. ny great grandmother georgia ann robinson badge number 10, first city police woman in los

angeles. he was at her celebration a few years ago. my husband and i got permission from our employers to fly down there to see her. you don't have permission to ruin this city. everything is horrible right in this room. i hope you get to look at this message. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. i have a few speaker cards, dillon, casey, victoria, jeremy shaw. >> good afternoon. i am dillon casey a.d.u. director for california legal advocacy and legal fund. i am here to make a few suggestions. i support the change to allow a.d.u.s in new family homes allowing for more efficient layout on the lot. this would be required to bring

the san francisco ordinance in compliance i also support nondiscretionary process. in order to realize potential we need a process to be navigated by homeowners. this is an important step. extensive opportunity for review on appeal are enough to discourage homeowners from centering the process. ir have a few concerns for the appeal to the board of appeals. this is unnecessary and could be difficult to impliment in compliance with state law. it would need to be nondiscretionary limited to reviewing how the a.d.u. regulations are aplead to the permit applications. it would need completed within the 120 daytime limit for consideration of a.d.u. permit regulations. it should not come at additional

expense to the permit applicant or homeowners. this is where they can be discouraged. given these constraints the appeals process is unnecessary as long as the city planning staff can apply the regulations. lastly, in state law the remedy for local regulation noncompliance would be the whole ordinance is void. that would mean that san francisco couldn't enforce regulations like open space and set backs and things like that. to the extent the city is luring the line -- blurring the lines that is the remedy. these changes should be adopted to improve the a.d.u. policy. i don't think anyone should oppose it. it provided much needed houses

where little impact. san francisco should be a leader in allowing a.d.u.s on single family homes. i hope the city will consider the changes and adopt the ordinance. >> next speaker, please. >> i am victoria. i am with the oakland chapter of stability in the east bay. i want to give perspective since oakland allows the a.d.u. it is absolute bedlam. in 2017 we saw 300. corporate landlords are enraged. every mom and pop homeowner is competing with massive corporate interests. it is bedlam, profits are falling. they are using a.d.u.s for

shelter. it is terrible. they are entitled to monopoly like every other red-blooded american in the country. expanding the construction to homeowners. think about it your kids and my kids might pay zero in rent. housing is rotten. it is our duty to mon ties that. if we pass that not only will you be in compliance but people will have more housing. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am ben levee. i live in the tenderloin. i grew up on the west side in richmond district. for me and my piers.

a.d.u.s are an important tool for us to stay in the neighborhoods we grew up in. richmond hasn't seen a lot of new development. it has limited apartments. not a lot of places for young people to live, not a lot of places for people that are unsecure in housing to live. they are an important resource for people like me and my friends who i grew up with to live in because if we want to stay in the neighborhoods we grew up with there are limited options. i have friends in a.d.u.s. they enjoy it. it has been good for them. i think it actually promotes a really good neighborhood environment. it encourages people to interact with people who are different from them, might have different economic backgrounds. it is one of the new sources of affordable houses on the west side. i encourage you to pass this

ordinance. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners, corey smith san francisco housing action coalition. thanthank you forthank you for n going through this process of democracy. it is appreciated. we support this legislation. we have engaged with the supervisors office early on about this. we had continuously heard that there would be opportunities in new construction to add a.d.u.s. we think this makes a ton of sense. i am not an attorney. we have continuously heard getting closer and closer and achieving full compliance with state law is something we want to do. by everything i can tell this continues to create more progress. when we can do that and create more homes for people at the same time it is a win-win. we encourage the supervisors to

continue conversations with peskin who is a leader for coming up on a couple deck careds. we look forward and ask you approval this proposal today. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. jeremy shaw. i think this is really fortunate pairing we had with the earlier conversation about the ratio and oversized units. this is a perfect opportunity t design new buildings with the a.d.u. in mind from the start. we don't need to ask for variances, we don't need waivers. this is a perfect way to add density and have the full conversation while we are reviewing a new building. my one concern i have with this

legislation other than maybe it doesn't go far enough is that i would like to see some mention or revision of the phrase adding a.d.u.s to existing lots. i have a project in bayview, vacant lot 75 by 100. we want to subdivide into three. under legislation it is one a.d.u. per existing lot. we would like that to be tweaked somehow. overall, my office looking at our projects we think we would be able to add about 20 a.d.u. to projects we currently have within the city. that is our small four person firm. we think this can go a long way to provide affordable units in the city. last thing to mention. we talked about these a.d.u. units by definition rental. can't be subdivided off.

that is going to make the base building more affordable because if we have an a.d.u. on the ground floor that can provide rental income to help pay down the mortgage to make the single family zoning more affordable for the rest of us. >> thank you, mr. shaw. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. if i have an rh-1 lot and i have new construction and i put in an a.d.u. in a separate building on the rh-1 lot, that from my understanding that a.d.u. is under rent control. say there is a state bill pending that says i can sub dwight the lot is that still under rent control or not? that is a question. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. ryan patterson, attorney for the legal advocacy and education fund. this is great for the city. it is time to bring the city code into compliance with state law. one point that i think would be worth consideration is the potential requirement for open space. if that is required for lots where there is not open space available, that means all of these applications have to go for variances or administrative variance. that is going to discourage a lot of a.d.u. creation. it would be possible to put in code an open space requirement if there is sufficient open space on the lot. if there is not then all of this is for naughts because it won't be code compliant. it will need variances and waivers and will discourage the

construction. all of us have been projects where a.d.u.s can be added there is reluctance to add because of variances and opportunity for neighbor opposition that comes from that. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. commissioner koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: . i would like to copy the words that came out of lee hepner's mouth. he summed it up amazingly well. this is a tremendous opportunity to double the amount of units on the lot. i fully support this today. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: picking up on what commissioner koppel said, mr. hepner qualified that also saying with a nonreduction

in open space it retains the leverage for the units to stay rent controlled. that is a very important aspect. we are not looking for linear increases in units we are concerned about the lack of affort ability or diminishing of rent control. i would like to support with the further explanation of what was to be said here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i guess a couple folks brought up unintended consequences. i for the life of me wouldn't want to it is here and approve or take dr and a.d.u.s. i went on record with that. the question for the city attorney. the valley is a hot market right now. if i roll down the street and buy pay 1200 square foot house and i want to demo it and put a

5,000 square foot house above it can i do it? >> i think the question is are you asking me about the housing accountability act? >> if you have a fully code compliant project, you don't require waivers or variances, then the housing accountability act is triggered. the answer is, yes, you can build it and you would in fact have to look at the housing accountability act if somebody attempted to challenge the project. >> i agree with everything here but displacement via des fiction. 30% of the single family homes are occupied by tenants. i'm sure they don't mean to displace people. the incentive to displace is high. i read the annual report this morning. it was good.

the tendency and the desire to make money is as we saw in other cases is going to have people do things we probably wouldn't do ourselves all around the profit motive. if there is a way to make sure that there weren't any tenants in the unit in a period of years like senator wiener with sp50 or other findings around the housing, i could go along with it. some of the things that come to mind are 323 cumberland where we had demolition of the 1500 square foot house and it ended up 8,000 square foot. that is not what you are getting to. you are getting to units rented out. if i had 5 or 7, $10 million to buy a house. i am not going to rent the

a.d.u. out. i wouldn't want the hassle. i don't needs the money per month or whatever. my canary in the coal mine is unintended consequences of displacement through dentification. we have no ability demolish a single family house with an a.d.u. in it. that is what i am worried about. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i don't think in my tenure we have ever demoed a two or three unit building where we haven't replaced with rent controlled units. we hope to continue to do that in higher density neighborhoods which could be in essence rh4 and rh3. part of the problem is in the te valley it is fairly dense with

two and three unit acknowledges even more -- unit buildings. most of the city is constrained by the rh one. i think what mr. hepner said it is de fac de facto re-zoning. we see new projects where we have wanted to add a.d.u.s and we can't. we don't have this tool. we can add. we have approved the demo of an existing single family home. i think this is great. i agree with the comments. at some point we will call for re-zoning. we could probably get better projects in current rh-1 districts if there was rh2 instepped of one you could get two or three flats that we think

are affordable. i don't think it goes far enough but it is a great first step. i move to and prove. >> i second. i support this legislation. i think it is good policy. i don't support lowering the open space requirement. i agree with mr. hepner on that. i did have a question from one of the commenters about the sub decision of lots and how the a.d.u. allowance is calculated. the example. >> my understanding you could subdivide the lot to three lots. that would be three lots. >> three a.d.u.s. >> on the open space thing to the chair, the amount of single family homes that are adding an a.d.u. that have to seek a

waiver because they don't meet the open space requirement is i think 2% of the overall. it is a very small number. >> thank you very much for that. commissioner richards. >> another question for the city attorney. on the 323 cumberland. i am a new millionaire. they are going to buy up the homes. if you think it is affordable with a little a.d.u., you have another thing coming. >> i want an 8,000 structure can the department require more than two units? >> under the a.d.u. there is no requirement. the a.d.u. legislation does not provide a time to require that. >> is there anything if the department says 8,000 is too big

we want two or three units for desdentification. can they do that in. >> i think the planning director has a comment. >> we certainly do that when we get harming homes, we encourage them -- get large homes. i don't think the current code does not allow us to require a minimum density. there are other cities that do this. i don't know, california law completely well enough to know if it is prohibited. in other states the cities require minimum densities. >> we have a standard for density equity. ab69 proposed is taking away all of that authority should it pass. it requires the department to propose small home building governing a.d.u.s to be

submitted to the california building commission. we don't want a sham unit. our ability is limited. fine, lets do it. i don't think the policy policy of having people occupy the units when you demolish a single family home, you have to add on to it, there would be no upper limit to the units to add. i am uncomfortable knowing what the city is going through now to support the legislation as is. >> mr. moore. >> commissioner moore: would you clarify the number for the 2% you are mentioning? >> 15% of the a.d.u.s we get are for single family homes. 15% of those seek a waiver for the open space requirement. that works out 2% of all

applications seek a waiver for open space requirement. when they seek the waiver it kicks them out of the no waiver program and puts them into the waiver program which allows us to if it is possible the building to require rent control on the new a.d.u. staff looked at the number and thought we get the sinks el family homes in the no waiver program except for the open space requirement and sort of to reduce the process to make things move faster we thought this was low hanging fruit. it is a policy balance between subjecting the most amount of a.d.u.s you can to rent control and making the process more efficient. >> okay. >> seeing nothing further there is a motion and second to approve this matter with modifications, correct?

>> i took staff recommendation. you want to take out recommendation two? i am fine with that. it sounds like there will be more debate about that issue. >> i do want to take that out. >> any mod on that motion commissioners to approve this matter with modifications with exception to modification 2 recommended by staff. (roll call). >> so moved that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner richards voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 162018. 007-2353 c.u.a. 3356-3360 market street. this is