this is in an a.d.u. project. we had several tenants, who are going to lose their garages and be displaced. one tenant has been -- has taken a buyout. they were pressured to do so. the other one does not want to move but but she is under tremendous pressure to take the buyout. i just would like you guys to watch this project so that is not on the table. because she is the lone wolf here and it's not fair to her. the planning department is looking at plans and not really considering how tenants are faring in these plans. thanks thank you. any additional public comment? >> hi. my name is christina tran. i am here for 701 hampshire street. contrary to what she just said, we are not pressuring the tenants. we actually took all of the buyouts off of the table. >> president hillis: right now we are only taking public comment on the matter of the continuance. not the matter itself. >> ok. i'm sorry. >> president hillis: you can -- >> i have a prepared comment. >> president hillis: if it is about the continuance, sure. >>

additional a.d.u.its without the fourth floor may or may not require the tenants to be relocated because you're not trying to, you know, take the weight of the fourth floor and put it down the wall. so we went over this with 505 grandview. we're being asked for a continuance because i believe that there were six tenants to start and there's now four in the building? >> two. >> two left. >> there's five and an empty unit. so there's five tenants and they're being discussed. >> so you started with six units that were full? can we go over the history here. >> it's now vacant, become vacant. >> they became vacant a few -- it became vacant a few months ago. and at that point mark had moved in. >> mark, the owner? >> yes, mark, the owner had moved in. and i believe that at the moment that there is -- mark has left for a couple months and there's currently somebody in his place at the moment. >> commissioner richards: so there's five units left and it wasn't a buyout? >> no, it was a vacancy -- they were movi

you can even have four units if you keep the existing building and just expand and add an a.d.u. where you're now putting a garage and storage, and take the existing two floors, make them units, add who are on the thely -- horizontally in the back. i think commissioner melgar has a great point. i think to put four units in here, it would be at the expense of parking and preserve elements of the building. it may be tantamount to demolition, it may not be, depending on the calculations and how you can do it. but i thought that's where you all kind of agreed to head during our last meeting. again, i think you can get more units with the -- you know, parking would lose here, but it is a great neighborhood where the panhandle bike lane is adjacent to this, the hayes street bus goes by, the fulton street bus goes by. >> it's ultimately driven by the construction costs, and i didn't get to my presentation, but we did have a local contractor look at the possibility of doing an alteration project versus a demo, and that's why i said in my presentation the new construction is far cheaper a

had the pleasure of working on the a.d.u. handbook starting in 2014.t the time there was only a few small parts of the city that you could build a.d.u.s and then had the pleasure of working with several members of the board of supervisors to bring that legislation citywide, and it's been amended several times, but i think the missing piece is what we're hearing today. the missing piece is getting all the various departments coordinated so that these permits can be processed efficiently, and we can actually get those units built. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you. and i also would like to acknowledge the president of the planning commission, rich hillis is here, thank you for being here today. and just to be clear, the goal of the directive is to move the process forward as quickly as possible. specifically, we want to make sure that we get -- address the backlog by pushing forward those particular projects within six months, and that a new directive is set for future projects, those who will submit applications for a.d.u., that we do it wi

and since 2014, 377 new a.d.u. units have been approved by the city, and of these, 346 are rent control. but as of today, 900 new proposed a.d.u. units are stuck in various stages of review. the backlog is unacceptable, which is why last week, i announced an executive directive, requiring that the backlog must be cleared within six months, and new application must be reviewed and decided on within four months. i also directed the departments to resolve code conflicts that trap too many of these applications and have prevented them from moving forward. the departments have now issued clear guidelines, and there is no more excuses for these units to be held up when they meet the basic standards. so no more delays. we can get these units permitted, built, so we can create the badly needed housing that we need all over san francisco. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. i appreciate that. madam clerk? >> clerk: madam president, you may now ask a follow-up question directly related to the opening question. >> presi

. >> clerk: item seven is to allow a payment for an a.d.u.'s tree planting department to allow for a ceqa determination and to make the appropriate findings. >> president cohen: okay. seeing that there are no names on the roster, colleagues, madam clerk, on the question shall this ordinance be finally passed, please call the roll. [ro [roll call] [please stand by] [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president cohen: excellent. without objection, these items are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 10 through 12. >> clerk: item 10 through 12 are two resolutions to authorize the department of community health to enter into agreements for item 10, to enter into a retroactive amended agreement with the california department of health care services to change the agreement end date from april 30, 2018 to june 30, 2017 with no change the amount not to exceed approximately 293 million. and item 11 is to retroactively approve an agreement with the california department of health care services for the san francisco mental health p

they're fearful if they add an a.d.u. that will cause eviction. whether you are a single-family home or two unit, it applies. so i don't really understand. to me it feels like there's confusion over this fear of rent control. what i have heard many times is if a tenant turns out to be irresponsible or isn't paying their rent that it's so costly to evict someone. but that's about just cause eviction that applies not rent control. i want to make sure we're talking about the right law. >> through the chair, thank you. i agree with you. that's my understanding. supervisor tang represents a large handful of small property owners that have articulated their displeasure in the refill of costa hawkins and i'm trying to understand. otheother than i'm a small propy owners and i don't want the repeal, i don't understand the fear. >> supervisor kim. >> first, i just want to point that these property owners are not renting today, not the passage of proposition 10. second, what i would articulate is the fear is that the board of supervisors would go crazy and i

quarterly, to the mayor and the board and this commission, if you would like, on the status of the a.d.u. program. but i think overall, the good news, is that it's's more robust program than anyone imagined it would be. and it provides a more affordable mode of housing. and the way the legislation works is that if the units are in buildings that are subject to rent control, the new units are subject to rent control, because they're in a building constructed before 1989. so for the first time, we can construct new units that would be rent-controlled. >> commissioner wolfram: thank you. >> certainly. >> clerk: commission matters, item 3, president's report and announcements. >> commissioner wolfram: no report or announcements. >> clerk: item 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for joint hearing july 18, 2018, and regular minutes august 1 and 15. i have no speaker cards. >> commissioner wolfram: does any member of the public wish to comment on the minutes from july 18, august 1, august 15. seeing none, i will close public comment. >> commissioner pearlman: number 8 for the minutes

we are seeing with the a.d.u. that we are trying to improve the life safety. and they physically won't let us do it. i can see where we will have a lot of situations where it will be hard for us to mitigate but i think at least then we are making everyone aware that we have major issues. i am always worried about the displacement parts and these improvements that come on with it. so i think it is a type of legislation that needs to happen >> we did try to address it. that is why we amended the administrative code so no tenant can be displaced. >> ok. well done. congratulations. thank you for bringing this here today. >> thank you for your time. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, is there a motion? >> commissioner walker has a comment. >> this is long overdue. i really appreciate this is coming forward to. i would like to make a motion to recommend that we support this. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. we will do the roll call vote. [roll call] >> motion carried unanimously. we will go back to item five. are we going to go ba

ground floor to a common area to a unit that that unit would be a fourth unit approved through the a.d.uram. attempts were made to link 1355 francisco with 3255 octavia at that time, and the board agreed there was no linkage. the two properties are not linked and stand on their merit as code compliant with the approval of sfdbi and sf planning. i would like to submit a neighbor petition signed by 62 of their neighbors. >> you can put it on the overhead. >> overhead, please. overhead, please. >> so what i presented before you is a petition with signatures by 62 of the neighbors. >> in support of the project? >> they support the project, yes. and those include those most affected by the project at 3249 octavia, next door, and directly behind the subject property. the neighbors have responded appropriately to the sense of the project and to their sense of fairplay. they do not want to fare that their neighbors can use divisive tactics to strong arm them. this is the interior renovation of a two story building, light well in-fill, and some minimal changes to the rear facade. the deck uses an

. >> so i hear you, and i'd like to offer the compromise with the fourth unit after the a.d.u. is completed. >> president hillis: i think you're hearing other compliments about the design, that somehow the parking is driving the demolition of this drive. >> right, but i'm saying to remove the parking and have a fourth floor on the ground. that meets all the a.d.a. requirements. >> president hillis: so i think bring us that project. look at it, i think that's what we asked -- i don't know why we're here. it was months ago, if not a year ago -- like two years ago, sorry, that we kind of asked, so i don't know what happened in the interim, but i think that's what we were more along those lines, that's what we were expecting. i think we got the same project. again, i don't think anybody here is against dense identify this neighborhood. maximize the density. probably get four units. >> okay. >> president hillis: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i guess looking at a project down in cupertino, a unit is defined by the building code? so if we say we want three units her

constraints in the nc-1 zoning, it cannot really give back in any form or shape, nor can it do an a.d.u. so there are two major missed opportunities. the project on its own is a fine project. i do, though, question as to whether or not in this area, the dwelling unit size, 2,700 is the right mix given what we need. if you would take 6,400 square feet of residential space in this unit and divide it up differently, i think you could do well. i also question, though we're not judging on that, as to whether or not the roof deck on the building next to golden gate park is the right answer. those are all questions that are kind of not in front of us unfortunately because we've been relegated to simply vote on the shadow and variance issue, as zoning administrator sanchez, across the room. i have questions, but i encourage the commission that we spend time with city-wide planning and everybody else to look at these questions and start to really make some inroads of how we can look differently at these types of opportunity sites. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards: i'm in full support of th

not only do we do that, we set aside every monday of the week just for a.d.u. preapplication meetings, so those meetings are held -- >> commissioner covington: and is this new or is this ongoing? >> this is new. we've started this in the last couple of weeks. we are meeting often d.b.i., and -- often with d.b.i., and often, planning joins in, as well. >> commissioner covington: it's great. i think we've needed this sort of thing for a while. it's probably helpful to you, as well, since you mentioned at the last meeting that the fire department is the last point of signoff and sometimes people have to go back to the beginning. so this is good for you and the department, and especially for the homeowners who are trying to create more housing. >> absolutely. and i think there's some confusion among applicants, when they submit their application to planning, they put it on this date and put july 1, fire may not get it until three months after the fact. we're the last one that it comes through, and we quite often get -- we get complaints, because people are concerne