you could easily do an adu there. you have your upstairs unit, they could expand it simply, and they could keep the existing space for an adu using that door from the -- right by the entrance where the former tunnel entrance was and go in through the garage. you look on the plans, it's already there. as regard to the -- the numerical criteria, it's -- it's squishy. it doesn't -- it's not the planning commission that raises it, it's the zoning administrator, and he raises it periodically, and as i said, it has -- but the time they decided to do the demoaddition in octob -- demolition in october of 2016, the staff person thought it could go up. then they waited until january , they got their appraisal. they got their supplemental appraisal within a week and a half later. it's existing. it's existing. that's the adu law. i mean, the commission was really bollocksed up as david wrote on in his brief. they wanted to reduce the mass, they wanted to do this, they wanted to do that e. they wanted the roof deck off, and there

not the adu. this adu is proposed for a nonexisting single-family home, and should be used to solve the problems that are created by this project in the rh 1 neighborhood. dr. tong did not mention this specifically in his brief when he discussed the mass, but there are large windows on the rear that raise privacy issues just like the roof deck. there was no rear elevation in -- from the project sponsor's brief that i got. maybe you got a rear elevation. also, exhibit d of the project sponsor's brief is misleading. it conflats the roof deck off of a living space, which is really just a deck because it does not need a stairway perthe building code to access it. it conflats with a roof deck on the very top of a building that does need a stairwell to access it. exhibit d, there are 32 lists there, and one's a duplicate and one's on the mission. six are really just discreet roof decks, and i'll be generous. there are two roof decks he left off, so there are 32 real -- 32 names should be on this list, b

i want to address the adu again. the city planning approved the infill on march 20, 2017, exactly three months later city planning approved the adu. the same planner approved both permits three months apart. this makes me a little suspicious, is there an attempt to hide the expansion? if the planning department allows the adu, what is to separate them by using two permits, this would set a precedent and the requirement for now expansions would be meaningless. the adu waived many planning requirements and many people will take advantage of it. don't let the program be abused. regarding sunlight, the permit holder states he was only affected by the 241 in the basement, that is not true. the unit in the back is a legal housekeeping unit. the assessor map shows it's three flats and housekeeping unit on the rear. the address of the rear unit is 241 a. here again, the permit holder states appellant's concern is unjustified, the permit of laundry faces a 3-foot wide walkway and then the appellant living space. that is not t

so i do support the adus. i support having housing units rather than garages, but i want to be very careful about the process because it is not right to take the value that is bundled with somebody's tenancy for your own without having to go through the proper process and, you know, monetizing it and making the tenants whole. >> agreed. move to continue. >> second. >> i believe that's a motion. [overlapping speakers] >> we need a date first. >> i would go fairly far out. you're going to need a couple of months. >> i would like to add a little more subtlety to what we're talk about right now. there are two issues here. one is the whole legal issue about what can you take from tenants with leases on garages, et cetera, and two is a plan that reflects all the things you can do and not the things which could legally potentially get us into problems, as commissioner melgar just summarized. it's a two-step process here. i think we need to make sure that the applicant and the architect fully understand the requests w

not a 1200 square foot adu, but an affordable adu. when i was getting ready for the hearing, i looked up the adu's. there's 159 -- approximately 159. there's five in rh 1. all of these are 234 existing buildings, and the appraisal, the first one was done on the 5th of january . it was right on the money, 1.63. nine days later, they got it 45,000 over. i'm not trying to make you feel guilty or castigate you, just think about this: is it worth demolishing a sound house that you could put an adu in, and you talked about the numbers that commissioner richards just talked about with a salary, does that all make sense, and i don't think so, but thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's john garner. thank you for making the time to hear my point. my partner and i are small developers who focus on glg adu's within the envelopes of existing multifamily buildings. one of the biggest challenges we face is the slow pace of adu permitting and approval. it typically takes the city 12 months for fin

planning's adu guidelines state adu's can be used in only unused spaces. we have established procedures if an owner wants to sever spaces, which the project sponsors are ignoring. overhead, please. i'm giving you copies of this. this is the annual buyout report from the rent board. you'll see that one of the columns includes garages and common space and a room for a figure for buyouts for those. landlords can try to regain common tenant spaces designs but it is up to the tenant's discretion whether to agree or not. this discussion never took place and there's no agreement with the tenants. and to show you that i am not making this up, here's a letter from the rent board to a different landlord that states that they are violating section 37.9(a) by trying to take away a garage from a tenant that has always been part of this lease. we know that the owner has access to attorneys who understand tenant law because they recently issued a three day notice to linda and yuka who are here. so i don't know why they're not following rent board procedures. and yuka's t

that's not how the adu laws are written. if there's a crawl space or attic that nobody's using, that's where the adu goes. if the tenants want to voluntarily give up the garage space for the adu, do it, but you're not supposed to be taking away existing space in the name of creating housing, and at the same time you're supporting displacement, so i absolutely would not support this project in any way, shape or form. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. so it sounds like commissioner moore, you're look for more like to look at the drawings. if we were going to vote on this, for me, it would be an absolutely not. besides the issues that have been raised by my fellow commissioners, i think that there is an issue with our process. you know, if we are not checking the report on the rent board to see if these common spaces have been voluntarily sold back by the tenants. it's almost like site control. you know, i think that i understand that this project sponsor needs this space for their f

>> no, the adu is a one bedroom. and the proposed building, the new building where the commercial unit is is going to be a family-sized unit. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that clarification on the previous question. mine has to do with the design and i know you mentioned that the planning commission can still -- basically the project sponsors will need to work with the community on the design. so at what point does planning come back into the picture to review it and make sure that it is actually something the community has agreed upon? >> it's more about what the commission has directed the staff to do. so the commissioner was presented with two designs. because the community couldn't -- there seemed to be two points, one contemporary, one traditional am they presented both of those concepts, same massing, but just applied different materials and esthetics onto the facade. the commission thought the more traditional one was appropr

as far as the question on adu, we had 99 adu units which are not income restricted. given the overall quality of adu's and issues which have to do with liveability, i would still like to find an angle on adu's which really would put them more by size and general disposition into the affordable categories, but that is not a question that we can resolve, but i'd like to examine it as policy as we move forward. >> commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. so i again will join the chorus. thank you so much for putting up so much good stuff. i also had questions about the adu numbers. it would be great at some point to see the distribution of where they are, they've been permitted but also the pipeline because it takes a while, and it would be great to see that. and then, also, the number -- i had a question about the demolitions -- i don't remember where it was. what is that? like, what is considered demolition? you know, we just had this whole controversy about what is the definition of demolition under dbi and under planning. what is this? what is this?

we want to allow the addition of adus in new construction to three or less. remove requirements that have been hindrances for building adus like street tree requirements or bike parking. we believe that the city has other ways of doing this. so those are some of the main elements of the first piece of legislation. we're also going to be drafting very shortly legislation to figure out how it is that we can allow for more, what we're calling and dubbing, adu infills in corner lots, areas that we think are perfect for adus and can solve for a lot of our housing challenges. secondly, i'm introducing a legislati legislati legislation that supports sex worker immunity. it would provide protections for sex workers that want to come forward and report a crime of violence perpetrated against them during the act of prostitution. and lastly, i did want to also -- apologize -- introduce a resolution declaring march national kidney month in san francisco. and we also want to thank city attorney who had helped us write this legislation that personally had some experiences

in adu's, it's disappointing to see the number actually built. it sounds like we're going to have a hearing on that, and it'll be good to understand why. we've all spent a lot of time getting that legislation through, and i understand there may be code type issues that are getting in the way of things being built, which we need to have, but to understand that. and then, yeah, i mean i think the most shocking thing i felt was this map, too, of the region and why things aren't being built -- the much maligned 827 -- we may not want san mateo and contra costa county to have local control. if that daughter of 827 comes forward, can kind of encourage development in these areas and perhaps not where people are -- where counties are doing good work like in santa clara and san francisco, not there, i think it would be helpful. clearly, there's folks who have local control who are using it to not build housing, and i think that's unfortunate, especially in transit rich areas like san mateo and contra costa where we're building a lot of office. commissione

about 280 new adu's added to the housing stack this year. it's a pretty big effort to gather all this data, clean it and then provide consistent data results for housing production annually. although this report itself provides clean and consistent data moving forward for various other studies including the balance needs report, the area plan monitoring reports, and the annual housing progress report, so those are just an example of what this data does feed into. in the full housing inventory report is available on the planning department's website, and the data used to calculate the findings is also available on that website and will be available in the coming weeks. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any comments and questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment on this item? >> i just wanted to assure the commission that we are in conversation with the commission secretary to ensure the link to the dashboard be made visible absent a director's report, as the commission well knows, the

trump was very touchy-feely with macron, even after he bid his friend adu, you could tell it was veryhe president's mind today. >> it would be helpful to have the federal resources behind us and just to give you an idea, mr. president, of how far this has gone, aclu has gone around the sheriffs into my jurisdiction, they're pressuring the judges -- ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ laughter ] [ cheers and applause ] >> jimmy: anyway, back to work. meanwhile, trump is having yet another problem with yet another cabinet nominee. his pick to run the department of veterans affairs, white house doctor ronnie jackson, is under fire now for allegations that he behaved improperly in the workplace. which is -- that's what trump liked about him. [ laughter ] that's why he nominated him. he wasn't sufficiently vetted, i guess, before being nominated. and this has happened a number of times now. and even republicans are angry with trump for submitting so many questionable nominees. because it's a big waste of time for them to go through everything. i happen to know for a fact they vet the contestants on "the bachelor" m

i would also hate to see it, i love the adu legislation and seismic, but maybe a moratorium on that because it's not working. this is the latest ruse to get rid of tenants, and i don't know what to do anymore other than just keep sending you guys e-mails. thank. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. teresa flandrick with senior and disability action as well as with the north beach committee. i am so pleased that we are having this joint meeting today. that gives me hope because there are so many problems. and of course representing seniors, i am seeing them losing their laundry facilities under the guise of well, we are doing this edu, which it is, but you can't take away a use that people have had access to and is part of this lease. for seniors to remain and age in place at the same time that some laundromats are being demolished or permanently closed. it's a livable city. we need to focus on that. i echo paul webbers comments on solutions. because i recognize the owner of a certain building, it would be really good to recognize if there could be a flag