- or i'm sorry, this commission heard the -- you know, the housing report, and you know, the two adu units is 2% of what the 100 adu's that were built last year and not to mention the expansion of the studio and the one unit into two bedroom units, so i do really think it's important and you know, i'll be involved during the project working with them and their construction manage to find the most expeditious way to minimize disruption during construction. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: as of yesterday at 2:00, i was asking for this to be continued. the reason for that was the package we were given last thursday was incomplete and completely contradictory to what we were supposed to look at. yesterday at 5:00, 5:15 i pulled up my sfgov website to find that supplement cal material had been submitted, concerningst third floor where most of the changes is happening. but attached to that was a large file, harder to download actually that set of drawings whic

you may get some adu units to help with the seismic retrofit, but i think you've got to figure out what the existing residents -- especially those that have the units, those parking spaces, whether they're willing to work with you to give them up or not. >> we had one of these over -- i think it was in russia where we started to take parts of the lobby, and we said, no, you can't do that. >> it was on clay street. >> it was on clay street. at what point does the adu stop confiscating units? it's the way things are being done in the renovations. it says you cannot take existing living space or living service space for the unit, but what people are choosing to do is go beyond the basic adus. they're doing more than that. [overlapping speakers] >> i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. >> it's a wrongful eviction under the rent law. >> the adu that's causing it, it's other people doing things beyond that. >> i guess the housing accountability act. we have to confiscate a portion of somebody's unit to build a unit. i don't agree with that. >> you don't have to, under this case.

an adu in a an existing dwelling unit will also be relatively affordable. affordability is a rational for the adu in an rh 1. it is difficult to understand how an affordable adu can be added to a building that does not exist. and since i have a little time, i' i'll show you the other handout. it's in the ordinance. it's also existing. the handouts say existing. it's very clear. that's the current handout, and i'd like to add one more thing since i have a little time. i did a public records request for the accessory dwelling units that either had permits or had permits that have been issued or permits that have been issued and have csc's. i got 159 total so far in the department. and there were -- of those 159, five are in the rh 1, but all of them, all 159 and the five in the rh 1 are existing structures. so this just does not seem in keeping were the intent of the adu law. i think the commission did a little too much, and we can talk about it some more later on the rebuttal, but that's it for now. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will n

adu because it can't legally. the existing zoning is rh 1. you're only allowed to do one unit. what this condition basically says is that once that single-family home is built and then exists, then the property owner must follow through and add an adu to a house that will be existing at that time. again, an adu can only go into an existing building, and this permit could not move forward with two units in it. that is why the -- kind of the two lower floors are designed the way they are to, you know, essentially have the look and feel of a separate unit but not actually have a separate full kitchen. so this permit was subsequently approved by the planning department on octoct-13 of 2017. it was issued by dbi on march 5 of this year, and it's the department's position that the permit was correctly approved by the planning commission with subject conditions, and as such we'd request that the board deny the appeal. i'm available for any questions. >> i have questions. i know the adu legislation is still reasonably new, but can you think of other instances where this sort of sequence

they are adding a rent controlled adu unit. we really need housing. the commercial space has not been occupied by tenants as far as i can tell. you know, 1980's, there's no tenant evictions on record. the neighbors opposing this renovation are well known in a firm that specializes in evicting residential tenants. they live next door. i find it pretty rich that they are putting this kind of pressure on the project sponsors and trying to keep out a rent controlled abu from being built next door. this is classic nimby that is worthy of a news article, this is classic hatfields and m m mccoys. it just feels like this is the neighbors throwing around their weight because they're a very scary law firm, so thanks. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor breed, members of the board of supervisors. my name is james creech. i'm a san francisco resident, i'm a san francisco native, and i'm a constituent of supervisor breed's. i personally object to the appeal, but that's not what i'm here for. i'm here to read a letter

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?

couple of years ago, the city passed a fee ordinance for specifically legalizing dwelling units and adding adus that charges a lower fee rate for those permits, so it's not uncommon to see those split so they get the lower fee rate. and i would note that the adu permits has a note on the permit that the light is supposed to infilled under a separate permit. so the department was aware of all three permits when it reviewed and approved the permit and we believe it was properly approved, issued. i'm available. >> i have a question. so we've heard a lot about adus to the city, what does the pipeline look like and what has been done recently? >> i don't have those numbers with me. actually, this is the second time this has been asked. i'll have that with me next time. >> the reason why is that i saw it on tv, that when london was acting mayor, that was one of the issues, that there was a lot of adus held up in the pipeline, due mostly to the fire department holding those up. are they moving faster and going through more? >> i think with any program that is new and it's something to keep in mind, th

this project aims to add four units to an existing eight unit building. show adu for th-- slow 5 dadu' delivers the following impacts. delays tax revenue to the city. once we complete 1295 47th avenue, we will sell the building to a long-term owner. if we had faster approvals, we could sell the building in november of 2018 instead of november 2019. they would get $50,000 of lost tax revenue in the city. for this project, each month of delay costs me $15,000 in carry costs. these delays make money of my projects unprofitable. if we had faster approvals, we could develop a lot more adu's more quickly. make adu's done over the counter by appointments. the goal should be approving an adu in weeks, not months. once planning has approved it, we should allow all the different approvals to go over the counter, as well, which include dbi, eir, dpw and euc. they can typically take four to six weeks perapproval. also, i would say we'd like to have one point of contact for this entire process because right now we're dealing with six different approvals. this is six different

. >> commissioner richards: so those were inclusionary units on low income projects. >> and also, we consider adu's that are affordable by design, and they're not income restricted, so we put those under moderate because we believe that that's where, you know, those are the -- the population's -- >> commissioner richards: well, the interesting thing is because there's no mechanism just for those product at that level, i don't think we're ever going to be meeting the number, right? unless we have a massive subsidy for these two income brackets. >> or we have other funds. >> commissioner richards: or we're at 1,000% above moderate, and 100% on these -- it's very hard to achieve with what mercnichmer mechanisms we have now. it would be really nice -- i'd love to see this data for the nine counties. where is san mateo at? >> we could get the information from -- >> commissioner richards: an appendix. but really good stuff. we're doing pretty good in two areas. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: one additional comment on renter registration. it may be interesting to also tie

units in san francisco. i know it's been a hot topic and has been raised by several colleagues as well. i do feel that adu's resolution for neighborhoods that they can fit into the character of a neighborhood providing affordable housing and allow for multigenerational families to live together and hopefully, again, at a more affordable rate. i know it's been challenging for many of the units to be approved through our cities, the processes, the requirements or the permitting in general, and so today i'm introducing help for homeowners to build more adus more easily. we want to remove the barriers to adu approvals and expand eligibility requirements. to do so, we'd like to ask that, first of all, at pro-app meetings that all relevant department staff be present during a project sponsor's pre-application meeting including dbi, fire and planning. this will eliminate the confusion that project sponsors go through to understand the requirements they need to meet. 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 stree

units. in 2017, there were 233 new that were completed and about 76 adu's that were legalized which created 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 abs

units and why they're not being built. i don't know if taking away the tiemts -- entitlements, but if we're in a period of building, how can we encourage those could be built. 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 c