or less and only 2 adu's for larger buildings more than 10 units and in district 3 the service retrofits adu project one adu is allowed for buildings for 4 units or less and large sized buildings there is no cap on the number of adu's employed so the commission found that strategy is more aligned with the departments strategy in terms of controlling density which is more using formula related factors like open space requirements and similarly in this legislation there are form related factors for adu's they need to be living and existing built envelope and can't use space on residential units commission recommended that to use the same strategy so for district 8 the recommendation would be one adu for buildings of four units or less and no cap on the number for large sized buildings i'm here for any other questions. >> thank you for being here for questions supervisor kim has a view. >> it is specifically on what you stated it was confusing in the report they should be consistent between items five and six as well the district 8 what was ovrj recommended previously one adu for

two garages that have been vacant for a year which again, i convert into a dwelling unit in a 20 unit building i can add 3 units without expanding my building envelope i urge you to pass this pending ordinance thank you. >> my name is jose 10 president of the bed policy.org one thousand mile-per-hour in district 3 and 8 are existed to hear about this when we read it over the chinese press on one hand people live in illegal unit adu our three-quarters membership legally privately secretly rent out their space to afford a house they've been sued or going through the trauma of renter unit people have heard the horror stories thousands of people have long up the space and leave them as storage forever adu's allows everyone to have a fresh start creating for housing without a negative impact protects the property owners to provide affordable and safe and nice new units to candlelight the housing crisis please support the legislation thank you. >> sue hester i think you need a little bit more information i'm not opposed to this legislation in concept but how is the city going to reaccess properties

in a larger sized than 5 unit buildings it is used a special balls of the type of structure of the building that is used in they're under seismic retrofitting and bans that more recent approach we used towards controlling density we find there are form related factors which is allowing adu's only with the existing built and not the corner but not allowing space from existing units so those are like formulated factors that are controlled we think that is sufficient in terms of controlling density rather than absolute numbers. >> okay. thank you. >> i want to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but i have heard a number of concerns around outreach and process around this legislation i think this sounds like we've seen supervisor wiener's legislation before so it seem like this year steps but we've heard a lot of request for outreach for district 3. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate theclarification the majority of speakers that came out in favor were addressing legal listing the in-law units a complete proc

on the number one number of adu's louts in the lot in district 8 only two are loud in buildings with more than 10 units the larger sized buildings aligned with the existing seismic retrofitted buildings and the density control the city's most recent planning is only the open space type of units in terms of bedroom numbers this strategy is different from the density controls in our district per lot and the density controls limited based on the size of the lot recycle in that some of the cu district adu's are within the envelope and can't use space from an existing units this provides limited space in how many adu's can be added staff adams the proposal to and then the district 3 for adu's in buildings undergoing seismic retrofitting this allows building with less than 5 units and no limits with 5 units or more staff recommends that the board expand eligible geography to district 8 to include the buffer around supervisor wiener including the adu's will serve the broader public interest and be consistent with the application of those provisions lastly i'd like to talk about the adu's within the city 37 th

and that requirement is part of prop c that raised it from 5 to 10 units so it will is to go to the voters to involves existing buildings to meet that requirement we count the units in place which have been there since 1962 so anything po to address the awe enthusiasts it great a welcome thing. >> commissioner richards i guess this is the right place to put the octavia plan we were planning a cu it is pretty well appropriate i have a couple of questions i lived in an apartment illicit before they were doing construction on top of my unit it drove me crazy live two doors counsel it was driving me crazy this community 7 at night the question what is your construction management plan for the two residents we heard about the quality of life what are our hours can you philosophical us in to mitigate those concerns. >> thank you, commissioner ron project sponsor. >> in the for the first unit there was concern expressed by the tenants we didn't start until the contractor was said that was okay and generally speaking the contractor we used will be finished by 5 even though we could have gone to 7 at night i'll use the same cont

two minute rebuttal. >> the point we have a code compliant project we're in the 3 unit with the rh3 with an exist building and simply you know the fourth floor is simply under utility as a storage it is appropriate for a dwelling unit provides for 18 hundred square feet of residential space for a dwelling unit so, i mean weren't to the boarding of the windows i think that relates to the current status of storage but making this a storage unit as noted that will be compliant with the windows and what noted i don't have anything else. >> public hearing is closed and opening to supervisors commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i don't see a basis for dr i realize this up to this point in time we were asking for a setback this was permitted on march first 1948 that's where they want to be the additional floor to end towards clayton street not within our purview to make that cause that to have to be modified or cut back the other issues are largely enforcement issues which will come under the purview of the police department or the department of public health building inspection if there are things not being done as

of 10 unit or more those are the buildings to which this is going to be added i'm grateful to supervisor wiener and those who cockamamy to advance this notion it is go for district 3 i hope we look at it implementing it citywide it is a time that has come ero over and over we know of a number of cases landlord that adding bedrooms to existing units making 4 and 5 bedrooms we need more apartment we looking at density limits throughout the district that is a good start and small step we can make towards making our neighborhoods affordable so we very much appreciate your support thank you. >> thanks supervisors so i'm going to continue with my presentation currently san francisco currently san francisco allows adu's within one thousand 7 hundred square feet plus in the castro and undergoing the mandatory - as supervisor wiener mentioned adu's are additional units to residential believes that are and they're limited to be built within the administrative waiver for some of the planning code requirements because of rear yard and ope

caltrain that is actually smaller than the picture he presented that's all it took 8 months to build a unit and it had to being on the top floor and they're trying to build an additional level on top of basically my apartment i work from home 3 days a week it is an incredibly nuisance and aggravation we were displaced in our garage and again, i'm here for opposition of this thank you. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> sue hester with the question normal procedure with the planning department would present this as building new 3 dwelling units what happens if their changed to short-term rentals is the planning department going to present everything as new hours? whether or not it is housing? can you say we will only present that as new housing if we have something in writing that the building will not become short-term rentals this is in the front line area i'm very well aware of this site this site is absolutely in well positions gentleman can do the right thing you can do the right thing but even if there is no willingness to say we will impose a condition this building ha

or less and only 2 adu's for larger buildings more than 10 units and in district 3 the serviceetrofits adu project one adu is allowed for buildings for 4 units or less and large sized buildings there is no cap on the number of adu's employed so the commission found that strategy is more aligned with the departments strategy in terms of controlling density which is more using formula related factors like open space requirements and similarly in this legislation there are form related factors for adu's they need to be living and existing built envelope and can't use space on residential units commission recommended that to use the same strategy so for district 8 the recommendation would be one adu for buildings of four units or less and no cap on the number for large sized buildings i'm here for any other questions. >> thank you for being here for questions supervisor kim has a view. >> it is specifically on what you stated it was confusing in the report they should be consistent between items five and six as well the district 8 what was ovrj recommended previously one adu for yo

whether a single-family home or space in a multi unit building not currently used for residentialurposes we have a lot of unused space in believes in various parts of city not currently used for residential purposes but that could be a garage or a shortage area or a basement that is partially above ground this legislation builds on the castro in law legislation i offered last year and this board passed unanimously and the service legislation i offered this year that allowed the in law units with retroactively retrofit and captains the entirety to the district i represent district 8 including for the creation of must rental units if it is adams into an existing rermentd building the castro legislation we passed last year support from the castro eureka area and the bay area recordeder and the lgbt democratic club and spur and the legislation before us that expands to the rest of the district is endorses by the board of supervisors and the park association and the dined or diamond heights community association we know that our city has been growing and continues to grow san francisco

twen units building, 5 stories, 4 equal properties on each floor, everyone live there 10 years 6 percent, [inaudible] it is 12 million dollars. it doesn't work. with 4 seconds left i have to finish. >> thank you next speaker please >> good afternoon board of supervisors. moo ename is marther rien and founding and executive director of homeless sknr enateal [inaudible] since i'm here i thought i would get up and introduce myself to you. the homeless prenailtal program serves poor z homeless families in san francisco and we have been doing it for 26 years. the focus is pregnant mothers and children 0-5. our mission is end the cycle of childhood poverty and that a tall order in san francisco when we have so many families that are homeless i can't afford to provide a place for their children to sleep at night. not to mention to feed them or keep them in school. i just would like to invite some of the supervisors have been to had homeless prenatal program and there is no substitute to seeing the program in action. congressman nancy pelosi has been twice and she said he are a model for the nat

and other building code so the envelope of the building and those building codes are by their nature going to restrict the number of units we can add what we have in district 3 a large apartment buildings that were built in the first half of the century when space was rare and people were building massive boiler rooms and some of those are looking tasty as apartment sites one of the things that made me push right now under current code pertains can add bedrooms to existing units and they're doing it right now that means this precious space they're allowing property owners to creatinine thousand dollars apartment when we could be addressing additional dwelling units we're passing up that opportunity everyday since the haste for the legislation parking question that's another tough one i agree because with parking at some you premium hard to imagine we have to find space for more people that may or may not have cars that's an issue to supervisor wiener's point one of the great things about the units we're not talking about all of a sudden putting 2 hundred units in one spot but likely to be dispersed throughout spaed out a

the mixed use building and construction of a new 6 story building commercial on the first floor on a lot of 25 feet wide and 90 feet deep a 7 unit residential building for parking garage underneath and the rooftop and elevator mandatory discretionary review hearing is required for the removing removal of an existing dwelling unit and the neighborhood notice was implemented and no discretionary reviews were filed we've received one e-mail and no comments in opposition to the project the department recommends that the commission does not take discretionary review and approve that for 9 following reasons the project sponsor has - to be more comparable with his lot the project will result in a net gain of 6 transmittals with four family sized units given the scale no significant capacity of the local street or muni the project meets all planning code with the plan that motion carries i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners danny the architect can we get the - arrest the slide oh. >> this is a aerial view of the context of the project what you see is an pagers and similar sound-prod

discussioning with the mayor's work group where we're contemplating allowing developers to perhaps build more units at higher ami or to build less units than the 12%, if they are more heavily subsidized. i think this is a long-term conversation. if we're going to raise the ami for one category of housing, we should be looking at it in the broad conversation of all of the types of housing proposals that we have. and that conversation i think is more appropriately had when the dial is introduced. if we're going to allow a developer to raise ami from 55% which is the standard today, to 90%, we should have a conversation of whether had they should be supplying more units because they don't have to subsidize those, as much as they do with 55% ami >> one the policy discussion will occur in the future and so if we're going to do that, we should examine whether we should require them to do more units at 95% ami. so i will not be supporting the amendment today. i do know that supervisor avalos has a number of amendments that came as recommendations from the planning commission. on the second set of amendmen

the other side, i must be the best landlord in the city, because i have a tenant that own a 9-unit building a block from the fairmount hotel who prefers to live in my building rather than hers. if you want to do something creative to the rent-control ordinance, which has been changed hundreds of times, and by the way, stakeholders, property owners, do not understand the full ramifications until they actually this stuff hits them in the face. hundreds of times have been changed since 1979, including when it was first passed. four units or less weren't even in the ordinance. so it changes. it changes over time this. is bad law. it's bad precedence. if you want to do something creative, why don't we means-test everybody? so everybody knows what we're getting?and we help the people that need the help, and to tell you the truth, it looks to me like if we tag-team tenants from google, we're going to have people in these apartments for decades. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm here today because i'm concerned that this legislation will hurt both tenants and landlords and make the hous

this is a 2 unit building over a basement and this particular-these appeals before you are related to notices of violation issued early january of this year, specifically january 21 and 22 of this year. the first item contained in that is appeal 6812, contained appreciately 20 items that dealt with maintenance throughout the building. in your staff reports you see a series of photo's that show the condition of the building. as you will hear later on the commission, you will address related issuewise respect to the same property. these notices of violation have-first let me say the current property owner took the title to the property early in january of this year, approximately i think the deed was recorded in january 15 of this year. so, when we went to the directors hearing in april they did have notice. you will see on the documentation that shows the owner but when we sent the notice it did also sent to the existing owner of record and in deed on or around february 10 of this year all outstanding notices of violation were hand delivered to the property owners representative at the

>> adu's are exempt from parking and if you add one unit to a existing building, a normal unit you don't have to add parking as well. >> okay, thank you very much. i just wanted clarification. i guess for all when we move forward in the future when we do these types of legislation we should probably not use in laws >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor christensen. >> i'll just reply. i know in my district with large apartment building, 20, 30, 40 building with boiler rooms or storage space these will not be what you think of in laws so i think we are aiming more at the larger housing stock. i understand from mr. gibner we have a tiny typo in the legislation that requires a minor adjustment so if you could explain where that is. >> just for clarity is there a typo in both 74 and 75? okay, that you can. >> deputy city attorney. this is page 7 line 6. reference to section 20 d 4 and it should be 207 d 4 >> supervisor christensen you move to amend. is there a second? second by supervisor wiener. colleagues can we take this without objection? without objection the item for 75 passes unanim

lens 5 units and no cap on number of adu for larger sized building are more than 5 units and so in those cases the number of of adu's are limited by factors the fact that adu needs to be within the envelope and not take away from the residential unit and the idea that is in compliance with the way the approach that the city has had towards the formulated factors controlled in the city and encourage to you know use this space more focusly not enough space to add additional units to use that space. >> i guess maybe supervisor wiener may i ask when the castro legislation was proposed the numerous limits were put in place to ease it in or i understand where we're going with the long maximum efficiency why were those limits in place. >> i think that was just you know our own - it was the very first time it was being done so we were a little bit more caution but now we had multiple steps and we've only had a few applications in the handbook just came out we've had inquires from people but you know, i thought it was clear it is not for people that have concerns this is a gradual thi

mary's to build hundred units of affordable housing for your seniors in the city to many of the sitesn broadway when did freeway was there to build affordable housing i'm sure you're aware of it is really, really difficult to build affordable units multiple unit housing their current 3 thousand plus homeless children and one of the wealthiest cities in the world this development is going to help to take you will say another step towards eradicating and eliminating families homelessness in san francisco we know there are many families that also maybe not in the shelters life in sro's hotels 8 by 10 and kids trying to do their homework and it's multi generational there's a subsidy to know that families couldn't even be afternoon to make a transition to beautiful building on broadway this is what chinatownc. c is making our neighborhood healthier thank you gordon and novrm and many people that are involved here today (clapping.) we found out that willie brown will not make it after andrea our residents speakers the mayor you have 15 seconds to thirty second to cover the story back then h

affordable housing because of the extra goods and services that the occupants of these units are going to demand. by building more luxury units, and by the way, there are 1300 of them in the pipeline right now, you are creating additional pressures on the demand for housing in san francisco. what we need to do is we need to set it right. we need to figure out strategy so we can build housing that teachers can live in. >> let me give sonia a chance to respond. >> teachers and police officers don't qualify for affordable housing because they make too much. the place middle income people live is go back in time 20 years and build something 20 years ago and wait. we have a problem now, 20 years ago, 15 years ago, eight years ago five years ago we weren't moving. anyone that lived through the 2008 bubble and recession knows that financing for housing comes in the country in waves.

larger than the area a 3.4 percent cumulative balance is it shows how challenging it is for every unit we build we're losing so many rental units we're spending our time spend our energy but i don't know if we are getting the results we want i'm going to jump to the plan itself i like this framework that's to protect and preserve and produce i think this is a framework we should take to all the communities and trying that with the mission. >> it is important to been the city as a whole on the question of protecting will evictions but ellis is state law everyone in the room that spends time and coming here every thursday for anyone that has connections to the realtor tell them to stop every week we're frustrated and go to the state and our realtors are up there opposing the elisa form and to the attorneys don't represent landlords environmental impact how will we stop eviction we have some of the stronthd evictions in the nation to the question of preserving i don't know you know where we can go on preserving united more some ideas that are thrown out homes or even higher standards on demolition

we haven't even made it to match, like, population growth in the united states, the average population growth. even if we were building at 1% a year, almost 4,000 units a year, that's not enough. itis been more like 2,000 a year. >> let's get back to the arguments. first, carol, i want to bring you in and take a step back in terms of how cities are addressing the problems. a moritorium is an option. what are some of the other options? >> sure well, i would first start by saying, this is not just a mission district problem or a san francisco problem, it really is a regional problem. it starts with the fact that we have generated, you know close to 500,000 new jobs since the recession and fewer than that on a net basis. we have built, you know a fraction of the housing needed to accommodate just that new job growth, let alone the natural, you know, population growth that you would see. i would start there and say that cities cooperating and looking at this on a larger scale on a regional basis would be one thing that i think would be an important thing to do because the jobs aren't being generated just in san francisco.

moving forward that program should be expanded for the neighborhoods today those types of units are cheaper to build and neal more affordable and don't require thousands of dollars per units of subsidize and their don't effect the neighborhood character and sustainable that is one of any logical solutions to a severe housing shortage and housing crisis that we're facing that is, we should absolutely support and move to the full board. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm betsy the president of the diamond heights communities association our association board supports the seary dwelling unit legislation for district 8 for two reasons the legislation would provide much needed affordable rental housing in diamond heights and we feel the legislation has the potential to increase the gloria killian income of residents in the neighborhood for the residents that may in the fire chief struggle to remain in san francisco because of the high cost of living here they were proefbl on january 1st supervisor wiener held a community meeting for diamond heights and glen park and sxh