tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 22, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
detail, i don't know. >> one other question on the 2918 mission, i did watch the hearing. when you say it has to come back here, there is no other hearing that the board is going to have to say, hey, shadow impacts do or don't have an adverse impact. >> i believe the environmental review has to start over but i can defer to the city's attorneys office. >> because the board of supervisors spends the community plan evaluation back for additional amounts for the shadow impacts, planning department would revise the cpe, chapter 31 adds they provide that when the board overturns the review, the decisions that were taken are automatically void.
the plan evaluation would be revised with the shadow impact analysis, and the project would need to seek the conditional use permits again. >> with the new roles on the units, with a bna fax? i.e. we charge the bmr additional stories as if this is a new project? or would they still be grandfathered based on when the application was deemed complete? >> we are still looking for a very good... >> is an unusual question, but could you give me one more word on what i assume is a tree? >> yes, it was a tree. it was on private property. >> it was just a single tree on a single property. with the consent of the owner. >> okay. thank you. >> okay.
if there's another does nothing further, we can move on to general public. they can address us within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. it will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> good afternoon. since summer, i thought i'd show you something statically pleasing. happy summer. may i have the overhead, please? this is in the wall street journal a couple weeks ago. it is a kitchen that is discrete. it is unique by itself. most kitchens that you see are part of a big room. i know that you really just approve projects based on the outside, buildable envelope. what is inside is important. what is inside reflects what is
on the outside. this made me think about the ogrprming space, and the large kitchen areas and big open space. sometimes if you go to these open houses they look like laboratories and living rooms. that is not this story. if you think that, in terms of the lot size, the average lot size, and most of san francisco's residential neighbourhoods is 25-110. when he think about what was historically on these lots, houses with hallways. does that work better on these lots? that we don't have these big masses that we see with big alterations or brand-new buildings? perhaps this is one reason the flat policy was necessary. people were taking advantage of this idea which i think is really a marketing tool. big open spaces predominantly by
the kitchen, and not keep the flats with the bedrooms and the number of rooms reasonably sized rooms for a family that would also be affordable. i just wanted to bring it up. i thought this was kind of tiveac it is a discrete room separate, by itself it is really a kitch kitchen. it is not a big open space that has a lot of space that may not be used. it just adds to the price per square foot on housing, and it is something that i would hope architects and designers would consider. the commission on the staff should consider a too in regards to densifying housing at affordability issues. you see it on all the plans. thank you very much. >> thank you. connect speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the housing coalition. i'm known to try to respectfully disagree with commissioner richards' a view on sb 827.
i will start that i don't believe that the green is the most necessary -... let's start with that. sb 827 wasn't up zoning near transit and it is specifically a disallowed demolition in those areas. you can't just do an overlay of which neighbourhoods it would affect. you have to do an overlay of which lots, in those neighbourhoods could actually be up zones. if you want to look at historically that need a lot of look low income or low income people of colour, live near transit hubs. if you are to look at the mission, it is already built out. it basically would have zero effect on the current mission because it is already built. so the point is you can't just say, let's just do an overlay here and see who lives there
now. you have to do an overlay and say which buildings, which a lot actually have the ability to be up zones in those neighborhoods? i mean it's a very, very frustrating for me when we have these types of conversations and it's just like everyone cherry picks their information, rate? this is about trying to get as many people near transit as possible so we can get people out of cars. it makes sense that we don't have great public transit. do we want to up so neighborhoods that don't have transit so more people have to drive places plea that doesn't make sense. just the last comment, like, you know, green is a white male homeowner. dennis, white male homeowner. doesn't support spa 27. london breed grew up in public housing and supports it. i don't think anyone is accusing
her of not having concerns for people of colour. you know, i think everyone needs to take a deep breath and be like, i don't think anyone who supports this is trying to do away with the low income communities. anyway. that's it. >> neck speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with the neighborhood council. mr david's comments inspired me to speak. for the record, this is a woman of colour, myself, and immigrant, first generation and i do not support it. i do remember a time when i arrived in this country and i did not have a car. it was a different time but i had to resort to hitchhiking to get to my school. it is true that the majority of the people who are currently living around transit are not of
the same means as the affluent people who live in the city. unfortunately the whole city has become so affluent that nobody can relate to this. what might follow community members said is true. this bill was not geared for neighborhoods in the house. it was mostly excelsior and the bayview that would be impacted. it was places where it was cheaper for the developer is to purchase the land and up zone and make a million out of each unit within those 8-11 units that the senator was proposing. also want to point out another statistic that i do recall. that when we are in the heat of the debate, it was from washington post, not the hallmark of communism, socialism, it is just why kate mainstream media. in san francisco, they suggested the public transportation dropped by 1.7%.
what public transit are we talking about? that these luxury units are so appropriate to be built nearby? the whole idea of having a wide brush to up zone the entire city or entire community is wrong. there is no impact assessment in a situation like this. you don't know how many expenditures you will put out. let's be real. here is a woman of color who is going on the record. i am against the bill, as well as a whole bunch of other people of color. because that is just not fair. >> thank you. any additional general public comments? seeing then, we can move to the regular candle -- calendar. >> very good. this will places as item nine under the regular calendar. the accessory dwelling unit amendments, planning code
amendment. please note on june 7th 2018, you continued this matter to today by about the seventh. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the head of the planning department staff. the agent before you is an ardent dutch ordinance sponsored by people who are saying i'm -- giving amendments. before i go into my presentation today, i want to acknowledge supervisor tang is here and she wants to make remarks. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you very much. i apologize i couldn't be here for the first hearing on this item but i do want to thank my staff for representing me and their outstanding work on this legislation as well as their out standing representation. i think it really goes without saying that we really do feel that accessory dwelling unit is a great way to provide more
housing for our residents here in san francisco and more affordable fashion. more quickly. like a there's a lot of resistance to build a new housing in the city, even though i know a lot of us want to achieve more housing here. the planning staff have done a lot of work really talking to different people in the community as to what those challenges where in terms of building a de- use in our city. i think what you see before you in this legislation that we propose is a summary of some of the few items that we think we can address really easily upfront. at the last commission hearing i know there were some concerns raised around allowing the addition of these for new construction. i did want to share with you in our legislative process we will make an amendment to move that provision given the concerns are on the housing accountability act. i wanted to share that we originally had that provision in the legislation because we had heard from previous planning commissioners that there were situations where you did want to add new construction, but again,
i hear your concerns loud and clear. i wanted to indicate i will make that amendment at the board of supervisors. with that said, thank you to all the staff who worked on this. i hope you will pass this, if your recommendation to passed legislation. >> thank you. for my presentation today, i will first give a brief overview of what is in the ordinance, and then i will focus on the couple of questions that were discussed at the commission hearing last time. the proposed ordinance would include changes that would allow these as part of new construction, although supervisor tang did mention just now that they will take this out. then it would also increase electability for expanding the building envelope. it would include flexibility for
satisfying bicycle parking, exposure to apartments. and finally it would also improve the existing legalization program. i know that the supervisor just mentioned that they will be taking this recommendation out. this has been something that staff had recommended in the past. i still wanted to bring you our recommendations and our discussions in response to the questions. the recommendation was that to allow one adu. there is some existing tools that the commission already has and can continue to use when reviewing these permits.
the existing residential design guidelines would still apply, and can be applied to modify the placement unit, and in terms of their size and their bulk. also, they -- there maybe applications where the demolition could be avoided, and instead allow alteration with an a.d.u. for example, for a single-family home, the code already allows they used to expand at the existing building, at that construction can use that route. from multifamily homes, similar provisions can provide the commission with this option. this is already part of the staff recommendation to allow expansion of a.d.u. across the board across all buildings. that is modification number 2. in addition, stop is providing another recommendation for objective standards, and bats to establish size controls for new
construction of single-family homes, plus a.d.u. for example, the commission -- the control could be requiring the a.d.u. to be one minimum part of the replacement unit. we have another recommendation that puts a cap on the a.d.u. for $1,200 eric these two combined together that the replacement unit cannot be more than 3600 square feet. to avoid those extra-large homes. next, marcel is also here and she will go over some of the questions around bicycle parking and exposure requirements. >> hi. just a few points. really just an overview of the amendments to the code controls. related to a few involving improving unit quality, specifically to minor infill on the lot.
they are now prohibited within the required year rear yard. this impacts multiunit buildings as well as modifying the conditional requirements for the reduced exposure. right now it is 15 by 15 horizontal dimensions. we are looking at modifying that to know dimensions less than nine seats and a minimum open area of 225 square feet. it is one minor modification. also, looking at some minor modifications to the bicycle parking requirements that will allow existing buildings with existing core doors no less than 3 feet as code compliant access to the bicycle parking. also allowing 100% of vertical parking for bicycle parking. these would only be allowed in existing buildings when they are adding a.d.u. these amendments come from doing -- reviewing over 700
applications for a.d.u. and taking a look at existing conditions and how we can improve this scenario. and really encouraging department bicycle parking. just a few other, one other points related to process improvement related to the proposal to remove the planting requirement and replace it with an in lieu requirement. it would help with streamlining, permit reviews, as well as incorporating planning into cdi's preapplication process which does not occurred -- occur. if you have additional questions i can absolutely answer those. also i want to reiterate the procedure that planning and department of building construction have put in place regarding tenant notification about the proposed a.d.u. project. prior to filing applicants,
owners, art specifically are required to notify tenants about the a.d.u. project that will potentially remove housing services. so they are made aware prior to filing. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. if there are any questions about any of the amendments since we went over of them last time, i will not go over into specific detail. let me know if you have more questions on those. >> thank you. we will. let's open it up for public comment. we have a couple of speaker cards. and anybody else who would like to speak, line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon. i don't know if you read what i submitted, i'm confused because the amendment is gone that i was focusing on which was related to, i was fearful of a loophole of demolition. i guess that is gone because it is not new construction. i will talk anyway about what i was going to say.
there was an article in the new york times a few weeks ago, june 10th about a factory made -- factory made housing. they said it cost $800,000 a unit to build. that is where it is headed up towards. that made me think, well you have these a.d.u. that you want to put in but if you tear down a building to put in an a.d.u. in a single-family neighborhood, what are you getting? you are getting away from this thing. my concern was the definition of proposal and what that means. if you look in the dictionary it is a vague word that doesn't relate to demolition. it is just put forth for consideration. that could be anything. i guess i just want to hear more about the amendment being changed. i think that it's important to consider what is in your housing element, without protecting the
affordability. the different policies, rental housing, i will just read this because i thought it was interesting, related to what we are talking about. preserved naturally affordable housing types which is smaller and older ownership user -- units. this is from the elements. this is written by the department. a review of current sales prices reveals that new homes are generally just generally priced higher than older housing. this is particularly true of smaller units such as the midcentury construction in certain lower density residential neighborhoods. it is these housing units that provide a unique home ownership opportunity for new and smaller households while a higher density housing results in more shared cost among each unit. the pre-existing investment in lower density housing generally outweighs the benefits of higher density in terms of housing affordability. to the extent that lower density housing, lower density older housing units respond to the
specific housing need without requiring public subsidy and they should be preserved. it seems like that is tailor-made for a.d.u. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> good afternoon commissioners. quickly, after a two year struggle which subverted the wishes of the neighborhood and the planning commission and scott weiner calling your commission an advisory body, the newly appointed a uc chair finally passed her own s.f. legislation with no further input from your commission or the neighborhoods.
but this has led to, what this has led to is what we see as the attempt to build cottages, more units, all over the city. everywhere you can put one pack we will put one. so, i think home s.f. so far has only attracted four projects in the last 1.5 years, and to these developers are lucky. they were coerced into adopting a home s.f. in fact, they even begged not to use the program the way it was meant to be used. so, i think what we have to look at carefully with this is the preapplication way you are going to be looking and notifying people with a.d.u., how are neighbors going to be notified? how much more space outside the
building envelope are developers going to be given? and adding additional a.d.u. to a new building under this legislation may mean the number of dwelling units in the building exceeds coach. i think we are headed that way very quickly. and lastly pack language regarding permitting unauthorized units needs to be stronger. i find this legislation a little bit vague and easy to interpret and would like to see it tightened up. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good day commissioners. i am a tenant and tenant advocate concerns that tenants residing in properties were a.d.u. would be added do not have a say in the planning
process. tenants don't get a heads up about what will happen where they live because no notification is required, and now there is no plan to include tenants in the newly proposed optional pre-op meeting. that a property -- property owner would be able to schedule with dbi and planning staff. who is to say if the plans presented are an accurate representation? the original intent of a.d.u. legislation was to create more rent-controlled units out of unused spaces in order to increase the city's affordable housing staff. tenants are concerned, and rightly so, when their landlord seek to take away their lap -- laundry facilities, parking and storage spaces in the process. this violates their contracts and is unfair. maybe a.d.u. needs to be reconfigured to avoid this from happening. why not include the tenants in the process? however, in response to tenant concerns, the removal of housing
services, as you have heard is going to be a modification of the a.d.u. screening for them to include notice to the tenants what services will be removed. moving onto the proposed tenant provision outlined in the legalization of illegal units, they don't address the tenant's plate when they are evicted from an unauthorized units. there is no telling how long it will take to get the rental unit into compliance. the mitigations are inadequate because the tenant is left out in the cold, unable to find an affordable place to live in the city at a comparable rent. i'm very glad that katie tang has removed the amendment to section two '07 to the planning code to allow an a.d.u. in new construction. as we know, demolishing sound affordably priced existing housing conflicts with san
francisco's a general planned policies. replacing sound housing with one larger unit or two or three new units of new construction, depending on zoning, plus an a.d.u. does nothing to address affordability and adds to displacement because of new construction is not subject to rent control and his way too expensive. new construction caters to people who are willing to pay top dollar to live in a city and real estate speculators looking for profit. i am i'm glad this proposed amendment would be removed because it will create an incentive for demolition and would not bode well for san francisco residen for smack blank mac. [please standby for captioner switch]
. >> right know we know that there are some really bad actors out there who are misusing in practice of creating new dwellings without tenants knowing anything about what's going on and you heard one person talk about his experience at the joint commission hearing with dbi that the landscaping permit that was posted meant that this man, peter escondar
would dig up the entire backyard and lay out a foundation without any permits, so that's the fear that people like him and we know there are devil out there will again abuse this wonderful thing and what can we do to make sure there are things in place that you are flagging those builders who we know to always go beyond the scope to try to swindle people out of their homes delaying actually work that they had promised to do to actually build rather to just shut off some of the leck tri of the elee water at certain times and they were told they would not be affected by this. this is the abuses out there that is truly unfortunate but it is an ugly reality, and i want
to be sure we have safeguards in place to protect the tenants because each time you build within an envelope, if the building is occupied there will be people affected. thank you. >> milo tross. i support this legislation i think it's important that we make it easier to build more adus and it's the definition of soft and still affordable development. one of the points about, i am actually disappointed that supervisor tang is removing the part about allowing more adus on new construction, i wish that
would be included and it would be nice if this body would recommend against removing that section of the ordinance, and yeah, the part about i mean, maybe i didn't read it close enough, if notification or some sort of parameters with landlords building adus like in a backyard is it's part of your lease and then your originalal agreement is altered that should be accounted for for renters. there is a lot of really good legislation hear and i actually don't think it's reckless to give the zoning board, personnel, the authority to grant variances and speed this up. i think it's the kind of courageous leadership that we need in a time when we are in a
housing crisis and we can't find where people can live. finally the other point about that i have an adu in my building. if there is more adus then you will have more options. as a renter if there is no adus and nowhere to go you are stuck and teetering on homelessness but if you have another friend or person, we will have more options, so i think its wise and this is good i support it. thank you. >> thank you. >> dillion casey. my comments primarily have to do the this ordinance of single family home districts because that's the area covered by the
state law and i'm hoping that san francisco will bring themselves into compliance with the state laws in those areas. at the prior hearing some expressed concerns that allowing amount dus would incentivize teardowns. this concern is misplaced. allowing them in single family homes will only expand housing options.
first state law requires adus in new construction, and removing this construction for single family properties proposed or existing, removing this portion of the proposal would not only be bad policy but would cause the ordinance to b out of compliance with state adu laws. state law requires that adu laws be administered only through ministerial provisions. the state law states.
[reading] to this extent that san francisco this ordinance to the extent that the ordinance applies to single family homes proposed or existing, and the adu does not require a waiver the process should be ministerial. this process does make a lot of good changes i just hope that additional changes are made to come into compliance with state law. >> thank you. >> good afternoon jeremy sh ab last time i was hear i didn't know this hearing was happening and i had some time to run some numbers. our first, four people we are in the process o building 342 units
around san francisco. if we allowed this adu legislation to go through we can add more units. if you exclude new construction that number cuts in half. if you allow adu in new construction but disallow demolition we could still reclaim another 20 or so units, so i think there is a way where we can disallow adu and we are not worried about displacing any tenants and still building affordable sound housing. there is a limitation of 1200 square feet and i think that's great. i think notifying tenants is wonderful. i love talking to neighbors and tenants, so i'm fine with that. i just want the process to be as quick as painless. adding two weeks for the neighborhood notice is fine.
i think we are in a neighborhood emergency. neighborhood where we need to add more units as soon as possible. >> neighborhoods that have not done their part for zoning reasons, we now every single family home can be a two-unit lot, so this allows us to build more affordable by design units on the west side of the city, in the valley and everywhere that is single family homes right now. one of the previous speaker talked about our law is in compliance with the state law. the state law says that adu are
over-the-counter ministerial approved. we have seen what the state does when we don't follow rules from the state level for 40 years we get ourselves in trouble so to make sure we are getting this right from the beginning. there are always going to be bad actors and i think we need to take a hard line with them. when we find them, let's punish them and make it a huge disincentive to be a bad actor but not create rules to imagine that everyone is going to be a bad actor. at the end of the day, this is about adding 5,000 to 10,000 unit of affordable by design housing, homes in san francisco over for next two years. that is an incredible opportunity and i hope we don't miss it. >> president hillis: ms. clark. >> laura clark.
looking for policy solutions to protect tenants by blocking housing a fundamentally a flawed idea. we need strong tenants' protechs. protections. we need rights of civil counsel and keep tenants in their home and if someone wants to take a buyout they are getting the most money possible. blocking new homes from being built is the worst way to pursue tenants' protections. we are not beginning to be saving things from these tear downs. we are creating a system a large home for one family that we are saying we don't want. we want multifamily housing. we want more humans to be able to live in our cities. we want these two unit accessory dwelling unit buildings to be built and we want them to be
built in every neighborhood. we cannot rely on district six and ten to be the only districts bidding the majority of housing. we have seen that mega projects that are poisoning everybody that we can't rely on them. we need distributed diffuse density and our legislation to be the strongest it can be to get as many built in the city especially in our wealthiest neighborhood. it is a great way to ensure that we are getting more density in neighborhoods who have been very effective at keeping all homes out. additionally we have to be in compliance with state law. more and more laws are going to come to address our chronic housing shortage and san francisco is going to have to deal with the uncomfortable reality that state trumps local
and we are going to have to come in compliance with state law. or pay for a lot of lawsuits. i don't want my tax dollars to pay for a city rejecting state law. we need to set a good example for the cupertinos of the world. >> commissioner moore: thank you >> president hillis: thank you. >> lisa fermer president of liberty hill neighborhood association. actually i am just fine with my tax dollars being used to maintain local control and have citizen be able to weigh in. on projects in our planning department and come before the planning commission, that's fine
with me. the conversation about up zoning started again earlier this year, ba27 but even with amendments this attempt to mandate more housing was flawed and failed to garner support. the proposed adu amendments are having another go at up zoning the neighborhoods but in a nontransparent way. what president hillis has called a back-door approach. a house is done, well allowing more than one adu within the existing envelope of all residentially zoned homes will effectively be an alteration or a remodel and one of the problems is that, although there is a minimum size for it, there is no maximum size.
i applaud katie king for taking out the provision that adus are allowed in new construction because that would really be up zoning, but in the end this is real piecemeal up zoning under another name and there are consequences to piecemeal up zoning particularly when the neighborhoods and public have not been involved in crafting this legislation. there is still demolitions continuing to be approved and the legal demolition disguised as remodel is still going on, but if we don't allow adu in new construction, that probably won't be a problem, but commissioners don't you think that everybody deserves a seat
at the table when decisions are made about how this city gets built and rebuilt? planning decisions based on unpopular are not unpoplar policies. think of the far reaching consequences. when proposal are sound and evidence-based you don't need a back door approach. planning at its best is up front and should be democratic. >> thank you. >> audrey realm. this was a glorious day. i am very happy thanks to supervisor chang for tabbing off that dangerous amendment of allowing new adus to be constructed in new construction. i am happy to hear that the
tenants are going to get notification. i just want to comment about the ability to legalizing additional adus that is dangerous and reckless and giving that much power is not democratic and very much dictatorial. we are hear in the first world criticize people that are living under the dictatorial and banana republic kind of approach that we are so critical of. it's also this whole business of adus being notified to the tenants so they would realize the consequences and they could seek other venues to stop their displacement, so unlike some of the things that you heard from the yimbee action, it could
cause their displacement. you cannot build things in a building that's already been built without getting the inhabitants to move. how many times have you folks have construction in your house that you actually lived through it? it doesn't happen that way. instead of hiding behind we are creating more housing, let's face it, this is creating an option for the developer and landlord to get rid of them. we need to tighten those laws. with incentivizing monster home that is not going to happen. we are going to be hear and objecting to that. you have seen some of us week after week and we are going to object to them monster homes, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 square feet are not affordable housing.
we need to have affordable by design. also we would like you to divide a maximum limit for adu. if someone could build a 2,000 square feet or carve out 2,000 square feet and call it adu, that is going to be a sham. that is not an adu. that's it and thank you very much. >> thank you. >> tony robles. want to echo what some of the other speakers said about the displacement ramifications this could have. we see turning garage and storage spaces into dwellings and i am a tenant organization
nizer with senior and disability action turning garage and storage spaces require complying with modern day storm and air. storage and air and everyone is turning their extra space into an adu -- it calls into question is it city planning, slub planning, what is it? >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon janet fowler. i hadn't intended to speak, but as i listen to this i want to urge caution and studies of what happens in a neighborhood and what happens in reality. i think we all know a lot of -- we know people who have two
units and occupy them both. that is something that happens when adus are built. they are occupied by the owner of the building in some way or another and it's hard to have a handle on that, but i was also thinking of a neighbor of my son who lives in a single family zoning who wanted to do some conditional use in his basement and is having trouble and this is for his family and is having trouble because there is this urgency to force people to do an adu instead of accommodate their family, and he was saying, i counidon't know if i can stay is city anymore and if i want to keep doing this. i think we need to study too what are our populations that really go out and vote?
are they in certain neighborhoods? are they in person densities? there are so many different kind of factors to think about when you're planning a city and you're driving toward density you want it to do what you want it to do and not something else. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment. seeing none we will close public comment. >> i want to thank the supervisor and her staff. thank you for coming back and being responsive to our concerns. i had a chance only to look
lighting olightly only things tu have changed but wondering if you could tell us more about why you took out the provision of adus in new construction? >> monica mohang, we took out the provision because i think there are still unknowns regarding adding a new unit beyond the housing accountability act so if we were to take the planning department's recommendation of maximizing adu at 1200 square feet maybe we would want to do it based on -- so there is
equity. there is some other things we would like to think about and yes, that is one of the issues, and then also i've been talking to lee hapner and they are working on legislation with proposed demolitions and he and i have had good conversations how to -- >> so you think that could come back? >> it could come back i think we need to think about it a little bit more. we know it would be useful but setting parameters around it beyond maximum size just thinking about what those projects look like. there are things that we want to think about a little bit more. >> that makes me happy thank you so much. >> president hillis: i am extremely supportive.
i liked the adu in construction. we have grape grappled with that. some folks think it will lead to demolitions, but we have strong controls over demolitions. i don't think we have approved a control of a rental controlled building -- so i think we have those controls in place. you know and i think were limiting ourselves by not doing it in new correction. we have enturged it and have taken the step of encouraging folks to build nonoccupiable space so later they could come and put an adu in new construction, so i support strengthening our demo rules and our alteration rules because many do like demos, so they are
considered demos so we are marying these two somewhat in a way that i don't agree with. at the very least, mr. shab had a great idea to allow them in new construction where there hasn't been a demo, but i would be in favor of keeping and going with the planning recommendation of allowing adu into construction but at very least allow them where there hasn't been a demo like the planning staff recommended. >> i am generally supportive of this legislation. we do need more density in your neighborhood and we do need to be building these units and i think there are some really thoughtful provisions and good legislation. the issue that came up before was how do we expedite housing
developing without sacrificing tenant protections. i think there is a larger conversation which i know i spoke with supervisor tang and her office they are thinking about how else we can work to provide tenant protections around these issues and i would also echo that i think you know i would be supportive of adus in new construction if we could do something around making thundershower there hasn't been a dem kno demo in the property. i do hope that it comes back. >> commissioner richards: so i heard mr. mohan speak and i think the conversations around demolitions is one for another day. i completely support working with supervisor peskin's office on that because that was a big
concern of mine now that it's not going to be in this portion of the legislation but coming in the future, i do support this. the question i have is let me ask a hypothetical. i want to do denseification without displacement. that is what the goal is. if we had an adu application before us where it was about a month ago and maybe somebody could help me hear. somebody had rented the garage and landlord took the garage space away from the tenant, what recourse does the depending have because the garage was in the lease? is there a dr or do they go to the rent board? what is the bath to keep the tenth from keeping before the
adu what they had or was in their lease. >> commissioner kate stacy: it would depend on the lease and use of the garage is factored into that and there are rent board restrictions on how spaces and leases can be changed without the tenant's consent. we could come back to the commission and give you more specifics about those rent board restrictions. > >> that's becomingarian shoe. becoming an issue. an issue. with the advent of prop f, what's covered and not covered in how a tenant is protected from having these taken away,
that would satisfy our concerns. that is a little bit of a gray air. >> yes commissioners we will follow up with you. >> the other one i had accessory dwelling units are accessory, so a percentage be as the size of the house makes sense. we don't want to have them bigger than the house. affordable by design meaning smaller. smaller. generous support of where this is going. >> commissioner moore: no adu in new instruction that studied further can be a separate piece or addendum to existing legislation. i would be very interested in
picking up on what commissioner richard said to see minum maximum limits on adu. starting at 1200 square feet seems very high to me particularly when it deals with existing buildings. i like to see standards derived from current practice and minimums as well as maximums. livability standards, light and air as expressed by one of the speakers and that is something i mentioned last week. with the guidelines in flux, i am pointing out that we do not currently have residential guidelines that are fully embracing adu as a concept of