Have to bring the law and regulatory structures into the modern world to recognize what this industry is and the community is when regulations fall behind the state of industry we ends up just encouraging a black market, creating a situation where businesses that are good businesses that want to be legal and play by the rules and want to have all the permits and pay taxes are not able to do so and have to do work arounds that are not in the businesses interest and just creates stress and challenges for them and it isnt in the interest the public because we want to make sure we actually have these businesses in the sun light. We have catch up to do but know well do it and look forward to that work. Madam chair, with that said i would move that we file this item. Thank you very much. Without objection the motion passes. Alright ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time and staff think for your time as well. We will move to the next ajnda item and call item 8 first and then call item number 7. Item number 8, ordinance amending the planning code to allow construction of accessory dwelling units on all lots in city area that allow residential use. Applies to adu to [inaudible] california Environment Quality act making findings with general plan. Supervisor peskin is the author of this item and will lead discussions here forward. Thank you madam chair and thank you to the individuals who are here to testify and thank you for your patience. This city wide accessory dwelling legislation is a step to create Affordable Housing units and something that can be done without drasticly alterering the look of neighborhoods and displacing tenants. This is evolving field of law that dates back many decades. There are any number of supervisors who tried to legalize in law units as they were called at the time or secondary United States mptd supervisor hal nan and tang i introduced legislation that didnt succeed but the world changed and since that time our colleagues, supervisor wiener led the way with legislation that first was for all of district 8 and my predecessor did legislation for district 3. I have always been as much as i was delighted to see that muchb forward i was puzzleed to dpoo legislation on district lines. Disttric 3 has downtown and fishermans wharf. Different land use types. I think the time for city wide secondary units has come and so i wanted to build off of the work of supervisor wiener and my predecessor. I want to thank supporters of the audience. Recently as i think folks know, one of our colleagues proposed similar legislation for the ballot and im hopeful we can discharge the duties that we were elected to do which is legislate in the chambers and by doing so allow the flexibility to continue the tweak this kind of law as this field continues to evolve. I am prepared to make a number of amendments, many clarical, some clarifications and colleagues, i have for you amendments i will distribute and describe to you. Rather than hand the entire hundred some odd piece legislation all the changes are in the first 12 pages so ill hand those to you. As i said, many are just clarical amendments but relative to more substantial amendments, one is that i actually followed supervisor wieners lead in district 8 legislation relative to the number of units that would be constructed, namely, i copyingthats form of flattery supervisor wiener and that is a have additional one unit in building of 1 to 4 units and two in buildings over 10. Is that right . Is that how we started . I think it was 1 up to 10 1 up to 10 and 2 over 10. Subsequently the legislation done for district 3 was one for buildings less than 5 and unlimited over 5 and so the amendments before you actually go with the district 3 more liberal, more units legislation which i think is appropriate given the magnitude of our housing crisis. I do include language based on the Mayors Office of housing relative to the minimum number of square feet which is 350 square feet and [inaudible] there is provision to clarify that landlords are not precluded from setting initial rent. There was concern the new units would be subject to rent control and also subject to vacancy control, that wasnt the intent and there is clarifying language in the amendments i put before you. I am in my desire to try to get this done in these chambers willing to make other amendments that will allow it to receive wide spread support by majority if not supermajority of the board and given i know a number of individuals who want to testify need to leave shortly after supervisor wiener maybe we can open to Public Comment. I know cumia is here from planning. Before we hear from planning lets go to supervisor wiener and then planning and get to Public Comment. Thank you very much and thank you for the overview. This is definitely an evolving process and when i started by work on the original district 8 tip towing back to the adu debate we started off with the legislation that you had done about 10 years before, so this is a evolving process and brought a lot of different brains involved and think it is overdue to broaden this out. We i think are making progress and think the Political Landscape shifted that 12 years ago sadly you were unable to convince majority of colleague tooz pass it and now several pieces of legislation passed because we know the magnitude of our crisis in housing and it doesnt allow us to do things we have always done them. Thank you for making the change in terms of acknowledging the larger buildings there shouldnt be a cape on the number of units. That makes sense for how much space is in the building. In terms of the seismic legislation i authored a couple years ago, which is if you are seismically ret row fitting your building that tend to be apartment buildings that you can add units. That program has been successful and had around 100 permits pulled and it is a sinnergy between creating housing. I like to see the seismic adu program remain as part of this legislation intact in the current form because i tink it is working and dont want to disturb it. I also kierious to know the rational for requiring that the yupt be at least 350 square feet and 550 for one bedroom. The minimum unit size in San Francisco is 220 square feet. I hate to see a situation where someone has space of lets say 220 or 250 or 300 square feet and they are prohibited creating a unit. I understand the desire to have somewhat larger, but i hate for someone who wants to create a unit to be unable to do so. I like to continue that conversation. Lastly, i want to know supervisor farrell and i have pending legislation where there is a good deal of overlap but differences. The amendments today seem to be a step in the right direction. It is my hope and i spoke with supervisor farrell this morning and his hope we will be able to come together and become one product and move forward in a unified way. I think this is a stetch step in the right direction and will have continuing dialogue. Thank you. Lets go to staff presentation. Good afternoon members of the land use committee. [inaudible] Planning Department staff. The ordinance was before the Planning Commission june 16. [inaudible] approval with modification with [inaudible] for taking this initiative to expand the adu program city wide allowing adu is a important housing strategy that kill convert unused spaces in our existing residential buildings into new much needed housing units. Starting in 2014 supervisor wiener spearheaded ordinances that created a definition of adu with certain controls and restrictions. Since then the department received over 70 applications including 130 units. Majority the units are in buildings undergoing soft story ret row fitting which is the most Successful Program we had to date. The Planning Commission recommended 4 modifications, one of which is the one that supervisor peskin modthe modification to remove the cap and number of adus allowed per units and one adu less than 5 units thmpt Commission Recommended establishing a minimum units size. At the Planning Commission we discussed the average unit size we have seen in the adu pipeline. I put the summary table. My recollection is unit size is about 600 square feet . 600 square feet and studio 375 square feet and one bedroom is 600 square feet. These averages are both above the minimum sizes that you discussed right now. Relative to supervisor wieners interesting point which is somebody who has lessi added the minimums as a result of lifting the cap, right . So, he is raising interesting concept say you are a building under 5 units and have a spot that is 240 feet and this will preclude it. Maybe the way to nuance that supervisor wiener and maybe you can share your thoughts is that only apply in buildings over 5 units. Presumably those are the ones with larger amounts of space where you want to create the minimums. It soungds like on the studio side we are above the minimum average and one bedroom minimum average. That is a step in the right direction. I guess at some point it is philosophical discussion of we also want to have more units rather than fewer units, but i imagine we can work something out on that. The point i was trying to raise is in the pipeline we are not seeing many super small units so it isnt a problem that we shouldeven though in a seismic ret row fit buildings there are no cap people are not bidding smaller unit so if the situation arises it will be great to have the units but you wont have a lot of smaller units because we havent been seeing it so far. What is interesting is quh i authards the micro units legislation 2012 i think or 2013, there were all sorts of concern expressed from different parts of the political spect rum that we would become a city of micro units so there was a cap placed of 350 regular market rate micro units with no cap for Student Housing or Affordable Housing and we have not yet hit the cap for market rate micro units, but i know there is studen housing separate from that and Affordable Housing which are the two most common scenarios. In terms of the market there is always going to be a space for mike cro units but dont see it becoming a dominant type of housing units. I think it is just one piece of the overall pie. I would agree with that from what we have seen so far in the pipeline. The second recommendation was just one other thought which is in the case that supervisor wiener is speaking to, perhaps there can be a hardship provision where the zoning adminivator can vary in certain circumstances. Just a thought. The second recommendation is to clarify that existing built [inaudible] include spaces that can be filled in without notification as listed in the zoning adsminstration bulletin number 4. The proposed ordinance maintains the current restrictions on space use for adus where they are within the existing built envelope. The Commission Recommended allowing adu to be built in bey windows and [inaudible] and the like and these are spaces are listed in number 4 as type of spaces that expansions to them are not subject to notification. Expansion to these type of spaces is already exempt from notification and key to making some adu pchs that are infeasible because they cant meet the [inaudible] and would make them feasible. The third recommendation is study adu for nob nab especially in condo minium buildings. We have a discussion at the Planning Commission meetding and the result was to study this further. It was discussed the can dough Ownership Structure maintains complexity for adding adu prohibiting from sale would add to this complexity and discourage owners of conoes to convert unused spaces to new house units. Single family home owner may not choose to add adu if they know in the future they cannot sell it separately. And then the last recommended modification in section 207, c 4, 4 c which allows buildings to be raised 3 feet if they add adu and the refers to incorrect section in the Building Code. It refers to chapter 34 b which talks about soft story seismic ret row fitting so recommend to make that correction to refer to chapter 34 of the Building Code. The Building Code only allows buildings to be raised 3 feet if they are doing full seismic reto fitting at all levels and chapter 34 b only talks about soft story so the last is just a correction with reference. That concludes the Planning Commissions recommendations and hear for questions. Thank you. Any questions . No. Lets go to Public Comment. I actually have 4 cards in front of me. Charles head, tom [inaudible] catherine [inaudible] and eileen boken. Any of the speakererize speakers are here come to the podium. I want to say part the technical corrections have that chapter 34. Good afternoon supervisors. Tom [inaudible] exectelevision drether of livable city. We are big believers in in law legalization and potential of inlaw units it add to the Housing Stock in ways that make it minimal or positive impact on neighborhood character to add more rent controlled units and may be the only way to add rent controlled units to the city. Supervisor peskin we thank you for bringing this forward. Supervisor wiener, you as well. You have been leaders in this. We appreciate also the amendments you brought forward supervisor peskin and think this is a better ordinance. Some of our concerns arelet me just say we are very much in support of what the Planning Commission brought for would. Clarifying the building envelope for infill{white wells or under projecting stories is good clarification. This will allow the units to be more hab ltable and meet the exposure requirements and have little or no impact on neighbors or loss of yards. We also agree there should be no restrictions on the seismic program. It is very successful. Fewer than 10 units created under the district 38 ordinances but 130 are approved under the seismic program, so keeping the limit on the number of units, the size of units. You may just default to not the micro unit size but minimum unit size is like 275 square feet, so maybe just make it as small as the unit can be. Also notification for raising the 3 feet is something added back but it was a exception under the original ordinance. We believe there should be flexibility about the number of units. There are a lot of restrictions. That forms restraints you couldnt fill the whole ground floor with studios so we think[inaudible] next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. Cathy [inaudible] and the Housing Element of the general plan doesnt support the proposed ordinance because it has city Wide Application and the Extensive Community planning process has not occurred. Also, vimetal review under ceqa hasen occurred and eir prepared did want evaluate impacts of city wide zoning changes enacted woutd Community Planning process. Also, the city would act add itsd own risk to approve this relying as they propose to on the final eir for the 2009 Housing Element. The legal sufficiency is considered by the california cort of appeal and not been finally decided. Essentially, in 2004 the Housing Element policy changes took city wide approach. They were struck down and revoked for failure to performed a eir. And then in twnt 09 the city decided to abandon the city wide approach and require Community Planning process and that is the hallmark of the process. Policy 1. 5 of the 2009 carried to 2014 Housing Element says consider secondary units in community plans. Implementation measure 10 provides planning process the Planning Department notify organizations registered with Planning Departments and may continue outreach efforts. That Community Planning process has not occurred is maybe it is done by district before because the requires outreach so the coalition hasen gotten notice and neighborhoods havent gotten notice and sure people would like input and thratd is a the way the general plan is set up. The Planning Department resolution admits they didnt have the traditional Planning Efforts so it is the summer but urge you to engage in a Community Planning effort. The potential impact on land use character and zoning and neighborhood character also need to be analyzed in a eir. I know smf some of the extensions couldened up in the ordinance and can impact going over 45 percent rear yard line. Also, there are news report of a condo clut so it looks like the boom is turning and so i wonder why whether we should have further study city wide. Next speaker. Come on tim or who ever is next. Good afternoon. Tim colon on behalf of housing hackz coalition and remember supervisor peskins attempt about a dozen years ago and it was a bitter bill when it failed. We cumind you for bringing this back. We would like to see a robustords nns support for adus is it in the founding dna is mission. There are two competing measures and hope and pray the two get reconciled and move forward. The best measure is one that builds the most housing and gets Property Owner tooz do it legally. The city does chbt have a problem so much not building adus as building legally and the proposed ordinance can be strengthened. Maximizing ret row fit incentives is the logical way to do it. It gets at the right point in the process and gives incentives to consider building legally. I would agree with the remarks made by mrs. Hoddaud bat condo adus. We would be concerned not allowing that is disincentive moving forward or moving forward legally. I say that the micro units idea mak