shall not be recorded without the signatures of both parties. they have agreed to act as a guarantor to the neighborhood that this will remain. >> i see it runs with the land, which is important. the same document has to continue. >> if you wish to record to continue, we can amend it. >> i might be more comfortable with it lasting three years or four years. i seem to be in favor of this. comissioner sugaya: i need to understand something which respect to the buildings still being under rent control. is that the case or not said no-

were people evicted and the rent control went away? >> these are still under rent control, and people were evicted for non-payment of rent, including one the spoke tonight. these are still under her rent- controlled. the apartments are at least two groups of people. they are not month-to-month leases. the people who lease these apartments sublease to individuals on a per room the basis, and the law says if you live somewhere you can sublease under separate subleases to your roommates, but if you do not live there and you subleased by the room, you are violating delaunay -- violating law.

david wishes to have a relationship with each occupant. >> if it is still under rent control, and you can only increase the rent by so much under certain circumstances, so now we have a situation where the floors are under rent control common -- under root control, but they can rent the room for whatever he wants to even though they are under rent control? >> not exactly. clarkson you are telling me -- >> you are telling me it has to be way beyond what rent- controlled would-be. >> when they are vacant he can

bring them up to market rate. rent-controlled does not mean you keep it at that red forever. when people leave, you can bring it up to market rates. not once those people are in you have to abide by how much you can increase per year. that is why they are where they are. it is not just rent. >> effectively these are not under rent control. waxen and now these are subject to rent control. -- >> these are subject to rent control. he cannot increase the rent once people move in. >> he can rent room at whatever

he wants to be repaired cracks in -- whatever he wants. >> today the unit is the flat. >> with your approval, each room becomes its own apartment. month after month you can keep reestablishing the rental cost. >> they cannot be increased, but that can occur. >> i am baffled but we are sitting here discussing this, because this particular description does not fall within the definition.

this is a business model, which i some house cents a region which i sent contradict my idea of guest houses and other -- this is a business model which i sense goes against my ideas. this is something with rooms in a service apartment. i want to say it is not within minor and -- within my ideas of rent control. i also feel both the applicationt and the other are doing a great disfavor. i am prepared to use that as a

way to look at issues the have to do with land use and zoning. as to whether people are accusing each other of a number of wrongdoings said do not have anything to do with what i am the siting, we do what i am deciding, so i am going to withhold my vote. planning needs to recommend to consider what we are voting on. >> let me state set if you sit here, you hear a case, and if you are in the room, you have to vote.

if you really believe you cannot vote, you need to absence yourself or find some reason to recuse yourself. >> sometimes i am asking if the language is within the normal language we are supposed to use to communicate with each other. comissioner antonini: i have to go with the staff. i realize a lot of it is beyond our purview. i think they took a complicated issue, analyze it well, and they said your concern is group housing is allowed. i think it is section 209, but it should not be operated as a tourist hotel.

it is in disagreement he recorded, and i would urge the staff to make sure this is operated in this way and somehow we have oversight, but if it is one week or more, i would be in favor of this, antod apparently this is the recommendation of the staff. commissioner miguel: i hate items like this. we are asked to do two things. one is to consider an individual and presumed past actions, because i do not think anyone is disputing the fact that employees at one time this was advertised illegally. -- that at least one time this

was advertised illegally. for someone who has properties in san francisco and other areas not to know-alls totally confounds made -- not to know the laws totally confounds me. in this case, i have to presume there were illegal operations by someone who should have known better or have the ability to have now asked correct legal advice. that bothers me tremendously. one of the things i caught was this was confusing to the department. she wanted to present it for

possible re-action or enter petition by the commission. am i out of line in that statement? how would you phrase it? >> i would phrase it as unclear as to what you are saying. commissioner antonini: your opening remark actually reflects the basis -- if cait is operated as such. if there is a question here. my interpretation is you are not sure and you're asking for is to make an interpretation. >> we believe it is -- it is your purview to determine if the item warrants approval, if you think it will be group housing.

>> we typically do not bring to the commission -- there has been so much bad blood between the neighbors and the project sponsor. that is not a basis for you to make a decision in terms of land use and planning issues. with regard to that, we thought it was necessary to bring that up, and disclose that to you. we feel that the group housing and the type of use that is being proposed at this property along with actual alterations for the project, they are ok and compatible and we're comfortable with recommending the approval of the project. the two questions or one is

the individuals involved and the other is the use of the property. i am not going to get into personalities. that is not what i am here for. it bores me to death. i do not like the time spent on it. what i am going to try and do is decide this in my mind as to how i am going to vote, as to whether or not this group housing is correct for this property. to my mind, that is the only way we can look at this. it is up to maybe the rent board, someone, but not us. commissioner fong: this is a confusing and interesting one. it does seem to be -- in taking

away the personalities, it is a shame to see two groups sitting on opposite sides of the room when we have to live together. this is a hybrid. i do not see where it falls. the comment was made that it fits a need, it is clumsy at best how it is being operated. last week we had a project that had very small apartments, 250 square feet each which seems awkward. we're at a time when there are students who are living here part-time and people live in san francisco portion of a year or traveling on assignment here. it is interesting that we might be shifting and reshaping " we consider it residential space. -- what we consider as a residential space. transient use is 1 day rental or one to seven days at anything greater is not tourist or

transient. >> this is less than seven days would be considered tourist hotel under the planning code. if you are staying more than seven days, the use can be considered group housing. seven days or more. commissioner fong: is this one in seven days? >> if you are the group you do pay the tax. if you are group housing, you do not pay because you are not operating as a tourist hotel. commissioner fong: if you're one day or seven, you are obligated to the hotel tax? >> i do not have the taiex card with me but the way i understand it is if you -- the tax court

with me but if you pay 14 or 30, you pay the hotel tax. i wish i had the code here. >> mine understanding -- my understanding -- >> you have to come to the microphone. >> in 2006 when i was guilty of doing the hotel and i admit that and i apologize, i am deeply sorry i did that. i paid the hotel tax. i learned about the hotel tax and my understanding of the hotel tax for any stay less than 30 days, you have to pay the hotel tax. if it is group housing, someone stays between seven days and 30 days, you pay the hotel tax on i did pay hotel tax on people who stayed 14 days during 2006. i will not do it again. i have not done it since 2006.

i am very sorry i did it in 2006. commissioner fong: you're talking about a month to month, 30 days, not 31, not 29. is that the three dailies, month-to-month applicable hotel tax? -- three days, -- stays, month- to-month applicable hotel tax >> if it is more than 30 days, you do not. i do not think it has anything to do with the lease. it is how long it is rented for. 60 days they do not pay. commissioner fong: i am not try to be the tax collector. it brings up an interesting point. there was an article about air bnb.

as it stands, i do not see why we cannot approve this. commissioner antonini: i will make a motion. i am not sure if this is the proper way toward it. -- to word it. i would take dr and approve with the condition it is in conformity to the planning section code 2092 reference to a period of time of occupancy. i do not see that as the original motion. is that already in the motion? >> the project sponsor has agreed to file within the planning department specifying that the property would be considered -- would operate as group housing for section 209. which implies more than seven

days. >> my motion should more properly be to not take dnr and approve. the agreement is the filing of this declaration and agreement of restrictions. >> which he agrees to. commissioner antonini: we had agreed to make it a four-year period if that is agreeable. that would be my motion. to approve subject and the motion includes a declaration agreement of restrictions. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i will vote against the motion because i think we are losing affordability. it bothers me if we take action to make it group housing than we lose all control over the rental factor. president olague: you have the

motion on the floor to not take dr. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden, absent, . commissioner fong, aye. commissioner moore, no. commissioner olague, no. the motion fails. is there a substitute motion? this project is approved as proposed. thank you. you are now on general public comment. president olague: is there any general public comment at this time?

general public comment on an item that was not on today's calendar, is there one? >> i am from boc -- poc and i spoke earlier today. i have additional doctors report. thank you. president olague: is there any additional public comment on an item that was not on today's calendar sing in -- today's calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. we are adjourned.