but so there are a large number of permits issued at any given time. given that fact the control substance don't add planning review or additional forebodes you wouldn't otherwise be required. instead, they increase public awareness about potential displacement so a public hearing would be required prior to the reinstatement of a commercial use and the potential loss of a dwelling unit. did mechanism limits our ability for the permits that protect the housing staff. i want to thank dbi and tom we're going to be implementing the hot like that and dbi will help by notifying the

applicants. since planning wouldn't be looking at this because their internal tenant improvement. i want to say thank you for staffing the hotline. i do understand the number of amendments i want to ask ann marie rogers to go over those >> thank you members of the committee i'm app. those are technical clarifications that we've worked out. the first one is on page 3, line 3. it said those controls are applied to commercial buildings we had some questions about the controls of one hundred percent commercial buildings or to other buildings that have residential uses and the supervisor wants those applied to any building

with commercial outdoors. that doesn't have to be a one hundred percent commercial building only the use in the building. also on page 3, line 21 buildings built prior to 1979 it would be hard to ascertain when the building was built but we have information about when it was first - it indicates the issuance of certify of okaycy. on page 4 lines 3 and 4 this year's references to those shall require through or a conditional use and a conversation with our staff every application should require application use and certainly the threshold for

authorization those require cu plus prop m review. and those are the changes thank you very much. thank you, ms. rogers >> so if there are no further questions i'd like to open this up for public comment. >> okay. we'll now open this up for public comment. we have four public comment cards (calling names) i apologize if i mispronounce anyone's name, please lineup on this side of the room you can walk there this way no node to walk around. come on up >> good afternoon my name is karina i'm a san franciscan native and a resident that this legislation is targeting.

since the 1990s they've been renting those out and those apartments are modest for retirees and those have been a be 125bd force in the neighborhoods for decades. ross the changing real estate market and now that they favor the real estate market they - we have no right to raise objections and those residents even long time ones where their homes were converted without getting the city's prescription. they should not be effected those homes. those diverse tenants a voice in action to stop the risk of

losing our homes. to help with the success of the efforts of the city we need our neighborhoods protected. thank you for considering this legislation >> hi, i'm a tenant in 1067 market street. and while our building is currently didn't have eviction no's it's at the same landlord and it's likely we'll be the next in line. i wanted to come down here and say thank you for your effort to the board to stand the tied of the evictions that are happening and i appreciate our efforts on this matter. thank you > >> next speaker >> hello, i'm ben i'm a

resident of 1049. i want to express my appreciation for the legislation. i believe it's very important and i do hope it passes. it's addressing a situation that has cause a number of people a lot of stress and visible upset. i want to see that it pass and it's not repeated in the future. thank you very much for the legislation >> next speak >> next speaker >> i'm willing ma parker i'm a artist. as you know this is a very difficult city to make art in that makes you poor. i represent no one and i stand for myself. when i moved to the neighborhood it was did rough it to be

imagined. it took me many years to understand it has not recovered from the 06 street and market street neither. it's argue beginning to start. when i was south of market it of the like a retaliate zone. i'm tlierld our governor in his wisdom has ended redevelopment. you see the infusion of local money. we're we can't hold out against all this global money it's time san francisco open it's doordz. i would not want to put a lot more restrictions obtain an area that is developing. this is an opportunity not to make it difficult we might as well butt put the old theatre

and maybe get some of the old sailors to watch the porn she's again >> next speaker . ted san francisco at that particular time union. this is an important union we're seeing lots of evictions. one is the residential use of commercial buildings being convert back to commercial in order to capture the high rents that the tech companies can pay. we're seeing this in the midgets and elsewhere so we should look at expanding this legislation we're asking a lot of ejections of artists and activists we need to stop those and all evictions.

thanks >> next speaker >> hi, i'm cash i live on market street about 24 years. i've about that putting my life in making this city a better place i'm a san francisco bicycle coach. i came home today and found a note of eviction and the landlord is reviewing to take the full months rent for next month. this effects we personally. i support the legislation and hope you pass it >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, thank you. when i came to this hearing i had a little bit of

misunderstanding what was happening with it because as a selma business person recently, we acquired a building about a i don't know we we've been getting permits and going through a lot of jumping through a lot of hopes to get the permits. we're afraid of isn't the new legislation it's maybe a slower process. we've been working with and get and licensed professionals to get it done. a year of us trying to improve the space we're not trying to change the housing in our building just to renovate our office space. but so far over the year i feel liquor we're on square one. i hope you take into account when you look at changing did permits that it didn't effect straight commercial buildings

that are not effecting residents. because i know how tough it is to find a comfortable affordable place after mostly 4 times in the past 3 years >> so take into account. >> you know someone from our office is here and our legislation didn't seem to impact you but if you have any questions she'll answer them from there. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please any additional public comment on item 5. come on up >> we - what seems like a building in this case it would impact us if - if we are were not able to secure the permits

that would be similar to an eviction for us we took the risks by taking a building open let's try to improve the neighborhood. one year after we came back and say no chance to get things done we just took the stress back and forth with the department to make sure we get the services. so that's it >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, i'm sarah everyone calls me fred i'm from the housing committee. i want to speak in favor of this legislation. i think it's important we make a move that landlords who illeg

illegally convert the space and turn around and use the same laws to convert and take advantage of of the people important over the years people have had to move into more and more alternative spaces where landlords knowingly rent it out or advertising it as residential space and landlords shouldn't be reward for getting around the law. it's - we right now have such a crisis in san francisco that it's vitally important we prefer all the residential housing we have right now and not knocking us out of rent control or landlord are trying to get

around it. thank you very much supervisor kim >> thank you. any additional public comment on item 5 seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim >> i was hoping we could take the amendments outlined by ms. rogers there were 3. >> okay and those are in the substantive. >> they're not sub 2i6. >> we've not prepared them but will submit them so the committee can make the decisions today. >> this is not goes out as a committee report. >> that's the motion to adapt the amendments can we take those without objection? the amendments is adapted

>> i want to thank the citizens on market for coming out. this is a widespread issue. there were many buildings that were conferred to non-residential building and we've had people living in those buildings for 10 years and now the property owners are evicting them to go back to its original use. we want to be able to understand the scope of this issue but allow the folks a voice to speak up. so the requirement and, of course, the hearing with the planning department i think the mayor's office and the planning department and dbi pass been phenomenal in working with the tenant in our office to keep

tenant stable in the buildings. and knowing low south market long before it came a cool place to be. i think it's important to acknowledge that diversity. when we first introduced the tax aversion we wanted to help with the buildings that were vablt historically. and the buildings that were vacant from 50 plus years they had the highest vacant rate. our intention was not to give into buildings with occupants but they have covert uses and we are not able to exclusive them

from the mid-market exclusion. this will help with that. i want to thank colleagues. i'd love our support in moving forward with full representations to the full board >> thank you, president chiu. >> thank you and i'm happy to add myself as a co-sponsor. we're having to make sure that the successes we've seen in this blighted area are shared with everyone. last week the board of supervisors had asked our controllers and city attorney to look at the increase in property tax values in that area. i'd like to propose a supplemental legislation to assist with the displacement areas in the mid-market area.

this is an important part of legislation we must get a handle open the legislation and with that i'm happy to support this >> okay supervisor jane kim i want to make a motion. >> i'd like to moved this forward with representations to the full board. can we take those without objection? >> it's adapted. >> and that is as amended. madam clerk will be please call items 6 and 7 together >> item 6 is an option to convert the construction across the district and item no. 7 is an ordinance amending the planning code or the reconstruction of a structure that is in the district. >> thank you supervisor avalos

is the author we have his colleague from his office. >> jerry what you have before you is two ordinances to make them more digestable. we want to add protections for the no fault evictions. in item 6 it deadly with mergers and conversions and have those mergers is the most significant ones we've seen evictions and loss of housing. so we've offered the amendment before you that restrict the mergers of no fault evicts and this was supported by the planning commission and think as well, in number 7 it's illegal non-conforming issues.

those are not to be confused with illegal units they were built 3 days before the building codes liquor a 3 unit building that was made for 2 units. a lot of this is rent control housing we want to make sure the planning commission said we could have reasons for landlord who want to evict renovate and rent or sell it a higher rate. we were asked to make the amendment to make sure those alternatives would not be available for 10 years. the planning department is here to give you a full presentation

we ask that be put on holdful until after your recess >> you want to continue the item in two weeks. >> yes. >> i have a question. the purpose of legislation as i understand and i think you indicated is to decide sensitive tiz those 0 so why it the legislation did he active. i really understand the rationale going forward but if you do this this is the initiative or disinitiatives inform hopefully consider and but when you talk about things that happened in the past that

obviously that dissensitive isn't there because at any time already happened can you address that you the language says it will be after october 24th, 2013, so after that would have this 10 year prosecution that's the planning commissions intention to support this >> maybe there's been a lot of amendments maybe i have a misunderstanding. if it happened in 2005 the prosecution would run until 2015 maybe i'm wrong >> the city attorney can

clarify. >> maybe we can talk to germany for a moment but i believe the proposal at the planning commission was background looking and after the planning commission meeting supervisor avalos proposed this language it was only intended to playing apply for evictions after 2013 because the particular reason department is looking at the language and reading it differently i want to make sure we get it right. >> so so that's evictions that happened after october 24th, 2013, and in 10 years.

>> right. >> so evictions before october 24th wouldn't trigger it a that's good to i'm glad we'll have a good two weeks continuance to get clarification on that. and where did the october 24th date come from >> that's the planning commission recommended those edition it would create a window for landlord to rush through an evocation in the meeting time when it was flooded and next day. >> then in terms of what kinds of evocation that are covered by this. didn't i saw there may have been some changes it refers to the code section unless you have the code handy can you tell me news

it >> we borrowed it from the code conversion law. there were a couple of changes that's in the financial version what was added was covering evictions for lead abatement and substantial rehabilitation for if the original tenant isn't offered the chance to reoccupy the unit and the third one in the occupant is sold within the comedy conversion but if there, there is a condo conversion within the latter a law >> so for the lead abatement then the tenant are able to reoccupy after the temporary displacement it wouldn't trigger

this. >> that's right. >> and what someone mentioned to me they thought the good samaritan was included in that. >> i don't know. >> i think when we passed the good samaritan language it's a one to two year lease it then exteriors and someone mentioned they thought that one of the code sections modestly motive be a go samaritan. >> i see that as 39.89 a it talks about the good samaritan status only covers items 7

through 13. >> thank you. colleagues, any additional questions. okay. thank you mr. pollack. i think would the planning department liquor to speak or wait? >> thank you, supervisor i think we'd like to wait to see the revised information before we make a presentation. >> also logically for the amendments that are being asked to adapt today mr. pollack do you anticipate so far as you know the final amendments before there. >> yes. there's been discussion about the substantial amendments but the criteria we'll look at the the duplication of the legislation but we'll looked that next year,

we want to have this before the recess. >> so the documents physically before us we're asking to be adapted today that's what we're dealing with in two yearbooks. >> that's right. >> this is very complicated i know that supervisor avalos has asked for a committee report. i want to make sure this is something as significant as this we're not scrambling >> yes. we'll be dpord with the committee report. >> supervisor kim. >> i want to make a motion to adapt the amendment. i think we should be take public comment first. any public comment on items 6 or 7 seeing none, public comment is closed >> supervisor kim has made a motion to accept the amendments. the amendments are accepted. can i have a motion to continue

items of and 7 as amended for two weeks until our next san francisco land use & economic development commission meeting. that motion without objection. madam clerk, is there any other business >> there's no additional business before the committee. >> we're