on legislation to streamline work board legislation to make sure there are more monies for pro-bone services. we need to do more. i want to thank all my colleagues. many of us continue to look at another issues to address the changes our city is fatiguing right now. so those of you who have been put in impossible situations we'll hopefully pass to legislation out of this legislation today but the fight will continue >> thank you. okay. colleagues is there any additional - any comments or questions. so, now we've adapted 3 different amendments item 4 interest is there a motion to

forward the committee report with few recommendation can we take those without objection? that will be due order >> madam clerk, call item 5. the zoning controls in the boundary of second and south van ness streets >> supervisor jane kim is the author of item 5. >> thank you there's a theme in the land use committee there's an incredibly 0 steep incline in evictions in our city. many of my colleagues are working jointly or solely on different legislation to figure out how we can stop the bleeding in many cases. in district 6 the will district i represent in the mid-market neighborhoods our office started fielding any phone calls from

residents living in zoned commercial building that have been legally conferred to the arrange outdoors and so they couldn't convert them to commercial use. now that the economy is heating i those property owners are beginning to evict artists and who were famously featured on market. our office had been working very closely with the mayor's office in particular jeff buckley. director tom from department of believe inspection and director of planning john ram 40 who discussed the issues. just in two buildings alone on market street we could see the

potential evocation of one hundred residents many are protecting that are part of making san francisco san francisco. we started working closely with this committee to allow tenants to stay in those residential unit many of which have been incredibly affordable and part of our affordable housing stock. i do want to thank all the departments for working closely with our department that will allow the city to have a better handle on many building h that are dwelling units. so working closely with dbi we've drafted this proposal we want to address some issues in the process of working with the tenant in those swaksdz. the buildings are required to notice the tenant about work.

and commercial buildings don't have the same requirement. under no circumstances present the resident with a hotline to call the planning department if their building is under going major renovations. we also have buildings that have been in previous commercial use the department will have to determine the new use will be relooked at. those requirement are posted for 15 days in a conspicuous place in the believe pardon did noticing requirement will be applied for crumble or architecture work in the commercial buildings that were built prior to 1979 valued at $15 or more. we do have director john ram here from the planning

department to speak about the legislation and to answer any questions william from the department of building inspections. i want to thank the departments for working so quickly and thinking of how we can stabilize so many of our tenant and thank you for your efforts >> thank you supervisor kim. i'm john with the department. we think this legislation is a way to protect long established housing without slowing the permit process. as we know given the pace of the construction we must respond to the housing and eviction process. we think this helped to undercover affordable housing in market. quickly if i could show a couple of maps. this is where pits bounty by

market street open the second street and division and south van ness. it includes many of the buildings in this city. secondary i want to show you since the legislation applies to buildings built before 1979. the red areas are where they were built before 1979. the blue area after that. united states bout of this proposal. there are both since 2000 there are 13 thousand permits in this area for tenant improvement so their internally improvements. 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 triggert