removal of more than 65 the sum of exterior walls measured at the foundation level or the major edification proposes of more than 50 percent of the envelope and more than 50 percent the horizontal part of the this as measured in skeet of the surface area and the commission may reduce those up to 20 percent if of their values if they feel an adjustment is necessary to exercise the intent. so the major percent is considered demolition >> so you're not effecting the unit itself but combining two rooms into one room that's not an alteration. >> no.

under the legislation it will apply to mergers and demolitions that is? >> conversion from residential use to another utilities not talking about conversion from residential to condo just residential from residential to non-residential the loss of the unit. so the demolition and the mergers and the major alteration >> president chiu one follow-up question i know there have been a number of folks who have commented on on october date is odd. i was if supervisor avalos if you could talk about september 24th what the rationale it we typically have it thirty days after it is

signed by the mayor >> if i may then you can follow-up. i think we want to have a followup approach towards it and if we were to go back ten years the passage of this ordinance it would alter the language. i'd love to be able to look at how we could potentially stop i know the veeksdz that have already happened so we thought it was better to move forward >> i assume though typically you have it thirty days after the passage we'll assume it passes in a few weeks it would be in january. >> and on october 24th is when this item was heard in the planning commission. it was a key process in passing

this ordinance people were notified and it was a good communication for practices in the future >> do you have a comment. my feel like i'm missing something it's thirty days >> so do i. >> in terms of deputy city attorney john. in terms of your comments the effective date will be thirty days of passage. the terms of the ordinance provide that it only applies to evictions that particular provision only applies to evictions after february 24th, 2013. so the ordinance didn't become effective until mid january but it applies for evocation on

october 24th arrest there's no retrofitting for the application of the date >> right the law will only apply to demolitions, aefgsz or mergers conversions depending on which ordinance after the effective date it will only go into effect after the effective day and when can you demolish and xhoerg and when you're looking at that question from january all ask was there a no fault eviction within 10 years. >> we wanted to prevent there to be an incentive on the evocation between with october 24th date and the passing of the legislation. knowing this legislation could

be passed that would h have led to a number of evictions before the deadline between the implementation date of the ordinance. this came up a couple weeks ago when we were hearing a conversion for a foe. when we found out there's a history of the oifls eviction it looked like the landlord had rushed to get a eviction date before the ordinance went into effect. i agree we should have the diet be set at the point when tolerates public notice we don't want to see this before the holiday. that was meant to prevent that very thing we saw a couple weeks ago at the full board >> ms. hay word mingle. >> i want to reiterate i think

the concern was about the component. it was pouted out and he didn't want to create an incentive to evoke people between october 24th so it's the exponent of the two where it came into play >> thank you president avalos by other comments. >> supervisor jane kim. i think i would agree about clarifying chapter 41 of the hotel so it's clear the new section didn't apply sporadic to that attach of building >> okay. seeing no other comments we proceeded to public comment i

have two cards. if you'd like to speak please fill out a blue card at the front and pub is two minutes >> good afternoon, president chewing and supervisors. my name is a eric i'm a 34 year resident in san francisco i've been living in my current unite for 31 years i'm now being evicted under the outlines act i'm here to support supervisor avalos prediction. there are 3 units on the lot where i live on catrery hill. there are 7 tenants that are

being evicted currently those include me, i'm a senior citizen and i've resided on the property for 34 years. my neighborhood is being evicted he's a senior and another one who's lived there for 18 years and another senior citizen disabled tenant died admiring the process and 3 other tenants are being evicted one is disabled and two don't fit into the categories. the board looked at the property 2 1/2 years ago now the housing costs are rising and he's evicting us to make a profit.

the landlord hats evicted us to get out it's going from 4 unit to 2 unit. it's like the ellis act was to allow the owners to evict and build something new. the seniors in order to get huge profits it's a dislocation of longer san franciscans to leave the area and drive us into homelessness. those tenants are being replaced by new conforms >> thank you, very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you supervisor avalos

for our proposal. >> tom director of loveable city. thank you supervisor avalos. we have a huge for a moment crisis and when you're in a hole we need to stop digging and this was mentioned before really catch the planning code criteria policies up with the housing elements criteria policies that favors keeping housing and those dpaelt towards housing issues. on the questions of group housing we brought together a few different definitions of demolition. the article 7 and 8 that was covered in mixed youth districts they include the demolitions and article 317 that covers the other districts of city doesn't

include groip group housing. we want to say that residential conversion is conversion. it's conversion from the residential use so there's no barrier in this created where pits legal to do so turning a dwelling unit into group housing. we didn't want to correct the errors to non-remain it that's where ethics come in. as to the other city ordinance the green buildings are the buildings you do have to capitalized it's a very green thing to do those are residential unit and we have the protections built into but allowing those to be reabilities going to add to the affordable housing stock as well.

thank you supervisor avalos >> thank you. i have a few more cards (calling names) and . >> good afternoon. i'm marla knight. i'm a retired city college teacher and divorce tutor at the neighborhood center. the current ellis act is a current act of february 2014 i strongly support owners 2 and 3 it makes the housing for urban affordable. i'm a fourth eights san franciscan. i've seen many beautiful improvements, however, this give me graphic cleaning of low and he moderate income people is is a giant step barred in

maintaining a visitor city. not only would i like to see tutors and families staying in the city but people who are planning on living in the city to have an affordable place to live. i choose to raise my kids here and i want other people to have that benefit. my grandchildren love to come and visit staying overnight is wonderful. anyway my thanks to you for proposing those ordinances that will help prefer affordable housing . thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon john, i want to start by commending this legislation several impacts of it first, thelogies o london's of the control over the non-conforming use and the presumption of that dwelling

unit being legal right it or not it makes sense if it's operating as a dwelling unit to remain so. i want to speak to the hotel issue important right now the group is bringing up hotel within 317. will there's a subset of housing called residential hotel units which are governed by chapter 41 of the administrator code for maintaining and protecting those residential unit which are affordable and that sort of thing. what this ordinance does in the context of residential hotel there's going to be overlapping we have to apply comply with the ordinances but also section 317.

tackle for example, c pmc they had to get approval under the residential hotel for the residential hotel buildings. under the section planning code none would apply to in a lot of those circumstances the even though hotel honors has thirty years of interpretation if we include residential hotel in this ordinance it will work at the cross-purposes for the residential hotel. in all circumstances when you have a residential demolition are conversion with the commission approval it's required anyway so thank you >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm with the san francisco apartment association.

thanks to tom and other members for reaching out to us on both of those pieces of legislation. i know that some of them have been pending and thank you supervisor avalos for listening to some of our concerned about fine tuning the legislation. we have some outstanding things about october 24th. it's our general belief that a law some be specific whether signed into law and unintentionally punishing people who were operating open be one frame of mind in november when they didn't know this law was presented. also the planning hearing was properly noted and we're not communicating with the public well about the effective date we want to see it thirty days after the mayor signs it into law.

thank you for take into account our concerns about evocation. also i would like to explain to you a little bit from our point of view on file 130441 which supervisor avalos called the mc c. we understand about the ellis act evictions and trying to protect the people but we don't want to see this happen and it was debated at the planning commission there was no one at the rent board to weigh in >> by the president to protect the right of of an owner move in. a lot of times the only way working families can get into working residential believe go is through another movement. i would hate to see more ellis acts occur because we've totally shut adopt a person's ability to do an owner move in for aefgsz

for their families >> we're supportive of the amendment interest. >> thank you very much. is there additional public comment on items 2 and 3. i apologize gentlemen >> good afternoon supervisors i'm president of the small property owners of san francisco. we have the type of owners that some days want to move and enlarge our own homes. and this legislation which is somehow designed to proof housing like the other reekdz thrown at us causes a reduction in the number of rentals that are available. available unit will become more difficult to find because owners try to rent to people that don't

want to live forever. the people out of town will receive priority and only someone know someone that knows someone those two pieces of legislation make it more difficult to make moderate houses for purchase plo through the tick, tick process. if you want to maintain unit in san francisco people are sprel trying to leave the rental process why do people want to get out of the process. you could be increasing the process and our organization will be glad to discuss those

with you. all those medicine living will be exactly your reducing the number of unit and increasing the cost and increasing the crisis as you call it. thank you very much. >> thank you mrs. turner. >> you're welcome supervisor. brooke turner the coalition for better housing. at the everyone for our attention to 80 this issue. sxhooefl we're appreciative of what you're trying to proficient we're eager to support the legislation. and that was that if you want to reoccupy if the taivent tenant was going to reoccupy the person

should not be punished for that he or she. there are a couple of things that are of concern to us. you know, i think janet from the partner association talked elegant about the partnership we know it doesn't go in effect until the mayor's signature but people in the last month i believe are working under good faith to increase the law as they 92 knew it we can all agree that the planning commission is not noticed the same way as this hearing that's certainly better than that the planning dimension you're not going to have a run of evictions which the mayor may sign anyway. we want to see that kicked up a

little bit to address that issue. also the ideas of conversion and the combination of the unit. i think especially under organization m i evictions which are usually san franciscans evoking to be able to stay in the city and oppose a building go that we will rent part of it out that's 2r0u6r78 to folks as well. so withhold to see the - thank you >> thank you, mr. turner. >> independently steve with the housing clinic we support this legislation. i'm here to talk about the red d mc it durnlz demolition of the conversions. the primary purpose those are discretionary approvals by the city to allow a demolition or a

conversion or a merger and the primary information that the city has especially in this current climate we not lose residential housing. since the outlines evocation they've element the units and the basis for the city for the discretionary removal so the city is handicap and can't use the tradition to promote 9 residential housing because it's been removed from the building. again something st. is wrong it happens all the time landlord moves into a residential unit and evokes the longer or long term unit in the building but

the landlord doesn't want that one he moves in and that would be stopped and turn to rental unit into one single-family home. the 10 year moratorium is appropriate for that reason and because of the ellis age so the unit is removed by conversion or demolition or mergers so the landlord is now empowered to offer back to the tenant if they go back into the rental business. with regards to the amendment the temporary evictions i would suggest that - >> thank you, sir.

thank you >> good afternoon. i'm peter rice i'm with small property owners. one of the aspects of this legislation that concerns me is that it's going to make it harder for middle income people to purchase housing. with our small rentals i receive acquires almost weekly from different people trying to move out of the remedy area and into buying a home. the only way to do that in san francisco is to start it a smaller piece of property in an older building. this legislation will prohibit people from buying homes and enter the market through the t u

ced. i'll leave this to the lawyers you can tinker with the ellis anchor that you're doing. i think that maybe our doing on to something that's not acquit going to be permitted but i'll leave that to the lawyer as is this any additional comment snoomz >> supervisor avalos all right. thank you for the members of people's no. 1 public who with weighed in on this legislation. it's been many months in the making. we tried to incorporate a lot of input from the community. to you punishment our weighing in open the legislation. i think when it comes to, you know, looking at possible amendment with the residential and group dwellings we can move

it forward to tomorrow's meeting that can be addressed possibly tomorrow and with the amendments we will go brought to the full board. i'm okay with that. when it comes to the issue of temporary displacement i think we have language i'm comfortable with we can test that with the committee to see ways that you're comfortable with but to make sure that the people have the right to return and the landlord are protected against anyone who didn't return to the building they can protect themselves to use the building as they see fit. and overall colleagues that will be a from tool both those are ordinances will help preserve rental housing in san francisco. and so we can look to prevent

displacement that's all two common right now >> just to clarify in terms of the amendment language that mr. gibb in her read before recommending to temporary evictions due to repairs donate not currently in the files is it? >> currently, the ordinance would has a provision about tenant reoccupying the unit. >> but that's 4i6. >> you could make it amendment today. to speak to supervisor avalos residential hotel provisions we can definitely look at that over the next 21 hours. i would want the land use experts in our office make sure

we can draft that in time and not require another hearing happy to look at that if the committee wants us to but i can't promise those amendment will be go-go to go and the board can pass those tomorrow >> okay. but i'll give it the old college try. president chow >> from my prospective if there's clarity on the hotel issue and we're all not wanting to mess up what we currently have do you think that will come back to committee and a i don't believe that will require come back to the committee but i'm g speaking on the fly and i would want the attorney who drafted the legislation to look at that.

>> one thought i had i know we want to try to get this stuff before the holiday and could we send it back to the full board and have it out next week. >> you could do that but it wouldn't be finally, adapted by the board next week. >> okay. i guess one thought i had we could duplicate the file i'm trying if you know the issue we have some closure i think we want to make sure on the second issue i'll be happy to move that amendment for folks who are comfortable now but still there might be some other questions >> in terms of the temporary eviction issues my preference would