you being displaced. i want to make sure we can disincentive eyes that as much as possible. >> okay, i'm not clear. so, i would love to support the other piece, but i can't support it with this piece because it's just not making sense to me. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, after some discussion, would like to with respect to supervisor avalos's amendments and the retroactivity date to october 24th, make a motion to move that forward to today's date. so, for those two item that were read into the record, mr. givner, if that's something it

is easy enough orally to do here, for those amendments if we can do that, i'd like to make a motion to do so. >> so i understand, i think supervisor farrell wants to make the motion both in the residential dnc and the nonconforming uses legislation on page 16 line 22 and page 4 line 10 to change the october 24th date to today's date of december the 10th, 2013. is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor avalos. colleagues, can we take that motion to amend that date without objection? that should be the case. [gavel] >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. i want to thank supervisor farrell for bringing up the issue also regarding the effective date. the other question i had, supervisor yee was trying to get at regarding the owner move-in situations, i think that in our admin code as it is, it's already very strict for owners who want to repossess their units. they are limited to a specific unit in their building. and once that unit is reoccupied by a landlord, it has to be that same unit in the

future. it cannot be another unit unless they file a petition, i believe, with the rent board. and, so, i think that not all -- when we think about property owners, it's not all property owners are equal. there are definitely some who really struggle who have no choice but to maybe rent out another unit for the extra additional income, but may not have [speaker not understood] they want to put the unit on for the duration that they're living there. so, i would like to he see if supervisor avalos would be amenable to either removing the prohibition of the owner move-in occupancy or reducing the moratorium down to maybe half of what has been proposed today. >> supervisor avalos, do you want to respond to that or do you want to continue it down roll call? >> i would entertain the idea of reducing the moratorium from 10 to 5 years for omi evictions. i think that could help us and

show that we're treating omi evictions differently in this legislation, which i think would help it to be stronger and provide that backdrop for owners who want to occupy a unit that they own. another concern i've had, there have been buildings where there was an omi eviction and the omi eviction happened in a unit that is [speaker not understood] unit and a unit displaced [speaker not understood] building the second unit is one that remains vacant. and, so, you know, there are examples of omi evictions that work against tenants in a way that actually don't result in occupancy the way we would expect them to happen. but in this case i think going from 10 to 5 years, i would be okay with. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. and again, i think that even further situation, what the admin code does speak to addressing when the owner does not actually occupy, when they have indicated that they will.

and, so, if the city attorney would like to make a motion for an amendment to reduce the moratorium on owner move-in occupancy from 5 years versus 10. >> so, mr. givner, supervisor tang has made that motion. looks like it's been seconded by supervisor campos. is that language that we can do today? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the board could make that amendment today. we have not drafted that amendment. but effectively it would provide that section -- that evictions under section 37.9 a8 would be subject to a five-year look back instead of a 10-year look back. >> so, could we adopt that for second read next week or would we need to bring it back for first read? >> you could adopt that. we would prepare the actual language and provide it to the clerk by tomorrow and you could adopt it on first read today and second read next week. >> okay. so, supervisor tang has made the motion to treat owner

move-ins at that five-year mark, seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any discussion on the amendment? okay, without objection, that amendment also is adopted. [gavel] >> supervisor tang, any other comments? supervisor breed. >> okay. this might not be popular for me to say as a legislator, but i'm very confused. i understand that we are experiencing challenges with ellis act evictions all over the city, but i really feel pressured right now in that this is legislation that's being rushed. and i don't necessarily completely understand all of the impacts as it is relevant to the codes and the data. like i haven't had a chance to really digest this and i feel like we're having a land use hearing at the board of supervisors. and i know this took place yesterday. i know -- i mean, i expected it to come to us with some

clarity, and i know this happens regularly, a discussion, amendments. i can't support something that i don't completely understand the impacts. i don't understand this. for example, when we talk about the signatures that are needed from a tenant and owner, does it need to be notarized? do we need to specify that in the resolution? terms of alterations, i guess that that means alterations as it relates to completely changing. i don't understand the specifications of some of the codes in the resolution to understand what we're speaking to in terms of the alterations. and also, i just want to -- there is just a lot of confusion right now. and i want to understand this legislation, but i don't completely fully understand the impact and how this could help

with what we're experiencing. and, so, i just really -- i need some more time and that's where i'm at and that's pretty much unfortunately where i'm at today. >> supervisor breed, are you making a motion to continue or just stating that -- your perspective? >> well, i mean, i don't know -- i don't know if i'm the only one who feels this way, but i want to hear what others have to say. but i just -- if i have to vote on this today, you know, i know we have a second reading, but i just really need more time. but if i have to vote on this today, i can't support it until i know what it is. so, i don't know if i want to push for a motion just yet, but i'm just really uncomfortable right now. >> fair. supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i, too, want to share some of

the uncomfortableness that i'm feeling with -- share the same issues supervisor breed articulated and supervisor yee. i don't know enough to know what side or where i would be able to fall on looking at the decision on. this i, too, am unclear what the express impacts would be. i am curious to know what happens if you have two owners that own one piece of property. one owner lives in the property and the other doesn't live in the property. i don't know who even to direct my question to. city attorney maybe? or maybe the maker of the legislation. >> actually, this is a question about, about mergers or move-ins. it's probably appropriate for the planning department. >> so, let me restate the question. hi. so, what happens if you have two people that purchase a

piece of property, one of the owners live in -- would like to live in the building and the other does not; how does that [speaker not understood]? >> sophie, planning staff. this ordinance really addresses the units and whether they would be merged tomorrow or convert today some other use other than residential use. in broad strokes, i can explain sort of the way that i consider the ordinance that it does three basic things. it's a one wedge piece of legislation that's been broken into two separate ordinances. it has taken a while for us to sort of come up with a summary. it may be useful to summarize it. first, it amends the criteria for the valuation and the processes associated with the loss in dwelling units. those are actual physical demolition [speaker not

understood], the merging of two units or converting a use from residential use to something else completely, something commercial and nonresidential. secondly, it creates an opportunity to expand and alter legal nonconforming units, and that's not something that can currently occur. lastly, it consolidates similar repetitive code sections used to evaluate the loss of dwelling units into a single section of the code. so, in broad strokes, these two pieces he of legislation do three things. consolidate aye tier i can't used for the evaluation of the loss of dwelling units, change the control of the associated, particularly with mergers. you would not be allowed to merge two units. if the building had been subject to an ellis act eviction or another no fault eviction in the last 10 years as amended, [speaker not understood] the last five years.

and then lastly it creates a new opportunity to expand legal nonconforming units unless there had been no effect eviction within that [speaker not understood]. >> okay, question. give me an example of -- what is an expansion of a legal nonconforming unit? >> sure. a good example would be a legally constructed four-unit building that was constructed, say, in 1923 before a neighborhood was down zoned to residential two family dwellings. so, officially the current zoning allows for two formal dwellingses, but a building was grandfathered in, it's completely legal, it has four units. the owner designates two of those units as legal nonconforming. they exceed the density, completely legal constructed with permits. at this point in time those two

legal nonconforming units may not be expanded in any way that increases their nonconformity. so, if you had extra space in your garage, you couldn't expand that unit to capture that space in the garage. you simply cannot expand the nonconforming units. you can expand the units that are legal nonconforming. basically in a four unit building you can expand two of the units but not the other two. this would allow you to expand the legal nonconforming units provided that you don't expand the building's envelope. unless there had been a no fault eviction in that building. does that help? >> yes. my other question is you said merger in two units. what exactly -- >> so, that would occur -- say you're dealing with the same four-unit building and an owner comes in and has purchased two of the units and decides to combine the two units into a larger space. perhaps -- in that case either

the unit would need to be empty to do that or there would need to be some sort of eviction process so that the two units were empty and could be merged. this would not allow you to merge the units if there had been a no-fault eviction in order to have the two units available to merge into a larger unit. >> okay. so, to make your legislation, connect the dots for me. how does this save rentals? or affordable -- what are we trying to do here? >> according to this incentive for units to be demolished or merged and converted. one of the ways is if there has been a no-fault eviction or there is a disincentive, you can't evict a tenant because you're not going to be able to actually make a conversion of the building or merge units in the building or demolish the building in the future. so, it could actually work to preserving the tenants and the

rental stock in those building. we're also making sure that where a property owner does want to make improvements to nonconforming units, that a building where there are conforming units, that they be able to make those conversions and to actually stabilize that overall property and making sure that we're preserving rental property in those units that are nonconforming to be able to become a higher standard, but also make sure there remains -- maintain their affordability and their housing stock as part of the rental housing stock. >> okay, thank you. so, as you can see, colleagues, there is a lot of information that -- i came in here thinking i knew something and through this discussion i realize that there is more information that i real i do need to learn. i'd be willing to entertain a continuance of this. i understand we are at a crisis in protecting our rental -- our rental stock of rent controlled

units, but i'm just nervous and don't want to make the wrong decision and have an adverse impact on people i am looking to continue to help. so, i'll listen to the rest of the comments. thank you. mr. president. >> supervisor kim ~. >> so, i think we're all aware of the current economic situation for a lot of our residents and tenants here in san francisco. and i think that is why there is a little bit of urgency behind passing this legislation before the end of the year so it can be signed by the mayor. normally i would want as much time as possible for folks to feel comfortable around supporting legislation. i know it's a complex piece of legislation, but i do think it's on all of our offices to come in really comprehending and asking all the questions prior to a full board meeting or asking for a continuance in

advance. i just think, you know, in most cases i would support continuance. but in this one, we are hearing from so many residents there is a housing crisis that's going on currently. and instead of facing threatened evictions throughout our city -- and i know that this type of eviction is something that is impacting supervisor avalos's district. and i didn't fully comprehend the legislation until i got e-mails from his residents explaining actually this type of eviction that they have faced previously and if this legislation had been in effect, this would not impact them. so, tenants that had been threatened eviction so that their units could be merged with another unit to be filled out to sell off a larger unit, et cetera, et cetera, i think there are not a whole lot of things that we locally can do to support our tenants you unfortunately because so much of legislation ~ around tenant

right happen at sacramento and it forces our local body to be incredibly creative around thinking about how we want to preserve the current use of the housing stock that we have. so, i think for that reason i would support moving it forward today. i would support maybe taking it after public comment if folks want to take the additional time to understand the legislation or voting this today and hopefully having an additional week to work with supervisor avalos's office to be able to feel comfortable supporting or not supporting it next week. so, i mean, that would just be my suggestion for now. but i do just want to recognize, i think that the situation that we are facing here in the city is incredibly challenging and we are really focusing a lot of different tools that we have to preserve the existing uses of the housing stock that we have today. and i think that this legislation is just one of those tools. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president.

i'm prepared to support both pieces of legislation today. i do agree this has moved forward quickly and we are living in i think unfortunately not a unique time in san francisco because this happens periodically where we go into a housing crisis mode and avoid toomey vixes. ~ too many evictions. it sets a bad time. i want to give supervisor avalos a lot of credit for really listening and accepting the amendments where concerns were raised. yesterday in committee, we discussed in-depth the issue around the nuances around temporary evictions and whether a tenant wants to return or doesn't want to return and what level of proof you need and supervisor avalos accepted i think a very reasonable amendment to distinguish among temporary evictions when the tenant does not return.

and supervisor avalos also accepted the amendment from supervisor farrell around the retroactivity date which i thought was a very he reasonable amendment. supervisor avalos accepted the amendment from supervisor tang supported by supervisor yee to reduce the amount of time that you can't do a merger, demolition or conversion after an omi recognizing that there are differences between omi evictionses and ellis act evictions. and then supervisor avalos accepted an amendment to make sure that we weren't unintentionally impacting the residential hotel ordinance. so, i think the author has been very reasonable and accepting amendments as proposed by a lot of different people and groups with different views about the legislation, about the issue. and i think that's to be commended. i think at this point the legislation is in good shape and i think it deserves our support.

>> supervisor avalos. >> i'll talk later. >> thank you. i just wanted to address, i guess, a previous comment and, you know, just with all due respect, i certainly do my homework before coming into office, but don't sit on the land use committee and don't have the same privy committee members have. i do the best i have and studying and reading committee notes. but this is a complex piece of legislation that was obviously admitted to by the planning department. and, so, i don't want to feel bad because i'm not getting it the first time. i understand the crisis need of it, but i mean part of it while we're in this crisis is because no one has done any long-term thinking and planning. we do a much of piecemeal and one op when it comes to housing crisis. yes, we he need more stock, yes, we need to be building more moderate or affordable. we even struggle on the

definition of working class. i don't know how we want to classify the housing. but this, you know, i just didn't want to be be made to feel i'm coming unprepared to the chamber because i'm asking these types of questions. i feel like if i'm asking t there are other members on the chamber or people watching on television that would have these same types of questions. this is an extremely critical piece. this is a crisis, right? so, these are the types of questions that need to happen. i'm perfectly happy to continue this conversation after public comment to allow members of the public to certainly say their piece. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i would suggest that we perhaps proceed to public comment so that we give members of the public the opportunity who have been standing to speak. and i would hope that between now and the time that the public comment is closed that maybe some of the questions that have been raised can be answered. i do agree with supervisor kim

and supervisor avalos that it's important to move this forward. i understand that there may be question, but maybe we have an opportunity to clarify some things, but i'd like to give the public an opportunity to proceed to public comment. >> thank you. president chiu. >> thank you. i'm going to be brief because i also agree with supervisor campos. i would like to get to public comment and i don't think any of us expected that this discussion would take so long. but let me say a couple things. first of all, yesterday at land use we had a lengthy discussion about this and as supervisor avalos knows, and i think others were not prepared to support this legislation without the amendments that have been made today. but given that these amendments have been made, i do feel much more comfortable in moving forward, particularly having addressed the data issue, the omi issue and the ellis issue. that being said, i do very much have sympathy for our colleagues that were not on land use. and let me suggest the following perspective and i discussed this briefly with supervisor avalos yesterday. supervisor avalos has spent months trying to get this through the process. it's been a lot of work.

and i think we all recognize the issue and interest in getting this done before the holidays. that being said, this is a very complicated piece of legislation and it has taken the three of us on land use some time to wrap our brains around this so i completely understand the comments of supervisor cohen, yee, and breed. so, i think the suggestion might be let's hear from public comment and perhaps vote after public comment. but i would say for our colleagues who are unclear as to what this will do, i will say this for the public, i would understand if you weren't prepared to support it today, but perhaps in a week if we don't have the volts or if there are the votes for a second read ~ that you might change your vote next week with more comfort with additional amendment. i would just like to say that to our colleagues because this is very complicated stuff. my staff and i have spent probably half of our time over the last few days trying to wrap our brains around this, so, understand why these new amendments that are coming in last minute are challenging. the orctionv thing i could say about that is these are amendments that were discussed

with our colleagues and with other stakeholders and our city attorney's office and i do feel much more comfortable with that as well. i would be prepared to support today. ~ only >> thank you. supervisor breed. >> thank you. so, i appreciate the clarity on some of these issues. i do have a few more questions and happy to try and deal with those questions when we come -- before we come back to this item later on today. and i just would appreciate a list of what the amendments are. and also understanding where they are in the specific resolution because the resolution on its own was challenging enough to understand without the specific definitions of the code, and that also required a lot of time to research and understand even before i came here today. and, so, i would appreciate just really a lot more clarity. i know supervisor tang proposed

a ten -- reduce from ten-year to five-year. i would also like to understand why five-year, why ten-year, why one versus the other? i wasn't on land use either so i don't understand all the discussion that took place during that time. so, i really would like to understand the impact of this decision. and thank you, supervisor campos, for proposing that we move on to public comment in order to allow more time to do that. >> supervisor avalos, any final comment before we go to public comment? >> let's go into public comment. i know mr. chafee is waiting very patiently to speak first on the mic and we'll presume after. >> i do want to acknowledge our deputy city attorney. i understand you need to leave at 5 o'clock. are there any final comments you would like to make? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i unfortunately have to leave the meeting at 5:00. one of my very capable colleagues has volunteered to take my place. but in response to supervisor breed's question about where

these amendments are, we have not drafted all of the amendments because they have been coming at the board today, some for the first time. but they are all changes to one specific paragraph in each ordinance. it's the paragraph regarding the -- regarding eviction. and in the demolition merger conversion ordinance, that is page 16 beginning on line 22, there is [speaker not understood] in a different [speaker not understood] there in aerial double underline font. and that language in the special font reflects amendments that were made two weeks ago by the land use committee. all the amendments today are changes to that language. the parallel language in the nonconforming use ordinance is on page 4 line 10, but it's

basically the same language. what the board has done today is adopted a little bit of clean up from the technical stuff to make sure the language is clear. has changed the date -- the date from october 24th, 2013 to december 10th, 2013. has provided that for owner move-in evictions there will be a five-year look back as opposed to all other types of no-fault evictions where we have a 10-year look back as reflected in the amendments that were already made in committee. and finally, the language that i read into the record earlier changes the rules for no-fault

evictions, the font to a certain category where the evictions are temporary and the tenant has the right to move back in. the amendment that i read in would allow the owner to proceed with an alteration or merger if they evicted a tenant temporarily under one of those two sections and the tenant either moved back in or had the opportunity to move back in and voluntarily declined to do so. >> would that allow for them to still pay the same rent or would they be subjected to the -- will the improvement cost be incorporated into a new rent amount? so, i mean, again, i guess we can get to these questions later, but there are still some concerns. >> that question is really a rent ordinance question and this legislation does not amend the rent ordinance. this legislation only says if you have certain types of evictions in the past 10 years

or five years with regard to owner move-ins, you cannot alter your nonconforming unit or merge unit. and then finally, there was one additional amendment that supervisor avalos mentioned regarding the residential hotel ordinance which has pass and had has not really been an item of discussion during this meeting. >> okay, thank you, colleagues. and with that, let's continue these two items till after public comment. i want to thank all the members of the public for your amazing patience and standing in line. and with that, why don't we go to mr. chafee. [speaker not understood] use your time during public comment to listen to public comment. thank you and stop the corporate rape of our public library. don't give money to the friend of the library. don't accept money from the friends of the public library. the public scandal of the privatization of our library is

the indication of the central scam of city hall. the president of the library commission ~ gomez has been found guilty [speaker not understood] which was a willful violation of sunshine and found by the ethics commission to be found below the standard of decency. the city librarian luis herrera has been found guilty of three years of violations of the california political reform act and the california [speaker not understood] practices commission assessed a fine for violation of conflict of interest laws. there have been repeated violations of the sunshine ordinance, found by the sunshine task force to be found [speaker not understood]. we now know that in the 12 years that the funds have been raising fund for the branch library improvement program, the friends of the library expended 53 million. the amount expended for the benefit of the library was 5.1 million, 9.6%. these are all