his responsibility is to teach him. our responsibility is to teach the next generation so that it's never forgotten. and it should be a happy occasion of celebration, of coming together. and i'm really excited about the celebration tomorrow because i think it's going to be an incredible celebration with a renewed commitment in our values to make san francisco the best place it can possibly be. and speaking of this, i got [speaker not understood], congratulations to galileo high school [speaker not understood] after thattion turkey day. [laughter] >> 34 to 40. these are the kids that i fight for. these are the -- this is the future of san francisco. it's the future of our country. we have to continue to support our young people, continue to encourage them, continue to think about what happens to the environment and all of these other things as we make

policies here in the city and county of san francisco. so, thank you all for indulging me. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor breed. all of these item will be appropriately referred. mr. president, that concludes roll call for introduction. >> thank you, colleagues, why don't we now go to general public comment. madam clerk. >> at this time the public may comment generally on item of [speaker not understood] including item on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. please note that public comment is not allowed on those items which have already been subject to public comment by a board committee. please direct your remarks to the board as a whole and not to individual supervisors and not to the audience. if you would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector please clearly state such and then remove the document when the screen should return to live coverage of the meeting. >> i want to apologize. i was just alerted by my colleagues we still had a couple of legislative item that we canted to complete before public comment in part because we had some city staffers who have been waiting patiently all afternoon. and, so, if folks want to stay

in the line that you're in, you're more than welcome to do that or you can take a seat for the moment just so we can finish up one or i guess two legislative items that are related that supervisor avalos has in front of us. so, supervisor avalos, if we could recall items 34 and 35. >> 34 and 35. >> thank you, thank you, president chiu, and for folks who stood up waiting to talk in public comment, i apologize. we did have this item queued up to go after roll call introductionses, these two items. colleagues, san francisco is facing a housing and eviction crisis. many of us have been to events trying to prevent evictions, to marches in the streets. we've actually been called upon by some of our constituents actually to declare a state of emergency in san francisco for [speaker not understood]. colleagues, these two item that we have before us today present us with two very strong tools to protect existing rent

control, affordable housing stock from real estate speculation, real estate speculation that is playing havoc with our community. i want to thank co-sponsors for these two ordinances, supervisor mar and supervisor campos. i also want to thank my staff, jeremy pollack for his work on this for many, many months and would especially like to thank sophie hayward who is here awaiting patiently, perhaps if she is called upon to explain some of the parts of these two key legislation. i want to thank her for her great work and the work of the planning department in bringing these two item forward. they have kind of been under the radar these past few months as there have been a lot of deliberations around evictions in san francisco and the crisis that many san franciscans are facing. originally these two pieces of legislation or one penasquitos east of legislation, but we split them into two ordinances, sustained alone, although work in very similar ways.

the first one which you are calling residential dmc for short, will reduce the elimination of housing from demolitions, mergers and conversions. in effect, this ordinance will guide the planning department to favor rent controlled apartment housing as a value in our general plan and discourage demolitions, mergers and conversions where they would eliminate rent controlled units and affordable housing. the legislation also works to disincentive eyes or discourage no fault evictions ~ including ellis act evictions by disallowing mergers for 10 years after a no fault eviction for evictions that have occurred after currently october 24, 2013, but i hear that tate might change to today. the other piece of legislation deals with alterations for nonconforming housing units. these are legally existing units that are nonconforming because of code swollening laws. currently because the alterations of these units are prohibited but their removal is aloud, the current code

incentivizes [speaker not understood] ~ with conforming units to create larger less affordable unit and taking housing stock off the market. this allows for alterations these nonconforming units so that the city can continue to ensure levels of affordable rent control housing stock. the ordinance includes safeguards to ensure that allowing alteration to these units won't have unintended could betionvctiontionv questionctiontionves that will reduce affordability or encourage displacement of tenants. this ordinance like the residential dmc also disincentive eyeses evictions by allowing mergers for 10 years to buildings where there have been no fault evictions after october 24th. with today's housing crisis, colleagues, these types of tools are necessary to protecting existing tenants from future evictions and preserve rent controlled and affordable housing, a vieal part of our housing stock. i would be honored to have your support. there are also some amendments

that i have -- am ready to propose based on yesterday's hearing and a report that came from stakeholders, both from tenants, apartment owners and property owner stakeholders. yesterday supervisor wiener raised, some of my colleagues as well. yesterday supervisor wiener raised concerns about the specific case of temporary evictions and what happens if actual temporary eviction [speaker not understood] refuse he to sign a declaration saying they were offered the opportunity to reoccupy the unit. to address this, i am offering an amendment to say that in this case the property owner can submit a declaration to the rent board certifying that the rent board attempted to notify the ten apt of their temporary address. this amendment would apply to both the residential dnc and the nonconforming uses ordinances. i have a copy of that amendment before you and would like mr.

givner who worked on this language to explain and read into the record as is necessary. mr. givner. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the amendment that supervisor avalos is referring to is on page 16 line 22 or begins on page 16 line 22 of the residential dnc ordinance, and very similar provision but begins on page 4 line 10 of the nonconforming uses ordinance. we would recommend a few little tweak to some of the language that was adopted in committee to make it more clear. and in committee there was a discussion yesterday of how to handle a situation where a tenant was evicted under one of the no-fault temporary eviction

provisions of the rent ordinance and then chose -- the tenant chose not to reoccupy the unit. the intent of the committee and supervisor avalos, i believe, is to exclude from the prohibition landlords who were in that situation or property owners in that situation. and the question that the committee what discussing was how exactly should we -- how can a property owner prove that a tenant voluntarily chose not to reoccupy. ultimately, supervisor avalos's amendment would provide that data that either the tenant has reoccupied or the tenant voluntarily chose not to reoccupy and the owner can prove that by submitting a statement of declaration either from the owner or the tenant establishing that either the owner or the rent board provided notice to the tenant

offering the opportunity to reoccupy. and if i may after that long introduction, i'd like to read the language into the record because we haven't circulated a signed copy. >> president chiu? >> supervisor mar. >> supervisor avalos mentioned issue of the effective day potentially being october 24th, but december 10th, 2013. >> i did mention that, but i know that that's going to be a concern [speaker not understood] that i'm okay with. so, i'm willing to do that after the amendments are made. thank you. >> i'll read these with the october 24th date and the understanding that the board may additionally amend to change that day. ~ date. from the nonconforming uses ordinance, no alterations or reconstruction shall be permitted for any dwelling unit where a tenant was served with a notice of eviction pursuant to san francisco administrative

code sections 37.9 a8 through 37.9 a8 14 after october 24, 2013. and within 10 years prior to the filing, prior to filing an application to enlarge, alter, reconstruct such dwelling or other housing unit. provided that this restriction shall not prohibit any enlargements, alterations or reconstruction if an eviction has taken place under section 37.9a 11 or 37.9a 14. the applicant -- i'm sorry. and the applicant has certified to the planning commission that the original tenant reoccupied the unit after the temporary eviction or has submitted to the planning commission a declaration from the landlord or the tenant certifying that the property owner or the rent board notified the ten apt of the tenant's right to reoccupy

the [speaker not understood] and that the tenant chose not to reoccupy it. >> great, thank you. we also have another issue that was raised yesterday concerning residential hotels and we wanted to add some clarifying language about the intent of the legislation and where residential hotels are covered. so, i'll be adding an amendment to clarify this language. a residential dnc ordinance, residential dnc ordinance adz not apply to residential hotel. demolition conversion of residential hotel is already governed by admin code chapter 41. this amendment is in two places in the residential dnc ordinance. the first reference is at page 7 line 13. it reads residential conversion, the new residential conversion shall mean that removal of cooking facilities in residential unit or change of the occupancy as defined and

regulated by the building code or the change of use as defined and regulated by the planning code of any residential use or live/work unit to a unit residential and we're taking out the next line which reads, this definition shall not apply to conversions of residential hotels as defined and regulated in chapter 41 of the san francisco administrative code. the change of occupancy from a dwelling unit group housing or sro to student housing is also considered a conversion of a residential unit, notwithstanding the foregoing change of use or occupancy of dual unit group housing or sro to student housing is not considered a conversion of a residential unit if the dwelling unit group housing or sro will be student housing owned, operated or otherwise controlled by a not for profit post secondary educational institution. and the next reference and the dnc ordinance is on page 10 line 13, much shorter.

section 12, residential units shall mean the legal conforming or we're taking out the language that says nonconforming residential conforming or nonconforming dwelling unit as defined in planning code section 102.7 or illegal nonconforming live/work unit as defined in planning code section 102.13, or group housing, we're adding this language, or group housing as in planning code section 209.2a, b, and c, provided, however, this definition shall not include a residential unit in a residential hotel as defined and regulated by chapter 41 of the san francisco administrative code. that is the last amendment that i'm adding to the dnc residential legislation. thank you. >> supervisor avalos has made the motions to amend including what was described by mr. givner, and that's seconded by supervisor campos. one question to supervisor avalos. i know he you submitted to us

for the temporary evictions point both amendments to the residential dnc and nonconforming uses. i heard mr. givner read the nonconforming uses piece, but is the language you have or residential dnc, is that also -- [speaker not understood]. >> if i may, the document that was circulated, the language doesn't quite match up. so, i believe the amendment to adopt the changes that i have suggested parallel language in both ordinances. >> that's what i want to make clear. >> so that the nonconforming language, the very bottom of that section, will be the language that will be incorporated into the residential dnc section of that piece of legislation. thank you. >> okay. questions about the amendment. supervisor yee. okay, colleagues, can we take the amendments -- >> mr. president, i didn't catch the second. there was a motion made by --

>> by supervisor campos. so, colleagues, can we take the amendment to amend without objection? without objection, that shall be the case. [gavel] >> and further discussion, supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. i want to, first of all, -- i want to thank supervisor avalos for bringing this issue to us. in regards to the [speaker not understood] piece of it. and i feel fairly comfortable with that piece. what i'm not comfortable with is the owner occupying -- owner eviction piece. and i just haven't -- nobody has been able to explain to me

what is -- what piece of this is speculation to me. i'm not getting it. and how it hurts tenants. maybe i should have asked this before coming here today, but i wasn't -- it felt like the explanation is that there is an owner move in. the owner may want to, i guess create one unit out of two. and i'm thinking to myself, okay, is this really speculation or not? because if i were an owner, for instance, and went into to sell the place, it seems like the owner would probably be better off not creating a larger unit, but actually selling the

building with several units if they want to do the type of tic [speaker not understood]. i'm not too sure who i'm supposed to ask on this, if there is any explanation on this. >> well, if i may respond. >> supervisor avalos. >> we [speaker not understood] cover evictions as well. if there is a merger of a building, even for an omi eviction, we are taking rental property off the market, [speaker not understood], most often the case it's rent controlled. it's also a place where r an eviction happens. we want to look at how we can best of all preserve housing and tenants from being evicted in the city. there have been certain cases of omi evictions that have resulted in large amounts of 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 t