conversions. this ordinance is intended to protect against 0 affordable housing and demolition of housing and merging multiple houses into a single opt and other non-residential unions. it was updated to make it a priority to protect the for a fact of the existing housing especially rent controlled housing but the criteria that the planning department used for demolition and mergers and conversions have not been update in preserving rent control in affordable housing. is instead the planning code make the building more consistent with the laws of the zoning of the neighborhood. this will bring the code in lion

by disperse the rent control conversions. in addition the ordinance will require the planning commission to consider whether housing replacements are being being provide. this ordinance wouldn't effect projects in the development of the green area. this legislation also looked at mergers of residential unites. the most common way unit are eliminated into the city what their converged into a semibe building and evict the tenants and convert it into a home and sold. the plan courageous if the merger would make the building with the decent of the soourlgd neighborhood. those ordinance with destroy those mergers by making it a

priority particle rent control housing. we're concerned about the loss of affordable housing when their merged into residential everywhere rental unit. unfortunately we're forced to walk the line between state law and to evaluate 9 kinds of control in the housing needs in san francisco. it requires the city to maintain affordable housing and this is credit card a viable interest to encourage the non eviction of units it is for beliefs on no fault eviction. evictions can't be loud over october >> that's prospective. we believe the timeframe is appropriate under the ellis act interest so the other piece of

ledger's election is around non-conforming use nor non-conforming housing. we know note those are legally existing units because of the zoning laws. those are not in law units. typically ass those are non-conforming unit that are built before our laws that were built in the city and the age of the opt are prominently rent control units. there are nearly 52 thousands of those units e.r. 52 thousand of the cities stock. we have a map i have it here that shouz shows the units are they're all in the core of the

city but throughout san francisco. again 14 percent of overall housing stock a 3 unit building in an rh unit the owners because designate two he thought units at the conforming and one as non-conforming and the building owners are still allowed to pick the non conforming unit their usual the most undesirable ones in the believe. they have the urban affordable housing and the planning code doesn't allow those unless the work will eliminate the housing unit. this ordinance will allow four africans to those non-conforming

it is to preserve those for rent controlled housing. currently because the aefls are prohibited but the removal is loud the current code could incentivize those with the non conforming unit to create a less affordable unit taking the control residentials off the bacon book. this ordinance includes safeguards to allow the units that will reduce the for a fact or discourage the displacement of resident. this is a vital government interests therefore any aefgsz can't be expanded beyond the envelope. also aerpgss is not loud after

2014. we've got other colleagues here to go into the legislation. i want to thank you for this legislation and staff you've been working with this in the planning the president. it's a great tool to preserve affordable housing in san francisco >> thank you supervisor avalos and good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the planning staff. just to reiterate this ordinance this pair of ordinances is essential 3 things it amends the criteria for the processes associated with the loss of dwelling units and consolidates rope at the with the loss of unit by moving all the elevation to the planning code and lastly

it created a new opportunity to expand the non-legal unit currently they can't be expanded in a way that increases the notary republic enforcement arrest the planning commission considered those ordinances a number of times and supported the opportunity to alternate non-conforming units at the september hearing and the board passed the resolution with a of one vote with a approval of the draft and the commissioner considered the 345e789s to the processes associated with doogsz and conversion on accountability 24th and passed a resolution again with a 6, one vote and that included the representations that the owner move ins be considered differently than ellis

evictions. so the ordinance prohibit the immersion as long as that evocation took place after october 24th. sxhooeflz gave you a lot of information i'm available for answers and i have a map that shows the legal non-enforcement in the decent and if it is helpful i can 2krb9 it and put it on the overall. for board strokes this is throughout the city. and also to clarify there's a a little bit of confusion those unite can't be expanded and they can't be alternated if that alteration increases the non enforcement of the under lying

decent if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and i have a few questions. first of all, what is the division of a demolition for purposes of this legislation? >> i'm going to pull up the specific definition because it's fairly - let me it will take me a moment here. >> i can go on to other questions and come back in the hearing. >> so in terms of you'd mentioned the different kinds of

no fault evictions on a temporary a evictions for repairs like from a fire or some other issue. and the 10 year moratorium would apply if the tenant then didn't reoccupy the unit after the repair; is that right >> that's correct. >> what happens in the tenant decided not to occupy i know from experience in my district with some fires there have been some tenants who excuse me. found alternate housing they liked and decided to stay there so there's or there's a mix in terms of whether the haernt tenants want to reoccupy. >> i want to refer to supervisor avalos.

>> sure that's an issue at a time come up and we're heard from the public about that. in our mind there might be a way where the tenant can certify that he or she didn't want to reoccupy the building then the restrictions wouldn't be in place >> there's a situations if for whatever reason the tenant won't sign i can imagination a number of scenarios and i know we obviously there's a problem there's a temporary eviction for rapes and the tenant is not permitted to return is there an amendment that's been considered or - >> we're considering an amendment it didn't anticipate

whether the voluntarily signing of a certification for the tenant is done or not. we assume they would be performed if asked. that behave a john is prepared to read into the record the amendment to that effect it's not a volunteer process >> there's an amendment? >> yes. deputy city attorney john. there's actually we'd recommended tweaking some of the language in the eviction paragraph but going to the point that your discussing currently, the provision would require the applicant to certify that the original tenant reoccupy the opt

and it would say the mr. president, i have the applicant shall certainty >> sorry could you reference the file and . >> sure the same language is in both ordinances. their ears to find in item 3 which is just shorter. and it's on page 34 the double underlined provisions that the section at the top of the page 4 start on line 3. that was the amendment the committee made last week. so they're the very end of that provision states the applicant shall certify the tenant shall occupy after the eviction. either the tenant shall certify to the planning commission that

the original tenant reply or the applicant shall send to the planning commission that even though tenant choose not to reoccupy it >> i guess my question is so in terms of i guess know if the board is here? no it is that would be helpful in the rent board we are were here when i have a situation when the at that particular time is temporarily evicted and then in terms of what the process is right now they have a right to return. and assuming they could bring a cause of action if not given the right in the landlord fixes the

unit over the tenants objection. but how the rent board determines whether the tenant has a deserve to return or wave that right do they require a declaration. i ask only because we have a situation where a tenant has not decided to return and didn't want to sign a declaration obviously ideally it would be great to sign a declaration whether or not to return but that's in light of not also going to happen. i don't know how the practice is determined >> john gibb in her again, i can't speak to that off the top

of my head. >> at the end of this year. >> i can tell you tomorrow before the whole board votes on this it sound like we're all on the communication terms of not wanting to return or to return i'm sure we're applying it in a fairway. >> just another question regarding a declaration is there an official document that we expect there to be a declaration or can an e-mail from a tenant be a declaration? that could be a policy decision for the board to make and we could draft the ordinance if you want. it is of rowing raw it would be a sworn statement from the tenant >> you could have a mechanism

that it would be up to the landlord to prove that the tenant didn't want to return as a declaration for the landlord. presume bely when i mean currently right now there's a fire era temporary vooeks evocation and the landlord turns around and rent to son-in-law the tenant could foil a lawsuit against the landlord and i'm sure that's happened. i don't know. i guess it will be we have look at of time to think about it >> today and tomorrow we could forward this. >> and my final question has to do with the division of a residential unit for housing. it's on page 10 of the largest

file. and i was just curious as to the rationale >> sure currently section 317 is the dwelling unit so the loss of group housing is tomato subject to the same as a it is the loss of the private housing so under the control substance as for any other dwelling unit. >> and group housing is currently often governed by the residential hotel ordinance. >> there's a subset so group housing is housing without kitchens and individual come back facilities. so residential hotels are often a subset of a particular kind of

housing. those unite as defined in cheaper 41 of the residential code. the large world of housing is not subject to that >> would there be overlapping controls as hotel rooms. >> as currently drafted yes. >> does the department have an opinion. >> we've discussed it and essential the original hotel conversion ordinance pace attention to the replacement of the number of romance in a residential hotel room and you couldn't replace a 4 hundred i won't tell room with a 2 you won't tell room. like common usually space and

accounting other elements in general we review those through other exponents of the planning code just not through this section >> this will lead to am input in terms of when terms apply. >> i would say the department didn't feel strongly we should apply section 417 to control residential rooms we have covering the rest of the ordinance. >> if i could asupervisor avals in terms of overlapping controls. >> i think we're okay in terms of with it comes to residential hotels they're under section 41 and everything else would be

under this ordinance we felt this is a good distinction between the two. >> would that require an amendment. >> i think it would require american people amendment to deter to the city attorney. we didn't contemplate that i was told the language was for of a clarification and i was going to leave it up to the committee. especially because what was more important we're protecting the residential hotel >> commissioner. i think it would require an amendment coming up with that specific language on the spot but down the road we'll have that before tomorrow >> okay perhaps if you could you guys could work on that. >> supervisor weiner i have the

division the demolition for you. as a planner that cuffs me the projects of the d i d commissioner is information and the second group are the projects that proposes the removal of more than 50 percent of the sum of the front and rear facade and also proposes the 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