application and find out they're not eligible for the application. if we can show that are that was the first thing i'm going to explain 235e together. the intention is to legalize those units, however, some of the provisions make it a discretionary process usually the provision around the zoning administrator. the anticipation of the supervisor and this ordinance is to streamline the permitting process for this. we're proposing modification to remove the discretionary process and make that an a.d. central process and make the things to

reflect the existing permit process and the planning department and dbi is practicing now with finding the permit and gets routed to the planning department. number 4 is also about the permit process and we're going requiring construction to upgrade those thirty days after the permit is issued. this is a current practice for enforcement. the provision is in violation of some code requirements and the city finds out the city requires those corrections to be done within thirty days. it's a shorter period of one hundred and 80 days for new permits we think those unite diesel with life and safety issues the upgrades need to

happen faster. the next banish of comments is the exceptions from the planning code. it only comments those units from open space requirements in the existing unit are already meeting the open space requirements of the code, however, many of the existing housing were predated the open space requirements and don't meet the open space requirements that's now the code in the code and we think that that would create a huge you hurdle for those unite to be legal listed so we're proposing the open space requirements to be exempted altogether. next is about parking reduction exemptions so in cases that those units are built in an existing garage that that garage

is basically searing the requirement of the parking requirement for an existing legal requirement in the building we want that unit to be exempted from the parking exemption pressure so they can moved in a streamline process. the last one we're proposing to allow the expansions of those unite with the existing building footprints at the part of the legitimization permit process. the way it works when those units become legalized they can come back and file again, however, to allow the expansion within the legitimization process so to save everyone some

costs. the next batch of comments we're proposing that in case the illegal unit is on a partial that's all right. at or below the density unit we ask the unit to be consistent with the practice we're doing right now with those units. number 9 shown we're proposing this ordinance that be consistent with the other ordinance around the unit in a process right now you approved it last week at the supervisor wiener's legislation we're proposing one unit to be legal listed for building for 2 units to be legal listed more than 10 units and the density will be equal for building of more than

10 units. latest the last batch of comments is monthly technical changes. those are some clarity of definitions so it indicates that this unit should exist all right. at the space that's inner consistent with the building code proposals around submitting evidence that those units exist you signatures pg&e bills or lease agreement. number one number 11 the ordinance proposes to prohibit basically condo conversion and that lives in the planning code as proposed we're proposing to make that amendment also in the subdivision. and the last one just like a

flight change in rent at what point should the unit be removed from the list. we want to remove is when it's actually emerged with an existing unit. that concludes my presentation. i submitted two letters and i wanted to briefly read an excerpt from one of the letters from the agent law caucus. the secondary unit security is one of the human rights to housing. san francisco's cycle process there's no better time than now to have this principle into the planning code and in fact, the secondary units are home to our

diverse community >> if i may interject those people at the door need to take a seat or line up on this side please. thank you open this up for public comment again line up on the screen side of the room (calling names) oh, i'm sorry those are the wrong cards. >> i apologize. >> okay. if you want to speak on item 9 please line up on the screen side of the room. >> patricia i have mixed emotions about that many of the series use those units for their food and expenditures. they using use to people who are

affordable and many people, keep an eye on them this is going to be a great how's crisis i worry about the citizens throughout the city that have 2 unit buildings are not going to be able to live in san francisco. on the other side i believe in the safety of the units but i question giving them such a deadline. when you're on fixed income and your land rich and cash poor you can't afford the $150,000 to upgrade it constantly you have to graduate and how are you going to mitigate this issue? i firmly building that people who have rights to have a house

and they want someone to come in and help them and they're small illegal unit and have someone to watch after them and yet be able to take rent and those are affordable units. i worry about worry about this. to expand the unit to get more money for the city but make exemptions with the planning code. i want you to think about this very, very seriously what you're doing with this legislation. i would like it continued if possible >> thank you. next speaker please. good afternoon. i'm jonathan i

live in the sunset. i want to say one thing about unit when the unit gain status the protection will be in place if i'm not mistaken. i want to say briefly this is a win-win situation store san francisco. i think for tenants its definitely going to bring up the safety standards of the unit. it is also going to bring the unit off the shadow market and allow more people to rent them and provide people with legal protections with rental agreements is. for landlord they're going to get out from underneath the fear of prosecution and blackmail from neighbors and attempt and

one thing it will allow them to insure their building for the number of people and buildings. in san francisco will particularly benefit because sfoos san francisco has benefited for years with the tens of thousands of housing units which are legal. i think it's in everyone's best interest that san francisco not rely on the practice that currently is illegal for the housing resources. also, of course, it's going to bring up the safety standards and additional revenue and property tax. another venue for this plan it's going to increase occupancy and density in those areas.

i don't see the logic because people are knowledge here and their occupied so if anything it might bring the occupancy down a little bit where a unit might have four or five people that knowledge in it and legal lee only allow one or two people to live there it's going to lessen the density in neighborhoods >> thank you. any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner borden was trying to say something >> i think this is a good piece of legislation i have a question about supervisor chiu's reluctance to accept this.

>> just to clarify we're in agreement with almost the entirety of the recommendations made by a planning staff slightly in disagreement with the first about modifying the screening process so it i think it lives with no fault of evictions with dbi which is the first agency that would screen for the eligibility of the unit to be brought up to code. we agree this should happen up front but building that planning has dealt with housing issues more and has dealt with no fault evictions so while the screening should be up front we believe that planning is important adept at this screening. one way to insure that is it

make sure the agencies are doing the work so the dbi and work board are qualified and another thought we have a screening check list form that dbi will provide at the first point of contact to make sure we have clear standards for eligibility both in terms of the building code and in terms of the no fault evictions you outlined in the prescreening form so it's made clear >> so on that subject basically supervisor chiu is in agreement with this process it's just who does it. >> that's correct. and the second area of disagreement is the ethnic recommendation about lowering

the offer sized buildings to legalize this but we don't think it's entirely plausible to our legislation so to make the legislation contingent with supervisor wiener's legislation i'm sure you're aware of it applies to new in law unit within the cash flow in denseer parts of the city. i think where our legislation will really be practical and apply to say more single-family homes in small buildings we can allow a building but it's not important to make our legislation consistent with supervisor wiener's legislation. we know there have been historic neighborhood concerned around density so the gentleman

xhmentdz during public comment noted we know that the occupancy is already there and the so-called density is already there but part of how we respect some of the concerns is not to say let's allow for more than one additional unit one additional unit will be good >> has supervisor wiener comments one way e.r. another. >> to how it applies to supervisor chiu's legislation. >> yes. he's the co-sponsor is he aware of the staff recommendations. >> i'm not entirely sure but i'll follow-up. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it's exciting to or have two pro-active housing

elastics they lay each in many ways and trying to achieve similar objectives. i'm happy to see staff strong will i engaged i'm supportive of the recommendations including they basically see that dbi has a larger call into the first screening and intact because many of the things are building code not planning code related issues where a large mulch of practical expertise is required. this is supported by all departments who are indeed watching the safety and security of all buildings together with planning that has a larger responsibility with the density subdivision etc. i'm very, very comfortable for many, many years this is not the first time that the city

co-sponsors have finally come together in the construction and the building inspectors and architects, etc. people who are in the interference when it comes to build the right buildings. i have one question. for example, in the case i have two questions in the case that a person is trying to legalize a garage are we to assume that the curb is to be restored to allow a full phased sidewalk environment as we have problems in many neighborhoods that the sidewalk safety is at risk >> when someone comes in today so remove a garage we ask the curb be restored to eliminate

the cut and that includes the regrading of the sidewalk in the way the sidewalk tilts and as required by dpw. >> would that cost be passed onto the building owner or the street improvement. >> i assume the building owner would be responsible. >> the second question that there's a certain amount of confident yilt am i now subject to certain consequences.

>> the intention of the elective absolutely is not to have ordinances who involuntarily come forward to get more information about the gibltd of their units to be legalized have them face channels if they at the don't meet the challenges that's the purpose of the screening process that's in alignment how the dbi handles the property owners who asks for information how to bring our opt up to code. i can ask the staff to a talk about that but not the tennis is have voluntarily owners to come down and face those challenges later on >> thank you. i'm really supportive of the legislation. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a question first

about the legislation regarding the illegal units and from what i understand in reading there's an option for the property owner to go through the process or not go through the process and for those who elect not to go through the process they're liable for the updates of life and safety but what's in the legislation to have any pro-active part on the part of the city to make sure this occurs this is. >> i think if i'm understanding your question one it is definitely voluntary and we when we were in our working group thinking about this we considered the volunteer vs. not volunteer and voluntarily is the

best way to go we didn't want to put the tenants at a displacement disadvantage. he know units that will need structural changes that need to get up to building code per we're working with the mayor's office of housing to figure out whether or not their current loan funding for rehabilitation of units for code enforcement reasons can be applied to our legislation for the in law unit. so that's why we went the voluntarily route and another piece is the education and outreach we do for property owners and tenants. once the law takes effect there's this volunteer program for people to bring their units up to code per we're reaching

out to property owners and tenants and neighborhoods to understand how the process works and why it's a good process and why it would be good for tenants and homeowners. that's not written into the legislation but we'll make sure that happens >> well, i have additional idea. historically the city has done a poor job of policing the illegal units we talk about 20 or thirty or 40 many have life and safety problems. i'd like to see every property owner sign an affidavit of how many units exist on their restraining order property and those who choose not should go though the legitimization process and if they decide to remove the unit to pay the

tenant in the case someone was evicted from a unit for other reasons. i think that would put some teeth into it. i think you're going to find out people will go through legalization but many will continue through this process. i want to see some kind of university requirement that all property owners attest to the condition of their properties and what they think the status is >> a that's something i'll bring back to the supervisors and discuss it with dbi and planning and all the agencies involved to see if it's feasible. the fear is that we don't want to pit tenants 0 who are currently housed in unit at risk of displacement because of the

challenges of getting the buildings up to code. we want to make sure obviously the unit are safe we have something in the legislation that says in the department of building inspectors finds problems they'll take action but some of the other building code requirement that they may not comply with currently there are basic challenges of getting up to code we don't want to have the agency put the tenants at risk >> as i said, there is a displacement fee that will allow them to find other housing and there should be means testing. oftentimes those are for people who have property outside the city and the owner will have to

make a contribution to the affordable housing fund because those owners have to take responsibility because they've had those units all those years. i have other questions. for the city attorney okay. would this if the building was built after 1978 would the new unit be rent controlled. do you have any opinion on whether or not that's the case? >> under state law provisions we don't apply rent control to new units so if we could apply the rent control the city wouldn't do the rent control on those this doesn't change the city's rent requirement as i understand it. >> so i think according to judy the drafting attorney and to the

rent board the unit that obviously are currently considered rent controlled about remain so and our legislation as has been indicated doesn't change the ordinance so we basically is that all other city and state codes that are applied will apply. in the form that they should >> okay. thank you and the same thing with the single-family home but there's a rental jurisdiction that will come under the rent if it's a single-family home it would be subject to rent control this is and if that unit was already in existence it would remain so even with our legislation.

>> and i guess the same date of 1978? i have another question for the city attorney. i know this is an opinion but do you feel that we're dealing with different issues we're working on legitimization for the life and safety of a unit and also the unit has a right to occupy their unit or evict for some thing is that a conflict between the two this is >> i'm not quite certain obviously there are many policy considerations at issue in this ordinance and the city there's many laws that come into play with our regulation of evictions we have state laws and local

laws. here it's my understanding the purpose stated in the legislation is in order to prevent the unat the end consequences of those illegals units theirs provision included to protect existing tenants. if the reasons are to prevent unintended consequences like evictions that comes with the local policy regulations that are generally permissible. it is the policy considerations and how the language is drafted those all come into play when your looking an ordinance >> thank you. i certainly encourage the project sponsor and fellow commissioners to make sure this passes through the city attorney's office and i do have other comments but i'm going to ask for a continuous. it's different from the

legislation from supervisor wiener it deals with the entire city and his legislation dealt with the units that every unit has to go through a process but we're innovating not requiring that. i've heard from many people in the neighborhoods that have fears everyone has illegal in law units within the city. oftentimes there are some quality of life issues that could be as a result of the provision. single-family homes cost more like the richard and sunset even the outdoor mission area you have income from the unit allowing the buyer to bid a higher price and oftentimes it's not