to put it in the file >> absolutely we'll be happy to do that. >> so we can understand this issue i appreciate the desire to change that but this board of supervisors passed the legislation around the topic and we've adapted that standard. i understand your organization and action have sued the city and that's in the court and my prospective when it gets resolved that will have an impact but i'm not trying to create a new standard but which we merge or not remerge >> we're simple adapting a standard that this board voted on. >> we know the land use economy passed that without the in law unit and that being said this e since this legislation we're

asking for the amendment because this is now a different process you're talking about a different category of units. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> ted san francisco tenants union. we support this legislation and have supported similar efforts in the past. the supervisor made amens will the rents going up but we've looked at evicts and, affordability issues and had overwhelms those issues the in-laws unit the tenant get evicted although not by all bad landlords it's actually more than tenants doing it to them or

neighbors complaining to accident building inspection resulting in the building inspectors issuing an order to shut it down. tenants, you know, they can go to the rent board but we see many, many cases of tenants that don't have heat and call the building inspection and know that dbi don't care that there is no heat. we need to preserve those units and those unite are being built at 40 thousand units and back when i went supervisor hell one was working on this it was an estimate between with 20 and 25. so we strongly support this. after hearing the testimony i want to stress this doesn't audio any units it simply

legalize what's there it's good especially because of the evictions because last year the demolition evicts were up 20 percent. that is what the used for illegal units >> thank you commenting has a question, sir. >> actually, i appreciate you would don't guess evictions are up 20 percent are those in law units. >> i don't know if they're primarily in law unit. which this legislation would in fact cover situation if the landlord wanted to legalize those units so this is not we think - >> how does that legislation cover 1040 market i don't

remember that type of zoning. >> i believe it would it didn't make a distinction. >> it will legalize one unit. >> oh, right. >> that's great but that's not the case. >> right but some of the demolition evicts were the residential trying to a go back to the original and many if not half of the illegal units and one mandated by dbi is done by the landlord. >> so does it coincide with the actual number? >> 66 we were really astonished by category. >> ms. wolfe think the clerk

was asking. >> we were flab gaited by that and it is explained by the 66 notices on 1040 market and so certainly some of it. >> the preponderance of the increase. >> have you eaten is increase in the number of in law demolition evictions. >> we don't know it doesn't specify just demolition. >> so there's no way to get a sense of that number. >> no, not to that degree. >> actually, my real question, sir because you represent tenants one of the scenarios i was thinking a last night what about a scenario it's been said

a lot of our in law tenants are rented to folks who english may not be they're first language but anyway, i know, i know as well the in law units are made up of immigrants. i appreciate there's something in the legislation that prevented a landlord from illegal listing a unit if there's a no fatality eviction obtain their record so i could evict a family i don't report it and the family may not know the process or be intimidated so i raise the rent on my unit more than what i was charring previously when they unit was legal. so i'm curious to our thought.

i appreciate it >> i think a landlord that sort of uses harassment and threats to get people to move that's a separate sort of problem but i think it for this situation where the landlord so not going to subvert the law and one concern is evictions preceding the legitimization so that the landlord because the illegal units are covered now but if, if you have a tenant paying $900 and the landlord is going to legalize it he's going to want to get in somebody who is going to pay $2,000.

so we wanted a moratorium for the tenant to bypass to get rid of the motivation to evict tenants prior to the legitimization or in the middle of the legitimization process or the process. the 3 concerns were 3 bottom lines where this is the tenant protections like that that the building can't be subdivided into condos what is now a one unit building to a two unit building and the tenants don't have to pay for the costs of the legitimization. also are the 3 >> i think your last two concerns are addressed in the elective. again, i could still evict ted you and your family and if you didn't know the process and i

didn't openly report it >> i see the buy outs and the harassment so, i mean that will happen here. >> ize interest thank you very much. >> supervisor i wanted to address why the landlord would go to the rent board many won't especially in this housing stock if the landlord it doesn't matter to us if the unit is legal or legally only that that's covered under the protections of justify cause so if the landlord wants to go to legal retainer they have to go though the process.

and certainly many tenant wouldn't know their rights >> i understand the way it currently is i'm appreciative. i know a lot of tenants don't go to the rent board for rent protection >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm maria i'm an advocate for the justify cause. many of the folks we see in the clinic come 40 from the 9/11 unit they come into our clinic they're looking to enjoy like a good living there are rats and others issues as advocates and you counselors we can do as much

pressure and negotiation with the property owners up to a point and there's a point because we can't go to the department of building inspections to ask that they are had been ability and maintenance requirements take into account or that property owners are held accountability for the unit there's a place we're not able to support tenants in being able to live in the habitual properties this will open up the departments to cooperate to make sure there are habitual habitual unites and like it's been said many of the in-laws are families n life in them and their some of the last affordable housing options for the tenants.

we appreciate this legislation and appreciate the thought and we support it and hope you all will as well >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you. hello supervisors i'm karen wood i'm on the board of directors on the improvement club. one of the guidelines which were adapted by planning commission in 1999, obviously, i'm here on behalf of the colleague karen bres listen to support this and mr. reiterating eerie think very = conventional put forth the legislation possibility of e

rhodes housing in san francisco. as part of preparing our test and our residential design guidelines we surveyed all the home there are many 2 bath homes that are suitable for the families that's a middle-income family most of the homes have middle-income. there's an opportunity for families to buy single-family homes in the neighborhood. it's my concern and i think that karen bris listen pointed out very clearly families will not be able to expedite - compete

with speculators it will no longer be an affordable real estate stock for families. listening to all this testimony it's obvious there's compelling argument and that august's for more diverse applications of this legislation frappes it can go back to the drawing board to meet the districts in special ways. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm charley i didn't goes i'm here representing the san francisco apartment coalition. i have a couple of small non-indisputable especially amendments on on page 5 the legislation as written allows

legislation to the rear yards. there are many circumstances where the main buildings encroaches into the rear yard and they need a variance from the rear yard variance. if this is allowed the administrative exemption should apply. the second amendment we're suggesting we also submitted open friday has to do with the prescreening process. we are thankful there's a prescreening process in place. and we understand there might be an issue making the screening process unanimous but we want some information to be redacted perhaps the specific address on the prescreening process.

we are also supportive of the ability to pass on the costs of this work advertised 80 percent over 10 years and i appreciate your consideration >> thank you very much. any additional public comment on item number 1. mr. turner and ms. new >> thank you, supervisors brook turning. i let my colleague know i didn't understand what she told me. i want to thank supervisor wiener for your work we appreciate that and canoeing we appreciate you're trying to

address this issue that's been going on forever and forever. we've gotten favorite than we had and i applaud what you're trying to accomplish. there are issues and bay we were pleased to be part of the discussion on the working group discussion. there are certainly issues regarding the pass throughs and the remerger issues but those can be addressed. i think my associate or colleague at the department spoke on minor amendments that could be addressed that would make it more palatable to our organization. but i want to say we'll respectfully oppose the amendment that will only allow regulation of units that are

currently inhabltd one of the objectives people's 3 of this legislation is to increase the had beenable housing stock but that will inhabit the goal. and not allow folks to legalize these unit so thank you very much >> thank you, ms. new. >> san francisco apartment association thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you supervisor chiu for allowing us to be part of the process arrest one thing we're concerned about perhaps in the planning document we have some sort of disclosure to applicant their conversion any trigger rent control issues we don't want

anyone coming in and thinking their exempt from rent control and just some sort bodily disclosure that is a please contact on attorney about whether this opt will be subject to rent control or not so people are aware of what they're getting into one way or the other. thank you very much >> any additional public comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues the matter is back in the hands of the committee >> thank you. i want to take a moment to thank the public. this was very, very thoughtful feedback and i want to thank you all who have been working with our office to vet through a challenging piece of legislation and also to say i know while

we're not going to be able to address every concern. but i have two technical amendments to suggest and a number of comments richmond to public comment and some of the comments to the city apartments regarding new issues to think through while we're here with the public. first of all, two comments. the first is to clarify the language on legislation on parking it's clear we are trying to allow for reduction in parking only when is it lost from a in law unit so strike package six the clause that the reduction of parking permits will be in compliance and to insert at the same place a new section that says off street

parking go reduced for dwelling units in this section without the compliance of section 3 or 5 of this code it's relatively technical that's to clarify what it comes down to parking >> thank you, president chiu. >> i'll take a moment to adapt that move it. >> the second amendment deals with the intent of the legislative to allow for exceptions to allow the homeowners to legalize their units so the existing language in our legislation doesn't include the main cases where the

encroachment into the rear yard space it strikes an package 5 concurrent subdivision that says a unit is as a single-family unit shall not require a variance of section 134 important in order to grant the legal status and propose we insert at the page 5 subsection one to authorize this must satisfy all applicable elements of the code except for the rashgd requirements set forth in section 140 and otherwise to this section so again another technical amendment. >> okay. can we have a motion on that amendment. >> so moved.

>> the meantime is adapted. >> i want to have a little bit of enter play just raised about the prescreening process and the rationale behind the prescreening was to have homeowners come to the building inspectors but if it turns out the new improvements is two expensive or for whatever reign e reason they don't want it they won't have to move forward in the screening process. so my question is there a way to create a little bit more aminity so the homeowners can come forward with the information and their information won't be used against them is there a way to balance that? >> good afternoon. i'm tom will director of the building

inspectors. i think we have a little bit good idea like run the soft story program we have them come forward with the form to submit to the form. i think it's a good role model to follow they can have the professional to checkout our unit first to see the work and if they're issues may not be convertible then instead of coming to us we've send our inspector to checkout once we go out there, there be enforcement issue then we find a

life-threatening safety issue it's not good to the homeowner if they want to legalize it in the process to, you know, it's easier for them to come up with the professional to checkout first >> i guess if it turns out if you were to indirect and symfind some life-threatening safety k if not is there a way to have aminity. >> generally there's an ordinance basz passed by board for example, we'll come up with a unique do they have the right ceiling height or have the electrician to toukt the

electrical to see that their compiling to the code. of course, if there's more than a 2 unit there maybe another requirement. we were trying to make it easier, you know, for them to checkout and more outreach by our department >> i want to ask the city attorney how to protect themselves. >> you don't think gibner. i think the challenge here is the legislation would require the applicants to submit information about their property including some evidence that the unit currently exists and information on the check list that the department will prepare and other other information that the department requires. i think it's a largely a

practical logical question whether the department can review all the materials without knowing that the location or the name of the property owner. it maybe something that the department has to work out and practice to see how much they can do without the legislation. maybe the legislation can have language that says the department will make efforts toward that end >> in the meantime supervisor kim do you have a question on this topic. >> that's a question on the dbi and let me see if rosemary. >> i'd like to resolve this. >> members of the board. chief housing inspector a couple of thoughts the first is the

prescene of the crime situation is much is can be presented to the department as a hypothetical if the department can give information back and what was mentioned earliest at that particular time any property that requires informed content to the property owner the occupant must give us content before we go in and the potential of the department based on direction from our commission the director and the board of supervisors having a policy that we will not unless we have some reasonable belief

there's an imminent hazard we won't gone based on the information at the time of the prescreening convention. this elective go back back from elective 20 years ago what is was the first citywide elective gives a component to work with the department of building inspector to see whether or not there's a solution to the electrical situation. if the property owner didn't give us content we don't have probable cause and we won't pursue this. the other issue is whether or not the department there would be a technical law between what

the people then dealing with the prescheduling conference and talking with the individual at the prescheduled convention would ever give that information inform the code enforcement document >> meaning we don't know we're totally looking at this hypothetically but specific hypothetically with a particular property that protects the concerns as far as code enforcement unless we have reasonable to building there's a hazard. so in terms of if there want an imminent hazard there was no evidence to be used >> at this time it's our policy not to pressure a warrant. >> so i'm wondering i know that supervisor kim has other questions but i