i think of course i'm happy to continue this discussion. but we should continue this item in order to give everyone an opportunity to make whatever proposed changes to hopefully talk this out with the author of the legislation. that's my suggestion. and again, this is the reason why. i know that these are the folks that the families that i have mentioned before are going to be the ones negatively impacted. speculators are not. i don't want to see this continue to impact my community neglect atively. >> supervisor breed, you have two options to continue this later on in this meeting or continue to a date certain in the future. which motion would you like to make? >> i will continue this to the end of the meeting depending on the attorney if not continue to the following

week if we can't resolve how these various recommendations for amendments overlap. >> these motions to continue this to the later time in this meeting. there is three motions to amend that are still attached to this legislation at this time. madam clerk, can you call the next item, please. city clerk: item 16: [planning, building, administrative, and subdivision codes - legalization of dwelling units installed without a permit] sponsors: chiu; wiener, avalos and mar ordinance amending the planning and building codes to provide a process for granting legal status to existing dwelling units constructed without the required permits, temporarily suspending the code enforcement process for units in the process of receiving legal status, and prohibiting units from being legalized under the provisions of this ordinance if there have been no-fault evictions; amending the administrative code to prohibit the costs of legalization from being passed through to the tenant; amending the subdivision code to prohibit legalized units from being subdivided and separately sold; affirming

the planning department's california environmental quality act determination; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to submit this ordinance to the california department of housing and community development in accordance with california government code, section 65852.22hh.12341234 >> president chiu? chiu thank you colleagues. this is legislation that i introduced last november for applying to legal status to our city. i want to thank supervisors wiener and mar and breed for their cosponsorship. we know that we have families being pushed out of the city and shadow economy involving illegal unit. there were 20-30 thousand in laws building in 1960 and 90 percent of them were not permitted. there are 8,000 of them illegal. that represented 10 percent of our housing stocks. who lives in these units? they are tennants and the most

vulnerable tennants, seniors and families with many children, immigrants and lowest income and longer term residents. these are units affordable but often the tends are in them have challenged legal rights. 40-5 percent who live in these units don't have written leases. for many years there has been a calling for legalization. the housing element stated secondary units are housing method for expanding housing supply. california state law has proetd -- promoted state in laws. the city has turned a blind eye to these in laws and the housing has permitted of these in laws based on complaints. which is why i year ago icon convenience --

convened a large table. the san francisco tennants union, the asian law caucus, the chinese development center and housing clinic and others. on property owner sides the housing realtors and citywide housing advocates, spur, livable cities and many city departments that did work on this among others. what i'm proposed today is very simple that we allow an owner to legalize one existing in law unit without additional permit or a citywide basis. that we wave local planning rules that don't deal with like safety so they don't need to meet additional open space requirements, no additional need to add parking and no additional need for zoning.

it does not require exits and entrances, fire and plumbing and electrical, etc. there are really three fold purposes why we move forward with this is to bring 10s of thousands of units to propose housing that are at risk of elimination and keep vacant units off the market. secondly, we wanted to move forward with this legislation to protect tennants who live with fear and vulnerability with regard to their tenancy status. there are five things we are doing for tennants, protecting and assuring rent control status, and this legislation does not permit cost pass through for major capital improvements and doesn't allow for subdivisions and counter conversion, and if there is construction to be

done, this requires relocation and reimbursement and permits legalization if there have been no fault evictions for the legal process to begin. third, is to help home owners and first and foremost we know these values will exist if rented. secondly we produce planning and zoning, and we create certainty and clarity as these owners of these buildings rent and we want to make this as easy as possible with a very small nominal fee to move forward with this process and prescreening process to allow owners to bring up to code without any fear of enforcement. let me close with a couple final comments, we heard at our

land use committee a lot of comments. we heard from someone renting in law units from friends but at risk of being evicted because a neighbor complaining of enforcement. we heard from others who testify to ease which tennants can be evicted from these units and we heard from home owners tonya sullivan who kepd her in law unit in her home vacant knowing she can't rent it out but can use it to support the family if this law passes. it affects tennants like brian and tonya. we believe this proposal would create a physical legal pathway to bound both housing

preservation and both. do you want to take a moment to acknowledge this year long process and complicated issue and we heard from complications from a number of neighborhoods in supervisor yee's district. my response is these units already exist in homes throughout the entire city and they house thousands of residents, we need an alternative to the status quo. doing nothing is not a real solution. now, i do understand there are some on the other hand who think this legislation doesn't go far enough. that by allowing legalization to be volunteer rather than mandatory, not enough property owners will come forward to legalize these units. i appreciate that is a perspective. my response is really, we need to take a first major step in moving forward and we need to understand what's going on and our legislation requires

every 6 months so there is monitoring with regard to what is happening on the ground with regard to legalization so we can take a step forwards and think about legalizing in a mandatory way. i would like to thank the 5 of us who are cosponsors to this legislation and i would ask for your support. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. supervisor's chiu's legislation can make some laws safer by requiring building code standards. i would acknowledge that. my priority as a supervisor is to do everything possible to maintain families and including protecting family housing. i don't like the legislation would allow in law units to be legalized citywide across all zoning districts no matter when the units were built and no matter what the neighborhood wants or needs. i cannot support such a far

reaching change that doesn't respect decades of our best thinking around zoning and neighborhood preservation. rewards, illegal behavior by allowing landlords who broke the city's law, a path to legalization. this legislation could have unintended consequences which are the opposite of what the goals of the legislations are. this includes displacement of tennants, increase in rent. encourage speculation. for the units that can't be utilized does not enforce it's own code. i would like to add to this legislation. i'm sorry i didn't put this all in 1 piece. i passed out two files to you. the first one is is to look at the rh 1d units. this

is to amend that these units would not be part of this legislation. it protects family appropriate housing present appropriation and development housing and encourage remodeling of existing housing for families with children. the other amendment i would like to offer is around a pilot program. the pilot program i believe it is the most prudent approach. it would require a report to be prepared by declining after 50 units are legalized in rh 2 and rh 3 zoning district. the total number of applications filed to legalize existing dwelling units, the total number of permits that have been issued

to legalize dwelling units and total number of dwelling units to have been legalized. an evaluation of the types of units being developed and their affordability rates would be important to find out what this pilot project. this will lead to an informed proposal. >> do i have a motion and second to those. let's take them one at a time. supervisor yee, your 1st amendment, you can specify the topics? >> sure. the 1st amendment is in regards to prohibiting legalization of additional

dwelling units in rh 1 d of zoning districts. >> we have an amendment regarding prohibition of rh 1d. do i have a second? >> second by supervisor tang. discussion on that? >> supervisor cohn. >> my question to the maker of the motion what do we do to the in law units that are illegal already zoned in rh 1d. there are illegal units that exist. what happens to those units? do we turn a blind eye and forget about them? >> part of what you are asking is whether this legislation will ask everybody that has illegal units to convert and it maybe would read this that

pathway. i'm just saying that in particular in district 7 where we have a lot of these types of units and their desire, the concerns that people have around whether there is going to be motivation to ones that maybe to build in law units in the near future or not is a big question for us. >> so i think from my perspective or my concern is that you are in essence robbing a property owner of a right to choose to govern the future of their property. am i misunderstanding your amendment? >> i'm not too sure to say that i'm robbing anybody of anything. if i'm what i have done is been able to talk a lot of people with these

properties and probable 99 people out of 100 would support this. >> did you talk to a hundred people? >> yes i did. >> so basically -- i understand this. i want to make sure i understand this correctly and mr. chiu maybe you can walk me through. your legislation is voluntary, right? that if a property owner chooses to voluntarily participate in this conversion, there is no penalties or restrictions should they do so, correct? and what i understand is that this motion is basically saying that although there are in law units already out there, we are going to prohibit you from having the ability to participate in whether you want to or not in converting or legalizing your

in law unit? >> supervisor cohn, yes, the answer is this is volunteer and for home owners that want to move forward with this in the rh 1d area under supervisor yee, they wouldn't be allowed to do it. let me say, supervisor yee i appreciate your constituents. a select of members of this committee came from this and i appreciate you discussing the challenges of this fact and with these amendments you wouldn't be able to support the legislation. i think that is a factor as i think about this. i will not be able to support this amendment for a couple of reasons as suppose or cohn just pointed out that this means that home owners within those areas that have in law units that those in law units won't be able to be voluntarily legalized. and this still leaves those

individuals in those neighborhoods in the legal limbo that we've been talking about. let me mention another issue that are raised by those neighbors covenants and agreement on what they permit and don't permit . there was a concern from my legislation that those would impact those. i included to make it clear that my ordinance does not supercedes those and my addressing the concerns by supervisor yee and his concerns for the district. the other thing i would say is that i think it's important that we apply this fairly throughout the entire city because essentially with supervisor yee's amendment this would be saying in 10 or 11 districts we are moving forward with this but a portion of supervisor yee's district we won't be doing that. we have existing in

laws in every district in every neighborhood. those foegz -- folks are there and people are living in them and we need to think about how we think about this and make sure that we are creating the same balance throughout the city. there are likely many more in law units in supervisor avalos district or other neighborhoods in the district, but i certainly think for those that currently exist in the rh 1 d area we should give those home owners and opportunity if they want to voluntarily do this and if they want to not move forward with that. >> supervisor cohn? >> thank you very much. supervisor malia cohen: supervisor chiu, thank you for bringing this legislation forward. i was really excited to begin the conversation and the policy discussion back in november. over the months i have tempered a little bit of

my enthusiasm to think about the impact of this legislation to be to the southeast neighborhoods. and i believe that we do need to begin somewhere with incentivizing with encouraging property owners to legalize these units. it's actually through my office and the code enforcement work that we've been doing is counter illegal in law units with predominantly low income tennants living in them. handful of them coming from being section 8 voucher holders. when these units are discovered and the property owners must remove them, they have to evict the tennants who are often as supervisor breed mention are often the least able to compete in the residential market. despite to what some people are saying, i believe this is a special

component to the affordable housing in our city. i personally rented an in law unit in ex-else -- and they provide income for the small property owners. we don't have the appropriate data to answer at this particular time and i'm wondering if we have any representative from dbi in the audience today. i want to ask you a couple of questions. i want to ask the department of building and inspection to include in their 6-month evaluation of the program or excuse me we have not begun to answer a lot of question at this time including whether

or not we should be allowing pass throughs. the property owners to pat some legalization cost to tennants. i ask the building of inspection include this in their 6-month evaluation of the program so that at the end of six 6 months we have a more fuller picture of real data to make better informed decision to how to proceed forward in dealing with this issue. in district 10, we've got many several in law units that could be eligible for legalization under this new process. i want to give you an opportunity to comment on the ability to collect data. >> as i understand part of the bill strong with adoption

department of building inspection planning would keep a map of this going forward. we would certainly be collecting some data. the building department has nothing to do with the pass through that comes through usually the rent board or some other review. obviously department department of building inspection. we can get that and we would be ethiopia do -- happy to do that. >> thank you very much. >> we have a motion on the floor and second by supervisor yee and tang. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: i was going to speak on the legislation overall. we want to go on to discuss the amendment itself. >> let's do the amendment right now. supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, mr. chairman. i

support the legislation for a lot of the reasons that president chiu mentioned. i want to thank him for his support and his staff for doing a great job of getting this together and moving it forward and i will be voting for the legislation today. in terms of the amendments and just so i don't have to speak again, i know there is only one amendment that is formally seconded. i don't support the pilot program of only allowing 50 units. i think that undermines the purpose of the legislation. i don't think it makes sense to me in terms of moving in that direction. i won't be supporting that. in terms of and it will also exclude all of rh 1 and there are a lot of areas of rh 1 and in my district where there is a lot of these units. i think

it goes further than i would want to go. in terms of supervisor yee's amendment, i'm sorry, no. 1, the amounts that exclude rh 1d, as a mentioned in committee i am open to amendment to take into account only rh 1d. it's a very discrete set of neighborhood in supervisor yee's district. there is very few of these units in the rh 1d zoning. i am open to that. i would is a that i would only consider supporting that amendment is we remove the language that starts at the

bottom of page 3 and run for the top of page 5 which are a series of findings i think duplicating i think very problematic findings passed by the board of supervisors in 1984. in the 80s the state legislature passed the law requiring localities for allowing secondary units. san francisco purported to exempt itself from that legislation. it is what it is, but that's the ordinance that was passed and it contains these findings that i think are inaccurate and contains a blanket finding that supposedly losing a single family home with the addition of in law units is somehow anti-family because they want to be in single family homes. yes, we love

single family homes, but the fact in san francisco, i know a lot of families who are not able to afford a single family house. there are a number of things, what's driving families out of this city is the unaffordability of housing. if a family wants to be in a single family home, many families will never be able to afford a home in san francisco. there are other housing options they need to consider. our restrictive housing policies in this city, having the city grown over 75,000 people in this decade and only adding 80,000 units and exploding prices, that is what's causing problems for families. these findings if they had any connection to the facts from the ground in 1984, i don't think they would today. i'm open to supporting the amendment exempting rh 1d

districts. but only if those findings are stripped out because i will not support any legislation that reiterates those erroneous findings. >> okay. supervisor wiener has made an amendment to supervisor yee's amendment. can i have a second? we have a full roster here. is there anyone here, supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: i would like to speak on the original amendment but it's fine on the motion as amended. can i speak on that. >> hold on. let's amend it first. can we take supervisor wiener's motion without objection. >> can you ask him to restate his motion. >> can you restate the motion? >>supervisor scott weiner:

i'm happy to restate as a motion. this is to label yee as a 1. my motion to strip out from the bottom of page 3 line 23 to the top of page 6 line 3 which are findings repeated from the 1984 ordinance. so that would be my motion. >> okay. supervisor wiener has made a motion. president chiu? chiu: i support this and i don't support and i don't believe we are achieving what it is set to achieve on this motion. >> can we take supervisor

wiener's motion without objection? okay. so moved. on supervisor yee's amendment as amended. supervisor tang? next on the roster? we have supervisor yee's motion now to amend for rh 1d and it's been amended and approved by the full board by supervisor wiener and taken discussion on that 1st amendment by supervisor yee. >>supervisor katy tang: no comment on the amendment. >> supervisor cohn? >>supervisor malia cohen: you mentioned there were not many units in an rh 1d zone. how do you know that and if you can identify your source? >> just from a few

conversations i have had and i do not have the data on that. >> is there a particular staff that i can follow up with to find the answer? >> no. >> okay. thanks. >> supervisor avalos was next? >>supervisor john avalos: i took my name off the roster. do we want to vote on the amendment. >> discussion on the amendment. we have two amendments offered by supervisor yee. let's go with that amendment now. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you. i want to speak on the amendment before us. i sympathize with the amendment that supervisor yee moved forward. we did get a few e-mails from others from