limit it to prohibit the construction of adu's where tenants have been displaced by ellis act eviction my first motion to amend and the third, i wanted to add a few more comments i don't think i talked about enough b why i want to prohibit the adu's but a capture things in - this is my concern of in law and career ray being permitted they have the same addresses and this is more common in other parts of the district you're not talking about units but single-family homes and in-law unit the main homeownership will use their address and say they live there full-time to 365 and year and

doing unlimited hosted nights now if in their in-law unit and no tenants that is challenging for the planning department to determine based on the address that's is before you where there is a tenants or are that's my concern of the legislation that's why we should state the adu's are really for permanent tenants and not short-term rentals my worry that will be a full-time rental given the address is confusing and it will be hard to enforce now for the third time i'll ask - on the first amendment i appreciate supervisor wiener's comment we amended our process there will be a point in time it will be difficult to do condominium conversion but the comments

supervisor wiener that not a lot of people will take advantage if we can't condo convert it makes we worry about we're passing the legislation to increase the units on the market now people are not going to do it if at some point to turn it both a condos we should put my first motion to prohibit subdividi those units to fractureized units i want to do the motions to amendment 1, 2, 3 but i wanted to express why i put forward those motions. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair and the complafrgsz supervisor kim with the short-term rentals and the separated address i think that is may be true with all off the of the illegal units my understanding of the process

where you create a housing unit whether a brand new building or adding a legal adu into an existing you automatically receive an address not my understanding you can't create a legal between in san francisco without being assigned an address yes people can lie and cheat and try in a lot of areas in life and someone could buy a little and say i live there 20th century and 65 days a year i think we should treat all the housing stock the same after going through several years of challenging and complicated efforts to regulate short-term rentals and a ballot measure that didn't require and restrict short-term rentals if it pass it

should apply to all housing units in terms of condominium conversion i was not signifying people will do this to go into the condo lottery but polling people convert they know they'll be around for 50 or how many owners and owners after that i think that people are hesitant to put permanent restrictions on the prompt of no intent to go got condo lottery i want to give the deputy city attorneys the time to compromise in outlet ellis act restrictions there's a number of years we'll have or the prohibition has remained in take for a certain amount of years my understanding to not

vital the ellis act to ms. burdens can you comment. >> yes. deputy city attorney mirena burns through the chair he wanted to comment on all 3 properties in terms of referring back to the planning commission and wla whether they'll need another hearing at planning department they didn't consider the proposal that will require a referral to the planning commission to consider that and give a recommendation with regard to the ellis act amendment our proposing needs another hearing we'll into custody 80 need to provide the committee and the full board is aware interest is nightmare court bays cases on the ellis act and our ability to restrict the use of property related to the ellis act so we need cautionary advise and another committee hearing i'll recommend

the quell you're asking that the ellis act amendment that have been in the boards legislation have been times restricted that's because both to make them respective going forward from today, i recommend you only committed the ellis act that includes today or hear their none notice the ellis act violation is a legal listing a dwelling in-law unit and have it be time restricted like 5 years and the reasoning for that is that we want to avoid the issue of looking like we're punishing someone that went into the ellis act that was w wasn't on in his

like legal listing an accessory between you want to put people on notice not to create an scaresy dwelling unit so they can ellis act it that's one concern and in terms of the prohibition on short-term rentals i think that will require another committee hearing but not referred back the planning commission and ms. burdens for example right now that is been this way for a decade under the condos lottery ordinance or is subdivision or lottery if you ellis acted a building your banned from the condolence lottery it a permanence if you ellis act a senior or disabled that make sense to remedy indicate that provision i'm curious i can't recall off the top of my head if

so 5 or 10 years. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns through the chair i'm not fall with the language but the languages that was recently proposed as amendments to the short-term rentals legislation and that had language that said in the ellis act eviction had occurred after the date we used there was november of 2014 because that's when that amendment went into effect so any ellis act eviction that happens after monday, july 20, 2015, and a 5 years thereafter, those properties will not be able to legalize an accessory dwelling unit something along those are lines we can come up with better language. >> it will apply to ellis act evicts that are noticed today and if the ellis act once ellis

act is trirgd when i the owner than a period of x number of years you'll not been able to add the adu that was 5 years in the short-term rentals into supervisor campos and supervisor farrell proposed. >> yes. >> it was 5 years. >> it was 5 years in both of the legislation. >> my recollection of the condo lottery i think 5 years maybe 10 years for the length of the band if i've done awning ellis act i thought that was permanent if you're a senior disabled evicted under the ellis act i can't recall with certainty. >> all right. thank you very much seeing none next is supervisor christensen. >> thank you i certainly appreciate the

concerns as i said niagara anything we do deserves a lot of scrutiny by i hear supervisor kim some of your concern is currently covered by restriction such as a short-term rentals some of it is not an immediate issue in case of catalytic i hope we can address the immediate issues we're about to hear on item after this one in which restrictions were passed years ago to respond to a particular condition the guidelines and changes to the building code were extremely narrow and extremely rigid and difficult to change what happened the circumstances changes but the regulations didn't we end up with restrictions that boxed us in as

conditions changed over time this is something we're in an interesting juncture we're looking at where we will be in 5, 1015 years i want to marry this is reasonably enforced we leave enough room for changes to come some of the changes we're worried about are either covered legally or probably not likely to happen one thing supervisor kim you and i share our district have the greatest difference in transmittals i have a lot of small cottages but we say high-rises we talked to property owners addressed planning department the absorptions that most of those changes are likely to occur in the corridors p

there are last year building stockton and pine and bush sutter those types of areas and you know the telegraph hill for example the residential units that are less likely to be effected probably and so we've generally tried to focus on making sure this work for a larger apartment buildings we feel in the district is most likely to our and use of units are probably less significant than they might be let's say if this is applied to the we were western neighborhoods. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> i want to proficient or presented but don't want to treat attendance different i didn't support one legislation my concern with adu is around the ability for hoernz and property owners to be in the

system and property owners i'd like to hear more about that maybe the department of building inspection can walk through how they're assigned an address and in that arena i'd like to hear about that in the meantime i want to keep the amendment with amendment number 2 anl evictions any incision to be that we prohibit the construction of adu's in any building where the taenltsz are displaced by the ellis act in the last 10 years sorry for 10 years not 5 now i want to keep anothers retrofit tilt over the week we decide donate not illegal permissible or questionable next he monday we'll bring it back as ms. burns school district i

don't agree we can be retrofit and up to 10 years we've done it already so my motion i'll make my motion for the second piece prohibiting the construction of adu's for tenants that have been displaced by the ellis act for 10 years. >> let's go motion by motion. >> that's referred to a motion you've heard the motion by supervisor kim any further discussion. >> supervisor wiener. >> if the eviction as outdoor within 10 years with the adu is applied for i'm not sure what the 10 years is for . >> you can't constrict an adu for 10 years. >> after an ellis act eviction and after an ellis act restriction. >> i'll support that in terms of retrofit activity i assume

we'll get size from the city attorney my understanding we typically have not mating made a retrofit but the supervisors daily and others that are clearly no friends of the ellis act and so i think there's a legal reason for that i want to make sure we know that this legislation will hold up in court so the deputy city attorney we'll get legal advice. >> thank you deputy city attorney mirena burns dactylothrough the chair the reason for prospective not retrofit noted punitive on people that wouldn't have known there is a restriction if they ellis acted their units. >> through the chair i believe there is legislation we've promoted that retroactively but during the week we'll explore

it. >> we'll take that without objection. that motion passes all right. >> supervisor kim could i make our second. >> sure my second motion is actually just literally lifting this permissible provision from supervisor chiu which is to lgbt adu's or requiring adu's to be permanently maintained as right lanes for individual sale. >> any financial discussion. >> so that amendment is a little bit different than before i assumed this to be a band on the entering the condo lottery through the chair sxm is the amendment also to say that an owner can't reside in one of the adu's it has to be rented. >> no, i'm sorry it is a conversion of units to ownership

i see what you're saying if the owner moves in they'll own the unit i'll clarify to prohibit the condominium conversion or fractional ownership through a separate owner. >> as the reasons i've stated i'll not support in amendment i don't think it is a good idea to take one class of buildings and a as they're treating it different we've scaled back the condo lottery back to lifetime in the - we're going to tell owners in addition to the owners the money to build an adu we'll permanent band this building from the condo lottery is not the right direction. >> i'll be voting for this amendment and probably have a different mindset supervisor wiener i believe that all the

housing unit we shouldn't be treating all rh1 and rh2 housing equally they are different ava different sdorn so i'll be supporting that. >> to the deputy city attorney this will cause both pieces of legislation referred to the planning commission am i correct. >> yes. my understanding the planning commission didn't consider this. >> my request then to supervisor cowen or the maker is this could be introduced as trailing legislation so this is not referred to the planning commission one thing to a continuance but take this away from the board to the planning commission and basically restart the process from skach i would

ask we not go down that road. >> i don't have a problems are supporting that as trailer legislation and yeah. duplicating the file and send on amended version back to the planning department on this motion. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns you can introduce separate legislation. >> i'd like to did you want the file and all the time one. >> it's my understanding we can do that. >> so let's take a vote on just mr. clerk as a point of clarification take the vote and duplication the file and there's no need to take a vote on duplication that can happen within the request. >> okay all right. thank you very much our i think we're clear on the motion before us let's do a roll call vote on the

second motion supervisor kim and a. >> and a motion to amend the condo on the duplicate version not on the primer version. >> that's correct. >> did you get that mr. clerk and the original version without the amendment number one will be duplicate and then we'll propose an amendment number 2 to the duplicate file and take a vote at this time. >> that's correct. >> roll call vote please. on amendment 2 supervisor wiener arrest no. >> supervisor kim supervisor cohen that motion passes. >> the dial is duplicate and back to the planning commission and the other mr. will move forward supervisor kim ask you introduce. >> the final will be to

prohibit the adu from short-term rentals. >> any further discussion on this okay. let's call a roll call vote on this. >> on amendments to amendment number 3 on that motion supervisor wiener no supervisor kim supervisor cowen that motion passes. >> the that motion passes. >> i'm sorry was that on the - that was on the both versions because that didn't have to go back to the planning commission. >> my understanding on the original version with amendment number one and now political amendment 3 to that one. >> ms. burden you answer supervisor wiener and that's correct they had that

hearing multiple times. >> all right. mr. clerk can you please call item no. 7 please. actually we have to act on the other line item >> say that again. >> we have to act on that item to the deputy city attorney do those two amendments require a continuance to the land use commission. >> yes. regarding the ellis act they require another hearing. >> so i make a motion to continue items five and six one week. >> all right. mansion made without objection. >> i'm sorry the 5 and 6 for the unduplicate version and motion to table for one week. >> continue. >> continue items five and six that motion passes.

>> and on the duplicate portion. >> make a motion to the planning commission and we've referred to the planning commission. >> we'll refer to planning. >> we'll take that without objection. that motion passes. >> mr. clerk call number 7. >> item 7 on amending the planning code to amend an restaurant or bar in the special integrity to open with the conditional use authorization provided that it meets purview to the planning department environmental impact determination and making finding with the general plan. >> thank you sxhiefshgs is the author of that item supervisor christensen the floor is yours. >> so that is one the restrictive situations we've talked about a large prominent location in north beach that's

been vacant for 11 years it has been determined one of the reasons some of the use restrictions that are police station on that we think about changing those but in this case we've decided the benching best thing to a amend that and we have proposed and gotten an agreement with the planning commission to addresses this lot separately we've got a beloved neighborhood our local momma's restaurant is poepd to create a second restaurant in a specialist take out location there we're very excited we've received overwhelming support from the indications that the neighborhood and altering another merchant welcome this the site is a blight unlisted and not having someone around it everybody is excited it in an

active use in the hopes that will increases the business traffic to the surrounding businesses this was heard by the small business commission and they made a couple of recommendations i'm happy to include and if i can ask supervisor wiener assistance in this they have suggested we strike bar from restaurant and bar and on this use a restaurant we have a continuance business is allowed to occupy this space and they ask we change that from a business and continuous operation from one to 5 years so if the committee will accept those recommendations then i'll put this for the for your approval. >> supervisor christensen has made amendments before we vote we want to take public comment on this item

please members of the public please come up for. >> hi, i'm kevin with the planning department staff can i get the overhead. >> i'm sorry, i didn't know that we had a staff presentation. >> for just by way of orientation this as map of the various special use districts that apply not north beach area the north beach special use district the subject of the discussion today is old in the black and yellow line i'll trace here as you can see it rinses primarily along the columbus avenue and grand avenue frontals within north beach along the commercial properties as indicated this would be an amendment to the north beach sud regulations that are currently

bring in a restaurant and bar that was previously occupied by service this is the case at the location proposed for that the second momma's restaurant on vallejo street that applies to two other properties provided they meet criteria so as amended this could only be amended noted by supervisor christensen the existing restaurant would have to operate within the neighborhood for 5 of the last 5 years the proposed location for a second operation will have to be a ground level measure 5 thousand square feet and vacant for more than 15 months and 40 percent of the psychiatrist set aside for non-commercial uses that is the neighborhoods service intent and the proposal consistent wtd general policies and planning the planning code

and provide a intellectual benefit to the neighborhood and it will be considered through the conditional use authorization for individual users that might co-come forward and that cu been considered by the planning commission in terms of the legislation on june 4th the planning commission recommended approval the memento amendment and approve the ccii on vallejo street and the small business commission recommend the amendments so this that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you so you're here for public comment. >> yes. i'm vince sanchez part of family who is operated

momma's on washington square our parents michael and francis they've been in business since 1951 on the corner of stockton and part of the north beach community for 64 years it is a very popular restaurants they've line up daily from two to two notch hours that was the line for looking at 627 when the small business community educating less than bringing this to our attention 627 fits our plans we understood that was a always some concerns in the neighborhood we listened to everybody that came up with a concept little momma's grocery is unique to the ear in listening to the concerns and to the overwhelming supporter from the get go it become apparent

quickly that had we not had the supports right from the beginning we with would stepped away if this we're going on 33 judge's we've valued our time and the money we've expended on the project the concept is unique and 627 as the the code reads will not be rented again not said it is not feasible for grocery stores e.r. hardware stores it is a building that time has changed and part because of technology a ton of xheefgs to walgreens sea trade joe's and smaller markets little momma's is the right place at this