understanding their plight and the options until it was too late for avoid and many of them left the city and area i think that it is vital to pass this legislation to support the many people throughout the city living in affordable housing unpermitted affordable housing and it is too late torso. we need this legislation as much as possible so i think that is important to make that applicable as in maker as well thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon chair cohen and others i'm jan the director apartment association in longing at the public and looking at this legislation i want to make a recommendation this board and group deals with the issues at

1049 market street separately from the rest of the city and also that you deal with single-family homes with in-law units separately then multiple units residential and commercial buildings to defy types of housing units that need to be dealt with so a single-family home what that legislation will do a homeowner is unable to legalize your pencil lists them until the criteria goes through as well a loss of rental income overseeing attendants will not be paying their rent otherwise so when you're looking at the single-family homes with an additional units your punishing people mainly marching middle-class and poor folks on the multi units building with

the people trying to legalize with the units not warned my understanding they're running into a lot of problems and dbi trying to get this done i recommend the body next hearing on is legislation that is this implicated we require the department heads to address some of the issues we know we have the planning department staff and the dbi staff and in deference to commissioner walker but not the person give us advice we have complicated rent control questions here is that department head if the rear deck no so how can you handle this without you, your department heads to address the answers to those questions that exist so butterfly recommendation separate the single-family homes

at as somebody recommend and deal with 1049 market street separately an address the larger part time buildings that are trying to legalize those units and having a hell of a lot of problems added dbi quitter punishing people it is everybody's fault. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm cash i've lived the city for quite sometime and live others 1049 market i agree with several people have said please pass this legislation please make sure it goes into effect without a gap between the interim legislation and the new legislation so we don't see a bunch of actions by landlords the thing i'd like to talk about

is the above the empowering of c-3 zoning district it seems like the legislation says that ground floor and below the ground floor units would not be covered by this if they're in c-3 the actual wording is the loss of one or more residential units requires the ground floor authorization for the c-3 and the upper mc-3 and above the ground floor of the c-3 zoning district now i understand maintaining an active straight you want retail on the ground floor most of buildings we're seeing are 200 feet deep they have retail in front of you think my building has 8 units on the ground floor and those are units

that don't require the elevators or stairs to get to we know there is at least one other building on market street that as units in the basement there is some reason why those - anyway we would like to see those included the legislation thank you. >> and tir through the chair the case of building your referencing. >> uh-huh. >> the 8 units are behind ground floor retail. >> right the desire front is retail except everyone used the access their 8 unit and in great shape the landlords attorney is said it is a fire dagger we'll have the fire inspector no problem. >> thank you.

>> i'm here in support of tenant inspection i'm a retired teacher the after school the san francisco unified school district worked there 20 years and i've lived in the city since i which is a young woman and i want my fellow tenants to stay one of them mentioning i'll tell you about the people in the building professional dancer and affirmative a group of - designer with her own line of clothing we're not the richest but we're creative and responsible he and have a lot to contribute to san francisco as you may know we're in danger of losing our apartment and others in danger we're calling on you to get the landlords to legalize

instead of don't worry about they have been required to get the cu permit so we can object and we ask the first story in c-3 buildings get on the same as other renters it is not reasonable to make a group of people and to a into a second class tenants make the tenants protections applicable for the permits march starting in march 2016 please help all of us keep our homes and vote yes on let san francisco remain a difference community and thank you for the work you've done on affordable housing. >> hello temperatures here i'm here just to ask you guys to please voted

yes on the legislation for the mandatory legalization of permitted housing i do live in the buildings the mid block a lot of apartments are lived in by the artists and they add to the diversity of the area we have a valuable resource although not highly paid i wish that were different i know for a fact working in the building is now in that time collections in berkley and your museum this area included those achievements were aided by the fact that artists were able to live and work in these areas so just has continued reminder kind of what

everyone's has touched on the cultural diversities comes in many forms and it takes time to develop, you know, shouldn't be pushed out for monetary purposes thank you very much. >> hello my name is steve i live on market street i think i'm almost sure it is the same owner as the one thousand 45 people you've heard from it is hard to tell they'll changed their name a lot so i make my checks out to one thousand 67 instead of sf but the same people are making the decisions i want you to vote yes and i want particularly to make it retroactive starting mark 2016 the last time jane kim

interim controls the landlords evicted several of our tenants some got you and some technicalities he moved in a bunch of businesses and remodeled some of the floors that we were moving the office yours into i don't think that is legal but watt those controls i don't have having a right to make an issue since i want to roommate and next door they need cheap quotes places. for their is it so i'd like to rents them but family or i'm front yard the landlords are reject and afraid what he'll side i want to say the owner was in our building and demolishing

several the lofts over the kitchen nets and the shelves to the pantry she said this was not reconstruction remodeling and didn't need a permit but roving fixtures for fire safeties the fire safety architecture didn't hold water it was simple an come down pretext so again thank you for your time i hope you can do something to do me i went to the academy of art urban forest i'd like to stay here. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is naomi i'm president of the small business owner i ask you to deal with the market street separately from our members truly small business owner they

were the people that have in-law units are mainly in district 9, 10 and 11 single-family homes that have small rental unit and in the position of being forced to break the law by renting on illegal units or not being able to collect relents and some renters more often and refuse to pay over members can't necessarily afford the process to legalize some of them would rather having the units back for their own use the members are room cleaners the hotels and postal clerks and bus drivers we're not developers and not attorneys we don't have attorneys on staff we need to be able to live in our single-family homes so what i heard the last couple of days from one of the chinese board members is that the members of

have voluntarily are removed their units and keeping them haven't i have two houses down from me that are vacant this is the only option that these folks have basically this is rezoning the whole city into multi-unit buildings and it is really should be subject to california california environmental quality act review and it should you should take care of those folks that may need some sort of relieve and leave the small business owner to some relieve thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm charlie work on federal affairs i'm dismaced about the conversation taking placed as we

reads is one to inquire the cu and to mandate those two those definition things i'm decimated bias or prejudice are throw the baby out with the bath water talking about this after supervisor chiu provide a volunteery legalization program in hearing some of the exemptions it seems to me one of the motivations behind the issue is to bring the markets to units or provide for these are existing in-law units on the rent-controlled unit if you mandate the legalization for those owners that actually have a illegal unit on their property

if they're not listing to bear the cost those are ground floor units they have less natural light and smaller we call naturally quotes they don't rents for that those the newspapers today service workers and teachers can afford them we feel if this legislations it is passed the units will not be rented out i appreciate your consideration please line up here by the windows good afternoon. supervisors shawn i'm here today to share my comments on this about the demolition of the single families houses i'm concerned about the process of converting to a conditional use creates on

reduce costly and complicated process a group who relies on this industry who are our groups who are the members? generally speaking english is not their native language movement don't have college degrees many are from the immigrant community this is a group that relies on a simpler process especially, when the process works the process we have asked two question is the house above one $.7 million if so answer is yes. you can demolish it but if that house is under one is $.7 million you can't demolish anything under that nonetheless unless it is unsound like house planning is exhaust to whether

it is sounds are not this process was in place for years we had problems with illegal demolitions and serial permitting with the laws trying to circumvents this system this process has driven people out what is the units of demolition 47 the last 6 years 31 were greater than the one points 7 we're talking about 16 of unsound matt haney unsafe housing all of that to preserve the fabric of our communities i appreciate that but at some point it will not preserve the path in to too >> thank you is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item looks like we can close

public comment. >> colleagues have a few fraudulent thank you, everyone from the public for coming and speaking and investing in that legislation there are some amendments i'd like to propose a member can make for the legislation i indicated these two of the before the meeting began and someone came up regarding the ground floor dwelling units in the c-3 zoning district so the first amendment and is language for the 20 first two grandfathering in a correction of 317, c-2 that didn't exempts the u.s. bancorp authorized over-the-counter by the planning department

so there is language here on our desk colleagues the second one to make sure that the premise that were issued before march first, 2016 for the applicable for the legislation going through and so who these two there is language for them as well and other section is that we wanted to motion to effect the c-3 stoenz is deleting on page 5 under applicability exemptions it is line 8 that says provided, however, that the c-3 zoning district on the removal of the unauthorized units above the ground floor requires the conditional use authorization striving that language i quoted out

now the public comment is closed. let's take up that matter colleagues, any comments about the closed amendment? >> i'm happy to support the amendment that supervisor avalos described i'll move the amendment. >> motion made by supervisor wiener and we'll take that without objection. unanimously. >> wanted to supervisor avalos indicated there was a duplication first did you want that. >> i don't think we need to do that that was we'll have a meeting next week and if the new amendment the thirds one happens to need to go to planning commission and the city attorney will be looking to that we'll duplicate that portion to planning but we're okay to goes forward to next week's meeting.

>> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> yes. in terms of the the two other awareness discussing one of the issue of there is no sxpgs for someone that has the ability to pay and even though there is discussion about potential funds assistance sources those don't cutters exist and we don't know about the code compliant funds how we want to allocate that process so i just would like hope in between and next time it comes to the committee to have that discussion it is a real issue and the legislation really didn't deal with that, i know that everyone in good faith wants to deal with that but we don't want people that can't afford to have a lien against

their house with problems i would last week to have additional dialogue about that the interim and then in addition, this issue of the single families homes not the in-law unit a commenter was talking about an in-law unit but the suggestion to do a separates track is in terms of the other section so i think it will be good to have that discussion before the next hearing as well so we can determine whether we need to make any changes i guess we could make an amendment today to i don't know if this is a duplication of a file or just removing single-family homes and maybe in separate legislation. >> i prefer we hold off the duplication about the deferral until next monday.

>> i'll put that out there as an idea to see what we come up with between now and next monday and given the two not the most complicated but not minor issues from the week will be long enough we don't meet 2 weeks 20 from today is that president's day. >> uh-huh. >> so between one week and three weeks i don't know if one week is going to be long enough so we'll work through the issues so occurs to know colleagues what you think about that 3 week might you been more appropriate. >> so i'll be more interested in 0 supporting a two weeks with the president day i agree one week is baby boomer but personally will have to the meet with the planning department to

get a better understanding how this effects the diversity. >> so madam chair i'm sorry that was me. >> i'll just tell you what my southern is that as far as we are identified this issue at the 1049 proposed for which the committee has adapted is that i don't want to be in a situation where that timeframe is elongated so on the 15 with a second reading. >> do we have a meeting on the 22? that would put this legislation the mayors hands an or about march second and become terrify an april 2nd; is that correct mr. city attorney >> if we're having a longer

continues let's be clear that i am not this is a very complicated bodies of public policy which seems as a newcomer or returner to this body gone better part avenue decade to be driven in a large part what is going on the ton 49 market street with possibly thirty thousand properties so i want to make sure that we don't ends up with a gap and nothing goofy happens between yeah. >> is that because of expiration of the interim controls so i don't understand why the sdprmz were allowed to expire but be that as it may i was a strong supporter of interim controls and want to make sure the tenants are protected by the same token a

major port of legislation and has broad impacts to make sure we getting it right so you know in terms of we're talking about 2 week differential not months. >> so going back to the interim controls i was not around for i have a vague memory of that it hit me an 18 months duration. >> you can extend that so those are less than 18 months about for some reason they expired i don't know why. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney those were there was a 12 most interim controls and a 12 months estimation to the maximum is 24 months so including the maximum. >> we hit the two year moment. >> that's correct. >> okay. so yeah like i said in terms of the issues impacting

1049 marketed i'd like to see those done yes, but the interim controls housed in the pieces of legislation that impacts a massive amount of prompts i want to make sure we get it right. >> what if we were to duplicate that file on monday and move that forward and then can hear the rest of it. >> we can duplicate it today and continue that one discrete piece. >> yeah. i'm not sure what amendment will carve out the simple be property. >> not the property. >> the legislation as a whole deals with removal of units legal unit and illegal unit and on public comment that property falls within this broad legislation but i'm not sure

that today, we can really carve out a more narrow piece of legislation that will cover this issue. >> well, thank you for clarifying that like i said if this was a simple more simple legislation that was not more broadly impactful i'd have no problem with one week but given how impactful it is and issues to be worked out i know that one week - we'll come back in one week and supervisor cowen stated we'll not resolve those issues. >> supervisor peskin. >> i'll over this this is as far as we have to continue a week because of the amendments we continue it so see how much can be done and if not ready for prime time another few weeks.

>> i'm open as soon as we have an option to continue. >> madam chair the amendments need to sends. >> we didn't take a final vote fair enough the motion was made by supervisor wiener to accept the amendments we'll take that without objection. that motion carries unanimously and with that i'll entertain a motion to continue this for one week's time. >> so moved. >> that is amount and we'll take that without objection. that passes ladies and gentlemen, thoishgz there's no further business. >> thank you, everyone this meeting is adjourneding,

>> roll call taken. >> the next item is approval of the minutes of november 19th, 2015. the explanatory documents are the draft documents and this is for action. >> colleagues we've got the minutes in front of us. if you had the chance to review and we could entertain a motion to approve of said minutes. >> i move. >> moved by commissioner wald. >> is there a second? >> do we have