along for those who are concerned out there this is not going to happen i can tell you from me personally and hearing it from others having a shuttle program is better than not having a shuttle program and the efforts to be perfect if keeping us going but at the same time here we go let's keep on listening to the community input and make that better. >> i'm hearing from the colleagues director reiskin and the staff to work with the board of supervisors on the next couple weeks if something comes back working through the people of the city of san francisco. >> yes. so that is with that direction we will engage with the stakeholders with the members of the public that have concerns to see if we can get to

a adjusted reif i understand program that addresses some of those needs so it it our intent that therefore binge you back something at the next meeting on the 16 assuming that the board of supervisors advanced this on february 9th in any case we'll back on february 1, '67. >> thank you for the staff for bringing this please remain standing next item. >> >> no action being considered it is appropriate for item 13 whether or not to conduct a closed session. >> you said j yes are we still having one. >> motion for closed >> going so sloughlough ough us

>> okay. >> all right. item 14 in the meantime of closed session the board members meet to address the cases and both matters were settled no announcement of the amended motion now a motion disclose or not disclose. >> not to disclose. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? we are adjourned thank you very much

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, i want to week you back to the san francisco land

use & transportation committee supervisor cowen whatever of the committee and to my right is supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin now part of this committee our clerk alicia and phil jackson and jim smith is from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk, any announcements please silence all electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the february 9th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you all right. thank you very much i'm going to call a few items out of order could you please call item 2. >> an ordinance amending the planning and building code for this conditional use authorization please forgive me not item 2 but item 3 first. >> item 3 a resolution imposing interim controls to require the planning commission

to require the design for the large project authorization the showcase square potrero hill and central wasting area plan the author and co-sponsor of this legislation i'd like to go ahead and discuss in item about interim zoning district that all projects receiving the kwoufgs u conditional use authorization from the central waterfront and potrero hill get the design by the planning commission while the parklet works on the citywide planning controls it requires the planning commission to consider whether projects other projects have demonstrated an awareness of urban patterns it harmonize visibly as well physically with other building that are established the

neighborhood in relationship is critical to the residents and also looking for harmony between the streets and open space and natural features and corridor this is a piece of paper protective i worked on with the neighbors particularly on the northern slope of potrero hill i don't know if anyone is here from the planning commission to speak eject seeing none, go ahead to public comment. >> public comment is open for item 3 please step forward. >> seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues is motion to send this with a positive recommendati recommendation. >> madam chair i'll be happy to make that motion and commend you for this piece of legislation and i think it actually is

instructive to should be instructive to board of supervisors as we're cranking out the magnificent parts of city we can and should insist on good urban design has been presidenting in certain projects in that area so let that will a lesson as we could those redonald's we get the good urban design and i look forward to the interim controls. >> i look forward to that is that a second. >> so moved second. >> thank you we'll take that without objection. unanimously we'll take that without objection. mr. clerk item one. >> number one an

administrative code by the 5 hundred square feet for the development and maintenance for the scomblap water controls for the projects. >> colleagues, we have a brief procreation from jumping will i and amanda from the puc to present. >> good afternoon chair cohen and the members i'm amanda from the san francisco public utilities commission administrator here to present on this item as part of background in december 2010 the board of supervisors amended chapter 63 for the landscape ordinance for the landscape ordinance for square feet after the drought last april governor jerry brown issued a state ordinance to increase water and including the ordinances applicability from

one thousand to 5 thousand square feet it was approved in july and agencies must update the san francisco public works has also updated the rules and regulations reserving the irrigation amongst the water facilities thank you for your time and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you is ms. ortez going to present not a problem thank you very much go ahead and go to public comment. all right. our favorite time of the day for item number one is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item two minutes to speak for item number one seeing none, public comment is closed at this time colleagues is there a motion or discussion open that item if not put your name on the list.

>> seeing none, may i have a motion motion made by supervisor peskin and we'll take that without objection. this that motion carries all right. thank you let's see is supervisor avalos here seeing none, madam clerk item 3. >> item 2. >> excuse me. >> item 2 an ordinance amending the planning commission for the removal of any residential muni building alleges and mergers for the mandate of an illegal unit. >> supervisor avalos is the author of this item but he's not here to lead the discussion we'll start with the planning department. >> i apologize the planner has not arrived but they've heard the item and recommended

approval of the ordinance. >> thank you very much. >> thank you supervisor. >> great, thank you madam chair colleagues in 2013 i supported an ordnance for the removal of housing for conversions but as the housing crisis has wolgz that is clear we need inform to reinvest those controls this ordinance for the cu for the removal of units legal unit and thinking authors the notice of violation let's property owners know to apply for a cu to remove

the unit the planning department balance report has shown that we are losing housing was quickly as we are about building this the housing stock will stop demolitions and mergers of dwelling units a number of long term tenants facing evictions if landlords that want to convert batting back to office building this year for the justification of loss of housing in any district district 11 i'm concerned with the permitted in-law units we've seen this grow from 2000 to 2010 and through that population is growth is in unauthorized dwelling units

this ordinance will fill the void of necessary controls for retaining this important portion of our housing stock and many of the tenants are occupying for lower rents the home exasperates evictions and displacement in san francisco we have heard horror stories if many, many people of landlords use of notice of violations from dbi as angles unpermitted use to evacuee tenants without an local eviction the case of in-law unit and single-family homes this doubly disadvantaging policy to the housing stock it will be an in-law unit our affordable units and removes the how are you from rent control we understand the

legalization process walking by can be a burden the city as waved the fees for legalization to allow owners to legalize their units and dbi have a loan fund for landlords and working with dbi making that happen through the budget process in june i've asked the mayor's office of housing and community development to designate a portion of housing stabilization fund to help the low income owners and hope we can codify this year's budget we recognize that not all unlegalized units and the ordinance attempts to address this this doesn't mean

an imminent threat or a separate entrance for the main living spaces and the planning commission will consider the feasibility of legalization when evaluating a cu application for the removal of an non-permitted united we're working with the dbi staff to delineate the units that can't beleaguer list but the loss of housing we ask the committee send this to the full board but keep a duplicate in file in committee i have amendments to - i'd like to see if we can hear the amended version as a committee report for next week's meeting i have the amendments i want to essential clean up language and

to grater projects we've are intending to maintain and the amendments the motion after public comment are grandfathering corrections the section c-2 not inform exempt unauthorized unit over-the-counter by the planning department so maybe my colleague can speak to this and have a retroactive application c-3 one for any permit issued issued before march 2016 and there is a project that has been prominent that we are hoping to protect the tenants and security guard the units for long term rentals i have a number of speakers 4

and i'm not sure if this fits your timeline madam chair but like to call from the planning department. >> before we go any further i'd like to take a recess ladies and gentlemen, my regulates we need to recess until 235 then go into public comment great. all right s . >> welcome back to the san francisco transportation authority supervisor cowen will be returning shortly i'm reconvening this meeting to moved on item 2 i believe madam clerk okay. i think we were just getting ready to move to staff presentation if my memory serves i say

planning department yes is going to do present in a new location. >> good afternoon, members of land use i'm kim department staff first, i wanted to thank supervisor avalos and supervisor kim so far taking on this important piece of legislation the planning commission has harder this item and has approved the legislation with some minor amendments that have been taken in the substantive legislation that was introduced two weeks ago the impetus behind this legislation is preserving over existing housing stock and

discouraging the displacements of tenants and this goes emphasis in the housing element of the general plan the existing housing stock has a strong roll in housing demand and comparing to the newly built housing and also on your data shows the 5 percent turnover and 10 percent turnover for rental are higher than the percentage of housing units to one percent the removal of housing units is of the major causes of tenant eviction the past 10 years of 45 hundred no fault evictions about 11 percent were removal of units this legislation would propose a cu for removal of all

residential unit and illegal units this is the user authorized units in the legislation currently different types of requirements for removal residentials or residential units the zoning district and unit numbers of building this legislation will make that consistent and create a cu requirement across the board for all types of residential units we currently have an administrator contest for roving the residentials through one is through administrative - pricing out of the units so from the unit is more expensive of a threshold determined annually and right now is 1.6 or $7 million in this the unit is more comprehensive they can go through an

administrative process and not a cu or dr to remove the unit another approval, of course, which through technical report a demonstration that the building is not sound like this legislation proposes to remove those medic active units approval and create a cu for all types and this is recommend by the department and the commission it creates a consistent and more clear rule for removal of units we have a few number of units that use this 55 units have been using used this administrative process out of the nine hundred which is 6 percent of those and the staff and commission recommended the

approval process is lengthy and technical and sometimes called outs u outside of the parentheses we strongly supporting this change as well and one major change that legislation is doing creating a new did definition of thinking authorized units the planning code we working closely with the supervisors office since this was introduced to define an unauthorized units are we know that there are different varieties of unauthorized unit some have kitchens and some don't we keep is broad to capture a wide variability of instances it creates the definition of the unauthorized units and adds 3 major finding the planning code

to help the planning commission decide what to approve the units those criteria are first, whether or not they can their eligible for legalization and second whether or not legalization process cost is reasonable and we define that from the database that your collecting since the lightwelltion program for the legalization of each unit and third whether or not it is financial feasible to legalize and the way we determine that is from the cost of legalization kwlgz or is higher than the value added to the property we see that as feasible and that value added has to be determined by a codified appraiser we think

that the legislation would help support these unbeknownst authorized unit and especially the tenants that live there but still leaves flexibility for the property owners to merge or remove an unauthorized unit and those cases can be if that hadn't been uses as residential unit so we will the commission will have that flexibility to allow that for the removal and second another example is if a family wants to grow and merge the units it is another criteria so a flexible built into the code to allow for the commission to allow removal in certain pieces we've also had in this item at the dbi commission and we've heard their concerns and we made

the supervisors made changes to the ordinance to address some of the concerns one in that there's certain exemptions we've provided no legal path for legalization they don't have to go through the legalized process for removal and second if there is imminent threat for safety of that unit and the city determines the unit needs to be removed that unit didn't have to go through the cu process and lastly we added languages for residential unit that have gone through a process like the dr or conditional use or administrative approval and secured that permit from the planning department but not yet

have building permit approval so at the don't have to go through the process. >> the planning commission strongly supports that legislation and buildings this will take a step towards helping the stock and displacement of tenant thank you. >> thank you very much at the thank you for all your work and dependent on this as well next up is bill strong from dbi not seeing mr. strong farmed deborah walker from the department of building inspection. >> thank you supervisor as many of you know we've been dealing with the issue of illegal units and how to encourage legalizing them for a while i think one of the things

we did a bit ago to help supervisor wiener with to make sure that tenants in buildings even those unpermitted were given the same courtesy as being notice with an action as far as the permit to either do work or demolition unpermitted unit so the tenants knows in a timely way to engage our department and other programs we have now so i actually think this step of that applying a stronger a more stringent detergent review of a request to demolition those units is really an important step right now it is a is it correct step we need we've spent a lot of time with supervisor chiu and supervisor wiener around a path forward to

legalizing units we've done a lot with the planning department and to encourage folks to legalize those units so we don't create evictions and displacement how have it has not been successful i think that one of the things we need to do at this point is to have a evaluations around demolition requests go through a stringent process one of the things eave brought forward at the commission i think we have a willingness to have our department help with the code compliant aspect of legalizing those units in the form of a financial loan or grant program to help building owners and encourage building owners to do this work many of the people that own those have owned them for a long time some of the

people get put in hard progresses so we need to look at that proactively to provide and carrot and hopefully be able to encourage people in those buildings to legalize those buildings and could use funds if there is temporary displacement there is a difference continue the bigger buildings and the single-family homes i think that it might be time we actually look at those as a separate issue to see if there is different concerns and a different process we don't want to a cu process is cumbersome i think that generally cost more to do an evaluation and make sure we're not adding to the cost of housing or to the timeframe of legalizing the unit

so i think that overall this is a good next step in this process of trying to encourage the legalizing of those tens of thousands of units that always remain at risk and not permitted. >> great thank you, commissioner. >> thank you. >> i have a speaker ted egan from the controller's office i don't see mr. eagle on was a brief irrelevant with a brief confusion we have an e-mail saying that was positive environmental review and today's report was initialed seeing saying it was neutral so i'm not sure if anyone from planning has seen that none mentioned it was

neutral and he actually think that has a huge positive impact luke the number of households that can have a say of relief about greater controls over their property and renters staying in san francisco and have a huge economic impact so the absence of mr. eagle on we're on to public comment i'll see if we have public comment. >> before we go to public comment i have questions about this so, so - putting the cards together i have questions about the legislation perhaps i don't know this might be directed to supervisor avalos or the city staff so the ina lot legalization puts

us on a path to requiring the legalization, of cours legalization supervisor chiu was passed a few years ago for the first time created a full path to volunteery legalization for the legal in-law units i was a supporter it passed unanimously that has taken the next step to you maurntd r mandating those units beleaguer listed there are exceptions for economics feasibility one of those - those exceptions don't include the ability to pay so i have a question and supervisor

avalos or the planning department staff that you have one o someone that has an illegal in-law unit and not the ability to pay what is that person to do do i know that commissioner walker referred to the loan fund she and i worked on and dbi put more money into the fund and we created that fund an important thing in terms of helping the owners bring their property up to code right now $4 million in the code and more to be added but the the cost of bringing one in-law unit into the compliance or 75 thousands of dollars and 10 of thousands of units that quickly will be depleted i am to get a response to that

particular issue from supervisor avalos are planning. >> yes, thank you for your question we have been talking with commissioner walker about the loan fund and that could be a source that 0 could be available for people struggling to pay the cost of legalization i also had anticipated this issue a long time ago in 2012 when we crafted the housing trust fund and we had language in there that made funds that could be availability for people looking at legalization or bringing the buildings up to code or people of low income i've dlaerd to work with the mayor's office of housing and community development for a very a long time and not taken up the issue and not provided guidance

about creating the resources to do that and that's been unfortunate but there are the funds that are available in the housing trust fund and the housing shakeabletion funds are eligible to be used to resources that could a property owner can use with the legalization process so me that is still in the works but a valid issue for the city to resolve those funds are gaertd to helping the middle-income and working-class to expend their ability to bring their property up to code and maintain their property so i think this is a worthy goal. >> thank you so first of all, let me ask planning department staff am i

correct this legislation effectively requires puts us on a path for people who union illegal unit in-law units to. >> if you want to remove an unauthorized unit you have to go through this process that you - the notice of violation from dbi or the decision from the planning commission basically says you can't remove the unit unless the planning commission allows it this only applies to applicants that want to remove is not a from those for the city for everyone to legalize their united for retroactively that we have and requiring this is requiring a pertaining to do the retina if you are removing or

want to remove you have to go through the process. >> to legalize. >> to process of the planning commission deciding whether or not you can remove it. >> so the planning commission can based on the finding allow for the removal or decide to require legalization. >> so if let's say i own a home with an illegal in-law unit he does but any neighbor files exclaims against me and dbi comes out and says you have an illegal unit what happens under that legislation. >> there is a notice of violation issued if perhaps that unit is illegal and notice of violation used it says this legislation amends the building

code so you need to basically remove this correction and the correction means right now go to planning commission and get a permit for remove of resolve and from the planning commission explicit allow you, you have to get a legal less. >> so i'm glad we're getting clarity so if someone files a complaint of the think illegal unit you have a notice of violation and you either have to get permission from the planning commission to remove it i'll say unlikely and if that doesn't happen your mandated to legalize it and bring it up to whatever the applicable code under commissioner chius legislation. >> correct. >> there should be a legal path if there was not a legal path for you to legalize that

for example, some building code problems it can't be corrected you'll need to go through. >> let's say i'm the homeowners my neighbor files a complaint and dbi says violation you're not able to get the permission to remove it let's say you don't have the money to bring it up to code let's say you don't qualify for the exemptions but an ability to pay what did you do i know i under that ordinance what do you do there's no other ordinance in terms of funding you're out of luck. >> you're required. >> maybe sell our home to pay for it or actually i'm not

blaming the planning department it as real issue did we know in terms of the range of costs to bring an flment to legalize it what the range i know that there is a wide variety of illegal units. >> yes. the range if 9 exception program to one and 50 thousand the average about 45 thousand dollars. >> so the average cost cost is 45 thousand right now supervisor avalos referred to the code compliant resolving loan funds $4 million in that i think that dbi is adding another millions hopefully that happens okay so $4 million now the average is

5 if my math is correct that's 80 units costs 4 moiltsz maybe $4 million buy you legalization of '75 units is my math right i was not a math major i think that - >> i think i'm right. >> so you have 40. >> $4 million buys you 75 legal unit units with the average 55 thousand. >> yeah. >> so 75 units i think maybe estimates like thirty thousand illegal unit in-law units in san francisco and the current code compliant fund if we use every penny of it for this we get 75 units and a million dollars per year is 20, of course, this we'll not be using any of that money for any of the other codes work in terms of getting

landlords to deal with fire landscape and other issues and so i don't know what will happen and supervisor avalos it has been pushing that issue and maybe that will happen maybe not my point not to say this is a good or bad idea there are merits for sure to this proposal but i do think there are when you look at who has a legal in-law units there are low income and working-class homeowners who have homes with illegal in-law units that can't affords 55 thousand dollars to do that and if the city can come up with a large way of funding to pay for that that's great ensue it seems to me before we

should figure out that and add a cap before we start putting this mandate on owners that can't afford it so that's the issue i want to raise and i'll invite public comment and discussion of that. >> sorry can i. >> yes. >> one point so just to give an idea of the scale of this legislation currently - since may of 2014 when the legalization program become effective we received one and 80 applicants for remove of the 55 it's been complicate we have 98 that have been issued and has an opportunity been completed yet this legislation basically applies. >> that's 98 plus 55. >> 55 plus 98 and a few have been revoked or suspend from the

one and 80 this legislation only basic applies when an application for resolve is filed to the full stent is 98 have been issued and not completed yet. >> okay thank you two other quick things one is commissioner walker referred to the issue of whether a single-family homes should be handled on a separate track but my understanding the definition of a units ♪ legislation includes single-family homes when i think we're typically referring to multi-unit buildings maybe i'll ask the authors was it your intention to include single-family units again, the remark that commissioner walker

made going on a separate track >> it was our intention to include the single-family homes that have unauthorized unit they're not all single-family homes but single-family homes that have a separate entrance for people to occupy. >> okay which is actually every other house the excelsior. >> right. >> and other parts of district. >> one other clarification on that point currently the existing regulations apply to the single families we require dr for removal of single-family homes almost everywhere except inform zones but this ethnicity approval and commissioner walker. >> i actually i'm sorry, i should have been more clear i was not referring to the in-law

unit but the merger demolition the definition of unit regarding that inclusive of single-family homes supervisor peskin. >> so in terms of single-family homes not a legal or unauthorized in-law unit. >> that's correct. >> that was over intention. >> okay. >> and just in terms of commissioner walkers comment about whether it should be on a separate track do you have a response to that if we put it on a separate track. >> i think there needs to be additional work to understand how to work those a separate track might be worth doing duplicating the files we're contemplating that next week to do that i think we're in we want

to get the biggest protection we can today i think that is making sure that we're protecting multiply units and apartments and whether it is clear authors or unauthorized in-law units with single-family homes. >> thank you i have one final question and ems to supervisor peskin do we the department do we have an estimate how many buildings would be in terms of the legalization program or in terms of buildings in san francisco with illegal units whether single-family homes how many buildings are at issue or issue not units but actual buildings are at issue. >> other than the numbers i've mentioned we don't have a record

of buildings with unauthorized a unit no record of how many unauthorized buildings are out there but we do have a record that since may of 2014 one and 80 applications have been filed for removal and the program we have 200 and 39 plaques applications for one hundred and thirty are issued. >> of those either applications or violations whatever pieces of unauthorized units came to the planning department attention in terms of single-family homes versus the multi units a breakdown between the two. >> sure definitely a larger percentage of the homes. >> can you give me a ball

park, 70, thirty. >> let me find that okay approximately 75 percent of the applications received one or two unit buildings that's the number i have one or two buildings. >> and under supervisor chius legislation if i go to the in-law unit legalization it is abandoned if subdivision; is that correct. >> if i threw the legalization program yes. >> right if i legalize over unit

your permanently banned from the lottery if you have a two unit building an illegal unit on the side and i have no intention of legalizing it let's say those two legal units are owner occupied their entitled to condo convert your neighbor came forward and reports you and dbi comes out and says you have an illegal unit you have to apply to get it removed the department will not likely legalize that your permanently banned from subdividing from condo ingress that believe. >> i leave to the city

attorney the whole building or the in-law unit but a tenant there if you can show that that unit has not been used as an independent unit they'll get the findings that the planning commission can allow removal of that unit. >> if they don't and you're forced to legalize it you're out permanent from the lottery. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagues thank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban

authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow

up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources eventually there will be a directors hearing at dbi and presumely have had the opportunity that will be turned over to the code compliant city attorney's office i want to follow this all the way in a worst case scenario what will play out to that individual that was denied and still facing an nov? >> i think someone from dbi can answer that it is a process with the dbi commission. >> commissioner walker from

the planning commission and abatement appeals commission a directors hearing will happen the notice of violation will be upheld and the directions to the 14 to fix it it can be appealed to the abatement appeals commission we uphold or deny the appeal and at this point it leans against the property the fee currently there is no mechanism for fixing it if the owner doesn't fix it other than liening the property the concern in the meanwhile a tenant in that location it is the issue we deal with unpermitted units we have a problem that needs to be fixed in some cases it is had been ability issue if we don't get a resolution from the

property owner it is in limbo we have situations i'm sure that tommy from the hufrts committee will unfortunately, we have to evict the people have to be evicted with a health and safety issue mold and crumbling ceilings and stairs that can't be used no assess - many number of things that could be the problem it is one of the i think primary reasons to create a resolving funds in those situations we have it as an emergency demolition funds the property on top of davidson hill was down the road in a heath issue we're not proactive when we can fix it so that's one of the reasons there is an important time to take the step

because we have a lot of programs available to expedite and building owners but commissioner walker in that process do you have the latitude and legal flexibility to work with an individual owner that wants to comply but not with the financial resources can you elongate percent. >> yes. >> okay that would be helpful and my - i'm sorry for negotiates if you're doing 55 thousand work to one and $50,000 what's the duration of that type of legalization activity and where's the extra tenant likely to have to leave during that

periods of construction. >> it really depends on how much work is needed and i think it is a rampart question i don't know many of those applications need to have the tenants leave i don't have that but it depends on the amount of work. >> my final question is not i hope a catch-22 but maybe you've people spoken to the exceptions the number of c-3 on page 6 this is the provision that says the removal of on unauthorized unit doesn't require cu in the department determines there is no legal path for legalization

does that mean it turns out you can't legalize you can rove without a cu how does that work. >> correct you don't need to go through a cu to remove it we determine no legal path to legalize our unit you can just get approval over-the-counter. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor peskin and ma'am, one quick clarification the numbers you're saying in terms of what was coming to the department for the in-law units you were referring to people that are voluntarily coming forward to legalize their in-law units. >> two sets of information one for that i think 200 and 50 applications for the volunteery legalization and one and thirty have been permitted and the rest under review for the volunteery

legalization voluntary remove or remove due to a notice of violation. >> okay. so we don't know i agree with supervisor peskin if those numbers were to carry forward in terms of the number of applications ultimately voluntary or mandated to the department clearly we have more flexibility in terms of what we have to help whatever percentage of those people that have financial hardship but if the number starts to there significantly as more people get recorded and go through the system or mandated were told you must legalize is that number could become significantly higher we have no way of knowing for sure but creates a new universe

of applications that were coming to the department the mandated applications. >> we have no way of knowing it will under consideration or decrease and encourages people from filing applications we don't have a way of knowing. >> do we expect a new trend to merge with the notice of violations have been consistent in their number over the years do we expect that will change in any way. >> if anything i would expect the numbers to go down because people don't want - we know that a vigorous process people will decide to keep it legalized. >> supervisor peskin. >> or did was that from before. >> it was from before i'm ready to circle around to the

single-family question. >> go ahead. >> as supervisor wiener was defining single-family homes in terms of not with a secondary unit legal or legally how many applications do we get or have we gotten over the period of time do you know. >> since 20109 had and 5 units were demolished and out of those 47 were 6 percent and those were all subject to mandatory dr? >> no, that was administrative review. >> it could be. >> and the dr for those units

that were defined as affordable? >> the dr would be for the ones that are not they don't qualify for the pricing out function. >> right do you know how many units that or buildings that involved. >> unfortunately, no i don't have that information. >> thank you. >> okay and those are not just units but single-family homes we have 47. >> some subset of 47. >> colleagues no additional questions why not open up for public comment. >> i have mr. ted egan. >> oh, i didn't see you you were in my line ted egan. >> mr. eagle on can we see the discrepancy we're seeing between our e-mail on friday that said

economic impact and the reports says neutral i don't have it flovn me but it seems to me a change. >> supervisor i don't believe our report says a neutral impact we identified this legislation as an impact on housing prices in sub markets the housing stock under the belief it bans our review of the permits data significant number of dpgsz decisions of units over the years have been to enlarge others units currently on the property a question of property owners to relinquish more for an existing unit our assessment is of the potential impact on

housing crisis at the low ends of the private housing market of occurring tailing that activity we read the real impact the legislation would be to reduce the number of removals of illegal units that average if a year over the past 10 years at the rate of say the removal of small in-law unit or unpermitted units were to stop there would be more housing at that level of the market we think that could mean as much as one percent reduction the low ends the market especially the market with thirty to us or more one unit housing the city the other side to have a curtailing of the market at the upper end this inflates the housing we saw that

legislation as a trade off between creating more housing industry at the lower ends versus an inflation of housing crisis in the curtailment of supply so certainly economic benefits i'll not say the net result is neutral it simply has advantages and disadvantageous the inflation at the upper end is quite a bit lower the prices for the upper end is small with the price at the bottom is very significant we determined that was within economic impact report. >> thank you to your clarification and what you recorded pretty much reaches our goals we want to make sure our hub at the bottom end of the market. >> so public comment?

>> i'll go for public comment ladies and gentlemen, two minutes awarded to you for public comment please step forward. >> i have a number of cards come the order that were called that would be helpful (calling names). >> good evening i'm one of the many people fighting the eviction at 1049 market 20 years ago the owners converted from offices to

apartment without a permit when a landlords intends to demolish a unit the tenants shall have the opportunity to object in an unauthorized apartment we hold nothing the bitter i iron the landlords choose to break a law this rewards the landlords and punishing the tenants that do noticing nothing wrong we're in the third year of fighting evictions they didn't have to tells us we had no opportunity to stop at the and most importantly is didn't have cu review we are asking for this to go do the conditional use review and as at spirits of that law intends for this situation we urge to vote yes and and none

left behind the students should have equal protection and not because they mean to be a c-3 empowering or low but every tenants should have equal rights we ask you make that law effective april 1st before the interim controls that supervisor kim combblthd to give us the right for not losing housing 84 units are the program for loss thank you. >> thank you very much. >> my name is melissa i also am a tenant on 1049 market want to ask that you pass this

legislation we are in support of this as we are reiterating still fighting for our homes many of our neighbors have left the city and state and left the country and we just want to slow down everything and being able to stay in our avenue, i presenter your supervisor avalos for introducing this and yeah, we would greatly appreciate the support and in favor of that and urge you to vote yes, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> my name is pat, i came down to talk about 3 residential be buildings i was told there was about 1049 one only excelsior a spectacular bought it we're

working pro bono but we have a problem the other extreme the excelsior no one is complaining that units is the garage no way to fix it f this the other in excess of one hundred thousand dollars in between there is an in-law unit and i advised the attendants to run you can't legalize this it is 50 thousand sprinklers the buildings what is not said who won unit to two the single-family residents the rent control kicked in so to one to two you drop the value 2 to 3 can't go to condo doing this in small building is a huge contentious to the buildings and no way to leave the buildings vacate we don't want vacate on

1049 the cost legalization is huge what is legalizing i got hired not to do a study to remove the units but figure out how to make it legal and it needs to be clear rules what it takes to legalize and what are the unintended consequences of this we don't want to end up with a bunch of vacate units those are not leaving them vacate but i don't think many legislation is ready yet are the rules to legalize what are the consequences ceqa consequences where people would rather leave the unit vacate we need engineers and lawyers speaking out. >> thank you very much. next speaker. and good afternoon land use i'm

a working artist in san francisco living here 10 years and live in a work space in pacific heights that is since 1921 it was created as a non-conforming use without authorization it in 19 ti by the landlords that made a all the time to allow for residential living and artist living so an art space and home to many artists over the last 25 years since then he pass away recently and his kids have inherited the building they decided to have full market rate and it is in their interests to do so they tried many ways to get us out in ways not legal but they ellis acted the buildings before that a year

of threatening to ellis act the building and manipulate us voluntary they went to dbi and got an unofficial permit to remove a kitchen that permit was not true that application because the kitchen part of our lease from 25 years ago my lawyer tome to go and put a block masonic the property i was able to stop the permit had that not happens i wouldn't have recourse and that space that inhibited aren't for a long i urge you this is a single-family and mixed use on top and one residential unit it will not include the single-family we

will be removed from that as well. >> thank you very much. >> and thank you for joining a complex story and on times. >> i'm georgia i will live in noah valley i'm looking at this problem from an existing part of the code that is section 317 when you added the unauthorized units i recently understood what this section of 317 means and what i think that allows is if you have a two unit building and somebody buys is and expands and make a grand unit and absorb the second units what happens they create a marginal units for example, one recently two units in a building two bedrooms and dining and living room and beautiful typical of san francisco dwelling what happened they took that second units and put it down

behind the garage two bedrooms to something called a media room the living room with a window like not a kitchen yet against the wall behind the garage is what that means you're making had a smaller unit but still didn't go a reduction of 25 percent so i guess what i'm hoping for even this code a loophole is dealt with since you're dealing with the legislation now i think what is happening their smaller units two bedrooms is one or living rooms a media room and single-family sized units are more like gift units or part of big units they've been marked that way you you know can easily be absorbed so i on a that's a point and i'm sorry, i didn't know about it sooner and

pertains to what your doing an important part of this legislation since your zealously with the 317 i hope you will look at this i gave you a handout thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is those i didn't i'm with protection charm a neighborhoods association first of all, i'd like to thank supervisor avalos for this legislation much needed improvements and show any support i'm also here to request that the grandfathering be only limited to as the lady described only the permits that have been approved at the planning department level and have not yielded been vetted by the dbi yet please don't extend this to any

project the pipelines many projects in noah valley that should be reviewed and go to the cu authorization hearing we need this to be extended so i appreciate if you keep it as is secondly, i would like to brought to your attention a loophole that we currently have in 317 that's for the owners and developers who deliberately neglect the properties so to repair that it might call imminent hazard and under that clause they'll not be subjected to the cu authorization hearing so we already communicated the amendment that we wish you to

consider adding to this legislation and we would greatly presenter if you consider this as passing off this legislation will encourage people it don't want to face the commission and don't want to face the thufgs e conditional use authorization to let go of their property that's it. >> thank you very much>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> please step forward. >> hi, i'm shawn draw i live at 1049 market street in 2014 person credit card this case since the international hotel your landlords owns our building at 1049 market and two other buildings with 80 units and associated storefront basically, i'm fine if the bottom definitely needs this legislation to pass as much as

possible and not get bogged do you think i'm fighting for a single room with a shower and bathroom dune the hall i feel sorry for people that own in-law units but right now a lot people that are fighting to have a roof over their head i'm fighting for my unit and the legislation that has been passed before with interim controls helps our units and others in the mid block and south of market so a lot of people trying to get e keep a roof over their head i hate to see that bogged down with helping people also that own homes not they don't say have their rights but certainly priorities for people that have more comfort so also i'd like to vote for the amendment to make that applicable to permit

starting mayor 2016 and reiterate don't leave out the c-3 housing thank you for your time and consideration and thank you supervisor avalos, commissioner walker and supervisor kim for this legislation and thinking outside the box and coming up with solutions thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is ben also a resident at 1049 market street lifelong residents of san francisco and honestly think illegal tenants residents since moving out on my own 18 or thirty years ago i feel like it is an imperfect system renting and not secure feeling living in an lilz while it is important that

everyone's rights are protected i think that is absence for this legislation go through quickly i think that having the units i've been living in you'll my life having a different experience as a renter i'd like to urge or urge to protective be passed as much as possible there are a lot of people experiencing the same circumstances and definitely keep me housed as well my neighbors in san francisco and not facing the prospect of moving or rents we can't afford thank you very much. >> before the next speaker came down i'll call more speakerscme down i'll call more speakerscom speakers (calling names). >> thank you, steve tenderloin housing clinic

i'm speaking no support of this measure there's a great need approximately 11 percent of no fault evictions under the removal of units from housing use that doesn't include all the evictions for many illegal units for illegal use claim their voluntary units for the tenants and they have to move to address that will that in legislation so i expect they'll be more evictions no fault evictions if this legislation didn't pass two things i suggest first of all, we strongly support making that retroactive to march first 2016 in order to permit a ton of units to capture those projected

by interim controls the south of market the other thing would be to not exclude ground floor c-3 buildings at all or if you feel that that is important to include an individual unit on the ground floor c-3 not exclude that units if other unauthorized units above the ground floor or potentially two or more unauthorized units. >> mr. colorado i can't remember can we repeat that relative to the c-3 units. >> in c applicability you have the language. >> i'm familiar what was your suggestion. >> oh, after that phrase a comment two or more unauthorized units on the ground floor or there are other unauthorized

units above the empowering i think one unauthorized unit in a building in a c-3 might be something you can remove when you have more than one the building i suggest more on the intention of the owner to rent as residential and therefore should go through a cu process. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon steve here speaking in favor of the legislation and promoting the idea of consistency as stating in the documents a cu permit for that not prnlt permited i believe the loss of a residential unit is a loss and not apprehending permitted i don't believe all units should be baned from demolition but not all the saved but thoughtful considerations to each units

i don't want to see the destruction of homes for the fantastic of our city but making san francisco a special place if we begin this fabric without thoughtful consideration we can lose the uniqueness it may add time to the process of getting permit please allow etch loss of the united equal treatment and produce san francisco with safeguarding please allow all to have a process. >> tony from the hufrts committee we're in support of this legislation and the past two or three years the human rights committee we've seen a marked increase in the demolition of illegal in-law

units i put demolition in quotes sometimes we're seeing a landlord who will remove a stove and sink and evict the tenants and bring the sink and stove back in he know that is going on i don't have the hard facts nonresponsive we know that is going on we hear that all the time so the cutters legislation unfortunately is actually insensitive vision zero the evictions not incentivizing the legalization legtions is the best way to protect the tents in in-law units we hear the landlords have threatening and that is especially true in immigrant communities here in san francisco so again, this legislation is a good wa to stop apa all that

and protect the tenants the other pieces of legislation the piece of the commercial pieces now the math has changed in middle-income that is professionalable for them to return them to commercial use and a lot of artists the unit they need to be protected and finally i agree with the ideas of retroactives back to mark and steve collier's c-3 ground floor units over and over those would two essential piece i hope you sends to the full board with a positive recommendation thank you. >> hello supervisors ryan patterson on behalf of the 1049, llc

small property owners in san francisco institute we object to this ordinance we believe that is not lawful so impact and not to impact at this time for a number of reasons the one thing we want to see this economic interact report this ordinance was i am properly determined not to be a project despite the rezoning of the entire city the practical result many units some and tens of thousands will be left vacant because of the no fault evictions or not connective sense so far a landlords to utilize these units the results of vacant units is blight an urban decay that

averages the environmental impact for these the owners o to rents non-residential spaces is especially we're seeing in market street to an office building you have people using hot plates to cook those are not save for residential use of a landlords finds out a space is not permit for residential use that landlord can't collect rent if the city is allowing to withdraw that unit the practical use the office spaces small and large ones is having their property value taken and it is unconstitutional prementsdz on the building code thank you.

>> before the next speaker comes to the prood i'll call more names. >> i'm across the city at 1049 market and seen the market area people in neighboring buildings with different landlords having the same issues we're not 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 y. >> 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 adjourneded states o and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty