>> testifier: good morning. peter: >> supervisor cohen: here to strongly support the legislation. good to see it coming for. i was almost like misnomer. we would then have total one & compliance in this whole enforcement fiasco would not be good for us. the budget was later analyst report made clear that we do have a lack of compliance and have very weak enforcement system. it was another report that came out almost in the same breath from our planning department called a housing balance report, i don't want to be lost on us. this is a continuous track of how much affordable and market rate housing we are producing but also how many existing portable units we are losing. the control unit being taken out of print control to various speculative means. what's fascinating to boil down, but every four units affordable

housing the we've been building, we lose three units of rent-controlled housing. that's not quite standing in place. if not a terribly impressive track record. not one we should accept as a continuing trend. why those units are being taken off the market is of course because of a number of speculative forces but we know the short-term rentals being so unenforceable such a lack of compliance is a right opportunity for speculation removal of those units we have to but not all. this legislation is a very simple step forward what puts accountability on the businesses were making a nice any profit office as well as the clients to ensure the simply complying with local laws. if everybody was like misnomer we would not have the kind of housing affordable to crisis with this industry that we do. so, please, supervisor this is really low hanging fruit. they should've been and are legislation in the first place asking the businesses to take responsibility for only listing registered host is a very simple step. they should

be accountable and frankly should be happy to show their corporate responsibility to protect her housing supply. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> testifier: i am deeper, san francisco tenants union and i was canvassing in district 5 last weekend and i had the chance to speak of a bunch of folks on the street and everyone wanted to know how the cities going to regulate air b&b's and other candidates in that district are going to have a feel about your b&b and other correctly short-term rentals generally. they told me their concerns were what is happening in their neighborhood. i told him i'd see the same thing in my neighborhood in district 9. the neighbors are being replaced by forests. were experiencing is a community hollowing out and when that happens is not a community anymore. i do respect the need of six income folks lovely folks people that cannot use computers but i want to point out the number those people are tenants they have-the kind of

burden that are tenants face and pushed out when there's increased pressures to find new housing are so much worse for the elderly for the fixed income for the folks who can't use computers. i also want to point out that there is, while i feel for some of the concerns of the host, i don't believe that the issues that were raised is in the legislation before you today. this is really just about holding air b&b itself accountable they're not here right now to tell you why you should not pass this legislation it that's because there's no good reason. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: very concerned about the short-term rental.

person might name is tony what was and i represent senior disability action. i'm very concerned about this business model short-term rentals how to impacted up to the degree it impacted seniors in particular have lost homes because of speculators that have taken entire buildings of the market to pursue air b&b. and other short-term platforms and other short-term online platforms. you know, the numbers speak for themselves. i think something like 7000 unregistered hosts. it seems to me a matter of wanting to have your path and eat it too. we are cannibalizing a lot of housing stock in san francisco i would liken this to what i call homicide we take somebody's home, degree of senior that's been there for many many years and they get evicted. they end up house less

than we've seen at least in our organization, many horror stories seniors would've ended up homeless or in substandard housing and that comes with many many ramifications. so, i would've strongly suggest or strongly support the legislation that is before you today. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, tony. next speaker, please. >> testifier: thank you mr. chairman and thank you board of supervisors for letting us all speak today in favor of the legislation to have regulation and corporate responsibility requirements for those large companies that are in fact making money from short-term rentals. i want to address an issue my name is mark bruno-i apologize i work with [inaudible] in north beach and have done for 15 years although not speaking on behalf of the society, we do is work with the poor and homeless and many those who come to our society for help people have in fact lost their places, the rentals,

because of short-term rentals. i want to address a slightly different issue that's very specific to our neighborhood in one incident. at 525, 535 -street which the city itself is determined-i've no letters from short term rental office-city has determined that this is an illegal short-term rental of five unit building. it's never been properly registered. so what on november 13, up with this. you can show this to everybody on the screen, we had a fire on the building and we had a fire because it turns out,-is a better-you can see the date and incident number infected 10 copies to leave with a bottle board of supervisors with all the fire people came out men and women that we had today as taxpayers because this area the building short-term rental being denied proper permits, number one to do the work in the top of the building which i could see from two blocks away have started the fire. well, somebody had

been living in the building where the tenants or residents, anybody living next-door who own their own property, it wouldn't much care about a fire on the roof of the building was nobody to care because i'm a particular date nobody was there. you can see in this last display here, to do this work is in fact three days later and three days later. would've cost of fire and a lot of damage to the neighborhood had in fact somebody, me in this case just by coincidence not seen this fire. the point is when you don't have people living in building took about the neighborhood you are inviting is unsafe, on habitable and inhumane ways of affecting the neighborhood. so i think were doing more than asking them to pay their fair share as ruskin to be good neighbors and i appreciate you doing that supervisor peskin. thank u so much >> supervisor peskin: i do, sir and just by way of background because i know that building. the famous [inaudible] in what beach, actually was being advertised

on a different platform not air b&b but was we should remember there are other hosting platforms and that one actually come after doing some research was not listed on your b&b. was listed on a different site. >> testifier: >> supervisor peskin: ms. lederman and after the next speaker, [calling names] >> testifier: thank you. good morning supervisors. my name is lori lederman resident of the inner sunset. i urge you to support this legislation. the galatian without enforcement is meaningless without the required tools enforcement is ineffective. the evidence is in. according to the city's own office of short-term rentals only 75% of hosts are registered. the opposite attributes this in large part to a substantial number of hosts were not eligible to operate short-term rentals under the law. since their inception, the short-term rental

behemoths and many of the hosts have ignored existing law and mrs. accountability. so it's pretty clear opposition to this legislation only serves to protect the legal short-term rentals to generate you profits for the platform. against urban environment cannot be a free-for-all where corporations foster and egos of individual time and that breaks down the social conjugate we've traffic and parking laws. we have rules and regulations for small businesses. violations are subject to fines. this is not a new concept. excepting short-term rentals from enforceable rules is a slap in the face to every small business in the city, a slap in the face to every neighborhood has de facto been rezoned commercial for short-term rentals and important, most important, is problematic

motivator to continue converting housing stock to short-term rentals. i like to note, the speakers here today were posted this legislation are all registered house. proven the operation of the city office of short-term rentals is necessary, but it's a separate issue from this legislation not impaired by this legislation. this legislation is in the public interest among corporations great facts on the ground recruiting stakeholders with a personal best interest then become lobbyists for corporations does not make good public policy. your job is to make good public policy could please, support this simple by the legislation. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: think. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning, supervise. minus dennis must cozy night to live in the inner sunset. this reminds me of the banks that were too big to fail. we have air b&b and other sort of too big to fail to but i think we have to look at is when the corporations like this are challenged to change the subject. today, a lot of the discussion was about the details of the client application process and i understand if that's all

accurate, then it needs to be improved, but the real issue is, it's fantasy to imagine that for-profit corporations, whether it's air b&b or have is the chief motive responsibility to the communities they suck money from. that is just unreal. i think we should just look at it correctly. the government, our government, has responsibility to all of the various people in its jurisdiction. 12 businesses. your b&b has responsibility to itself. to its cheat investors. to expect them to behave in a way that corresponds to the needs of the people address the fact that they're impacting the housing situation negatively is unrealistic. i think it's all responsibility and you've taken it up in this legislation that

the government is close to take care of establishing these regulations that should've been done a year and half ago, and the message is in, and now we know that in fact the corporations will not take care of this responsibility by themselves. so, i strongly encourage all of you to pass this on to the full board with a strong positive recommendation. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning. it's good to be had. i know it's a very different attitude in this room from last year. at these hearings. my name is kathy lipscomb among the board of senior and disability action we are very grateful to supervisors peskin and campos who persistently push this kind of legislation, which is so drastically needed. this industry has definitely negatively impacted the rental market. a report to supervisor campos dated 5-13-15: evictions in major neighborhoods reveals

a correlation between elections and neighborhoods. examples: the intermission, the numbers of commercial hosts were 315. the numbers of deductions, 323. pretty close. he got very, 193 hosts, to 12 evictions. then, there's a scandal of the sro, the poorest people being pushed out for short-term rentals. citizens were told last year, justin a lot time to work it just give a lot time to work. we have. we have. the short-term rental office now seems to throw up its hands upon admitting as many as 8000 people have not registered. what does this mean for city taxes? senior disability action strongly supports the registration process in hopes that the numbers of days that people post is closely monitored. host must have a

valid number to get on a platform and were this world really fair, those the liquid once would have to pay some retroactive fines. also, i agree that the registration process must be simplified. too many people have found fault with it. no excuses. thanks again for your hard work is very important issue. the world is watching us. the custom thank you. before the next speaker i want to say that resident breed needs to leave so i want to afford her a moment to make some comments in an supervisor campos were take her place as a member of the committee. supervisor breed >> president breed: thank you. i want to just a couple words because i do appreciate a lot of the folks who've come out and express concern, not just about the legislation but the process. i just wanted to add a

couple of things. number one, i've heard time and time again that the process is problematic. i do think that, especially because many of the people that i've interacted with use their bedrooms for your b&b purposes seven seniors we do have challenges with computers, and i want to make sure that this process is fair. we talk about accessibility. we go out of our way as a city to provide different languages on our ballots and to do other things to make sure that people feel included and are able to use our systems and processes fairly, and so i do think that we have got to do a better job with the process and make the process work. but i do think that overall, we do need to make sure that there is accountability. i think this is really a simple fix to that accountability. the situation of the landlord's tenant is illegally renting out an air b&b , renting out a unit, is a prime example of why registration is so important. because, if you are tenant you have to get permission from

your landlord. clearly, this system is rogan and we have to do a better job of regulating it. getting folks who are breaking the law with this particular platform should be done in such a way like getting a parking. as soon as the meter is about to expire, you know here comes the meter maid. giving you a ticket it is consequences. if you don't feed the meter. we need to make sure that we have consequences for people who are not following the law. this is really, i think, a first step. i know there's more work to be done with this platform, and i want to commend kevin god for the work he has done with trying to crack down on people were taking entire units aftermarket and using them for the sole purpose of short-term rentals and that should not be happening in our neighborhoods.

but i also empathize and support many of the folks in the city who use this is extra income. if you are wealthy you probably wouldn't even bother with this platform, but then again, you do also have individuals were using this as a way to just, basically, exist and have a business for this particular purpose and it should not be the case either. i want us to strike the bounds. i don't think this legislation is unreasonable and i think that i'm definitely just to be clear, i will be supporting the legislation and i will be working with many of my home shares with concerns about this , especially about the process. working to try to make the process work, especially, especially, for senior population. so i just want to say that this is not the first time that we've looked at legislation and brought it back to the board and made a fix to

make it better legislation. we may be before the board there may be additional legislation because i feel strongly that we have got to have a stronger system in place that goes after people who have entire units off the market for this purpose. that is definitely a huge problem in the city and we know this doesn't necessarily address it and we have more work to do, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. i don't think it's so overwhelming that it should be opposed because it's just, i think, common sense. i appreciated supervisor campos and supervisor peskin's leadership on this particular issue because it does make sense. i do want to express that one of the things i'm also concerned about your there are hosting platforms where this

would be required. i want to make sure that there's other platforms that are not necessarily short-term rental type platforms that the door can be open for abuse on those platforms as well, so i think accountability across the board is going to be important and we're bringing in now a decent amount of revenue because of this. we should definitely work with kevin guy and his office to make sure we have adequate resources to get this process to work for people but more poorly, adequate resources to make sure enforcement is done on a regular basis. so, with that, thank you again i apologize but i do have to leave. as supervisor campos we taken my place in 042 watching this hearing later and getting more feedback from members of the public about this. so, thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mdm. pres. thank you for your patience. >> testifier: hi. my name is

alicia sandoval. the were for housing rights committee. i see many changes in the mid-mission district. i remember there being not a lot of b&b but as i see, right now we are facing a housing crisis. but i also want to bring out to you what happens when families, when seniors, are being displaced by fires by the actions. it's not fair. then sleeping in cars, being homeless,. that's a crisis. to me, that's a crisis. we need to help. we need help. these families committee seniors need help. they have

been displaced. i see this legislation as a way to build in accountability to a whole structure, to assist them. making sure that the landlord, the owners from buildings are not even take people, and i know it's happening. it's imperative there be a system of structure that they will be accountable. so, it makes it a little harder to register. but imagine all the people who are homeless, all the people are being displaced. that is much harder to deal with.

>> testifier: >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: my name is in the choir and i live in north beach.i too would like to thank supervisor campos and supervisor peskin for taking leadership in this very important legislation. i think many of the speakers before me express very eloquently why it's needed. particularly, the lady with a long white hair and a gentleman next to her. so i won't take my whole 2 min. i been following error b&bs path for number of years. i don't think they know what corporate responsibility is all about. i don't think $1000 a day fine will then much of their budget

says they were able to spend $8.9 million to defeat proposition f. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: hi. my name is peggy grasso. i'm in support of the legislation could overcome i don't feel-sorry. can you coming out >> supervisor peskin: yes, perfect. >> testifier: name is peggy gosselin 11 hazed out. i support the legislation being proposed but as it stands now i think it's a start. many people mentioned about the current enforcement and its lack of backbone or efforts run as a effort. but meet or responsibility. we have a situation where i live on our street that the people have incited off of it are being beaded seized intermediate debate open their own platform. they continue to do so. when you contact the office of

short-term rentals, not just myself but other neighbors, we were told is not a lot we can do about it. regardless of the platform, is a corporate responsibility by air b&b and the platforms, but also personal responsibility of the people doing the writing and violating the law. so, if legislation the sinking ship departed press on, but that's going anywhere they can. in my worst-case scenario, think about this, you've always platforms that thing up independently in all these different methods that spring up to circumvent the law as it exists right now. what we need for example, this person down the street from us has been cited for illegal rental and continues to rent on other platforms. you know, told by

the citizens is of mcadoo then what's the point of enforcement at all? or the law? it makes no sense at all. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. after the other speaker cards i've called, [calling names] thank you for letting us

have time with you. everybody has questions about what we are doing and how we are getting the navigation centers started and some of these improving the [inaudible] but it is about [inaudible] i think all of you are interested in that. i want to let you know [inaudible] also answer any question you have and how you [inaudible] operation here and working citizen center and how we help you do what we can do make sure that we have permanent housing and what we need to do to protect that. i want to say thank you

to the soccer team and if everybody want s have to have a seat [inaudible] i will have sam talk about the standards of the navigation center because we are opening up another one. [inaudible] we have one at civic center and market street that will convert to a navigation sent squr have a temp raer shelter, about 150 people and building yet again another navigation center and going to a community [inaudible] navigation center is our cities best effort to have something that is better than a shelter. when you go to the it shelter system [inaudible] have to line up and then have to leave and while you are at the shelter there isn't a lot happening there. maybe at next

door center you may get [inaudible] foobe able to [inaudible] what we are trying to do is use [inaudible] on a every day basis to make sure you got [inaudible] and make sure you can visit the dentist and make sure you get a nurse to check up on you what is going on with your health and get your benefits together and make sure you have access to [inaudible] and all the other programs that state has along with being informed that we knew to register our home we did so did although, the process of getting our business license in short-term rental permit was long and inefficient. however, despite these inconveniences, we think it's important that short-term rentals are regulated so that any bad actors are weeded out and are held to the same standard. we are dismayed and frustrated that this law is not being enforced equally for all who host another platform exit tidy sum will not step up to take

some other spots ability for regulating the economy the law. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: thank you supervisor randy shaw director of the hamilton, we've been dealing with this issue for a couple years now and supervisor campos has picked up. we have an enforcement problem and october of 2014 supervisors kim and breed cosponsored a nonprofit standing amendment i would give groups like ours the same right to directly sue house were not following the law did it's been remarkably successful in hotel conversion and payment stopping illegal hotel conversions we can do the same thing probably 70% of the apartments of what happened was, after that legislation was sponsored it had to go to planning. it passed planning could do was some other controversial issues. this was

a 6-1 vote in favor of a good a year ago when it got to the full board, all kinds of hijinks occurred in all the reforms were defeated. which is insane. because even if we pass this legislation, the losses can be filed in the federal communication that might be held but we have nonprofit standing which is already drafted. it's ready to go. maybe if you added to this current legislation passed next week i don't even know it's on a hearing on. other processes but started and in through planning. it seems to been lost amidst these other issues and as i say, even if we have registered everyone has to register, if someone is violating the law, who is going to enforce it? the city attorney can't do it alone. so, please consider adding it again i can send you the copy of the legislation of you need to. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. shaw. next speaker, please. and after [calling names]

>> testifier: good morning. jim lazarus san francisco chamber of commerce. taking homes and units off the market for short-term rentals is illegal. it's illegal today. it was illegal five years ago. the city's planning department, building inspection department, rent control offices need to use the tools they already have to enforce zoning laws in san francisco to attain our housing stock it that's not what is before you today. what is before you today is an effort to pass through a variety of private businesses located, who knows where, through the worldwide internet, and obligation to police and edit content on the internet. this would be it as if this board of

supervisors tried to enforce its business licensing laws by having the examiner call everybody that's advertised in here with a 650 number for a roofing contractor, a painting contractor, a hauling company, and assure they had eight san francisco business license before the examiner could take the ad. that's not how it works. that is and how it works under federal law or the first amendment. but the city does is that the tax collector office calls 650-589-2975 in san matteo county to see how much business they're doing in san francisco and whether they have a license. do not pass the obligation away from where it belongs within the enforcement of all these laws in san francisco. what you have heard today is a failure of enforcement by the city manager not be put on the backs of independent companies that are

located here and actually throughout the world. they given much >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: to echo the previous speaker, to ask a platform to do what you're asking and if they did everyone would move. but we need to-to echo him again, we do need enforcement that's where i think the city needs to be enforcing and helping all these cases of eviction because that should not be happening. i'm a registered house. i hold a business license. i filed all my forms should i renew my business. i did everything i need to. i even paid the city back tax. i would love the city to use that to help ease addiction cases and not hopefully, reasonably think that passing this legislation will change or help these

problems are going on. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: i'm with the housing rights committee we are supporting this legislation. the reality is, air b&b is making our housing crisis worse. it's taking units off in rooms off the market at a time when we desperately need every single one of these units. to landlords and speculators using the directions to clear out old buildings to rent them as air b&b. my own landlord came to me at one point and told me a story where she had rented a place to someone not realizing that the woman was a real door and the woman never moved in. she was renting the place out as air b&b. was only when a neighbor informed my landlady that you realize that the woman was not even living there. three: sros, people talked

about the. sros used to be the housing for the poorest people among us. the speedway homeless people got off the streets. but what is happening. we know that units, rooms, and sros are being converted to air b&b and so what does that mean? it means most people are not getting off the sti was below the costly gupta street on auditing of the street which is only making our homeless problem worse. for neighborhoods are justification. i know people talked about that rather than the castro and the fact that air b&b is intruding factor to the fact that the castro is becoming less lgbt. it's been de-gay and is being air b&b is one of the villains in all that. so, pass this law. give the city a tool to crack down on the speculators and the other people were exploiting these platforms to evict long-term tenants and to make

scads and scads of money and make our housing crisis even worse than it is. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, tommy. next speaker, please. >> testifier: eileen bogan central park resident. here in support of the amendment as they put more teeth into the ordinance. i urge the committee to move this item forward the recommendation. thanks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. is fred here? i called her name. [calling names]. mr. bolan. >> testifier: good morning members of the board. by ms. bruce bolan. i live in district 8. near a number of air b&b or other rental writing sometimes tens of thousands dollars a month and i don't know whether their legal register or not. to support strongly support this commonsense change to the law. listening to the discussion today it seems to be obvious

with the legislation proposes is reasonable and really nothing new. it's required registration provisions activities that affect the public. i asked myself, have i ever felt burdened by the arbiter thought a government form? the answer is, yes. have i ever felt that my temporary inconvenience overrides legitimate public or government interest and legitimate public oversight, or increased corporate responsibility? well, no. so thank you for bring this legislation forget x-ray board addition to the law. thanks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> testifier: i get my name is henrietta kurier i apologize for my poor penmanship. my girlfriend complains about all the time. >> supervisor peskin: sorry for butchering yearning. >> testifier: no problem. i would like to support the legislation. i think it's a quite a no-brainer in these arguments about how air b&b is

operating as a nice the engine on the subject to such regulation is just a bunch of who we. comparing, regulating short-term rentals with a newspaper taking out newspaper ads you can compare these think it's new world and old worlds. we need new approaches to make new world technology work in today's environment. the biggest problem, you for this over and over again-the short-term rentals are causing less housing. it trickles downhill in your seeing more homeless people. that's really the big problem. all these homeless people. so, yay for the legislation. it's a start and i look forward to seeing the next pieces of legislation to make registration easier. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. after that, [calling names]

>> testifier: good morning, supervisor name is charlie work on government affairs for the san francisco apartment association. thank you for hearing us today. we represent about 3000 property owners from the immense about 70,000 rent-controlled apartments citywide. we ask that you support the legislation here before you today and also the full board of supervisors. the main thing the legislation does is all the platforms themselves accountable for registration. the same weight hurts is allowed to make sure the card about a register with the dmv. we believe this to be the smartest, easiest and effective way of cracking down on the bad actors were both landlords and tenants while allowing home sharing to continue in the framework of the existing law. the requirement told by forms and honorable to only list registered units was a primary recommendation of the planning department staff last year. the planning commissioner has

called it the linchpin of successful enforcement. successful enforcement is really important. with nobody really registering no to incentive to register even the office of short-term rentals has stated there's no real way to go after some of the worst actors. this is extremely problematic because the underlying policy goals of the legislation that it make sense to allow short-term rentals on a limited basis, that people should only be able to conduct short-term rentals in the home in which they live, that they must allow and the building on the phone owner before starting they should not be able to do with no subletting clause, all the enforcement mechanisms you built it over the past three years into 107 on the enforcement on the registration prospect without registration, none of these other mechanisms and checks and balances are able to start. we've heard loud and clear from our membership that some of them will opt out of the rent-controlled ordinance without proper enforcement. what that means is, do not offer their tenants to people who live and work it will without enforcement of those motives to enforcement of

the water there tends to short-term rental guests to air b&b services. we ask you for your support today and a couple board and i think of your time. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: gentlemen my name is dale carlson here for share better san francisco. i would talk about the legal indemnification that air b&b claims it has for many municipal regulation. we do not allow walgreens to sell prescription drugs without a prescription. we don't allow safely to sell alcohol or tobacco two young adults who can prove they are over 21. we don't let hertz rent vehicles to unlicensed drivers. we don't allow uber to put unlicensed drivers in unregistered vehicles on its platform. you talk about the same sort of standard applying to hosting platforms. you can't list it. you can't rent it. you can't

ever ties it does not properly registered with the city. we are not talking about passively user generated content. not talking about a company that is protected by the communications decency act because unlike yelp or sf gate using his posting inflammatory and incendiary comments. were top-notch hosting five forms that are aggressively pursuing and recruiting you host. my wife and i received an invitation from b rbl. rent your home for $5000 a week during outside lands. we received a notice through next-door, come to a seminar at air dnd headquarters and learn how to become a host. and how to get around san francisco regulations. and how to get around your landlord. there is no indemnification for aiding and abetting, and that's what he sows in platforms are doing. they are aiding and abetting illegal activity. the

>> supervisor campos: >> supervisor peskin: legislation will make that stop and i urge you to pass the legislation. the best and thank you and thank you for your work. if i'm not called your name will call a few more speaker cards. [calling names] >> testifier: my name is ian winkler and other than the district 6 resident like most when he is mean my boyfriend were content to just kind of party or the world burns until friday and got a notice from our landlord saying that they're trying to do back to reduction of him and put in an electronic key card system are 46 unit building. ostensibly, to try to do more interview be stuff i want to remind you guys

that you are the only line between the millionaires and billionaires and us. you don't stand up for us, nobody else will. this is those to be a democracy. never got involved before. but now i feel committed to be a people for progressive politics. i stood in line for five hours on monday to go see bernie sanders. i volunteered for jane kim for two years on tuesday. this morning i'm here and this evening i'm been a volunteer for bernie sanders again. we are scared of orlando. if you give them an inch of they come out. of those out on the street. we live in the only department in san francisco that we can afford. i ask you to remember the average people when you make these decisions. please, support this resolution. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. ms. >> supervisor cohen: >> testifier: good morning. still morning. >> testifier: get market is still one. i'm patina >> i'm in support of the legislation it is been money or

other speakers that have already spoken in support of it who said what i would like to say more eloquently than i would be able to say so all i can say is, i'm glad that it's been put for. i hope that has the full support of the board of supervisors. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. cohen. there's fred. >> testifier: [inaudible] i'm here to support the bill. our organization does. as you know, they're still thousands of apartments on your b&b. if i that is the website and what people sell drugs illegal prostitution, whatever my more police on those things were, the website would get shut down and we be held liable somehow with letting people list their apartments. illegally breaking the law and what were seeing is

tons of apartments that had been rented out to a not been able to soit's really disturbing and you need to put a stop to. thank you all for taking this up. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: i could on teresa and perry all of those was housing program and we are here to support this legislation. it's been long overdue. the should of been in the legislation from the very beginning. our number a year ago when there are questions about enforcement it seems to be unenforceable. so, it should've been done in the first place. also, there are

programs, our office in the their people seen in our program looking for affordable housing live in sros and saying that their hotels are being rented for air b&b. also, along that the much along that sixth street, you can see some forests coming out of srl like hotels and you're wondering what is going, what happened while people who just used to live there. so this legislation is just pretty much what much enforcement into the legislation but should of been happening before and the fact that will go to small site acquisition. it's a great idea.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> file name is robert-i live in apartment building in the marina.after a lot of denials, buying her application on your bmd, i was able to find out through somebody in tampa florida at area be issued rented the unit out in 2015 and made $43,000 on her unit. when we caught her this year she had made $12,000. a couple things that i support the legislation, one of the things is ridiculous if you. give 30 days notice is

absolutely stated. something like this. because people will go up to the 29th day, collect the money, and then hold tight for a while and go back to. also the taxes of defendant i talk to the tax collector people. what happens is the legitimate people the money people for my unit the money goes in. they match up with the legitimate people could they have the other money is from the people that are not registered. they cash the check. there's no incentive. the got their money this nonsense and do anything and i do not understand why somebody, does not check out all the addresses that coming with this tax money. involved without. you'll find out who the legal people are. i support the legislation and i firmly believe that this legislation

will hopefully get people working towards getting of city back to work. the past can think. i welcome all the schoolkids who just joined us. good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> supervisor peskin: >> testifier: i do not know they want to speak. my name is marie swanson. i don't think i can really add on to what everybody is saying, but i think that since we know the objections equal new care b&b that we should just stop letting people rent entire traces out. all the new constructions that's not an air bmd because it's too expensive so what are they doing? they're demolishing housing stock. it's all existing housing that's turning into air

b&b. i just think that's wrong. housing is for people. i'd also like to add that when out rosenthal came up and spoke, she is a lobbyist for air b&b. so, so much for the word transparency. really, i don't think-i think the great start, but i don't think it's going to go far enough. then, i read how much air b&b donated to supervisors. i'm not optimistic on this vote for the full board because he clearly knows how to buy his vote. thank you. good luck. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. after the next speaker, [calling names] >> testifier: actually stepped up in the wrong one. i'm a reader comment. is that okay.

>> supervisor peskin: that's okay >> testifier: my name is maria, in and out in the san francisco resident for over 20 years in attendance. i'm here to speak in support of the legislation for the short-term rentals. i've seen in the past several years greed take over the city. the bar displaced it is just wrong when seniors of becoming homeless and living on the streets where i see things about an 80-year-old woman that's been affected. rents are so high, they are completely out of control, even for people making a good income. it's challenging could be challenging to find a place to live. it's an epidemic gets not only i think the problem is it's not only in san francco that these companies are doing this. this is an international epidemic. this become a problem nd tarou world in big cities where they're causing displacement and it's time for them to be corporate responsible and if they're not a do it in the city needs to do it for them to all these

companies accountable and we need to san francisco represent is a letter know the cities not for sale. i've never been afraid to be evicted before now. i'm a good tenant, would've my landlord decides to sell the place and become an air b&b or whatever platform. how would i find a place to live? it so difficult to find a place to live these days. so, we just need you to stand up for the people that san francisco not the wealthy and not the corporations but for the people so we can stay here and have the city be diverse, culturally, economically, thank you. be peskin thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: hello. i'm julianna arras. i just want to say my husband and i are one of the first 100 people pose the register last year with the new law and i want to say, since then, from day one that other departments do not know where the office was so the

neighboring offices did not know where the office was to register. since then, we have got duplicate notices and threatening notices about taxes and inventories, about mention everything. i think that legislation is good, but if the city does not get together and having the department talk to each other and do actual planning it'll be totally inefficient. the other part i want to say is given my age that on the senior citizen and lived in the area in san francisco well i work in san francisco for 30 years, i lived in the city for 29 and the reason why was because in the 80s, it was impossible for professionals like myself and my husband,, myself as a social worker to buy property in san francisco at the time. i think to go only under a b&b and any other platform is hypocritical diving we should go after the academy of arts which are finally doing it and the

investors, the chinese which in the article published in the new york times have the majority of their investment here in the city. we should prevent foreign investment to do that because we are the ones really causing the crisis market. it is not one single agency or one single corporation. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: >> testifier: hi my name is jane cohen am also host and the landlord in the city for many years. i registered onto the tedious process this woman is talked about and i'm going to the tax office. that but these notices i've not pass my taxes and i had good i think it is good that the city is i think people should be required to be registered and on the size.

there's good in bad in this world and a lot of seniors and others get caught in the process crossroads of some these bad actors. but there are those of us that have always operated within the law and the reason were all trying to keep our heads above water. that's why some of us, when we legally have vacancies have chosen to go this route. we are not targeting seniors. we are not targeting hispanics or anybody else. we are trying to get our own heads above water because of the restrictions of rent control. so i want to say to you they should require what is the listing number. i also

think you need to clean up your own house before you can ask others to. >> supervisor peskin: thanks. >> testifier: i want to dispense with this nonsense the short-term rental platforms are internet could there hotel commission marriott is the second largest hotel franchisor in san francisco after air dmv. if you go on marriott.com, you can rent from thousands of hotel operations around the world in the huge majority of them are neither owned or managed by the marriott corporation that's no different from what air b&b and the rpo do. holding these giant corporations accountable is

common sense and as someone said before, a no-brainer. i do want to acknowledge supervisor breed and many commentators said that when he to go a lot further than this legislation. absolutely there's widespread violation of law because as the law was written as the planning department told the board of supervisors, when the two ordinance was that this is unenforceable. the city does not have the tools to enforce the law. we need to put our focus on that, but right now, this piece of legislatio focusing on the corporations is where we need to start. i made resident of district 8. just my block alone there are six full-time whole units at your pmb operations there. they would be rent-controlled. they will be housing for people who need housing and san francisco said they're been rising full-time which i would estimate is $3500 a month. we

can't compete with that on the rental market. we needed away the incentives in all these counties are accountable. the best and thank you. next speaker, please. any other members of the public >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. any other members of the public alike to testify these line up behind the specter. >> testifier: i'm a small business owner in san francisco and i went out on my own about a year and half ago and i am a host. and air b&b has allowed me to pursue my dreams of owning a small business because san francisco is such an expensive city to live in and to start a small business. i need to be able-it's challenging to start a small business in the first day. so i did register and the process takes time out of my schedule to go to city hall and the

planning department and i think process just needs to be streamlined better so that it will allow people to register by the registration process. i just feel like they've help me and it will does help small business owners, people who have a dream they want to pursue it so that's my take on it. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier:i'm a little noticed. my name is silly smith. i been here for many times already. i live a building with six units. i'm going to through investment

she dated five things. first she offered the market then she accused me of violations. then she made me a settlement, then the today's gimme a settlement she gamy [inaudible] that's not the problem. the problem is that. she gives three people [inaudible] and the other ones are coming in and out so i think those are the issues today. so, please do some and i hope when my broken images can understand. the past can we understand this on. >> testifier: i been here so may times. mussina does it. i went up and down hills in every type of weather. on the disabled i don't get help from nobody. i'm going to share this with you guys. i sent all my money writing to all of you guys writing to jerry brown, obama, name it. i was so desperate federal to the pope,

who answered me he's the only one that answered me. he gimme his blessing and good luck for me. [inaudible] >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> testifier: we've been fighting for for the housing and rigid license our reception in 1981. we supported many many projects for new affordable housing in san francisco over a number of years. but it's almost a futile

effort when were losing a photo units at the same time. with this legislation does is give us a tool to try to fix that perhaps the biggest problem of a short-term rental may not the only one but the biggest. which is the wholesale loss of rental units to the new hotel industry. thomas like we have a forest fire going on to recall the fire department but meanwhile, their arsonists are still out there setting fires. it's almost pointless. we can do something to stop the cannibalization of our existing rental stock all these efforts are almost totally futile. i plot this legislation and i hope we move towards stopping once again the wholesale loss of portable rental units in san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. thank you for your 35 years of service. >> testifier: good afternoon

my name is stuart, born and raised stands san francisco that generated currently the founder of san francisco native source. when megan refers not to the coalition 1800s was a lot more room in san francisco. but for some, take up all that space. until we can appropriately and regulations to allow other people to live in the city during the urban migration in the 1990s and 2000, we are going to displaced families living here for generations. i grew up in the city of one of most diverse cities in the united states and now it's when the least diverse cities. i hope we can come together to put in the appropriate regulations so that i can have other families for generations to continue to live in san francisco. thank you for your time and thank you for being you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, subject seeing no other members of the public we will close public comments. thank you all for staying through this long hearing good i want to not only think supervisor campos and all the supporters

on this legislation. i also want to point out that this legislation is very consistent with the recommendations that came from the city administrator and the opposite short-term rentals actually got in january in early january to the office of short-term rentals wrote a letter to brian chesky, ceo of air b&b, as was to other platforms craigslist, home away, brd oh, suggesting a number of of improvements, including that the websites have some sort process for acknowledging registration compliance. so, i want to say we are finally getting it to implement that here today, and

i'm hopeful-this is an evolving area of law. this is not just happening in san francisco. it's happening in cities across the country and everybody is trying to figure their way to get the right regulatory system in place that on the one hand, allows people to make ends meet and on the other hand does not lead to the loss of thousands of units of affordable housing that are meant to be occupied residence of a vibrant city and a vibrant city. so, i think we are evolving this legislation here today and with that, i would like to turn it over to committee member campos and ask vice chairman yee if he has any comments. >> supervisor campos: i'll defer to supervisor tammy. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor yee the floor is yours >> supervisor yee: i would

think a public for coming out and giving their comments today. it was very enlightening. some of the things i've heard before, but certainly stories like jennifer's and ms. lees and ms. müller race, from sunnyside,it's not unique. my eye this deceived many calls with some type stories.there seems to be some confusion from people that came today in terms ofthose who voice their opposition to the legislation in what it does and does not do. they did bring up some concerns. the office of short-term rentals can improve their system so people could actually get registered a little easier. this is a question that begs an answer for a future hearing. the

penalty charge, again, as supervisor peskin noted, is certainly on the books already and letting the platforms know you're responsible as well as everyone else and was also confusion my think this was only for air b&b and it's for all the hosting platforms. so, given that, for me, i don't understand the opposition that much because it mainly i think this is so straightforward to me. it's peacefully asking our hosting platforms to work with us to stop the poor for a should of unregistered posts that are out there basically, doing a lot of damage to our rental stock, but also what am hearing for my district is that it's really changing the unique character of neighborhoods and what it's doing as this marlins was describing, and the

sunnyside area. so, because of all this, i also agree with supervisor peskin that this is not the end of the legislation around this. this is evil in. we need to see what works and what doesn't work. what can be better for the city in general. it's less about the individuals and less about the platforms themselves. it's really about what is our city to be in the future. so, i will be supporting this legislation and i want to thank supervisor campos and peskin and mar and

avalos for sponsoring this legislation is thank you for much >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor yee. let me just that, i've heard loud and clear and look forward to working with members of the board and mr. died in the short-term rental office about process improvement rotor to registration. before that loud and clear and thank you to those of you can put that message to us. then, relative to ms. halpern's situation, we should also examine the law to make sure that when a landlord has a tenant who is causing the violation that is accounted for in the legislation it seems to be a catch 22 the short-term rental has done something no other issue could do for the city. it has brought landlord's and tenant leaders together it but tenants union and the san francisco association together. this brought the hotel employees and restaurant employees local two together with hotel counsel so obviously,

this is an issue that needs more addressing by that process will here today supervisor yee said this evolving area of law. no one has been down and were making the tweaks necessary to make and will continue so as we learn more about how this phenomenon partially works to make the process improvements relative to registration and the like. with that, supervisor campos >> supervisor campos: again come i want to thank my colleagues who are supporting this and i was proud to be working on this legislation with supervisor peskin and his staff. in also supervisor avalos and mar and thank supervisor yee for his comments

and for his support as well as pres. breed. i do want to go back to the comments that we heard from a number of posts about improvement process a registration in the me say this, like supervisor peskin, i'm fully committed to doing whatever we can to improve that process and to that end, i remain open to any specific ideas, suggestions, people have to improve the registration. that said, the comments that i have heard from air b&b, the industry, have not focused on improving the experience of the hosts when it comes to registration. i actually think that the industry in air b&b particularly would be wise to

focus its energy on back instead of what we have seen in the past, which is to oppose any effort to regulate and with that in mind, i want to say that i understand why your b&b and the industry spend the millions of dollars that it did on the opposition of proposition f. i supported proposition f i know there's many things in there that people could understandably raise issues with. i honestly -i'm scratching my head on why air b&b or the industry would have any problem with this piece of legislation. i actually think that having been on the board of supervisors for now, most eight years, i still don't understand why they would

take the time and spend the energy to post something that is so commonsensical, so modest , and what is interesting about the comments of people came here just to speak against this piece of legislation is how the comments actually focused on general issues of concern, but not the specifics of this legislation because this legislation really doesn't do any of the things that people who will oppose it claim it does. i actually think that the more people find out about how modest proposal this is the more i think the opposition will just go away. with that in mind, i encourage your b&b, i encourage the industry, to join our efforts to come on board because this is one of those things that is such a no-brainer

, you know. enforcing the most basic fundamental element of regulation, which is the registration system, endorsing that, i mean that is a given. that should be a no-brainer and it's one of those things that i hope that your b&b and the industry sees the light just like i think they eventually saw the light on the simplicity and the basic nature doing something like paying your taxes. this is up there with paying your taxes. this is something that is sort of-this should not be a debatable issue. so that's the hope that i have,, you know, and i think that as this goes forward to the board of supervisors, i think that there's an opportunity for the city family, the elective family as the mayor calls it, to come together on something that's

just simple and just basic. so, with that for action is taken or asked the committee to please adopt the amended version i stipulate. >> supervisor peskin: i'll take that as a motion by supervisor campos. to adopt the amendment that are before. can we do that without objection? the amendment are adopted >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: i just want to thank carolyn guseman and supervisor campos's office for her work on this in also a shutout dale carlson for his stewardship of this issue over now the last couple of years. with that, colleagues, can we send this to the full board as amended with recommendation without objection, that will be-this is as a committee report or not is a committee report-as a committee report >>[gavel] >> supervisor campos: if we can actually excuse pres. breed

>> supervisor peskin: a motion to excuse pres. breed from that vote. okay. smooth without objection pres. breed is excused and without objection was in the item as amended with recommendation as a committee report for a hearing on tuesday, june 7 at the board of supervisors. thank you all for your testimony. >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: mdm. clerk, please read the next item >> clerk: item number four hearing on the implementation of the legacy business registry and historic reservation grants. the peskin thank you. i'll give a moment for folks to clear out. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. alter the moment for folks to clear out.thank you. two

weeks ago, nvidia item, yes, you did. two weeks ago we held a hearing on the status of the legacy business per gram and we heard from the director of the office of the economic and workforce development, todd with oh, as was his deputy director joachim torres, in the cities pledge director, ms. melissa whitehouse and i think them for their participation and we were very pleased that the announcement was made that same day at about $2.5 million would be allocated over the next two years to advance and administer the legacy business registry and program. we continued the hearing to today

to allow for further updates regarding the status of the nominations. it was represented to us within a week of the hearing we would have a conference of list of those properties were businesses that were nominated and today we are joined by the director of the office of small business, regina dick-andrew c in or think oewd and marian thompson, in particular, for working with my staff. last week, i received a memorandum from dick-tendency to cause a little bit concerned in either one of quibble about the 39 or 40 businesses but actually got the fact that supervisor campos's staff had done a survey just likely down the hallway and asking of the supervisors how many they nominated and indeed, we believe that about 54

businesses were nominated to. then, i have a series of questions both of the letter from last week which i responded to a letter earlier this week which mitch which ms. dick-injuries he responded to the relative to the status of a number of these projects many which have been nominated or submitted as much as five months ago. with that, colleagues, when we turn this over to ms. dick-in jersey. she is a presentation to us i guess this afternoon. >> staff: todd rufo. thanks for the opportunity to come out before you today. as you mentioned supervisor, when i was here two weeks ago, we stated that we would take to immediate action steps. the first was greater, the list of all nominated businesses and provide what the status is of each of those nominations to

you within seven days. which were transmitted that through e-mail on may 26 and the second piece was to conduct all nominate businesses provide them a status update whether applications were at both need to be there five. today what we want to do is provide an overview of the steps taken over the last two weeks to talk to the details of the lists some numbers you were mentioning chairman peskin type for next up were really domestic at this point or turn it over to director dick-visit from the opposite small business. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. good afternoon. >> director: deductive. on the stand here since we have the powerpoint. so, i just first want to say good afternoon chairman peskin supervisor campos and supervisor yee. i apologize for not being able to attend the may 19 g ao meeting as a was out of town for a family vacation. i do want to

acknowledge the challenges and to medications that your offices and businesses have had with our office and with me and whilthere has been legitimate events that have taken place, that resulted in these challenges from the registry properly being launched and i think it's important that we now look forward and move forward and significant movement has taken place since the may 19 meeting. i also want to thank you for your support for the legacy business program manager job position. with that, the job position has been posted and will be able to fill that position in the next-before the next fiscal year. i do want to thank the mayor's office, particularly melissa whitehead for working with you on the grant amount and to talk with oh, marian thompson, lisa begun, chlorine

chan and joachim torres, were the last couple months with their assistance as well. so, immediately upon my return from vacation, i received the informal list of the 54 that you ve spoken about supervisor peskin, and cross-reference that with what was my official list. so, there were businesseon that list that i had determine if we have not received official nominations for. my apologies. on how to work the powerpoint here. well, you have the powerpoint in front of you, so i will just walk through that. were talk through it i should say. so, following the g ao

hearing, understanding there was some concern around the -hardly move it-so, following the gal hearing them understand it was the concern but the discrepancy in terms of what i had calculated has officially nominated and was on the list provided by supervisor campos's office, but with marian thompson to reach out to each of the supervisors offices to confirm those who i had determined was not officially had not been officially nominated, and to clarify,. so, since that time, we have worked

with each of the supervisors offices. there were businesses that are not been officially nominated, and i do want to report that all that 54, all have now been deemed officially nominated to our-officially nominate to our office did we receive the written notification from the supervisors either via letter or confirmation in e-mail. >> supervisor peskin: what constitutes an official nominations? >> testifier: an official nomination is nomination in writing stating you are nominated nominate me the business for consideration for the historical legacy business registry. >> supervisor peskin: i don't be argumentative, but today is june 2, and on may second, my office e-mailed you relative,

confirming that you are in receipt of a number of letters, all of which were attached to the e-mail nominating various businesses in district 3, including brownies hardware, the café trieste, swans oyster depot, pure 23 café, a whole slew of them did most of which show up on your letter of may 26 as not having been formally nominated. so, how does that work. >> director: with them a second e-mail your first as i interpreted and ready e-mail, it was asking for a cross reference letters not that were officially sent versus the list. so, there were businesses listed in that may second e-mail where actually, we had not received the letter, and so my understanding was he was a

cross reference of trying to get an assessment of letters that had been submitted for nomination and to verify whether letters had not been sent. so, for the follow-up memo that i provided you last week the mud in terms of that list, again, marian thompson had been reaching out to the various offices. so, at that particular point in time we still have businesses on the list that i had deemed not yet officially nominated. so, in terms of moving forward to today, within that additional week number since i've submitted the memo, and marianne's communication with the office we have now received

official nominations for those businesses on the list. so, now everyone is classified as officially nominated. i'm hoping i make my software >> supervisor peskin: on the labor the point, but i'm just looking at a series of e-mails dating back to january 11. there are e-mails in every month nominating-these are all e-mails from-and this is just one supervisor. the vast majority of supervisors have nominated but to you, nominating various businesses and there's not a response to a single one of these e-mails until yesterday, june 1. so, i mean, it is my position that all of these businesses, and this is water under the bridge because were moving this forward

in all these businesses were officially nominated over a month ago. they still, as of last week show as not having been officially nominate. let's move past that and figure out how were going to move forward to implementing this fairly and expeditiously. >> director: thank you. so, right now, i have a list of 63 businesses that of an officially nominated. 20 of those businesses have cemented an application excuse me. 20 those businesses have submitted an application. 43 of those businesses we are still waiting for the application to be submitted. of the 20 applications that have been submitted and this number has changed because of recent, well

let me just-nine businesses nine applications are now being complete. i know in my memo and even a letter or e-mail from tim sly from the planning department, we have been working with the number seven, but a couple businesses that we've reached out to to provide some additional supplemental information for the application have turned it in, and so now we are up to the number nine. so there is 11 applications that need some additional information and average out to those applicants to provide that information. >> supervisor peskin: these are the ones that- >> director: in your list i provided you here, the very first page because these are one that they need additional information for hpc requirements? >> director: yes because can make that determination? mr. five? speed

>> director: yes. and the feedback they viewed it back from the commissioners. so i've been working with them because you put in the board of poop so board of supervisors put in proposition j of the applications are preferred to hpc to provide some input to provide historical context and i think it's important that we have the hpc provide that for office of small business, we don't necessarily have the look and lens of history. so, i have been working with their office to make some refinements on what they're looking for and what they,, the hpc commission has determined they need to help them provide some, to provide the comments they would like to provide for the small business commission consideration in the final hearing for the legacy business

application. >> supervisor peskin: sorry if this seems i'm confused that maybe i'm confused. am i incorrect in stating that the historic preservation commission has hereto for had none of these on their agenda we pick >> director: correct, officially. >> supervisor peskin: so, how -you stated that my question was

these digital applications and make a determination. what agc has said is that they want interior and exterior photos to help them take a look at which is one of the criteria the physical attribute of the business. so, there are, while we have provided in the application instructions, list of supplemental documents to include within historical narrative, not all applications have submitted internal an extra no external photographs of the business. >> supervisor peskin: but this is getting kind of kafkaesque

because either this application is nothing on medication that says that you have to submit photographs. so, i mean i would make up the rules as we go along? >> director: we are refining them doubt be refined on the application. going for. >> supervisor peskin: just seems patently unfair that after this many months may we look down here at businesses that were nominated in january and march and february and what have you that we are not changing the rules after people have complied with the rules as we set them forth on the application. supervisor campos >> supervisor campos: thank you mr. chairman. once again i would think supervisor peskin and his staff. as well as hilary rhoda, my chief of staff and my officer been working on this and i see the point supervisor peskin is making. i see the points that he makes in his letter. let me just sort of

leave it this way. i feel-i am happy that there is now the kind of response that we were hoping to get from the mayor's office generally. i'm happy that you have, maryann thompson was involved and she's very capable. i think there's a lot of specific questions that remain. i'm not to get into the weeds. the only thing i would say is that there is hope and optimism, but there's so much catching up to do that i sort of feel like i want to come back to where we are in a month just to see how much progress can be made because i think that we are so far behind that

i just think that it remains to be seen what is delivered and i would rather kind of do that and sort of give you the opportunity to make this right, to catch up on all the funds at the level that we have to catch up. what i would simply say, generally to the point that supervisor peskin is making, is that given that the city, on our end has been the problem am i think that we need to be flexible and we need to be as accommodating to these businesses are still need the letter and spirit of the law, but look, we are the ones, we collectively as the city that dropped the ball, and so, let's make it easier, not harder and where there is room for flexibility let's make our job harder, not the job of the

small business or the historic preservation commission. >> director: correct. at seven reaching out to the businesses many of them, they have the pictures and i would just say that i think i reviewed the application instructions with historical preservation staff and so they are coming back with a request for revision and i think working with the fact that it is in proposition and juliet to have eight historic preservation review and for them to have on the legacy of the legacy business, their comments relationship to what they deem is important to make their comments on, i am respecting that and want to support them on that. so, i

would happily come back in a month and provide information for you and we are making it a priority to get these 20 applications through the process , as marianne is reaching out to the additional 43 that are not yet submitted nominations, were making sure that were clearly communicating what the supplemental information to provide. so though we are not having it back and forth. >> supervisor peskin: so relative to the document you just omitted i just want to clarify one thing, which is economic china put words in your mouth, but on the second and third pages all of those

are all nominated? >> director: all nominated >> supervisor peskin: okay. as compared to last week's letter, now everything has been- >> director: everything has been reconciled at the ditch additional actual nominations and other supervisors offices have provided. >> supervisor peskin: okay >> director: so there from that list, we have moved everybody on that list too officially nominated. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor yee speak >> supervisor yee: i have a question. in regards to the item-i don't know what page the number three committing to maintain this copy jurors or traditional features including craft and art forms, some photos might make sense in terms of physical features. but i am just curious at this point, it seems like hpc needs to look at the goal.

appearances and see if it makes any sense. it's not about the physical aspect something like traditions and the type of food that might be serving, who's making those judgments? >> director:- >> supervisor yee: it says, or, here. so it's not like you have some special feature in the building. >> director: i think, if we talk about what say bars or restaurants that serve food, some elements-i can't specifically answer for the hpc in terms of one interior and est but we do encourage additional photos if there is a particularly: verye food that they can provide either menu or pictures of that and businesses

have been-so i do a businesses that have submitted copies of their menus over a period of time to show, to demonstrate, their history and legacy and the conary foods they provide. we do have businesses cementing pictures of important people from san francisco's history or stars or sports people who have evening and attended visited their business. so there's different ways in which businesses are showing those different: gary craft we have-a visual history not everything old nero, but visual history over it period of time of their mural is one particular example. so, does that answer your question?

>> supervisor yee: yes. i guess i'm a little concerned not knowing the legislation as well as i should, but this can be some things i think maybe hpc has no expertise and an unjust wondering if it is something like food, whether it's the addition of the menu or certain taste of the food, i mean, i grew up and it's been there forever in supervisor peskin's district eating friday's sandwiches and how deep-rooted that the sandwiches , the same salami that type of thing. that's what i'm asking. who makes the judgment whether or not this business would be a legacy business or not we.

>> director: to clarify the hpc is providing that they do not make an affirmation whether it's deemed a legacy biscuit that's a small business commission's responsibility. so, my understanding is within proposition j within the referral to the store preservation commission is the historical preservation commission, i think, they are taking a look at beyond the building structure cultural legacy, cultural components of the city and so they have an understanding of some of our restaurants with different types of businesses about how they relate to those cultural identities and while i can't really speak to the specifics of their request for interior and next are your photos, that they will have to do what their

input is to provide the mayor historical lens of san francisco some additional commentary and additional commentary that goes into the file of the registry to marketand implement those businesses. speak >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> director: so, any other additional questions? >> supervisor peskin: i feel a sense of urgency because three of the businesses that we have nominated having been dealt with timely might still exist. fargo market. gypsy rosalie. -these are businesses that are

hanging on and so i don't want to keep repeating the story about the last five months, but we had given them leave earlier as intended by the proposition is adopted by the voters, they might still be here. i'm looking-i want you to finish your presentation but i'm looking at the timeline where really want is when are they going to get relief? i mean, as at least as to the 11 that are deemed to be nominated and applications complete, when can they get the grant that the voters said they can get? >> director: let me get through the presentation and then i will address those questions at the end because that involves the next steps. as i noted earlier, the position the legacy business program manager has been posted

yesterday that yesterday was the end of the posting deadline. we will immediately be moving forward to doing the interviews and getting the positions hired. i have scheduled a training and we sending out an invitation after hearing your legislative aides to go through--we go through the registry application process with them and let them know the next steps with the program manager will be doing for them, just to clarify the confusion that has been out there. then, as todd mentioned, we established the generic legacy business e-mail address this is now something that multiple individuals have access to so we can keep on top of any questions from businesses , questions and submittals from businesses. i do think-i do

want to take a moment to sort of talk about the registry process because the registry process is actually the first process before, that a business needs to go through, before the ability to apply for the grant program. within the application process, and why it may take time between your nomination and a business submitting an application is that the business needs to write their historical narrative as it relates to the three key categories of what you established in the ordinance. also, the other thing is, any application cover sheet, they are required to-excuse me-they

are required to attest their current with all their san francisco taxes, business registrations, licenses and labor laws. so there could be a delay in the business if they're not current needing to take time to bring those things up to-to make them current. then, they also do need to sign , their sign all information they are providing this for public information. the next slide is just so that you can see the exact language that is in the application cover sheet, that they are checking off and attesting to. so, before getting into the next steps, i do want to make a note that while the intention was to have submittals of applications last friday, he used oracle

preservation commission has asked for a delay in this and because their ability to be able to hear their first set of applications is now july 20 because they are not having their early july meeting. so, with the next step, >> supervisor peskin: what about a late june meeting? >> director: i can reach out to him and asked if he can confer with his commissioners to have that hearing. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> director: next up, marion thompson in the office of economic and workforce of almost continue to work with me in the case management of newly nominated businesses until we have the legacy business program manager on board. i will continue to work with those that submitted their

application to make sure we get them moving forward, which is the 11 remaining applications. 6-20, this is working backward the 7-20 date of the hpc hearing. they will transfer the completed applications to the historical preservation commission. on 6-30 because were doing some revisions based upon this oracle preservation commission's request, making the modifications to the application we will have the translated application instructions and cover sheet on our website no later than june 30. >> supervisor peskin: it seems to me maybe we need to have mr. fry in here because i mean, this is not been before the historical preservation commission and this is all happening at a staff level without any input to my knowledge from the duly appointed commissioners. so, i really feel like this is not

very-may you maybe mr. buehler -mr. buehler could you, peer? this is not public comment. this is a question of someone following this might what is the commission directed his staff to do relative to the hpc on proposition j? >> staff: the commissioners had this on their agenda twice now to discuss the criteria for the review of nominations and applications with their submitted. i think what regina was referring to is that the guidance to team and staff are what information should be included was provided by the h pc during one of those hearings. one, there's also been discussion about whether or not the hpc, whether not the application should be on the agenda every time her on the consent calendar. the hpc has

great interest in this program and its access and they've insisted on having public hearings for all of the applications submitted rather than just as a consent item. that's what unaware. so far. >> supervisor peskin: and to the commission directed staff to include photographs? do you remember that? >> staff: i was not there with that was discussed that although during the discussion this morning to review the application. a range of voters are required already in the current application. however, there is not photos required of interior and exterior photos in the current application. i was not present if that was discussed and hpc. >> supervisor peskin: do you know when the second of these 2 hearings took pl. at the hpc? >> staff: there was a hearing just 3-4 weeks ago where the hpc resolve to draft a letter, which i think my attention with

this committee. that was the most recent time it was discussed. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> director: if i may, to follow-up, subsequent from that meeting i did receive an e-mail from the staff clarifying some of those points and which is where we had the discussion of the internal and external photographs. then, by 730 will complete the survey to it assess additional legacy business is for program development. by 7-30 will have a webpage up so we can have a start listing our research legacy businesses, and then by august 1, we will have the preservation grant applications available for businesses to be able to apply. so, we will be,

as director todd with oh had noted that the last meeting, that we will be working with your staff to develop those grant application guidelines >> supervisor peskin: in other words there's a whole other process. so first, this nomination application, hpc hearing, and then once you run that gauntlet, you can apply? the director correct >> supervisor peskin: supervisor >> supervisor campos: i appreciate all the work. if i can just speak for myself, i don't feel like the timeline is aggressive enough. i don't know why it takes until july 30 12 a webpage. i mean, it's not brain surgery. i sort of feel like

the response based on the presentation from the small business commission doesn't really reflect the sense of urgency that i think all of us have tried to convey and i sort of feel like there's a way that we can live up to the letter and spirit of the law, whether it's compliance with the registry requirements, but at the same time, expedite this thing could you know, i just don't get that sense of urgency to be honest with you. today is what, june 2. how many weeks does it take to put up a webpage? i don't know. i hope that more happens and that more happens more quickly than what i'm seeing. >> supervisor peskin:

>> director: thank you. i've heard that supervisor campos. then, so that is it for this the historical preservation-legacy business process. i did want to do one other note that you have brought up to proviso campos good excuse me supervisor peskin at the last meeting regarding the small business commission and the minutes and so it had been on her plan with bringing on the commission policy person and secretary to complete those minutes and we are working with the transcription company. the commission will approve the timeline of getting those minutes up, completed and up, on the website, but we do have it noted on the commissions

landing page and onto public notice page that all meetings can be viewed via sf.tvsfgtv so anybody can view or hear the meetings, passed meeting minutes through the live stream through sfgov tv. >> supervisor peskin: i was in a recent issue. i was just looking on the internet at the last meeting relative to looking for the application and other things and literally in the meeting i discovered that. first of all, one comment, which is while i appreciate the fact that people can go and look at a tape, the purpose of minutes is entirely different. it is a tool that gives members of the public knowledge in a

succinct fashion about the actions of a public body, in this case the small business commission, and viewing three hours of tape is not an adequate substitute for that. the question is, what i discovered because it was stated by mr. truffaut there've been a vacancy of the commission secretary for a period abatements that hiring was slow and difficult and what have you, all of which i believe to be true, but that does not explain away the fact that minutes been done sporadically if at all for 2.5 years, which is a period of time is a lot longer than eight months. so, how is it-i mean, look, try to pick on you but when i see a program like this

that not been implemented at all up until mr. truffaut i'm here two weeks ago, which we are delighted is finally moving forward that a supervisor campos be a lot of catching up to do and i marry that with the fact that one of the most basic functions of a public body and its staff is to post the minutes, i started to worry that things are not working at the office of small business. i'm not trying to personally -it's not personal. it's a problem. when i look at the history of e-mails on this legacy business registration and see that my staff who i have been writing because i've got constituents who having a tough time and very expensive city, hanging on these are truly legacy businesses that have been there as we are from creative design for three generations and they're having a tough time, in a book and i asked myself what's going on and they can produce for me e-mails for the last five months

, not one of which even got the courtesy of her sons to say, we are swamped. we can deal with. get us some more staff. give us supplement the prohibition which supervisor campos assured through the board a couple months ago, it is been radio silence in your shop. i'm just really want this program to succeed, but everything that i'm looking at this and giving a lot of confidence. >> director: i understand and i hear that. i'm equally frustrated because with the commission position it's been with the last set of vacancy was eight months we've had two periods of vacancy and so well on that on a get into the challenges symbols of service hiring and some of the process, but it is equally frustrating for me to deal with the challenge of having to have extended vacancies in my office. so, i am hopeful that

this is done and over with the new hire, feeling the commission position, and we can just move forward now. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor campos. does that include your presentation? san diego that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor peskin: i went up e supervisor campos comments that leader is not greater. when we open this up to public comment. welcome, good afternoon. >> testifier: i'm bob planter could i've got no dog, no stake in this. i'm here just out of questions concerns about process in first, would you folks have passed said he indicated about lack of minutes , well what you're not seeing is the clear how long violation of the sunshine ordinance.

lacking a secretary is not an excuse for not providing minutes. some commissions have their own internal secretary and sometimes other staff should have done it but when the no secretary sasso e, that's not adequate. that's not professional. beyond that in listening to this hearing today, it just seems like there's nobody that designated as the task master to bring everybody together in a quick timely efficient response of way. small business seems to be the most responsive and maybe a lead agency, but they are not cracking the whip figuratively, nobody is doing that and that's why this is just dragged on, dragged on because there's no one person that you supervisors that the mayor, the comedic can go to and say what is going on. it scattered too much. at the lake am i think harms the integrity of the program, the image. it impairs the credibility of the ballot measure we citizens past that

this thing is just dithering on good i'm glad you have this hearing can i ask you to keep pushing for. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. mr. buhler because the fire >> testifier: good afternoon commissioners mike buhler san francisco heritage. i just want to report that we are helping things grow with her application thanks to supervisor peskin's nomination. i want to report says that hearing to easier we've heard from maryann thompson, and i spoke with her by phone and e-mail and she was helpful in telling us what is required so that's an encouraging time from our perspective. i did want to address some of the questions raised by supervisor yee earlier regarding who decides,, which intentional aspects of a business heritage should be protected and the application form is quite detailed and actually, asks applicants to self identify those aspects of

the business with its menu items were traditions or whatever it might be, that they are committing to maintain going forward. but i should also note, the hpc for the last two years has had a cultural kurdish asset subcommittee which is specifically focused on intangible aspects of the city's heritage and that's why they're so engaged in this process are so interested. further note regarding the hpc process, as i mentioned it at least two hearings on this and the planning department has classroom presented the format for the draft staff report that they will receive when applications are submitted to them for processing so i do firmly believe hpc is geared up and ready to per stop process things expeditiously. so that's also encouraging. but thank you again for your attention to this matter and we look forward to helping in any way possible. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr. buhler for your advocacy on the issue for

continued to dog it. are there any other members of the public would like to testify on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed >>[gavel] b peskin colleagues, when we continue this item 1 month and we will hopefully have lots of good news and i want to thank mr. rufo and ms. dick-and as he and ms. thompson for slowly actually quickly turning the ship around after a long period of the late. thank you so will continue this item for one month and mr. clerk, if you could please read the last item >> clerk: item number five is doing on below market rate housing policies and procedures utilized throughout the city is even requesting the mayor's office of housing a community devoted to report. >> supervisor peskin: colleagues, supervisor kim as we continue this item to the next meeting. any members of the public would like to testify on item number five?

seeing none,, public comment is closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: without objection, we will continue this item for two weeks to our next regular scheduled meeting. that includes business before the government audit and oversight committee. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>

>> this is the historic society commission for wednesday, june 1. please, sounds your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record and i will take will call at this time. >>[call of the roll] >> clerk: thank you

commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comments. at this time members of the public address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up for up to 3 min. i've no speak of cards. >> president wolfram: does any member of the public wish to make general public, and if so please come forward? >> testifier: i like to see the commission's advice on historic preservation issue. i'm doing some research on

>> clerk: can you these speak into the microphone? >> testifier: i'm doing historic preservation research on this building in north beach. try put it on the overhead?'s >> president wolfram: yes >> clerk >> testifier: the time i have left, [inaudible] the factory which was built in 1946-1947 by san francisco architect actually a native of commerce oh higher. got his degree in washington state and started practicing in 1929 was martin j rest. the present st. cecilia church are building [inaudible]. i think it's the building has very high potential for being on the registry of landmarks in san

francisco and the present owner, marlene-daughter of fred, who founded the company built the building is still alive. it's going to a bone of contention for almost its entire life into it went up in operation of manufacturing a see-two zone but it was declared all the legal sausage factory from the time it started running in 1940. it goes down finally in 1981. so there's been some public effort in the 80s, 81, 83 to great a special use zone within the area which is this building is actually it's directly behind the st. francis trying. so come the layout. it's right in that property from vallejo and greenstreet at 535. they bought the property from archbishop mitty as the sole corporation for the archdiocese of san francisco. the archdiocese down in palo alto and actually menlo park is doing some research for

me from the die size. i look i guess and seek the commission said by someone, [inaudible] and let her know what i'm doing , but also your advice i think in bringing to the attention of the supervisors and also this commission should be for further going through research. that's all accurate >> president wolfram: thanks. we don't give advice at this hyatt hearing but you can contact the planning presentations up on the website. any other member of the public wish to make public on? seeing none, and hewitt will close general public, good >> clerk: item 1 directors announcements. >> i have nothing commissioners >> clerk: items to the mission matters >> staff: normal formal learning commission report that i to items to share with you. one is, as you are aware, the

government oversight, government audit site and met after last hearing to discuss the legacy business registry program. at that hearing, the you commissioner timothy was present and she may have some comments regarding the outcome of that meeting. what we heard is that the committee has asked for an update on the program at its hearing tomorrow as well. we been in contact with regina, from the office of small business. she has no stated to me that she has seven complete applications that she will forward to us on monday. which is june 6. if she were to transmit those applications we would have to hear them at your july 6 hearing or, which

because it's close to the july 4 all day, maybe cancels.. it would give her a little more time to transmit those applications if we postpone that a little bit, and schedules that hearing for the july 20 hearing. but that is at your discretion. maybe something you want to take up today. the second item is just a quick report about the departments pending budget. as you recall, the commission-this commission added one additional fte to support the legacy business registry and all of the departments ask for the preservation programming including the additional fte have remained in the mayor's budget. so, we will keep you posted as that moves through the board of supervisors and discussions there. but it looks like everything is in place for the next fiscal year. that

concludes my comments. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. any comments or questions? moving on speaker commissioners that a place is on item 3. when the commission matters is in support and announcements >> president wolfram: no report or announcements >> clerk: item 4, consideration of adoption 4 min. for may 18 aoc meeting >> president wolfram: is any member of the public to comment on the draft meeting minutes of may 18 the architectural review committee and the regular hpc hearing? seeing none, and hearing none, we will close public comment. why have a motion to approve the minutes? >> moved and seconded. speaker than to adopt the minutes, with a may 18 architectural review committee hearing and the regular hearing, so moved

commissioners that matt motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner matsuda >> commissioner matsuda: i comments will be brief. i just want report to the commission that i did attend last week's hearing and all the supervisors who were present were very appreciative of the commission and are just as anxious to see this program move forward as we are. >> president fong: thank you. commissioner pearlman >> commissioner pearlman: last night i got to go through the-building and if you have not seen it they did a beautiful job in the restoration and just really spectacular so it's on judah near ninth avenue so take a look. i am happy to announce that the first big event at hibernia bank with the

rally for hillary clinton last week. i was there and was very amazing to be in that room with hundreds and hundreds of people , nfl like it was the 1940s and harry truman was cannot come up on the stage because of all the flags and banners and everything. anyway was very excited. thank you. >> president wolfram: great, thank you. do we have the topic of the meeting on july 6 two agreement out? >> clerk: this would be the appropriate time >> president wolfram: the only item on the agenda is the possibility that we may receive this legacy business packet. though that's not been confirmed. building there any other agenda items confirm that hearing. is that true? >> clerk: the only other item i see is the heritage conservation [inaudible]. >> president wolfram: that's in an informational review and comment >> clerk: it's just the beginning of the historic

preservation element of the general plan before so i'm inclined to oppose we cancel the july 6 hearing. do we need to be that you should officially remove that from your hearing scheduled on >> president wolfram: i need a motion to remove that >> clerk: yes steve from >> clerk: then, to cancel july 6 hearing on your hearing schedule, so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland >> commissioner hyland: i have a disclosure and agenda item 6. ingleside presbyterian church. this is the second time it's come before us and less time i became aware during a presentation that architectural

resources group,, my previous employer, and company have done a report for a gin at the time i do not understand what the extent of that was but i checked with the city attorney and that it's a pro bono evaluation, the conservation issues around the murals. the contact is done and closed, so there's no need for me to recuse myself. i just want to clarify that. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> clerk: it is nothing further we can move onto your regular counter for item 6. case number 2015 007219 third, 1345 ocean ave. the landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon

commission. shannon ferguson department of staff on behalf of susan parks. i'm here today present departments recommendation regarding limit participation of ingleside presbyterian church in its interior collage mural an artist's environment entitled the great cloud of witnesses. located at 1345 ocean ave., in the ingleside neighborhood. the building is added to the landmark designation work in inmate 2013 #staff at the heritage pro bono architectural historic officials and pro bono architectural conservatives arg began working on the project. the building is a committee for landmark status both for its architectural and artistic association. first, the church itself is architecturally significant work of master architect jesse leonard. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the neoclassical style and a unique example of neoclassical ecclesiastical architecture in the city. architect justin leonard was well known locally for his parts as chosen as the george's artistic today the building is one of limits you extend religious structure. secondly, the church is artistically significant parts interior mural collage. the

great cloud of witnesses. begin by robin gordon in 1980 a big contributions to the study of american folk art. african-american mural, the artist environment and san francisco african-american history. the great cloud of witnesses composition size location and technique used to make it unique. the overall arrangement across multiple rooms and floors the extensive size encompasses most of the churches interior and the distinctive choice of media and collage technique is unparalleled on this scale. they work in progress since 1980, the great cloud of witnesses is a rare tribute and the largest most imaginatively executed folk artist environment dedicated to religion, culture, african-american history and role models in the country. the interior characteristic features include rooms, volume

and was, and staircases that were historically accessible to the public such as the lobby jim & georgia the collage mural is also considered [inaudible]is that rev. gordon has determined to be complete including all components of the mural across all services in the lobby, the jim, the obama technology center, the michael jackson, the willie brown and the legacy room. for the ordinance, "and is allowed to keep working on other rooms that not been determined complete and is a manner that is been working with that entitlement. it also states any future conservation or stabilization effort should be guided by the conditions effectively thereby arg in the california are preservation act subject to the consent of the artist rev. gordon. there's no nonpublic opposition to the landmark designation and the church's support of the designation. commissioners

wolfram and hyland visited the site this morning i was met with rev. gordon and without mural work. yvonne leaves the building needs: status is wanted. donna harman recommends atc resonates designation to the board of supervisors this compose my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. the questions, commissioners? we will now take public comment on this item. remember the public was to comment on this and not designation? please come forward. >> testifier: i'm rolling gordon pastor of the church could oh i think the commissioners for coming out to see firsthand what is unfolding at angles side, that the community is very excited about and i really felt honored today to have you present. i want to say thank you. the wolfram thank you very much for it was an honor to be there. i never any other member of the item was to public ones item?

hearing none, and seeing none, will will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i move we approve this. >> second. >> president wolfram: >> clerk: thank you commissioners. there's a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval. on a motion, so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. commissioners that are places on items seven for december 2015 -007181, 140 maiden ln. this is also a landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commissioners. shannon ferguson department staff. i'm here today to present their parts trepidation regarding a mimics to the landmark designation for

140 maiden ln. historically known as the gift shop located in the conservation district. 140 maiden was designated as landmark 72 and 1975. at the all-time leader in your features of the: with designated such as a blank wall of brick and romanesque arch. the internal circular structure is equally as significant as the exterior and as a shop it was historically public good accessible. complete level for the guggenheim museum 140 maiden ln. is the first building to be constructed oozing what frank wainwright's favorite spectral shape the spiral which dominated his work out of finally. frank wainwright is by far the most well known and influenced american art that although they produce several designs further buildings in san francisco, the bc mortgage shop is the only one realize. it is a

significant and rare modern building designed by the master architect. the planning department has shared the designation report with property owners and is received one letter of support from the community member supervisor peskin is also in support of the landmark designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this market during the site commissioners noted original light fixtures and [inaudible]. the department believes the building meets the stylish eligibility requirements and does designation is wanted without harman recommends a mimics to the designation to the board of supervisors this concludes my presentation good i'm happy to answer questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? i have a question about the light fixtures in the pneumatic two-tiered that's not currently >> staff: that's not currently listed in the designation. we do not discuss it this morning during the site visit. distort

shows that the light fixtures may indeed be historic get people from these are the ones in the ceiling that are kind of what shape would you call that, spherical? actually the first floor. the upper-level lights are part of the [inaudible]. thank you. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? please come forward. seeing none, anyone will close public comment and bring back to the commission. commissioners, comment? other comments? i'm sorry. okay. i apologize. we will reopen public comment. the 3 min. >> testifier: good afternoon on sharon slater in the senior vice president of asset management for downtown properties represent the owner of 140 maiden ln. we had a great site visit this morning

and it was really good for me to know now that we are really on the same page as far as the preservation of the building. the concerns that you've expressed the same ones that we have, so that is great. my concern is that we been having some trouble with the leasing of the building. our pool of prospective tenants is fairly narrow because were little picky about who we want to go into. not everybody appreciates the history of the building. we've had some problems with deals dropping out because they're concerned about the process of getting approvals for any alterations they would like to make. granted, not able to make any alterations to the elements we talked about, but just the process of getting plans approved even within that guideline is difficult. so, we talked about potentially meeting so we can talk about specifics of what the guidelines should be for the things that would be preapproved, like the color palettes for paint and that sort of thing. we what we saw

when we have a pop-up was [inaudible] is my new pff-it was my futile beautiful but the activation of the building was fantastic to see it so vibrant and full of people. we have so many request for people to visit the building. so, i would like to see it activated permanently as soon as possible. so i am hoping that you can help me smooth the way on this process so that's not a deterrent to getting the right kind of tenants we all want. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comments. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck:. those comments, have any influence on the staff recommendation, but my basic idea here is this is

another remarkable building for us to endorse landmark use. so i would move to approve staff >> president wolfram: i like classic question of sector am wondering a subconscious made, whether we could administer this that would allow us to delegate to have some of the interior work, or a set of guidelines that you could meet with the property owner to discuss so they don't have to come back to the commission for doing painting or more minor work within the interior. is that something that could be included in this or how would we do with this? i do know the ministry to see a vase onset of her injury when so much. >> staff: commissioners, the-you are certainly if you're inclined to do so you could amend this ordinance to clarify

what could be delegated to staff, but article 10 in article 11 already do provide a mechanism for you to delegate to us at any time. so, if we were not to take up now, after meeting with the representatives of the building and having a better understanding of what types of scopes of work they're interested in expediting, we could then come back to you at a future date with those and then at that time you could consider delegating them to us. you don't necessarily have to do as part of the delegation agreement were part of this ordinance could you can do it anytime >> president wolfram: so this be approved by the order supervisors and mayor and so at later time when you meet with the property owner we could talk about what items could be delegated. i would like to be a supple to the owner as possible. >> staff: after the meeting we would then have a better understanding of exactly what we could delegate. >> president wolfram: okay get i think that makes sense. >> i moved to approve staff recommendations before >> moved and seconded.

>> president wolfram: do it that i can do is a discussion about adding the light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. which i would recommend adding with the additional the ground floor and light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. >> where is the pneumatic tube and what was it for? be wolfram it was for public processing orders and money. >> do some the sales desk area down? >> president wolfram: yes. maybe the pneumatic tube on those second ground floor not necessarily the basement location. does that make sense? >> commissioner johnck: absolutely. >> president wolfram: i think we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: very good good on a motion to adopt the recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors, as amended to include the oval like pictures on the ground floor and pneumatic tube at the ground and second levels, so

moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners places on item 8. december 2014-001711.. the wireless facility planning code did this is a amendment. >> staff: thank you. omar mastery on behalf of the san francisco planning department. the best before you as an item to request changes in san francisco planning code recommendations to the board of supervisors. as it relates to wireless talk mitigation services facility. otherwise known as referred to commonly as cell towers and cell antennas. within this request would be a more brought change to article 10 and 11 of the planning code. which do with certain entitlements first preservation applications peer if sfgtv could pull up the slideshow, please? so, one of

the primary changes would clarify the staff can render a decision which includes approval or denial, of certain historic preservation applications. those would include the mistreated certificate of appropriateness, reminder permit to alter. currently, for example, article 10 of the planning code indicates that staff can it go. by this historic preservation commission, that can choose approve a application but [inaudible] the reason this is important is because a new state law took effect in january 2016. over two initially is a be-57. basically said for wireless facility application comes in for any city or county in california, the city does not make a decision in so many days of application being complete then it is automatically approved or deemed granted. the city would have to go to court in order to try to stop that approval from taking effect. so, in this example, one of our concerns would be the care were to submit an application for wireless facility downtown and

committed building permit application and application for the mistreated certificate of appropriateness is an article can map them of tradition. one of the concerns would be a scenario where the applicant has an application complete. the shot clock the time limit within 90 days or 150 days, is ticking and counts against the city the carrier has not provided design that looks like it complies or appears to comply with the security of interior standards for treatment for historic properties or other local boulders were other guidelines with respect to historic preservation concerns. in that scenario, the staff were inclined to try to deny this facility before the automatic approval took effect, one of the challenges we face is that we didn't initially required notification labels for owners and occupants within 70 feet. back when the application was initially submitted. so the shortest demo, if you will, to get a project to hearing for

denial if the carrier is not willing to make those changes in order to avoid an automatic approval. for the sake of clarity and consistency across article 10 and 11, this change would apply to all scopes of work that are delegated by this story preservation commission to departments that. so, it would include things like signage, including signage on the screen that has tenants on-site. would include roof deck as it currently does. historic alterations, both wireless facilities on rooftops as well as within the public right-of-way. since the antenna attached. by polls and transit polls and utility poles we now see in san francisco. another change would not be maybe a notable interest to the commission, but it would allow screening such as fake scrabble

with the current acception from-it's from steel towers and antennas and women associate with wireless facility. were this would be of assistance as we may see as an example larger building and 6-7 stories where it exceeds the 40 foot height limit for instance down to much of the city. that building may be less intrusive in terms of the overall size of the facility being scale and context appropriate respect to the building but because of the current height limitations for screening elements, the carrier may not be able to pursue that cyprus the screen is used to stop the equipment the antennas and cabling and other appurtenances would not be an option available under the plan current planning code rules. so the ability to add screen above limits consistent with exception currently for on-screen facilities would allow staff to work with carriers and the community to find less intrusive locations especially from a scale and context perspective. however,

code amendment this clip by staff would still be able to review projects with respect to design review, shed of you and city parks and prisons historic preservation review. many limits imposed by the planning commission is so, this example at the bottom of the photo, the proposed simulation, chosen design a potentially historic resource we would not consider appropriate and still maintain the ability to request that the care modified or design more appropriate for the building of the neighborhood. ms. just to wrap up, the one which provides you in the planning commission or start commission back it was on son. you provided a signed version of that. the planning commission unanimously recommended initiation of the

amendment of march 17 and the scheduled adoption hearing for june 16 or any time afterwards and supervisor avalos is also sponsored the proposed amendment. with that, i'll post my presentation and be happy to answer questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. mr. find >> staff: just a follow-up on mr. mastery's comments, i just want to provide a little more clarity on what existing in the code. in terms of your process. and what this change really means for article 10 and 11. essentially, the code in terms of delegation is silent on whether or not we can disapprove entitlements and administrative entitlement. with this does it just clarifies that. so, in the case of any member of the public were this commission appealing or asking are we filing a request for hearing, all of those mechanisms still stay in place. so, as you recall, i think in the sims 2009, we've had to request for hearings. that would still be the process if the wireless carrier were

neighbor felt that we approved or disapproved something in error. they could still petition this commission, or any of the members of this commission could do the same and we would schedule it at the next hearing. so, really, again, all this is doing is allowing us to disapproved something as long as you've delegated it to staff. because it's related specifically-but changes were brought upon because of this new wireless amendment, we felt though it was more responsible to broaden that still wasn't that we were just disapproving or approving wireless facilities, that we are actually using the same process for all items delegated to us. but again, if you need further clarification on that we can always walk through the code sections as well. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: did

you open public hearing >> president wolfram: we've not done public commented yet. >> commissioner johnck: okay can i just i'm just curious and maybe can answer more discussion after public comment, but i'm trying to understand the context of this because i've been seeing the mbta's come through in a bit looking at them. say what are the implications for historic preservation because sin there's lots. there's a lot of these. it's a documented many years ago when al gore had wire american we were laying fiber optic cable all over the phrase is using this is phase 2 these kinds of wireless enhancements structures so to speak. i am just like your comments about -i've not seen anything that would be particularly obtrusive, knowing what the purpose of these are. and that kind of thing. although, i be interested to see if you need

further scrutiny on these or if there's not too much-not that many issues with these? do you have enough leeway to approve things as you been doing? or do you need to mark? >> staff: under the current process, yes. i would just add the czar and omar can chime in on this as well. these are very time-consuming applications. there's a lot of back-and-forth that has to occur designwise between the wireless carriers and staff. they are generally open to that conversation, but it takes a number of rounds of revisions to get to a point where we feel that it doesn't sort of overwhelmed the roofline or different since at&t was going to install something, then verizon and t-mobile don't come and try to do the same thing and then we have an antenna farm on the roof. so, because of

that-because there is a diminished sort of mechanism to work with because of this new clock, we felt it was necessary just as a safeguard measure to have this option to deny something. it's purely the carriers in action on responding to us that could require us to approve it. that was when of our main concerns. >> staff: if i may clarify, the federal and state law are required it has to approve facilities necessarily could push us to make a decision faster. the process of the aco will is a definite advantage for the individual specially the sequencer project inevitable for article 10 and 11 entitlement as was the planning commission entitlement to those constrained time frames within 90 days for the location can be a real challenge. with the victory are

seeing for the [inaudible] are mostly modifications. they're mostly dismisses where carrier has antennas 10 years further swapping out and we had varying degrees of success. getting those antennas off the primary side where they should not have been approved using it when we do not knows as much. it's a constant sort of discussion with both the carriers trying to move equipment, mood facilities with the property owners. the sometime questioned why the changes occurring. this often pieces where a staff were talking to the property owner st. rashly asking for this change because it week is beneficial to the neighborhood and building as well as in terms of enhancing its own. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: to question. when we have the hansen street probably two years ago and we completely asked for redesign our calls. they look great. did that come because of the historic

district or why? adjusting market st., van, right because i can to >> testifier: that was a first for a small. city-owned before that we've only seen wireless facilities on with utility poles the city does not open. those are the most controversial often big and bulky. reddit the bedroom items. we seen a lot more support, if you will, with respect to small styles that can be 40. so verizon came forward the design four 320 small cells initially in soma northeast of the city to attach two small boxes an antenna. we got to design many neighbors about reset it looks pretty darn good it's a fairly unintrusive, and susan were now seen t-mobile, copying our design. seeing att and looking possibly going, that same path and we think it's a good sort of starting point.

>> commissioner hasz: all that stuff comes up under this 98, and? >> testifier: for brand-new site it's 150 days. however, the city owns the assets, likely on the parties actually the sole site is going on, we own the steel plate welcome those do not apply because a property owner we have more discretion we can say that, but start by because we be acting as in her capacity as a property owner of the permitting agency. we face a real challenge to be the new site is on private property. the code location is at 90 days on private property in the antennas attached to the existing wooden poles on by say pacific gas & electric. >> commissioner hasz: think the clarifying. that helps out. by second question would oh my second question my comments and would be ongoing about height limit for screening. i think it's kind of a tricky thing. and to meet you must be-i get worried saying [inaudible] to

me that season on a restriction so currently on on-screen antennas is very certain height allowed to go? is a case-by-case basis? >> testifier: there's no either mr. unscreened antennas and towers. rather approved unscreened 10 is and towers for cell phones first. they generally don't need to be that high. >> commissioner hasz: i would just love to see some kind of limiting language. on height. >> staff: minors in that provision is that was applied to situations where the building is already overnight limit? speeds >> testifier: it be broad-based. imbued reviewed by exceeding a height. for example in the bayview if the carrier came forward and want to put up fake water tower on the site would normally be-if on a rooftop permitted because it's 25 feet above the height limit

but the ground for the fake water tower could automatically require planning commission reviewed and will be subject to any limitations posed by the planning commission specified limit included within the scope of the application. >> commissioner hasz: on top mess of that, under this change would not go to any commission, right? that's what were talking about. doing it so you can take your this in-house. so, to me am happy to give that approval, but i'm really not-i'm leery of giving anything without limiting that height limit. >> testifier: is a qualified. in any zoning district that's not cdm or conduct searches in cedar six, r districts, all they recorded the planning commission and they have. so we check there if you appeared in the downtown, for instance without via any public review normally, if you can exceed

more than 25 feet above the roof height you're already can be taken to require planning commission conditional use authorization and so there is sort of >> i've seen a couple of these installations downtown on rooftops and only 15 feet tall maximum. you adjusting to me that should be a number that should be in the. >> i'm wondering if we could get this works or not you let me know, god limitations on the roof you can do certain things about the height limit and the code right now like elevator penthouses and stare penthouses and there are limitations. on how much of the roof they can cover and how high those can be. it seems like that would be a logical we could use those same limits. i don't know if that works, omar? >> testifier: that's what we are currently good reason since it is a template height exception for pipes we've applied to determination by the zone administrator. for fake elevator and house is only 16 foot height limit if you're in

a sony district that's come i'm sorry, a high distance over 65 feet. so that 16 foot exception reply as well for something that makes a fake 0v penthouse. which generally gives the challenge though. it can mimic in elevator penthouses give you near the edge of the roof generally. doesn't look like it belongs there. so you put the elevator penthouses in the middle of the roof and you have 16 foot to work with, it's only 16 feet above the height limit, the building rac site limit you don't have as much to work with. so that site not mean up the bible and we have less ability to encourage the carrier to move further back onto the-further back away from the primary façade. >> commissioner hasz: because i help with these regulations the signal goes out and a certain dive pattern just can't make it over the building down onto the street. >> testifier: to restate the carriers are tied up push to as close as the roof is possible.

this of the panel's not for every type of wireless disorder that odyssey this most challenging ubiquitous facility insulation. so the comp demise has been get a one-to-one setback. for every foot of height above the parapet of the roofline, i move the antenna and screening back 1 foot away from the façade so doesn't appear to impose and dominate the roof line. >> president wolfram: commissioner bauman >> commissioner pearlman: it seems to me the staff in general is fairly conservative about anything that isn't specifically in the code so things like not having a limit. i would trust the staff were specimen comes to historic buildings to be quite certain sect about something being 30 feet up and very visible, and would either deny or would then have a process through as mr.

mastery said the things that would need to go to the planning commission or come here. so, i don't have that particular fear that something is going to sneak through that would be so obtrusive.. it seems that the staff would catch something like that quite quickly. and would work with the carrier to dl with it. speed >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: in hearing talking about once one that starts making sense that it's a limiting factor. that sounds good. if that's not in their written, maybe it should be. maybe i guide you been using but maybe that should be here starbase standard. 121. >> president wolfram: >> staff: at this time with a public comments. does any member of the public was to make comment on this item we pick if so, these come forward. you will have 3 min.

>> testifier: my name is another james. it sounds like something that i am having a problem with my community. i'm not sure why but anyway, ipg and he has a hole in my backyard in the back of our property, and always telecommunication wires are going to that. but, at the same time, since they put it in they say they have a light easement to the property. but, cars is the easement to my neighbor in that. but now cars are wider and bigger there's only 15 inches so nobody can get through that-descartes or station wagon can't get through that and i asked them, with a move the poll they said they

have a right to be there, but instead of them going back to her property, they stopped in front of my property and blocked my garage. so i'm just saying, this can be a problem and whether, like you limit it to so many years, i think it's a good idea to take a new look at that but, right now, i don't know what this is related to were not but lily is a problem because there's seven houses that are connected to that poll with electricity, as well as the wiring for their telecommunication and what have you. so, anyway, it does have an effect. the other thing i want to say, thank you for voting for rev. gordon because it is my community and we have use that and i thank you very much. thank. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public was to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comment

and bring it back to the commission did commissioners hamilton asked to adopt a resolution recommending approval. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: i do want to move to approve that last comment, designer; and, but for the decision coming out currently from our department just looking forward 10 years that we have some standards. the only reason i bring that up and kept bringing it up. but otherwise, yes, i moved to approve >> president wolfram: stirfried >> staff: to appoint accreditation based on commissioner hasz is common. with a desire to include women that resolution because remember, this is review and comment zero comments we forwarded to the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the got something in there at all lines up the hpc desires some language that talks about a limiting factor, whether a not to exceed, or some other existing policy that

the department uses just demonstrating that these should not be the carriers should not have unlimited access to height. >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: i was also interested in this issue of screening and exceeding height limits the kind of thing. so i would be interested in that to suggest that the code be amended to include a basic standard. such as we talked about. >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: >> testifier: 121 sounds good to me. she will give a comment on this >> testifier: each of the standards runs of two different technologies. for instance if we make a broad-based exemption to include wireless than total,

there's some wireless facilities that are simply antenna the size of the with of my pinky. he may not have any interest for practical day by day standpoint of limiting the height of that within 10 in the middle-of-the-road in which i do limit based on these different metrre's going to be a larger exceptions will be going challenge in order to review. so if i could offer i think the 25 foot height sort of trigger for those providers leverage in terms of same to the carrier, if you go that high, you have to go back for the planning commission and eight limitations imposed by them. >> commissioner hasz: i'm sorry but 25 is so high at the age of any building. right? i mean were talking 16 foot from elevator penthouse. that's never the edge of the building like we were saying. it's just, i just will, were not doing this commonly. i just worry

about it being read between the lines in the city getting sued by some carrier saying i want 25. he did i get that and you know what i mean? be bumped heads with them this commission on the sanford street now and again on the market street now and they were not as bendable is your experiencing. at the commission level. so i can imagine sometimes it's a fight. i just look, we push backs up all the time that this commission but it's only a store building but to me every building should not have stopped jammed up to the front of it. we also don't have a with. find them okay maybe we have 16 foot height but we make the width of the whole building. it just feels a little loose. >> testifier: if i could clarify, the intent is having basic language is also cover things that ought to be on rooftops. for instance, without carrier proposes a tree at a

along the freeway on the 280? get to consider the structure that's a height limitations were part one supported by clocktower that also has cell antennas in there. so we try to create a simple baseline recognizing it preserves our ability to say no. the other item i would point out, there often are instances among site visitors were up there on the rooftops with engineers and rosina try mine were kerry is not going top of the roof try to get ui because what happens they start to interfere with own network chemistry. they want to contain the signal within a lower area. so not seen carrier summary try to get more height because that defeats the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish when it comes to the cell antennas specifically. >> president wolfram: i think what you are saying is that you don't want to codify the one-to-one because there's a lot of extenuating circumstances and unattended

consequently the way to incorporate into the guidelines as opposed to the legislation? >> testifier: we can cut a fight into the guidelines. we provided >> president wolfram: if it's in the code then- >> commissioner hasz: i get you. just something in there. probably the with like no more than 25% of the width of the building or something. you know? >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: no, i'm done but i agree with putting in the guidelines. i hear what you're saying. >> testifier: i would agree the guidelines would be the appropriate place to put that in. >> president wolfram: okay so i moved to approve the changes. the set was that san francisco san francisco you have a conversation with a woman who spoke earlier?

>> clerk: if there's nothing further there's a motion seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval and the motion, so moves commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. that concludes our hearing today. >> president wolfram: the hearing is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>