coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco planning commission this is the regular meeting of the for i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner wu we do expect commissioner johnson to arrive shortly commissioners, that places you under your items four

continuance at page street and divisadero a conditional use authorization has been withdrawn no other requests for continuance that places us in the consent calendar consent calendar, are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 2 case no. polk street is conditional use authorization let me see if i have any speaker car

cards. >> any public comment on item the item on the consent calendar. >> i do have one you want this item pulled off of content and heard separately i'm assume; is that right? we'll pull it off consent and you'll be able to submit your testimony at this time commissioner matters commissioners questions or comments. >> commission comments. >> not if there are nun oh. >> commissioner vice president richards in a second here. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> just want to note this

morning chronicle in the date book section all the times we theoretically talk about people in protecting brackets and not understand exactly what their life is like there is an article in the land on hunger a housing nonprofit in the south of market that houses youth they gave the youth cameras to talk about what is that like what we eat every day they have to skip meals it is an interesting article i think that says some of you makes thirty percent of ami or 20 this is what we're talking about buying needs and surviving this that is an interesting thing i think i mentioned my husband is in public health and went to an event 6 months ago

we're talking with people that work at nonprofits that attest to the same things and talk about their need to make a choice between eating or paying relents or eating and buying medication this is sad how they have so little thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to move on to departmental matters item 4 matters. >> good afternoon, commissioners i want to talk about briefly the governor's proposed legislation on the calendar next week for this we're shifting there multiply drafts that are occurred the bottom line of this legislation is that had that would fin any housing development with southern perimeters as a right

in california meaning the housing development with only first floor like retail will be considered as of right met certain 10 percent affordable below ami or near other areas it does require that the housing be code compliant with our objective standards and in local ordinances so the told her are minimal the 10 percent is minimum and the local communities can require more this obviously is a substantial piece of legislation that will effect what you do and the department we're trying to understand the delays and the intent and developing some analysis of that we would like to put this on your calendar for

informational section you hear in diego report the resolution about this issue at the board hearing on tuesday he'll report on that since this is not on the calendar it is difficult to have a discussion we're shifting through it and have a discussion technique. >> thank you commissioner wu. >> i think that is great to have that on the agenda if at all possible bringing indexes examples in the commission we trying to understand what will change. >> good idea commissioner moore. >> could we bring the transportation planners and what defines corridor for the street has a bus stop or bus route you going down that would be great to sort out on that point the legislation has specific definition of what that means i'll be happy to

bring that. >> commissioner vice president richards some other things we're talking about the section 317 i want to understand the housing loss of right to demolish a structure is that wrapped up in that one question the second question strikingly adhering to other variance what happens to those are they trade off or reduced a wall 10 feet but if you need exposure i want to attach upon the impact of preservation it is numerous numerous impact we talked about pr commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to move on to item 5 review of past events at the board of supervisors the board of appeals no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon,

commissioners diego rivera's i'll be providing this in aaron starr place i say or so he's on a bike ride and no items under c a few at the full board example there was a planning code amendments for the blocking of controls the planning department you approved on march 24 passed on the facing the rising sun of our new day begun, a resolution of intent for portions of jessie street and the alley this action associated with the 526 ocean wide project the resolution was adopted with one dissenting vote supervisor peskin needed to vote no keeping up with public right away is inconsistent with the work and another item the 3 items related

to the conditional use authorizations appeal in relation to cumberland it was moved to the next week a short-term rental platforms this ordinance didn't amend the planning code and the police station is not required to hear it we requested a hearing earlier this year the aim to require hosting platforms to support and not hinder the enforcement the short-term rentals this ordinance is that the hosts are - allows the office of short-term rentals to have post data from hosting platforms for purposes as well as require the hosting platforms to respond in one day and the office of short-term rentals to

have a listing of hosting platforms identified registered and unregistered listing to be sent to the platforms for verification failing to list is subject to penalty for unregistered folks it codifies the reporting procedure and requires the office of shortfalls to report on the activities at that hearing supervisor wiener all the time the ordinance to provide the spvrz with a presentation anyhow to say implementing the improvements and describe other potential improvements with the legislative changes it must be done within 45 days of the effectiveness the office of short-term rentals is scheduled to provide you with an phone call presentation july 14th about this ordinance as well as other activities

and the final piece is something that director rahaim talked about the resolution urging the san francisco legislative delegation to oppose the by the rights of housing trailing bills this resolution is mention as the legislative designation one exempting the jurisdiction of housing forly low and moderated income folks for 25 percent to prohibiting the demolition of housing 3 requiring the local inclusionary housing plus a premium as a right to approve and 4 to start the construction in one and 80 days from the approval without those the san francisco delegation it urged to

not approve the bill the supervisor appreciated the bill and noted that improvements to the bill would be made supervisor wiener expressed concern that loosens and didn't allow for the review in short circuit for the standards sea supervisor wiener noted the heart is it in balance between the population growth and the housing production he stated the solution includes producing subsidize affordable housing and as well as others forms of housing supervisor wiener stated did problem with the blanket opposition in the san francisco with that didn't account for more housing production and supervisor wiener noted that for in his proposed amendments recognized the gravity of the hutchinson and commended the governor but talked about the

flaws and asked the communities not reduce allowed number of units in the project approvals and keep intact local approvals forbids the historic preservation of rent-controlled units and labor standards and environmental standards he noted instead of opposing this the amendment should focus on reducing the housing production supervisor peskin respond that he couldn't accept a rewrite but the governor's one one-size-fits-all didn't work for 70 united and use the land use tools for the increase of housing production and this is a disadvantage to san francisco and supervisor tang steadfast this to amend the bill inform local controls with the design and preservation with the rent-controlled building and environmental standards she

noted in the city asked for an exemption other jurisdictions will two supervisor tang said the city can prefer to - supervisor wiener's amendment to allow san francisco to continue to work with the governor's office supervisor president london breed and supervisor peskin said can san francisco receive a exemption supervisor peskin answered "yes" the delegation - on the appropriations and assembly budgeted committee supervisor peskin mentioned that he and supervisor wiener reached an agreement to continue this item one week to allow supervisor wiener to ask for a straight resolution they'll be before the board of supervisors on june 14th and on to introductions one piece of legislation introduced that is density done right development

without displacement this is sponsored by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar this is an ordinance to provide the bonuses and zoning modifications for development projects that include 100 percent affordable housing and amends the planning code to the height limits spichd in the zoning maps that concludes my presentation. >> the board of appeals last time was cancelled because of lack of quorum and next the penalties to the academy of art university as well as an appeal of the medical cannabis dispensary i'm report back after that hearing. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to general public comment not to exceed 15 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 reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address

the commission up to three minutes. i did have one spvrd. >> georgia swedish. >> good afternoon i want to talk about my father subject alterations of decisions with the emphasis or the exploration of sexual abused here's one one the 5 we talked about last december we see the evacuation competently vacation here's the done project right there on market 5 million but this is a whole other story any big concern is the "x" vacation and it was approve or disapprove by our discussion about the project on fulsome the 3 dr and the issuance of the garage if their feasible and i think what

i'm siege in some of the projects alterations are not that the garage are problematic the steep driveways and low clearance and i've experienced the people are not using their garages so this excavation is not necessarily in our deep purview on environmental thing but what you determine when you approve this site permit what goes into the sites excavation if there are garages people not using them maybe they need to have another look this is another one of the altercations anymore like a demo this is a garage and better close up this is one, too that is pretty extreme non-anyone what figure

that out one hears another one you can't see the garage it is still be constructing a sense of down you know for skate broads that shows you the whole building and just to follow up here's for excavations to show you another excavation here and just to finish this is 48 seconds left i saw this morning i went for walk over breakfast this is an alteration supposedly that is what the left this is the original house another thing that stalled the same deal and another one and as you can see the "x" vacation the - i'm out of time those are

basically, the excavations i hope you'll think about excavations of garages thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i picked up a book the other day from the library about the three hundred and 20 the first african-american that went par trooping and they jumped in and had those garage balloons and camouflage the par troopers i want to present information i've been looking for a while and like to find a place on the screen

that's okay. can i share the screen please. it is similar to what quay looked showing income per household and we see the w40i9 triangle less than $45,000 per year you'll see the co-relation between income and here we go the number of pedestrians that are hit by cars per year so a decedent amount a high co-relation between the accident and the low income density that white triangle the tenderloin a little bit of soma and more digging in the paper recently the why do that crimes

are up from 38 thousand plus per year to 60 thousand over 6 years is a 60 percent there their assault and drugs and alcohol and fraud and sex crimes and motorist vehicle and motorist vehicle break in this is a breakdown three hundred and 8 crimes her year over the last 13 years actually, one want 9 million crimes per year 200 and 60 to 4 hundred per day and then this again another breakdown of the crimes occurred our locking infrastructure it seems like we paired crime high density of low income residents as well as high chance of

someone hit by a pedestrian vehicle this is one this is 6, one this is slash 12 and this is how we no longer host the income between the individuals hit and motorist vehicles and protecting thank you keep up the good work. >> next time we'll have this full screen. >> i think any other public comment this gentleman. >> okay. thank you. >> when the item is called. >> number 9 thank you, thank you not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner vice president richards. >> i think a couple of things one we missed you thanks for coming back it's been a while i hope you're okay i think everyday when i go out to talk to people that request

drs especially in noah valley there's a real mystery how the planning and the building code what can we do and what we can't do and harmony i think the next time with the building inspection we should allow questions from public to be asked in advance of meeting we can do a presentation on peering the vail to show you what really is allowed and not allowed that that will go a long way in enjared public trust i got information every week and why is this we approved a demolition and contacting the department of building inspection and other the public seize that they make

it not trusted the process an informational building and planning to codes and working where things tie and not that would be great to - perhaps that meeting should have a look at after we look at the planning code and see i don't want to jump the gun we keep on having these things every week and this was brought to your attention on the demolition was permitted and it actually created a new dwooel that was 4r0ud i did not realize that the public didn't understand that that would be great of a great joint hearing with the building inspection. >> commissioners that places us in the regular calendar item 2 up now polk street this is a request for conditional use

authorization. >> jonas a few other items for you today. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the planning code and staff this is a request for conditional use authorization to allow a wine store doing business as a house to extend their hours of operation pursuant to the planning code no physical changes are proposed as part of project the project site on policies situated at polk and awesome within the polk street neighborhood commercial district and height and bulk district subject property is 87 frontage on polk and on austin center it was one thousand square feet and contains a place for retail sales for wine for sale for offsite consumption and the

tasting bar independence the liquor bar for the cerebral hemorrhage inform taft room in 2005 and envelope that was approved for the clarification of the wine store and bar the planning code section states that the principally permitted housing authority will be ponlz between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. with the conditional use is required for maintaining the hours of operation between 2 and 6:00 a.m. the hours of operation for the subject business between 6:00 a.m. and midnight given the business has operated since 2005 the project sponsor requests a cu for the extension of the hours of operation 7 days per week had community outreach for community groups with the lower polk and the association and in total the project sponsor secured one and 5 letters of

support for the extension of hugsz and the department got one or two letters in opposition to the proposed project the letters generally site no concentration of bars and will create more noise across the street from the subject property the department finds that is necessary and desirable and compatible with the neighborhood or the community as it purport and locally owned businesses it adds to the vitally of the neighborhood and the department recommends approval with the bar and liquor stores is meeting the requirements and consistent with the general plan the staff recommendations for trash and cleanliness

jonas no project sponsor on this this is a change. >> there is a project sponsor. >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon. my name is william the owner and business owner been in business since 2005 and impeccable relationships with all the neighbors except the 1 across the street and a member of the lower polk neighbors and did outreach to all the neighborhood communities and everyone is in favor of me enlarging my hours for people 50 plus to go and hang out you're not became bard with people shopping and a quiet well run establishment no complaints and looking for your support today thank you. >> thank you okay opening it up for public

comment (calling names). >> good afternoon commissioners my name is lincoln tom i'm in opposition - thank you - option of the extension of the hours of operation polk street is primarily a senior block we have senior apartments with housing senior that don't speak english and afraid of jeopardizing they're with a protecting housing across the street is another senior development roughly 432 units which 8 units face the poorhouse we had back in 2012 where they had a hearing i was there and i voiced any opposition back then

they have live entertainment windows and doors on the band was at the strait level by the windows blasting music until god knows how long it was show loud the dispatchers of the 55301, 2, 3 took my complainant and couldn't believe the volume of noise the loud music that was awful with any windows closed in the heat of summer i hear the music pretty bad after the hearing many bigelow tried to contact me i gave them my name and number he finally contacted me in april of 2016 prior to this meeting prior to the extension hours of business i don't think that is fair to us seniors we worked we supported the city we build the city

why do we have to suffer because the communication of loud noise people are intoxicated with one or two descriptions they are liberal their voices eagle it is loud at night the noise level it does amplify how do you sleep through that come on we deserve our rights of having a nice peaceful neighborhood it is a community neighborhood thank you very much thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners president of the middle polk neighborhood association we met with the owner felt wine bar in question he did extensive outreach in the community and talked with the business owners a nice guy and told us the business situation he's facing with the polk street redesign and everything and that

coming up with brt and said you know, i run a wine and beer bar it is tame most of patrons there tend to be older and we took a hard look at it and decided to support it we think that is a good good thing he's been a good citizen in the community trying to run a business with those tough times times with the infrastructure projects we think he is entitled to pay his bills and employees we're supportive of the hours of operation thank you. >> thank you. >> hi castro one of the williams employees at the poorhouse i want to examine it helps us pay your rent he live in the neighborhood it is very expensive a loud neighborhood but poorhouse is definitely one

of the quieter places it would definitely help me and the other employees that work there that's all i want to say. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm christen the director the lower polk speaking in support of proposal the important house is a well run quiet state establishment compared to some of the other establishments on polk street corridor and we just would like to assist in the sponsors request because they've is this to endure public utilities construction from the business and an expended period of construction along polk street and van ness that will

detrimentally effect their business it is consistent with the neighborhood that they be offered the opportunity to stay open until 2 thank you very much. >> gang ryan young an employee of the liam i work with liam i had the maintains on the bar and doorman and bartender koogsz i see him everyday talking with the community accident kind of guy we're out washing the building he'll watch the person who is sxhavnl talking to the neighborhoods getting feedback on the noise with the afghanistan bins of the bar and invites everyone he's a generous

and outgoing person by extending the bars hours you know we'll be helping us as employees getting extra time in on the clock being able to pay our bills it is expensive to live here in san francisco in regards with the loud music and noise of the bar you know he's actually moved live performance to the back of the bar music and it is volume adjust building but mesh with the community policies is a busy street with tons arrest of bars and other noise comparably to the other establishments i've seen out there he's one of the more contributor and quieter of the bars xevendz the hours 2 o'clock

will obtain beneficial to everybody. >> good afternoon christine i'm here to support the wine bar and their extension of hours i've been a customer at the wine bar since they've opened i live a block and a half away polk is my neighborhood this wine bar is definitely not the primary cause of noise and problems in lower polk absolutely no way anyone in they're right mind can think so i know over the years i've spoken to him over challenges we've had had this bar is trying to do different things and live music is one his version of live

music is opera we're not talking about a full on electronic music show down in the front window i know that several bars have this volume activities like that this bar is the only spot currently in the lower polk area you can go and sit down with a friend my case my boyfriend and have a quiet glass of wine and have an earning out and something to do that didn't involve the younger louder generation the challenge is that they do close and midnight you have to put an early ended on our evening and especially people hike any that work long weeks don't get out to dinner until 8 or 9 o'clock in the earning by

the time you go in and sit down to have that nice moment with our significant other they're calling the last call that would be wonderful to go and kind of have that longer evening out from a time without feeling rushed i hope you chose to support him a great edition to the communities. >> hello, i'm gary netherlands i live in the neighborhood and going to the bar for years and i'm in complete agreement with the previous speaker that it really is a quiet and enjoyable place to go and by having to leave early your forced to go if you think the want to extend

your evening with our boyfriend or girlfriend and be bombard with people that are drinking with loud music and can't enjoy a conversation in a place like the poorhouse i've never heard the music back in 2012 there might have been a night that was loud but i've never heard that i've been going there for a long term i hope you extend the hours i know that the mc-2 would be a great boss and citizen and he's always trying to make the place better every time i go in there there's a little improvement the people in the senior building that has the poorhouse they are all in support of the extended

hours so if one person complains i guess you can't make everybody happy but 99.9 percent of people are and i'm one of them thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner vice president richards interesting when i was president of my neighborhood associations that was one of pretty much beside market octavia the second most frequent issue we dealt with was in the upper market and worked with the neighbors around what their issue if there is an issue and mitigate it i guess i have a few questions for the residence across the street a woman that spoke. >> please.

>> if you could let me, maybe i missed this in our testimony you live across the street people that live above the poorhouse what is believe it or not you to the poorhouse is it music is it customer smoking on the street and my second question how can you attribute it to the poorhouse. >> back in 2012 i appeared before this commission. >> uh-huh. >> we were talking about the issues and i made a complaint they are bands right by their windows wide open and door wide open and substantially over the years and time many, many people complaining they moved the band to the back. >> uh-huh. >> the noise was 0 so loud the

dispatchers that took the report couldn't believe the noise in the background and bear in mind their ancient and don't speak english in affordable housing and a lot of them are afraid they'll lose their standing with the affordable housing we can't force those folks to come forth yeah, we have a problem but i'm afraid to speak i couldn't speak i'll keep my mouth shut down. >> after 2012 has the issue gotten better. >> i'm sorry. >> after 2012 they moved the band to the back. >> it took them a couple of years. >> where are we today. >> the past 7 or 812 months they've been behaving because they anticipate good behavior will justify their extension of hours i don't have any problems

with them aribnb money or problems with the folks working there i have problems after certain hours close the windows and doored all the people don't live across the street i'm suffering lack of sleep i have heavy curtains and close any windows during the heat of the hottest days and putting in earplugs is that fair i'm a senior i worked all my life i am entitled now to peace and quiet and enjoyment of any home and the neighborhood like i said i have no problems with the business. >> one last question when you had those issues did you make police calls. >> yes. >>i do. >> and documentation. >> yes. >> can you hand to over the rail.

>> thank you i'd like to request mr. bigelow. >> so you heard. >> i did i'd like to mention or dispute a couple the questions the leeland hotel no people fearing for their life only their housing there i have a letter in any package from the landlord everyone in the building i supported their christmas party and provided food and i clean up the whole block i help you know keep the neighborhood clean with the lower polk neighbors what else i have 5 letters of support from the people in the building two with which are on the side and they did have i think entertainment commission spoke to people in the building and

interviewed them hey is that place loud thai said no louder than polk street the odds of those two letters our reading is battling with a bar a block up the street right now i think that you know she didn't have anything else to do she's retired and to wear earplugs and closing our windows is false as of 2012 our condition we moved our music to the back to close our windows, we don't allow people to congregate i spoke to the author of that letter i went to her house she wouldn't speak to me saw the lower polk neighbors i addressed her let's have a cup of coffee and help

you solve that let me help you solve this problem only one person that is causing the grief for me she wouldn't meet what are your premium concern she said haubz she said there was kids handing out in front of any establishment we do have kids selling them a glass of wine they go do other places and things like that we have a ton. >> huh? >> sure. sure are you aware of any police calls made that specifically pertain to our establishment. >> the womanhood across the street called many times they show up and say there's no problem. >> what existing noise

continuation. >> what. >> what are you doing to try to eliminate. >> we put in curtains in the front and side and close the curtains and don't play music open one or two days a week in in conjunction with a pop up opera with italian wine they finished at 915 we have solo gufrts and don't allow drums and their obama own amplified music a control through the house system i have control of the music she would routing call shawn from the entertainment commission and he'd call me i'd walk across and walked up to my place you couldn't hear the music placing from the front. >> so the entertainment commission inspector ever found

you were over the decimal limit. >> no, i requested from the police department they've never to this date found me in violation. >> would you be willing to put a sign out front a small one foot by foot that says please keep the noise down. >> i have one out there, sir. >> i move to improve the hours of operation. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree. >> sorry. >> i agree we've heard the limited nights of music not the kind of music with a heavy base sound and not after 10 o'clock so not having a bearing on the extension time 12 to 2 o'clock and generally wine bars tend to

be older and quieter crowd in my experience been to a few of them on various parts of city and they're around 15 to 20 other establishments in the general vicinity that serve either alcohol or food both alcohol and food and it is pretty hard for everyone to differentiate where the noise is coming from or the planners making the noise on the streets i think that is the least likely to be a contributor and two neighborhood organizations support and lots of letters so i'm supportive of this conditional use. >> commissioner moore and i'm in support i want to remind the commission the former supervisor chiu worked with the neighborhood groups to limit and

establish a clear policy about how many bars 0 could be and the distance that doesn't mean they'll all perform to standard but the neighborhood groups dr. been keeping certain people out and support those who are there so those neighborhoods groups today come and voucher for this applicant i take that is as a solid gold kind of endorsement one of the reasons why i support of the extension of the hours. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us on item of for case pca conditional use for

removing unauthorized units a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners planning department staff the proposed ordinance the item before you is sponsored by supervisor wiener it is duplicated from an earlier ordinance supported by madam chair rosales which has been effective since april of this year we do action of the ordinance two days it requires a conditional use authorization for removal of all residential unit and including unauthorized units supervisor wiener responses to concerns of unauthorized units in single-family home this proposal can be understood by looking both the may 25th memo and the ordinance in your packet i'd like to introduce ann seem from

supervisor wiener's office and she'll discuss it further and i'll continue my presentation after. >> hello commissioner ann simon legislative aide to to supervisor wiener regarding the memo you have distributed to you letter from may 25th we're asking for a change in the case of removal from in-law units and a lot of complaint in single-family homes not professionally not robust operations knowing that the conditional use process is generally catered towards a much bigger robust project and dr discretionary review and it is catered for smaller property owner in a simplified version of that process for a few reasons one the appeal to the board of appeals for the discretionary

review is a more logical venue in the case of small residents and the removal of one unit as opposed to goes to the board of supervisors is a burdensome process so we don't know - and let's see any kind of unanimous complaint can trigger the removal of a in-law unit that is unwarrant and from the unit is not able to be legalized for life safety and back in the day reasons that is fair without a robust operation without a lawyer and legal counsel about the means of the resources for legal counsel to have this simplified process especially with the planning commission if

a unit should be forced to be legalized and unable to be removed that will be denied in the conditional use process and so it didn't really make a more lenient process only a simpler one often for a person of lessor means this amendment has been discussed at the other hearing supervisor peskin is in support as well as supervisor avalos the author of the legislation with the condition that like i said previously a unit that could be legalized for reasons of you know construction or life safety if so it possible it should be genocide with the same conditional use. >> so much more of a procedural change to be fair to small property owners and use

the downstairs unit for rental income to supplement their income. >> do you have any questions. >> could you repeat last section many single-family homes properties that right hand an unwarranted in-law unit usually the case the owner move-in an unawarded in-law unit on the first floor those usually are not giants robust operations it is one propose other than often protecting i don't have - many property owners and protecting income property owners and single-family homes with illegal

units. >> one more question after public comment thank you. >> okay. >> thank you after further analyzing the differences between a mandatory discretionary review and a conditional use authorization the department keeping the cu requirement for removing an unauthorized unit and single-family homes the newly adopted control for remove nunlts are based on two goals first to protect the tenants from eviction, due to demolition, and second is to preserve our existing horticulturalist as well as life and safety standards are met unauthorized units are most often found in single-family homes given the city's goals to protect those unite and their tenants it is important to provide the same review of

unauthorized units and single-family homes as provide in other building sites mandatory discretionary review process is an easy path to remove the unauthorized units because of the way it is structured and the appeal process however, unlike common belief the mandatory discretionary review can be more costly than a cu a flat fee off 35 hundred for mandatory discretion and can be as low as $1,500 lastly the mandatory discretionary review is used for medical cannabis dispensarys the department prefers consistency in the policies use for roving residential units force o for those reasons the department recommends maintaining the cu requirements

for removing unauthorized units in all types homes in addition to 9 recommendations for the supervisors proposal staff recommends additional changes to further improve the decided controls with the legaltions of illegal units so the rest of the recommendations are related to supervisor wiener proposals the first two is about legalization of unauthorized units first staff recommends allowing more one unit to be legalized per lot only allows one unit per lot to are legalized if one lot more than one left-hand side the rest what about removed over-the-counter administratively removing those requires for legalization and helps to protect all of the tenants from vocation and

provide the units life and safety staff was made aware of a loophole creates as a result of subcontractor with the cu controls and some restrictions in the legalization program this restriction is that the restriction in the program is that an illegal unit will not be eligible for legalization in the building - certain no fault evacuees are happens at the same time as part of cu controls non-eligible for legalization it can be removed over-the-counter this means the property owner can evict their tenants of the

unauthorized units and obtain a permit over-the-counter to convert the unit back to storage or garage without having to go through a cu process this may incentivizes evictions not otherwise occurred and eviction itself gives the property owners more - the history were put in the legalization program to protect tenants the review of eviction history was based on an assumption that allowing the unit to be legalized may create an incentive for eviction however, what we now release is that this eviction history won't keep the owners from environmental impact the tenants after the legalization program is completed it didn't meet the

intended goal but creates an incentive for eviction for this reason staff proposes to remove the history from the legalization program and answer more questions this is a complicate one but the approval the controls for removal of single-family homes we're not related to unauthorized units and a major part of original ordinance through the cu for removal of all single-family dwellings and has approve for rh1 and in - situations first from the building is found to be deeply unforgettable or second in the building is unsound and

to clarify the language for the sound currently the corrode e code is unclear whether this applies however, that was clear and the intent of the bravrdz made the exemption available the second recommendation is related to the zoning district with the exemptions applied to two exemptions apply to single-family homes in rh1 and rh zones the department recommends politically to all district of the single-family homes for the consistent controls cross all zoning district so far single-family homes and the department represents i'm available for questions we also received a letter of support from liveable cities and i'll leave the copies

with you. >> thank you opening up for public comment on this item. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is charley work on government affairs for the san francisco association thanks for having us i want to say this legislation if have changes on rules and regulations and so the discussion of those completely out of purview of this ordinance i'll say that we would like to advocate for a mandatory discretionary review process rather a conditional use process for small property owners that needs to remove an illegal unit it impacts thirty puss small property owners and in our experience their low income

first generation americans and bought single-family homes with in-law units because they couldn't afford the conforming two unit building and generally, we're not opposed to the policy goals for the ordinances we're opposed to the reor requisite exacted because of the impacts on the property owner for for the costs and bureaucracy and time spent by property owners our members have informed us this takes up to one or two years during the time the agreement in request they're not legally to pay rents and in the bureaucratic process but expected them to go through the pedestrian without the rental income it makes that doubling burdensome and additionally, the fee process generally speaking

are significantly higher it make sense to point out cu denial to the board of appeals rather than the complete board of supervisors it is inappropriate to bog down the board with those projects we firmly believe that pertains will have more consideration with the board of appeals we believe it is vastly a more appropriate venue thank you for your time and consideration. >> good afternoon. commissioners san francisco apartment association i'll speak in support of what charley said we are worked on this legislation at the board of supervisors and land use committee supervisor peskin, supervisor cowen supervisor avalos and supervisor wiener all sat in we got all of them to agree to the position of dr for small property owners on this issue we

all know that the system in san francisco for many years has been for permit debate you go to permit appeals for any bigger project we agreed to a cu to the board of supervisors we don't need to lose more small unit off the market or need to torture small owners with more bureaucracy than they deal with not our intent to get into a debate with the planning department we're respectful of the staff we bought this out and this is just reintroducing it to where we started from thank you for your time and consideration. >> tom from human rights committee we're new support of maintaining the cu process for

the removal of illegal units i say from with the progress with the board of appeals not a process that tenants can win by rubber stamp the demolition permits we don't on the dr process will protect the tenants or maintain the rent-controlled unit i believe that the goal of supervisor avalos legislation that goal will not be met by putting those through the dr process that is much better through the cu process i understand what jan is saying about the compromises made and the discussions from my experience i don't see this achieving our goal at human rights committee and protecting the in-law units as for the prohibition on

evictions in terms of legalization number 5 of the recommendations we're a little bit confused about that about the recommendation but certainly support of intent of the elements we're not convinced that is quite the right fix yet maybe what the fix is that the - demolition permit should go to the cu process i don't understand why there would not be a case for a cu you do not understand why the landlord does an eviction and avoids the legalization not getting a permit over-the-counter to be demolished i don't understand and if that's the case fix it by requiring a cu that takes the incentive out of the eviction and the agency vacation or am i missing something that is the

simple fix for the incentive for door-to-door the unauthorized unit user unit i'll be more confront keep in the prohibition of the eviction but make sure you require that there's a cu process if there's as demolition permit in that case we support extending the cu to properties or more than one in-law unit the - seen properties like that at the office and support including single-family units in all zones we feel this is the intent here to protect the tenants and preserve those units to stop the occasi doogs demolition of those units thank you >> hi a tenant and organizer with the cause we also are in support of

recommendations 12, 4 and 5 to insure the horticulturelists is supported in the city and highlighted a large portion the housing stock that is available and house many stay we embrace the changes to the planning code that requires the conditional use authorization process rather than a discretionary review as suggested by the supervisor wiener legislation for the process of going in the right direction that unauthorized units that fall underer rent control and given there are usually more than one unauthorized units to legalize the parcel we ask this that be protecting the units and preserve the housing stock recommendation number 4 we support this recommendation given that single-family homes and all zoning district should

be subject to the same controls when seeking the removal of units i've supported a lot of tenants that council with rent increases using costa-hawkins after a unit has gun down the road so for a single-family we don't worry about unauthorized units it is important to preserve your rent-controlled stoke and with number 5 the same feelings as tommy from the human rights a little bit confusing we are confused in terms of the owner use a false eviction the building is eligible foyer legalization it shouldn't get a over-the-counter permit but a conditional use but it could potential gets landlords

engaging in no fault evictions - >> is there any additional public comment? >> i did not hear you announce that. >> it wasn't called yet. >> (inaudible). >> it's not possible. >> no, not at this time. >> we're trying to get that - >> this is a subway site that has a high crime rate i think you're making a mistake. >> okay. thank you. >> hang tight for this item number. >> commissioners >> it says something here.

>> hi georgia swedish this is my 317 file i'm glad i found this morning i am - i sent an e-mail to ann mary rogers and i'm sorry ms. - sorry hello anyway sorry about that i'm used to aaron i think this is a problem i think the exception is banning it all, all single-family homes is really a bad thing i think that you need to remove that modifications i don't see the advantage of it in my letter i said this was what form of up zoning which is very similar to the affordable housing bonus program and you don't imagine i don't know why this attached

protective to protect people this is a problem given i've talked about the decisions and the increase in prices windup with losing affordable housing right here look at this this will be a $6 million home surrounded by two single-family homes you're saying in or executive summer given the housing crisis the city should persevere housing this is significantly higher than preserving existing units those logo and another 2, 3, 4 work 6 or $7 million homes i this is infuriating your current legislation you just passed i mean, you just - i see

why you have that concept in the rh1 or rh2 sometimes we're seeing homes that are $5,035,000 over the mayor's office of housing number so you know - i think the other argument that are consistent controls across the city zoning zoning it specific if you look at the definition of the rh2 which is basically, the following that is supposed to be single-family homes and devoted to 1, 2, 3 housing with consisting of two large flats that's not haven what is happening is salesladies sometimes that second unit is

part of first unit i then is complicate you should remove it and deal with many three to four hands legislation that comes in the fall thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards. >> i think taking a step back and understanding 317 with the level it is called for banner around a resounding hearing and have something that actually talks about 317 and i alluded to changes coming so mr. sanchez can you tell us section 317 when did it get started and the intent what sections there was a lot here. >> i'll do my best 317 arose a

decade a little bit less than a decade ago prior to that we operated in the series of policy policies with demolition and housing with the 3 mergers to demolition and dwelling units to a broader residential incarcerating indicating and the most - that politics to legal units and get an over-the-counter for illegal unit and the main idea to preserve and protect relatively housing and dwelling units up to increased dwelling unit without the policy finding there are

certain extension that have been there regarding - preserving the relative affordability of housing so a per units mergers exceeded over 1.5 million and demolish it and a provision too from the building is unsound that was relatively affordable housing that was unsound housing in the process that is historical backward and many tweet the issues that ms. swedish raise regarding the ability to a enforce and implement the controls i think we have a handle on the unit mergers but the issues when constitutes the demolition a couple of decisions and planning

code has their definitions to have something a demolition we can live with. >> so in the 2:00 o'clock or rewrite of 317 will we work with the planning department to harmonize the definition. >> we're looking at different options one of the options looking at something that is getting away from the demolition issue and looking at the size of the building there is. >> sure. >> a lot of discusses and certainly we'll work with the planning department and keeping the demolition issues how much of the building remains. >> that piece of wall hanging in the air will be considered a demolition. >> so i guess the question i have further only section 317 the 80 percentage demonstratively over-the-counter on rh1 d where did it come from

where's the 80 percent why 80 why not 90 we often hear the average home is only now affordable by 9 percent of population i don't understand what is behind that but how would you overlay that with the percent. >> it goes back to the original 317 was adopted the idea of value the units exceeds 80 percent of the pricing of the single-family home in san francisco not a unit that will be relatively affordable and therefore could be exempted from the process. >> the 80 is a number. >> in the 317 the planning commission has the ability to modify that to 10 percent. >> 10 or 20 percent. >> that's interesting that's a discussion we probably should

have where does the 80 percent based on a certain number where does that number come from. >> go ahead. >> we work with our database to get current data but it is 10 percent the commission can modify that has amended so it is 80 percent of the combined land and structure values of the single-family homes in san francisco and this is a threshold. >> so if i question 3 properties in any immediate neighborhood one open a double lot on castro that sold recently and a cottage on it i think there is plans a 311 notice with a 3 thousand square feet home and a on one they come others planning commission and say i paid $3 million it is a double lot a huge development how do we

call calculate you look at the value of the lot. >> it must be a considerable prevail our correct there is an apples to apples comparisons so we're looking at the appraisal of that property maybe more potential but we're looking at the value of 3 property. >> do we have a list of aau appraisers. >> i question the 80 percent

but this is a question for another 7, 8, 9 we need to tuck 24 both the informational how does the governor have the right we see the cu for demolition it is intooefr in the process but the demolition has a right that's a lot of concern for me so basically 317 so preserve housing so the other issue with 317 and the over-the-counter is one .6 and one .65 and one .69 and square feet 8 hundred whatever with the land and the building ms. swedish said we see an 8 thousand square feet home is in now 5 or 6 million so pushing the number the affordable is less and less and less to the

extent of the population that goes against the intent of this i call it the pacific heights but trying to see let people do what they want with their property but based on a crazy market so thank you the issue with moving it on the recommendations of - monarch the administrative approval for single-family units to anything beyond rh1 rhd ii come to you to the department and have an illegal unit in that home i want to demolish and house can it still be approved over-the-counter maybe a staff question. >> go ahead. >> no, if you have an illegal unit you will have to be

completed for the cu process. >> okay. >> got it. >> where i'm coming from i have to tell you how many friends that have been evicted that lived in illegal units and questionable house and safety they're paying a lot of money for the units and the owner passed on and the family - or the owner wants to move to palm springs ami i've taken this all of a sudden i want you out of here i want to sell any house we saw that two novembers ago and we saw that it was an eye opener i've had four or five friends experience that they're in a unit and want to sell the house and want to destroy and owned

them - it sets a higher bar >> think i have been at a table cost standard time board of supervisors, etc. i kind of looked cu is less expensive for the dr is more expensive the question i heard cu takes 12 months and dr takes 12 or 6 months. >> it still has to come before you with the continual use authorization getting on the commission calendar i don't see any reason why the cu in and of itself takes a longer time for a hearing. >> is there a way to streamline that if i'm european urgently needing to get rid of this if time is an issue can we

shorten the time we can now but hard-pressed to say hey i'll approve something more expensive at the same time doesn't make sense the thing honestly the standard by which we make an approval only a dr or cu are different and necessary and desirable and compatible for the cu and exceptional or extraordinary and a liar threshold i feel the department is phil in the recommendation but personally i understand whether or not is appealable to the board of supervisors or the board of appeals you know i'd rather have a higher threshold rather than a lower threshold the reason to preserve housing i mean, that's what that is all about not to make it easier to get rid of of a unit there are ways but i'm moving in favor of

the departments recommendations with the exception of the ability to metabolic approve single-family homes and in an rh1 or rh2 i honestly don't like that at all the other one of the gentleman raised a good point not why take out the exception for the ellis act for the no-fault evictions. >> thank you. i'm emery rogers this is difficult to explain i'll give the technical definition the way i find helpful we often look at the eviction history and put prohibitions in place what the property owner can do it make sense if there's an eviction

type they have more limits what we they can and - in this case if we look at the eviction history what we're prohibiting them from doing legalizing the unit effectively that is the opposite that enables them to remove the unit without any of the process or review you might have. >> right the issue is the enforcement of the no-fault evictions we're managing this is a person that takes an act that is a hash and good reasons kicking someone out, however, seize if they've rerented that's the lynch pin if this makes sense until we have strong laws so i'd rather error on the side of caution. >> this is important with the

many action with the board of supervisors has taken to try to preserve and protect housing and one of those being remarkable we had the ability to legalize the illegal units and so one of the issues exemption them from a great number of code requirement from the density requirements up to one unit but we the say we don't want people to be eligible if they've done an eviction we don't want someone to legalize. >> it makes sense in that connection we have a population with a conditional use authorizations to rove an illegal unit rather than making that a process and making it easier for legalize a units we say that you in order to remove the unit you need to go through a process you don't get approval

you have to keep that units the thing if someone comes in this is a real example we should someone that says i want to be able to remove this unit under our code provisions i can legalize it but they said what if i evict someone from that unit i can't no longer legalize it i'm not an unauthorized units there has ta to be a path to legalization if none it's not coming before you people therefore evict someone from their unit and there is no way to legalize it at the have - >> i that is crazy. >> that's what's. >> my question if we leave it in and they. of want to a come

in and demolish and . >> under the code no way to legalize it you'll have to keep our unit. >> it's that bad. >> yes. >> yes. >> (laughter) keeps the united and keeps them from - >> i think - >> the point to legalize the unit would be in an awkward position probation officer recommend we recognize it is illegal and keep it illegal. >> i'm a landlord and i evict a tenant; right? in an illegal unit i know i can giving me get an over-the-counter approved; right? because it's been an ellis acted unit now we take that away i require a cu for legal listings the unit. >> no path to legalization it wouldn't come before you.

>> what happens to that unit. >> it goes away if you have a unit to be legalized under the code through the process only that's the only way to do if it you ask someone from that unit you can just remove that without coming are before you. >> mirena burns i think that is important to remember the unit can't be legalized pause the health and safety doesn't meet the requirement for a safe place for people to live that's an important thing to consider here we don't want people living in units that are unsafe that don't meet basic fire requirements. >> we would have a vision we wouldn't be allowing people to procure. >> we'll take that provision out and put left-hand side that

are ellis acted under the changed proposals without a change if their rent-controlled unit for market-rate that's my concern. >> okay two - one other question i buy a house i buy the lot next door i come and demonstratively i passed the 80 percent threshold i demolition the house over-the-counter, i put the two lots together and build an 8 thousand foot's house i think i have two units is that without requiring a cu. >> can you repeat that scenario. >> i'm looking at there are ways to gain the system; right? you're seeing it is okay to have two units on a lot an rh1. >> i mean under the planning code right now you can legalize one of the units.

>> right so. >> so if allows if we - we find there maybe two illegal units in a property and rather people don't have to pick and choose if we have the ability to legalize more properties that is beneficial that's the basic of that relates for more units to be legalized rather than the current limitation. >> okay >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you i'd like to ask a - i'm sorry, i didn't catch your name ann, affordable unit we lost track i'd like to go back to the what the supervisor is proposing before the staff modifications. >> okay. >> i'll ask you to help me i think we're saying cu for removal of a single-family homes it is a dr and, of course,

appealed to permanent appeals with all the things that good to dr that applies to all single-family home or on single-family homes in rh1 district. >> i believe as we presented it was all single-family homes. >> including. >> that's a distinction that's important i think your agreeing with staff that if there happened to be 2 or more units you'll have to go to the cu process on this use the dr to remove a single-family; is that correct. >> don't believe we specified this is a our intent a statement. >> you didn't deal was that this is they're making it is important complicated way with the specific situation of a home with one conforming unit that

has one unwarranteunwarranted. >> - he then i guess you agree from the unit is unsafe or the unit and the their deemed beyond affordable housing. >> correct it follows the rest of the provision. >> right which is what we do if it is not safe is can be eliminated they don't have to go through a process to eliminate something that is unsafe and then the final point the whole

idea of allowing those units to be legalized if there was an ellis acted or another no-fault eviction. >> we support that did not have our change. >> thank you very much. >> we're perfectly aligned with the recommendation except the dr. >> i'm of that thought you know, i think we've gone 360 degrees in which that makes some sense we're at odds with ourselves for years we had zoning and we had certain restrictions as to whether or not it was zoned for a single unit and that you know in the same with all the other zones and the others were discovered

asked took removed and rightly in my opinion we said okay. if there's a road to legalization from the owner is able to bring it up to a legalization we're gone to extreme the process to get rid of the unit we might not have wanted in the first place for example, in rh1 someone can buy and house and someone put in a kitchen you don't pay attention like, yeah he put it in but you don't have to use it, it's zoned rh1 and requiring the cu to get rid of of something you didn't want in the first place the same is true of a situation someone wants to enlarge their home what is of the intent to be and this

innocent was not legal in the first place they want to get rid of of it the one thing missing no attention to the neighborhood if you live in an rh1 district zoned rh1 you bought your hope e home with the idea of a single-family home district there will be expended families and maybe more traffic and cars and congestion than you've bargained for when we add those units on top of that it defies our zoning we're adding them conflict with the zone for an rh1 district that should be only one house the only difference with our idea from the district allows rh1 or rh2 and a single-family homes with the exception to the zoning i could

see a case where legalizing the unit go ahead. >> our intended is more for having a simplified and expedited process for property owners not necessarily to lower the density of rh1 neighborhoods. >> yes. okay. >> just for that clarification. >> i understand that that's my position if someone doesn't want the unit there and they cannot afford to bring it up to you know what it make it safe they should be able to get rid of it it they have a single-family that shouldn't be there in the first place that is a lower bar everyone knows we've watched it commission for a period of time you need 4 votes to disapprove and the appellant process is more severe and make 4 out 5 or 4 out of 4 to

overturn the decision of the planning commission and potentially might tend to be a little bit easier for this process to occur as a dr than a cu. >> another point i'd like 0 reiterates the appeal process knowing this is would happen in the case of one or more units in a 1235i789 appeals going to the board of supervisors is an inappropriate venue that is a push for us and also having the criteria for the commission regardless of rules of how many votes to approval and disapproval the criteria should be the same in the discussion supervisor avalos supports this change with that mentioned yeah, he completely agree with you it is overkill it is

somewhat you know to try to keep people from removing unit eve they don't want did unit one more unit is in a single-family the numbers are relatively small numbers in relationship to the entire city we have a lot of accessory units and encouraging the establishment but i think we have to error on the side of property rights and allow the owners to do what we intended and their property zoned for i'll favor the position of the supervisors thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks on the issue of dr versus cu i'm supportive of the staff's recommendation we want to commend give a couple of more thoughts on the no-fault evictions a strange pathway in i

want to demolish did you, ellis someone and get that over-the-counter that's clearly a problem i still we don't want to allow people that had a no-fault eviction to legalize their unit. >> if you could. >> if we're trying to keep the unit. >> uh-huh. >> then we need to legalize it the primary barrier as the city attorney's office is health and safety issues so if it can be legalize we should do that. >> eve no fault i think i want to bring up that i see your point of view i don't know throw the baby out with the bath water but i don't know. i think we need to have a way to curve

that behavior a commissioner vice president richards said not about this piece of legislation but enforcement and protocols but i'm grappling with that a little bit. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i appreciate this legislation and appreciate the thought point planning department put into that it is a did you see i didn't - to commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards i agree i think what is missing we don't have a way unless we you know like the minority report that movie we should know the intent so everything we're talking about is after the fact of an eviction

whether a legal or not and the people can pay it off they're not there we don't really have a way to do that we're looking at after the fact of the units is probably empty unfortunately, i see your point i'm not sure this legislation gets that what i like about the legislation and the motivations that have been suggested is that it orient us towards action the only reason we have the actions we want to direct people we want them to have units we recognize as legally okay units that's where the legislation with the administration gets us for that reason i'm supportive of it i think in terms of dr versus cu that was the most changing aspect of this legislation and weighing those options awhile i understand both sides i

understand core 40 for a cu for a small property that is overkill if you have a property that may have some opposition to that and so you're talking about definitely going to be an appeal process beyond our decision if it go forward i think cu is over kill take the supervisors 11 people's time to look at those cases and going though the process is a lot to me and on the other hand, it has a higher bar we've been talking about here we have been talking about preserving unit count and talking about you know the mayors directive is. >> couple of years old and a cu in that direction so i guess i can support of

planning staffs recommendation, however, if we were to - keep it at a dr that's how the legislation will eventually end up that's fine to support that the planning commission level we have enough policies and direction from supervisors and mayor our own history of decisions we likely take more pointed look at any project that involves the removal of units anywhere i think either way of a case coming to us will result in us taking a look at, however, i'm supportive of the staff's recommendation and hopefully that will stay that way thanks. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'm sorry commissioner hillis. >> thanks. >> i think i'm generally of

the same mind in agreement with the staff recommendation you hear the dr process versus the cu process for kind of a single pertaining to make that less bumgarner and going to the board of supervisors but i think the thing we're not changing this is troubling your offer arching requirements dr versus cu and the dr is necessary and desirable and the dr is exceptional or extraordinary those don't change when you talk about supervisor avalos was supportive of the conditions change it is not those. >> on 317 there are contrary that you consider outlined in the conditional use process the 40 criteria those remain with

the dr process with the cu and the dr the main derivatives for cu for you to take an action for them to have the units removed you'll have to take an affirmative vote where the dr is generally approved it is principally loud but you have to have the exceptional or extraordinary to approve it so that's the main difference but the criteria will retain e remain the same that's why i lien towards the cu i i get it i don't think going to the board of appeals or the board a huge difference from a policy stand point when i sat on is permanence appeals before the dr arrest fee requirement the

appeals were not approved they'd try to work to get those units maintained but it is still important so i agree with staffs recommendation number one and two make sense to do more than allow legalization of units more than one units per lot my question on 4 is expanding those two comments to all other zones if you're in the zoning district like an rh2 or rh3 that allows for two or three units on this one i wouldn't mind seeing number 4. >> the exceptions applied if you're taking advantage if you're building a single-family

home in an. >> i understand the idea we want people to be incentivised to maximize the density we can add that. >> i'll end up in the previous round the current law the findings into the demolition that if you're maximum missing the density that's one of the finding that's in there it is there for your consideration. >> if you have angle demonstratively unaffordable home and want to determine 0 it could you, you're going do build a bigger home co-pay could you do that without. >> cu in rh3 district. >> as currently maybe in the recommendations in order to avail yourself you have to maximize the density but

certainly that was not in alignment but to avail yourself of the exemption around other than an rh1 you have to maximum misses the density. >> i want to make that clear in 4 and 5 i i get it staff's recommendation a question if you a person living in a single-family home with an illegal unit does an ellis act to evacuate the tenants in the illegal unit they couldn't legalize it it. >> their incentive toe get rid of the unit that's a vehicle to get rid of the unit. >> correct. >> but if at the come back with the units are they prohibited from - the fact they ellis acted. >> the proposed legislation that comes to you in a week

there is also a prohibition if you're done on eviction you can't add an adu. >> i want to make that clear you know you see someone wanted to get rid of of a unit they ellis acted and not legalize and come back and add a unit under the other adu provisions i don't know if if that is possible but we should prohibit that kind of way of adding a unit and ellis acting i'm generally in support of staffs recommends with that caveat to moment misses beyond the rh1 district to take advantage of the exemptions.

>> there 5 an attempt to explain previously this legalization program a volunteery and a way to protect the tenants to put this prohibition but now after voluntary you remove the unit so we have a better way of protecting the tenants and this prohibition gets in the way of protecting the tenants so that's another perspective to look at it. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess i'd like to tease number 42, 3, 4 maximum density i see district 8 all the this sufficient is happening and you have a 7 thousand square feet home with a second unit for the

girl or conglomerate waits itself minimum on a second unit if you go ahead and say let's see administratively approve it and now for project sponsors they have to come here i see the replacement project to see what that looks like we can smoke out those units what's the planning code say with the relationship of the two unit if we allow it to be approved administratively a 8 hundred square feet unit what's the law require. >> it would not have a standard i think that is an excellent point the idea we wanted to facilitate a project for people to maximum misses the density and maybe that make sense in the case of a building unsound you can't get out of the

process that is a preserve but i concernly understand you're seeing the replacement and make those on the quality of those units that's a good point. >> sir anything else. >> i think this legislation was intended as best i understand to deal with issues of affordability and financial situations for small property owners is not the place to have this very, very important discussion made by you on concerning the rh2 areas be becoming like an rh1 if it is just over the number i know that a dangerous dangerous

thing i think as i maybe not emphasis enough you know, i think that is important legislation i think you should pass it but this administration is stuck in there you're fine quite frankly if i take the time to read the whole thing not in the small thing i no idea but i think you should wait until ms. mohan is finished with her work and understand 317 it is a complicate piece of history. >> on number 4 we've had 10 years of section 317 not the same as rhd and i agree with ms. swedish give it 6 months to harmonize that it make sense i'm for process standardization but this needs more light i'll move

to approve staffs recommendations number one, 2, 3, i'd like to defer back to staff and ms. mohan an number 4 and come back with 317 is revised later in the year i recommend number 5 i understand that is kind of bizarre i want to add 5 we recommend to the board of supervisors some type of on enforcement mechanism department that actually goes and insures that no-fault evictions were good faith what that looks like we don't have an intention people are trying to rent them out at market-rate that's my motion. >> i'll second that was editorial that there's no good faith and no fault. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm opposed to the motion they said earlier and

support of supervisors original legislation that was carefully crafted with the members of the board and have a question for mr. sanchez generally it's been my experience when someone has a property and is doing things to make that more conform than the city and planning department is in support of that action so if someone has a single-family home that has an additional unit less conforming is two units and a single rh how to have a policy that encourages people to make it less conform they're trying to make that more conforming by removing the unit how do we work together. >> we have to look at everybody and the general plan calls for maintaining as much at affordable housing and the city developed we've decreased