and our body and more importantly between the author of the legislation that you have concerned and now i'll spring on you here's a bunch of piece of paper . >> are you asking you to continue this. >> that wouldn't hurt my feelings. >> commissioner moore. >> supervisor peskin could the proposal the ideas the policy described to the supervisors and colleagues considered this is presented at the time when we're ready how is that done. >> in accordance with section 3021922 precisely the

appropriate way to do this this is it to have the city attorney draft a piece of legislation the clerk will review it to your consideration 90 days and comment on actual language when we are dealing with concepts likes the time for temporary evictions and eviction protections i can't if i were you it would be impossible for me as a board member of the board of supervisors it is impossible to opine here's the language that is in front of you, you you're supposed to talk about clarify that tear eviction in the retrofit for seismic retrofits for the building for improvements not considered a adu is it a 60 or 90 days is this kind of absurd and not our fault not what the charter and

the code intends and i will maintain should you actually consider this i will say to the city attorney that none of the amendments are properly before us if in they're in committee you've not considered the piece of legislation. >> and supervisor peskin i think that is a gray area not only here but elsewhere we state where we even proposed changes to legislation that are before us or recommended how the legislation a can't be changed we don't necessarily draft that specific code language i mean, we make it as recommendations and i hear our considerations and appreciate one your adu legislation that fixes state law should move forward you know in those amendments to move forward you know simultaneously or later but you know but i don't think

that is bad to move forward but i i get it what you're saying we also do not want to bog down the process the members suggest changes and we often make recommendations that are not at the refined as the legislation they may concern you know short-term rentals takes shortening the timeframe that our allowed to do short-term rentals and park it to you all the policymakers and you know, i think you're wanting to clarify this is we don't want to bog down the process. >> appreciate may maybe i didn't articulate well while it is i think meant to be an intern process are spotted to start with actual language as you as commenter say if you consider this and that this is what the process was meant to do what is

happening i will contend with all due respect to my colleagues slightly abusive of the process itself. >> thank commissioner melgar. >> so i role appreciate you coming today, i remember when we discussed this last you know we discussed the legislation and then we discussed a couple of ideas that were with the amendment and no representative we were discussing and nobody to ska ask questions to so i'm okay with you know having your legislation go forward need to be in compliance and i think of other ideas not yet legislation but ideas you know consider that at some other point that's okay awe of the 6 points depending on the the devil is in the details and how their drafted they all

are some amount of merit and i'm happy to think about them and do my job on every single of them this is not the place for it. >> i remember the specifically the one idea that was talked about the lass last time we discussed it having an adu within the envelope specifically garages that was a wedding's issue i know interest is contentions with a lot of the discussion with the parties. >> let me say i think our clerk intent as to your body and staff and be so bold i don't want to put words in your mouth so have as many was we came in a rational way throughout the city and county of san francisco that's my desire since 2002 when i lost on the 65 vote (laughter)

and i do believe we have someone from my office present on my behalf but other discussions he was not present for a sxhifgs. >> my issue you dropped something on us the public didn't see therefore we can't weigh in on it. >> february 23rd. >> meeting you drop it and we have other supervisors. >> ton to drop and we'll not end it i ask the city attorney what legal ground are we on point out. >> you did deliver a letter to the board subsequent to the february 23rd you've discharged are your duty under the code and charter to have reviewed it i'm taking issue with additional review after you reviewed it once and said precede and again if so not fault of yours this legislation was introduced in

january only a few weeks after assembly members blossoms law became law and in the middle of the april tax day is on saturday actually close and still not approved that is not you're doing but this is exacerbating the situation. >> the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney christen jensen responding to commissioner vice president richards the supervisor is correct this board has discharged the duty with the underlying legislation but nothing if prevents the commission from among other things the legislation if the additional supervisors and likewise nothing that prevents the commission from continuing the issues that are raised as supervisor peskin submittal of today i'm not sure if that answers your question. >> commissioner johnson.

>> thank you so i'd like to maybe consultant with the commission secretary to get clarity on the option are we considering additional amendments? what was the action we took in february >> for the record what did we actually do. >> we took action and recommended recommended the modifications by staff okay. >> i think what happened differently what typical where we recommended supervisor peskin's. >> recommended or modifications. >> so - at the definitely did. >> so you reviewed the original ordinance and the staff recommendations on that ordinance. >> right and . >> and decided not enough information and time to review the amendments in the letter and asked for it to come back. >> but i think to clarify you take for example legislation

before us tom gets and has the best idea to amend this we tubed it and may take it or not take it or make a recommendation to modify the legislation we have language before us with that legislative change but the board can make that if we don't talk about it from the board wants to make changes they have to kick it back to us nicole we agreed we've not seen it in we specifically requested it come back to us to hear that's where we are at this point, i think i'll encourage supervisor peskin to review the legislation to move forward but i'll encourage us to hear and opine if they move forward separately or take

amendments that would be great or further split or file moving forward i guess my question supervisor peskin i don't see the downside of us hearing those and talking about them and then hopefully, your legislation move forward with dispatch so we can be in compliance with state law. >> further commissioner president hillis i absolutely agree with the legal advice from the deputy city attorney that is nothing that prevents you from having this hearing and so say what you want to say i'll say on monday that whatever you say today because you don't have proposed language as to the amendments in front of you won't be as a matter of law to be considered but have that conversation with ms. jensen with her colleagues today and

tomorrow. >> it is is helpful i'll respond and provide information on that issue it is the position of the city attorney's office you don't have to have written language in front of you today, i i believe that was not uncommon for the proposed language in connection with the legislation before it i have litigated that and with respect to the supervisor we won that litigation not inconsistent with the planning code or legislation amendments to the protective as long as the commission is comfortable enough understanding of what is being proposed and you should know that the city attorney's office will be drafting specific language if it hadn't already been drafted. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> it is actually toms letter

that made me release he's deeper into the weeds it is like an article 7 amendment the things we're talking about gets to a much level of keenness as intent maybe good ideas but without having a full deck how is it tracks itself and bring it into the code we suggest take more time and let the other things stay on itself own and have the supervisors together that is basically what supervisors is supposed to do work with each other to bring trailing legislation in a manner that is elevates what is in compliance at the moment two completely different things driving a base

car and then make that a rallies car all power to folks trying to do that. >> supervisor peskin did you want to comment on that. >> thanks commissioner president hillis that depends on when you say and what happens in committee so relative to the litigation that deputy city attorney jensen is referring there is a number of times where the land use committee or the board wants to consider things that you actually didn't talk about as these things evolved and it has to come back to the planning commission that dangerous road when you through out 6 ideas with no languages it may end up in front of you again depending on the actual language the amendments that are not in front of you say and council is nodding her headnote affirmative. >> whether or not you have enough understanding of what is

proposed. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> when we continued the 6 ideas it was - i'll make an analogy it is like the eviction history of a building it is obvious we want to know if there is someone living in there new we've seen the eviction history it is observe we'll get language to back up the ideas during the period to continue this and second if we do go forward we'll be in the situation again we'll have another supervisor drop stuff on us and say oh, my god we don't have enough time we'll continue it we have this if we move to hear this is the setting a precedent i move to continue this item. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay. thank you very much

so here's the thing i actually agree with i think both supervisor peskin and the city attorney i don't have the authority to say it is legal i have a couple of questions on the amendments or the amendments proposed that language might have clarified so i do think regardless of legality the problem we may have questions that we are not certain that the language is substantially answered like a chance when language is grafted there maybe material differences from the thing we thought we were going to get so i might - i'd like to have an airing of those questions before we blanketly return but go on to public

comment and do. >> we've not heard the item yet. >> who wants to hear the item and then in public comment and actually understanding the precedent i think that the biggest issue i understand where the commissioners with saying that's a problem i have questions i see now what the language written one way they answer the question and another way they may not it is to be considered. >> i want to clarify we make recommendations to the board all the time commissioner vice president richards you've done it without language i know we've made policy recommendations to amend policies that are broad without language i think supervisor peskin brings up a good point do we want to continue to do that and make recommendations or take public comment and pass that public comment in the form of a recommendation to the board

without language this is a question we should consider we would have you know several hearings on a lot of controversial legislation and ask the city attorney so draft this and bring it back to us it is a policy when do we want to have that process so all the time we make recommendations occult of this body an legislation without you know our own recommendations without language so let's be clear that we do it ourselves so i think we should hear the item in we want to continue it we'll continue it but i think we should hear from the staff on the item and then the public and have a discussion on the item whether to continue it or not. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i completely agree with commissioner president hillis i think just like we say project sponsor when we continue it you need a month to do the drawings

and talk with the city attorney and 4 weeks enough for language we need language it is obvious we need to continue to get something to back up we do recommend instances on the fly but we need information. >> we wanted to hear that and staffs recommendations didn't come with language it is recommendations so liquor an example of supervisor peskin legislation that was before us the staff are had recommends on changing that but not necessarily code language and ultimately up to the board of supervisors and the mayor and the city attorney to put it into code language paw commissioner melgar. >> i wanted to clarify what we're doing here so what i understand is that the action item on the agenda is actually a resolution; right? >> isn't it. >> it is a resolution recommending whatever it is you

like to recommend today. >> correct me if i am wrong as i read the resolution it is not citing particular language but citing - >> commissioner if i may. >> making recommendations to modify it is it is making recommended to move supervisor peskin legislation we've heard (multiple voices). >> your legislation is coming back to us. >> so that's to me is actually you know. >> but we affirm and made recommendations originally to move supervisor peskin's i think you agreed with him to modify his legislation we can make recommends to make additional it is a awkward. >> commissioner. >> chair we should hear the

item and i share the personal frustration that supervisor peskin's frustration with the process i do i think that is waste of time and waisting time the city and waste of time and wasting time getting for unit we're crying for on the streets and so that's embarrassing to me frankly you guys as supervisors have frustrations i get it not easy work i applaud it but not really our issue i don't need a response but sharing my frustration. >> i concur. >> and we'll see. >> i agree the board should have passed our legislation 15 years ago commissioner fong or exposure. >> i'm asking secretary ionin my correction is january 23rd that we decided not to get into

the suggested modification i support that the legislation as it stood should be approved and move forward given the fact it is helping us in compliance that's all we did and recommended that the suggested modifications or policies considered by the department be brought back forward to us independent of the administration as it stood this is done it is gone why are we thinking at the time supported administrations we didn't. >> i'm talking about separate modification and you adopted a representation recommending approval not the modification that was presented at the time of the hearing by another supervisor. >> you specifically asked the concepts presented that qualify

by supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell cob come back that is what today's hearing is. >> right supervisor peskin; is that correct. >> my understanding it is that. >> supervisor is here commissioner. >> that is, i think that staff has presented to you correctly i mean it is it is what it is and i'm sorry for this waste of time i absolutely agree that legislation should have been passed we should be having a policy conversation about other ideas in the meanwhile it is out of compliance and our staff is advising people to come to the current the adu law is not legal because of one change that's all i'm trying to do because - >> to be fair we're not holding that up you can pass you're taken up by the board. >> that's correct but you put

your finger on that mr. president, this is an odd absurd sidewalks another supervisor is trying to uses you a vehicle to amend another piece of legislation that is an interact process i'm not offered by the policy recommendations it is just this should have been passed 15 years but several weeks ago you guys heard it on february 23rd and got our memo on march 23 should have gone to the next lufks well last week not like this is full of stuff let's get this done can we. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess what is stripping to me i thought we'll be coughing our approval of this

legislation and sail on and in compliance and a is second hearing on policy things with or without legislation native language now they've been coughled and can't be in compliance we're in the middle and commissioner johnson. >> yeah. i'm expressing that frustration we don't do this at the commission but should we have specified that we wanted - because i thought our action of two months ago was recommend approval with modifications with an additional hearing not understanding that the hearing later will be on the same case file i thought they'll be different is that something i mean honestly we're going to go forward but something in the

fair enough we should specific we moving forward and we expect it is a separate package and if it is different. >> sure. >> through the chair if you wanted a separate ordinance to come back to you, you can say we want to introduce it as a second origin and supervisor peskin said we can't bring to you a memo but brought back his ordinance with a signed former with proposed ordinance that's a vehicle we're allowed to bring back so we brought it back at the hearing. >> i think i understand that mr. starr it is don't done deal so we can move on and do whatever we are going or we are going to do lesson learned staff has been clear we needed to make that clear part of our action i

for one would have i thought our action item was recommended approval with modifications and consider other ideas later that i've never seen an additional hearing of this level of substance without legislative language and maybe we're not paying attention it is usually an appendix case file or a replacement that was in the past and never seen we're looking at amendments to something we've approved with modification coming back two months later. >> if i may i'm sorry for taking more of your time you have a full calendar i completely agree with commissioner johnson the most fish thing to do to stable this matter today and say that you'd like this to be considered separately all of the suggestions not earning about

them like protections and straightforward and not two burdensome but my issue is actually a burning situations if you table this we'll take objection action on monday and have this law by the end of the most. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess i think we should be a forcing factor here we draw a line and say we need to be in compliance and hear this this is observe we were doing and permanent not happening i hope we call the question whether to table this. >> commissioners the item has been called the agendized before you take action i recommend public comment. >> can we finish with the

staffs presentation first and that would be helpful. >> please. >> so the the item before you right now is the amendment submitted isn't letter offered by the supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell and before i do my presentation i wanted to ask supervisor farrell's office the author of this letter to speak. >> i'd like to talk about the policy and then i will sort of give you our situation we're in or the process we're in right now, i'm asking you to consider those citywide adu many have been support by the department those provisions are strengthen

the adu provision and allow the property owners to trishlt allow the building with temporary evictions or capital improvement when tenants are allowed to return to utility the program and adding the adu requires temporary eviction you can't penalize people for doing what we want them to do and number two, caps undergoing the retrofit should be cleaned up and allow vacate space to be converted to adu if it didn't reduce the commercial space more than 25 percent it was discussed in february by randy shaw and proposed in the origin legislation again not a new idea we shall allow the roofs to be converted to adu the rooms were at the time, we didn't encourage the unit times have changed to allow the multi generational

housing this was put forward in the family-friendly with the department i believe published at the end of last year and often get complaint about the lengthy time allotment and finally we're asking you to apply to the assistant notification not for ground floor expansions and the neighborhood notice didn't require adding an adu yet if you want at infill you get routed to the neighborhood notice we'll have extensive conversations about the adu's with the pilot programs with the seismic program and adding 3 and citywide ordinances and now we're considering a state compliance ordinance why wouldn't we use the opportunity to make the most robust program and why kick the

can down the road and process wise in we make those at the city attorney advise us recommend to use it needs to come back here it will come back here this is generally, the advise we've been given and the advise you allows us to 134i789 it from we've been advised by the city attorney it is not right to change the rules in the admitted and if you considered it it will give the public and department additional time before vote on in committee 0 adu's should be not a commercial issue and thinking on this program as evolved so i hope you can support the amendments today

thank you. >> i'll go over the amendments and the departments remedies the intent behind the original ordinance supported by supervisor peskin is so bring the local adu program into compliance with the state law supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell's recommended modifications oppose that goes beyond the adu ordinance into compliance with state law the department supports this policy recommendations by supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell to improve the city's adu program those policy recommends are that the department has supported in the past and we believe about make the adu program more effective and possible now go over each of the recommendations and read what in the letter and continue with the departments modification first,

the additions protections the letter asked clarified that the temporary evictions in perspective and simplistic retrofits run existing tenants are not considered an adu eviction the department supports this amendment and recommends using similar language in other places in the code with exempting the temporary evictions provides relieve in property owners and tenants return to the units subsequent to the renovation or they're offered to return number 2, this is regarding the

amendments about simplistic program units the letter asked to remove the cap on the number of adus to be added in connection to the retrofit the department supported this recommendations prior to the adu legislation effective since september 2016 no caps on the number of adu's through undergoing the mandatory or volunteer will i symmetric retrofitting this is under symmetreismi seismic. >> this general cap applies to the adu's in building undergoing volunteer retrofitting roving this allows the spaces in cases for more than adu can help to offset the costs of seismic retrofitting and with the seismic retrofitting will in the long term approve the safety of

stolgz and amendment number 3, for the commercial space the letter says that in the ncd allows the commercial space to constrict the adu as long as as the commercial space is not contribute more than 25 messenger reduction of full commercial space the department supports this recommendation as well the citywide adu program imposed on ban on the commercial space in the neighborhood commercial district to maintain retail on the ground floor in those districts in the support the department recommended sustainability in the prohibition and generally support the letter the specification we can elaborate open in included in

the resolution the draft resolution before you on amendment four the letter asks to clarify that any residential space added in permanent as rooms down is allowed to be converted to an adu this recommendation offer laps the original ordinances that bring it go compliance in case law from an existing unit for adu's in single-family homes were the cladding as required. >> the recommendations supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell letter will extend the provision to misrepresented families and single-family homes from the planning code where their needed the department

supports the intuition as it aligns the ground floor controls with the more adu controls however, the department has not been tracking permits as rooms down permit instead the department remedies no more than 25 percent to convert to an adu in a the habitable space is on is empowering and allowing future flexibility with the zoning administrator waiver from the proposed space exceeds 25 percent of the adu unit that the recommend in our draft resolution and can elaborate on it. >> on amendment 5 timeline for review the letter requests considering the legislative timeline for the review of new completed complete adu application supervisor peskin ordinance

already legislates will legislate 120 day for the adu's in compliance with the state law where no planning codes are needs over the past years the department has expedited and streamline the adu process the department does not recommend timeline for at adu applications as they unusual involve adu amendments last remedies for the zoning the letter says that with the neighborhood adu it consistent with other section fees league of women notifications requirement and otherwise not over burdensome cumber adu can build within the envelope between limited place

and the spaces unusual are exempt under the notifications if not under an adu permit, however, the citywide adu ordinance required notification when adu's are expanding into those spaces the department supports this recommendation and this letter to make the identification adu's consistent with other expansions in the sowed that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you very much open up for public comment two speaker cards. >> but if there are others please line up on the screen side of the room. >> sir. >> mr. radulovich. >> thank you, commissioners i see my ears are burning we have thoughts about the 6 amendments before you first i'll

speak to process we saw 6 ideas were good ideas we want to thank to the commission for doing a fantastic job we have smart people here and kind of understood what the intent was and the modifications proposed to the original 6 ideas in the staff reporting we mostly endorse it once it is to the board of sups we've been here before and the doing piece of legislation with files split and the 317 ordinance we were worked on split 3 times so how the board deals with those we hope they'll workout and transparently and do something with those ideas they're good ones so let me speak to you guys i touched on a lot of issues but

two one the recommendation number 2, the seismic program unit program we are worked on the legislation in 2015 you recommended if you're go going the earthquake go seismic where a volunteer or mandatory program our allowed to add adu's that's the first piece of legislation the most successful and the lions share of adu's have been through many program you're making it for the mandatory or the volunteer program is an incentive so fast forward 2016 legislation at the board of sups everyone said don't touch the adu's program you all said that but got undone somehow the unit cap was tacked on we're saying go back to the way it was before last summer and this mostly

effects the voluntary program and the voluntary program you know has been an disincentive people have things in the pipeline they can't do it and undid it in 2015 we feel like you know one code language you need to go back to the way it was before amended in 2016 and second imperative to do quickly ruling down we thought the idea of like saying there is an interesting one but raise the questions of unit division we have rolls of mergers through 317 we did over the course of a few years how are you elements you need to think more about the dwelling units there is are a few impesters they need to balance with the creation of more units and family-sized units we hope you'll give this

issue for consideration. >> thank you mr. radulovich. >> hi laura clark i sent you a letter that flushed out the position but want to make it clear that while this takes a small step into compliance of state law didn't get us there we'll have to come back and deal with that again those adu's what in their built within the envelope must be approved must be rubber stamped and over-the-counter this is what the statute of liberty demand i appreciate the expedited process that makes difference listing the cap to make a difference but this is not adu's are low hanging fruit with low impact development and no reason to

allow them to have ceqa and all the other nuisance that gets tagged on to the projects when the neighbors decide they don't like something they must be approved that is the intent of the state law and this body must recognize. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. i wean we've put the finger on the pulse of the politics and process when we obviously talking about policy at the same time and actually how to get this done i've served on various organizations with the intent of educating people on the process i don't know if you've google searched san francisco planning department but a few things i didn't graph is like multiple points to go back to the beginning i think that is

process and having the conversation about today is the exact thing that actually achieving what we want to achieve and creating housing for people as well as the constitutional amendments in a public forum last year, we heard a lot of it was flushed out and supportive of those amendments honestly like to see that go future we're in supportive of the permitting fees for all adu's try to find ways to encourage people to build them but as far as creating a precedence if the situation and i'll get flushed out and maybe you don't want to see this in the middle of the inclusionary legislation if the process as it is okay to because this has been pubically discussed approve the amendment and let the board of supervisors deal with that with

an approved legislation we'll currently that thank you. >> thank you ms. new please. and good afternoon san francisco apartment association i actually represent i'm here to represent the people that or till building the adu's and part of this dialogue for the pass 15 years with supervisor peskin supervisor scott wiener, supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell we're here to ask you move the single-family homes compliance with state law legislation forward there are a lot of trailing amendments that supervisor farrell and supervisor sheehy have put forth we support those i think that supervisor peskin's office supports those also, we don't want adu's to be caught you think in a political but about the policy and the policy is single-family units operate differently than multi unit

buildings we would like to see the muddled unit buildings addressed separately from the single families and we'll be back here to discuss those amendments probably a few more amendments before we're back with you but please get the single-family homes in state law today thank you very much i've submitted my comments in writing. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon i'm lawrence paul and president of the himself and deputy city attorney jensen and honorable commissioners my wife and i own a duplex on the golden gate a couple blocks from usf when i became aware that we could legally build a

unit down in our entry garage it was i was existed and went down to the planning commission down an 6060 mission and started to ask about that i was told by the historic preservation commission build a adu an either side of foyer and taught about that in the last couple of week and what about building an adu on both sides be heard horror stories by usf students homeless we thought well, that makes sense and it has to be one or the other everyone has on board with it it being one or the other so i starting came back the city supervisors and realized that there was a brief period of time

that would have been okay. if san francisco but times have changed i don't know what occurred to make that change but i'm a little bit embarrassed to be in a city with much is housing stock we have a beautiful envelope on either side to create units self-defense permissible if our project to build one and wait years later and build another one on a budgetary stand point so i urge you to consider everything that needs to be considered to approve supervisor peskin and supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell's proposals and to move along so we can have for housing in san francisco. >> thank you.

>> thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll open up to colleagues, any questions or comments? >> >> commissioner fong. >> a question for i suppose jose but as far as option can we have the built to support the adu legislation except supervisor farrell's amendment today and then supervisor peskins again, if he has trailing legislation accept that flarnt and one after that and around is that an option. >> i don't see why you couldn't adopt a resolution recommending the legislation as adopted previously and include the amendments proposed today and then following. >> amendments; correct? >> yes. i'll agree if i

understand the question i'm not sure what is in the letter that supervisor peskin provided today because i've not seen it but in terms of what the commission could do could i the commission could recommend approval of the legislation the existing legislation with the proposed changes from the two additional supervisors and then condition action, an whatever it in supervisor peskin letter today. >> okay. thank you. >> i mean supervisor peskin do you want to talk about the items in your letter? >> commissioner president hillis commissioners first of all, let me take a step back to last summer as so there was my 200 it legislation substantially there was legislation that

commissioner wu offered i offered and subsidizing supervisor scott wiener made permanent in district 8 and s ubstantially my predecessor passed similar but different legislation for district 3 when i was elected i think first of all, the policy notation of doing zone on the supervisorial lines didn't makes sense to me the district i represent has downtown fisherman's wharf and art and rh-2 and wanted to rational it as a citywide policy at the same time my colleague supervisor farrell that staff you heard from wanted to do something similar we ended up with two pieces of legislations that were similar but different actually ultimately this is kind of funny or at least i think see

they got to the full board at the same time i proposed a coin toss supervisor farrell won that coin toss the amendment that he is proposing are actually amendment to his legislation that was passed incidentally but here's what is likely to happen abused through a number of hearing and seeing none, in what you all know 15 years ago was the third rail of san francisco politics i couldn't get passed there is controversy out there let's not prevented to the land use committee we end up with a bunch of people that is the public process i honor i how shall and respect we listen as a intern process with the groups the ones out of heard from others not represented here we will continue to to be out of compliance and there were

fundamental things that were in both supervisor farrell's legislation that passed on july 26th of 2016 and in mine that i think we all agree were good pieces of public policy for instance, not sub divideable and not you're going them as short-term rentals and right now everything that is being approved for adu's are not suggested to that we've out of compliance so once again my response is if you want certainty let my legislation not not in front of you i'm sorry you're in the might of gave him manship that is not only righteous but long overdue. >> i guess the question for supervisor farrell's office if we 0 moved why not. >> you know duplicate the file

and move kickoff the compliance with state law forward and then move other amendments which i think there are some good amendment we've talked about a lot about the unit cap removal for the one adu's it makes we had the public comment open this i've seen it work in any neighborhood where adu's could have more units but they don't you see in the cap restrictions but i think that supervisor peskin makes a fair point why not kind of avoid this process to duplicate the file and move forward the amendment. >> we can we haven't gotten the rang from the city attorney's office we didn't have the language ready to introduce before this hearing but i'm committed to have this on monday. >> when it is up duplicated

and put that in your motion. >> supervisor peskin would you be okay with that. >> i think there are things i agree i think your legislation we made a recommendation that's fine to move forward but things albeit a point not hearing it again. >> rich i've known you, i don't know i haven't seen this language i can't have this conversation or respectfully this hearing as productive for you in making recommendations for us absent the languageo so what i heard from the first time is that the city attorney has not drafted the language but topped on for lawmakers and the public on monday, i heard

precede as you wish planning commission. >> i mean so we can ask questions on the substance of matter the one recommendation in the planning commission that concerns me is in the ncd district and the use of commercial space commissioner moore bought up polk street for instance, that is a fairly dense commercial area not a lot of breaks for uses and in staffs recommendation there's a what we're having discussion on so there is a i agree with the disconnected from the commercial

space not used or could be used but no more than 25 percent of space i guess is that frontage so under that legislation can someone take 25 of the building frontage and commercial district and use it to assess an adu. >> so we've said that no loss of the risk under a up to that 25 percent of ground floor commercial space it maybe converted maintaining no longer than 25 foot decks from the facade and no loss of store frontage. >> they can only be in the back but if you need to assess that i mean you'll have to use whatever residential assess. >> correct not creating assess. >> you can use some of that space to create assess but not in the front. >> right. >> that loss of the rent. >> okay. >> thank you

director rahaim. >> i was going to offer a process possibility you can take action on staff's recommendation today with two components additionally recommendations to recommend they sever the file and move forward with the supervisors original legislation and the second is with the understanding that if anything changes from the substance of staffs analysis that it come back you to you awe of the supervisor farrell and supervisor sheehy legislation. >> staff analyzed that mightly without the language but staff did an analysis of the constant you can make an represents if anything changed as the legislation move forward it comes back to you but the fact you'll separate them for supervisor peskin can be in compliance with the law.

>> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'm happy to talk about the substance of law once we have a continuance or not i'd like the question to be called audits we're deliberating the item nothing against the policy i think that has good stuff not a political thing if we continue it from not let's talk about it and come up with a recommendation and feedback. >> with the regulations the item be called a motion be called and as long as that is seconded we'll have to take up the matter. >> its been seconded this is a continuance. >> in the motion was seconded and call the question now seconded and so we'll cease the deliberation and call the question. >> commissioner vice president richards we had your motion for continuance but didn't have a continuance date for the.

>> the city attorney when we can get language. >> i'm sorry, i can't hear. >> before you when you think we'll get language to have something to look at. >> i understand it is underway but i'm sorry i don't want to answer. >> thank you need that you need to allow the time and receive it to here and be calendared separately. >> what is the timeline. >> i don't know when the planning commission calendar is like. >> this is not this is the original planning code amendment with amendments not a separate action so. >> we need a vehicle to move the amendment. >> so it has to be a committee hearing. >> we can if all commissioner vice president richards is saying is the language of amendment i have a solution if they need a vehicle which my legislation has

been that vehicle; right? which is as we stipulated to ukulele you don't write something else legislation separate and apart from that i'll split the file you can use that at a hearing that they can amend into and then you guys can have language and talk about it and do it on my 4 or 11. >> our preference is what director rahaim is saying not coming for a third discussion. >> commissioner moore. >> i'll prefer it comes back because we are here trying to understand it and ultimately

really fully incorporating it into the decision maker to be cognizant of how we've spent a lot of time and let it be a learning experience and whatever time and proper language to the point. >> if you take action on the ordinance you have a 20 day notification requirement for the code. >> supervisor cowen's. >> so i suggested would not be that need you have a file this is board of supervisors jargon i'll duplicate that file the file you deliberated on february 23rd with the concerns of my colleagues, we move to the full board the same file which will be a duplicate file those amendments when they're out ready whenever to be amended if on monday can be amended on monday or go back to you with the actual language to consider i heard earlier from one you

have room on the may 4th calendar and not need the 20 day notice i'll defer to to council if you continue it to may 4th this is up to ms. jensen to opine on. >> ms. jensen do you wanted to opine on the 20 day notice. >> actually mr. ionin is better to answer that. >> (multiple voices). >> those items are in front of us i think the idea of duplicating the file is the right one we can talk about them in and make recommendations and make recommendations on the duplicated files i think is the suggestion of kroom or supervisor peskin and those

items advertised unfortunate it the only thing we've tubed the process and not necessarily the items before us so we can have a substantive talk that would be great not to have a 20 day delay that is before us. >> let's make that may 4. >> yes we'll take a look at it and make sure it sounds like appropriate but - >> double check. >> duplicate the ordinance and notice the proposed changes. >> unfortunate the best person is the zoning administrator with the proper notice has been performed and sure we can - >> point well-taken on may 4th. >> a request to call the

questions on that motion to continue this to may 4th commissioner fong can i go last (laughter). >> i'm confused i'm sorry what are we continuing. >> the matter this matter deserving to may 4th but with the understanding that supervisor peskin has agreed to split the file and duplicate the file and those amendments will come back before is us and allow supervisor peskin to move forward with the recommendation with the vetting off those ideas and hopefully adopt them quibble and theoretically if that happens the amendment you'll be looking at on may 4th slopping to the whole legislation you reviewed on february.

>> so apparently. >> the duplication process will not - >> and supervisor peskin was the ordinance is calendar for land use on monday. >> hopefully at the time to be considered supervisor peskin and supervisor peskin h as thoughtful re78gdz on the amendments that are proposed we mate may not have the languages but hopefully, we'll talk about them. >> commissioner johnson are you - >> i guess you collectively answered my question. >> on that motion to continue to may 4th. >> commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> commissioners item 12 is continued to may 4th that places us on item 13

item no. 13 - 2016-001528cua, 2645 ocean avenue - conditional use authorization. >> oh, please note that on nova 102016 after hearing a motion of intent to continue the item by a vote of 6 to one commissioner president hillis you were then again for that motion of continuance. >> good afternoon, commissioners natalie planning department staff the item before you is a request are for a conditional use authorization to allow a size greater than 9 thousand 99 square feet $383,346.02. >> a 26 go height and bulk district the planning commission heard it on december 16th the commission made a motion of intent to duplicate it and continue the item the preliminary concerns the displacement of the tenants remaining in the building and

the lack of proposed tenant since then the project sponsor has worked with the community under the advised project today, the supervisors are presented with the motion for the general proposal the revised project to consolidate a portion of the medical service establishment with individual medical provider into one medical service use at the first and third floor excluding the second floor the second floor will be by medical providers the existing square footage of the building will remain unchanged and please note the project sponsor has not selected any tenants at the time this has an operating as a medical facility on the first floor and second floor and third floor please note the project medical services are prohibited at the first floor and the medical

services at the second floor and third floor are considered existing non-conforming today, the commission has reviewed the proposed site the proposed building is a mixed use and cupped by medical use for an open california shop and the second floor and third floor by medical uses and tenants and core improvements on all floors the project will continue to operate as a medical use providing outpatient care please note the hospital and medical center is not prohibited at the property some of the medical providers have retired moved to other medical facilities or allowed early use terminate will have the option to move to the second floor the project sponsor has pro-active in reaching out to the tenants in the building and

the surrounding property to date the department has 4 communications in opposition to the general proposal from community members and existing medical providers the primary concerns for the displacement of the original providers 4 letters of support for the project today staff is made aware the concerns from one existing tenant for the displacement of the existing 0 tenants please note future consolidation is greater than 2000 plus square feet will require a conditional use authorization since then the project sponsor has addressed the concerns with the tenants the commission is in motion of intent for the proposal for this hearing in order to approve that the commission must approve that draft revision in order to fair

enough it the commission must rescind the general proposal and adopt the motion the department recommends approval for the proposal with the conditions building their necessary and desirable the proposed project is consistent with the data purpose the mixed use and comparable for the immediate surrounding neighborhood the proposed project will increase the access to primary care the proposed project will not displace any existing tenants and in balance it that meets all the planning codes that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you thank you very much project sponsor you have 5 minutes since this is the second time. >> not a problem jody from reuben, junius & rose thank you to the staff as you may know we were before you in

november we proposed to convert the entire building except for the ground floor retail and there were concerns about two doctors as well as commissioners concerns the displacement as you've heard we've come to an agreement with the doctors we're providing updated - the doctors are withdrawn their opposition another doctor who expressed is his concerns on the second floor and concerns about leaks and lease negotiations those have been finalized and in agreement with that doctor that is unrelated to the movement or the project approval but some lease negotiations going on that is now resolved and we've come to agreement on that and we believe that the current proposal is a win-win for everyone allows the larger medical use to provide for primary care specialized care,

x-ray and mammogram a greater range of services and will maintain the practitioner the small practitioner given updated status quo space and it will allow the retention for the smaller practitioners and a large use and provides a much noted rehab of the building with a number of life-saving measures and elevators and lobbies and roof and feedback and common area, ada upgrades and undertaken the discussion with the doctor we don't want to disruptive their practices the wanting to do the second floor space for the department of human resources for the second floor and third floor they're not adversely impacted and more work in the common area work to

make sure there is an elevator running all the time and best practices those conversations have started with the tenants and to make sure their practices speakers are requested but not required to state their name and fill out a speaker card, it will insure proper are not impacted there are several groups that are under discussion we can't enter into an agreement without approval that will be underway if we get approval today and any of the practitioners will provide comprehensive practice for the large space and as you heard no impact on the ground floor retail we conducted outreach with the retail and they're supportive and optical shop on the third floor we received their landlord to have increase in the traffic in the

surrounding businesses a number of vacancies and there is definitely an interest in the area having increased not traffic additional customers with cafes and coffee shops and the retailers in the area as staff told you know no practitioners will be left without space i think that is one of the big concerns and we've taken that seriously and comes to displacement of doctors and provided a project that will benefit everyone the project sponsor is here for questions and thank you for your time and consideration. >> open this up to public comment any public comment on this item? item 13 increase be seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner vice president richards we were concerned

about. >> - all the commissions the small block between 19th street so it is a sensitive area and a great job of working this out very good, commissioners. a motion to rescind the previous motion to disapprove commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner melgar commissioner koppel commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and now you may make that motion. >> move to approve very good, commissioners. to approve that with conditions on commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero commissioners that places us on item 14 item no. 14 - 2016-005411cua, 400 beale street (units #2301 and 2303) - conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon planning department staff the item before you is conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code to merge inform dwelling units at 400 field street 400 beale street in addition to the

krifkts finding the commission must consider separate criteria seeks to merge to dwelling units the project will merger one thousand plus two bedrooms with a slightly larger one thousand plus two bedrooms, two bathroom unit the dwelling units have been approved with $8 million respectfully the project will have one kitchen and one bedroom and reconfigure the common areas one thousand plus square feet three bedrooms units that will be opted out by the project sponsor his family and his parents no exterior alterations have proposed to date the public has no correspondence with the project after analyzing that the

department recommend denial of merger that will merger two owner opted out not affordable to the periodic adjustment to the criteria of one $.6 million will result in one combined market-rate that is more unvariable the project will result in a net loss of one dwelling unit to the housing stock per the housing element not retaining the housing by controlling the mooring or protect the housing stock the clement street neighborhood commercial district the residential merger will reduce the mix in the developed for 47 to 46