>> climate advocate with the climate emergency coalition, sf tomorrow and citizens climate lobby. having lived on the lowest east side since the '70s up the hill from dog patch, i have witnessed a multitude of massive developments sprouting up all around me with more starting all the time. the planning department say the city will build 72,000 new housing units. the vast majority will be in the eastern neighborhoods. if all these pipeline projects are not required to be at least electric ready, we are missing a huge opportunity to reach our climate goals while protecting people's health. the electric infrastructure will protect consumers from higher bills and expensive retrofitting. thank you supervisor mandelman for this ordinance incentivizing builders to build electric. thank you for agreeing to

duplicate the file so it can be amended to require electric readiness and thank you for your commitment to drafting a natural gas ban in new construction next year. while it is moving through the channels, too many buildings already approved could use fossil fuel. [please stand by] ...

>> it's a by-product of burning. and in the home, that means gas ranges, gas generators, gas heating, every year people are killed by carbon monoxide buildup. so, this is your chance to get that toxic fuel out of our homes. let's do it fairly, equitably and thoroughly. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.

>> i'm a sof asoftwear engineera coalition of environmental groups includin including 350 an go on for a lot longer. i'd like to thank both of department of the environment, the mayor's office and supervisor mandelman for their work on today's ordinance. we notice a huge lift over many, many months and we also appreciate your commitment to introducing a full natural gas band in the spring. as annie efficiency code, the coalition supportive of the ordinance today due to the urgency of the climate crisis the work that's gone in as well as the need to pass this bit end of the year for it to take effect at the beginning of 2020. however, if there's one thing i learned in my job, efficiency alone will not solve the climate crisis. my company's work focuses on promising energy efficiency and

guaranteeing our work over 10 years. it's well-known that promises energy savings degrade within a few years. this is no give than a code ma measures at time of design. the efficiency will degrade and the natural gas infrastructure will need to be retro fitted. we think that it will be ready and a strong code and we asked to add to to the duplicated file. and as other municipalities have demonstrated, this will be done introduce title 24 and i have some sample code language from the california energy code and standards program and it would give language for such a electric readiness requirement. thank you, very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is paul wormer and i'm a climate reality project

representative to the climate emergency coalition. so everything they have said. first, i have here two handouts or two statements from members from the physicians for social responsibility and california climate health now who had to leave early. so i would please like to submit those. and then in an effort to introduce a new approach to dealing with natural gas, let's think of consumer protection. we know that by 2045 or 2050, we will see a need to have retro fitted all existing buildings given the states and cities' objectives to go carbon neutral. that means that people who invest in gas now, given the 20-year lifespan, at least, of gas appliances, will be left

with sunk capital stranded assets over the next -- if they start, over the next two or three years. one of the big opportunities for government to take a strong stand is to send a strong policy signal about where we are going. i urge you to look at drafting language to mandate disclosure in property transactions and in building contracts and appliance sales that make it clear that if people buy something with gas or decide to install gas instead of electricity, they will be wasting their money because they will have to change before too much longer. thank you. >> thank you. i am delighted that news of your demise turned out to be someone else. next speaker, please. >> chris, again. i'm a constituent of supervisor

peskin. i want to thank specifically supervisor mandelman and the committee to be duplicate including ready provisions while look forward to the introduction of a full gas ban as soon as possible i want to stress the importance of implementing strong electric ready stop gap measures through the reach code. there are tens of thousands of gas units already in the pipeline. electric ready is the perfect opportunity to do right by residents living in the eastern corridor. who are the most impacted by pollution and who will reside in the areas where mat jor tee of new construction will be built. owe efficiency insen it was will noin-- we can'tmake our retro fr climate goals if we build new buildings with gas. i encourage you to expeditiously pursue the electric ready standards adopted by citieses like berkeley, san jose and make the requirements applicable to

all new buildings including industrial buildings, labs, and buildings in hazard zones. finally consult with the environmental community as you draft these amendments, thank you so much. i want to submit the document that's daniel submitted for the record. >> thank you, chris. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is susan grown i'm a resident of know noy valld i'd like to thank you for letting me speak today. 18 years ago my husband and i up greated our electric service and installed gas, water and space heaters and kitchen and laundry alliances. we didn't understand the urgency of the climate crisis we face. now we do. my family started the process of retro fitting our house so it will be all electric to learn that to do so, we have to upgrade our electric service again and obtain various waivers to do so. the whole process including the

electrical service upgrade rewiring and new appliances will cost over $10,000. perhaps closer to $20,000. and our house is probably's year to retro fit than many because it's detached on one side making it easier to do the rewiring. we're moving ahead by dipping into our retirement savings because we know the crisis we face is urgent. with nearly 400,000 housing units in san francisco, most with gas appliances, the cost to receipt toe fit them will easily run into the billions of dollars, with that future in mind, it seems unconscionable to construct a single new unit of housing that's not all electric ready. i understand there are tens of thousands of approved new housing units in san francisco that have yet to begin construction. if a majority of those musting retro fitted in the future, it could add billions of dollars to our retro fit challenge. don't add to the challenges and costs we face by slow walking the needed changes.

i'd like to ask you that all new construct be electric ready as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> eileen, coalition for san francisco neighborhood. here on my own behalf. here in strong support for all electric construction and all sectors. besides reducing greenhouse gas emissions it reduces the risk of gas related fires like the one at gary and parker. based on the push back for similar legislation in towns like brooke line massachusetts, a sub you are of boston, the following may happen here. the american gas association came out in opposition stating that to see a city eliminate not only customer choice but also broader economic benefits and undeniable environmental benefits is short sided to say the least. the massachusetts coalition for sustainability, also came out in opposition stating that the ban would have negative impact on

safety, our environment and economic development alike. however, the massachusetts coalition for sustainability is actually a friend for natural gas interests including canadian pipelines, giant enbridge and energy providers resource and national bridge. the massachusetts chapter of the national association for industrial and office parks came out in opposition. this is a trade group for the commercial real estate industry. the association stated that the ban would further exacerbate the existing housing crisis and passed along high costs to residents who call brooke line home. all the push back was because brooke line was the first east coast town to ban natural gas in new construction and major conversions. although san would not be the first west coast city to begin banning natural gas and new construction would be the

largest city. los angeles is seeing push backs in its efforts to ban national gas >> next speaker, please. if there are any other members of the public who like to testify on items 5, 6, please lineup to my right >> my name is kathy and i'm with core climate group as well as mothers have prime. i want to say that we support this legislation and we're glad to see it moving quickly because reports indicate all the time that we are behind schedule. first it was 11 years and 10 and now we're not making progress fast. so thank you for moving on this. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public would would like to testify on either of these two items? >> seeing none. public comment is closed. i would like to thank director rafael and supervisor mandelman and the co sponsors for bringing

this forward. item number 5 actually has fiscal impact. so, unfortunately, it's my duty pursuant to our rules to refer item number 5 and yes, mandelman you may ask erika major why this is true but i'm been informed -- >> just clarifying that is the municipal ban not the private electric building? >> yes, item number 5. so item number 5, will need to be referred to a fiscal committee of the board. there are two fiscal committees of the board. the government audit and oversight committee and the budget is finance committee. i will leave it to the chair or the president of the board of supervisors to determine which committee president yee would like to assign those to. item number 6 is a subject of a. an amendment and b a request to duplicate. supervisor mandelman, i assume

you would like the amendment to apply to the duplicated file? colleagues, i will make a motion to accept the amendment that's have previously been described. we will take that without objection. and then, supervisor mandelman, who is not a member of this committee requested we duplicate the file as amended and we will send the -- one, we will keep here and continue to the share and the other we will send to the full board with recommendation. item 5, will be rereferred by the president of the board to a fiscal committee. so, those are the two measures that are pending. motions that are pending before this body. we'll take them both without object sex. thanobjection. thank you for your testimony. madam clerk, can you call item 11, out of order. >> clerk: yes, item number 11 is ordinance health code to

authorizes the district offer public-health to allow a medical cannabis dispensary permit to operate under that permit at a new location. provided that the permity has been verified by the office of campus as an equity applicant under the police code. they have been evicted from the location associated with the permit or been notified by the landlord that the lease would be terminated or renewed. the new location has an existing authorization for medical cannabis dispensary use. and the permit has complied with all requirements under article 33 of the health code >> are there any members of the public who would like to testify on item 11, the sponsor of this, supervisor haney, has asked me continue this to the call of the chair. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. and without objection, this item has been continued to the call of the chair.

madam clerk, could you please read item 12 out of order >> clerk: item number 12 is an ordinance approving a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the stephens institute doing business as a university and its affiliated entities as the properties which agreement provides for various public benefits. >> so, i have just been informed by my colleagues safai that apparently all of the deputy city attorney's here on this major piece of work that's been going on for 10 years, have vacated the chambers. is that true or untrue? is liz here from planning? >> they all just walked up stairs. >> are there any city staff from the planning department or from the city attorney's office here on item number 12? all right.

madam clerk, call item number 10 >> clerk: housekeeping for item number 5, we would need to either send it to jao or budget and finance committee. i believe the recommendation is gao. because it's technically been heard in committee and we can't continue it for the president -- >> madam clerk, i did not request that be continued to the call of the chair. i requested that it be rereferred to the president of the board for the president of the board to assign it either to the budget and finance committee or the government audit and oversight committee. our deputy just walked in. far be it for a chair of the committee to tell the president or hwhere he would like to assin this thing. i don't assign legislation. i used to but i don't do that. i'm re-assign particular ting ie

president. >> we're talking about item number 5. it has fiscal impact. it's not properly before this body and i want to rerefer it to the president. the president can decide which fiscal committee we have that he would like to assign it to >> i would recommend in this situation that the committee vote to refer it to a particular committee with the understanding that the president may refer it to another committee. in my experience, that has been how committees have handled items in cor dinnances and these times of situations. it may be permissable to refer it to the president but the protocol in recent years has been to refer it to a committee. it can change the committee >> thank you deputy city attorney gib ner. i would like to make a motion to refer it to the budget and i can

finance committee and we can do that without objection. and, after 10 years, well maybe 20, it depends on how you count it, we have item number 12 before us which has already been called. i would like -- this is a banner day for the land use and transportation committee of san francisco board of supervisors. before us, in item number 12, is another development agreement and conditional use requirements for what we call the academy of art university that effects a number of provisions in our laws. i want to start by first thanking our city attorney, dennis herrera, who stopped goofing around and brought suit against the academy of art quite

a number of years ago. i believe that -- this is not a belief. this is a fact. i served on this board of supervisors from the eighth day of january of 2001 to the eighth day of january of 2009 and the academy of art and their perennial violations was stuff of legend. i came back to this board of supervisors and was sitting in this chamber next to a gentleman who was my colleague at the time, named scott wiener, who was holding a hearing about stabilization. a woman revealed to us our number of stabilization rooms, in those days, they were around 350 rooms, had been reduce today somewhere around 65 rooms mostly

because the academy of art had cannibalized those rooms. that got my attention. i think i was surfing the internet at the time. i called up dennis herrera and said it's time to litigate and it has been going on for years and the senate committee and the measures that are in this development agreement are before us. i want to thank the planning department and john ram and our former zoning administrator scott sanchez who have done -- i rarely say things like this, god's work on this issue. i would like to acknowledge the successuck success ofsuccessiont least one, i believe that would be jim abrams who had exerted

what i call client control which i am profoundly grateful for. with that y. don't we have a presentation. i don't know if we're going to start with mr. sanchez, former or deputy or whatever you are zoning administrator, mr. sanchez, the floor is yours >> thank you, good afternoon, chair peskin, members of the committee scott sanchez. we're pleased to bring to you this d.a. and associated code a investmentments to absolve the longstanding and they date back to 2006 and 2007 our earliest eastbounenforcement efforts. i would like to thank the city attorney's office, they brought litigation that bring you the package that you have today. this was heard by the planning commission last month and supported and i request the committee pass this on to the full board for adoption. i'm here with a number of staff who will be available to answer any questions.

i'd like to note andrew perry of our staff will give a brief presentation on the d.a. and the tremendous work that he has done to wrangle these 40 properties and get them before the committee today and also the planning commission. kristen jensen of the city office we have the best city attorney's office of any municipalities in california if not the united states. they're tremendous. we had wonderful support with them through the settlement discussions and the process. we couldn't have done it without them. kristen here is help to answer any questions that come up with that i will turn it over to mr. perry, thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. before mr. perry comes out, let me thank ms. jenson, mr. jesse smith, michelle sexton for your incredible work on this thing. i know that there may be members of the public who don't feel like they've seen enough of this

settlement and d.a. but i just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the work you've done. it's been tremendous. i rarely pay compliments but i'm looking at you, thank you from the bottom of my heart. mr. perry. >> thank you, chair peskin. supervisors, i am prepared to take you to the specifics of the today and the minutes and i do want to acknowledge that you have a very full agenda >> we have one more issue having to deal with a am arization rats and it's very important that my colleagues and the public know all of the contours of what is going to be before the board of supervisors. so take as much time as you need. >> understood. >> i will still try to be concise. so, before you today is the ordinance for the academy of art of the project. the ordinance helping facilitate the resolution which has in some

form or another been in process with the city for a decade. and it effectively consists of two main component. first approva approval of the development doing business as the academy of art university and its affiliated llcs. secondly, amending the planing and administrative codes in order to implement the project. as was discussed, the city attorney's office filed a lawsuit against the stephens institute and the llc back in may of 2016 over violations of the planning code and the state's unfair competition law. the academy expressed interest in bringing the planning code compensating the city for passed violations, reversing alterations to bring its building nooss into compliance. in november of 2016, the academy and city entered into a term sheet for global resolution which led to the settlement package being considered. it consists of first the settlement agreement which

includes obligations of the academy to make payments to the city including affordable housing and second, a stipulate lated injunction for judicial enforcement and third, a development agreement which provides the mechanism for city approvals consistent with the settlement and fourth, the guarantee for the financial obligations. focusing on the development agreement itself, the basic basc elements include legalization of academy uses at 34 properties throughout the city. since 2016, the academy as operated at 40 properties, many of which had not gone through the necessary change of use procedures and so to a arrive at the 34 properties contemplated under the settlement and development agreements they will withdrawal their use from nine properties and add three properties along van ness foray cad moforacademy. they encloud the legalization or corrective modification of past building alteration that's have

been made without permit. this is a especially true for historic properties that have been occupied by the academy. third, payment to the city by the academy and its llcs of $58 million. included in this amount is an affordable housing benefit of $37.6 million to be used sole' for affordable housing and priority with this districts where the academy had removed housing without benefit of permit. remaining money goes to the city's small sites fund. 8.2 to $8.4 million. civil penalties, reimbursement for enforcement costs, payment of impact fees. fourth, the development agreement includes a student housing metering agreement by which the academy agrees to provide student housing based on specific percentages of their full-time on campus student body. with those percentages then being subject to increase overtime. in this way, student enrollment is tied to housing availability

and importantly when providing additional housing resources in the future, the academy may not do this through the conversion of existing residential housing stock. this through the permit to convert process, the development agreement calls for a proposed swap of residential hotel rooms subject to chapter 41 of the administrative code. in short, the proposed swap involves three properties at 1080 and 1153 bush street. there are 31 total residential hotel rooms existing between those properties. a third building at 860 sutter street has been existing mix of 50 residential hotel rooms and 39 tourist hotel rooms. that's part of the academy project and development agreement, those 39 tourist hotel rooms at 86 860 sutter st would be converted to housing and they would take on the chapper 41 designation as a swap for the 41 rooms from the bush street properties. the net result is that city gains sate new residential hotel rooms subject to chapter 41 at

860 sutter street. lastly, the d.a. includes various timing and enforcement provisions setting dead lines for when aspects of the d.a. must occur and the city's resource should they not occur. so as mentioned, the proposed ordinance would not approve the development agreement and amend portions of the planning and administrative codes in order to facilitate implementation of the project. the amendments create a consolidated approval process at the preservation commission and planning commission. they provide for a comprehensive approach in order to preclude the otherwise peace meal process called for existing code provisions. specifically the amendment enable a master conditional use authorization, master certificate of appropriateness and master permit to alter applications to be filed. and on november 20th and 21st of this year, the historic preservation commission and planning commission considered the master permit to alter as

well as the master conditional use respective of those bodies. they were approved unanimously [please stand by] want to thank the members of the commission and their staff and members of the historic

preservation commission and their staff. is there anybody here from the department of building inspection, which is also involved in this? >> good afternoon. i'm joseph barber from the department of building inspection. i'm a housing inspector. >> you can drop your -- put your coat on mr. sanchez's lap. [laughter] >> that's better. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, sir. >> all right. so i'm the resident from the department of building inspection. >> is there anything you would like to add? >> we are gaining units under the hotel conversion ordinance.

i think there's -- under chapter 41, there's -- they are converting all the units in 860 sutter to resident designations which means there's eight extra rooms under the conversion ordinance. so we are happy with that. we are getting extra rooms. >> thank you, mr. barber. from the mayor's office of housing, mr. adams, if you are here, you are welcome to weigh in. if you are not, it is okay. it has been a marathon meeting here at land use and transportation committee. anything you want to add? no. ms. jenson? mr. smith? all right. we will open this up to public comment. public comment is open. the floor is yours. you have nothing to say?

[off mic] >> this is the end. yes, ms. hester. >> oh. i have two minutes, not three. >> just pull that microphone down a little bit. >> i'm stunned, that i have two minutes for a battle that people have been waging >> i will give you as much time as you would like. >> thank you. because a lot of people couldn't come here today. one of the things that's been going on is this battle that's been waged by the public. the public, the planning department, supervisor peskin, was heavily involved at the beginning. thank you. a lot.

but the main concern of the public was housing issues. and eventually housing issues, because they were taking over hotels and rent-controlled units. we didn't even know how much they had taken over because they never explained anything. they never bothered filing an institutional master plan. so we were out of compliance with the planning code. when they started following it, the planning department had enough information to start inspecting them. a lot of n. o. v.s went to them. and it became clear that there is a need to get a concentrated campus. one of the interesting things that's in your packet is -- i

have to -- on -- as you can see, it has become -- this is in your environmental document in the packet. the avenue is here, and they are going to here. and i was wondering what the thing was on here, because they had, like here, they had -- pardon me. this is the existing campus. campus right here shows there's this academy of art facility literally on this block. it's a block away on hayes. and it should be the map should

be corrected to that place. and that is 115 hayes. it's a block from here, right next to something that's under construction, the conservatory of music. they were building housing, a large amount of housing just south of city hall. it's hard to speak on a mic and point to it. does this work? >> yes. >> and so this the proposeed campus. pardon me. this is existing campus. and this is the proposed campus. the proposed campus is missing 34 which is the back page of it. its parking garage. at van ness for the academy of art students and staff and faculty.

and they have also -- they have the crown museum here, a car museum here, a car museum here. so the academy has shifted to van ness avenue. and they have a large facility by california hall on locust street. i will go back. so they moved the facilities on their van ness, and they keep running around their buses, it's free advertiseing. they have the bus system. they have a campus concentration on sutter street, and they have sprawl up and down van ness avenue.

and they have another facility in the south of market in mr. haney's district. the people concentrated on, in their comments in the years we went through the hearings. they need to pay attention to building housing for their students. some of it really addresses part of it. but what we found in the city, what you found in the city, is the biggest need for housing. so part of the problem that people like me are having right now is figuring out why are you allowing them to basically sell their sites, get rid of their sites, instead of keeping the site for housing. the site in the van ness corridor makes sense for housing

is 150 hayes. right next to student housing being built by the conserve horry of con -- conservatory of music. 150 hayes is -- they are being allowed to walk away from i am it without keeping a site for housing. the other thing around van ness avenue that's happening is it's being rebuilt right now. it happens right around you. and the campus is rebuilt and has facilities up and down van ness avenue on polk street. you should be -- pardon me, the academy of arts should be getting rid of their buses and putting people on muni. one of the big ridiculous things

that i've been working with is the development agreement wasn't available at all. until the 25th of november. and it became available to me as an individual, at 8:00 at night on friday. so it was functionally monday the 28th. and today is december -- >> ninth. >> ninth. it doesn't show a lot of respect to people from the public who don't have a big staff, don't have a lot of money, don't have all these people here. >> so i do not in any way want to cut you off. >> no, no, i'm going to end it right now. i'm going to end it. basically i want to be assured, the people who have done work have disability access, people who have done work for housing,

people who have done work for van ness avenue corridor and were not able to come to this hearing today -- hostage. so this is the only hearing. we had only one hearing on the i.m.p., which was finally filed -- pardon me, june -- jul. and it was adopted -- pardon me, accepted on july 25. we have no idea how you are getting around chapter 56 prohickson development agreement agreements -- prohibition development agreement. i have to figure out how do they do this. but the basic thing is you're planning on having the first vote of the board of permit

appeals on january 7. the second vote, january 14th. there's no opportunity to give information back to the board after today, which is -- pardon me. one of the things i'm looking at is haney because it's your district as well as his district 3. ironically, the one area that we pushed the academy of art for supervisor peskin was when they take over the flower mart. and we pushed them out. they didn't -- >> they walked away from $100,000 ernest money consideration but yes, please proceed. >> part of the problem is the academy of arts has acquired an illegally converted into student housing two different projects, major projects in your

districts. and there should be an opportunity for the public to submit this in writing, in a nice time frame, which is hard to do today. i couldn't do that. >> thank you. >> so i will shut up. >> no. thank you, ms. hester. i would like to thank you for your dogged determination and legal skills in holding this institution accountable for many more years than the city attorney brought suit. and this would not be here today and let the good not be the enemy of the perfect. next speaker, please. you actually can speak as long as ms. hester as a matter of law. >> i would like to get on the issue that i came here for. so just very quickly, i'm really

sad that this agreement is not returning more of our rent-controlled buildings to our permanent residents, to our city here today. that has been a really huge loss. and, again, as i think she also said in terms of losing s.r. o.s as well, we have lost so much housing. and the art academy has been the worst in creating a huge crisis for us in not building student housing, that not being limited, not being certain regulations in place that are enforced. so that is my great disappointment with this as well as there not having been enough opportunity for the public to weigh in. i am hoping the city got truly the best deal possible. it doesn't really seem that way in that in order to rebuild what we have lost, it is so much more expensive today, and as well as

the idea of we don't have that much land. so i just needed to say that. and especially in the district that i live where the art academy has been pretty horrendous, i just wanted that to go on record as well as to ensure that the enforcement that is supposed to be in this agreement also in terms of turning the student housing into accessible housing for people with disabilities, i want to make sure that is actually enforced. and i do hope that you will be watching that. so thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 12? seeing none, we will close public comment. mr. adams, are you here? anything you would like to add on behalf of the mayor's office of housing? >> thank you, supervisors.

dan adams. the only thing i would add is we are supportive of this settlement agreement. we have been involved in its negotiation throughout and are excited to see the city take a next step on this process. i'm happy to answer any specific questions regarding the affordability requirements. and i'm here at your disposal. thank you. >> colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. adams? city attorney's office, supervisor safai. >> i want to make a quick comment. i know it can be frustrating at times to look back in retrospect and see when someone has been a bad actor that we are not necessarily always able to get the equivalent of what seems like what was lost. but in many instances, and my perspective over the last 20 years of being active in local government here, there ares when the city gets nothing at all. and for all the hard work that the city attorney, the planning department, supervisor peskin, i know you have put in countless

hours, actually the head city attorney himself, all the people that were involved in this negotiation, i think this is probably one of the best outcomes that we could have anticipated. i know it might not be equivalent of replacement, but at the end of the day, when we have created a new fund of money that will be supplemented, when you think about the small sites program and how those moneys can be leveraged, when we think about the affordable housing money that is leveraged against state dollars and ultimately the way in which the mayor's office of housing is creative in terms of making dollars stretch and working those dollars, i think ultimately, this is something that we should be proud of. and i think that the amount of hours and time that city staff along with community advocates put in to getting as best results as we could. and now we have an actor that is participating and following the rules, and i think that's also an important part of this. and i can tell you one thing, i know supervisor peskin wouldn't

put his name on something that he didn't feel was the best result for the city. so in that, i feel confident as well. >> i forgot i put my name on it. [laughter] as they say in iran, [speaking foreign language] may the party continue to add here to the terms of the settlement and this agreement. to city attorney, to his staff and ms. jenson, ms. ruiz, ms. smith, ms. sexton, to the planning department staff, planning commission, to ms. hester and mr. angman and others who i will not name who have continued to hold the academy of art's feet to the fire, this has been an interesting day in so far as we have not only done the academy of art matter but the flower market matter, which were

linked as she said, in 2008, when the academy of art tried to buy out the italian side of the flower market, here we are 11 years later with a different problem, but we will leave that to the full board of supervisors on the 17th day of december. and with that, is there a motion to send this item to the full board without -- without recommendation made by supervisor safai? we will take that without objection. thank you. yes, deputy city attorney? >> the meeting of january. >> january 7, my bad. great. arbitration between now and then. that will be the order. madame clerk, i think you already read item 10, is that true? >> no, i did not >> item 10 is to receive public input on the appropriate amortization period and requesting the mayor's office of

housing and community development, department of building, department of homelessness to report. >> thank you, ms. jay jor. -- ms. major. this is our last item. welcome to the holidays. as you may remember, i think the only member of this panel to remember would be safai who voted with the rest of the board in 2017 on our hotel conversion ordinance update legislation that allowed longer than seven-day stays in our hotels. and that has been the subject of litigation for quite some time. and actually i realize i should not have thanked ms. ruiz on the previous item, she is here for

this item. so we are now talking about a amortization ordinance. this is only an informational hearing to hear from members of the public about their thoughts about this. it started off, i thought i would bring up matt from the department of building inspection to give us background on how we got here and give us an overview of the hotel conversion ordinance and why it is necessary, what it does, what is allow, how it is enforced. so mr. l.uten, as you will deposit your jacket as all d.b.i. members do. the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon. so just to give a brief overview of the ordinance, i'll give as brief as i can. so chapter 41 of the san francisco administrative code titled the residential hotel unit conversion and demolition

ordinance, we call it the h.c. o. or hotel conversion ordinance. it was enacted on june 26, 1981 in response to a recently-declared housing emergency that was created by the loss of approximately 6,000 residential guest room from the rental market. that caused the displacement of elderly disabled and low-income persons. though the primary purpose of chapter 41 is to preserve residential guest rooms, also called s.r. o.s, in the city, as they are crucial source of housing for elderly, disabled and low-income tenants. residential guest rooms are typically sleeping rooms without the private bathrooms or cooking facilities. the original d. o. required all owners and operators to file an initial unit usage report,

indicating the total number of guest rooms within their hotels and how each guest room is being occupied as of september 23, 1979. so guest rooms that were occupied by permanent residents for 32 consecutive days as of this september 23 date were designated residential units and became subject to the protections of the chapter. the other rooms became subject to chapter 37. they became subject to chapter 41. so in the initial report, the owners submitted to the city how each room -- how each room in the hotel was being occupied as of that september 23rd date. and the date -- the rooms that were occupied by residential tenants, which was defined as 32 consecutive days. those rooms became residential guest rooms subject to chapter

41. and then the other rooms were designated tourist units. the ordinance now regulates approximately 20,000 residential units and approximately 500 buildings throughout the city. the general prohibitions of the chapter provide that residential units may not be demolished or converted to another use. all residential units may not be rented out for tourist or transient use. currently that means terms of tenancy less than seven days. they cannot be offered for rent for tourist or transient use either. there's a very narrow exception that is widely misunderstood and misused, which allows qualifying residential guest rooms that happen to be vacant during the high tourist season to be

temporarily rented out for tourist or transient use so long as no more than 25 percent of the residential guest rooms are not temporarily -- or are temporarily converted. thank you. another exception is -- >> just for the record, if you could just rearticulate that. and raise the microphone a little bit for the record if you could rearticulate what you just said. >> sure. so the exception, there's a very narrow exception to this. you are not able to rent out residential guest rooms for tourist or transient use. the exception, which is misunderstood and misused, allows qualifying residential guest rooms, meaning the guest rooms have to qualify before they can be used for this conversion, or for this exception, they have to happen to be vacant during this high tourist season which is defined

as may 1 through september 30. those rooms may be temporarily rented out for tourist or transient use so long as no more than 25 percent of the guest rooms, residential guest rooms are temporarily converted. so only 25 percent and no more may be temporarily converted. under the hotel owners are required to maintain records of use and submit annual usage reports. all hotels are required to maintain 24 months worth of daily logs, rent receipts and weekly reports on-site, daily logs show the use of each room, each day and weekly reports show the number of occupied tourist rooms throughout the week. each november 1, all private, for profit hotels are required to file the annual unit usage

report, which is a snapshot of how the residential guest rooms are being used throughout the year. and enforcing the issue, we have a complaint based system whereupon receiving complaints of violations, we conduct inspections of their required records. upon identifying violations, we issue a notice of apparent violation, similar to a notice of violation, it's just how it is defined in the code. in cases where we find long-standing violations for hotels that refuse to comply with the ordinance, we will issue a notice of violation, provided for in the housing code, so that we can establish -- i'm sorry. we issue a notice of violation provided for in the housing code so we may use the established director's hearing procedures and obtain abatement orders.

in cases where there are record-keeping violations, either a failure to maintain records or falsified records, we have the ability to assess penalties. in egregious cases where we are unable to obtain compliance we rely on the city attorney's office for support. it is worth noting that there are provisions for criminal liability. so the next thing i want to do is go over the recent legislative history. >> you mean the 2017 ordinance? >> well, there have been some -- yes, that's part of it. but there have been some other ordinances that were enacted. so from 1981 when it was enacted, the initial ordinance, through 2016, the ordinance was

largely unchanged. there were some updates but it was basically unchanged. and then in 2017, the amendments were enacted which clarified definitionses, updated fines and disqualified violaters from exercising the temporary tourist exception for 12 months after violateing. almost immediately, a legal challenge was made in response to the amendments based on the definition of tourist or transient use to a term of tenancy that is less than 32 days. in 2018, the city stipulated to enforce only a seven-day minimum term of at tenancy for residentl units, pending litigation. in 2019, a few things happened. first, section 41.22 was enacted

which provided for the residential hotel status report. which you sponsored i believe, right? >> true. i sponsored the 2017 ordinance as well. but please proceed. >> so the hotel status report ensures that owners for selling residential hotels columbus police dysclose information about the status and -- disclose information about the status prior to the completion of sales. the definition of tourist or transient use was changed to any use that is less than 30-day term of tenancy. and finally, the plaintiff challenging the 2017 amendments prevailed, and we were returned to the 2016 version, which is basically the 1981 version of the