>> supervisor haney: okay. so -- all right. it doesn't really matter, does it? just in that order, john to seat one, misha to seat two, raquel to seat three, and adam to seat five. >> chair ronen: without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, is there any other items before us today? >> clerk: there are no other items before us today. >> chair ronen: thank you. the meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, february 24, i'm the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined to my right by vice-chair safai and to my left by supervisor dean preston. our clerk is ms. erica major. ms. major, do you have any announcements? >> yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

completed speaker cards and copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items will appear on the march 3 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. can you please read the first item? >> item 1 is a resolution authorizing assets from the office of community investment and infrastructure to the city and county of san francisco. placing parcels under jurisdiction of public works and mayor's office of housing and community development and adopting appropriate findings. >> thank you, ms. major. as you will remember, for many decades in san francisco, we had something called redevelopment, which was a creature and function of state law that allowed in essence, local taxing districts and reinvestment in those communities when governor jerry brown became governor of

the state of california, evinced the state legislature to sunset -- convinced the state legislature to set a sunset law. and san francisco then created the office of community investment and infrastructure, which today is before us to transfer some remnant parcels from oc o.c. p sworn & examinatn examination p by line by p5: as it -- from oc ii as it is commonly called. i was to thank the city administrator and mr. penik from real estate for humoring me all week long as i insisted that the former creature known as the

redevelopment agency should convey the parcels not by quitclaim deed but my grant deed. and i had a number of other questions which have been answered. >> good afternoon. i'm the director of real estate. thank you for giving me the time to speak about this item. we are seeking your positive authorization.

if we could have the screen. i will explain which city departments are receiving the parcels and why. lastly, i will explain some minor edits that have already been referenced by supervisor peskin wherein we propose to accept the transfer of these parcels, via grant fee versus quitclaim deed. transferringof oci assets to the

city. as u.s.c. see from the slide, oc ii has been in the process of winding down the redevelopment agency's business and assets for some time. and this is not the first transfer we have received from them.

[please stand by] [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> [please stand by] as you can see, all of these are adjacent to public right of ways or public streets. they consist of -- the city and

the public has already streeted these areas.

to take the necessary steps to incorporate these adjacent areas into the right of way proper. right now for purposes of the assessment, they are treated as privately-owned parcels outside of the right of way. >> so to take it a little bit further, once they accept, once public works accepts these as public rights of way, the assessment of $4,000 will go away? >> not quite. it's a two-step process. but in essence you are correct. the first step would be for the city to accept these parcels from ocii but in doing so, they would still remain a private parcel in public ownership. d.p.w. would have to take the second step and incorporate, merge these two lots into the right of way. and at that point, what you said is true, it would no longer be

subject to the assessment. >> do we know how long that process takes and whether public works has that on their list of things to do? >> we've had discussions with public works. it is my belief that the first they are aware of this fact, and second it is my belief they plan to incorporate this into the right of way once accepted. there is a little bit of a technical issue, because streets and sidewalks have to be -- have to meet certain specifications, so d.p.w. would have to assess the sidewalks to make sure that they were, they met city standards. >> and now you are raising another question, which is have they done that, and what would that cost public works, and if we are accepting this, and it comes with an out year capital liability, is ocii going to pay for it going forward? >> i cannot speak for ocii but the proposal that is before us

is the transfer of these to the city which would then become a city responsibility. >> through the chair. it seems to me that -- that's fine, you can answer the question in a moment, but it seems to me that the analysis should be done, whether or not these will meet the specifications. as i understand that process fairly well, that you have to go through an acceptance process. i know it goes through the bureau of streets and mapping, and they have to determine whether or not it makes city specifications. but if it does not, right now you have listed that the city will be taking on this cost. so we have to ensure -- i would be more comfortable knowing that it's going to be accepted, and the city is not going to have to reduce its allocation. >> i'm development services manager at ocii and i appreciate the supervisor's question. it's true, in our active project

areas where we actively have obligations and funding to build infrastructure, those follow acceptance process. these sites are a little different in that they were completed many years ago and closed out, and we have no further authority under disillusion to do any improvements to them. while we certainly understand the city's concern to assess and make sure they are in a condition, our disposition authority is to transfer for governmental purpose as is, since we have no authority to expend funding on these essentially. >> so you are not paying the bill currently? >> there is no bill currently. >> there's no bill to the community benefit district? >> sorry. the two parcels, the sidewalks, we are paying the c.b.d. assessments. >> that's the question at hand. so if you transfer and all of a sudden it doesn't meet the specifications, who is going to pay that? >> post transfer, it would be

city. so i don't have a better answer than that. >> so i would say it would make more sense to find out if it's going to be accepted. we have that answer before we make the transfer. >> i understand that. >> i assume we are talking about standard width sidewalks, the curbs, gutters? >> correct. these were all improvements that were built at the time. >> all right. is there anybody here from d.p.w.? okay. well, i'm sorry, we don't call it d.p.w. anymore. but the charter does, and we are people of the charter, so we do. >> thank you, chair peskin. i want to go back to the sidewalk issue at the end of the presentation but i wanted to continue on to the last proposed

transfer of the day if we could have the slide. and that is the proposed transfer to the recreation and parks district. >> and i saw mr. keen's memorandum where he indicated on behalf of rec and park although rec and park hasn't verified that that would be no additional maintenance cost to them given the fact they maintain the rest of the park? >> that's correct. they have been maintaining this portion of the park as well as the rest of the park for some time. mr. keen may have also informed you and for the benefit of the public, the rec and park commission has also passed a resolution accepting this parcel or recommending its acceptance. it makes sense that this parcel would go to rec and park because, one, they have been maintaining it for some time and also because the area has been dedicated for open space recreation. going back to the ongoing cost, as was stated earlier, these

transfers are at no cost to the city. basically that means that the city is not paying a purchase price for these parcels. ocii indicated that the only incremental cost for the operation and maintenance associated with these transfers is the issue of the c.b.d. assessment which also happens to be the parcel that is related to whether or not d.p.w. can accept those parcels as part of the right of way. so there is a cost balancing on either side of the equation for the acceptance of those street parcels. one, the payment of a $4,000 per year assessment, which is a known cost, versus an acceptance of those streets as part of the right of way which has an x factor as a cost. that cost may be zero or it may be some significant sum.

i don't know if the board is willing or comfortable with moving forward with this resolution while those issues are being resolved. >> i have a proposal for you. >> yes, chair peskin. >> i need mr. spitz first. jeremy. i have one other question, which is a simple question. it may be an ocii question. i think it is. which is that this resolution applies to the aforementioned rights-of-way in the grocery store and the park and any future additional assets not listed in the list of former agency real property would be brought back to this board for

consideration. i just wanted to know, is there, i think only ocii can answer this. is there any other real property or assets that are not listed in the list of former agency real property? >> yes, there are. there are a known number of finite assets, and i can list them for the committee's pleasure including the fillmore heritage center. there are future transfers of assets in our active project areas, for example parks that have yet to be completed, the mission bay parks that are being built out which we leased that land from the city. so we would be terminating that lease. in some cases there are c.b.d. funds that go with those maintaining those entities, the facilities. those are fully-disclosed in our p.m.p. document which is the finite list of what we have

disposition authority for, but i have a summary if it is of interest to the board. >> i would love to have it, and any of those would have to be brought back to the board of supervisors for approval. >> that is my understanding. our disposition authority is granted through the approval of the p.m.p. which the oversight board approved. my understanding is it is a city requirement for the the supervisors for the by citi can accept that property on the city's behalf. >> that's what it seems to say here at the bottom of page 2 at line 25. so it is written. mr. spitz. if this committee were to forward this item to the full board, you would have eight days to figure out whether or not this is going to cost nothing, a little bit or a lot of money to accept. and while he said on the one hand if we don't accept it, we

just have to pay $4,000 a year, i think these streets should be accepted because they are parts of public rights-of-way, and that is the right thing to do separate and apart from the $4,000 per year fee. but i would like to know if public works can, between now and a week from now, create and write down the potential cost of what it would take to accept these. >> thank you, chair peskin. we will certainly do that as soon as possible. i haven't gotten a time estimate from any of our staff, but i will do that right away to try to get that as soon as we could. >> so we have two choices here. we can continue it here in committee and wait for that, or we can send it to the full board with the understanding that until we get that information we'll just continue it at the full board. it's kind of six of one, half a

dozen of another. and i'll defer to my colleagues on that. >> i have a -- okay. i have a question about the grocery store. i want to add for the record that i have reached out to the district 10 supervisor's office with regard to 345 williams street where the aforementioned grocery store would be transferred from ocii to the city and county through the mayor's office of housing and community development. and it is my understanding that the district 10 supervisor is in support of that so i just want to put that on the record. that was one of my notes. supervisor safai? >> i wantedd to ask a question about the grocery store. so can you tell a little bit more about that? i guess it sounds like it has a deed restriction. is the lewis use -- is the use

limited only to grocery? is there anything that happens in this transfer? >> it was purchased with community block grant money, and i think if we were to change the use, we would have to refund the $4 million of cbg money? is that correct? >> there's two forms of encumbrance on the 345 williams project. one is the lease. >> there are termination provisions on that lease. >> for default i would leave that to a conversation with the city attorney but there are

provisions for default. the options for extension are at the tenants' discretion provided they are in good standing. >> they pay approximately $325,000 a year? >> $325,000 a year. so that's the lease. the other restriction if you will, it's not a deed restriction per se, it's that the property was purchased with c.d.b. renewal. so the proceeds, right now the lease proceeds, solis revenues all go from occii to mayor's office of community development. they program that for services in the bayview currently. so that's what i those lease revenues are going to, 100% of them. those are, that's a process that mohcd controls through the cdbg process and annual plan. should the property be sold at

some future date, those proceeds would be income also, so they would go through that same programming process that the lease revenues currently go through. so it doesn't restrict the use per se of the property, but the proceeds that would be generated. >> right. >> does that answer your question? >> i understand that portion. i guess what i was -- beside the source of funds being cdbg, what was redevelopment? the cdbg funds, how did the redevelopment agency get involved? what was your interest interest in the property? >> there was an initial food desert essentially in bayview, and there was an ask to interest the safeway had closed, and there was interest in helping attract a full-service grocery store to the community at that time. >> did the redevelopment agency put money into the property? that's what my question is. >> we did. we put some tenant improvements into the property at the time.

it was an existing building from 1964 i believe. >> so it was built in 1964 and you bought it in 1990? >> right. and we had a small, i think it was a few hundred thousand, it was not a significant tenant improvement loan. >> i'm asking if the bulk of the funds were cbgg why was the property under your jurisdiction and not the mayor's office of housing originally if all you put in was tenant improvement money? >> i wasn't there at the time so i don't know the origin of the original ask. it was a survey project area. it was not a project area at the time. >> so why now are you transferring it? >> we are required to under dissolution law. >> i know you dissolved but you have a list of properties.

are there an existing list of properties that have been completed that you have not transferred yet? >> we are trying to transfer all our completed assets >> because you dissolved how many years ago? >> we were dissolved in 2012. we could not transfer anything until our long-range property management plan was approved in november of 2015. so that's when we then had authority and we started, the city with our partner, we have to work in tandem together to transfer those assets. >> that's my question. i understand it was dissolved years ago, about five years now. why are we bringing this one in particular? what is the process by which you decide over the last five years and going forward existing assets since your dissolution, that you are deciding to transfer? >> so under law, we are required to transfer everything. these are the completed, we are trying to transfer all our completed assets, otherwise obviously in mission bay, transbay, we can't transfer those yet. we work in tandem just as we

developed the property management plan in consultation with our city partners, we try to plan that work plan together, so we are prepared to transfer everything as quickly as we can, but we work together to manage that work flow. that's the best i can answer. >> they are working their way down the list. before we figure out what we are going to do with this thing, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this stimulating item, number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. what is the sense of the board as to my 6-of one, half a dozen of another? have you had time to assess that? >> we think we would be able to do it before next tuesday or within a week. >> all right. well, then, colleagues, if there is no objection, i would suggest

that. >> may i be heard? >> yes, of course. >> the one last thing i didn't get to in my presentation was the amendment. >> i was just about to do that for you but go for it. >> thank you. i submitted to the clerk, red lines of the resolution, the form of deed and the assumption and assignments. and they have made the changes that you requested to make those documents grant deed and reference a grant deed by a quitclaim deed. so it asks that the board make findings on the revisions as well as the item. >> i was just about to do exactly that, so for those of you who do not know, the difference between a quick claim deed and grant deed is a quick claim deed is an instrument by which property title is

transferred where in the transferrer, the seller, if you will, makes no representations to the buyer as to what they own or what encumbrances are on that title. as compared to a grant deed wherein that as a matter of law makes representations that the seller actually owns it and that it is generally free of many encumbrances. and i felt strongly that because this is a transfer from a former creature of state law to a city that i thought the successor agency, ocii should make those representations, the city and county of san francisco. and thank you as i said earlier, for humoring me on that, and we will, if there are no

objections, colleagues, make those changes. we'll scratch quitclaim and insert grant deed. and if there is no objection, send this item as amended to the full board with recommendation pending information from public works as to what acceptance will cost and we will do that without objection. madame clerk, can you read the next item? >> item 2 is an amendment to the planning code to aallow yards and usable open spaces if they meet the specified requirements and allow bay windows that don't meet the specified requirements to apply for a waiver. >> she has a new, better revised powerpoint presentation on section 136 of the code. another earth-shattering piece

of legislation. the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. the san francisco planning department. i also have with me maya small, designer of the urban plan team, and hopefully i have a powerpoint presentation. bear with me for just a moment. there we are. today we are here with a planning commission sponsored ordinance. it would amend code 136 which permits pay windows that don't meet the standards of section 136 to apply for a zoning administrator waiver. the first change would be to architectural projections.

currently they may be horizontal in nature. the vertical projection may not be longer than two and a half feet. at roof level they can extend no more than three feet over the allyways and setbacks and every other level they may extend no more than one foot over the streets, allies and setbacks. we have examples on the slide. the issue is under the current standards, many types of decoration encompassing new and traditional design do not qualify as permitted obstructions. so we have some examples on the slides there. so why this change? the planning department has received numerous proposals that incorporate interesting and high caliber architectural decorations. however due to strict nature of the code, they cannot approve them. new energy code requirements often prompt the use of sunshades, however because they are largely vertical in nature, they do not qualify as a permitted obstruction.

so give you an idea of what we are proposing, it's fairly simple. we are deleting the word horizontal. so that means a projection may now be vertical, diagonal, anything in the middle. and to change that at roof levels we are going from 3 feet to 4 feet. and at every other level it's from one foot to four feet. and i just wanted to clarify that all of our residential design guidelines and urban design guidelines and all the review processes would still be applied to this new change. so a second change is not necessarily a change in standards but a change in process. it is bay windows. so a bay window, we have very, very specific standards to qualify as a permitted obstruction, which are here on this slide. if a proposed design doesn't fit within the limitationed outlined, the applicants only other option beside redesigning

the project is to seek a variance from the section. and so we have some examples on these slides here. both modern and traditional. none of these by today's standards meet our design review for section 136 guidelines for bay windows. so why do we want this change? the required finding for a variance are very difficult to meet for bay windows. it's because of the fact that bay windows' unique design is not necessarily the result of an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance applying to the property but rather a product of architectural design. the zoning administrator has expressed a desire to develop an alternative to variances for bay window designs that don't meet the standards of section 136 but are considered desirable due to their high-caliber design. so what would this look like in the code? we would be changing the process. so if a proposed window design

doesn't fit within the limitations, they must seek a variance, instead we would say section 307h allows these types of designs to go seek a zoning administrator review. they will still need to meet the same massing requirements, so hopefully they will not turn into giant bay windows. those controls still apply. design review still applies. this is a planning commission-sponsored ordinance. so this is going back to 2018. they then asked us to hold some community meetings, so we did that, and we did receive support from the community meetings that we held. the historic preservation commission heard this item in september of 2019, and they approved it, as did the planning commission who heard it on october 4 of 2018. so that is our presentation. but both myself and maya small are available for questions. thank you. >> thank you, audrey. are there any questions or comments from members of this

committee? are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 2? you must all be here for something. we will close public comment. and thank you, audrey and maya for meeting with me earlier relative to the one issue i raised, which was that i hope as we give architectural flexibility and expand what these no longer horizontal architectural features can be, that you will be smart and sensitive, particularly in finer-grained building typology about inadvertent shadowing of sidewalks. but i think you will be smart about that. and if there's no objection, we will send this item. >> can i say something? >> you may >> i wanted to say i appreciate

the work being done to facilitate both the historic design and modern design in this regard and to make it more user-friendly for the architects and project sponsors. so i think this is -- although it might seem small, it does save staff time, does allow for your staff to focus on other items rather than dealing with lack of clarity in the code and/or inability to do things that are more forward-thinking, so i really appreciate the work. >> thank you, supervisor. and i should also add that this was initiated by the planning commission, and the planning commission ultimately recommended this to the board unanimously with one member absent. and with that, we will send this item with recommendation without objection for hearing next week at the full board. madame clerk, could you please read the next item.

>> item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to create the intermediate length occupancy residential use characteristic amending the administrative code to clarify existing law, prohibit the use of rental units for temporarily occupancies by nontenants, requiring the controller to conduct a study and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you, ms. major. this legislation is the result of many years of city efforts to effectively and appropriately regulate what is commonly referred to as corporate rentals in residential dwelling units in san francisco. i am not the first supervisor to take a run at this. i think the late greatter rance rance -- terrance did so. supervisor tang did so in the

late 1990s. and of course we have all grappled as recently as 2016 with the issue of short term rentals, rentals under 30 days, that i was proud to work with then supervisor campos on that is now the law of san francisco. there's a lot that i would like to say and talk about and let me start with this, which is in the almost 20 years that i've been on and off this board of supervisors, i don't think i've ever introduced a piece of legislation that has engaged the interest of virtually every singled registered lobbyist in the city and county of san francisco. this legislation has done that. on behalf of all sorts of different interests in a rapidly-evolving field, and i want to share with you what i've shared with all of them who came to my office and met with myself

and my chief of staff, which is that this type of housing is an absolutely necessary and legitimate use in urban settings throughout this country and throughout this world, whether you are an employee who is relocating, whether you are punching artist who is here for -- a performing artist for a play or a visiting nurse, there are many, many different reasons that people use this kind of housing. as you'll hear momentarily, from our budget and legislative analyst, who issued a report today, which i would want my colleagues and the public to have time to think about and consume, so i'm going to offer some amendments today, but i do not want to vote on this today. i want to continue this conversation. i want to get this thing right. but what you'll hear from the b.l.a. is that in the last decade, this type of use has

grown by a remarkable percentage, not only in san francisco, but in the united states of america, no surprise as the internet has made this type of use more accessible. so i'll drill down into the legislation and the amendments that i'm offering today and hear from members of the public and parties ranging from folks who -- and companies that have done this for decades to new entrants in the field like saunedder and zeus and others we have met with. i wanted to start first by thanking sonny for the tremendous amount of work that she has put into it as well as the team from the city attorney's office, yang and pradon who have been working on

crafting, honing and refining this legislation over the last many months. and with that, i would like to thank fred and the budget and legislative analyst office for their remarkably thorough report and turn it over to you for presenting the b.l.a. report. thank you, fred. copies of this, you will announce, are available to the public online. and we can disseminate copies to anybody who would like a hard copy. [off mic] >> good afternoon, chair peskin and supervisor safai and supervisor preston.

fred from the budget and legislative analyst office. as supervisor peskin mentioned, we have issued a report that he requested this morning. and you should all have hard copies as well as copies of this handout. and the topic of the report was intermediate length occupancy housing in san francisco, also known as corporate housing. and i'll just give a quick overview. the industry, it is in san francisco, there are many uses of this type of housing, and supervisor peskin mentioned a few, though it's called corporate housing, there are many people who have a need for temporary housing in san francisco or elsewhere. and these types of housing units are available for that purpose. a quick overview of the what we know about the national industry

and then a little bit about san francisco. and unfortunately we have a lot more information about the national industry than about san francisco. and i'll explain that in a minute. but the national industry has an estimated 71,201 housing units throughout the country, dedicated to this purpose. and it's grown since 2010 when there were 58,259 units. you can see the graph here which shows the uptick from 2010. there were more in 2007 and there was a decline during the great recession. but it has come back, not to the same level, but it's definitely been on the increase since 2010. in the u.s. the average daily rate for one of these units is 161 $. the average length of stay, 78 nights, and the average

occupancy rate, 86%. so that's a fairly good occupancy rate if you compare it to the hotel industry, it is certainly something that would be desirable from the commercial lodging perspective. in san francisco, the corporate housing providers' association, national grade trade group, did a survey, they do one every year, and 2018 is the most recent. so for 2017 they found the average daily rate here, $231 per night, higher than the national, not surprising, given the relative cost of housing here. and a similar occupancy rate, 86% and an average length of stay of 71 nights. in terms of how these units are used, and here's a pie chart that portraying, again, the national industry from 2017. corporate relocations is the top

use, 33% of the uses in that year were for that purpose. next you see at 21%, projects and training. so this could be, for example, a team of consultants that comes to the city like san francisco, and is going to be here for a two-month project, and they would stay in this type of housing instead of a hotel. other uses include attorneys who come for a trial, doctors, nurses who are here on a temporary basis, patients receiving medical treatment, individuals or families that are relocated by their insurance company because of a disaster or problem with their regular lodging. in terms of industry, down at the bottom of the slide, the top user industry-wide is the technology industry, that's nationwide. obviously that has some meaning in san francisco where that's

one of our major employers and one of our grows employers. so when you think of the combination of relocating employees and the technology industry, you can see how those factors would be important in san francisco. and then others and individuals or other uses, professional services, which is management professionals from different types of industries, attorneys, and then government and military is the fourth most common use. in terms of the industry profile, which is one thing supervisor peskin asked for, what we found at the national level and also true here is sort of two pieces to the industry. one is what we'll call the longer-term stable companies that have been in place for many years, actually many decades. and then in addition to that, there is a new brand of

companies, and it is saunedders, zeus, blue ground are some of the names. formed in 2010, all pretty much receiving venture capital to help them get started. and following a business model where they master lease units in the building for multiple years and then release them to tenants which could be a corporation or it could be individuals such as employees who are being relocated and have a fixed amount that they can spend for temporary housing when they first come here. another characteristic of the newer companies is much greater use of information technology. so in terms -- the units are listed online. they can be negotiated and leases can be filled online. the arrangements for meeting the tenants when they show up are done online with entry codes sent via smartphones.

and then requests for services, while the tenants are in the units can also be done online. so this is a change from what we'll call the old guard or businesses that have been providing this kind of housing for decades in the past. in the past i would characterize the industry as more relationship-based. there were property managers and owners who knew human resources personnel in the companies that might need this type of housing had personal relationships with them or relocation specialists so that they would often make the arrangements through a phone call rather than any kind of online presence. and those businesses are still in place, and they still operate that way. though most companies now have some kind of online presence and advertise the housing online though there may be people in the background who are making the arrangements by phone or

through personal communications. one of the key questions that supervisor peskin asked for this analysis was how big is the industry in san francisco? and there is no easy answer, unfortunately, to that. we went to all the likely city departments that might have this kind of information, which is department of building inspection, planning, the assessor, the treasury, tax collectser and even the rent board -- collector and even the rent board, and none of them identify housing in that way. when housing is built, it is classified as residential, commercial or industrial. and if it is used for intermediate-length occupancy housing or corporate rentals, it is simply classified as residential as it goes through the review and approval processes. so there is no count that way. so we went to trade associations to see if they had inventories, and we went to a number of

providers so get numbers from them, some of them did share them, though we can't say we have a count from all providers. but using the trade association information, and that included mostly the san francisco apartment association and the -- which is local and the corporate housing providers association, the national group i mentioned before. the apartment association estimated that 1 to 3% of their members' units are used for intermediate-length occupancy housing. and they have i think about 9,000 units if i'm remembering right under their -- excuse me, 90,000 under their -- within their membership. so the 1 to 3% shown here, the estimate of 2,705 to 8,115. the high numbers seemed very high from what we could gather, but there's a lot of listings and a lot of housing in this

industry that doesn't appear online or wouldn't be immediately accessible if you didn't know property managers or have the personal relationships that i alluded to earlier. so we did review websites where listings are posted. we counted them, we identified characteristics such as what neighbors they are in and how many bedrooms the units had and what amenities they offered. and we have information about that in our report. but based on what we could cobble together, we come up with an estimate of at least 2,000 units. we easily got to 1300 with what was available from providers and websites. we know there are many that aren't even listed that we couldn't see, but there are some being occupied now, for example, that wouldn't be shown as available. and then there are those that don't appear online.

so we are conservatively estimating 2,000. could be more. the apartment association believes there are more than that. so we end up with a range absent better data of between 2,000 and 2,700. just a quick review from our sample. these are neighborhoods where we found 461 listings that are available and that were available in march of this year. and that was our test period. and we picked up the information on that. and as you can see, over half are in six neighborhoods south of market is the big one, south of market and rim done hill combined. rincon hill combined. it mirrors what you see in the short term rental market, a lot of the same neighborhoods seem to be popular with this market as well. >> a quick question before you leave the neighborhood. how did you determine, through

the chair, how did you determine this list? did you find this list through the internet? did you look at the different companies? i'm just curious how you came up with the list. >> right. we did get it off the internet. the companies have listings. >> that would be over 30-day stays? >> yes. and they all -- 30-day stays so they are distinct from short term rentals though a quick comment about that, airbnb does list a lot of corporate rentals also. and they've actually started a separate business or initiative that is for business purposes entirely. so it's possible that there are some units that are going back and forth between short term and intermediate. >> essentially it's through the company? >> through the companies. and they are more explicit than short term rentals in terms of what neighborhood they are in or in many cases listing addresses of the buildings.

that's something you won't find -- >> i did a quick survey of the neighborhoods, and i only see one that would be in my district. interestingly. >> this is not a complete list. but in march these were the neighborhoods that we could identify from the listings. >> okay. thank you. >> from the sample, here's some information about rents being charged, broken down by size of the housing units, one bedrooms, they average from our sample per night is $159. a little less than we reported earlier from the 2017 survey. and for a two-bedroom, $200 a night. so compared to market rents, which we took from zillow, and you can see that here, they were reporting a $3,580 average rent for a one-bedroom and a $4,530

average rent for a two-bedroom apartment. so the difference per night is shown there, $44 for one bedroom, $54 for two bedrooms. and then multiplying that out and assuming an 86% occupancy rate for the intermediate length units, we come to $4,239 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. and you can see the difference per month there. $659 or over the period of a year, 7,900 more dollars than market rent. or more a two-bedroom, $802 more and 9,624 per year. it's important to note this would be offset by additional costs. the market rents are largely for unfurnished units. so if you go into the intermediate length housing business you need to furnish

your apartments and provide services. it requires more of the owner's time to meet the tenants and make arrangements, and there's more interaction with them required while they're in the units as well. this is part of the appeal, by the way, of some of the newer companies because they do all of that. so if you are a landlord, you could do this yourself or you could make an agreement with zeus or blueground, and they will do this. may will pay you market rent, and then they take care of all the business arrangements for getting an intermediate-length occupancy tenant into the unit. and they incur the cost of the furnishings and so forth. another point on this is -- >> sorry. i have a question. so that slide that shows the difference, doesn't that understate it? because obviously for the market rents, if rented by longer-term

tenants, then rent control on most of these properties is going to kick in. so over time that differential is going to be significantly higher, is that right? >> that's right. that was the point i was going to get to now was rent-controlled units. so this is for market rate. if a unit is converted from being a rent controlled unit to an interneed yacht-length occupancy unit, the -- intermediate-length occupancy unit, the difference is much greater. it could be a substantial jump. and you are absolutely right, then as it goes forward, if a tenant stays 78 days and leaves and a new one comes in, the rent can keep increasing at market rate. so it will just keep going up to whatever the will bear at that time. and these rents often are paid by a third parties. when you say why is the he tenant paying this much?

if it's relocating an employee, it's probably the employer play paying. if it's someone whose house was damaged in a flood, it's their insurance company paying. if it's patient visiting their medical insurance might be paying. but in most cases, it's not the actual person who is residing in the unit who is paying the rent. finally, we tried to get an estimate of what's the impact of whether this industry is growing or not. all signs are it is growing. it's certainly growing nationally. i mentioned earlier on that the growth rate and supply was 22% between 2010 and 2017. we don't have a baseline number for san francisco, but we did this calculation by taking the san francisco apartment association estimate of 1% of the housing stock being dedicated to intermediate-length occupancy housing and went back

to 2010. so let's assume it was 1% at that time. so that's what this number is, this 2,486, based on multi-family housing units in place in 2010. and then we advanced it forward. to between 2010 and 2017, multi-family housing in san francisco grew by 7.8%. and if that were true also for intermediate-length occupancy units, they would have added enough units to get to 2,680. if they grew at the national rate, it would be 22%. and then there would be 3,038 units or a difference of 358. and the significance of that is what that would be doing is taking a disproportionate share of the new housing units that were added to the san francisco housing stock and dedicating them to intermediate-length occupancy. so it would be more than its

share, if you will, of the 7.8% growth. >> your report also references, and this was in the press, one particular brand new building on market street where the entire building was dedicated to that use? >> right. 2100 market was taken over by sonder. they arranged an agreement with the landlord there for all the units. and that is unusual. in most cases, it will be, and the apartment association has told us that most owners will limit the number of units that can be used for this purpose to maybe 10% or so of the total in the building. so sonder, the arrangement at 2100 market was unusual. i think there might be one other in san francisco at 21st and capp that is the same type of arrangement. but most of the companies are not doing it that way, at least

at the present time, most of the landlords are not allowing for all units to be converted to that purpose. so that is a summary of the report. i think that we have more information in the document about job growth in san francisco, the nature of job growth, the increase in what's high-wage jobs that are particularly in the tech industry but also in professional services and how that dovetails with industry growth in the intermediate-length occupancy market nationally, we think it's very relevant here, it seems to be growing. there's certainly a lot of money to be made in it. one can look at this and say why isn't everyone doing it? i think for a lot of landlords, there are impediments, there are costs, there are some new costs and requirements that they would have to fulfill to move into

that industry. but for many, they are seeing a great opportunity for earning more on their housing stock. so i will stop there. but i'm happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues, are there any questions for him? and we all will have plenty of time to read all 28 pages of the report that was released earlier today. once we make some amendments and continue this item, so if there are no questions -- >> i have some questions. i'll wait until after public comment. >> go ahead. >> i wanted to follow up on the question about the source of some of the info. i'm curious if there's any information from the companies listed on page 10 of the report about the number of rentals that they are doing, either voluntarily provided by any of those companies or through reports that they've generated for investors or publicly

disclosed? >> right. so the information on page 10 is from -- and i'm just going to quickly look at it to make sure. yes, so those companies, some of them did provide their inventory but most did not. we didn't talk to all of them either. the listings on the website were the source for the neighborhood distribution and the prices and other characteristics that we identified. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai, any questions for mr. brew sew? -- for mr. brusseau >> i'll wait until after public comment. >> this is a complicated piece of legislation but i think supervisor preston put his finger on one of the most important moving pieces, which is there's a huge economic incentive as it relates to

prix-1979 rent-controlled -- pre-1979 rent-controlled stock to push tenants out because it is more lucrative to have a interneed yacht-length -- intermediate-length occupancy model. i believe the ordinance precludes this type of use, nonetheless it has happened. and one of the fundaments of what i'm trying to do here in this legislation is to effectively ban corporate rentals in rent-controlled housing. so i want to move that conversation, which as i said earlier, is a necessary and legitimate use, to post- '79 housing. and i'll drill down into that later, but i know we have a lot of people here who would like to speak, and diego sanchez is on behalf of the planning commission that heard this item

not once but twice. so mr. sanchez, if there's anything you would like to put on the record, and we'll open it up to public comment. >> i'll be quick and summarize what the planning commission, what action they took on januar. they voted unanimously to approve a resolution in support of this ordinance with two modifications, the first was to enact a interim control, be it a neighborhood notice c.u. requirement or moratorium on new intermediate-length occupancy activity and collect data on the scale of this activity as we have been hearing. data collection seems to be imperative given that the city doesn't have a definitive grasp on the scale or locations of this activity. this is an activity that may have multiple benefits but may also be detrimental to the housing supply in san francisco. the second modification they approved was to clarify the proposed admin code amendments exempting nonprofit organizations from the proposed

cap on ilo and add this clarified language to the planning code. so that concludes my presentation. and i'm also hear here for questions. thanks. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. and so that brings me to corporate rentals which currently exists in buildings that historically have not been protected by the rent stabilization ordinance and those would be the post-june 13th, i'm making up that date but i think june 13, 1979. and the board actually recently passed legislation to extend the rent ordinances just eviction protections to these units, though they remain without price controls. and this has created a sort of what i'll call middle bucket of dwelling units that this legislation seeks to reasonably phase into compliance under a new residential use designation, and after receiving feedback

from planning staff as well as the commission about the desire to have interim measures to collect data and understand the true impacts of the industry, i've included planning code amendments to accommodate a reasonable and limited amount of these corporate rentals or interneed yacht-length -- intermediate length occupancies, i.l.o.s, that would be permitted through a conditional use process at the planning commission and operators and developers would have two years to come into compliance with this new designation. the underlying intent is that after those two years and the completion of a nexus fee study by the city controller in consultation with the board, that this board of supervisors could decide whether or not to impose permanent controls for future i.l.o.s, depending on what the data says. so we are obtaining that baseline data that mr. brusseau

is trying to figure out. this is also dependent on what kind of compliant success rate we have with developers and operators and whether or not they are willing to learn from the mistakes of the original disrupters in the short term rental market, and actually share their data, and as mr. brusseau said, many companies actually did share data, some better, some not so good, some not at all, but that was helpful in trying to get our hands around what the right public policy regulatory fix is. and as i said before, i say that because i think there is a role for intermediate-length occupancy uses in san francisco. currently, the legislation has set a cap of 1,000 units to be legalized over the next two years, during which time corporations would come into compliance with the new i.l.o. law and self-report data to the

planning department that would allow the city by and through the board of supervisors and the planning department and planning commission to set reasonable boundaries for the industry. that being said, i'm open to considering other ideas in addition to what's in the legislation, and i do actually want to make a couple of amendments, one to remove the exemption and the other to clarify that the intermediate-length occupancy designation only applies to this middle bucket of non-price controlled units, and those in progress under construction that have not vested in the building permit process. so with that, why don't we open this up to public comment? i have a number of speaker cards if you want to line up to your right, our left.

[calling speakers] >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. my name is susan marsh. several things came up listening to this report. the first is that very simply, the data on -- the information on exactly how many rent-controlled units are being rented out as i.l.o.s is highly

incomplete. the estimates that were provided seem to be lowballs, frankly. this should not matter as long as the possibility, the availability of this alternate -- alternative exists for landlords and speculators and property owners, they will be tempted to take it, and it is definitely an incentive for them to cannibalize the stock of rent-controlled housing. therefore i'm glad to hear that what is on the table is a total ban on such i.l.o.s. as for the rest, well, we have been told over and over again that we are in a housing crisis that's due to a shortage of housing. we've been told this over and over again as an excuse for building housing that frankly doesn't serve the needs of most of san francisco's population.

the existence and availability of the alternative of turning i.l.o.s makes a mockery out of this. these are long-term hotels. these are not housing. they are what is known as non-housing housing. they are speculative investments. so i would urge you to take that into consideration. thank you so much, and thank you for introducing this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> members of the board of supervisors, my name is greg pennington, i moved here at age 20 in 1977. i've lived in the same apartment for 42 years. and to my horror, veritas just bought my apartment building about three months ago. during that three months, the water has been shut off ten times, the elevator is out of service, the intercom is out of service, there are workmen coming in and out all the time, endless construction, continual noise. it's been a total nightmare. and nothing like what i had my

first 42 years. i live in district 3, aaron peskin, i'm very happy to have you as my supervisor. thank you for putting forward this legislation. we need affordable housing in this city. i'll tell you right now, my entire life is here. if you allow veritas to put me out on the streets, which is what they want to do, i'm going to be on the streets. i'm going to be joining the 7,000 living there now, because i have nowhere to go. so i would ask the board of supervisors to do everything they can to stop veritas and brick and timber from continuing to run amuck. we need affordable housing. so this is important legislation. i noticed the east cut only had one of those i.l.o.s, the east cut is where tens of thousands of market-rate housing the being built. take those i.l.o.s out of market rate housing. those people need to live in those neighborhoods. they don't want to live in neighborhoods like mine where there are humans shooting up

drugs at bus stops. people shouldn't be paying high rents in those places. i support this legislation whole hearteddedly, and i spend on all of you to allow me to continue to live in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> linda chapman, and i'm representing old hill neighborhoods, because at the time we were dealing with short term rentals as opposed to this. so i think this is a good way to refer to this as the bucket bill. it seems odd that, unless i'm reading it wrong, there are a lot of people who don't actually put down roots. we were concerned about people who put down roots, but even in the building where i lived, people came and went. not that i'm opposing this but i'm puzzled. but my real concern is about short term rentals. you passed legislation a while ago which might have been wonderful, i don't know because i wasn't able to find anything about it. in order to get something from

the clerk, i need the legislation number, the agents i talked to not just in my supervisor's office but the sponsors couldn't get the notion that there was such a thing as a dwelling unit or that we passed legislation at the same time as the residential hotel was passed. it absolutely outlawed renting a dwelling unit which you know is the thing with the kitchen, like the studio, for less than a month. and there was no problem in the court, you know, there was a problem of course with the residential hotel thing, and it had been written in a way, that was overturned, we had to rewrite it. no problem at all with the other thing. i live in fear that people are going to write something that prevents, that somehow grandfathers in things that were already done, because i don't know what you passed here. and there's some language here about things that happened before. i don't have time maybe to read

it to you right now. either it outlawed every single dwelling unit, renting less than 30 days or not, they weren't corporate, right. they were owned, some of them, by governor properties, by his wife, and i just want to make sure. otherwise my ghost will haunt city hall. i can't die happy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is bree and i'm the vice president development and strategic partnerships for ronald mcdonald house charities bay area. for over 30 years, ronald mcdonald house charities partners with ucff to provide communities of support, access to medical care and the healing power of family and home for critically-ill children. last year, ronald mcdonald house charities provided 3,752 nights of lodging and more than 10,000 free meals here in san francisco.

the need for temporary housing is greater than what we are currently able to provide. each year, thousands of children and their families travel to san francisco seeking--saving treatment. ucff is ranked the best in northern california in five specialties including pediatric cancer and cardiology and cardiac surgery. the clinical services with the sickest patients requiring the longest lengths of stay, on average about 45 days. a recent assessment demonstrated that 25% of pediatric patients are inpatient more than 30 days, and 54% of families are less than $50,000 a year. and 40% ranked access to temporary housing and a place to rest as their family's greatest need during their child's medical crisis. as advocates we rely on flexible interneed yacht-length housing to keep -- intermediate-length housing. our partnerships have allowed us

to provide nights for families in the last quarter alone. we rely on these important partnerships to meet the growing need. i would like to share a quote from charlie scott, a recent recipient of a free corporate apartment. coming from a rural city, life was a culture shock, but the apartment made us feel comfortable. without the opportunity to stay in this apartment, it would have been difficult for my wife and i to spend time with our newborn child. thank you. >> hello. my name is kiana martinez, and i have been a volunteer with the housing rights committee of san francisco for a few months now. i just want to say that on the ground, going to see -- working with tenants every day, all of us together, we are seeing this firsthand, we have seen every building i've gone to, i've seen locks on the doors of the units

where there is nobody living there. we have people living there for short term, and we have around 7,000, as someone said, 8,000 folks on the street. so firsthand, we deemed this place either outside of the city who are long-term tenants who are contributing to this city and we have seen people who are ending up on the streets. and that's on the ground. that is what we are seeing. so i just really thank you, mr. peskin, for putting this forth, and i hope that you all see that for long-term tenants of an san francisco, this is really needed, and it's clear that the companies like veritas and other developers are taking advantage of this. and it's an extra incentive for them to evict long-term tenants. it's an extra incentive. so i hope that you take this

onto consideration. and thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for putting forth this legislation. the real estate industry is back with a new business model and a new disruption. we understand that there are the occasional rare case where there's somebody who needs temporary housing. but regular folks can't compete with the kind of money that can be made off these corporate rentals. these regular folks are the folks that i've been working with my -- for over ten years in san francisco, folks with terminal cancer who wound up getting evicted because their landlords know they can make more money off their units, folks -- and whether it's people who are trying to move in today or whether it's folks who are trying to hold on to the units that they have, folks -- these folks cannot compete with these $5,000 a month-type of rentals.

in these situations where landlords are incentivized to rent to companies instead of people, to rent to these companies are not going to assert tenants rights, they are not going to ask for their repairs to be made, that are not going to stay, and instead just make as much money as possible off of our limited housing stock. thank you so much for protecting our housing. >> thank you. mr. shaw. >> good afternoon. my name is shaw, i live at 698 bush street. i'm a member of housing rights committee. and i strongly support and urge the committee to move forward. i was a tenant with veritas, and their building at 698 bush street, 10 to 12 units empty for more than a year.

they kept it empty, and we are having a housing crisis in the city, and they are talking about greed. they want to flip the property so the more empty the building is, the more they can get the money. so they are holding it on and on and on. and meanwhile, i live near the union square, people are homeless, and there's no help for them. and they bought my building. the real estate people told us they were going to buy this building so they can convert it to condos or short term rentals and so forth. and if it's short-term rental housing, that much per unit.

this is in a family zone. i will leave the copy to you guys. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. shaw. next speaker, please. mr. weaver. >> my name is scott weaver with the san francisco tenants unit. thank you, supervisor peskin, sunny for making this legislation possible. in a sense, we shouldn't be here. it was the law in 1980 that corporate rentals were illegal. it was doubled down in 1998 that they were illegal. and somehow it got lost in the airbnb legislation. so this is our opportunity to get it right and to make corporate rentals illegal and to provide mechanisms for enforcing the illegal conduct, because what we are dealing with is actually a rogue industry. they didn't come here and take our rent-controlled units with permission. they took it in opposition to

the very laws that the city has passed. [please stand by]

>> this legislation is super important to me and thank you, mr. peskin. thank you, networks speaker, please. and by the way, i have a new stack of speaker cards. ryan thompson, paula millard, carrie blanchette, andrew simmerman, jeff jordan didn't tyler smittay. >> i would say veritose has many goals and one of the goal is to create small, quick improvements to convert temporary furnished

rentals. one of the goals is they incentivize their employees financially to achieve the company's financial goals. so, basically, tenants are data in achieving these goals. so i think very much for your legislation on doing away with corporate rentals, as they're counting on every tech worker that is making millions of dollars to rent these apartments and meanwhile, we have long-tenants and when we're traveling to san francisco, it's an environmental issue creating gas emissions. thank you. >> hi, i work with the community housing.

veritose is a trash organization company and they lack morals and dignity. but anyway, i just want to express my support for this legislation today and, you know, corporate rentals are ravaging are rent-controlled housing stock in the midst of a housing crisis in sanfrancisco. we hear a lot of lip service about the housing crisis we're in. it's good to see there's some legislation to actually fix the housing crisis that we're in. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak. my the coo of veritose. i would strongly object to the previous speakers. it is our long term goal tit's d

units. we're not in the business of renting intermediate length occupoccupancies. we have had to replummet because of the finding of lead and in addition, we have upgraded the electrical system which is no small feat and given the age of many in our portfolio, this is a necessary part of bringing these back to life. this is an important part of legislation and i thank you for the amendments that have been

made to it a it. there are many legitimate uses for linked occupancy, so thank you for your consideration and i appreciate the opportunity to speak. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm ryan thompson. i work for express corporate housing. the first thing i want to say, e were support any legislation that bans the use of rent-controlled units. i'll keep this brief. i did want to comment on the proposed interim hard cap. we think it would be more effective to use a sort of percentage-based system maybe for buildings that are newer over some minimum unit count. just so that this rental type

can still be provided in a way that can meet shifting market needs or demands. we're worried that a hard cap would prevent people that do have a legitimate need for this type of housing for getting it. the thousand-unit cap is lower than amounts in the city. we think going with a lower based system were be better. >> what mr. thompson said was interesting because one of the aforementioned lobbyists that contacted me represented a national trade organization like the corporate rental association of america. i met with them and they said what you said, hey, we don't want to do these in rent-controlled housing, so that part is music to my eared. ears. >> and we're a part of that

organization, so thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm corrine and i live at 1029 paige. we rented out to a short-term basis to individuals, not corporations, such as travel nurses living there now, particularly during flu season, interns and, as well as people looking for permanent housing. i would like to continue to do that and i'm not sure that law will allow me to do that. so i don't go through a third party. i managed it myself. i do advertise on corporate housing by owner but they do not manage it for me. so i'm just telling you to be cautious and don't throw out all corporate housing and -- i shouldn't say corporate housing -- interim housing into

one bucket. it does serve a need. i mean, we're on the verge of a global pandemic and we'll need travel nurses here. a lot of them can't rent from those larger corporations because i charge less money for my rental than the bigger players do. >> thank you for those comments. supervisor safye and i were having a sidebar about the need between now and next week or whenever there may be more hearings on this, to clarify the less than nine-unit definition and so i think i hear what you're saying and we can clarify that. >> it's a duplex but the building is from 1900. >> very helpful, thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm paula mallard and i'm with

synergy housing. synergy has spawned from oakwood global housing that existed for 60 years. representing corporate housing, i'm also somebody who has been affected by the limited demand -- limited supply, high demand in san francisco and also family in the east bay. so there are many, many items that impact that, not just furnished housing. what i'm here to say today, supervisor peskin, you addressed this in your opening remarks, at the end of the day, there's a huge demand for temporary housing and it is people that need temporary housing. it's not a company. it's not an entity, it's people and they're coming to san francisco with a new job, getting opportunity to try out housing to see if they'll live in san francisc san francisco f,

many years. they then bring their families and invest their money into the local stores, grocery stores and restaurants and support that need. also, going back to people, just in synergy alone, we have 300 employees. i'm an employees and two service vendors, there's over 300 people and so i just wanted everybody to remember that at the end of the day, those people need housing, too. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a district five voter and a member of the senior disability action and i'm here to support supervisor pesk -rbgs ordinance to regulate rentals. as a senior, i have major concerns over the way these formally moderate activities

have suddenly exploded into a new outlet for ringing greater amounts of speculative cash out of ou our high our finite housi. we continue to be swept away. the people in san francisco have spoken in many ways. the ballots, surveys, town halls, emails to you, and our number one concern, as you know, is preservation and creation of permanent affordable housing. , not high priced, turn-over transient housing. anything that takes away from our goal goes against the public interest and so i feel it

requires very careful tracking, close government supervision and the elimination of corporate ilos. thank you. >> thank you. >> i just want to make one comment that there's also a big difference between a corporate person and natural person and this actually defined this use as a use for natural persons, not corporate persons. and while i understand this business models vary, i can tell you the story in my district when i was on the board of supervisors, where united airlines was renting a number of, yes, rent-controlled use un, cycling in and out of different flight attendants and pilots and my response was, no, that's housing for people who need to live and work in sanfrancisco. you guys can rent a hotel and to

their credit, they did. sorry. >> good afternoon. i'm kathy lipskim. we already have rent-control units being taken away by lmis, landlord move-s thi move-ins and threated. we can't not think to turn rent-controlled units into spaces for their executives. if anyone can afford hotel prices, it's these guys and the hotel industry can use shoring up. given the fall of the tourist industry, due to a dangerous pandemic flu, these corporate rentals should be strictly prohibited with the tightest possible language. thank you in your efforts to

make them negligibleentities. this speaks to the just-build philosophy and everything will be ok, not. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm from housing right's committee and thank you very much for introducing this. we need permanent rental housing here in san francisco for workers of all incomes, for families with children and seniors looking for units they can afford and we need to say no to ca cannibalizing the rental stock and changing the law later. we also need to corporate

rentals increases on rent-controlled tenants as landlords try to push them out to make increasingly amounts of money. we see landlords with patterns of harassment and using hearment harassment to displace tenants as their model. company like veri.your own compo stating its goal to convert units at 640 powell to furnish short-term renta rentals and wht about 430 baker, 635 stockton and 125 conrad? are these all furnished units.

we need to stop pushing out long tern tetenantslong-term tenante. ants. >> i work for star city with co-living communities. the tenants are from backgrounds and professions, hos hospitalitd the arts. in some cases they're temporarily displaced by the wildfires. the average length of stay is 11 months. we have one project under construction that's in active reuse of a historic tenderloin bath house adding 5 55 middle

housing units. we had 53% of the units will be below 54% in soma. we offer traditional landlords but long-term tenancy is encouraged. our lease terms are not finite and we rent to individuals seeking to live and stay in san francisco. the vast majority want to stay long-term and we offer lease terms because folks need it and they can't qualify or commit to a 12-month lease even if they wanted to. we've been working with supervisor peskin's office and though we understand we may not be the subject, intended subject of this legislation, we have proposed a select view clarifying amendments to the author and the staff to give our business the ability to operate in our hometown. the first is the definition be clarified to leases to tenant

uses and the definition between 30 day expos30 days and three tr months. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm a native of san francisco, went to george washington and i live in the city and went to school in the city and worked at almost every hotel over my career. i'm currently the general manager for furnished quarters we're a family-owned company and we're 20 years in business. we support the legislation that you are putting forward with the adherence of, we don't want to affect any marginal housing. we're only looking at -- pardon me, supporting a cap as a percentage on the buildings. we're to the moving into neighborhoods, taking up housing, taking up affordable

housing. we're trying to welcome new people into the city. our guests would be the ballet dance, the nurse that's helping you, people relocating. it's a reflection of who the city is and these people do need to come and find their way in the city. i don't think many people can move into an apartment just upon arriving. we provide a service and act professionally. so we do support this, but we would like to see a percentage and maybe some clearer language into what type of housing the corporate rentals can be in. put we don'we don't want to affy losing their home and we don't practise that way. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a tenant here in sanfrancisco and thank you for the opportunity to address you all. i wanted to make a couple of points that have already been

made in part, but to drive home the idea of what it feels like to be a rent-controlled tenant, who is experiencing what we call rentoviction. it's not just a construction that goes on endlessly and the water turn-offs and electricity turn-offs. at the end of the day, if tenants want to contest the increased cost passed through to them, as a part of all of the renovations often done to facilitate the intermediate length occupancies, they have to go to rent board to try to fight those costs back and tenants have a difficult time doing that and are rarely successful. so it's not only the environment that's created. it's raising rents for tenants who are in rent-controlled units that would be otherwise protected by the annual cap. and just a couple of other points, i'm a medical student at ucsf and i've contributed to the care that people come here from across the country to seek the services that we have. there's a place for those

tenants here and i hope that the supervisors will make an amendment that would allow for patients to come and stay. finally, just to the point about care providers who have to come to san francisco in order to administer care to these patientses, there's always a the patients, i will say that ucsf and anthem blue cross and a number of other people have plenty of money to buy a building. there are 76 for sale and i think they could probably afford one. there's a way to facilitate housing for those folks, but it does not have to come ough at te expense of protecting long-term tenancy for san francisco. >> next speaker and if there are others after miss nu, please line up to my left, your right. >> good afternoon. i'm peter cohen with community

housing. our member organizations are in the business of providing long-term permanent, affordable housing so this issue of how our housing supply, very limited housing supply is used is very important to us and we've been giving feedback on the legislation. there's been a lot of innovation of the using stock. you've been around, live, work, we have had short-term rentalled, corporate rentals and these are innovative ways to provide housing for folks that are not, say, your traditional long-term residents. but this legislation is sensible in the sense that it's just a way to define and therefore be able to regulate one of the activities. some folks may want to shut this down entirely and others may want a narrow provision but you can't do anything until you're able to define it in the code and decide what the best regulatory policy is. arguably, short-term rentals was

too late and should have been done earlier. i think a lot of us feel that use may be working fairly well, but a lot of rough and tumble to get there. so i think in this situation, your ilos are no particularly different. it's a use that needs to be managed. i what i found interesting at the planning commission, the operators are already using the term, intermediate length occupancy, so they've sort of, if you will, conceded to this, this needs to be a regulated use. it's interesting where you look the the prices of the listings, $5,000 a month. if you did the calculateses, it requires a salary of $180,000 a year. so what kind of housing is appropriate? i leave it to you folks to answer that. >> miss nu?

>> i'm with the san francisco apartment association. we spent a lot of time with the office doing research on this type of housing and we've determined that it's probably in rent-controlled stock, less than 1% of the housing. we counsel people they cannot rent for less than 30 days and any rental after 30 days falls under the rent-control ordinance and we don't differentiate between corporate housing, ilo or regular housing. if it's rent control, it's rent control. so our goal is try to see if we can get a percentage of these units in rent-controlled stock in the bigger properties, golden gateway and others grandfathered in to continue to provide housing to the ballet, the theatre, visiting nurses, students, relocation for seismic work, relocation when ccdc had

to do their rebuild and it's a necessary service that's provided whether it's in rent-controlled stock or non-rent-controlled stock. i understand the limitations, but i think we can work on a grandfathering of 1%, 3%, 5%, something like that, if that's feasible to the board. thank you. >> and more importantly, having looked at that a little bit, feasible for the city attorneys. so a little complicated -- >> i think the devil is in the details but we're willing to work on that to see what we can do to provide that capacity, because i hate to see good people seeking housing be displaced when it's been provided for years for them. like a lot of the professors at sf state stay at park merced and they're only there for a nine-month tenure.

if they want to stay, they're under rent control. >> thank you. i'm sensitive to that issue. while we're having this conversation, i have to say i had a graduate student, intern last summer, who went and got some of these contracts. this is, by the way, in no means to your organization, but some of these online business models actually, illegally and in contravention of the eviction protection controls that exist under local law actually had staying beyond the ilo term as a just-cause for eviction in the contract. and i just want to put that out there because anybody who is doing that should stop doing that because it's illegal. >> we have to control over the creative tech industry. >> there is that, thank you. [ laughter ] >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm lisa aubrey and i'm a resident of district 5 and a long-time rent-control tenant. indulge me for a moment in an exercise. how many times a week do you busy supervisors go out to eat or engage the services of a restaurant or a cafe? i would waive wager you do so d. our local restaurants are struggling to stay in business. my partner is the director of operations for state bird provisions and the progress restaurant and they have a staff of over 120 employees. they're looking to expand

restaurant spaces but a land on this local, thriving business is turn-over of their employees because their employees cannot find affordable housing. restaurant workers can make a decent living but cannot pay the rent. so i would ask you to consider that, the primary drag on these restaurants' financial viability, the constant turnover of their workforce and i support supervisor peskin's legislation and i ask you to please consider and help the local workers and the small local businesses protect our existing rent-controlled housing. we need your help. thank you. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> good afternoon, i'm brook turner with the coalition for better housing. supervisor peskin, i'm one of

the people who worked with supervisor haliman, supervisor chang, you and many others of the years on the subject and i really do appreciate your efforts to address the needs of folks, including those of rental property owners who may be using this opportunity to rent their units. (please stand by)

most of it is not going to corporate housing, whoever might be coming in and renn -- rents up ten buildings. most of them are coming to new tenants of san francisco. most are for people who wish to rent for less than a year. but most all of them are for at least six months. so you have this sweet spot where people say i'm going to go to san francisco, i'm going to try it, i'm going to make my way, but i can't find it to sign a lease for a year, so often they will do for six months. so those people we want to make sure they have a place to go as well. we appreciate your thoughtful amendments, and the idea of having some flexibility for the good actors and those who have acted responsibly in the past.

thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. if i can find my gavel. so i have distributed the two amendments that i discussed to my colleagues and would like to adopt those amendments and continue this item to our next meeting next week, moved by supervisor safai, and if there's no objection, we will take those amendments. next week i would like to consider further amendments to guide the planning commission relative to the c.u. criteria at the commission everything from geographic sensitivity, building typology and previous operating practices were discussed.

i'm looking forward to hearing more from the community as well as the landlord community and my colleagues about what those c.u. considerations should look like in the intervening week. and with that, the item is amended and continued. madame clerk, can you read the next item? >> item 4 is a hearing on the implementation of the november 2018 ballot measure, proposition f, tenant right to counsel which guarantees any tenant a right to counsel in an eviction matter. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair peskin. when we started the process of drafting proposition f, which was the ground breaking 2018 ballot measure to guarantee a right to counsel to any tenant in san francisco facing eviction from their home, we were