[gavel] >> good afternoon. and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, march 2nd, 2020. i am the chair of the committee aaron peskin, joined to my right by vice chair and to my left committee member supervisor pressin. our clerk is miss erica major. miss major, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: please shake sure to silence all cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the march 10th board

of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> could you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes, number one amending the planning code to create the immediate length, occupancy, use characteristic, amending the administrative code, and affirming the appropriate findings. >> chair peskin: colleagues, we heard this item last week. and we heard robust public comment. i have since gotten quite a bit of public input. let me start by asking if there are any members of the public who would like to comment on this item, which i would like to subsequently make a motion to continue to next week's meeting. is there any public comment on our one and only item on this agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] mr. sanchez from the department of city planning, please come forward. >> thank you, supervisor. just like to reiterate the planning commission recommendation that interim controls be placed upon the

activity, providing the city time to gather data on iol and to hammer out a complete and consistent set of permanent controls. there are some concerns with the latest version of the ordinance, for example, lacks an explicit mechanism for i.l.o. in buildings with nine dwelling units or less, to quote unquote register to legalize and count against the 1,000 cap limit. regulating i.l.o.s much like regulating short-term rentals and that it needs dedicated resources to be successful. we would be looking for some resources to do that. outreach to property owner, informing them of the new restraints on the use of the property is yet to be done. we'd like some clarity on how we should go about that. and enforcement may be problematic. two examples that come to mind, the ordinance asks the planning department to regulate tenant leases to assure that only a natural person occupies an

i.l.o. the plan department doesn't get involved in private agreements. this is something unusual and out our purview. enforcement may lead to evictions when i.l.o. is going done in a zoning district that prohibits. these concerns are being voiced and hopes that time is allotted to address them, in the fashion the planning commission recommended. thank you for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. sanchez. mr. star, anything you would like to add? okay. so public comment is closed. with regard to the issues that were raised on behalf of the department of city planning, let me say this about that. there are a number of areas that we need to hone. the 25% of nine or less or less than ten is one of them. there are a number of other areas. certainly what mr. sanchez raised around enforcement and

staff resources and didn't raise another open area about what conditions of approval and what findings need to be made, that's something that also needs to be honed. relative to the issue about the department of planning being involved in private agreements between landlords and tenants, i'll get to this in a second. i think that largely would fall into the realm of the rent stabilization board. so i'll get to this in a second. i'd like to convene a couple of meetings in the week between now and next monday. relative to the notion that mr. sanchez raised, that enforcement of i.l.o. could lead to unintended evictions, i take

exception to that. because i don't believe that -- what this legislation fundamentally does is it distinguishes, by definition -- what the legislation further does is thwart some of the bad and, indeed, illegal practices that are already set forth in the rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance in chapter 37, which make it abundantly clear that any natural person, who has been in a building for more than a month, has a right. so i don't really see how this notion, unless you can prove it to me, going to say that it is a scare tactic, could lead to unintended evictions. and i'll give you the opportunity to talk to that,

mr. sanchez. to my colleagues and members of the public, here's what i would like to do in the intervening week, if you would be so kind as to allow me to continue this. one, and i said this at our last hearing, i don't think in the 20 years that i've been on or off the board of supervisors i've ever been contacted by so many lobbyists on behalf of so many different institutions and corporations that have interests in this legislation. it is my intention, rather than them peppering me and my chief of staff, with one-offs, to bring them all into the same room, at the same time and figure out which of their concerns are public policy responsible. which of them are less so, which

of them require some thought and consideration. i intend to do that with city attorneys present. and my competent staff present. and mr. sanchez or mr. star, you are welcome to join us, as is mr. collins from the rent board. subsequently, in a second meeting, i am going to go forward with whatever comes out of that meeting to the tenant advocates, who have for decades advocated for legislation like this. and i intend to come back next monday with a set of amendments, that deal with the cap, that deal with pre-existing i.l.o.s in pre-1979 housing and deal with the less than ten unit issue. mr. sanchez, would you like to speak to the only issue where you and i have potentially

disagreement. >> yeah. i think the concern was in the case of i.l.o.s in the buildings with less than ten units, if you're in there doing it in a building with two units and you happen to lease one out and then it's discovered that you can't do it because there's a 25% cap, potentially this person could have found out in month two of a nine-month lease and now they're on the streets. these are concerns. we want time to hammer out and let folks know about this. >> totally get it. by the way, just relative to any existing leases that i.l.o.s, whether they're zeus, or whoever, they have my policy intention is to let them expire. all right. seeing no further comment from city folks, public comment is closed. and colleagues, if you will

indulge me, i would like to make a motion to continue this item one week and we'll do that with -- >> question. >> chair peskin: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: miss chair, just given what you just described in terms of putting everyone in a room, tenant advocates and all of that, do you think one week is enough? >> chair peskin: no, i'd like to hold my heat to the fire. >> supervisor safai: makes sense. >> chair peskin: yeah. when it's ready to prime time, it's ready. nothing better than a deadline and with that, we will continue the item to next week. and we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> chairwoman: good morning, everyone, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the march 2, 2020, meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my right is captain