Permanent for the rest of our existence if we see this project underway and the adus start to tomato take off well revisit the issue of affordability but to get the plane off the runway it is not just enough inform allow things to happen we have to incentivize them my next stooping step not to sit down but to try to encourage people to actually take advantage of this opportunity shortterm rentals controls i agree i think often of the trip you and i took around the neighborhood and the hoteling of the buildings in the striblth and what a problem that is the good news that those new units are going to be sub respectable to all the rent control units but we dont believe need to add more controls by the way controls will already be there as we ramp up to be effective in reducing the hoteling of our rental units it applies to those units right now the law you must be a permanent residents of the unit in order to rent out all the Lease Agreement between the Property Owners exist those apply and the commercial conversion question the interesting thing right now none of us time our prime commercial space converted to the residential unit i ask that question about this legislation the first thing that is important to think about right now if youre in a building without a density limit issue i can convert commercial to residential right now we dont have restrictions that is a its impossible but to supervisor wieners point it generally didnt happen the reason it didnt happen you cant make as much money off an residential apartment like the commercial rates theyre higher and once you converted a commercial space to residential you cant go back for someone to say i think ill convert my storefront into a residential unit you have to take less rent and be reynolds theyre not due to state law and not change our mind the incentives are not great as a commissioner lee said r sxhpd we have another rent control controls in place as we investigated it was decided it was probably not a big issue if it turns out to be well reinvest the concerns son the cap of new units the number of units are capped by practical physical conditions really the envelope of the building you can only add as many units as sit inside the exist envelope this is important it touches on a concern a number of people you have to meets Building Code so not a 4 by 4 square feet room and call it anpartment but need to meet egress and other Building Code so the envelope of the building and those Building Codes are by their nature going to restrict the number of units we can add what we have in district 3 a large apartment buildings that were built in the first half of the century when space was rare and people were building massive boiler rooms and some of those are looking tasty as apartment sites one of the things that made me push right now under current code pertains can add bedrooms to existing units and theyre doing it right now that means this precious space theyre allowing Property Owners to creatinine thousand dollars apartment when we could be addressing additional dwelling units were passing up that opportunity everyday since the haste for the legislation parking question thats another tough one i agree because with parking at some you premium hard to imagine we have to find space for more people that may or may not have cars thats an issue to supervisor wieners point one of the great things about the units were not talking about all of a sudden putting 2 hundred units in one spot but likely to be dispersed throughout spaed out and as mentioned we are already the district with the few it number of cars in the district and strategical the people that are moving into the neighborhood now are much less likely to own cars then the people that live there we have some help bus the main thing about the park we at the board of supervisors cant control that the mta controls that we canned do that so again, we can make changes down the line but at this time any goal to do this sensible thing weve talked about in the last decade to take the sensible step forward and if we need to evaluate it well adjust it but i think the boyd message if we dont have to just holds hearings and carry signs and protest and ring our hands and write articles and blogs there are things we can do about it little steps and this is one of them it make sense that is why i was grood to champion it im glad for supervisor wieners leadership in helping and i certainly hope we can support that and get it done. Thank you supervisor kim. Thank you and supervisor christensen thank you for your comments obtain a number of amendments requested by members of the public i the have one question and then i want to raise some issues ive raised before without accessory dwelling units in law legislation not only the ones before us i have a question on one of the issues that came up about removing from the notification requirement i guess this is those that are increasing dwelling units and raising up to 3 additional feet so the heights are suitable for residential use on the ground floors this type of proximity will be exempt from the notification requirement of 311 and 12 i know concerns came up that the neighborhoods want notification on those types of changes and im curious as to why that exemption is in the owners and supervisor wiener. So the owners and i believe this is identical to the 311 castro legislation and the seismic legislation the 311 it has a 311 nose and people can file a discretionary review but ill ask the Planning Department to comment on the substance. The increase height provisions only listed under the seismic retrofit adu so the 311 exception it allowing the height increase that is available through the Building Code already to move forward out notification it only applies to the seismic adu program. Thank you for that i believe if im not mistaken that is has nothing to do with with the seismic there can be a slight change of the notification. I remembered that in the other legislation this is consistent that the seismic legislation so any additional changes sorry the exception from the 311 notification were providing in the planning code to go along iowa in the height increase to move forward without an notification. Specifically. So the Building Code allows if the building is going to the seismic retrofitting to increase the height and basically in provision says if youre adding. Unit an adu in the building then you dont have to do the 311. 311 or 312 so this is consistent with previous ordinances. Correct it is clarification on the previous ordinance. Madam chair if i may this has to do with the contradiction you can raise the height. It is to accommodate the height to make sure it is to insure the height of the residential unit is appropriate as well. Correct so it allows nonconforming buildings. Thank you so i want to make a couple of specific comments but want to acknowledge that is protective in other districts not only in 3 and 8 in general that we should be careful about allowing adus within the acd and russ the ground floor commercial i heard from the author that they felt this is very difficult given the lucrative nature of the commercial versus residential ill support a prohibition of adus added workplace the boundaries of the adus i want to be respect but i wanted to state that a couple of other things i side think that the two levels of adus between 3 and h should be consistent and given the fact that is so relative new ill support the lower number so on supervisor wieners ordinance before us limiting it to one and 2 and think this make sense and finally ill say i do think a monitoring requirement is important i understand we have not had a lot of Property Owners take advantage of the legislation thats why we dont have a report yet but im curious as those owners go into effect the number of people that take advantage of that and the outcomes of that now moving to what i consider to more citywide issues concerning the legislation ive brought that up with supervisor chiu and supervisor wiener with the inlaw units or accessory unit primarily the adu a couple of things i would like to make a motion to amend the first this is consistent with the chiu legislation last year the current ordinances should be consistent with item 6 and 5 and we should restrict subdividing those units to convert to other fact shunned ownership to increase the housing supplying supply i know that increasing the housing supply similar to what we saw in commissioner crews legislation id like to make a motion to amend that subdivision and lots prohibited and have the language of commissioner crews narng the subdivision code with the lyft lot of an accessory units that allows for a adu sold or separately fwindz a condo coach or a separate ownership again i think that is important to the consistent and also your message were neurology the supply of reeled we should stick it that there was a comment about mergers prohibiting the mergers post fact i need more time ill not support this today and the Second Amendment that id like to make a motion to prohibit the construction of adus in my buildings where tenants are displaced by ellis act and third something i tried most rent controls with the supervisor wieners legislation adding a provision prohibiting adu for shortterm rentals those are the 3 amendments im introducing we can take them one by one. Before we take that motion i have an issue for the City Attorneys OfficeCity Attorneys Office and well have discussion on the motion can you opine how youll protect units from airbnb . A comment ive heard during. One of the commenters was interested in some protections simply those units will not be on the airbnb market is there an opinion you have on that deputy City Attorney mirena burns i dont have an opinion to the policy ramifications but certainly, if those are turned into independent dwelling units for the shortterm rentals legislation that is found in chapter four 1 ab administrative code and under the code the permanent residents of the unit as long as they meet the requirements can offer their unites for shortterm rental currently in the unit they can do it for an urban limited dazed but not only 90 days we are jr. Those units are a not treated under that legislation if they became dwelling unit but only the permanent shortterm rentals can only be applied. Thank you very much question i have a question for the Planning Department and it is my question related to parking now in listening to the decision and the reading of the legislation one of the things that was flagged from any perspective we got adus theyre coming openly and the people going to be potentially renting them could or not have a cars the sponsors acknowledged they have the lowest car ownership im curious to know if there is a way to introduce our prohibition on allowing residential parking permits to those new adus from my prospective it seems like it will furtheres bat the parking congestion that exists in the neighborhood. You know ill have to defer to the City Attorney on whether or not you can add that but not in the planning code it part of the department of traffic. Youre right i should have addressed it to ms. Burns. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns under the charter the jurisdiction over parking is with the San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency agencies so this board cant make an amendment to restrict the parking permits for the residents of those units not it is within the jurisdiction of the mta. Thank you supervisor wiener. Thank you. Are you puc to the motions. Yes. The court thank you, very much. Madam chair, i want to just address the 3 amendments that supervisor kim has promoted proposed first respect to shortterm rentals and thank you, madam chair for asking that question these units they will be Housing Units like all the existing inlaw units in the city thirty or 40 thousand of them or or a apartments or house the same restrictions if youre lifethreatening in an existing new mexicos been existing for a eliminator your subject u subject to the restriction you you have to live in the unit threequarters of a year and the insurance and refrigerator and pay a tax those are subject to the same restrictions i dont think that it would be good policy to say one category of heirs is treated differently with shortterm rentals than the rest of the housing unit i understand the concern if someone might create a new inlaw unit and use it as a shortterm rentals fulltime thats illegal should be illegal i know in the legislation we passed and some of the marries recently decisions were increasing the enforcements and didnt matter if it is an inlaw unit or singlefamily home we need to enforce the law it is not the right direction to restrict the shortterm rentals and moving it anymore than any other unit in the city in terms of the condo conversion band that was raised when we skrtd the castro in law legislation the concern that we already make it in the not easy to create a unites you have to go through the planning process and the Building Code process come up with a certain amount of time money and some buildings have less expensive you can is a discretionary review authorization to the Planning Commission a lot of hurdles but we want them to go through the hurdles if we say we want you to build those units and make you go through this process and pay all this money and your award is that your permanently band from the condolence conversion lottery if someone has no intent to do that people will not want the restriction on the building we already reconstructed it, it is band for 10 years it will be a shadow it will apply to fewer building and have a higher owner occupancy requirement there is not the issue but if we we want to make sure we dont get those unite built then that will be a good direction is we want to see the units built in terms of restricting adding an adu if you have an eviction i would be supportive of having that restrictions for ellis act but not supportive for buy outs as we discussed in the beauty legislation there are beauties are abusive but ill accept that for the ellis act. Supervisor kim is indicating shell be willing to amends that to include limiting the ellis act evictions. I appreciate that supervisor wiener i will amend my exactly motion to limit it to prohibit the construction of adus where tenants have been displaced by ellis act eviction my first motion to amend and the third, i wanted to add a few more comments i dont think i talked about enough b why i want to prohibit the adus but a capture things in this is my concern of in law and career ray being permitted they have the same addresses and this is more common in other parts of the district youre not talking about units but singlefamily homes and inlaw unit the main homeownership will use their address and say they live there fulltime to 365 and year and doing unlimited hosted nights now if in their inlaw unit and no tenants that is challenging for the Planning Department to determine based on the address thats is before you where there is a tenants or are thats my concern of the legislation thats why we should state the adus are really for permanent tenants and not shortterm rentals my worry that will be a fulltime rental given the address is confusing and it will be hard to enforce now for the third time ill ask on the First Amendment i appreciate supervisor wieners comment we amended our process there will be a point in time it will be difficult to do condominium conversion but the comments supervisor wiener that not a lot of people will take advantage if we cant condo convert it makes we worry about were passing the legislation to increase the units on the market now people are not going to do it if at some point to turn it both a condos we should put my first motion to prohibit subdividing those units to fractureized units i want to do the motions to amendment 1, 2, 3 but i wanted to express why i put forward those motions. Supervisor wiener. Thank you, madam chair and the complafrgsz supervisor kim with the shortterm rentals and the separated address i think that is may be true with all off the of the illegal units my understanding of the process where you create a housing unit whether a brand new building or adding a legal adu into an existing you automatically receive an address not my understanding you cant create a legal between in San Francisco without being assigned an address yes people can lie and cheat and try in a lot of areas in life and someone could buy a little and say i live there 20th century and 65 days a year i think we should treat all the Housing Stock the same after going through several years of challenging and complicated efforts to regulate shortterm rentals and a ballot measure that didnt require and restrict shortterm rentals if it pass it should apply to all Housing Units in terms of condominium conversion i was not signifying people will do this to go into the condo lottery but polling people convert they know theyll be around for 50 or how many owners and owners after that i think that people are hesitant to put permanent restrictions on the prompt of no intent to go got condo lottery i want to give the deputy City Attorneys the time to compromise in outlet ellis act restrictions theres a number of years well have or the prohibition has remained in take for a certain amount of years my understanding to not vital the ellis act to ms. Burdens can you comment. Yes. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns through the chair he wanted to comment on all 3 properties in terms of referring back to the Planning Commission and wla whether theyll need another hearing at Planning Department they didnt consider the proposal that will require a referral to the Planning Commission to consider that and give a recommendation with regard to the ellis act amendment our proposing needs another hearing well into custody 80 need to provide the committee and the full board is aware interest is Nightmare Court bays cases on the ellis act and our ability to restrict the use of property related to the ellis act so we need cautionary advise and another Committee Hearing ill recommend the quell youre asking that the ellis act amendment that have been in the boards legislation have been times restricted thats because both to make them respective Going Forward from today, i recommend you only committed the ellis act that includes today or hear their none notice the ellis act violation is a legal listing a dwelling inlaw unit and have it be time restricted like 5 years and the reasoning for that is that we want to avoid the issue of looking like were punishing someone that went into the ellis act that was w wasnt on in his like legal listing an accessory between you want to put people on notice not to create an scaresy dwelling unit so they can ellis act it thats one concern and in terms of the prohibition on shortterm rentals i think that will require another Committee Hearing but not referred back the Planning Commission and ms. Burdens for example right now that is been this way for a decade under the condos lottery ordinance or is subdivision or lottery if you ellis acted a building your banned from the condolence lottery it a permanence if you ellis act a senior or disabled that make sense to remedy indicate that provision im curious i cant recall off the top of my head if so 5 or 10 years. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns through the chair im not fall with the language but the languages that was recently proposed as amendments to the shortterm rentals legislation and that had language that said in the ellis act eviction had occurred after the date we used there was november of 2014 because thats when that amendment went into effect so any ellis act eviction that happens after monday, july 20, 2015, and a 5 years thereafter, those properties will not be able to legalize an accessory dwelli