I want to apologize for starting this meeting 15 minutes late, first time it has ever been started late, but such are things in the time of love and coronavirus. We are joined by our vicechair supervisor ahsha safai, our clerk is ms. Erica major who has some special announcements that have not been heard before. Ms. Major. Due to to declaration of local emergency related to the Novel Coronavirus disease and the Subsequent Health order, we are asking all attendees of the meeting to maintain at least four feet of physical space between yourself and others. Hash your hands regularly for at least 20 seconds and try to avoid touching highvolume surfaces as much as possible. Madame clerk, could you please read item 2 out of order . Yes. In addition be sure to silence your cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards and documents are to be included part of the file should be submitted to the clerk and items acted on today will appear on the march 17 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Item 2 is a resolution affirming the citys continued good faith ofs to acquire the pg e assets necessary to provide clean, green and Affordable Electric power delivery and service in San Francisco. Colleagues, this is something that has been a matter of policy attention by this body now for depending on how you count it, 20 years or certainly the last 14 months. This is a joint effort between the chief executive officer mayor london breed, the board of supervisors and the Public Utilities commission as well as the City Attorneys office. Tomorrow there is a joint closed session meeting, the first of its kind in my memory between the puc commission and the board of supervisors in this chamber at 4 00 p. M. This is a resolution as the clerk just said, affirming the citys support for the acquisition of pg e assets in the city and county of San Francisco, contingent on certain conditions. And we have voted on many similar resolutions up until now. But as we go into this joint meeting with the p. U. C. And as the p. U. C. Has on their calendar a very similar, almostite cal, resolution, that they are scheduled almost identical resolution that they are scheduled to vote on tomorrow afternoon, i wanted to bring this to the committee and subject to our deliberations and Public Comment, send this to the full board of supervisors as a committee report. The language should not be new to any of us except for maybe supervisor preston, which recites the history of the provision of Electrical Service to San Francisco since 1913, and to public facilities in the city since 1918. Goes onto elucidate the letter dated 14 months ago by mayor breed asking our p. U. C. To analyze options for ensuring safe and reliable Electrical Services within the city including the possible acquisition of pg e assets for distribution and transmission. The request for a report from the p. U. C. That we have previously discussed subsequent actions by this board and the p. U. C. Including a 2. 5 billion indication of interest to pacific gas and electric and subsequently the additional approval two months ago of resolution 3020, which approved the issuance of over 3 billion of Revenue Bonds for a potential acquisition. The resolution that is cosponsored by supervisor ronen further sets out our priority, a number of them related to financial stability, support for utility workforces community and worker safety, Climate Change prevention and mitigation strategies, affordability and equity, operational excellence, improved service to city departments. And with that, ms. Barbara hail from the p. U. C. Is here if you have any questions. If you do not, then i do not see any of your names on the roster, i would like to open this up to Public Comment. Dont all run down here at once. Ms. Chapman, as to item number 2. Item 1 has not yet been called but will be called shortly. Is there anything you would like to add to what i just said . Okay. Seeing no Public Comment, seeing no comment from p. U. C. Staff, Public Comment is closed. Can we make a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation moved by supervisor safai . Can we take that, supervisor preston, without objection . And i assume your motion is to send it as a committee report. That will be the order. Madame clerk, i am awaiting some amendments to item number 1, which is why we started 15 minutes late. Those amendments are not yet before me. So i would like to take a brief recess as to item number 1, when it is called, actually madame clerk, please call item 1. Item 1 is an ordinance amending the planning code to create the intermediate length occupancy residential use characteristic; amending the administrative code to clarify existing law regarding the enforceability of fixedterm leases in rental units covered by the just cause protections of the residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance prohibit the use of rental units for temporary occupancies by nontenants require landlords to disclose in advertisements for such units that the units are subject to the rent ordinance, and authorize enforcement through administrative and or civil penalties; requiring the controller to conduct a study to analyze the impacts of new intermediate length occupancy units in the city; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority i want to thank City Attorney for preparing those. I apologize for the fact that we are 15 minutes late in convening. If theres no objection, colleagues, i would like to recess this meeting for why dont we say until 2 00 p. M. . Is that enough time . I think eight minutes should be sufficient, i believe. So if we can recess until 2 00 p. M. , without objection, were in we will reconvene the land use land use and Transportation Committee for today, march 9, 2020. I am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin. I would like to thank you, colleagues and members of the public for your indulgence as we needed to recess as to item number 1 that has already been called pending the receipt of some amendments, which subject to our deliberation of Public Comment, i would like to introduce today and continue so there will be plenty of opportunity for the public and interested parties to review them and comment on them at a subsequent meeting. So let me at a high level, go through the amendments that are before you as to what we used to call Corporate Housing legislation, we are now calling intermediatelength occupancy or i. L. O. Legislation. The First Amendment would make it clear, remember the earlier version said that in building typologies of nine or less units, 25 of them would be eligible for an i. L. O. Unit, which i think colleagues on this committee and members of the public were seeking clarification on as it relates to dwelling units of fewer than four, ie, ones twos and threes and the amendment that im offering today would clarify that so that administrator and the board of appeals would not need to wrestle with it, and that clearly states that under four i. L. O. S would not be permitted. It reorganized some of the requirements into information required for any application. Some of these criteria are with regard to identifying which unit within a building would be an i. L. O. , include proof of no building or housing code violations, and sets forth different obligations for buildings depending on the number of dwelling units. It includes most importantly conditional use criteria and there continues to be a place holder for the cap and colleagues, in our earlier conversations, and i just want to let you know where i intend to continue moving this legislation, there has been some interest in grandfathering historic practices in larger buildings that can be proven. So the amendments ill be working on in the intervening week if you should continue this, would dill diehl with that. And the city would deal with that. And the City Attorney, as i said, whether these amendments are substantive in nature or not in so far as they are being continued for a week, there will be plenty opportunity for you and the public to comment. With that, i would like to open this up per Public Comment. And can make a copy of the amendments available to any member of the public. And with that, supervisor safai. So one of the things that i heard last, and i appreciate all the hard work, supervisor, i would like to talk more about the grandfathering. I think thats an important conversation. But the one i want to start with is under four units. I think one of the things we heard is some of the people that had invested and spent time and worked with converting a particular space in their building, in a small unitsized building to operate under this, not sure if they are really the focus of your legislation. I think that in terms of what i heard you say, a lot of what you were trying to account for are bad actors in large Apartment Buildings and rentcontrolled buildings. So these are the small operators. And i had gotten intention or hearing that we were going in a direction of potentially exempting them or giving them a pathway to continue to operate. And i think that that is still worthy conversation to have. Thank you, supervisor safai, for those Public Policy comments and observations. I think the question that we as policy makers have to wrestle with is to the extent that once this industry is betterregulate betterregulated, where will i. L. O. S be pushed to . And i think part of the reason im making this amendment is because you i dont think we want them actually pushed into smaller building typologies, which are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods and lead to a quality of life and a measure of neighborhoods staying intact. And that is actually the policy concern and consideration that i have in making this amendment, which by the way, is actually a clarification, because that same policy concern is what led to the notion of 25 of buildings less than 10 units. So i was concerned, and mr. Sanchez, we have not heard from yet, and thank you for spending your afternoon with us, actually brought to my attention that we might want to clarify that, so just doing simple math, 25 of four is 1, and 25 of 3 or less does not produce you one unit. So i wanted to clarify that. But im also concerned about to the extent that we ultimately regulate this in larger building typologies, that it ends up pushing people out where a lot of speculation and gent if i ration has happened in smaller gentrification has happened in smaller building typologies. Im open to more policy dialogue about it. Can i talk about it . Because my district, my part of town has 2s and 1s. And a lot of the people that would partake in this type of event are people that are visiting nurses, people that are in the film industry. They might not necessarily part of the people that are going to take advantage of the or have the ability or income to afford the more corporate high end. I understand your concern if you are taking away one, you might engender a growth in another area, and i think thats why as policy makers, it helps us to work with the Planning Department and get an idea of what the overall number is in a particular market. I wouldnt want to make it not operable altogether. I think we should come up with something, and then if it ends up becoming something a problem that needs to be regulated, we can continue to revisit. But to take away that optional together for a small time, you know, one of the people that came was a mother and hay had gone through the process of investing in their house so they can have shortterm rentals, and she said these are people that are nurses, academia, all these other things, they dont have the desire to have longterm or even short term. And supervisor, as im carefully and publicly honing and crafting with you and various interested parties and members of the public, this legislation, do you you just made an argument for Single Family homes, you made an argument for twounit buildings. Are you making an argument for threes . Im not necessarily. I think two or less is probably that is extremely helpful. Supervisor preston, anything you want to weigh in on . Just to the extend that were talking about smaller buildings, whether they are twos or threes, where the units, and these are older buildings, a lot of those are already subject to the rent control exemption. So i dont know if theres newer Housing Stock that may not be subject to those but are smaller buildings where the distinction may be more relevant. You could go through the process of adding an a. D. U. , for example, and maybe you are using it that way initially. That could be an example where youve added an addition. Although my policy objective is as much as we can to add more permanent housing, right . And i think we are having that debate on the shortterm rental side. A threeunit building, i think its harder to make that argument because its a threeunit building and you are taking a complete unit off the market. If you have a threeunit and you add that additional unit, then you fall under the category, and i see that happen a lot. Someone take the grand floor, go through the process, and then if they want to fall into this category they have a pathway to do it. Im not as concerned about the threes. Im concerned more of the twos and the ones, and i think that youre probably going to have a situation where theres people that have already done it and have been doing it, and those are the ones im concerned about rather than engendering or encouraging to do more. So if we think about the right way to approach that, you know, that would be my preference. And i know this is a small piece of your overall legislation, which by the way, kudos for putting in the time and effort and energy. I think that some of these newer buildings that might not necessarily pencil under this market where people have come up with the idea we are going to go 100 corporate rental, i think that is not what anyone of us want in San Francisco, whether its market rate or not, we dont want an entire Apartment Building to turn into corporate rentals, so taking that off the table, i think thats the right policy approach. Having us look at four to nine unit buildings which certain percentage, i think thats the right approach. Looking at an overall number, i think thats a good approach. I know a number of those will probably be operating outside of the parameters under which so that number will come down. And then maybe with grandfathering, we hit the sweet spot. Very helpful comments from both of my colleagues. Mr. Sanchez, anything you want to add that you have not said before as we continue to evolve this piece of legislation . Why dont we open this up for Public Comment . Ms. Chapman. And thank you again for your patience. Public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 1 . Ms. Chapman, you expressed an interest earlier when we were speaking about the other item. The floor is yores. The floor is yores. Linda chapman. Im speaking for knob hill neighbors. We were fighting the cannibalization of rentcontrolled housing for shortterm rentals and so on. I know you have a separate bill on that. I dont know what the contents are. I want to find out and make sure that it didnt make things worse than the piece of legislation we actually passed and it wasnt even thrown out by court. It was undone by ellis barclay, because in the City Attorneys office, and she could do it. And i was too damn stupid, as i was saying to tom the other day, sometimes my stupidity amazes me, that i didnt go to harry brit and carol silver and said you passed it, the mayor signed it, what is this . Lets get them back. More than ive opinion able to get about the s. R. O. Legislation which i still hope to. And i dont know who we hope to consult. The people who used to be on harrys advisory committee, for example, i dont know if you have something similar. Its really a good idea that you are looking at this middle bucket, which is something we werent looking at before. I have some concern, it might just be if i were able to ask like i did back in the day, we would say what about this, have you thought about that and so on. We could clarify. I would want to know, for example, would people be evicted if they were, these were not rentcontrolled buildings, are they protected by the state law from being evicted if people go turn them into this and also if people have written agreements that are not with the tenant but written agreements all right. And other things. Thank you, ms. Chapman. Are there any other members of the public or the interested affected community that would like to comment . Seeing none, we will close Public Comment. Colleagues, if we can adopt the aforementioned amendments that are before you and continue this item one week, i would greatly appreciate that. Make a motion to continue. Excuse me, to accept the amendments as proposed for this item and continue the item for one week. Supervisor safai has made a motion to accept the amendments and continue this item one week as amended. We will do that without objection, and there is no more business before this committee, and we are adjourned. [please stand by] the San FranciscoHealth Service system board will come to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right. Madam secretary, roll call, please. [roll call]