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 subdividi 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 dwelling unit something along those are lines we can come up with better language. It will apply to ellis act evicts that are noticed today and if the ellis act once ellis act is trirgd when i the owner than a period of x number of years youll not been able to add the adu that was 5 years in the shortterm rentals into supervisor campos and supervisor farrell proposed. Yes. It was 5 years. It was 5 years in both of the legislation. My recollection of the condo lottery i think 5 years maybe 10 years for the length of the band if ive done awning ellis act i thought that was permanent if youre a senior disabled evicted under the ellis act i cant recall with certainty. All right. Thank you very much seeing none next is supervisor christensen. Thank you i certainly appreciate the concerns as i said niagara anything we do deserves a lot of scrutiny by i hear supervisor kim some of your concern is currently covered by restriction such as a shortterm rentals some of it is not an immediate issue in case of catalytic i hope we can address the immediate issues were about to hear on item after this one in which restrictions were passed years ago to respond to a particular condition the guidelines and changes to the Building Code were extremely narrow and extremely rigid and difficult to change what happened the circumstances changes but the regulations didnt we end up with restrictions that boxed us in as conditions changed over time this is something were in an interesting juncture were looking at where we will be in 5, 1015 years i want to marry this is reasonably enforced we leave enough room for changes to come some of the changes were worried about are either covered legally or probably not likely to happen one thing supervisor kim you and i share our district have the greatest difference in transmittals i have a lot of small cottages but we say highrises we talked to Property Owners addressed Planning Department the absorptions that most of those changes are likely to occur in the corridors p there are last year building stockton and pine and bush sutter those types of areas and you know the Telegraph Hill for example the residential units that are less likely to be effected probably and so weve generally tried to focus on making sure this work for a larger apartment buildings we feel in the district is most likely to our and use of units are probably less significant than they might be lets say if this is applied to the we were western neighborhoods. Thank you supervisor kim. I want to proficient or presented but dont want to treat attendance different i didnt support one legislation my concern with adu is around the ability for hoernz and Property Owners to be in the system and Property Owners id like to hear more about that maybe the department of building inspection can walk through how theyre assigned an address and in that arena id like to hear about that in the meantime i want to keep the amendment with amendment number 2 anl evictions any incision to be that we prohibit the construction of adus in any building where the taenltsz are displaced by the ellis act in the last 10 years sorry for 10 years not 5 now i want to keep anothers retrofit tilt over the week we decide donate not illegal permissible or questionable next he monday well bring it back as ms. Burns School District i dont agree we can be retrofit and up to 10 years weve done it already so my motion ill make my motion for the second piece prohibiting the construction of adus for tenants that have been displaced by the ellis act for 10 years. Lets go motion by motion. Thats referred to a motion youve heard the motion by supervisor kim any further discussion. Supervisor wiener. If the eviction as outdoor within 10 years with the adu is applied for im not sure what the 10 years is for. You cant constrict an adu for 10 years. After an ellis act eviction and after an ellis act restriction. Ill support that in terms of retrofit activity i assume well get size from the City Attorney my understanding we typically have not mating made a retrofit but the supervisors daily and others that are clearly no friends of the ellis act and so i think theres a legal reason for that i want to make sure we know that this legislation will hold up in court so the deputy City Attorney well get legal advice. Thank you deputy City Attorney mirena burns dactylothrough the chair the reason for prospective not retrofit noted punitive on people that wouldnt have known there is a restriction if they ellis acted their units. Through the chair i believe there is legislation weve promoted that retroactively but during the week well explore it. Well take that without objection. That motion passes all right. Supervisor kim could i make our second. Sure my second motion is actually just literally lifting this permissible provision from supervisor chiu which is to lgbt adus or requiring adus to be permanently maintained as right lanes for individual sale. Any financial discussion. So that amendment is a little bit different than before i assumed this to be a band on the entering the condo lottery through the chair sxm is the amendment also to say that an owner cant reside in one of the adus it has to be rented. No, im sorry it is a conversion of units to ownership i see what youre saying if the owner moves in theyll own the unit ill clarify to prohibit the condominium conversion or fractional ownership through a separate owner. As the reasons ive stated ill not support in amendment i dont think it is a good idea to take one class of buildings and a as theyre treating it different weve scaled back the condo lottery back to lifetime in the were going to tell owners in addition to the owners the money to build an adu well permanent band this building from the condo lottery is not the right direction. Ill be voting for this amendment and probably have a different mindset supervisor wiener i believe that all the housing unit we shouldnt be treating all rh1 and rh2 housing equally they are different ava different sdorn so ill be supporting that. To the deputy City Attorney this will cause both pieces of legislation referred to the Planning Commission am i correct. Yes. My understanding the Planning Commission didnt consider this. My request then to supervisor cowen or the maker is this could be introduced as trailing legislation so this is not referred to the Planning Commission one thing to a continuance but take this away from the board to the Planning Commission and basically restart the process from skach i would ask we not go down that road. I dont have a problems are supporting that as trailer legislation and yeah. Duplicating the file and send on amended version back to the Planning Department on this motion. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns you can introduce separate legislation. Id like to did you want the file and all the time one. Its my understanding we can do that. So lets take a vote on just mr. Clerk as a point of clarification take the vote and duplication the file and theres no need to take a vote on duplication that can happen within the request. Okay all right. Thank you very much our i think were clear on the motion before us lets do a roll call vote on the second motion supervisor kim and a. And a motion to amend the condo on the duplicate version not on the primer version. Thats correct. Did you get that mr. Clerk and the original version without the amendment number one will be duplicate and then well propose an amendment number 2 to the duplicate file and take a vote at this time. Thats correct. Roll call vote please. On amendment 2 supervisor wiener arrest no. Supervisor kim supervisor cohen that motion passes. The dial is duplicate and back to the Planning Commission and the other mr. Will move forward supervisor kim ask you introduce. The final will be to prohibit the adu from shortterm rentals. Any further discussion on this okay. Lets call a roll call vote on this. On amendments to amendment number 3 on that motion supervisor wiener no supervisor kim supervisor cowen that motion passes. The that motion passes. Im sorry was that on the that was on the both versions because that didnt have to go back to the Planning Commission. My understanding on the original version with amendment number one and now political amendment 3 to that one. Ms. Burden you answer supervisor wiener and thats correct they had that hearing multiple times. All right. Mr. Clerk can you please call item no. 7 please. Actually we have to act on the other line item say that again. We have to act on that item to the deputy City Attorney do those two amendments require a continuance to the land use commission. Yes. Regarding the ellis act they require another hearing. So i make a motion to continue items five and six one week. All right. Mansion made without objection. Im sorry the 5 and 6 for the unduplicate version and motion to table for one week. Continue. Continue items five and six that motion passes. And on the duplicate portion. Make a motion to the Planning Commission and weve referred to the Planning Commission. Well refer to planning. Well take that without objection. That motion passes. Mr. Clerk call number 7. Item 7 on amending the planning code to amend an restaurant or bar in the special integrity to open with the conditional use authorization provided that it meets purview to the Planning DepartmentEnvironmental Impact determination and making finding with the general plan. Thank you sxhiefshgs is the author of that item supervisor christensen the floor is yours. So that is one the restrictive situations weve talked about a large prominent location in north beach thats been vacant for 11 years it has been determined one of the reasons some of the use restrictions that are Police Station on that we think about changing those but in this case weve decided the benching best thing to a amend that and we have proposed and gotten an agreement with the Planning Commission to addresses this lot separately weve got a beloved neighborhood our local mommas restaurant is poepd to create a second restaurant in a specialist take out location there were very excited weve received overwhelming support from the indications that the neighborhood and altering another merchant welcome this the site is a blight unlisted and not having someone around it everybody is excited it in an active use in the hopes that will increases the business traffic to the surrounding businesses this was heard by the Small Business commission and they made a couple of recommendations im happy to include and if i can ask supervisor wiener assistance in this they have suggested we strike bar from restaurant and bar and on this use a restaurant we have a continuance business is allowed to occupy this space and they ask we change that from a business and Continuous Operation from one to 5 years so if the committee will accept those recommendations then ill put this for the for your approval. Supervisor christensen has made amendments before we vote we want to take Public Comment on this item please members of the public please come up for. Hi, im kevin with the Planning Department staff can i get the overhead. Im sorry, i didnt know that we had a staff presentation. For just by way of orientation this as map of the various special use districts that apply not north beach area the north beach special use district the subject of the discussion today is old in the black and yellow line ill trace here as you can see it rinses primarily along the columbus avenue and grand avenue frontals within north beach along the commercial properties as indicated this would be an amendment to the north beach sud regulations that are currently bring in a restaurant and bar that was previously occupied by service this is the case at the location proposed for that the second mommas restaurant on vallejo street that applies to two other properties provided they meet criteria so as amended this could only be amended noted by supervisor christensen the existing restaurant would have to operate within the neighborhood for 5 of the last 5 years the proposed location for a second operation will have to be a gro