Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE BOS Land Use Committee 20160201 :

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, i want to week you back to the San Francisco Land Use Transportation Committee supervisor cowen whatever of the committee and to my right is supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin now part of this committee our clerk alicia and phil jackson and jim smith is from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk, any announcements please silence all electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the february 9th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you all right. Thank you very much im going to call a few items out of order could you please call item 2. An ordinance amending the planning and Building Code for this conditional use authorization please forgive me not item 2 but item 3 first. Item 3 a resolution imposing interim controls to require the Planning Commission to require the design for the large project authorization the showcase Square Potrero Hill and central wasting area plan the author and cosponsor of this legislation id like to go ahead and discuss in item about interim Zoning District that all projects receiving the kwoufgs u conditional use authorization from the Central Waterfront and potrero hill get the design by the Planning Commission while the parklet works on the citywide planning controls it requires the Planning Commission to consider whether projects other projects have demonstrated an awareness of urban patterns it harmonize visibly as well physically with other building that are established the neighborhood in relationship is critical to the residents and also looking for harmony between the streets and open space and natural features and corridor this is a piece of paper protective i worked on with the neighbors particularly on the northern slope of potrero hill i dont know if anyone is here from the Planning Commission to speak eject seeing none, go ahead to Public Comment. Public comment is open for item 3 please step forward. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed colleagues is motion to send this with a positive recommendati recommendation. Madam chair ill be happy to make that motion and commend you for this piece of legislation and i think it actually is instructive to should be instructive to board of supervisors as were cranking out the magnificent parts of city we can and should insist on good urban design has been president ing in certain projects in that area so let that will a lesson as we could those redonalds we get the good urban design and i look forward to the interim controls. I look forward to that is that a second. So moved second. Thank you well take that without objection. Unanimously well take that without objection. Mr. Clerk item one. Number one an administrative code by the 5 hundred square feet for the development and maintenance for the scomblap water controls for the projects. Colleagues, we have a brief procreation from jumping will i and amanda from the puc to present. Good afternoon chair cohen and the members im amanda from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Administrator here to present on this item as part of background in december 2010 the board of supervisors amended chapter 63 for the landscape ordinance for the landscape ordinance for square feet after the drought last april governor jerry brown issued a state ordinance to increase water and including the ordinances applicability from one thousand to 5 thousand square feet it was approved in july and agencies must update the San Francisco public works has also updated the rules and regulations reserving the irrigation amongst the water facilities thank you for your time and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you is ms. Ortez going to present not a problem thank you very much go ahead and go to Public Comment. All right. Our favorite time of the day for item number one is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item two minutes to speak for item number one seeing none, Public Comment is closed at this time colleagues is there a motion or discussion open that item if not put your name on the list. Seeing none, may i have a motion motion made by supervisor peskin and well take that without objection. This that motion carries all right. Thank you lets see is supervisor avalos here seeing none, madam clerk item 3. Item 2. Excuse me. Item 2 an ordinance amending the Planning Commission for the removal of any residential muni building alleges and mergers for the mandate of an illegal unit. Supervisor avalos is the author of this item but hes not here to lead the discussion well start with the Planning Department. I apologize the planner has not arrived but theyve heard the item and recommended approval of the ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you supervisor. Great, thank you madam chair colleagues in 2013 i supported an ordnance for the removal of housing for conversions but as the housing crisis has wolgz that is clear we need inform to reinvest those controls this ordinance for the cu for the removal of units legal unit and thinking authors the notice of violation lets Property Owners know to apply for a cu to remove the unit the Planning Department balance report has shown that we are losing housing was quickly as we are about building this the Housing Stock will stop demolitions and mergers of dwelling units a number of long term tenants facing evictions if landlords that want to convert batting back to Office Building this year for the justification of loss of housing in any district district 11 im concerned with the permitted inlaw units weve seen this grow from 2000 to 2010 and through that population is growth is in unauthorized dwelling units this ordinance will fill the void of necessary controls for retaining this important portion of our Housing Stock and many of the tenants are occupying for lower rents the home exasperates evictions and displacement in San Francisco we have heard Horror Stories if many, many people of landlords use of notice of violations from dbi as angles unpermitted use to evacuee tenants without an local eviction the case of inlaw unit and singlefamily homes this doubly disadvantaging policy to the Housing Stock it will be an inlaw unit our affordable units and removes the how are you from rent control we understand the legalization process walking by can be a burden the city as waved the fees for legalization to allow owners to legalize their units and dbi have a loan fund for landlords and working with dbi making that happen through the budget process in june ive asked the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to designate a portion of Housing Stabilization fund to help the low income owners and hope we can codify this years budget we recognize that not all unlegalized units and the ordinance attempts to address this this doesnt mean an imminent threat or a separate entrance for the main Living Spaces and the Planning Commission will consider the feasibility of legalization when evaluating a cu application for the removal of an nonpermitted united were working with the dbi staff to delineate the units that cant beleaguer list but the loss of housing we ask the committee send this to the full board but keep a duplicate in file in committee i have amendments to id like to see if we can hear the amended version as a Committee Report for next weeks meeting i have the amendments i want to essential clean up language and to grater projects weve are intending to maintain and the amendments the motion after Public Comment are grandfathering corrections the section c2 not inform exempt unauthorized unit overthecounter by the Planning Department so maybe my colleague can speak to this and have a Retroactive Application c3 one for any permit issued issued before march 2016 and there is a project that has been prominent that we are hoping to protect the tenants and Security Guard the units for long term rentals i have a number of speakers 4 and im not sure if this fits your timeline madam chair but like to call from the Planning Department. Before we go any further id like to take a recess ladies and gentlemen, my regulates we need to recess until 235 then go into Public Comment great. All right 235 this meeting is recessed s. Welcome back to the San Francisco Transportation Authority supervisor cowen will be returning shortly im reconvening this meeting to moved on item 2 i believe madam clerk okay. I think we were just getting ready to move to staff presentation if my memory serves i say Planning Department yes is going to do present in a new location. Good afternoon, members of land use im Kim Department staff first, i wanted to thank supervisor avalos and supervisor kim so far taking on this important piece of legislation the Planning Commission has harder this item and has approved the legislation with some minor amendments that have been taken in the substantive legislation that was introduced two weeks ago the impetus behind this legislation is preserving over existing Housing Stock and discouraging the displacements of tenants and this goes emphasis in the Housing Element of the general plan the existing Housing Stock has a strong roll in Housing Demand and comparing to the newly built housing and also on your data shows the 5 percent turnover and 10 percent turnover for rental are higher than the percentage of Housing Units to one percent the removal of Housing Units is one of the major causes of tenant eviction the past 10 years of 45 hundred no fault evictions about 11 percent were removal of units this legislation would propose a cu for removal of all residential unit and illegal units this is the user authorized units in the legislation currently different types of requirements for removal residentials or residential units the Zoning District and unit numbers of building this legislation will make that consistent and create a cu requirement across the board for all types of residential units we currently have an administrator contest for roving the residentials through one is through administrative pricing out of the units so from the unit is more expensive of a threshold determined annually and right now is 1. 6 or 7 million in this the unit is more comprehensive they can go through an administrative process and not a cu or dr to remove the unit another approval, of course, which through Technical Report a demonstration that the building is not sound like this legislation proposes to remove those medic active units approval and create a cu for all types and this is recommend by the department and the commission it creates a consistent and more clear rule for removal of units we have a few number of units that use this 55 units have been using usedhis administrative process out of the nine hundred which is 6 percent of those and the staff and Commission Recommended the approval process is lengthy and technical and sometimes called outs u outside of the parentheses we strongly supporting this change as well and one major change that legislation is doing creating a new did definition of thinking authorized units the planning code we working closely with the Supervisors Office since this was introduced to define an unauthorized units are we know that there are different varieties of unauthorized unit some have kitchens and some dont we keep is broad to capture a wide variability of instances it creates the definition of the unauthorized units and adds 3 major finding the planning code to help the Planning Commission decide what to approve the units those criteria are first, whether or not they can their eligible for legalization and second whether or not legalization process cost is reasonable and we define that from the database that your collecting since the lightwelltion program for the legalization of each unit and third whether or not it is financial feasible to legalize and the way we determine that is from the cost of legalization kwlgz or is higher than the value added to the property we see that as feasible and that value added has to be determined by a codified appraiser we think that the legislation would help support these unbeknownst authorized unit and especially the tenants that live there but still leaves flexibility for the Property Owners to merge or remove an unauthorized unit and those cases can be if that hadnt been uses as residential unit so we will the commission will have that flexibility to allow that for the removal and second another example is if a family wants to grow and merge the units it is another criteria so a flexible built into the code to allow for the commission to allow removal in certain pieces weve also had in this item at the dbi commission and weve heard their concerns and we made the supervisors made changes to the ordinance to address some of the concerns one in that theres certain exemptions weve provided no legal path for legalization they dont have to go through the legalized process for removal and second if there is imminent threat for safety of that unit and the city determines the unit needs to be removed that unit didnt have to go through the cu process and lastly we added languages for residential unit that have gone through a process like the dr or conditional use or administrative approval and secured that permit from the Planning Department but not yet have Building Permit approval so at the dont have to go through the process. The Planning Commission strongly supports that legislation and buildings this will take a step towards helping the stock and displacement of tenant thank you. Thank you very much at the thank you for all your work and dependent on this as well next up is bill strong from dbi not seeing mr. Strong farmed Deborah Walker from the department of building inspection. Thank you supervisor as many of you know weve been dealing with the issue of illegal units and how to encourage legalizing them for a while i think one of the things we did a bit ago to help supervisor wiener with to make sure that tenants in buildings even those unpermitted were given the same courtesy as being notice with an action as far as the permit to either do work or demolition unpermitted unit so the tenants knows in a timely way to engage our department and other programs we have now so i actually think this step of that applying a stronger a more stringent detergent review of a request to demolition those units is really an important step right now it is a is it correct step we need weve spent a lot of time with supervisor chiu and supervisor wiener around a path forward to legalizing units weve done a lot with the Planning Department and to encourage folks to legalize those units so we dont create evictions and displacement how have it has not been successful i think that one of the things we need to do at this point is to have a evaluations around demolition requests go through a stringent process one of the things eave brought forward at the commission i think we have a willingness to have our Department Help with the code compliant aspect of legalizing those units in the form of a financial loan or Grant Program to help building owners and encourage building owners to do this work many of the people that own those have owned them for a long time some of the people get put in hard progresses so we need to look at that proactively to provide and carrot and hopefully be able to encourage people in those buildings to legalize those buildings and could use funds if there is temporary displacement there is a difference continue the bigger buildings and the singlefamily homes i think that it might be time we actually look at those as a separate issue to see if there is different concerns and a different process we dont want to a cu process is cumbersome i think that generally cost more to do an evaluation and make sure were not adding to the cost of housing or to the timeframe of legalizing the unit so i think that overall this is a good next step in this process of trying to encourage the legalizing of those tens of t