tv [untitled] November 1, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PDT
planning staff to apply and you evaluate. one of the reasons for the 10 years is the displacement we're hearing more and more of a need for action. the 5 year eviction rate didn't seem to be slowing down and the merges is more warrant and will have more effect. that's with the rent control that says that apartments have been to offered back to tenants with a 10 year period. i'll be glad to discuss it further >> okay. commissioner borden. >> so i want to clarify. the 5 year is that local implementation and is the board
looking changing that. it seemed to be the tenants want to go back into the rental business but isn't the 5 year prelims a local ordnance >> the state law that specifics the 5 years. >> oh, sorry. thank you >> commissioner. >> i understand that not just the amendment is before us but the entire piece of legislation still has to be enacted so we'll look at the earlier part from an earlier hearing. >> we discussed the sort of underlying july hearing but we have not taken action on that yet. >> commissioners. >> just a question on the state law change it was 10 years for an ellis act and it switched do
i have any background on why that change was made at state level. >> i don't can the planning staff answer that question. >> i don't know that's a state law beyond the planning coincide. >> but it was true it was 10 years at one point and it's now 5 years. >> the city attorney mate know. >> i believe the ellis act has always contained a tiered number of business so if you go back into business in 5 years after 10 years there's more restrictions but i understand part of the ellis act has not been amended.
>> okay. thank you. >> commissioner sophie with the planning staff. i received one letter from the san francisco association i will distribute that to you are the association recommended 3 modifications is that the 10 year term be reduced to 5 years and when the law becomes effective and if the unit has been lawfully removed an owner shall not be subject to this ordinance. i'll distribute that and i have a chart for the criteria for dpooshsz as well as the evaluation of merges and to non-residential uses if this
ordinance were to be adopted that i have copies for the public as well >> okay. thank you. we'll open this up for public comment. >> hello, i'm john. i'm the principle architect of the company. i have a staff 13. we do mostly residential in san francisco. i heard the amendment that you're considering for the simplification of the i guess you're trying to standardized this. it's interesting to see this last minute kind of legislation or amendment that you're considering i'm curious about
how many buildings are actually demolished or people trying to turn around and merge units. i think it's very, very low. i think politicly everyone is not in favor of removing units from the market. i you couldn't question the need to add this to the legislation. it maybe only point zero, zero one percent that are being converted into unit in known. it's confusing as an architect what should be demolished. the height the standards are quite high. from an architecture standpoint i have many clients that have homes that are in bad disa
repair it's not reasonable to save them. however, the way the code is written it requires you to work around and preserve those buildings. that makes more sense those buildings are in districts that could support 3 units or more and we have to work around the law to try to add more units and try to save those buildings. i would suggest if one were serious about adding units we don't want to be a city of deterring bad buildings there if there is a rash of this we want to amend the code to is it should be subject to rent control or subject to those requirements that the rent
control would require preventing people from replacing their units. because replacement of one and one to me is actually something we might want to encourage versus letting our housing stock deteriorate >> thank you. any additional public comment public comment is closed. >> there's a book recently written about jefferson it's called the art of power. judges of the facts birth fear was the united states being a monarchy. he had those fears for good reasons. he also royals that the monarchy is not a person but in the form of a government or governments. the reason this is pertinent to this thing part of the
legislation invade the privacy of people's own homes and their ability to reconfigure whether there be rental property or not and that's not government. however, some restrictions need to be in place but this bad legislation makes it worse. the first is it combines 3 things not no common. i've never had a people come to speak against a merge but there are many people who have concerns about demolitions because there's light and a air loss and a aesthetics and neighborhood character. your combining things that different even though they have
different criteria there being a lumped together like no fault. other things i think are wrong with this and if i'm not mistaken i believe it lowers the bar for merges for cus down from 4 to two units. it was 4 unit in the inclusionary review it takes it down to 2 more than 2 unit i believe require conditional use. it puts the responsibility on the person doing the merger rather than the city findings it to be an unusual extraordinaire. this lengths removes or modifies decent and zoning considerations which are very important when
you looked at a merger if it brings it more into conformity of the area or the prominence of the number of units. there are two separate educates it brings it to conformity with the number of units that are allotted. another thing the supervisors is proposing so to count the number of bedrooms. we're much better off to have 3 bedroom units rather than 10 one barroom units. all of those policies particularly the mergers go in the wrong direction.
20 percent of our housing units have 3 bedrooms or more we should encourage for unit with more bedrooms. only 31 percent of the building are owned will i owner coupled. we should encourage people to buy their units. if we were a situation where we had a huge prepare dalmatian of ownership i could see argument for preserving units, however, we're building thousands of units all the time wore mixing upland use policies. this came up a few years ago when we looked at endanger conversions. david chiu put successfully a time when you could put a garage
if there had been a no fault conviction. often those are different people and had nothing to do with the earlier conviction it was for their own uses and improvement for the property. even though we try to discourage the evictions it's the only way to free up a unit to occupy it they prefer to have a unit that helped several generations. so those are you know, i oppose the idea of any period of time after a no fault because it cuffs, you know, rents stability and falsifyism towards renters
as opposed to owners over the needs of the city which are better served with more bedrooms. those are my comments in general. i'll be voting against it in the modified form although i think that staff has made it less dangerous not making it retroactive which is not legal in my mind but also making it only a 5 year period but any period at all is a problem >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. can i ask ms. hayward a question. >> thank you for the criteria. the last discussion was about the criteria as you've displayed them today, the legislation
would ask the planning commission to look at those criteria on balance. this is not talking about the no fault eviction >> that's correct. >> okay. so with the emotion of language around no fault eviction it would be automatic disapproval of the project. >> i want to reiterate we've not seen the language and it can be clarified but there would be a prohibition if there had been a no fault eviction in the building or associated with the project. >> so that's somewhat the criteria that's been listed here as a scoot of consideration. >> i think of it as an umbrella and those fall within that. >> i don't know if mr. poly
lick wants to add anything. >> i agree where the buildings have no fault evictions the mergered would be disapproved. >> so i'm very supportive of adding the language around no fault evictions and the - there was a rally on city hall and the ellis evicts s are devastating our neighborhood the articles that have been in the xrm about the years and i want to make the definition about the ellis act the 4r50r7bd goes out of business so it was when on a owner can decide that their
tenants can move in. as for the question of the date of implementation the start date, what - how much lead way do we have in proposing something? >> at this time you have all thely way in the world and there's no lunge before you is because the district attorney's office is determining the legal language. some of the things we've considered as we proposed in our case report the prohibition should start at the time of the ordinance. mr. poly lick pointed out that could create an incentive for owners to begin the ellis today
we doesn't want this to happen. we're continue to work with the supervisors office. in addition there concerns we want to highlight such as a the order of operations. as we understand the language today, this could create a scenario the issuance would change the order get the conversion approved and then go through the ellis >> i do so the problem if we make the date that's in effect the date - okay. the incentive to evict between now and that date. the very issue it should be as dates date but i'm in - i see
many michael in the audience. there's an ellis eviction going on right now in which the owner stated that he intends to messenger the 3 unit into one and it may be a small percent of ellis by we'll see some problems going forward >> commissioners, if i may the criteria as revising revised in the ordinance also in cases of messengerss whether or not the units are rent controlled. and for most of the ellis evictions that are take place the criteria won't trigger a prohibition only one unit is rent controlled
>> thank you. >> commissioner. >> yes. just a procedural observation i guess. i know the legislation isn't written yet but wouldn't it be the case it if it were to go in effect i don't understand the language the commission wouldn't be able to consider it why would it come before the commission wouldn't it be presented and stopped >> the commission would be 3rbd from - we could bring it bruce as an informational item. >> i - >> i imagine if it were a prohibition we would only the criteria would come into place under the circumstances.
i think i'm in spot but i think the 10 years is reasonable especially the ellis act has limits. i think that 10 years is good it's a disincentive we're approving a lot of new units we're trying to retain the rent control units we have we're building and approving. or non-rent control so i think it's the same side we should be preserving rent control and this helps do that. i'm supportive of the 10 years were i agree with the 10 years i think i would be supportive of having that timeline start now. as the public know about it, it's out in the pun domain. i'm not an expert on the retina
ordinance but it is o m u the only no fault eviction besides f i? >> i don't know if anybody is an expert. >> deputy city attorney. i think the two no fault evictions are owner move in there's a list i'm entirely sure but that's the most common one >> i know there are limitation one unit per building i have it's a 5 unit building. so the supervisor may want to look at the different rules for o m i evictions where your take a look the entire building off the market but not knowing enough about the rent ordinance
i would defer that to later discussions with the supervisors >> yeah, i can speak briefly it that are the language we proposed to the city attorney it specifics several categories of the types of evictions in section 25.9 of the admin code and sections 8 through fourteen that outlined a number of different types of eviction. a couple of the ones is the tenant was evicted so the landlord could carry out remodeling and it's in violation if it's not offered back to the renters. so they're doing rehabilitation
and not returning it to the tenant that were yeah, the different acts versus o m i. we'll be interested if looking at that. that will take important expert minds than mine >> thank you. i think for the most part and this is a little bit kufgz but for the most part i'm supportive of it. i have one question. how big is this spectrum. how many evictions are we looking at in the loose 3 years i know what we've seen here but i'm not sure what is across the court. do we have a scope of how many effected and practical situation there's been and how many forecasting 235rd? >> commissioners i don't have that number off the top of my head there's been many articles
especially ellis evicts. i can find some sources on the internet as far as how many of those effect our review of merger or demolition of units unites about the coalition of that but our housing staff might know more. >> right i'm reading the same articles but i'm trying to see if there's tens or hundreds or a handful? >> two different questions one is a number of messengerers and we did that it's not a huge number but the ellis numbers is a separate question and it's a separate question. >> yeah. >> but wire dealing with it. >> it's i'm sorry we don't have that number
we don't have that number but staff is certainly interested if work with the staff and how often i don't know how they cross paths. i believe we remember talking about a couple of declaration of independence a year i think you have a case on our calendar and a at least around that an off the cuff estimate. it's not thousand dollars or hundreds likely >> commissioner we have a followup. >> demolitions do they come to the commission. >> for the most part the demolitions come before this commission. >> the only demolitions that don't come to the board is the demolitions of un10u7bd structures or structures that
exceed certainty values that are unaffordable. but the data point is where ellis or other cross with demolitions >> i believe that the merger before you later on in this agenda is not an ellis question. >> i'm industrial still trying to understand with regards to the 5 or 10 years. it absolutely needs protecting and this is one measure that helps do that. i also want, you know, we're in the best of time as far as the economic kindly so 5 or 10 years i want to make sure we're thinking about maybe falling into the next downward cycle so this has an impact in san francisco. i don't know i'm still trying to figure out the question. >> commissioners.
>> yeah. i think most of the messengerers we see are for the use of the family and many times as will be the case later on today, there are families that occupy those for many, many years but want to legalize or finalize the merger of the unit to make them more liveable for themselves. the other question in terms of clarification if you had an owner move in but some of the units let's see or is two unit are not owners don't they have to have tenants move out but don't want to move out by using the ellis act. >> deputy city attorney.
are you asking if their related family members that want to move into a building doesn't the family have to use the ellis act? >> the family members who are non-owners going into those units. >> i'll have to check the rules around that but i'm not completely familiar if the aid of the supervisor has a copy i can check that. >> ohoh - >> there are certainly rules whether you can have an owner eviction for family members i'm not aware of them - on top of. >> some of the previously rented units who don't want to move are forced to make other
means to make those units available for family use. the other one is it removes discretion from the demolishes within a 5 or 10 year period of time i jefferson oppose this on any legislation and that's why conditional use is a lot better way to do them rather than an out right band. there are times when there is a merger and we should allow it. so that takes away some of our control and it takes away for more of our control from dropping units from 4 to anything over 2 which means the appellant will body is a board of supervisors. so whatever we do will be over
turned by the board are less turned over in the oppose direction we vote against the appeal and they will override it. it takes away some of our control but i think this is bad legislation. i don't know if the - other thing that's in the lengths we have the ability to allow demolitions which it's felt that the structure is not affordable therefore it doesn't come before planning commission if i'm not mistaken >> there's no change to the unit that are not affordable. >> but there's no inclusion in here for messengerers. you'll have loot renovates in the