Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 9, 2014 4:30am-5:01am PDT

4:30 am
living there if it's legal it becomes a second dwelling unit so i think you'd treat that as you would on apartment that is not an in-law unit so i hope you'll think about that i'll close with a couple other comments around building and fire safety and i'm open to the idea that if there's a unit seeking permission they shouldn't have outstanding or fire issues that's a way to address that. and then let me just close by saying again, thank you for grappling with this and my staff has been grappleing with for the better part of two years we've brought or tried to bring stakeholders together unfortunately, there's a number of parties that don't want to
4:31 am
sit down so i wanted to create the right balance i appreciate the conversation around a task force it's oftentimes reform gets killed by process and as someone that wants to resolve that sooner or later for a variety of reasons i'm to resolve this in september i hope we can work together and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them but again, thank you >> thank you president chiu and if weer unable to get something you'll have something in a week or what you've outlined today for my purposes i would have to have a requirement that the owner would have to give written permission for my my sub wlet by a attend for me to vote yes.
4:32 am
>> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much and thank you president chiu it's helpful to hear our comments. i would be in favor of continuing one week only we're there i have been trying to take notes i think we have agreement on something that is or could be voted on we have 9 items that the particular time has proposed and i've got 9 or 10 other items that would be added as modifications so in order for me to support or not support i have to see it all in one place i don't know we can get through tonight and commissioner moore's having the caps i feel like there's emergency vehicle enter recognizing units if we're going
4:33 am
to have the non-hosted rentals and holocaust rentals and each one can only do 90 days out of the year those 90 days are not going to offer los angeles police department not everybody is going to be renting sixth amendment at the same time i wanted to make that point >> commissioner hillis. so thank you for your comments i know they're important and i also think number one we know what we are doing making a recommendation to the board that ultimately will decide this modifications and adjustment so it's great we've heard from everybody but we should try to come up with recommendations we agree on and if we can't certainly people have been here and heard the testimony and a lot of this b will be made
4:34 am
again, when it goes to the board of supervisors i'm comfortable with all the planning department recommendations i think they make sense with the expectation of the limit on hosted rentals being 90 days there small business should be a limit i'm not sure where that will be but we'll come up with that. things i would recommend all the planning remedies and the supervisors consider a limit on hosted rentals that could be the number of days or rooms and a combination the board should consider it shouldn't limit the sro's from doing this it's in the ordinance already and should consider property owner notification e.r. consent by the planning department when a
4:35 am
non-owner wants to do this that's itself major ones we should talk about and consider, you know, because everybody seems to be in favor of the need of the regulation, you know, it's important to make a recommendation if we can't agree on the recommendation but agree on the points we can agree on and especially supervisor chiu has heard those comments >> commissioner moore. >> remember we've received letters from people where homeowners had rental agreements with tenants where there was no provision woonsz the time when those agreements were written that stipulated there was no sub let it leaves the people vulnerable so there's no no position to rewrite them and perhaps look at those letters to give us bettered guidance on what to do it's a slippery slope
4:36 am
for any of us you with the sro's we've had great dltsdz are the sro's coming short-term hotels rather than being transformed into hotels so the protection for sro's should be iron clad and supported by the nonprofits in the areas where they occur i'm not prepared to make that part of the protective percentage includes rent controlled units and b m r particularly b m r they have public financing from the federal government and whatever rules that apply there i'm not in my position to talk about that i wanted to restate my concerns about residential until we find a middle ground we're
4:37 am
making it a sub category that's an for continued education i'd like to have some land use lawyers some people that are register planners to talk go about that as a larger national not local issue and i'm very, very concerned about that i've gotten a lot of conversations about this and i think their experts will help us think that throw in a manner that doesn't have detrimental consequences just in response to air b and bs. >> commissioner hillis. i just want to paut put a motion on the table so get agreements on some points the recommendation for approval with modifications which b will include all the modifications suggested by the department with
4:38 am
the exception of the hosted the limit on hosted rentals we'll encourage the board to have a limit open hosted rentals limited by days or rooms or both that we would require that we would encourage the property owner consent or notifications that sro's are not covered by this and that we will encourage the board not as part of this board but the delivery to provide additional resources and budget and staffing for the department to take on the enforcement >> i have a question before he second this thing. you said property owner consent
4:39 am
or informed it has to be one or the others because the property owner could say i don't want you to sub let that >> i agree with supervisor chiu i would say the notifications has to come from the city if someone goes down i could go with the consent also but the notification could work someone files on the registry that's not the property owner but the city convinces the register r education to say there's a request and if he says, no what happens. >> it's a xhaublg issue it can be resolved through legal
4:40 am
channels with the lease and xhoucht did i want to speak. >> let me say a number of things i very much appreciate commissioner hillis our need to pull folks together and that's spotty around the recommendations obviously i'll consider the recommendations and libel adapt many of them you've heard significant concerns around privacy around the hosts there are a number of remedies that could have a policy issue so to include some lack reason you know that sort of reflects the public safety and privacy concerns to work with staff to fourth how not for example, to require hosts to let the world know when they're going to be on vacation to break into their
4:41 am
homes audio want an opportunity to think that that. >> we won't be posting information related to the stays simple a note on our station to allow the use of the property not tracking that by the number of days no one will know when someone is away. >> i'm worried about the activity and there's a remit posting on the map of the location that data my somehow be matched together. >> that is the date of the past not of the future to inform us how many days they've render. >> there's some indication we ought to consider those things i think that would be helpful.
4:42 am
on the issue of sro's if you were to, you know, suggest we take them out i'm absolutely willing to support. are b m r i'd suggest there is another way to think about limits we have a cap based on what the rent control rent is there's an idea around sro's a cap on what can be race on a b m r units you, you're not making a widen fall so if you say we don't want b mo but if the commission thinks there's other consideration >> snot isn't one of the b m r on income can't have like a 9 or $10,000 gain you switch to a
4:43 am
different income break out we're starting to define the b m rb m r is a fascinate active way to have that profit awhile you're not allowing someone who that doesn't have the time and ability not to move and make the profit. >> i think one perspective around people making a profit and other people again for whatever reason if their away for a few weeks and despite for making rent and people that point the opportunity to make their rents again, if you want to exempt out b m r, of course. >> we have a motion at least the motion i put forward didn't
4:44 am
have any thing being b m r. >> right. >> maybe thirty days to get at vacation maybe 90 days we can amend it to consider further limitations. >> if the 50s are not there. >> if i may for a minute it's not unlikely that the regulations that the mayor's office of housing has related to b m r units will this but i take it worth the commission could a recommend and heck e.r. chick on the issue. >> if you want to have arising around the resources i'll be happy to champion that. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i wanted to go back and supervisor chiu mentioned it is
4:45 am
the consideration to providing the enforcements staff win the planning department for some kind of fee situation. the other thing they didn't mention this is the last thing in addition to the hotel taxes my suggestion would be in the registration process that the owner tenant or whoever is doing the rental ass also has to have a san francisco business license >> commissioners just to be clear there's a motion that's pend on the floor. >> has it been seconded. >> i haven't heard. >> anyway consideration should be given for the person that is registering to obtain a san
4:46 am
francisco business license. >> i realize there's a motion on the floor but i'd like to hear it run through one more time and be sure if you don't mind hear commissioner moore's and commissioner johnson. i would have felt a lot better about the questions we've asked the seriousness and the honest of the questions and giving ourselves a week to have the supervisor come back with a clear answer i don't feel comfortable be with respect to you and what you're able to do with the legislation and not doing that but the way of consensus respecting ourselves and i would really appreciate if you would go through the questions which were heard and
4:47 am
that's not as much the life stories and the economic migrate of those people who need the support we're willing to give but those questions that speak to the urban answered questions with the open interpretations some of the aspects felt interpretations and some are very practical coming from people like myself or commissioner sugaya who happen to live in the nebulous world of condominiums that is basically a law which nobody understands anywhere together with the questions we have about winter their ability with permission and joint agreements about sclug the additional discussion with the insurance industry i'd be happy to put you on the phone with usa to talk about it so we
4:48 am
have a realistic set of likely dues and a realistic findings of things that won't work and talk to some lawyers and changing the maepg of residential that will help very much >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much so supervisor chiu i know we've met earlier and a lot of the changes are about language but i'll ask commissioner hillis to consider asking and in our motion that the supervisors consider producing a metabolism to allow people ada assessable this wouldn't have to be something that is set up in the future. >> an issue i'm not an expert but the challenge is an ada it
4:49 am
enforced by the federal government we have no ability to enforce the ada regulation. >> that's i don't know if that's for the consideration of the protective we have unit being ada assessable and create a metabolism that people could do that, you know, endorsing that i don't know. like have a list of things that are ada assessable and they can them off the list >> i don't know. >> that's us future protective and maybe supervisor chiu will take a note and do it some other time. >> well, there's a motion there would you mind repeating i want to get a how often of things some of us agree on and a how
4:50 am
often things we want further recommendation for the supervisor to look deeper both and possibly sxhifs if you want to go through the list. >> first it's an agreement with the 9 planning recommendation planning staff recommendations the expectation the hosted rentals are not necessarily limited for 90 bays days but the board of supervisors consider a limit on the hosted limits either the number of days or rooms or both. this requires property owner consent or notification by the planning department the sro's are not permitted to take advantage this legislation we
4:51 am
encourage the board to add additional staff for enforcement. >> and b m r and and cancer the limitations on b m rs, you know, not necessarily disallowing them from doing this. >> and what about single-family. >> keep the recommendation go that the single-familys are treated no different than any other residential unit. >> will be wreep the first one. >> the planning staff recommends the rentals be limited to 90 nights we've heard the testimony that's too low especially for some of the units
4:52 am
that have separate rooms we encourage the board they should be limited whether it's one hundred and 80 days but the board consider limitations on the hosted remedies that looked at the number of days or rooms where it could be a combination of two rooms and 90 days but some limitation on hosted rentals. >> your supporting 90 nights. >> not necessarily 90 nights encouraging the board to come up with a modification. >> if you want to modify number 8 saying the hosted rentals are not limited to no days but some limitation either by a number of days or rooms. >> would you suggest that is greater than or lower.
4:53 am
>> greater than some between 90 and 3 hundred and 64. >> that's the only one i have issue with you think it should be 90 or less. >> you know we've heard a lot of testimony from folks that have single-family homes they were renting a room behind their garage could have separate assess and i how did that testimony was compelling that's might kind of policy rational. >> your separating hosted from non-hosted so apart from the 90 days. >> if i may staff is concerned about operating a bed-and-breakfast if you limit the number of rooms or days it
4:54 am
still gets the same end. >> and on that motion i apologize but chair nothing you would recommend that see to further investigation with the insurance or taxes and collections. >> we can certainly is a more investigation and supervisor chiu had a good answer where people can came forward and say their insured. >> posting platforms like listing them so we know what we're looking at. >> sure if you want - >> having the enforcements agency whether planning or dbi maine maintain a list of the
4:55 am
holocaust approach that are considered a holocaust approach under the legislation. >> i'm going to second, that let's see commissioner antonini. >> i like that but the part of the property owner being notified it seems like the rentals could still go on. >> scott has an interesting. >> we get signs people that want to remove a sign we invite the property owner to conform they've authorized the permit i if they have 10 days to respond if they respond they haven't authorized that application we don't allow to go forward so if we receive a name other than the property we getting give a 10
4:56 am
day property notice that they didn't authorize it we won't process the application. >> the property owner will have control over whether or not i know 10 days would not be enough. >> something they'll simply write back to authorize it over and over not authorize it we don't want it to be brought before the commission as a discretionary review. >> 10 days is short i'd like to say thirty days if you're fine with that amendment the property owner will have to grant approval. >> and not obtain. >> not obtain yes. i guess but if he or she did obtain then the
4:57 am
sub let could not occur. >> so the maker of the motion. >> so commission there is a motion and second let me see to adapt a resolution for approval with modifications proposed by staff and for the board of supervisors to consider the following a limit to hosted rooms by days or both that the consent have the intent occupied unit or a thirty day notification with no objection that sro's are excluded from the legislation that budgeted funding for enforcement and that there be consideration were b m r limitations that h h1 are included in the legislation and that the board consider the list
4:58 am
of holocaust platforms. >> just to clarifying the single-family residences could be included. >> that doesn't need to be called out separately. >> we'll strike out the 6 consideration and have 7 recommendations outside of what the staffer already recommends. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to remind the commissioner hillis about the requirements for inspection conforming to the terms of what total occupancy requires totally existing and fire compliance and all of those life safety issues. >> perhaps the condition or the
4:59 am
recommendation could be no code violations in the building. >> you know, the department of building inspection needs to make the determination about the land use category this falls under and whether or not it has the changes and the additional requirements that my trigger this is not a new use in the similar to a bed-and-breakfast we'll rely on the department of building inspection to make this enforcement under their codes. >> in the holocaust there's a requirement for disclosing the issues to be considered you can't just get a permit and pit 8 people into a room that is norman occupied by two people there has to be disclosed the
5:00 am
number of people minimum those are all questions i hoped we could discuss i'd like it to be addresses the because we can't send it off by not addressing it. >> that's a suggestion. >> well, i, introduce another 146 but i'm going to vote against the motion anyway. >> why not put that into the category of being further studied by staff. >> and i this the department of building inspection will hear the protective; is that correct? >> yes. i'm not sorry the department of building inspection will be considering they're waiting for your recommendation. >> so we can raise this as