Please turn off your phones. Items will be on november 15th for the supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you miss major and thank you for member of the public for your patience mme. Kirk can you please read the first item. Yes, its a contract between dominique and david the owners of 1330. From the Planning Department, ms. Ferguson . Good bargainmorning. With private Property Owners. This agreement provides property tax reduction in the story product pretties. Every local landmark building as well as what is on the National Register is eligible to pry for this program. The Program Creates an incentive for proper maintenance of our citys architectural and market provides Property Owner to delay largescale programs. The contract for 1338 which is designated as landmark 232, the owners have artie completed substantial work to the property and plan to invest over 900,000 properties for exterior work. Funny department preservation staff work closely with the Property Owners to provide professional guidance. On october 5, 2016, the Commission Unanimous recommended approval of the contract. Behalf of the commission, the Planning Commission remake recommends approval. Planning staff is available to answer any questions about the plan. Thank you. Thank you ms. Ferguson. Any question, supervisor . Are there any members of the public who would like to testified on this item. Good morning. Good morning, members of the committee. I am the president of the San Francisco heritage also coauthor of the Preservation Foundation on the mills act and obviously heritage which keeps me involved in this area. With respect to the application before you for the 1338 filbert st. We have some concern in regards to the mills act and property tax release in this instance. It implicates a policy concern with respect to the fact of the 2 million in rehabilitation costs claimed in the application. This, about over 1. 7 million of that work has been completed or will be completed before this contract takes effect. Also, we have some questions regarding the need for some of the rehab work and whether it was triggered by the subterranean tripling of Square Footage of the property, whether that would have been necessary otherwise. We have some concerns, and we believe that this contract warrants further scrutiny. Thank you mr. Blumer. We have a letter from miss holly that was emailed to us last evening, i have a printed out copy and i will make that part of the record. Good morning, supervising spirit susan. I am opposing this contract. This is a wonderful tool for Property Owners and benefits the city and its population in our historic resources. As you know, this is a historic landmark. But in this situation, the Public Interest is not served by this contract. I ask that it not me be entered into the point of the mills acts as referent in the state law and also the city ordinance, to provide tax relief for Property Owners that are willing to rehabilitate Historic Properties that other ways may not receive those benefits. In this case, i noticed in reading the files that its not really reflect that that this project is not simply a rehab but prompted by a desire to change what was then a ten unit project into four units and create an underground parking garage. Greatly and completely changing the property was controversial at the time which was a number of years ago actually, in litigation by a local preservation group. The friends of the landmark and also adjacent neighbors because there was no work being done. Environmental review. The project, i have part of me. The project is going to actually reduce city housing funds down to four units and the cost involved for this project thats going to create whether there was ten into four. As mr. Buehler indicated, many of the costs may well relate into the underground garage and the significant changes of this property. The board has a need to find that this is not in the Public Interest and this is a kind forprofit project that in fact, it destroys a historic landmark and its not necessary to achieve the purposes of this. Thank you ms. Brent holly. You have any other members of the public that would like to speak. This is the number of units in the building. Can you explain to me specifically where that is located on the document or comic and staff from the city provide us with clarity of whether or not that has occurred . Mr. Fry, i realize that this is not directly related to the mills act but it is related to the project that was approved, as far as yours. Good morning Committee Members paper the project in question was approved by both the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation commission a number of years ago. The number of units is included from a 24 . That is correct. That happened before, this application was submitted . That is correct. This application was for the mills act was approved by the Preservation Commission as well mark they did review the contents of the application and felt that it qualified for the program. Can you explain what the reasoning was . For applying . Know what the commissioning was for approving application . From the perspective of the hpc would some contracts on our books, or many cities like los angeles and san diego have hundreds and even thousands of contracts that are in effect, a desire from the commission over the last three years is to really promote it. In one, is a landmark and has completed or is on its way of completing a rehab, they are generally in support of approving our or recommending approval for contract. I would say that the bar for them is slightly low, because they want to encourage use of the program. And thats the only financial incentive. Thank you. I have a concern, first of all there is a building that has the ability to afford to reduce the number of available units, therefore, increasing the Square Footage of the existing building footprint significantly and, i guess i just dont see why we would allow a tax break for this particular purpose . I think thats what im most concerned about. It sounds as if, there is Financial Support in order to maintain the building. I will support the motion at this time. Thank you supervisor. Without objection, the matter is tabled unanimously. Mdm. Clerk . A resolution in a mills act. The owners of 1036 and the city and county of San Francisco. Is ferguson . Please put the overhead please. Good morning again. This next contract is for 1036 which is located in the russian hills via hope, National Register. They were going to invest over hundred 50,000 for upgrades, with a replacement and restoration work. The staff was at the meeting on october 5, 2016, the preservation Commission Unanimously recommended approval of the contract. On behalf of the commission, the Planning Department recommends approval of this contract for 1036 vallejo st. Planning and staff is here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you ms. Ferguson. Are there any members of the public that would like to testify on either number two . C not, will close public on a comment. This is a project befitting of the mills and contract. It is much more in keeping of the intent of chapter 71 of the code if theres no objection, i suggest we send this to the full board with recommendation. I have a question. Can you explain why you believe that to be the case, that this is an application thats deserving of this particular use . Absolutely. Unlike the previous manner this not a whole scale project where theyre adding or expanding something to 17,000s were fever reducing the number of units. It is a modest project to upgrade the facility and to appropriate exterior treatment to further the historic of that particular area. I guess im just saying that whites historical significant . I will leave that to plann g planning. Good morning. Its listed as a contributor to the vallejo street, sorry the crest National Register address. It is listed in the National Register. Okay. Okay. That helps. Even if i dont visual c with my eyes. We do have pictures of it. I opened up to Public Comment we have no Public Comment. Send it to the board please without objection. This good item number three. Item number three is a resolution approving the Circle Property contract. The owners of 101 through 105 steiner st. Is ferguson . Matt please have the overhead. Good morning again. This is a contract for 101 105 steiner st. The owners have agreed to invest over 270,000 towards the work, replacement of exterior work and window repair in return for the property tax adjustment. Planning Department Staff work closely with the owners to create this plan, on october 5, 2016, the Commission Recommended approval and on behalf of the commission, they recommend approval of the mills act contract for 101105 steiner st. Were happy to answer any questions. Thank you ms. Ferguson. I do have any members of the public . Say not, we will close Public Comment. Any question for staff . C9 . Yes, this is on the registry as well as a mark m this is located on the its a contributor. Because we saw that with other particular homes in that area. My question, i know that there are home that dont necessarily have a means even with this particular tax incentive and i guess my question is, what is being done to support them . Were providing this incentive for this district which help those owners who have the means to do the work on that particular home. I do know of one personally that doesnt. And thats an elderly individual whose homes clearly stands out as one that is not necessarily wellmaintained, the question is, what is the point of the district that allows for those with means to develop their usage while others can go through this weekly progressin the process dont understand it, what happened to them . Thats a great question. Because of that, over the last two years we have been trying to target operate specifically to persons that may have limited means. For instance, weve had to work shops in the tenderloin area because it is one of our largest registered district. Also targeting, other workshops in the future within the dogpatch area. Were trying to expand and serve the people that we reach to let them know that one, if you have Technical Expertise that can help you prepare your application, too, this is really meant to help support financially some of the routine maintenance that some people have difficulty doing on their own. Workshops are great, im thinking of people who are mostly elderly, who may not, its not natural for them to go out and attend workshops. They are the kind of people that you would actually, physically go to their home and have the conversation and basically explain, but also make them feel comfortable that what youre trying to do is in their best interest to provide support for them. And we are absolutely open to that. What we found in talking to these folks and other organizations or other city agencies is that, one is to qualify to program you actually have to own a property thats either listed on the National Register designated. That really reduces the number of persons that can apply. And, there are some areas within the city they just dont have those designations. But we are certainly open to partner with other agencies to reach those populations that we may not be able to reach. Part of the reason that im asking is i know and one in particular, sits within this category and is in that particular area and i feel that all of these homes around this one home are just being going through this process getting this incentive and there is someone whos been left out. And i know that they are the homeowner of that particular property. We would love to meet with them and help them through the process and get them, hopefully next year timeframe. Thank you. Thank you supervisor. If there are no objections, we will send this item work with recommendation. Mdm. Clerk could you please call item number four. Any comments for that . Im sorry, did i not call Public Comment . Are there any members of the public for item number three . Comment public is close. We please call the final item . Item number for the short form registration and enforcing activity of the office of shirt her administration and enforcement and any help for additional and policies to enforce the law. Thank you ms. Major. This item was originally before the land use committee, it was introduced by supervisor weiner and given his schedule, he transferred into this committee with the promotion of president reed. This is just an update on the what is going in the opposite shortterm rental. With that, i will hand it over to kevin guide. Thank you and good morning. As it was mentioned, to give an update on the status of the office, put together the registration and enforcement effort. Also, the summary of the impending restoration. If i can have the overhead please. So for a quick background. The short Terminal Program on 2015, the program does not permit resin to rent out the dwelling unit for less than 30 days subject to conditions for limitations. The short terminal itself is still much in july 2015, to administer the program overseen those registration and enforcement. Here, you can see our current registration and statistics. We have received around 50 applications, and have currently have 1000 over 1600 registered host. 229 applications of been approved and another hundred and 33 are being complete. 57 applications are being in review. We have continued to reduce the review time for the application. They are complete process within 2 to 3 weeks of submittal. This chart, shows trends over time going back to january. At that time, we had over 1300 application and nearly 900 register codes. Here we are ten months later we stand around 2200 applications received with nearly 1700 registered host. This is another chronological look. This is the application received by month, on the bottom row and then the blue line at the top shows the number of applications over time. We did have a search of application when it first lines and again around december and january, since that time weve had a steady receipt of application, but certainly the levels are below of search of the initial launch of the program in december and gender. Going back a couple of slides to the 76 certificates or can l cancel, can you explain that to us . Yes. Some of those cancellations are made on the request of the hosts themselves. They simply arent doing any more activity. Or, we issued, they landlord indicated that they did not want them doing this activity. Some of those have been counseled for failure to file the quarterly reports. Which we will get into it later, but thats one of the requirements of the. Submit corded programs. We have some people who have kind of repeated failure to follows reports, were certain to revoke certificate on that basis. Thank you. I would like to touch on the steps that we take to approve the process. We had great greater appreciation participation by hose. We have better hours and location. We have a weekly walking hours, everyones afternoon and we have monthly evening walking hours for folks that cannot make it over business hours. Thats a first end of the month. We expand our appointment hours as needed to make sure that nobody is waiting for a scheduled appointment for more than a couple of day. And then, we have a vest in the spring and summer including an allday registration in city hall. We had a table in april set up and we held a series of evening events. So, i should note that in the past before the sicily staff, our timeline and applications was a bit longer. In response to that, we implement it a general practice on specific properties. A review time there down several weeks, but we have maintained this practice as a process of improvement. Its not quite the same as issue of temper license, but it has the same effect. We have launched a new website as well, one of the first so that was added was a online quarterly report. And then, work and have a series of other to the content over time. We expect to add a light of the new functional realities at the end of the month. Or doing right now is working with the online application submittal. Right now, we have around through an in person meeting dorsett. That is a critical step for us right now, with the lack of data transfers that we get. One of the ways that we want to be sure that we have confidence in our applicants and the information that theyre giving us for the program is to hold these type of meetings. We recognize that there are some meetings that can come in for the program. Where the we are developing an online tool to streamline the process that helps with the applications. Depending on, ultimately were things land and the platforms. We may require some of a personal meeting with the application but at least will file the Application Online and come in and picking up in person with a brief five minute meeting. Show us their id and verify the residency. If we do reach a future or we can very very well launch an online process that involves any sort of meeting. We would have the ability to backcheck and audit the information given the application. This is really critical for us to seek a more process and shorting timelines for the registration. Has there been any efforts on behalf of the platforms to share any Additional Data . We have reached out to several of the major platforms in february, of this year, they did come in for sears submitting where data transparency was one of the topics. We did receive respo