forward as a committee report with a positive recommendation tomorrow's full board meeting. supervisor kim, i'm sorry you wanted to make a few remarks. >> actually i was going to make the motion to move this forward with positive recommendation, but i want to thank my colleagues on the land use committee, supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener for joining as co-authors for the ordinance that will prioritize the building of affordable housing on lands and properties that are owned by the city, but doesn't fulfill a distinct city use and also want to recognize supervisor avalos, who is a co-sponsor as well. i would like to make the notion move this forwards a committee report with positive recommendation. >> thank you. seeing that there is no objection without objection this motion passesment [ gavel ] madame clerk, could you please call item no. 2. >> item no. 2 is an ordinance amending the public works code to require contractor parking plan [#*-689/] thank you very much. last year both supervisor farrell and i began working on similar legislation to address conflicts and concerns that neighbors were having with a significant amount of construction, parking being taken up in their neighborhoods. we have since merged two pieces of legislation to create a piece that you are going to be considering today. this ordinance responds to numerous complaints. i have received over the last year from residents who are living with several construction sites all around them. by requiring a contractor to develop a construction parking plan, we will be encouraging them to think creatively about how to minimize the parking impacts on the neighborhood. additionally, there will be a document that residents can use to help hold contractors accountability if they are taking up more space than they need or if they have expected or if they have expected the amount of time that they are permitted to take up in parking spaces. the southeastern neighborhoods are bearing the brunt of the growth in san francisco and one thing that is true that we all share san francisco's limited parking resources. and so i believe that this legislation really does a good job of striking the right balance between facilitating important housing construction in our city, but also requiring contractors to be more thoughtful about how their projects impact the neighborhoods. the i'm going now turn over to supervisor farrell to see if he has any opening remarks >> thank you, chair cohen and thank you for your partnership on this matter. colleagues it's no surprise that all of the construction happening in our city is having a significant impact on the quality of life in our city. i hear complaints on a daily basis from residents frustrated by the scarce parking resources taken by construction parking permits in our neighborhoods. [tpr-ufrt/]ion also mounts when permanent spaces can sit empt empty for days at a time and i know everybody has experience with that on their own city blocks. over 250 permits are obtained every week. i do believe that wes a city can be a lot more prohabitive in leting our residents know about the impacts that are going to happen in their neighborhoods. so given these frustrations, i teamed up with chair cohen and was joined by co-sponsors wiener and breed to mandate construction permit plans as a condition to receiving any temporary street space occupancy permit for construction work that requests either more that one parking space over the course of 3-4 months -- excuse me, three or four months. the legislation mandates and is they it's one of the key things that i heard from my residents is that permitted on-street parking spots not used by 4:00 p.m. will return back to the general public. frustration that i heard people returning home at work from 5-7 p.m. timeframe and those not being able to use the spaces when they are vacant all day and clearly not used in the evenings. so it makes submission of parking plans. the proponents of the parking plan include the following: the number of parking spaces and rational, the average number of employees anticipated to be on-site each day. the timing and fadesing of the project, and the requirement of an update from the contractor at a midpoint of the project to notify the department of any expected changes. whether it's possibly feasible to use opportunity for carpooling or other off-site parking arangement suches as nearby garbages and that on-street parking is valuable to the general public by 4:00 p.m. if the space has gob unused. and other information effect that is deemed valuable for understanding the impact of the project only the neighborhood or neighborhood parking supply. and since the introduction of this legislation supervisor christensen was also engaged with us on this the issue, given the impact she was seen in district and i will let her explain the key components that she fought for. i believe it's a simp, straight forward piece of legislationings that will have positive impacts throughout all of our neighborhoods and residents. my office worked with dpw, sfmta to solicit their feedback and i want to thank them for their involvement and engagement and in front of us is a package that both departments are in agreement with and supportive of and i believe that representatives from both departments are here to answer any questions. requiring this construction parking plan will help our residents and our city get a better grip on the impact of on-street parking street losses during the construction project hours for neighborhoods and will help to free up much-needed additional spaces for residents. i think forward to the discussion on the committee and hopefully for everyone's support. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell [kph-epbgs/]ed mentioned that dpw staff is here and in the interest of time i have asked that they refrain from making a representation. supervisor christensen followed by supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. everybody crossing our city by cars and parking transit and even walking have been impacted by the construction. we sympathize with those who are building and repairing our city. we're not trying to impede their efforts or to unfairly burden them. but this legislation and the amendments that i have proposed recognizes that one, the scarcity of on-street parking in our city. and secondly, the impact that impeded access has for those with limited mobility, for garbage collection and other deliveries, and that this obstruction comes at a price. i've asked supervisors farrell and cohen, to whom i'm grateful for introducing this legislation, to include commercial districts in the legislation. because that construction is sometimes as or more impactful than that in residential plus the commercial construction often tends to spill over into our residential areas. and the amendment puts a fairer price on the valuable street parking. and also helps cover the cost of administrating the program, realizing this is going to require some added effort. so again, supervisors farrell and cohen, thank you for doing this and i would hope for approval today. >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i also want to thank my colleagues for taking the lead on this legislation, which is long overdue. you know, when you don't have a lots of construction activity going on, can you get away with a little bit of loosy goosy rules around parking being taken up with construction projects, but given the level of construction that we're seeing in the city right now, i think we have to be a lot smarter how we allocate these spots. we are in this time in san francisco with the congestion in the city and the competition for parking, it's getting harder and harder for people to park. we have to make the most efficient use of the parking spaces that we have. and this will help us to do that. we have seen some real abuses. i have one particular location in my district where there has been a huge dumpster taking up multiple parking spots on and off for years. so it ties in with some of the never-ending construction projects that we see. if you want to have a never-ending construction project, we can have a conversation about that, but you should not be taking up parking spot because you can't get it together to finish your construction project. so this is good legislation and i look forward to moving it out of committee. >> thank you very much. let's take public comment ot this time for item no. 2. i have one speaker card, mr. don immins. >> thank you. well the members of the board of supervisors have covered most of the issues i was going to mention. as a resident and board member -- i'm here to represent the feelings of our group. and we support this legislation whole-heartedly. having watched some of these construction projects go on for 2-4 years, and have two or three on a block is highly disruptive as you all have mentioned to the residents, and the people with the legitimate parking permits that they paid for. a lot of these permits are used basically for commuter parker for the workers. i think the legitimate use is for materials and delivers of the parking permits and with the commuter parking taking up the parking spots that are permitted, then the delivery trucks just double-park and further disrupt and exacerbate the situation. that's very common to see concrete trucks, delivery trucks from lumber companies, plumbing and so forth that have to double-park to get their space. and then that is when they are being used and a lot of times as you mentioned 6:00 on a saturday afternoon they are not being used for construction. so another issue is many of these parking permit signs are not taken down on a timely basis after they have been expired and therefore, they are not being used for construction and they are not being used for residential parking. so i will just summarize by saying that i heartily support the passage of this legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that support. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak at this time on item 2? seeing none, public comment is going to be closed. [ gavel ] colleagues, i would like to move that we forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> would i like to second that and i would like to add my name as co-sponsor and thank the sponsors for their wock on work on this. >> thank you, supervisor kim. glad you are joining us. without objection that motion passes. thank you. thank you, supervisor farrell. madame clerk, could you call items3 and 4 together. >> yes, item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning and administrative codes for construction of accessory dwelling unitss in district 3 and item no. 4 is an ordinance amending the planning and administrative codes to allow construction of accessory dwelling units in district 8. >> thank you so much. supervisor wiener and supervisor christensen are the authors the item and i would like to off them a moment to offer opening remarks >> thank you very much, madame chair. i won't repeat the opening remarks that i provided last week. this is important legislation that expands on the castro in-law legislation and seismic in-law legislation that i authored last year and earlier this year and i want to thank supervisor christensen for expanding the legislation to her district. the legislationion i'm offering expands this to all district 8. in-law units are a key part of our overall solution in terms of having more housing in san francisco to meet the needs of our growing city. in-law units are the most affordable types of non-subsidized housing and as we look for a lot of different ways of addressing our housing crisis, in-law units are certainly one piece of the puzzle. this is modest, yet important legislation that will create more housing, that will create new rent-controlled units. there is convention wisdom it's impossible to create new rent-control units that you can only lose them. this legislation demonstrates that you can add new rent controlled units and it will do so in districts 3 and 8. colleagues i ask for your support. i know we have had some amendments last week that i did not support and i hope thatquial we'll have additional discussion around those amendments today. we need to make sure what happens is that people actually build those units. if you just have a law that sits there and no one is building, than that is a problem. thank you, colleagues. >> supervisor christensen, any comments that you would like to make? >> i'm grateful to supervisor wiener for his leadership on this issue and happy to add district 3 to the districts that would consider this program. we have been stuck in district 3 how to respond to the housing crisis. we have a lot of people in our neighborhoods, seniors people with limited mobility, especially who find our hills and stairs difficult. the fact that the allowing of these auddus will, as supervisor wiener said, add rent-controlled housing to the district. the fact that the addition of housing would be dispersed, which means rather than single high-rises we would be spreading out these additions across the neighborhood. dear to my heart, the fact that many of these units are likely to be accessible, on or near the ground floor, where seniors and those with limited mobility would find them easier to access. i think a district made of wonderful neighborhoods with character, to be able to add housing and still preserve the exterior appearance of our buildings is really valuable. we have been talking a lot the board of supervisors about our housing crisis. we have property owners currently that are considering adding bedrooms to existing units in spaces that could be entire rentable apartments., if only the code did not currently prohibit it. so we do feel some sense of urgency in moving this forward and we're working in my office not only to allow this to happen, but to incentivize it where appropriate with assurances has it all of the regular building code and regulations in place will apply to these units and hopefully give us a way to move forward in a very measureded and reviewed fashion. colleagues, i appreciate your effort. >> thank you, supervisor christensen. >> colleagues after our last meet, we received additional advice from the city attorney and i would like to give deputy city attorney jon givner. >> last week the committee made several amendments. one of them was to prohibit future subdivisions that would allow accessory dwelling units or in-laws to be sold or financed separately from the existing unit. you made that amendment and continued the item, so that the planning commission could review it. what is before you today is legislation with two additional amendments that you made last week. those amendments would prohibit short-term rentals in these new accessory dwelling units under this chapter of code and would also prohibit anyone from creating a new accessory dwelling unit if there was an ellis act eviction in the previous ten years in the building. the short-term rental prohibition and ellis act prohibition would include those in district 3 and those in district 8 as supervisors christensen and wiener mentioned and also those under the seismic program that supervisor wiener mentioned. the planning commission did not have an opportunity when it considered these pieces of legislation earlier this month to look at the possibility of restricting the seismic program. and so our advice is that if the committee would like to restrict the seismic program by not allowing short-term rentals in the in-law accessory dwelling unit or not allowing new accessory dwelling unit where there was an ellis act eviction, you should refer that amendment back to the planning commission. that leaves you with a number of options that you could move forward with today, including sending on to the full board a version of the legislation that restricts the district 3 and district 8 in-laws. so that they can't have short-term rental or ellis act evictions or you could send the entire item back to planning. you could strip out the short-term analysis out of legislation and send that to the full board, but the one thing you can't do is send to the full board an ordinance that restricts the seismic program in-laws. >> thank you, mr. givner, that was a mouthful, but we appreciate you for that. i want to take a couple of minutes to share a thought process. i have taken a look at the short-term rental issue and while i have concern that these units will be constructed solely for the purpose of utilizing the short-term rental, which wouldn't help the housing needs in districts 3 and 8. i don't believe that we have enough information at this point to ban them entirely. i would like to propose that we duplicate this file again and send the version to planning which requires additional hearings and continues the ban on short-term rentals and ellis act evictions for accessory dwelling units in the area. on the duplicate file i have circulated some amendments that requires the planning department to monitor both the affordability of these units, but also the use of short-term rentals in these units. thank you. this proposal also includes a requirement that an application, that an applicant looking to build in-law units under this legislation disclose whether they intend to use or authorize the unit for short-term rentals. so the planning department knows from the outset if the unit is possibly going to be used for short-term rental and can flag for monitor and possible enforcement in the future. so it's my hope that this data will allow us to see how many of these rentals are being built? and whether or not short-term rental usage is pervasive? and once we have this data, i believe it will give us a more accurate picture and allow us to address any issues in a very specific and targeted way. i'm open to including the ellis act provision in a future ordinance that comes before us, but based on additional cautionary advice we received from the city attorney, i think it needs some refinement, which we can accomplish when it's heard again in the planning commission. supervisor wiener. >> >> thank you very much, madame chair and thank you for these amendments. just for clarification, my understanding as the chair is proposing, what we would send out of committee today would be what originally came to committee last monday, with one change, a monitoring requirement for short-term rentals. that would, if the committee chooses to do, so move out of committee and then the ellis act provision and the short-term rental provision in terms of the restrictions would be referred to the planning commission to join the condo conversion amendment there. and so i just want to make sure that my understanding is accurate. >> yes, supervisor wiener, your understanding is correct and it's complicated. thank you for reiterating it. >> i very much appreciate that and i will certainly support that change. and also to clarify something that i said in opening remarks in terms of the amendments last week, i did support the ellis act amendment. but not the other two amendments. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think i'm still -- because we're muddling through a lot. so there were three amendments that were introduced last week. and so there is still support on a duplicated file for the ellis act eviction in a building where there is an ellis act eviction, that there will be a prohibition of accessory dwelling unit if there was one over last ten years and that will be moving forward in a duplicative file to the planning commission to consider. okay. so that amendment will stand. the second amendment that i introduced was a prohibition of short-term rentals in accessory dwelling units. that was brought forward back to committee. but now is being -- that the city attorney advised us now it should go back to the planning commission. if it moves beyond district 3 and 8, but impacts the whole seismic program. what i had recommended to the city attorney over the weekend is that we limit the restriction to district 3 and 8. and that we send back to planning commission a prohibition of short-term rentals on the seismic program for them to consider and for us to get feedback on. so i just want to clarify with supervisor cohen what piece of that we're moving forward with now? both back to planning commission, and to the full board tomorrow? so on the short-term -- it's a lot. on the short-term rental prohibition, what i had asked the city attorney to draft is that we limit the amendment to just districts 3 and 8, and move that forward to the full board tomorrow. and that we also on the duplicative file move forward a prohibition on short-term rentals to the planning commission, impacting the entire seismic program. so we can get feedback from the planning commission on that piece. and that would move through the process. so i guess my clarifying question to supervisor cohen, will the monitoring piece move forward with the prohibition piece to the planning commission for them to consider before it comes back to land use? >> certainly you are free to make the motion to do so. i want to recognize jon givner to opine. >> sure. deputy city attorney jon givner. supervisor cohen's amendment would take one version of the legislation that has the ellis act prohibition, and the short-term rental prohibition and then would send it all back to planning. all of that -- >> with the monitoring piece. >> the monitoring piece is separate. so to take the ellis act and short-term rental prohibition, applying to all-accessry dwelling units and sending back to plan for review and the two pieces of legislation still in committee, allowing accessory dwelling units in districts 3 and 8, supervisor cohen's amendment would require planning to track data regarding how many short-term -- how much short-term rental use there is and require applicants -- >> and the piece on the subdivision that was the third amendment. >> has already gone back to planning. so planning would under -- if supervisor cohen's motion passes, planning will in the next 90 days have the opportunity to review the subdivision, the ellis act and the short-term rental prohibition. >> all three amendments will go to the planning commission and the one amendment that will move forward to the full board tomorrow is this amendment before us today on the monitoring piece. >> exactly. >> i'm happy to support that as with. >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener. >> okay. just to be clear, so in terms of what moves out of committee today, there would be no prohibition on short-term rental until any adus and there would be a monitoring requirement for all of them? >> yes. >> that is right. the one additional piece is that we would require applicants for -- creating -- adus to state on their applicant if they intend those in the units >> thank you. >> all right. colleagues, let's go ahead and dig into public comment. ladies and gentlemen, i have actually one comment card- here is a few more. mr. bob pool, you are up first. just as a reminder, if you would like to speak on items 3 or 4, please just line up and queue up to the far side of the chamber, and we can go as quickly as possible for public comment. mr. pool, are you here? okay i will gos to the next person mr. pool, join us when you can keith freedman. [ reading speakers' names ] >> thank you. my name is keith freedman a teacher at city college and renter in supervisor wiener's district. >> pull the mic closer to your mouth, so we can hear you. >> is that better? >> yes. >> thank you. one of my concerns about adding an amendment to the str restrictions affects renters. most of the adus will be used for family use or used as rental units. the tenants will not have the option in the future should they need to to veil avail themselves of the additional income to make sure that rent is paid. most landlord's goals is to make sure their rents are paid and it's much better for them to allow a tenant to make extra on weekends when they go away this. will affect future tenants more so that than the actual property owners and to take that into consideration when considering the amendments. thank you. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> san francisco housing action coalition and trying to keep up with amendments as i was sitting downstairs and watching the tv. we do not support the original amendments introduced a week ago. our basic stance in-law units have been veted in san francisco for decades. and adding more restrictions to get them built will only make it more likely that they are not built legally and will be built illegally like they have for decades. we have thousands of illegal in-law units and we have an opportunity to create new in-law units legally. so it's a little confusing why a year-ago we supported legislation for the castro district and now we want to change it when it's expanded to different neighborhoods. sounds like what you came up here with today is better and