to get out and play. for more information about reserving one of these romantic locations or any other location, call 831-5500. this number is best for special events, weddings, picnics, and the county fair buildings. or for any athletic field, call 831-5510. you can write us at -- or walk in and say hello. and of course you can find more information moresfrecpark.org. --

good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. my name is scott wiener, i'm the chairman of the committee and jane kim and malia cohen. our clerk is os berry. i would like to thank sfgtv for broadcasting today's hearing, jessie larson. madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes. please silence any cell phones and any electronic devices. please fill out a card if you wish to speak. items heard today will be in the agenda. >>supervisor scott weiner: please call item no. 1.

the clerk: item 131185: airport's noise insulation program]1311851.resolution approving the acquisition of 33 avigation easements from various property owners in san mateo county to replace expiring avigation easements required for the san francisco international airport's noise insulation program projectt; adopting findings that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the california environmental quality act, class 1: existing facilities; adopting findings that the acquisition is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. the clerk: sf 11234 >>supervisor scott weiner: mr. up dike is here. >> today before you are various avigation easements. these are located in two specific areas within daily city just south of the center just off the i 280. a little background, the state of california noise standards for airports is in title 21 of the state code which requires airports to land use. nearly 15,000 structures around sfo. we are affected in someway that require easements and/or improvements noise insulation

to those homes. about 180 of those easements were secured with a 20-year term. those terms are now expiring and that is why we are before you today with new perpetual easements that succeed those 20-year term easements within the noise impact boundary. there is no fiscal impact, minor for the time and trouble of executing and notarizing a document and you have 33 of those before you today for these avigation easements, we are seeking your authority to accept them. there will be more of these. you have seen these in the past and we'll continue to bring these forward. in your file you have a general plan conformity letter from the department of planning. happy to answer any questions you might have and am joined by the representative of the airport if you have program questions. >>supervisor scott weiner:

thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? okay. in that case we'll open for public comment.is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. colleagues can i have a motion for full recommendation. can we take that wow objection? that will be the order. >> madam clerk, please call item no. 2. >> the clerk: item 2: agenda[planning code - transit impact development fee exemptions]1309382.sponsor: wienerordinance amending the planning code to revise deadlines for certain transit impact development fee tidff exemptions; eliminate project-specific references in exemptions applicable to redevelopment areas, and make such exemptions dependent on the terms of the controlling development agreement, redevelopment plan, interagency agreement or other contract entered into by the city; require that the tidf be calculated based on the rate in effect and the time of issuance of the first construction document; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> the clerk: sf 21234 >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i'm the author of item no. 2. this legislation before us makes technical amendments to the transit impact development fee by our board of supervisors

unanimously in 2012. these amendments will ensure that all projects that are covered by the general transit impact development fee do pay this fee in all parts of the city. the transit impact development fee is a key part of our funding system for public transportation in the city and it is designed to ensure that development that general rates auto trips or other types of transportation trips pay their fair share to help cover those transit impact. this is not the type of development assess the type of development fee. for example exemptions for housing and non-profit user fee remain as the development fee. instead the project and redevelopment areas are treated fairly and equitably and consistent with the adoptive plan for the area. this will help us develop

good public transportation options in the neighborhood. this was considered by the planning commission last december and supported by the commission unanimously. in 2012, the legislative update to the transit impact developmentf ordinance by mayor lee included reference to some form of redevelopment area plan but not all. in working closely with occi, the planning department and mta, we agreed that the ordinance needed to be clarified so that we would not have some plan areas covered by the transit development fee but not others. so, again, this ordinance does clarify the applicability of the transit impact developmentf and the extent to which it applies. for for example instead of calling out mission bay project from being exempt across the board, this legislation required deferral

to the mission bay development plan. that plan states the project of mission bay were exempt for 10 years from the plan adoption and that expired 5 years ago. the legislation will not extend transit impact fees to mission bay which are more general to transit impact development ordinance. lastly the planning department will describe the ordinance to make other minor and technical amendment in terms of timing and fee collection in order to make transit impact development consistent with other impact fees. i now want to invite lisa chen from the planning department to describe the legislation. miss chen? >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. i'm lisa chen with the planning department. i'm joined by the planning department and from sf mta.

the ordinance today is a proposal to amend the transit impact development fee, the city's primary mechanism for our transit system. the proposed ordinance would clarify and broaden language for projects subject to a development agreement or other similar agreement entered into by the city. the proposal also includes minor administrative improvement including changes to deadlines providing certain types of the exemptions and timing and method of calculating the fee. collectively these changes are to simplify the administration and making it easiest for project sponsors to understand the policy and consistent with other impact fees. it's with new non-residential development to fund munis capital cost and system

maintenance. due to increased service. the fee includes for residential projects, projects creating less than 800 square feet of new development. projects considered charitiably exempt and projects consisting of land uses. the proposed ordinance does not create new or ordinary categories of exemption. the main intent of the ordinance is to clarify the languages regarding the ordinance to a development agreement or other similar document which would include a redevelopment plan, owner participation agreement, or inter agency cooperation agreement. for this project specifies the term of the development agreement or other similar document would determine whether or not the project would be exempt from transit impact development fee. the existing language which explicitly identifies mission bay only to all areas

in the city for agreement which restrict the application. this acknowledges the fact that larger development projects may have transit impacts and structure needs and to make these improvements themselves. by entering into a development agreement or other equivalent agreement the city may negotiate a packet that is captured in a citywide fee. the other changes proposed under the ordinance are intended to improve the administration of the fee. the proposal requires the fee be calculated in a rate of effect of the construction document which is consistent with other development impact fees charged by the city. currently the fees calculated base on the rate and effect and at the time of issuance of the building and site permit.

finally the proposal would change the deadline for certain types of projects applied for exemption. this is projects owned by the city or other projects with wholesale stores and materials and equipment. during the last transit impact development it was expanded to a grandfather period to be allowed the pipeline to adjust their capital plan. in summary the department see's the proposed ordinance as a means towards more clear and clarification and we recommend approval of the ordinance. i will be available for questions. thank you. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. colleagues any questions or comments? okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, supervisor kim?

>>supervisor jane kim: first i'm happy to move forward with positive recommendation. i would like to thank the chair for being so vigilant about this issue because when it came up, i think we were under the impression that the grandfathering of the transit impact development fee came with some clean up. i'm glad we were able to capture these funds and treat the project fairly. which is important to me as well because folks that come into development were getting a packet they have been promised through the regional development commitment. great to see this forward and happy to move this forward. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, supervisor with a motion to full recommendation to the board with positive recommendation and we'll take that without objection. that will be the order. madam clerk, please call item no. 3. the clerk: item 3: [hearing - code enforcement policies and

procedures]1400213.sponsors: wiener; cohenhearing directed to the housing and building divisions of the department of building inspection, the planning department, the department of public health, and the fire department to report on inspection and enforcement of city code violations in san francisco's buildings, including internal departmental procedures for inspections, pursuit, and referral of violations; examples of problematic cases; requirements for referral of cases to the city attorney's office or departmental committees; description of types of cases, including examples, being referred to the city attorney's office or departmental committees; number and percentage of cases not being referred for enforcement and whether lack of referral for enforcement results from the merits of the case or other factors such as budget concerns; yearly statistics, including the number of cases received, the number of referrals made, the number of cases closed; and record-keeping practices, including ability of the public to track process of violations; whether legislation is needed to ensure better coordination on code enforcement and more consistent enforcement and referrals by the various departments. the clerk: sf 31234 >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, i along with supervisor cohen are the coauthors of this hearing request. colleagues today we our city agencies against code violations in es our buildings in various parts of the city. this issue affects neighborhoods all over our city and supervisor cohen's district initially but impact all neighborhoods in one scale or another. we have seen buildings or properties with boarded upwind -- windows and broken stairs and piece of a building, significant pieces removed and neighboring construction work and never moves forward. some very tragic examples of extreme

hoarding to the point where -- ingres or egress to the building and buyer hazard and obvious violations can sometimes last for years. and inspections occur, but there are times when at least it does not appear to the public that action is being taken by city departments. we have some situations in fact it's pretty common where we'll get calls from neighbors saying i have been complaining about this blaetd dangerous property and nothing is happening. one of our charges is the complicated coding system involves quite a few departments requiring a lot of coordination and inter departmental communication. in addition it at least an appears at times from the

outside that there may be decisions around code enforcement made based at least in part on budget because doing enforcement can be expensive and referring cases to the city attorneys office means the department will get billed to its budget and the budget does play a role here. it's also difficult at times to track what is going on with particular buildings because if different departments are involved and at different levels to the accessibility to the data system. it's the most advanced giving people access but not all at quite that level. a system, even though we know we have a lot of hardworking people in our city department who want to address these problems, this isn't an issue about city employees not stepping up, it's really more about the structure of how we do code enforcement and just making sure that our

departments are coordinating, that we have accountability, that there is transparency and that we are actually meaning fully addressing some of these blaetd and dangerous properties that have an impact on our neighborhoods. i also want to note and it's always a balance because there are times when buildings become dilapidated or hoarding occurs on a construction project and it sits there for 5 years. there are times when people don't have the economic resources to do what they need to do. someone starts a construction project and runs out of money. someone does not have the ability to take care of their property. and obviously hoarding can be caused by serious mental illness at times in extreme situations and it's very very important that we as a city look out for folks who are really experiencing these

kinds of problems in terms of our social safety net being able to go in and help people and make sure that people have access to the resources they need but at the same time when you have properties that become dangerous, that become magnets for that activity and that are causing blight on a neighborhood for years and years, it's really important that we move forward and address the situation in one way or another. so, today we'll be hearing from representative, the department of building inspection and department of public health and the fire department and each department will tell us how they address the code internally and we'll hear why some properties appear to slip through the cracks and how many codes and cases are received and the number of

relevance made and the number of cases closed. we'll learn about the departmental recordkeeping practices which is very important in terms of tracking properties with multiple complaints for the years. my hope is that we'll find out what's working, what's not working and what we can do to improve things and improve coordination and address these problem situations. with that, i would like to offer supervisor cohen my cosponsor of this hearing. >>supervisor malia cohen: thank you everyone. it's great that you are here. this is an important topic because it affects everyday people's lives. as i told my constituents, it's not one of the most sexiest or glamorous legislation, but it's just a critical when we are talking about having an impact on people's lives and the

quality of life that they are living with their families. i want to also acknowledge that certainly the last 3 years my office has been working very closely with department with dbi, with planning office and with fire and with the civil grand jury. we have been studying this for about 3 years. i will to have give a compliment to these departments and say you are miles of where you are before at least in the open notices of violations that we've had in the city and we've had emergency demolitions and we've come a long way. i'm excited to continue to have this conversation. i think it's very important that we are not let up on the pressure or the sense of urgency on this very important topic. i hope that as a result of this hearing we'll be able to take away a blueprint for a model

that we can begin to roll out for the entire city. it's critical that all of our departments are working together and not operating in a silo. i agree with you, there will be important questions asked today and i'm excited to hear some of the answers. let's get started. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. with that i would like to first invite rosemary bossky, from the chief house inspector, and mr. proot, i should ask you to come. >> good afternoon, supervisors, it's our honor to give this presentation this afternoon. we have two parts, first part will be housing and then we'll represent to you by my chief housing inspector rosemary and the second part

from the director. i want to address since i took over this position, we already double up our hearing for the code enforcement for housing and building. i try to address these and we are working very closely with all the supervisors trying to resolve these issues. if the emergency or whatever is necessary, the supervisor, we are working together on all of those issues. today you will get the overview of what we have in our office and how we work to resolve those issues. for each part you can after they make the presentation, you can ask questions and then among complaints and coming to our

department. thank you. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. with that, rosemary bossky, our chief house inspector. >> thank you very much for allowing us to explain our code enforcement in this office. i will have been doing this for the last 20 years. i want to commend director healey and lourey for their support for their on going efforts in their attempts and efforts to go ahead and constantly refine this process. to begin with, the housing division in the department of building inspection deals with the code enforcement and the education of property owners principally of residential housing citywide. to do that we are organized in a way to be able to deliver the mission to make sure that the minimum standards for hazard ability

for all residents in the county and san francisco for the code. this is a retro active code that deals with for minimum maintenance standard. we have about 370,000 residential units in the city and county of san francisco. about 62 percent are rental and about 72 percent of that housing was built before 1960. preserving that housing is a very important task and that is our primary goal. we want to identify life safety hazard and promote safe sanitary and function am housing. to be able to do that, the first components is to be able to make sure the property owners have as much information as possible to maintain those buildings, that means to

educate them and make sure we are out there addressing meetings and talking with them anden is you -- ensuring we have the informational data and to survey their property. when it's really bad, it looks something like this. this is in supervisor wieners district. this is chaos of hoarding. the first anchor in code enforcement is how is the organization organized to be able to respond to complaints and to be able to achieve systemic enforcement. in the housing inspection division of the dbi we have 21 building inspectors and myself. that translates about 21,000 building inspections. we want to make sure the property

owners have with a they need to do building inspections. we distribute a lot of information to property owners. if we are doing a routine inspection, we give them information to see before we do the inspection. we want to make sure they are surveying their property on a regular basis and indeed the board of supervisors has required that they be looking at their property and having an outside inspector looking at the building every 5 years. we also have our code enforcement outreach program which includes both representative of tenants and landlords and san francisco apartment association as well as housing rights committee and chinatown community development center. we have tenderloin housing clinic and the srl collaborative and

chinatown and families in residential hotels. all of those outreach emphasis, those vendors work with the complaints, the property owners, the site manager and property manager and every other stakeholder to encourage if there is a violation that it be addressed at the lowest level possible so that if there is an issue with trying to get into the property to coordinate and mediate the issues that go along with code enforcement that it's achieved. we also have as i mentioned before the landlord responsibilities to act on a way to the properties and let the property know if there is a violation and to accommodate these section. we talked about the complaint of the affidavit. how do we achieve the safe and functional housing in addition to enforcement in addition to organization, the third pilar has to do with inspection. what do we do as far as those? we do systemic enforcement

and look at certain buildings every 5 years, the common areas of apartment buildings and hotels and we perform inspections based on complaints that come to us directly from 311 from other agency, from the city attorneys, from the city attorneys task force. it's a plethora of ways to come to us and we respond from 1-3 business days depending on the nature of the code violations that is alleged. in looking at the process as i said, we had -- either complaints, it could be a systemic enforcement and we'll talk about the rest of the department for systematic enforcement are the boiler systems. there are complaints and systematic enforcement. when we get the complaint or the process is initiated, the inspector will do that inspection whether it's a contact or a name complaintor

anonymous complaint we'll be able to get access through other individuals in the building or permission of the property owner if it's consensual. if there is notices of violation will indicate if there is a permit required and in some extreme cases we might initiate a danger order. and there is a time frame for compliance and we'll do reinspection until we achieve compliance and depending upon the reaction of the property owner and i should say most property owners react and act in a timely and responsible way, but not all, but the majority do. so we will then take the case through an administrative process where we'll send it to a directors hearing where the property owner has to show cause as to why they have not complied. >>supervisor scott weiner: when you receive a complaint,

this is a question i'm going to ask each department. when you receive a complaint to what extent do you check with other departments and how so to determine if a, they have received any complaints, or b, to bring them in because it may or may y not be a safety or fire code issue? >> depending on the complaint, the housing code has an overlapping jurisdiction with the health code and fire code. if it's a bedbug complaint, we might make a report to the health department and possibly dpsw if the debris or the blight is in the right-of-way. it depends on the nature of the complaint. when it comes

in we are analyzing whether or not it's overlapping with a jurisdiction. we have a plan that we use that we will e-mail to them and indicate whether or not we are taking a parallel action. right now our complaint tracking system doesn't allow to see if there is an active complaint by all other city agencies that are engaged in the code process. i would love to see that happen but currently it doesn't have that ability. >>supervisor scott weiner: is there a thinking about having that kind of centralized data base? >> there is 311 which is a repository to some of the complaints coming into this city. i can't necessarily go into that to see that the health department may have a complaint or a fire department may have a similar complaint to the one that