buildings.discussion and possible action regarding proposed revisions to administrative bulletin ab-093, implementation of green building regulations, as required to implement the 2013 san francisco green building code. >> good morning, we have an update, a proposed update to the existing bulliten. >> as you know in the code it went into effect on january first of this year, 2014. and in that, current version, it is expanded the scope of it, and of the buildings and occupancy that it covers. and i have got the father of the green building bulliten, mary hooper from the department of the environment who can tell us the major changes and the things that the efforts that we took. good morning, and i will just briefly take you through a couple of highlights through the revisions of this document

which has been, and it is in, and this is substantially similar to the version that we have been using for five years now and the first major changes on page 4 of the narrative. >> and the environmental design and. and however, that as the state green building code is expanded it now effects any small residential alteration that increases the space in the

building and it is the judgment of the building inspection and the code advisory committee, that those rating systems would not be a good fit for the small projects of that type and they will become a useful tool when they are talking about the projects. and so, there remain two ways of complying with those requirements either obtaining those certifications where for the projects are required or by hiring the inspector and a green building record who holds the appropriate qualifications to verify the green building measures have been implemented correctly. and in the case of green, because the range of projects that would utilize, or meet the california green building requirements but would not use the rating systems has expanded and the icc is now offering the training in cal green inspection compliance, and then, the range of ways of

qualifying to be a green building of record was expanded to include, but was already there in the past which is being accredited as a lead to credit professional and under the system and the green point which is the verifier in the system or an icc certificated cow grain inspect and ner and that is just adding a different type of credential. >> and the next set of major changes are really not within the narrative of it but they are in the forms that were provided for the resource that will help the applicant to understand what was required, in the understand of a brief of a format as possible and to provide in the appropriate form for each type project so that for the requirements. attachment a, and table one has

been expanded a bit, to be a little bit clearer for the user who might be complying with the green building stand right side for the first time. and in particular, the, there is a reference at the bottom to help the people understand where to find the detailed information, for exactly, what may apply for a given project. >> the next two major reversions are in the submitals. and they are that last year, the san francisco building owners and managers association, approached the department of building inspection and asked for a form that will be as simple as possible for interior tenant improvements, and to recognize that only actions that are within the scope of that project would actually apply and so that they will have a simple submital they will have the new construction and that is attachment c6 of the

bulliten and that has been well received and it has been updated to match some small changes in the 2013, codes. the next two changes are attachment c7, which is because of this whole new category, of projects and that the city will

be requiring it in the sector of the requirements and that concludes my presentation, for you this morning. >> thank you, mr. cooper. >> we need to make the changes without bringing it back to the commission for the formal approval? >> okay. >> a motion to move. >> second. >> could i have a motion and a second to approve the ab0, 93, is there any public comment on

this item? >> president mccarthy? >> yes. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> and commissioner, melgar >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. okay, we are on to item number ten.discussion and possible action regarding a draft ordinance amending the building code to require that existing k-12 private schools obtain an evaluation by a licensed structural engineer for performance during a future earthquake, and assessing a fee for building department review and related evaluation processing; requiring that a building changing to a school occupancy classification shall comply with the evaluation requirements; making environmental findings and findings under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage.

>> good morning, commissioners, patrick with the division, with the city of san francisco and i want to thank you for your attention and as you know the air quake safety is a 30 year plan aimed at reducing risk just like i was up here in front of you, just like a year ago talking about a soft story retrofit, this is another stop on the tour. this is looking at the safety of the private schools and before i go into that and insurance it is a year since i talked to you, i wanted to give you an update and let you know that we are in the middle of the screening process and dbi has done a fantastic job and they have been working hard to implement this program. and there is a live, website that dbi and that tracks all of these after this meeting if

there are any other questions about our out reach plan i am happy to go into detail on that and i am happy to talk about. >> why are we looking at private schools and many of you may know that if you are in a public school, and you wanted to do alterations you do not apply for the department for building inspection for a permit. this is the state level of dsa and however if you are a private school you are under the jurisdiction of the department of building inspection in the 30s we started to look at the schools differently and we wanted to be sure that the public schools were built to a higher standard and in 199 *6, the private school act and so largely people are aunaware of it and we saw this and we realized

that the public schools were required to do evaluations decades ago and we have never had the requirement for the 24,000 children that attend and we have the highest rate out of any city and county in the nation and so, looking back in 2012, we started a working group and that was made up of administrators and concerned parents and engineers and other professionals and other members that are involved in this effort and we reached out of the administrator out of 120 schools in san francisco and this was in november of 2012, letting them know that we were starting a working group and several of them came and participated throughout the process but we kept noticing them throughout this working group process and so we e-mailed them to participate and i think that drove the attendance up and grave us some great, great people to work with as we were coming up with the balance recommendations and we knew that we had a spectrum of options looking in the

working group on one end, we could do nothing, really, and we could do an education program, and make the owners do anything and that is, you might get the people talking about it largely ineffective and the other end will be the mandatory retrofit to every school for a high standard and we know that is bad for business and going to shut down the schools. trying to bring the parity and to evaluate the buildings and so the ordinance that is before you for recommendations to the board, has already been introduced, and it has received approvals from both the cac committee and the full cac and so you should have a letter to that effect in your packet and introduced by the mayor, with eight co-sponsor and trying to send a message that this is about public safety and not about politics. in december, the working group completed them and i have copies and it is a fantastic report and going into everything from what we talked about in the working group to a survey that we did for the private school parents and what we saw was parents are unaware of this issue and assume that they are writing a check that the children are in a safe

place, and that does not mean that all schools are dang sxraous there are plenty of schools that are voluntary and retrofitting over the years based on the alterations we want to develop a responsible program that does not insight panic and because there are 120 of them, the staff is prepared to manage these schools. especially the schools and we want to be sure that we can find that out, they can cost as little as 8,000 for the school for the smaller buildings and they have three years to be able to pay for that in working with the schools that seemed like a sufficient amount of time to public in the capitol planning process to be able to do the evaluation. now once they do the evaluation three years from now, what do they do then? i am pleased to say that we have a financing mechanism in place so that if that school, and the discover some risks that they want to mitigate, we have a way to pay for it at a low interest rate and so we will try to get it activated out of this process.

>> okay. >> i think that we say that private schools are in the same bucket and they are not. there is a difference in terms of it in the mission, and a lot of the schools in the neighbors and the school is the only alternative to, a low performing school and so i do wonder if, there is primarily serve the children of color and i am worried that those schools also tend to be on the edge, financially, so i am wonder ifing there are any special consideration in the process

for that. >> sure, absolutely, great question and so we have had schools represented throughout the process that are in that kind of hard spot. >> oak school is a perfect example of one and so we have been working with them with that and the forefront of our thinking the whole time and so again it speaks to the level of case management that we are willing to dedicate the staff time and so to be able to work with these individually and when we talk about the schools, and different, the arch diocese was part tf and they have happened a consultant to manage this and so they are excited on engaging this and that will be handled on a city wide basis from what they have been telling me, you are right, the smaller schools, are schools that we need to pay close attention to. in they were passing a different requirement on them and this is about the safety of children and not only the

safety of children and we know that they play a role in the resilientcy of our community and if there is a large school that goes out, due to an earthquake, the public school system is responsible for picking up the children and we have population issues, and so it is not just the safety of the individual child, it is the role that these play in the greater community and so working with every school on a microlevel is hugely important to the success's program. >> commissioner mar and then commissioner. >> and i wonder why some of the post secondary private schools were not included in this because a lot of them have taken over like old industrial buildings, and maybe places that should be looked at. >> yeah, the working group did look at that and it becomes a slippery slope building code wise because those are b, and not c, and so we wanted to limit this on the world that lives and kthrough 12 and when you get into that post secondary school, accreditation goes all over the map and we, again, getting back to the parody idea, we want to look at

what is required and for the post secondary there is no dsa seismic requirements for the k, through, 12 public schools and that is trying to narrow that world and to that side of the spectrum, we are not looking at preschools and not looking at home schools, because we did not want to get into the business of evaluating private residents and just limited it for the working group. >> question about there is a reference that will be rin into the code that says that the department shall department a. nre. so the team has corrected with david who helped out with the soft story program and you will be pleased to know that this does not come out of the building inspection budget and so we are working with the building department to help

develop that administrative bulletin and we have an aggressive schedule and we are already in the draft form discussing it but we hope that by the time the mayor signs this into law we will have an ab that will be ready to go at that time. >> and it will go before the cac for their review. >> and before us for our review. >> absolutely. >> and yeah, okay, great, thanks. >> just on the commissioner, and the page. >> it talked about fees. >> are these fees in addition to the 8,000 dollars and how do those fees roll out to support? >> great, so, this is the idea of avoiding a fiscal impact with the city because we would be offseting the cost of the department time dedicated to reviewing these. these probably will not be large fees and so you know there are very generic language and because we have not seen what the final product will look like, the goal is to make these evaluations very uniform, and if we are to hire the structural engineers and tell

them to go and evaluate, we are going to get a huge deviation on what they look like, and so making sure that they are consistent will actually ease the staff because they are looking at things over and over again and so what we want to do before we figure out if there is potential for assistance on this and maybe a flat fee, we want to figure out what it will take to review this and be honest about that and so if this is a two hour, we can associate a price with it. >> okay, well thank you very much for your presentation. i think that we will be seeing a lot of you again. and it looks good and it looks like it is going the right direction. >> thank you very much. president mccarthy, i will leave these report and one for the commissioner and one for the file. >> thank you. >> we don't take it and actually we are looking for a motion. >> yes, sorry. >> well, we do need a motion, on this item. >> move to approve. >> there is a second?

>> second. >> thank you foxer that. >> did we have a motion and a second. is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none we will do a roll call vote. president mccarthy? >> yes. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> and the motion carries unanimously. thank you. >> we are on to item 11, discussion and possible action regarding an ordinance, 131148.amending the planning and building codes to provide a process for granting legal status to existing dwelling units constructed without the required permits, and establishing a fee for administering the authorization program; amending the administrative code to provide that a dwelling unit that was subject to the rent ordinance before legalization will remain under the rent ordinance, and requiring the property owner to

provide relocation assistance to displaced tenants >> my name is amy chan and i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak on the supervisor's in law housing legislation. and so supervisor chui entered it in november, with co-sponsor ship with wean tore allow the existing inlaw that were built without permits to apply for legal status, it was developed with the collaboration of a diverse group of tenants property owners and housing organization and city departments. and which, of course, includes the department of building inspection. and i know that rosmary is here

to speak on the legislation. so basically the proposal creates a voluntary process, that allows a property owner to legalize one existing dwelling unit on its property that was corrected before january of last year and a property ener will have to go to dbi to submit the plans and screen the unit to determine that it meets the required building code. and when they were approved, they can submit a proper application with the planning department and secure any necessary permits for construction. and so we want to talk just briefly about why the supervisor introduced the legislation and as are very well aware there are estimated tens of thousands of inlaw units that exist in the city. and these are dwelling units that were added on to existing housing by converting attic and basements and garages and into new spaces for living.

and but, of course, they don't have the required permit and they were not build with city approval. the illegal status have had an impact, and the tenants may not have leases or understand their basic protections and that the units may lack the necessary life safety standards set by the building code and despite earning income from the units the owners also face the potential of losing the unit through enforcement as dbi staff can tell you more about, and i am sure that you know very well, and also, being subject to penalties and possibly even lawsuits. we know that they are vital for our city and we don't have official tracking we know from door-to-door survey, we know that last year, that these

units are occupied by families with children, and senior and immigrant and very low and extremely low income households that pay about 1250 in monthly rent to 2 bedroom inlaw unit and compared to an over all median rent in the city of nearly 3500 dollars for the equivalent two bedroom. and so the over arching goal of the legislation is to help to bring this stock of affordable housing into the legal affordsable housing stock and this will help to preserve the housing that is at risk of elimination. and reaccurate the housing units that are kept of of the market because of enforcement or fear of enforcement, this also dove tails with the executive directive that mayor lee issued past december directing all city agency to take the actions to preserve the housing stock. and this requires that they go

through a review process when the property owners are trying to remove them from the housing market rather than trying to legalize them. requiring that the units be compliant with the building code, it insures that the tenants are living in the safe building conditions that have life safety system to protect them in cases of emergencies like fires. and the proposal also helps the owners make a long term investment in the affordable housing by doing a couple of things, one, reducing the planning and zoning obstacle to legalization, and we wave, open pace requirements in parking space requirements under the planning code. and in order for them to legalize, and two creating a screening process that allows the owners to initiate the

process without fear of immediate enforcement action. and then, finally, three, allowing any notice of violation that is currently on the illegal unit, to be temporarily suspended if a good faith effort is made at legalization and then having that nov terminated if the unit is actually legalized within a year. so, for decades now we know that the unit haves been allowed to exist without a pathway to become legalized. and the supervisor believes that this is a real feasible plan to help them do that and that balance is both our preservation goals as well as our building safety goals. and so, we ask that the commission support the legislation today and, if i would be happy to answer any questions. you have questions? >> yes. >> commissioner lee?

>> a couple of basic questions. >> sure. >> is there a reason why the cut off date is january of 2013? and the second question, is that i can see where there being incentive for the property owners that have received novs, on their inlaw units already. but what is the incentive for property owners that have inlaws but nobody knows about them? >> okay. >> so, your first question the january, 2013 date was established because we started the process at that time and so just about over a year ago, we convened all of the stake holders involved to come up with a policy solution to address this challenge and we did not want to incentivize to create new units because they heard about the process to later legalize them, we wanted the folks to go through the

legal process. >> if an owner is going through a notice of violation and they must deal with legalizing or removing that unit from the housing stock, and our legislation definitely insensitivizes them to go the legalization route if they could bring the unit up to code and the unit that does not have a notice of violation, that does not mean that it may not later encounter an endivorcement

enforcement and we have seen from the housing organizations that represent the tenants as well as hearing from the small property owners of san francisco that there are many, many cases where, this from the land lords and the tenants have either resulted in the evictions that should not have happened or did not need to happen, or that there is ongoing disputes about the rents and how much rent is owed or has been owed or the services that were provided. and so i think that achieving klartty in the status of the unit helps the land lords really understand, their obligation to their tenants as well as vice, versa and not

assume those risks. i do have one more question to ask, once we know of a unit that has life safety issues let's say and the proposal is that the tenant should move out, what liability does the city have >> this question was raised with the building cac and i was there, for a both of january and february, meetings when this legislation was considered. and based on the feedback from the cac we incorporated language that says that if the city were to come across and the plans were submitted to the city to dbi and any eminent hazard standards, and conditions, that the city would take appropriate action that they would inform the owner of

those hazards and if the tenants occupying those units and the appropriate action should be taken, and i can ask, rosemary and others could clarify exactly what happens step by step, but we have incorporated like the language to address that concern. >> commissioner melgar in do you have a question? >> commissioner? >> dr. mccray? >> well, i just wanted to say, that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to put this on. and i really commend supervisor chui and his staff and so i, am active in my home owner's association. and there is a lot of factual misinformation about the legislation making the rounds, formally. and so, what i worry about, so just my, anecdotal information of what is happening