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 in my neighborhood is that my neighborhood there is a market demographic in the last ten years with a lot of chinese families moving in that have in-laws unit and they are the cultural preference too and or that they live with us too however, i think that, i know that there are some folks that are having the differences in culture in terms of land use patterns and i am wondering what kind of education that we are going to do about this, and because i think that this is a really positive thing for this city, and i think that it is adapting, to our modern land use patterns, and also, it is environmentally, more sustainable, than some of the

land use patterns that we have had in the past and so, i am wondering what kind of out reach, we are going to do in particularly, non-english speaking communities to allow the folks to legalize this and also just factually. i think that one of the incentives that has not been talked about being, you know, from that side of the work, is the financing, that is opens up, for property owners. and so, so fannie mae and fha have different products for two unit properties and one unit properties that present a big advantage in terms of refinancing. and it also, opens up the possibility to those property owners operating in the section 8 certificate program and which is also, looking for property owners to participate because there is a shortage of housing in the city and that i think this is really great from the public policy perspective and i wonder what they are going to do to get the people to buy

into it and particularly since this is only step one, and i think that there should be a step two. >> and it is involved in this process to do an extensive out

reach plan and so i don't have a plan before me to share with you today and that is our intention to do so, and we want the home owners and the property owners to take advantage of this program. , and the last question was about, so after the out reach, you were asking about, financing, and so we have already begun the conversations with the mayor's office of housing for the loan products that would be specifically katered to this kind of program and so they already have a loan product available to help the home owners do the rehab, >> you can't do it. >> and for. >> and you could work with them to figure out how you would basically create a program that would be available to the home owners that are looking to legalize and who would do and would be able to comply, to access the funding in order to do any kind of renovation work

that is needed to bring the unit up to code and so we are continuing to work with them on that. >> to get it off the list and into this new list and how we

are going to handle that, and that was just, an organizational question that jumped into my mind and out of a 30,000 to had 4* 0,000 units and however the numbers of having the nov already on them and that whole process, and how we and who handled it. >> and commissioner, we issue about, 100 notices of violation, a year, regarding illegal units that is pretty much what it has been as far as being able to get into those unit and identify those. and i want to commend supervisor chui's office and amy in particular, for the numerous amount of meeting that that office had with the department of building inspection and the reason why, the notice of violation aspect is in the legislation, as it was at our request and my request, that in the instance that i have an open notice of violation, case, how is that to be addressed? and so they were very, very, kind to put that in there, so that we would have a process

that is cotified that is addressing that, and actually it has and it will address what it has when it has not, and should we find one, that the case is temporarily held in abeyance for a specific period of time if the property owner avails themselves fine, then if not, that process will continue, subsequently and so given the legislation, other proposed legislation and the marriage directive, we definitely are going to try to encourage that property owner, especially if it is an occupied unit to try to legalize it if there was any way to do so. >> i think that this is very good, step in that direction and so i just want to thank you for that work.

>> and, i think that this piece of legislation, actually deals with the reality, i mean that actually, this solves a lot of issues that we have within the inlaw units and deals with what is happening with the city with the tenants and lawyers and everything, i appreciate it. >> i echo, with rosemary and because in is a compact issue for the single unit and for the single family to deal with, and that is a single unit to a movable unit that we can all because the calls need to with the requirement and might fine in our department we are using the role model for the soeft story and going to the district and with the supervisor to go

to all of the district and then to try to make the multiple language like >> i know that a lot of the meetings took place at dbi and i know that it was helpful when you came before them and told you all of the obstacles and i think that you know, the

housing department and all of the building department and a lot of folks chimed in to help. put this together so it would be workable and i think that one of the things that would would still like to track is to, i think, that director made a good example, comparing it to the soft story and we want to make it as painless as possible and so part of the challenge is going to be the implementation and get the home owners or the, you know, the building owners to come in to try to legalize it, and make the process as painless as possible for them as well as the tell ants because there is going to be work involved with the tenants as well. >> well, you know, we hear a lot of appeals, to nov or abatement appeals that deals with the land lords and tenants in the illegal units or not permitted units and so i appreciate that this gives us a way to solve that problem,

sensitively and while, we are very aware of what the tenants situation is, and we really like, them to stay, and so i am glad that there is an offense now for them to work everything out with them. so for that being said, i would like to propose that we approve this. >> second. >> is there any public comment on the motion? >> okay, seeing none, we will do a roll call vote. >> president mccarthy? >> yes. >> vice president mar, yes >> clinch >> yes. >> lee. >> yes. >> mccray. >> melgar >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. >> we are on to item number 12, the discussion and possible action regarding proet posed ordinance amending the san francisco hel thing code

section, 2801-2813 to requiredan enhanced ventilation system for urban infill sensitive use development within the air pollutant exposure zone; amending the san francisco building code section 1203.5 to reflect changes in the health code; and making environmental findings. . yes, dbi technical services. and i have some, public input, regarding, or the public questions, regarding this legislation, and we have not had a chance to fully find out what those questions are and so i guess that we are asking that we table this for the next meeting, so that we get a chance to find out what the issues are and address them. >> do you want to make your comment and i would request that we revisit this once like as he has mentioned there is some mechanical questions, that

were asked of me, and i would love to get them answered before we pass this. >> that is totally appropriate 6789 >> thank you. >> and the commissioner and every committee we had one meeting for information and one for the resolution. >> right *.. >> that is great, i appreciate that opportunity. >> okay. >>dy i did bring the additional information. >> what is your name? >> san francisco, public health department and impart of the environmental health branch and i think that this will be important for the people to see which is the map and that had been part of the code advisory committee agenda but it was not forwarded to you. so, i normally bring a show and tell, and i will bring it for you next meeting but my colleague, lives in a condo, on right next to the train station, about a block and a half. near cal trans, and because he works in the health department he learned what air pollution means to your health and as a result he went out to the home

depots of the world and brought this sort of fabric filter that you might use inside of the house, to make sure that no dust comes into your room and he put it on the outside of his duct and on the inside of his ducts, and because this building and pretty much, the filters turned black and we have to replace them. and that is what i don't have with me today because the planning colleagues have it but i will be happy to show i next time that is why we noted article 38 as successful, is it identifies the buildings that are built in a high risk zone and it comes up as angering way to solve that problem and the fabric that he is using is not solving that problem and not intended to solve that. but our structural engineering has relied on fresh air intake, and coming through, often times something like a zduct, which a system which is what his unit

has. >> we need to be able to build in infill areas and so in 2008 it was a radical idea to figure out a way to build safely and let's figure out the way that will lessen the impact of the outdoor air and she were solely focused on the traffic pollution and in the current amendment to 2008 for the map that i just handed you. and which i will put on to the, i can use this, right? >> okay. so there are basically this lot

is this map is referenced on the planning department's property information website. and so if you were a developer, under article 38 right now, you look up your address, and on the information site and it tells you if you are subject to article 38 of the health code and the current says that you will, and it is not exactly this map but there are a couple of option its says that you will do modeling and so you basically are hiring people who will do propeshal moding about the pro-lieusing sources and you figure out if you have the number that puts you into the regular sleighsing and you build accordingly and in that process, the health department, improves the enhanced ventilation that you designed and it has been duct and ventilation that goes through the 13 filter and there are other options for doing it and i have learned since, about the heat pumps and other ways to insure the filtered air but the emphasis is on filtration of the intake air and then obviously the filtration of the

recirculated air. >> so i did not mean to interrupt. and i have not read this yet and my apologize, but i do have a question for you, does this preclude the natural venttation? >> it is basically giving the tenant and the occupant of the units the idea that they are delivered and filtered air and not with the poe lent ant and that they will be able to open the window and let the air in. >> apologize, does it apply to the commercial spaces too or just residential? >> it only applies to the residential buildings of ten units or more. >> okay. >> so amendments are simple and they changed the scope to which buildings it applies to and it changes the type of map and modeling, that we are looking at and so now, i will go back and i want to give you the background first and if you don't mind, and so, it is a change of practice, for the

whole architectal engineering community to consider this way of building buildings but it is a process that everybody is going through together and it is not out of reach. and obviously it changes costs and particularly if you were midway in your design, there is a way that you get a waiver and that you proceed with how it has been happening if you follow the law, you have model for the health department and a second time for a planning department so there is quite a bit of expense for the project sponsor and we are actually trying to make it easier for the sponsors which is no modeling. we have given you some map, this map, has the most improved modeling possible. and you will never find any other modeling that gives you a different answer than this map. and then you proceed with your design. so basically we are trying to take the place of a modeling, shortening your process between the hel and this planning to

get your entitlements. now this is based on three different types of sources, not just traffic, so there is the busy roadways, and the traffic volume and there is also the stationary sources which meets the businesses that get the permits from the air district and such as the back up generator and third is the area source and that is the ports and the train stations and so those were not covered before. and in article, 38 and those were like my colleague lives, if it was not very close to a way it would not have been covered because it was next to a train station. and the other thing that we have changed is all residential use not just ten units or more, and all use and defined, as the daycare and the adult daycare, and the vulnerable populations that are settings that are licensed by the state and or, occupantcy is defined in the code, and those things that we went over quite a bit with the dbi staff to make sure that they reflected the way that they looked at the buildings. and so then the next, you know, so what will happen now, is i

want to show you that there is a letter where the project sponsor comes in to planning department, and sort of finds out that they may be under the scope of this law. then they flag us. we have a meeting to get input about the developers and the 20 developers were there and as well as we have had several meetings and we basically refined our process and it is already working in our favor now as we are doing current implementation and the type of improvement of the communication has been fantastic and that is one of the things that the developers asked of us. and so, i would like to commend them for the cooperation with us and they felt this improved communication in the letter that they have given you or the

sponsor learned in advice what they will need to give us and at the end of the process, we communicate to dbi staff, what we have approved and then their job is strictly to look at the submitted plans and insure that they match what they have approved. that has already been our current practice but i would say that in the last two months, that is greatly improved, the

the one issue that is a concern, and concerns our current implementation and as well as whether or not, these amendments would change our current implementation and would they address this issue? ethe issue that comes up for the people is can i not do, the same ventilation for the entire height of the building, could i assume because modeling can be constructed in a way to say that other floors are not getting the same pollution as lower floors. so, we have to go, and because of the developer's feedback and, that was really their main issue of concern and it is not addressed by a legislation and it is not addressed by the current regulation or the proposed amendments and it is only a procedural implementation issue and you want to research the literature and basically what we found in the literature supports the policy that we have already

been operating on which is, we need to treat the whole building the same. >> and there is no guarantee that the upper floors in an urban environment are receiving less pollution, consistently compared to the lower floors that is because of the urban canyon effects. and climate effects. >> and even the state air board in terms of their looking at litigations for these, and these types of air pollution issues they also are inconclusive at this time. and so, this last fact sheet that i gave you gives you a lot of the data about that and it has not been part of the public record as of yet and so it is something that has just been produced and i would say that not everybody has this information yet but it is substan ating what our practice has been and the comments that you have received and we can talk about next meeting, again. >> only other thing that i can tell you about is really, that

not only is the engineering practice changing, the amount of health data about health pollution is also rapidly changing on an international basis and so even as of february 18th, this week, the e-mail that last one that i received i get these every week is that the 20, the european union has a research project called a skate, and the 20 leading research groups in 15 countries with 30 cohort studies with 900,000 subjects, conclude that had in 2010, there were 400,000 premature deaths and it is responsibility for more deaths than traffic accidents. and so the way that the evidence is showing up and this also showed up in our local air district clean air plan is that it is the major burden on cardio vascular disease we only think about it