areas, and it was because of the people starting to move and live in the industrial areas, and you know you had the whole late work lost and... >> it was confusion with the green building code as well. >> yeah, so in the spirit of what you just testified here i totally concur and as someone who just finished a building who has gone through this experience, and it is funny that you were mentioning because the report that i did do, it said, some parts of the building the top floor did not happen in the lower part and to be honest with you you are better off to do the whole building. that said, and just a few quick points, you noticed that you said the new building. >> it was ten and more and now it is how many units or more. >> it is all residential use and sensitive use and those are defined within the code. >> so if i am building a single family house. >> yes. >> but it is unlikely if you

have any property within the blue zones that can afford it. >> that is the easy one to ventilate properly it is not that hard, it is only a multifamily home that will give you extra expense, as far as single family home it is part of the state code that you have to have fresh air source. >> yeah. >> and so the fresh air source, you know, if you lived in these, you would not want it to be the outdoor air. >> i have been at the meeting and we have not talked about whether that is considered change of use because it was unpermitted and i don't think that under planning it would be considered change of use since it had no use before. no permitted use. >> all right. >> but i think that it is worth

making a declaration one way or the other. >> i don't think that it was intended and you could not ventilate the inlaw differently than the rest of the structure. >> there is a complete divide and they are not really sure on what is workable and what is not workable and we are not sure how much air goes in and which air goes out. >> the huge problem that we are having is because of the high requirement, and it triggers off a lot of situation and the building is drying out and because the air in and the air out, and noise. it causes a lot of noise and because these are serious machines that you have on your

roof. and where are all of these mechanical and heavy very expensive equipment because i have gone through the motion goes. in this area, actually, i will give you this not too many single family moments but there are two and three unit buildings. >> you can't just shop the equipment and it is just the shop build in, most of these buildings will not have the mechanical engineer requirement to do the complete set of mechanical plans that we will

have to do also and because it is tied into the mechanical drawings that you will have to submit to the two unit building that will not need one before or would have one is going to have to have one. so it triggers off a lot of the questions that i have about can these people financially do this and meet code, because if they can't, it could mean that they can't build the building. >> okay joyer recommendation is for the smaller unit buildings. >> my pro-jaekt was 18 units and it was the corridor and i get it but it is noisy in there and these are the things that we are working through with the home owners. and you could open your window and we could turn it off or we could close it and you could figure out you know, so now that you are expanding the area and now that you are expanding the actual ten units down to

everybody who builds in this area, and it is a big conversation, you know? and i do feel that the profession is in the midst of thinking it through and not all are up to speed on it and so we have seen the range and we see the people who are having the negative pressure at the same time that we are delivering the filtered air. we have people who have fans and went directly to the heat pump method where each have it pumped with the lines and it was filtered at the pump and did not require it to give up the space. >> do not interpret my comments as negative. >> and that is the goal here and so the commissioner? >> yeah, so i am looking at the

map and see that it follows along 280 and 101. a lot of that is, single family residential lots, like, i know it, in fact. >> which one is single family? >> >> down here and then down here. >> behind the ocean view. >> for the new building. >> yeah. ? >> i think that the new habitat for humanity is right in your map, so, i am worried about that until the technology catches up and the cost issue and i would want to know more information when you come back to do the formal presentation about got the rehab and also the inlaw unit of question and

then the zoning issues because i do think that it would make... >> what is the zone issue? >> it is zoned for 1, 2, 3, you know? and you know the burden of this and it is not cost effective to build, but with that property is zoned for. and i think that behind the ocean view and then all along, into, baby you and in this valley, it is a different kind. >> a new building that is going in. >> and the existing buildings too, but if you do got the rehab and so if you are saying that the it would not trigger this. >> major alterations is defined through the green building code, and i don't know if there is someone here who is more knowledgeable to me of what the

cost value is for that. >> or the square footage is to that. >> i don't know the specifications of it. >> yeah, major would be going in and just pretty much rehabing the whole place and so it is more. >> right. >> it definitely would trigger. >> especially if it has the existing air-conditioning, for example, >> i see. and all that have will have to be pulled out and replaced. >> okay. >> and so, we will make it here, and i don't think that those are great questions to research and get back to you and i want to mention two other things we have had 2008 to 2014, implementation, probably at least, 20 major sites a lot of them multiunit. >> and include mine. >> include yours. >> and so we can make a profile of what type of technologies people have used, what the different and, we can enter views them and ask for costs and as a result of the developer out reach meeting we went on a sight visit and open to go on more visits and we

would love to go to your building and see what it caused to you do. and the other part of the new law is the disclosure aspects and so that it will fail and rental it says that ultimate are in a high air pollution zone and these are the things that have been done to protect you and so basically it is trying to create a market force for those who want to have a cleaner building. >> yes? >> i would also like to hear some testimony, and comments from users. and people living in such units already and how do they maintain the system? >> do they use the system or opening the window all of the time? if they are not using it, there height be a good reason and maybe we should not expand this. >> and in most cases, they have to use this. >> and yeah. >> and that is another part of it. >> the home owner's association the electric bill. >> and the carbon footprint.

obviously the units are going to be on 24 hours a day. what is happening to our carbon footprint? are we raising that? if so, isn't that contrary to what our green building legislation is all about? >> i have often said that we have this thing about saving the planet or the people. and they often times are in conflict with each other. >> commissioner mar? >> this was raised not only for the single family units but i am concerned with the smaller property owners, because, there are a lot of older you know, 3, 4, 5, unit affordable housing places and in the whole blue map area that you have, the mission, and... >> the building. >> not even, but we are talking about, also, what has been called the gut jobs and they go and tear everything out and total remodel and they would have to do this. and i don't think that it is...

>> they said that the extra cost of this for the 9th street, and they are at 9th and if they had duct it every unit and said that it was approximately, 3,000 dollar per unit cost. >> to change their ventilation scheme from one to the other. >> so basically in the scope of a project, that guts a three unit building, it will not be a major cost differential. >> if you have the money to gut a three unit building, this is not the major figure. >> including the market costs of what the units are worth. >> including the mechanical systems? >> yeah. i mean, obviously, it does cost something different, because it also requires a change of practice, and it is not, i think what commissioner mccarthy said is true that in many buildings, we have mechanical contractors who will approve to do the whole plan. and once you get to this level of detail, you are going to need the engineer as oversight on that.

>> so, that is where one of the costs comes in. for a larger scale building. >> yeah. >> and it is very interesting, the points that you raised today did not come up at any mechanical subcommittee meeting with its members who have been on the committee for 20 years or with the code advisory committee but i appreciate you bringing them up and i will go back to research these and carry them to my working team. i want you to know that i have an existing building project, because we have many homes in the same corridor that are low income, occupied, homes and i have settlement funds from the closer of the power plant where we are working with the indoor air quality scientists for the lab to see how we can benefit those buildings. with either improved filtration to their furnace systems or stand alone in their homes and we are able to measure preand post changes to their air quality. >> one final, apparent of my approval was a part of the

exception that this had to be done. >> when you are doing an environmental report. >> that is the planning part of it. >> yeah, but this was a part of the environmental part of the report. >> is, or can you answer, maybe you don't have the answer to this, but a single family house who does not have to do an environmental. do they have to do it now because of this? >> i am trying to think. so, i would do my planning colleagues to answer that question for you and they are both on vacation right now. >> the idea was to merge the two requirements so that there would not be a need to go through environmental and so if you are in the blue zone, you are in the reg. >> and in listening to all of your comments, it is unlikely that people will want to build the homes in the blue zone. >> it might be zoned for single family. >> i don't think that is the case. but i will ask them that. >> and the questions and we can. >> i will ask them that.

>> i think that the chunk of this... >> yeah, so that i think this is a great conversation that you and done a great in explaining it to us and we you have given us a lot to work with. >> and we will get together, and we will come up with a map to deal with these questions and then bring it back to the commission and my feeling is though that we do not have anything resolved by the next commission meeting but i am open. and i think that we are in the three meetings. i am obviously table that to whatever you feel that you are ready to do the final presentation, but, appreciate your testimony here today. >> thank you. >> all for your very good questions i have been given the instructions because we are running the possibility of the latest meeting ever we still have the abatement appeals, if we could wrap this up and take a five or a ten minute break and we will get into the abasement. >> so, the suggestion was that

we probably do need to hear, 13 i will continue number 13, if there is nobody here. >> okay. >> and so we should go to number 1 3. >> right? >> okay. >> so, if we could go straight into with the item 13, and 14? >> yeah, we believe that we need to hear 13. if you would like we could continue the rest of the items. >> that is fair enough. >> number, 13 is the discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance,(file no. 140009) amending the housing code to allow the storage of tenants' personal items other than automobiles in the garages of homes, apartment buildings, and residential hotels; and making environmental findings. >> commissioners rosemary bosky

this was amended and we recommended the amendment and it referred to the sprinkler requirement and this particular section clarifies the housing code and it never restricted the garages as far as bicycles or other use and that was provided for elsewhere in the housing code but it does clarify it so that the property owner could not just look at that particular section and misread it regarding the whole code and so we believe that with the amendment that also allowed the individual to understand the building of a certain size if you put your personal belongings in the garage and it does require the sprinkles and so it does refer to that, and the supervisor had no problem with that and it is fairly straight forward. >> okay. >> any more comments on that >> great. >> and do we have a motion? to approve this item? >> i move that we support it. >> second. >> do we have the motion and

the second. is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, i will do a roll call, vote. >> president mccarthy? >> yes. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray >> aye. >> and commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> okay, the motion carries. >> and so we are planting to continue the rest of the items on the building and inspection and agenda. >> commissioners, questions and matters? >> we have to approve, or can we if it is okay with the commissioners we could pretty much continue the rest of the items. >> okay. >> commissioner mar? >> okay. >> yes. so we will continue the rest of the items and go for adjournment. >> yeah. >> so, we are up to item 18 adjournment, and is there a motion to adjourn? >> i move. >> second.

>> and all commissions in favor? >> aye. >> and none opposed and we are now adjourned, it is 11:55 a.m. and we will try to readjourn in the next five to ten minutes for the abatement and appeals board. thank you all. >>

>> in in regards to the timing can we >> i think that's what they were suggesting too. >> yeah. >> does that mean we get -- >> how are we going to do that? >> yeah, let's see how it goes. 14 minutes is fine. >> okay. >> and just answer, i think mr. lee's question concerning what the status is today. there are comprehensive mediation and repair efforts that are taking place that have been taking place for some time and i know the owners of the property, some of which are here today, mr. clamber and the former tenants are working together to resolve all the issues that have been cite /tph-d d in the notice of violation and abatement order so i think there's some

construction activities and repair activities that have taken place this week so those remain ongoing. >> what's your name again? >> alan nolley. >> thank you. >> just an overview, you know, we are not here today to necessarily argue or disput pute any of the violations contained in the notice of violation or the abatement order or dispute there are issues that need to be addressed at the subject departments. what we're here to discuss is the property owners diligent efforts in addressing the concerns and the notice to the violation to date. they have been diligent since last april when the notice of the violation were issued, have

been not only diligent, but have expended substantial resources on addressing the issues that the tenants had an that were addressed in the notice to abatement orders. this is in addition to working with the subject tenants and their attorneys of record, hand in hand to go through the numerous issues cited in the abatement orders concerning the subject apartments. contrary to the sentiments of the tenants at the subject department who claim that the owners of the property have refused to act on the notices of violation an the abatement orders, there have been numerous efforts on the parts of the owners in addressing the concerns over the last ten or

so months since last april, 2013. as you will see in the packets that we gave you in support of our appeal to these two orders, we've attached various exhibits, evidencing correspondence exchange between the two parties and evidencing all the environmental contamination, construction repair and other issues that were found at the apartment and the owner's diligent effort in addressing those issues. i believe many the packet we also provided you with a timeline of events since last april through about this past january so about seven months worth of events that we've kind of put in chronological order for you. at the same time i'm not going to go through each of those

events and break them down, but as you will see in the timeline and in the documents that we provided, there has been substantial interior and exterior issues that have been addressed by the owners in conjunction with the numerous departments in san francisco and appropriate agencies. mr. clamber, one of the owners, have retained numerous consultants, experts and other contractors to remedy the issues that have been cite /tph-d cited in the notice of violation and also the abatement orders. what the real issue in this is not the considerable efforts that the owners of the properties