the people then dealing with the prescheduling conference and talking with the individual at the prescheduled convention would ever give that information inform the code enforcement document >> meaning we don't know we're totally looking at this hypothetically but specific hypothetically with a particular property that protects the concerns as far as code enforcement unless we have reasonable to building there's a hazard. so in terms of if there want an imminent hazard there was no evidence to be used >> at this time it's our policy not to pressure a warrant. >> so i'm wondering i know that supervisor kim has other questions but if it's possible

to include the language it's clear what you just stated. >> commenting i have a number of other comments but i want to wait. >> i want to reiterate how important this is. if people don't have confidence that they're going to be able to come forward this prosecute screening process works this program will not workout as well as people think it will >> if i could really restate it the hazard language if there's no imminent hazard language then nothing will provide you a basis to move forward with. >> at this particular time. >> a couple of things for the

existing already we know which property are ready those should be moved forward, you know, we put the language on those those will be in place and the second thing that what i insist they have their own professional to try to get it down instead of coming to our department and saying i have a certainty thing to comply because of a life saving issue. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> those are for dbi as well. either one of you are welcome to answer those questions. i want to get a sense i want to

understand the extent of the demolition. and i was curious last year how many homes did we dbi request demolition of an illegal unit >> we typically in the last 3 years have written a little bit less than one hundred notices of violation a year requiring a property owner to legalize over and over remove a unit and some of those would be duplication. as to how many were removed i don't have that information. but what typically happens if the property owner removes the unit they typically put it right back so they might pull the permit but the unit going back in. we have that chronic situation.

so as far as that many dominations i don't think i have that it not to have the unit removed but to have it legal listed but we before we go in we try to let the property owner and occupant know what the consequences could be and when we write those up we usually include habit ability issues as well. but as far as how many are demolished we having will have to research that >> they're under one hundred units a year we can't count for duplicate indications but there's not necessarily the follow-up to see if the n o v

was followed up on. >> we follow-up and close the case when they legalize it or remove it. we'll find it subsequentially >> it's filing for a permit correct. >> depending on what stent the issue was required. >> so i could go forward and pay dbi the money. >> there are situations where the ground floor or behind the garage there are had beenable units that are legal they'll put in a illegal kitchen and we have this reoccurring over and over again they'll take out the

kitchen where the supply lines are for the laundry room we have this situation happening a lot on illegal units. >> this is good information we asking don't have this in law information in my unit but what are illegal are things like a kitchen put in there is there a way to legalize the kitchen. >> depending on the definition the housing code require both the bathroom and the cooking facilities and living room and facilities in this sense the building code recognized that as a part of occupancy with inhabitable rooms but not under the planning department perhaps there was a legal kitchen but not under our code we have

neighborhood upset because somebody put in a kitchen but it was difficult for a building permit or incidentally habitual rooms ♪ location maybe a half bathroom was added and a kitchen but the problem is once the habitual rooms were organized definitely a kitchen reasonably followed because it was needed we have that happen quite often >> so the kitchen you can legalize the kitchen and bathroom it's how they constrict the kitchen or the bathroom that's the issue for dbi. >> yeah.. first of all, supervisor kim they have illegally done the room that is typically in sunset and richmond if they've done the

room it means the electrical work and thing only the kitchen so long as you know they r have a good contractor applying those will be easy to convert the priced compared they don't have a ceiling height like 6 feet or they don't have a legal light and air situation that might cause problems but to answer our question very simple the kitchen only they have already legalized >> they can do that today without the legislation. >> still they need to do it because of parking the parking is the issue. >> i see it's not the kitchen that's the issue but the parking

the independent but i see you're saying those i guess i'm asking about the in law units that are already legal i assume that the planning code allows the legal code i didn't understand the kitchen issue will this elective help with the kitchen issue and how it will help. >> oh, because you have a kitchen but a illegal there our building department give them the right to move the kitchen and . >> why would you have to give him a n o v. >> it's illegal by code. to answer our question the last few months because we've arrived

from the supervisor we'll put it on hold that's why some of them are piling up >> what part of the code is making that that kitchen legal. >> making the kitchen legal that means the planning department says it's okay. what the unit in there. >> the code allows for the code but they don't allow the kitchen to go along with it. >> under the planning code kitchen is what makes is it a dwelling unit under the definition the planning code so when the kitchen is determining the density so if they are beyond the kitchen densities it's illegal. >> so you're saying it's not

that it's a density but it triggers the density issue once it's legal. >> it's famous for - they create two bedrooms on the ground floor and as you know, as an application for expansion but they might go in and put a kitchen inside there which is not legal because they are beyond the density unit. >> so in a single-family unit you can't have a kitchen. >> that makes it two dwelling units. so again back cot scope if this legislation would pass do you feel like this would be a good

indicator to have to offer landlords to legalize and this will lead for the most part a good resolution >> with the story i just mentioned where we have the habitual rooms this will definitely improve those situations we find their occupied by families and then they don't have to struggle with the back and forth of the property owner and trying to have the kitchen taken out because the kitchen created the dwelling opt and having the violations. so i'll tell you even to it's antidoteal we have assessor rooms that are legal listed downstairs and now the kitchen and bathroom and i have families

down there that are renter and i've had situations where a lot of them unfortunately don't have the kitchen because they have to took the kitchens out their created with the supply lines were in the original plans for the laundry rooms that's typical >> thank you for explaining that thank you. >> anything else. i have a couple of comments by president chiu has a few >> i want to respond to several of the comments. but first of all, i know there are a number of objections laid out people's concerns about maulingtion and the rezoning the city and changing up the

diversity we know that in-laws are disabled in the city. i know folks from the public are concerned about unintended consequences and this elective was created as a volunteer regime we want to see when a property owner want to legalize their units. there are questions raised i appreciate the hope that somehow the passages were shared with the tenants. we know the challenge is that tenant are having changes staying in our city and the way we've structured this we know

that some owners will not be able to pay for the cost of legalization we don't do that but if a owner can pay their able to moved and to take care of that cost we again want to see how this goes. the late issue i want to raise is around the feedback we've heard opposition from the neighborhoods in district 7 that's 98 percent of the feedback and sort two observations we are we've heard there are many in-laws in those neighborhoods where elders are renting them out. but there's was the issue of restrictions and how this legislation might impact that i want to say i had no intent to

interfere with the cc r. i want to ask the deputy city attorney is there anything not record that would impact cc rs >> deputy city attorney john gibner. essentially no cc n are private. they're separate from the city land use regulatory powers and this legislation is an exercise of the city's regulatory authority and didn't change the terms of cc and rs. so given that again colleagues if folks feel like this needs to be clarified i'd be likely if there's an amendment that

nothing in this ordinance is going to change the cc and rs i'd be willing to entertain that language. again, that's nothing i'm trying to impact with this legislation >> anything he will. >> i want to thank everyone who come out on this issue it's been around city hall for decades it's on a vigorous topic of discussion for many, many years i want to thank president chiu for his leadership. >> i think one thing that everyone agrees on but i think a

lot of people agree on is that the current system is not working for i don't think anyone. we have many, many tenants in this city who because they live in an illegal unit they're living in constant fear and uncertainty whether or not they'll be able to stay in their unit we can do all the ellis act reform in the world but if it's illegal it didn't matter it can be pulled away and removed. we have many people our neighbors and san franciscans living in the shadows this has real life consequence i've had situations in my district a neighbor exclaims and the unit s is removed and even though the

tenant doesn't want to go and the landlord wants to keep the unit yet it's removed. there are situations where a tenant is evicted because the landlord decided to remove the unit this is a precautionary situation. we know this was discussed but as much this is an issue the legal listed unit is the code deficiency. i think one of the things they have not worked well, because the planning code hadn't worked and they can't be brought up to code and sxhooiz legislation and my legislation you'll hear we've dealt with the code issues. we also know that the current

unacceptable situation with all those units in the shadows it also has ramifications for owners of the buildings. we know there are ordinances that have problems where the tenant raise the issues of legalization a cab problems for neighbors when you have a code problem it doesn't add to a neighborhood that creates more problems for more folks around the building. i also want to just reiterate what president chiu said those units are there those tenants are there. this is this exists it's a state of being exists in san francisco so the question is what to do

about this problematic situation. i'm very sensitive to the concerns raised by some of the proponents of the elective away but we're dealing with real people and we have to i think we have to find a path forward the current situation is not working. so i do have some questions and some thoughts that i wanted to put out there. one is the issue of the separate entrance or lack of a separate entrance that was brought up as a concern this could legalize unit that you don't have a separate unit only through a main living room or kitchen. this is a question for dbi. would that be eligible under this ordinance i know i've heard

concern you can create analytically unit and it's part of our house not a separate house >> tom department of building inspection. chief building inspector. supervisor wiener i did-you're going to go through someone's house we're concerned about the apartment this ingress is one thing but egress is the more important thing will you be able to get out safely. we find the most problematic is when you have to use the garage when you have to enter and exit our unit in the sunset they have a it is a time entrance where

there's a separate alleyway you can get to the back and avoid the garage altogether or in attached neighborhoods you have a side yard it's more the exemption so where i have the norm you have to approach your garage through a trace entrance and it becomes a situation that legalization is not obtainable >> if this elective passes and i understand dbi will go through a process for the e kwivens but when you have unions that don't have they're not have their own

direct entrance and exit to the outside b will that unit be legal listed through this program. >> if you have to go through 0 the homeowners entrance that's an internal connection that person was renting but the extend family use that room we don't find that non-compliant because the family is using it. >> unless it had its own kitchen as we learned that would be considered another unit so what happens in a situation the only exit and entrance is through another persons home. >> first of all, i'll give you an example each case is different i'll say for example,

supervisor kim have a legal right a room down below and now because she don't have a kitchen she wanted to legalize her opt and applies for a unit to put the kitchen in there but we looked at how did they egress you can go so what same entrance and go to multiple areas different units but from that unit do they have protection or the egress through the street. sometimes they need to create an corridor or they already have it only put a kitchen in there. that's why that case is easy. in some cases she have entrance through the garage so they create a protective part they

connect to the other unit the same entrance but you don't need to create another - >> so to be clear the unit the only way to get in and out of that unit so that other unit will not be covered by this legislation. >> it's a companion part they may have an entrance to go into the unit they can go into on entrance and to multiple protective areas. >> did you want to add something? >> may i. >> to answer our question supervisor the separate entrance is required for a extensively contained separate unit. right now absent this ordinance in someone wants to extend the

handbagable rooms and have other habitable areas in the building but if they are intending on legal listing a self contained dwelling unit >> with the elective - >> it requires a habitual says that a kitchen and bathroom that's what it legislation will allow to be leg list on a volunteer basis and requires a separate entrance had you they over offer to construct it they can create a space through the garage the industry professional will have to provide by it has to be a separate entrance you can't walk through somebody's entrances and expect that to be

a separate quell e dwelling entrance. >> so this legislation allows for one unit to be legal listed if a building has too - >> that's why i mentioned before from 2 to add one more uniting unit it becomes a different classification and so if you allow other requirements more restricted. >> yes. >> just to add depending on what information is prepared to the department during the application we may not know that other unit exists so based on what is discussed the presence

of that unit especially, if it's elsewhere in the building and not part of the plans the department may not know and so based on that now we talked about the inspections if they try to file a building permit to legal list the quell unit that requires a site inspection for electrical permits. but if this dwelling unit is elsewhere not in the maybe in the attic or basement it based on what the industry professionals tells us and depends on on the location and what they do with that. depending on whether or not this unit is occupied and, you know, the dwelling opt it maybe adjacent to it legalize it as part of the other unit.

if it's within the building envelope they're allowed to do one that might be a possibility it depends on what they tell us >> thank you and then one final subject area just follow-up on what president chiu about the density equality in the city i've heard supervisor kim talk about this when you looked at the growth in the city the growth is, you know, we have keep e people coming for a while and grown by 75 percent and prejudged to grow by another one hundred and