publicly available anyone on the internet can find it on data sf i found the following numbers again, this was a basic search only relatively recently, i had discussions with ms. hester this was one of the main concerns and found for the 5:30 property there were 32 but 17 actively business licenses and 532 i found 15 business licenses and 34 units and 34 for pennsylvania 32 and i found 18 business licenses. >> a description in what is happening and should be happening. >> yeah, we need more information it could be that maybe some people in units have let their business licenses

lapse or be register under a different address or they don't have a business licenses. >> given the ability there are two enrollment the illegal unit the 34 illegal that can be legalized that's been corrected by the permit severity operate are the issues about the remainder of the building and the work units making sure they meet their restrictions and project manager in terms of compliance with that they do have evidence they have the lease agreement the tenant must maintain a business license from the tenants don't have the business license those tenants can be evicted that's one way to bring in tenants with business licenses or convert to a tenant

unit not an obligation for the business license the choice it there's i suggest we work within on an implication process to legalize the dwelling units but over time insure that the folks move out we're not endorsing displacement those are rental units and over time sure the people that move into the next go around are in compliance. >> that's a great solution i'll remedy we take dr and just do what you said he have a monitoring program as people move out i find that acceptable. >> i don't think it will require you to take dr what is in front of you to legalize the 032 units your there's an enforcement matter beyond there

there is enforcement issues it is our commitment to work with the project sponsor and to bring those units into compliance. >> ms. hester hearing what the zoning administrator said can i get our thoughts on that, please. >> maybe you want to repeat it. >> i think i understand your question what is for the tenant what was it a place for 17 years if you say loans the tenant is there if they're not in compliance with the law they can remain the bilgs i big issue has always been massive shooting on affordable housing money big cheating and i'm glad you find out those plans - i was never able to get

to information and applaud they've changed their procedure but you rattled off over half the units not in compliance and if they're being occupied as dwelling units they should be paying the conversion fee and i don't care whether the building appropriate windows but i care about affordable housing money and transit money. >> got it. >> the two things are trite money. >> maybe my direction if i may put a sunset period into the process of 3 to 5 years after 3 to 5 years nothing into compliance than ethics will agree to convert. >> we can use that through the conversion process. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'll be in agreement

that sounds reasonable you give them the chance there's a arrow they have a business life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to produce it and showing they have a business if they're not we have to ask ethics hfa as an enforcement process that dbi will do or someone in the city will do to them to be converted to dwelling units and pay the appropriate fee that answers most of the sxhernz that were voiced because you know awhile i understand this is a toughy issue we can't fight the work war again there are decisions and a process by which those units have to follow if those are followed that's over so i think there their doing the right thing with the units that are being asked to be

legalized are being legalized as housing units they're paying the appropriate fees as well the 94 volleyball 20 percent i believe on all of these 20 percent of the unit being made into housing units and there are different numbers for different ones and then to the point that we have as dr requester talked about all the work unit and that again is gopher something if the past none of them were deemed affordable at the time there were buyers that rented to others and provides water housing for a lot of people even though there is it was not put in place in the right manner you know that's been used by housing in some instances one way or the other without a work component

other questions that i have are all ones that were brought up here i mean, there was a question about construction i'll assume that dbi as investigated that to make sure the construction is compliant and there's construction problems with what was built there including the unit asked to be converted. >> i'm not aware of the issues unless the unit dbi has vigorously reviewed 4 of those cannot be legalized because of building requirement but we've reviewed the plans when it first came in to decipher how those housing units were compiled with a reconfigure the law but unarmed to the building other elements not meeting the

building plans. >> the same with the quality of construction and things are obviously built equivocal or quite a while ago. >> i can't speak to the quality. >> it was dr requester for a presentation brought up questions about whether those were adequately constructed. >> i mean yes, they seem to meet the at least minimum requirement. >> the other issues is encapitulated i'm fine with that kind of approving that with the motion to the of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a planning staff to become compliant and if not a sunset period of 3 years or whatever two to three years to

convert into housing units. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a couple of questions on the issue you would you look at the old plans it seems k34r5ikd to me you've got to put in new kitchens and bodily harm are those units metered how how does that work do they build the units and divide them up. >> in terms of the meters that's not a relevant to the planning code requirement you can have probably a multi unit building on meter that is more of an issue with pg&e and is that your understanding they when we were built routed if bombards and stuff. >> not plausible but they've built it and somehow convinced dbi there were 40 units instead of thirty unit.

>> yeah. after. >> before anyone moved in. >> i'm not sure of timing but they installed walls and added kitchens like you said. >> it's amazing the city didn't catch that that was able to happen when adding new units. >> yeah. we don't know what this took place it. >> no records we can say for certainty. >> i think state law. >> come up. >> (inaudible). >> thank you. >> but are interest meters for all the unit the illegal units. >> currently not but that's the plans moving forward. >> yeah. we'll put meters so every unit has an individual meter. >> when they built the project they knew they were going to pit in the plumbing and walls and it

is kind of a massive kind of fraudulent activity you'll know you'll put in just a good case for dbi to look at and others. >> certainly if all the walls with plumped and had to break open the sheetrock to access the mission to cover is in the first place but dbi is aware wore bring it back to your attention. >> one other question for ethics why not convert the whole building and get out of this you've i'm sure you've read up on the saga it is hard to- why not legalize the entire building. >> at this time. >> not legalized convert to dwelling units. >> ethics feels the work units are fine and again we'll

certainly work with planning to insure that everyone is confront with the s r but not alleged action needed some days that looks like a bigger project and here only the need for you know thirty or so unit that receive the permits wanted to keep it simple and focus on the unit. >> it effects your decision you have to pay fees on every unit you've converted. >> okay. >> and then to staff on the affordability some of those conversion are under technology unit do they not have to pay the units if they convert three or four units. >> it will be based on the 4 projects we've looked at those collectively and likely view the establishment of the units in

that building and collectively so seated fees. >> they did fees applies under the units are you definitely viewing those. >> that's our intent because under the planning code when you have the continuous project but one development and whether we aggregate the 432 and 208 pennsylvania stands on hits own but the other 3 could be aggregated are those the only fees that triggers. >> the eastern neighborhood knees impact fees from residential space will apply. >> only for 10 units or more. >> the square footage. >> so the four units on pennsylvania will apply.

>> yes. and but it - because the threshold doesn't apply to pennsylvania it would be nice to not approve that additional have them come back for 10 unit to be convert i mean. >> hundred and (laughter). >> yeah, we'll continue it and especially, if there's 6 more units. >> there's only appear to be 4 out of compliance with that building that would be 8 total of they were to legalize the four we couldn't find of the licenses their. >> they have the option to convert them all. >> yeah. absolutely. >> that's a little bit troubling you get out. >> one of the things to note the fees are greater than the time those projects were approved we had residential allowed at those locations much

less to occur. >> but the rents are higher too. >> and those knows are not subject to rent control. >> that one troubltz me on the pennsylvania property but i agree on the brian deposit street. >> commissioner richards. >> sir the four units on pennsylvania because the commissioner hillis point what kind of fees subject to the conversion. >> for both properties the two basic impact fees that are established the eastern neighborhood that applies to both of them and the affordable housing fee or the requirement to the affordable housing their electing to choose the fees that on applies to the brandon. >> from the four had been what's the square feet assess and . >> that fee is based on a unit account for the number of

offsite requirement which is where the 20 percent came from. >> one other question for the ethics mr. murphy come up please it looked like we're having people being adapted on the integrity of the property were you saying your offering them the same comparable price and units within the ethics community. >> only four units the individual will not be able to stay in the units but perhaps ann can speak to that given to them. >> right i've spoken with the women that was up here at the variance hearing and our goal to find them a unit within 9 brandon street prop and relocation but this is a bit of a process so their rhyming in that unit until we'll precede

and find another units. >> comparable prices; right? >> we can't guarantee rent will stay the same. >> one of my comments i know there are issues with those four units but give them time to arithmetic this but other dbi issues. >> yeah. to the extent we can work with dbi on timing of that i'll be happy to. >> i hate to see people out in the street maybe move from building to building. >> so you know too any delay in the processing and issuance of the permit that will take the corrective action is the delay of money. >> when i ask respectfully i can do a memo back to us. >> certainly. >> please okay. great very supportive i move to not take dr

and approve the project permits. >> for both sites. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks just a couple of quick questions i want to confirm did four units wore talking about in pennsylvania street have both dbi issues that requires the residents move as well as the issue of conversion to dwelling unit. >> correct. >> just checking okay. thank you a couple of things i agree with the sentiments i'll keep my comments short i have a general request from staff i'd like to see maybe a table of the requirement for the live work spaces versus the allowances you're going to run a business out of a rental unit for

example, sole proprietor you're allowed certain activities i want to see the difference i feel if we see those things in the future we should be look at the busy registration and should push for all those dwelling units frankly over time we have a lot of people who have legal business registrations but running organizations that could potential run out of a dwelling unit so we don't have to come back here and talk about are they consistent or non-compliant that would be much easier for the planning department and the city i know it would be easier for anyone that want to have a flexibility lifestyle and run a business out of their residence i'd like to see that table i also i guess this didn't make it into the motion but in case

go someone was bringing this up a period of compliance to look at the remainder of the buildings to make sure they have registration to come into compliance commissioner richards said 3 to 5 years i'd like to see f that shorter to a year or two that's plenty of time to make the residents have a business license for whatever or they don't shouldn't be living in a work space if that's the law it remains the type of ludicrously for the spaces so i don't think this will make it fwhook short he said orer to telephone months maybe for the city attorney i remember when we were talking about the building on third street that had pdr

spaces issues with having a percentage of the building be pdr versus commercial use be a four to keep track a total different circuits but the same kind of reasoning how is that we're allowing unit in the building to be one type of use and the rest another kind of use and keep track of that not that i disagree but a staff or the city attorney. >> this will be dwelling units and file number which units are subject to which requirements in terms of implementing that is 30 or straightforward than the open floor plan one of the reasons so. >> i would agree in the case of the third street properties in looking at the building for a long term enforcement it is harder to distinguish spaces

given how businesses operate over a long term it is common when we look at office uses in the past the 90s and the 2000s and getting american people accurate record of what was designated for office is also or always kind of unclear. >> that make sense and finally he agree with commissioner hillis it is insane that seems that building was approved and they went back in with the illegal changes that will be interesting to know it seems like maybe the intersection we are put up first and then starting knocking it to pieces this is an interesting question thanks. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a- you brought up work is that accurate of the numbers

in the city and ms. hester keeps the list of illegal unit. >> have we've seen much in the way of converting them to dwelling units or compliance or enforcement issues. >> we don't have an actual program of monitoring those work units in terms of compliance we do get complaints time after time regarding them it's rare we have a couple of units that came in for conversion for dwelling units only and the work even though this is not a dwelling unit is still subject to our dwelling unit merger requirement so if someone times to take a work unit and make that commercial it is subject to section 317. >> in the cases there has been conversion what is compelling people to convert.

>> it is easy to own something that is clarified as a dwelling unit rather than a work spates. >> it is good, i i know our enforcement unit stacks but you know do some not high on the list because if you converted it is probably easier for the property owner i'll encourage this owner to convert everything instead of jumping through the hoops of business licenses and the pennsylvania they came back and want to convert two more units neck and neck year. >> we look at the recent approvals we don't want serial permitting to avoid the housing requirement and commissioner richards. >> yes. one last thing this is

the fabulous project to look at true there's 5 thousand unit we can easily run the reports there if this is indicative of the problem it could be massive and we could have some type of an enforcement to convert to the dwelling units and certainly help out the affordable housing fund so they don't get a free pass and support a bridge or abbreviated enforcement in 3 to 5 years with smallpox b commissioner johnson point. >> this is typically under the zoning administrator that process is something that can be appealed to the board of appeals i hear your direction i like the idea of having it went limited and the direction of less than 3 years. >> yeah. >> wait thank you. >> good. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. as a seconder i'm supportive but that's not part of my motion bulsz we have

finding. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there is a there is a motion and a second not to take dr and approve commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards and commissioner president fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and puts you in general public comment for which i have in speaker card. >> any general public comment today okay. not seeing any the meeting it adjourned.

>> good morning today is june 8 2015, welcome to the rules committee i'm supervisor farrell's i'm not join by supervis