today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection at this time, members of the public may address the commission did first item is roll call commissioner president mccarthy commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner konstin commissioner mccray commissioner melgar commissioner walker quorum and the next item is porments. >> good morning and welcome to the big meeting wednesday, january 20, 2016, madam secretary i have a few announcements reading congratulations to director huey that is invited to view the chinese american mission high school at 88 turk street the

school head invited thanks us for our assistance in completing the requirement renovation in record time as part of preparation for the super bowl 50 events that begins in san francisco on saturday, january 30th and runs to game day on sunday's february 7th the dbi and plumbing inspectors that will helping with the distribution of the flyers that provide the accurate details helpful to all members of the public and dbi will post information on the website for 24/7 assess agency www.sf gavel to gavel.org to our spectaculars speakers for this service no support of a safe super bowl 50 celebration so thank you for that. >> congratulations to senate

file event collin thank you madam president of records management division who received a thank you for your letter of providing excellent customer service and congratulations to dbi management and staff that posted on the website key action homeowners and project manager to prepare for the storm situation of el nino from the building protection those are inspecting the roofs and cleaning leaves and debree from down swells securing outdoor fortune and construction materials that could be pilgrims more for information invite www.dbi.org and get ready for el nino we'll be absolutely commissioners last night in the services for a fungi look forward on today's agenda and

convey my congratulations to the newly appointed commission commissioner konstin welcome to the dbi commission and who is joined us here today and commissioner konstin assumes the landowner and suv was sworn in by supervisor president london breed thank you, madam secretary that that concludes my presentation. >> any public comment on the president's report seeing none, general public comment the bic will take public comment on matters within the jurisdiction not pardon part of the aron part of thn part of tp agenda. >> good morning. my name is a rita a tenant of larking beach place i filed a complaint on december 4th the ventilation to my apartment i share with other

tenant that lives underneath me okay they were smoking open yes, i am i have pictures that shows the swelling and allergic to the smoke there your inspector is two friendly with the project manager all she has to say it is building dine not the design the gas a leaking into any apartment if the basement with a broken boiler pg&e had to cut the hole thing off none have holster water for a whole day i know someone can check the broiler room and ventilation so i don't have to 134e8 was going on underneath me and the wiring on the building i've noticed the project sponsor people don't pay for capable and pg&e none of that certain rooms

they go to the building and keep tamper perry with the wiring this needs to be chengd all this is right here for you and plus a work order i put that in i have a breaker box you can switch them and i mentioned that to the landlord and she said that is just fine so all those things are right here for you and like it if someone will please investigate the quality of life and the safety of my apartment is very important to me thank you. >> excuse me. ma'am, give me the address ford. >> my address is on bay street and the complaint is on this good thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> okay

general public comment seeing none, item 4. >> certify of appreciation and recognize of service so far two people thank you. well we're going to try to figure out this is the first time we've done this kind of a change of the gaud when i came abroad commissioner mccray and i came abroad inform clue he was a great help and gave me guidance and said chill man and enjoy is to (laughter) so he's always been there the second person for me on issues i have trouble understanding so i know he'll be missed i know he's going to another commission and i'm not sure he knows but with

regards to the commissioner mar he's the man on the other side we talk about different tribes i appreciate his honest and great position pa guess for the city fighter for the tenants on the landlord seat he figured out hard over the years a lot of good work and policies came from that i know knowing him he'll continue in other forum that's all i say fellow commissioner any comments. >> commissioner walker. >> it's been a pleasure to serve with you on this commission commissioner mar engage landlord/tenant issues we worked with the department to move forward in this relationship for

our partners in the community i'm hopeful we can count on your commissioner mar input into our permitting system we are interested in you've really gone above and beyond the call of duty if be able part that have xhflgs we will miss you dearly on this commission and again, i really reiterate i hope we can keep you engaged on the ordinances you're so versed at it this june it is your thank you both for you're amazing commitment what board are you going on. >> i think i screwed up i wasn't supposed to say that. >> too late. >> the human service. >> wonderful, wonderful i know you've been active in

you're taking over looftd housing authority and count on our department to make sure that the had been ability of those is up to par look forward to that very much thank you. >> commissioner lee. >> commissioner mar i enjoyed working with i i find i to be a fair representative of line up on the screen side of the room seat and fair with both the project sponsors and as well as the tenant side and i find i a seat for transparency i hope we can continue that move forward with keeping other department transparent as possible for the public and commissioner mccray i thank you for sharing your sniethsd and discussing our respect communities i i know we have

talked about families needs are and he believe that where you're going you'll be playing a big part of improving their lives thank you. >> commission. >> can i make some public comments (laughter). >> you have 3 minutes. >> (laughter). thanks i'm sure you'll hold me up i want to thank my fellow expirations if so a pleasure working with you guys we've not always agreed we have kept things cordially and having public debates without trying to get the work done the only thing i'd like to say regarding i've told the staff in the back of the room i plan to be here during public comment and be a

pain in the butt it is the responsibility of us to get that system europe and not only on the staff side but on tuition side i'd like to be seemed to be much more involved in the policy decision with some the plans for the project and to my the person that took any place john, i think it is a very important seat to represent lymph gland we get a bad rap i think a lot of time in the city even from our tenant allies i know that some of whom are here because as i've told a lot of tenant advocates the biggest there are no threat in the city is not the old-time landlords and the smalltime landlords like 0 users with

rent-controlled unit apartment and will not ellis act people last year a few bad actors the threat we throw up our hands and say we're going to sell and get out of the city that is really and threat when we sell and get the heck out of the city those new people that take you are places are the ones that pull the ellis act i think we have to fight to make sure that the small landlords can survive not enough public sector protecting housing built in the city as much as i support did lower headstart we're not building outing our way out but preserve what we have we've been losing what we have because people are throwing their hands up in the air and saying i give it up i'm

out find here make any hundred thousand and get out of here relosses landlord old-time landlords all the time and i've said that many, many times to our tenant allies but i think that is true so i'm going to leave you with that and be in the peanut gallery bugging you guys all the time >> commission all following just commissioner mar i just want to indicate my great appreciation for the sensitivity of every single one of you as you demonstrated as served open this commission the great care that you have for the task and for the people i want to also ditto that to the staff i appreciate you're great care and work that you do moving

this commission this department into a very new age thank you all it's been a great joy to serve when is for me my third commission board over more years more than i can remember this is again has been a great experience and i thank you and mr. president, i probably said what you said. >> but i probably said it something like that it is best to live lightly and unknowingly so much of what we do we must handle ourselves lightly and not think too much about the difficulties of journey and keep on pushing or pressing on i

leave you saying thank you you've made this experience wonderful and educate active i them after all you are friends thank you very much. >> well said we have some certifies i don't know if commissioner mccray if you have any more room on your walls i guess can someone take a photograph. >> i have a camera here. >> so obviously on behalf of the all the staff at dbi and all the management and the commission i know from sonya and, of course, the city attorney's office thanks so much for putting up with me and we

did a great job i'm proud of this two people are for the great job on behalf of the city for the appreciation commissioner mccray we have the certificates so commissioner mar. >> thank you for your service (clapping.) don't sneak away does anyone have the photograph. >> i have one. >> good morning commissioner president mccarthy and the commission ones have already left i really

appreciate you know one and also commissioner mccray's help you know sometimes, we need to have a different voice know that lots of people talk about x letter i'm the first one want to push it finish line to get it done with the helpful of the department of technology and maureen making sure we make sure that the program works that's my first priority in my mind moving forward wake up know. >> a nightmare. >> but working together i think that you know last few years we accomplished quite a bit of with your help you know with different ordinances different you know stuff and then all the staff is helping me to accomplish it and then i'm going to send you today

with japan for 5 years and see you know you'll see what my open how the road map for the future of the department to go out thank you very much and appreciate you know also commissioner mccray asked about the rec program i promised you from now and then every monday i'll give you update when you're off the commission you can still call me twenty-four hours you know and then i, respond to it okay. thank you thank you director. >> madam secretary that ends item 4 i have a request by commissioners no objection i'm sorry if we can move item 7 to item 5 and item 6 move and item 5 down after that did i lose you. >> 7 and then we'll take

straight back to 5 sorry i take that back 7 and then to 5. >> okay any public comment on item 4. >> seeing none, we're on item 7 discussion and possible action for the proposed ordinance for the board of supervisors file amending at planning code to require the conditional use authorization for the removal of any residential unit whether legal unit or illegal unit with the surfaces requirements for buildings additions and mergers amending did building code to amend the legalization of a legal unit under the building code with the building commission to talk about the approval. >> where is the staff. >> were just notified.

>> yeah. we moved 2 up they thought everybody was in the audience. >> maybe move the minutes or something. >> if you want to two. >> can we move 10 up. >> sure. >> so item 10 is review and approval of minutes of the regular meeting of june 17, 2015. >> move to approve there is a motion and a second any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none commissioners in favor>> i. >> any opposed the the minutes are approved. >> so someone here from. >> actually i believe someone from the supervisors office. >> to do the presentation they're not here and we moved it up in fault of them you know so. >> how about 11.

>> okay. so (laughter) what we're going to do housekeeping stuff. >> i'll go back to any original plan and discuss the permit and project tracking system number 5 and then take on 7 after that when everyone is in the room if no objection precede forward. >> on to item number 5 the discussion and cecelia tracking system. >> good morning it's still morning; right? thanks for having me, i'm miguel for the new commissioners congratulations and welcome i'm the c's i owe and the head for the department of technology we

were asked as mr. hugh i didn't mention to come in and participate in the cecelia project for the permitting project sometime ago and recently had taken an opportunity to evaluate the project so i'm here today to give you an update on that progress and take any questions as previously promised we planned to come back and provide you with ongoing just wants as this process moved on january 8th we did complete the rfp elevation panel and they made a selections that pants was comprised of members of the mayors budget office and the controller's office and my department the technology the or not elected was a combination of a comedy called

the garden to perform this third party assessment of the project garden is obviously familiar with our contractors process there are an active and ongoing vendor in many departments across the city we expected no issues with the actual contractor steps that's what we're in expect that to be completed the first week of february garnered greater than timeline was 12 weeks to anticipating that's assessment will begin around the effect week of february that puts us to completion on or about the end of april the assessment team obviously will meet as previously discussions and promised meet with various stakeholder and members of the bid and the department and, etc. so we have

again made f it clear we want all represented stakeholder to be given an opportunity to participate to the extent manageable so that's the status update as of the moment and again minimum in the intern between meetings provide status updates in realtime by e-mail or whatever means it is preferred and would plan at a minimum to come back at the next commission if you see fit for us to provide another update along the way thank you, thank you miguel >> commissioner walker please. thank you. this is g good news and nice to have a data goalpost i want to clarify something as during the scope of this new phase is doing we aren't going to go back and

create a whole new processes for submitting we're essentially looking at the current process and elevating the process of the permitting system and figuring out how to get back on track if that is easy enough we're talking about how our business operations that's a bigger scope then - >> right. right this scope is not to. >> reelevate the system. >> build the process and things like that but important to point out i think that going through this process and identifying how to get this project on track may bring to the surface opportunities or questions about process; right? so i think that those questions will arises in the in the scope of this agreement to try to resolve but i expect some will surface i think all sides of the

valuation invites that transparency. >> i know if our department we went over several years ago a whole retooling of our system that we laid to definitively hopefully is incorporated. >> this is not a business reengineering. >> it is a elevation of the counter state what it getsing us to the current state and the analysis gap what stands in the way. >> thank you perfect. >> commissioners any more questions. >> great i have - so the vendor is gardener and would that. >> g r r t n e r. >> r t n e r. >> a r t n e r. >> okay.

>> i presume they've gone into the other municipalities and dealt with situations like this before. >> yes. their response they have to provide certainly background information. >> we as a city and various departments in many departments have different sorts of engagements with them they're aware of the city as an organization and in some departments kind of deep knowledge. >> okay commissioner melgar no. >> thank you for coming and sorry commissioner walker. >> one clarification in either gi g are gardener were involved in the initial process. >> not that i'm aware of. >> to the system itself. >> i can firmer that definitely but completely understood i'll make sure we confirm that but to the best of my knowledge that's a red flag.

>> thank you miguel we'll touch basis through the chair we're happening to respond but at&t minimal we'll accept an invitation to come back. >> and the vendors will be in contact way when the project kicks off they'll reach out and the general will be included and amongst yourselves who is appropriated to individually engage with the project team but they'll absolutely contact you. >> great, thank you. >> any further questions no thank you for coming out any public comment on item 56? seeing none, are we - >> if no public comment i say

i believe we have everyone here go to item 7 please - you have one further question miguel before we go. >> in the theme of speed and agility i have 99 percent confirmation they're not involved in the initial we'll check the documents and get it to 100 percent but assured they were. >> thank you so madam secretary call item 7 please. we have recall it again, please. >> item 7 is discussion and possible action regarding the proposed o for the board of supervisors file amending at planning code to require the conditional use authorization for the removal of any residential unit whether legal unit or illegal unit and in inclines with the shaping and

circumstances requirement for the building residential mergers and amending did building code for the amending of the an illegal unit unit less than feasible under the planning commission approval thank you, madam secretary. >> good morning yelp write legislative aide to to supervisor avalos has a followup to a previous ordinance that focused on the issue of residential mergers and basically, we've seen with the housing crisis in the city the planning department does a balanced scorecard what's your net gain how much housing are we losing to demolitions and mergers so originally we have received a lot of multi buildings having tenants being evicted and merging those buildings so we have to

strengthen those controls to put in more direction to the planning commission to preserve and the existing housing particularly rent-controlled housing and this brought up the residential conversion it as complicated and patchwork approach and so this ordinance is looking at clarify that and streamlining overseeing proposals those controls and require a conditional use for the roller o remainder and it deals with the issues in district 11 we face in the excelsior and outer mission and also supervisor kim has co-sponsored it for its her concerns around particularly the 109 market street building where we are seeing large-scale

threats to rental housing in a commercial building the bottom of the math and now at the toup top wear seeing the landlord wanted to evict to competitor into a residential building and some tenants are here to speak as to the building code of the ordinance it deals with the notice of violation for unauthorized units and this ordinance there save when dbi issues an nov for an unauthorized unit in order to remove the units the landlord will have to get a conditional use authorization permit otherwise legalize the unit that is the step in how we deal with secondary units and this is urban authorized unit now we've created a path to legalization so you know, i think in the excelsior we've seen the

population growth without executrix and in-law units and with the pressures of market-rate rent we've seen heartbreaking stories with 47 eureka you're aware of a classic example we have a perfectly good housing unit that may or may not on our units the tenants have raised the history of the 24 unit we've seen and heard a number of reports you have on a tenant in a nmentd and the business owner no notice to the tenant by the time the tenant knows they're being evicted the timeframe to appeal that has expired and they're given no recourse to losing their home the landlord gets to remove the unit the city losses a rent-controlled unit and it is a double wham i didn't to our housing stock to the code

advisory committee we have a discussion again 9 logistics how this works in the building code and in the housing community in the city we have good feedback and kim from the planning department is here to talk about the logistics how we define an unauthorized unit two screenings process how we deal with the unit that is illegal unit and an unsafe unit we try to capture that to say this is a unit that has you have to go through the garage or other units that that is not clearly legalizing a union user i unit they must be removed the unit is habitualable and we'll see that as a valuable housing stock and we're trying to capture here so commissioner walker.

>> thank you for doing that i know we've done action about novelist the tenants already that would be helpful that starts the conversation earlier when you talk about the independence and excluding some that or clearly not legalizeable maybe that is not a word it is now do we do that or planning does that have to go into the conditional use shoot or expelling our plan checkers to do available the proposal that the planning department staff to make that determination but i'll defer to my colleague to discuss that further. >> i mean, i personally i mean, i kind of like the idea of having planning review these if conditional use but that is combvm and costly i hope it

doesn't end up with us moving those units in addition to the process it might be wise to attach to some kind of financial assistance we have a code enforcement supervisor wiener has put money on reserve initially $4 million for code enforcement issues but the conversation has been possible we can have an ongoing fund to help landlords legalize those units it is costly so it is costly and it is important. >> actually yeah, that was a large part of our discussion the code advisory committee how can we help protecting homeowners and supervisor avalos is definitely looking at that and

we have taken the highest ownership in the district and in one of the lowest district a lost homeowners that are renting as a way to keep their mortgage and did you housing trust fund the people passed supervisor avalos was for the homeowner stabilization fund that transitioned in the housing stable funds we're 2, 3, 4 discussion with the mayor's office of housing to dedicate a portion to help with the legalization process. >> especially the single-family homes. >> yeah. at this point it is good to bring you think my colleague to talk about that. >> hi km planning department staff so i'm just going to go over a

summary of what changes we're making in the planning code and talk about more about the planning code changes the two main changes happening in this ordinance one is that making the regulations consistent across the board for a removal of the residential units we have different regulations per based on zion and the number of unit northbound a building and making every substantive to a cu so the second a basically the introduction of a definition of unauthorized unit in the code and simply creating this path between the building code and the planning code that will

require a landlord an owner sorry owner to legalize the unit and that's the planning code commission removing the unit and for that we have a definition for an unthortsd unit we try to keep as broad as possible we know these units are having forums some of them have kitchens and some no kitchens we try to make it very broad and that is in the planning code so at the planning counter weight of the testimony determine whether or not this will quality as an unauthorized unit and the way it is decided it is an individual living for sleeping area that is has been used independently and as commercial unit and some physical criteria

that it has it didn't have connection visible connection with other residential units and an independent assess not through other residential unit to we have also a policy at the counter that if you know an applicant if an applicant has that building and unauthorized unit is there forever not used as a residential unit or maybe they can sign an affidavit saying this is not used as an unauthorized unit and not go through the process another piece it basically preadditional criteria we put in the planning code for the

commission to use in their review when they're making the cu determination the criteria the first criteria is whether or not that unauthorized unit is eligible for legalization whether or not a legal path to legalize that unit and second whether or not it is financially feasible to legalize that unit in a way we define that is the cost from the cost of legalization is equal or less than the value added to the property as it results in legalization than that's defined as financially feasible we would require a report from the applicant and the third is whether or not the psychologist of legalization is reasonable and the way we define reasonable is basically referring to the data that has been accommodating

from the legalization program since may of 2014 for every single application costs of legalization and this is a range a wide range from one thing dollar to as high as one and $50,000 so basically that criteria says if you're costs falls within this range we call it a reasonable costs because you know it falls remarkably out there and you've been getting so those are the major changes in the building code and the planning code is changes that a notice of violation will include that language and need to legalize that's the planning commission removal and we've heard concerns about the code advisory committee about what about those units that are absolutely they can't be legalized or the city needs to

order the removal to the city attorney is drafting the amendments to the ordinances that says if no legal path to legalize the unit then they'll not be subject to the ordinance in this process i won example a single-family unit rh2 of rh1 and two illegal unit units only it allows one unit to be legalized and the second one no legal path for it to be legal list this exempts the second legal unit to go through that process and addresses the legal language in the code from the city or court orders removal of a unit their exempt from 24 process as well. >> i'm sorry not to truth of the matter but commissioner mar has a question. >> i sorry a request

clarification pretty big so the definition of an unauthorized unit that was added then now says that the unit does not have independent assess not going through the principle property that's what you're user it is pretty big we have had several cases in this definition to so the folks that are separate kitchens for grandmother downstairs that is now defined as an unauthorized unit not a separate egging regress we'll not take action is that the way i'm reading it. >> if it is the rooms that own outgoing the grandmother or the family lives there and you know the two units are connected unite not going to be considered unauthorized unit if they want to remove that it will, big.

>> i mean it's great in my point of view but thank you. >> please continue. >> that was actually, the end of my presentation i'm here for any questions. >> yeah. i know there is things i know we've talked about the code advisors that was very helpful on the comments it was very good dialogue the statistics asked of the planning department can you talk to these on how many permits were orientated and families merge the best you can i know you're limited to what you give to the public can we have that on hand. >> so the 6 i had in my case report that regarding urban authorized units in the past year we had about one and 80 applications for the urban

authorized unit so that was pretty big and let me pull up - sorry. >> there was one and 80 how many were approved. >> the reason they were basically every application in the process for approval no either approved or in a process for approval they're either some are in the planning commission approved and the dbi issued. >> so when you say one and 80 were removed you're saying from a public point of view one and 80 units were unauthorized. >> yeah. >> removed and finished and finalized.

>> not finished and finalized but the applications were approved. >> so maybe my next question okay. please continue. >> sure the data i provided to bill yesterday was not related to the un authorized unit but more to legal residential unit that were removed using the administrative approval so as i said in the beginning of my presentation. >> we have administrative approval one they can price out if we considered that unit that

is removed urban affordable and number changes every year to right now i think one .65 more than that and the second it is determined an unsound structure who two processes in the past 5 years we've had 31 units demolished through pricing out. >> can you destine it what pricing out is. >> meaning it is determined that single-family or that unit that is demolished is valued more than one $.65 million we determine that number as unaffordable. >> so basically it doesn't matter we're using that unit for unaffordable unit then the

second is derrick whether or not if it is urban sound structure there has been 16 of them 16 yeah. >> 16 and 31 priced out? >> uh-huh. and 16 unsound this ordinance r is remove all the processes and making that a cu we support that recommendations because both of the processes are complicated and some of them applications take along the cu process so unsounded applications are been going on if 6 months to years and also leaves the planners with being with those complex engineering things they don't have expertise on so not a very fair and you know effective process to we basically, the

planner will write an analysis and the commission will make the final decisions and commissioner mar please. so i'm all for consistency making sure from the the new definition of the unauthorized unit with the planning regulation dealing with airbnb units. >> is that consistent too. >> once they become legalized then they're a non-conforming legal unit and but if someone explicit legalize it something we're not taking action it didn't have separate egress or renting it out outside of the regulations the airbnb your enforcing does that fall under

it. >> i'm not sure my assumes will be that will unauthorized part of a legal unit and that legal unit has already been regulated and that's the part of it but i'm not 100 percent. >> commission. >> so one and 80 units removed in the past year; right? >> unauthorized unit. >> and how many approvals to legalize. >> i have that number two i believe we're at permitted we're about one 50 and there is another hundred in the process >> that's in the past year; correct? >> that's effective of that legislation which was may of 2014. >> thank you commissioner lee please.

i think the proposal is the intent of the proposal i think we can do all we can to keep the affordable units in san francisco but i have one question about the depiction definition of what qualifies and how our department is involved and the second is about prelims the first question about the legalization how will we determine where we going do let planning determine whether or not the unit is possible or not what about the technical aspects felt unit for example, if the unauthorized unit has the ceiling of 17 feet tall we know it needs to be more than 10 feet is planning going to determine whether the building will raise the ceiling or will they need

our departments help. >> the definition of the unauthorized unit it in is in the planning department so the planning determines whether or not it is an unauthorized removing it go to the cu process, however, whether or not they're eligible for the legalization they'll duo come to dbi and dbi does the screening. >> the second question is implementations now implementing this involves a lot of people including the people that live there and leg allergies a unit needs construction sometime and construction a constructive are we're going to treat those units as new additions to this means that we have to follow the line of the requirements for new additions; right? so we need to

add sprinklers those all play into the effect how it effects the project and how it effects the people living there. >> i think someone from dbi can answer that question. >> before i think if i may i'd like to continue the planning issues and get dbi commissioners, if you will please make sure that it is answered i kind of want to get back before the public comment there are facts we need to get it on the record the ac applications with away was just this year. >> may 2014 and may 2014 and you can't identify if all were conducted i did ask this you said we were; correct? >> the one and 80 applications are for removal. >> not rebuilding. >> just removal but you canned

is for all we know 4 could have been removed right now so the 5 years, 31 unit over the one $.7 million threshold so that workout to of a year for the last 5 years you didn't finish can you finish. >> adopt i think that was 16. >> 16 of these. >> 16 that's right and what was the timeframe. >> the same timeframe the last 5 years. >> so we divide that by 3. >> 3. >> right so 3 of these and the other question commissioner lee was touching on this if i go through the cu process and for a single-family homes with regard

to demolition it applies she has nothing on the report it is the judgment. >> are you asking about the current situation. >> the new situation hypothetically you do not need to surround report how in the criteria that is existing in the code for a cu removal. >> a cu removal. >> right now rae where r have the prigs in the code for removing for demolishing and also removing units and the criteria to use that criteria. >> and that criteria is always under i remember someone involved in the city the idea of demolition do make a quick and clear thresholds particularly in the removal of a single-family so i think i'm trying to get to

the why we had that process we never used before and i remember the occasion policy to increase the threshold was higher and higher and it was district engineering very hard to get you know based on the amount of unit that are improved for a complete demolition i'm trying to figure out. >> i'm trying to understand your concern one thing i want to emphasis those numbers are only the ones that are removed with a administrative approval with a dr or cu those are the ones that are removed with administrative approval and their collective a smaller number smaller portion of what is being down the road our saying we have this process already and it is broad and most

of units are demolished into the process to be consistent. >> finally did you do an analysis on costs. >> the cu process permit process that is costing between 45 thousand for the permit application and the dr that is friendly mostly applying to most of removals for one or two units that is almost the same so the cost doesn't really change that much. >> okay. so you feel it doesn't change and the timeframe you said this is much more faster. >> this is more straightforward not a really like time savings if the administrative approval some have been taking the planners said to me oh, this is for two

years and now what is going to happen not efficient. >> so the cu process is. >> the cu process average takes 6 months to now i think the timeline 6 to 9 months. >> commissioner walker please. thank you for this i think that anything that makes it consistent sort of predictable process around the affordable units this shifts the goals of review to towards one of trying to find a solution to legalize not the case now we need to do that a lot of right work around programs whether from the board or our departments administrative orders have been around that to try to find solutions to keeping the units and even though tenants in those units to the end the issue by

the president having the timeframe that is predictable and associated with this is really i on a key to whether it works or not like we want to it work and again, i want to reiterate that we need to find some financial assistance in a lot of those cases we see whether from the tenant side or the landlord people need help 33 we need to find solutions as we do this so i think we - i just wanted to reiterate that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you one more statistic i think is important to know 11 percent of our evictions in the past 10 years have been due to demolition so i think this is this is an important piece of ordinance that was to fix that

problem. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> commissioners do you - so is there more testimony i know did you want dbi. >> my question on the treat it a new. >> before we go to public comment is that okay commissioners. >> ed deputy director for planning review to answer our question if a portion of building change of use or occupancy it requires the side code that portion of building will have to comply that the building code to with the inspector. >> we have sort of have this worked out with the ada unit we're undergo if you put a unit on the first year we require the entire first year to be a

sprinkled and split a unit with two units the one both units will have to be sprinkled and the area leading to that. >> the reason why i bring this up as i said the prelims we have allowance for the units we've not seen the enar fluctuation of people and i suspect that one, the problems that comes with that the cost and you know like commissioner mar said earlier you know it is probability i give up i'm getting out of business going to go ahead and remove the unit i'm afraid that this may happen as well so we have to another thing these units are already there their people living in the unit why change it to add sprirlz if we don't have to if you do all

overseeing things it disrupts people's lives how will you do all the work while they're living there may be some thought in saying maybe do something more minimal. >> we're stuck with the california building code. >> i understand. >> we are getting a lot of interest in the adu with the lick sheriff's station. >> commissioner lee tom huey first of all, those issues we discussed with you know supervisor chiu a long time ago there are 22 issues one with the r 3gs and r-2 the end of the faur we need to do the sprirlz round 3 a special one you know

trying to push people to have less you know costs to legalizing more concern of the electrical part and all those that's why in the our free from single-family unit they don't need to sprinkle the units they're already there and also the entities for the preservation you tear out the sheetrock and mutt in the installation it is more expensive we have considered all those and information sheet on all the items we have also you know questions and answers for homes on the website they can look at it and also, we create a 1616 missions people can come to give their name and then answer a question try to legalize it

hire a contractor, engineer or architect to go through ours is complicated actually our toolbox i tried to convince most of homeowners to legalize it because it is two sided one specification the fire the insurance will not cover you the plan will not be giving you a loan and then also you know the tenant and that 10 and two they exhaust the money that's why we pay both sides how to make a better one to legalize it. >> thank you director. >> so if there is not more staff presentation on both sides

of planning and from oh- >> please rosemary. >> members the commission good morning chief housing inspector based on some of the questions that the commission asked i want to go over a few to clarify what that means in the code enforcement and the dbi end ever that the first consistency is the fact that commissioner mar you actually identified that which was the existence of one of those units is not the dwelling unit under the housing it is with the planning code planning code so they can have a make sure we address the existence and the planning code so that's one thing the other they know when we are out writing the notice of violation and we get a lot of complaint we're not in a position to screen that unit to determine if

it is desirable or feasible were what that is part of building permit to 9 screening point planning department he will personnel was talk about is not the real process we can't do that at the time and keep in mind supervisor avalos legislation we're personally seeing people kicked out of legal unit and it is per valve so we see whether there needs to be protection but something workable right now on a notice of violation they must legalize not an option on the notice of violation that is in the ordinance so right there a situation they'll go through the process with planning and hire someone someone has to pay for the awe primarily and a lot of time and money that while the notice of violation is going to sit there i have to tell you one

thing for a pertaining to have a illegal unit and ootd another things a notice of violation out there they can't comply burglary it is save or health code violations all of this is put on the planning commission it is the notice of violation that goes to the planning commission with we write that notice of violation we'll say or under the housing code and you must legalize it through the process then the notice of violation will sit while that process occurs if it changes occupancy from a rh3 to wraef within or two single-family zoning or an apartment building we'll not necessarily be able to risk all those at the particular up to

this point in time we can't step into the shoes of building process we had a thorough process of identifying those issues but that is something else and the other thing to keep in mind the planning code right now i have a call into the people the language didn't contemplate if there is a safety hazard that should, addressed this is something that dbi has to deal with in the in the language within the purview of the building official or this commission you have that expertise he has that displeasure it is no, not contemplated and a couple of other things in here but if some of those things are addressed you'll get closer so a workable cost and length of time to make those depreciates.

>> commissioner mar and commissioner walker. >> have you been working with supervisor avalos in addressing those legislations and the i haven't the technical services division has i've been dealing with the fire safety task force with supervisor wiener a plethora of legislation i have a call into judy to see how to fix some of the issues not something i got into last week. >> strongly encourage you or someone on our staff i think that is a little bit different than code advisors but the knowing of what happens on the ground for tenants in particular. >> i don't think it is unsewer mountable things but i want to point out because those are things europe addressing and make a concrete comment i'm

concerned about i have to tell you i've got e-mails people want to make sure that the units they have is removed before this legislation goes in so there is that part of it i'm concerned we don't want to lose these units. >> commissioner walker please thank you thank you. >> in talking about the if legalizing those units changes the zone is there a way to define them as like a junior units or something that i realize it is probably a state code issue but that would be a big deal if all of a sudden its single-family home is a different zoning which requires or a two or three unit and 4 units then requires a different zoning and other upgrades

so, i mean with that looked at when we drafted it out to define those differently they are different they're kind of in file they're a different type of construction and a different process. >> let me say for those listening added home as you may know going on if a rh2 to rh3 this is a building occupancy with the planning code rh3 a 12 single-family unit and with - once he legalize a third unit in a building this ordinance requires us to wro write on the notice of violation it changes other requirements not just from a planning stand point different from zoning i assume. >> i think i'm talking about rh2. >> i see what if legalization of this unit didn't fall within

supervisor wiener's legislation i don't know that is a question for the planning department. >> okay. >> food for thought. >> i didn't follow the last question. >> last but not least let's as a two unit building and want to go to another units does that upgrade the sprirlz and zone. >> zoning wouldn't change. >> so the building. >> rh1 and that is a legal unit so the occupancy from goes an interesting idea i'll have to find out junior i leave that to dbi. >> and also the fact. >> it might be worth looking at because you don't want to

incur of costs if someone sells they're building. >> and parking and yeah. >> parking does not get trirld whereas from planning the planning code is amended three or four years ago additional one unit didn't have to have public speaker. >> an rh2 and changing to an rh3. >> the changing of one unit didn't change that. >> in some cases 2. >> if two illegal units and you're an rh1 right now you can legalize one unit if rh2 legalize both of the units and the second one above the density and the parking will not be triggered because it is beyond that. >> i'm not quite sure i get that fine there's a lot of stuff here i don't understand. >> the one thing i wanted to

respond to marie's comment about the concern about the evening dangered the exceptions in the code and we've added unauthorized unit it is that demolition of building and the removal of units necessary to comply with a court order that directs the owner to demolish the building arrest remove the units and that is an exception. >> from this owners and one additional amendment we were working on a small change but i wanted to discuss here is that all of the novs out there right now will have to be issued include that kind of change in the statement.

>> i'm assuming not a number on that. >> i don't have the number. >> i wouldn't expect you to have it every nov that is written in regards to illegal units. >> that's outstanding right. >> will be rewrote to include this. >> uh-huh. >> okay thank you let's get it out now one more brief comment the question about the status of nov awhile battling is through the cu through 9 citizen's advisory committee i think we're sympathetic and looking a way to modify if you're in good faith and put that nov on hold and

give the property owner assurance we'll be facing fines and other acts as though the cu process. >> thank you. >> so if no our commission comments and comments from staff we'll open up for public comment public comment on item 7. >> welcome welcome john. >> hi my name is tommy i'm with the housing rights committee we're in support 37 legislation i want to give you two reasons why we think this legislation will be good for protecting tenants and stopping eviction in san francisco one part of the legislation that has not been discussed the part that with in case of a commercial unit this is rent as residential to be years and this landlords want to

turning into commercial requires the cu process we have tenants that will be testifying because they live in a building which for many, many years was in mid block and a unit anyone wanted to rent commercially for a long, long time so the landlords were renting them out as work loss or as residential and now that the tech boom as happened it is viable financing to rent those and the tech spaces the landlords wants to convert back into commercial and forces the landlords into the cu process which is fair there are currently just one block of market street there are let's see ton 04 buildings over 200 units that where the landlords definitely want to do that and in one case fighting for two in

favor years fighting we've been successful to help the tenants avoid the eviction but it will help them to stay in their homes we're in support of that and not just market street we've got reports from landlords wanting to return to residential units into commercial we need this legislation and the second thing on the in-law units i just want to remind folks the best protection for the in-law units so have someone else in place where the landlord has to legally make that legal or the landlord has to go to the cu process we're seeing an uprise like mentioned a lot of permits filed for two take to don't worry about those units so definitely a problem that is

growing as the rents rise this problem is growing more and more i want to say i don't have concrete prove i know know know in many cases the landlords are removing those units and putting back 9 stove and rerenting them for hire rents this is to get the locking tenants out and tenants that pay higher rented so we urge you to approve this to vote in favor of that we need to help to protect the tenants and keep people in their homes

thank you - to put on hold the building inspection to trump that and - there are really 3 pockets ever units that are not considered legal not code compliant and the unwarranted spaces within the existing envelopes that may substantially

meet the building code innovated permitted bans density and another aspects and unwarranted new construction that didn't meet the building code that increases the magazines and not tenant occupied the definition basically gather those and forces that into the cu process we think that maybe a better way to do that i want to end up with the aspect we've read the planning department proposed legislation i've read the housing report and they need the legislation to the policy we need to look at how many units are being taken off the market

to finish the code advisory committee passed a motion that requests the authors of proposed legislation to allow the subcommittee to have a look at the proposed language and provide comments we'll do that within thirty days. >> thank you, sir. >> my name is a john strickland thank you for hearing us and put time into this i've

been a small single-family bilateral for the past 25 years i want to say start by saying i agree with the overall goals it is truly not a one-size-fits-all and that to remove the administrative approval process will only force guys like me to hire attorneys and increase the cost of approval process as well as contemplate it and open up to subject active argument not straightforward and confuses the process >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm naomi a retired after-school program teacher and a san francisco public schools and been a tenant think 1049 market street since 1998 a

landlord wants to congressman our building from residents to all businesses and if this happens i'll interest have to leave the bay area in terms of the protection passes by the board of supervisors i don't have the legislation in front of me but i just wanted to clarify a couple of things i'm particularly concerned about apartment where tenants were evicted would like to make sure the legislation says that the landlord will be required to apply for a change of use permit as the last use was residential especially, if it is a large building and the landlord wants to convert to residential a lot of got you evictions going on and he believe that if it can be

automatically converted that will give landlord to do more got you evacuees and also a request had the legislation was pass by the board of supervisors if the this will be changed to commercial i'd like for first floor to be under the same rules by the way, we don't want any other residents in danger so i appreciate the time and effort everything has put both looking at this issue and i really hope that our department the 1949 market street can be legalized and stay in our home thank you so much. >> hello my name is shawn draw i work a

the cooperative in san francisco and reside on market street in 2013 after 9 years of residence my landlord attempted an eviction in the building but the way they owned two other buildings about the same none of unions on the same block without this proposed legislation passing my residential unit is in danger of disappearing in order to change my unit for a rent-controlled unit into a commercial one this proposed legislation will rescue myself but help other tenants throughout the city to be protected also dbi should be encouraging property owners to legalize units or go through the cu process probation officer remove them if they center to go

through planning to a safe the unit from the unit really is dangerous and needs to be don't worry abouted then planning will uphold what the landlord wants but the loophole for evictions of rent-controlled united it what this legislation will address thank you. >> i'm here to approve this legislation that helps us helps people in a situation like our neighbors on 10 61 market street on the same situation and not forced to leave we're seeing a hallow out in building like ours because more money can be made by making it commercial and i

know in our building it has just been harrowing seeing a landlord tear the members of the affordable units rent-controlled units unit and move people ♪ and businesses and liltd seeing affordable housing dying around me everyday this is why i'm supporting this legislation it is so important for the landlord to go through the legalization in this process thank you >> thank you for your comments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners shawn residential builders association i'm here to speak on the loss of rent-controlled units unit i'm here to speak

that merging units or the removal of any kind units not on veeshgsz and commercial spaces and evictions residential evictions i'm concerned because the definition of the single-family home comes there many ordinance for years we attended a regular basis some of you were here hearing about the illegal decisions the fact of decisions serial permitting we don't hear those words too much and sudden quarrel was a common phrase used at this commission i see smiles people remember this this was a big project o problem not only for planning but dbi but you don't hear about these we've evolved the industry is justified we learn and know the

rules people be thinks the rules and it is important look who our demographics are we are dealing with generally people on my side did fence the blue-collar industry english may not be their native language they might not have a college degree they probable don't a good chance from an immigrant community they need a process to understand they need to know what the rules are and we all agree just getting any kind of a permit to the general public is confusing at dbi it is the native of the beast but take the demolition of those houses and make that a cu and when we speak to the cost not just the costs of application the cost of interning this over to lawyers individuals cannot handle a conditional use authorization

and why are we are doing this i support of testimony of everybody here but a small piece of this perhaps unintended consequences the universe 2010 through 2011 in 6 years 55 demos of the 31 that was the $6.5 million and above so talking about 16 there is not a big number of these but we shouldn't over complicate an already complicated thing we shouldn't make that super legal not to give money to the lawyers but a process simple to make sure we understand it and a lot of work into that in the past between planning and dbi it really tightened up the issue. >> thank you. >> thank you you'll get me in trouble for going over your

time. >> sorry. >> your 5 seconds it up. >> duly noted. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i see none so at this stage open up to commissioners are staff or planning. >> there was already the last presentation if commissioners you have future conversation or comments. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say commissioner walker practical >> ractical >> actical >> i think that we as the abatement appeals hear about the issues being feshgd by illegal units and resolution of that

i think that i certainly know about 1049 market street over this holidays heard from four buildings full of artist in similar situations and i know from is a lot more knows out they've rent-controlled unit to artist and artists maybe living whether their supposed to live and then when the market changes and becomes for viable to do something else this is a rude eviction of everyone i literally heard from 4 building over the holidays i'm taking this seriously and appreciate supervisor avalos pitting this forward in the planning department i want to support this i also want to ask that the supervisor listen to the concerns that there is a difference between single-family and the multiply unit buildings and find a way to

expedite all of this stuff because legalizing housing should be something we handle quickly and i know that conditional use takes a long time and usually money i get that i get that i mean quite frankly no offense anytime anything leaves our department and goes to planning goes into a black home so we can't predict when we'll be able to issue permits so i think that i think that there is some things that what happen i don't know what the clock is on this i know that each day we don't act to get control of that we lose tenants and housing so i would rather air on the side of doing it and committing to making changes and getting the supported and funding that will make this really work because it has to

happen together we can't put landlords in r and building owners in situations they can't afford we're asking for trouble it is will not get us where what i want you want the issues addressed and findings a way to expedite the process and cutting costs on conditional use or whatever we call it to make sure we have time certain and don't add to the costs of housing i'd like to figure out how to deal with tenants that need to be temporarily places somewhere else how we fund that putting that on the owner of the building findings a way for help for that. >> and i do think i agree there maybe levels at which to deal with depending on the occupancy load so i mean, i that

i want to make a motion i know that is a caveat motion we don't want to approve things not finalized but hear from the staff about the willingness to hear people's concerns and address them and amend this of some sort of especially our k0ed advisory and legislative aide to to supervisor avalos we've been working on the amendments to the code advisory committee and happy to work with you are the code advisory committee to fine-tune this somewhere or some more and what's the calendar for this. >> it is set up the end or february 1st for the land use commission and put it at february 9th for the first meeting with the board of

supervisors. >> we're having and meeting with the about the budget. >> february 3rdrd. >> maybe we could add that to our amendments that could be made to address the issues and hear it again and maybe the commissioners will, better. >> vote on that. >> then. >> vote on that then not voting on something we'll be changing today. >> yeah. that sounds great. >> i'd like to hear in other commissioners commissioner mar. >> i agree i want to support that i think that not quite cooked my primary concern about the depiction of unauthorized unit i do hear from miguel i think that is too much of a one-size-fits-all i worry about some of the cases we've seen in the field e-mail the

burn of this process for you know the smaller homeowner it is seems like we're putting different kinds of properties in one category not quite appropriate i would support whatever our code advisory committee requests to have more time to get the definitions right and some of the nuances i hear the concern the smaller property owner that speaks to me i want to make sure that while addressing one part of problem we're not creating another so i want to make sure that we do fix the conversion of you know commercial units that have been used as remained residential units this is a priority and a timely one but make sure we're

not xraet any more problems at the same time. >> commissioners yeah. i think that commissioner walker summarized some of myself my concerns about this parentheses legislation i want to ask when the staff the staff discussed this with the supervisor or anybody will this legislation we also take into account the pulse of the community if you see something of a concern bring it up especially like a code compliant it you know it might not a concern to implement say something a cost issue i hope you guys will mention it to the legislators so they'll condition it of a concern. >> well, i heard the lady and over code advisors and i like to table it for thirty days.

>> is there anymore diminishes questions or comments. >> continue to the next meeting february 3rdrd. >> i'd like to read a few more comments we're repeating ourselves the one-size-fits-all concerns us with regards to what is happening in the community tenant evictions and tommy the commissioners with at&t were at market street two years ago i am glad to see the fight is going on and unfortunately changes to this i wish i had for people from you know at the code advisory from supervisor avalos, that we're impacted he worry about i heard more testimony if i understand it right a lot of this was generated because of the going in the right direction

and the single-family homes are the ones impacted so with regard to the comments there has been a lot but i think the code advisory was important i was at that merging and i'm a little bit concerned of the staff tracking i get it went is essential to those laws but we have to be carefully aware of the consequences and the commissioners talk about that a lot legislation comes our way and see how difficult to enforce because it comes back to us our concerns are not header we're trying to do the right job for everybody this is has a lot of goals and i'm concerned we'll not implement it and the point i definitely think and i will not move on in no reason for single-family homes to be ♪ legislation i'm scratching my

head i will be firmer from the real intent to protect what we're trying to do i don't see that snaichl h single-family homes and the financial hardship can't afford to legalize the unit this is an evaluation some really good points brought up the code advisory for this let's say far from being able to legalize and a tenant and they're told to leave and the person that owns the building how will they get the money it can't be done what happens then i think that commissioner walker talked about that and the code i mean this is absolutely a lot of code missing we need to make sure that

because after all it is going to be our inspectors out there do get job and a whole bunch the questions and rosemary has a lot

of

>> tuesday, january 19th, 2016. welcome to members of the public and happy new year. madame secretary, can please call the first item. >> thank you, madame chair, the first item of business is no. 1, roll call, commission members please respond when i call your name, commissioner intel pentium pimentel. >> commission singh? >> yes. >> commission mondejar is absent. >> commission bust os. >> present. >> made chair