we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to al. >> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco planning commission and building inspection commission joint hearing for thursday, june 20th, 2019. i would like to remind members of the public that the commissioners do not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices, and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. technically speaking, all of those persons standing who cannot find a seat are causing a fire hazard and can't remain in the room.

we are setting up an overflow room. we're just trying to figure out where media services can accommodate us. i'd like to take roll for the planning commission. [roll call] >> for the building inspection commission. [roll call] >> very good. commissioners, we have one item, item one for case 218-02728 for the controlled demolition merger conversion and alterations. this is an informational meeting. >> before you start, i wanted to go through for a

couple of things of how this is going to go this morning. good morning and welcome to our commissioners. i missed many of you. so what we are going to try to do is have -- this is a very complicated piece of legislation, and folks have a lot of opinion about the different aspects of it. we, the president mccarthy and i, want to give as much time to the public to opine. so with that being said, we only have a limited time. so what i'm going to ask first is that there is going to be times after each section that staff can pause and allow for commissioner questions. i beg my fellow commissioners to ask questions of clarification only. let's leave the comments to the end. so please keep your questions short and succinct, so we can allow

everyone to ask questions for clarification, and allow as uch tim much time for public comment. after staff presentation, we will open it up for public comment. please fill out a speaker card. i will try to get through as many of those as possible. you will have two minutes to make your public comments known, and we will hopefully get through everyone. we will leave 30 minutes at the end of the meeting for commissioner comments. hopefully all your questions will have been answered by then. and i will also, again, because there are so many of us, ask that we keep it short and succinct as well. i encourage you to write down your comments as we go so we can get through it expeditiously. do you have anything to add, president mccarthy? >> in, thank you, madam commissioner. with that, i think we can go straight to presentation. thank you.

>> good morning, commissioners, audrey maloney, planning commission staff. before we give the planning presentation, supervisor peskin is here to speak. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: welcome, supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president melgar. president mccarthy and commissioners, good morning. i will be very brief because i'm actually in the middle of a committee hearing downstairs, and let me thank you for vetting this piece of legislation. i think we all agree, and have agreed for many, many years, that there is a problem relative to definitions of demolition in the code relative to demolitions. we all know the numbers. the reality is, as we see in the housing balance report, for every two units of affordable housing that we build, we lose one, probably more than one, if we counted

the numbers a little differently. it is not just about the high-profile things we've seen in the meeting, like 49 hopkins, and the willis polk house. it is a larger, systemic problem. i am not the first supervisor who has tried to fix this. it has been attempted by many people. my former colleague, jake, teamed up, unlikely though it may have been, with alice barkley to solve this problem almost 20 years ago. but i think we all know that there is a problem. we all want to stop these types of demolitions. we have attempted in this legislation to incentafize it. whether it is higher densities that we're seeing throughout the city -- i will be the first to admit that perhaps i have bit off a little more than we can all chew here. but what i would like for

you and the public and my somewhat dejected staff to do is to really figure out a way where two siloized departments, building and planning, can work better to stem the tide of the demolition of sound housing, which is the most affordable housing that we have. if you have better ideas, we want to hear it. but there is a problem, and we can all come together to fix it, whether it is as simple as vastly increasing fines an andpenalties for bad behavior -- the vast majority play by the rules. but there are a handful of

player who soil it for everybody. i know, mr. mccarthy, you don't condone it. but we have to find a way to get rid of the bad apples because they screw up the whole thing. with that, i have to go downstairs. >> chairwoman: thank you, supervisor. >> hold on just one moment. technical difficulties. all right, well -- there we

go. all right. >> before you begin, audrey, thank you. for those of you who are standing in the room or sitting on the floor and you cannot find a seat, the north light court is being set up as an overflow room. if you make you're way downstairs to the first floor, the north light court, you will be able to view and hear these proceedings. when your name is called to submit your public comment, feel free to come up and enter the room. and if those of you with a seat who submit your public comment would be so courteous as to then leave the chamber and make your way down to the light court to allow others to enter the room, that would be appreciated. thank you. i appreciate your cooperation. again, anybody who can't find a seat will need to leave the room.

>> again, commissioners, good morning. my name is audrey maloney. planning department staff, i work on the legislative and policy team. with me is elizabeth watty, and patrick o'reardon, and cyril yu. >> we're not going to be making any kind of staff recommendation today, but we are highlighted our concerns of the ordinance as it currently stands. and we have done our best to condense and simplify this ordinance, and with that being said, it is a very dense ordinance. and we'll be breaking this up to more digestable

segments. and we also wanted to warn you about the amount of information you're about to see on these slides. we broke all of the power point rules, and there are way too many words. that was done on purpose. again, this is a very complicated piece of legislation. we don't expect either yourselves as commissioners or the public to be able to digest every single piece of what is going to be presented here today. the slides were designed with the intention to be able to take them with you, both you and the public, and be able to read them on your own and understand them without somebody explaining them to you. sorry there are way too many words on these slides. after the final conclusion, as commissioner melgar said, we will be taking public comment after all of the segments of the staff presentation have been given. first the good news: we all agree that there are some major issues that we're trying to solve, and there are some common goals that we are trying to reach. the first of which is to

develop a straightforward permitting process for residential projects. and the second is to eliminate loopholes that result in illegal demolition. and the thirdto go into the background of this particular ordinance, back in september, supervisor peskin introduced the original ordinance, and since that time, supervisor peskin's office has been working with the planning office on almost a weekly basis to try to address some of our concerns and listen to our requested amendments. on may 7th, the ordinance was reintroduced, and some of the planning was adopted into that new ordinance. with that, i'll turn it over to patrick o'reardon from the planning and building inspection. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is patrick

o'reardon, chief building spectoinspector at d.b.i. i want to extend my thank you to the planning department for working on this legislation. the effort is very much appreciated. to start with d.b.i.'s mission, to serve the city and county of san francisco and the general public by ensuring that life and property within the city and county are safeguarded. we do this through the effective, efficient, fair, and safe enforcement of the city and county of san francisco's building, housing, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. these codes are updated every three years as we learn more about safety hazards, and new building techniques and materials and technologies and developed. i'm giving this last bullet a little emphasis. d.b.i. wants owners to do

everything in their power to upgrade their buildings to make them safer, healthier, more efficient, and more accessible. why do we want to do this? primarily it is because of our aging housing stock. if you look at the picture on this slide, i believe this is monterey boulevard, taken some time in the '20s, and so you'll see all of those houses were there, much like they're still there today. housing stock in san francisco is aging, but the vast majority of residential buildings were built prior to 1950. because of this, building inspectors often see obsolete and unsafe components or conditions in residential buildings. we see damage due to dry rot, pest infestation, and water intrusion. we see old, unsafe wiring, and oftentimes we see old and ineffective plumbing.

now, this next slide shows -- is in relation to unsafe electrical systems. as you can clearly see, this is old nob and tube wiring. and this is an example of deteriorated knob and tube wiring, which possess a fire hazard and is often unable to cope with modern electrical demands. related to outdated plumbing, this section shows sections of old plumbing in need of replacement. problems are old led and joints that are leaking and are not properly supported. you can see the rust, which is a sign of leakage at the joints. blind walls -- we know them as blind walls. some people refer them to as property line walls, as side walls, but essentially they are walls that are at the site of buildings here in

san francisco that maybe zero lot line buildings. in other words, they're buildings that are between adjacent buildings and there is limited or no space between those buildings. usually it is an inch of space or maybe even less in some cases. blind walls or properly aligned walls where little or no space is left between buildings. they present a specific set of challenges. because of their location, work to bring them up to code requires significant alteration or temporary removal. in the case of vertical additions, they often need to be reinforced or replaced to safely hold the increased load of an additional story that may be added. continuing with blind walls: the frequent problems that we encounter. we see that there is a lack of proper fire protection. you can see from the picture this is a wall with the

interior finishes having been removed, and an additional stud has been added next to the old stud. but as you can see, there is evidence of deteriorated building paper there. so that would indicate that this wall would be prone to leaks. obviously, we see no insulation. it is unlikely there was insulation when the surface and lath and last properly was removed. this is what was uncovered. obviously these walls are susceptible to pest infestation, also. when insulation and drywall is added to the interior of the blind wall but the original exterior remains, it can create mode mold problems. upgrades for fire safety and weatherization are impossible without temporary removal of the wall. it is impossible to add

overlapping paper at the exterior of the wall without its temporary removal. so plainly said, it is the wall -- you just do not have the peace between the outside of the ask tear wal exterior and the adjacent building's wall. so it is impossible to upgrade its exterior. the next slide is pretty dramatic, but this is an actual event that took place about three years ago on mission street. it gives a little emphasis to the importance of the fire-rated walls at property lines. this fire did spread to an adjacent building, and several people were displaced from an s.r.o. the buildings did not have the firewalls that we see in buildings that are -- modern buildings that are constructed today. so the benefits of these

blind-wall upgrades: homes are healthier, more energy-efficient, and safer. new walls are better able to support greater loads. they'll have fire protection, allowing more time for firefighters to stop the spread and residents to escape. at this point, i'm going to turn it over to my colleague, cyril yu from d.b.i.. >> i'm not cyril yu. going into the first thing this ord nan wil ordinance -- when we talk about noticing and permits, these are the amendments to section 311. throughout the presentation, you can see this format, and

on the right-hand side, the way that the ord na ordinance is currently written, will change the procedures. i won't focus too much on the way it is. i will highlight the major points about the way it will be. for neighborhood notification, known as section 311, the legislation generally would expand the items that would require 311 or neighbourhood notification, and how quickly a poster must be placed on the site for certain applications. it would also expand what must be included in the packets that are mailed to the public. and all of those items listed on the right-hand side, the renderings, engineering, calculations, construction drawings, those are all now new requirements that would need to go into the packets mailed to the public for notification purposes. this is another slide you'll be seeing a lot of today. to try to go over some of

the planning department's anticipated impacts and concerns, we used more of a diagram model. on the left-hand side, you'll see a grey circle, which is some of the planning implications. on the right-hand side, the orange circle is some of the anticipated presumed impacts for the public. in the middle, we have general significant impacts to both the planning department and the public. for the neighborhood notice example, some of the biggest impacts would be increased cost to applicants, due to consulting, plan drafting, and application fees. and the permit applications that require neighborhood notice would take much longer to process. looking at the new requirements for permit submittal and review, they must verify d.b.i.

and the project would have to comply with the residential guidelines as they existed on the day that this ordinance became affective. some of our largest anticipated impacts with that new set of permit su submittal guidelines are that the planning department are not engineers, we don't have that skill set, so verifying a department of building inspection, demolition or structural plan calculation is not something in our skill set, and this ordinance would require us to do that. it would also be a substantial shift and how d.b.i. and planning currently process these applications. it would take a very long time for us to put this new system into place. so we envision that that will cause some delays. and once the system is in place, it does impact our procedures in that we have many more things that we need to examine, with trans

pe transfer permits back and forth. on the public side, some of the biggest changes are, again, that applicants must hire an architect to submit those plans, and the plans and structural drawings are now required at the front end of an application. right now it is just a site plan because we know that planning is usually going to come around and ask for changes and reiterations. so, again, the biggest impact would be significant delays in permit processing, and an increased cost to applicants because of all of these changes. with that, i will turn it over to cyril from the planning department. >> hi, commissioners, i'm a supervisor with the plan review surface division. currently you require

building permit for new buildings and demolition and grading. what is so great about our entitlement process, you'll need architectural drawings, and these are conceptual drawings to establish the building windows. the application will now require structural drawings and calculations to accompany these site permit conceptuaconceptual design. this is for d.b.i.to review it and for means and methods and construction. and the application will need to include a sworn declaration and testing to the accuracy of the submitted plans, and stated impact on the tenants, and construction means and methods. currently in regards to permits, when d.b.i. has determined that the work has gone beyond the scope of the

permit, we issue a d.u. v. the project sponsor must obtain the additional permits for the work. when d.b.i. determines that work has been done without a permit, an n.o.v. is submitted. with the new ordinance, d.b.i. will no longer be able to issue these after the fact, permits for additional work. so before a permit is issued, the sponsor will have to file another permit to remove the legal work prior to putting back the seated work. does that kind of make sense? so pre-existing condition, it is not well-defined. we don't know what that is. if you were to pull a permit to bring it back to pre-existing conditions, we don't know, is that pre-approval of the permit or pre-issues?

>> now we'll break for commissioner comments and questions. >> okay. so i -- do you have a question to commissioner mccarthy, and then we will allow for the rest of the commissioners to ask clarifications. my one question was: i was a little confused by the staff presentation packet that came to us before this meeting. before this meeting, there was an item of dry-rot removal that would trigger the definition of demolition. i read the legislation, and i did not see that in there. can you clarify where that came from? is that related to the contacts? >> we will be covering that in the demolition section of the presentation. if you don't mind waiting until we go over that slide. >> chairwoman: no problem. >> we do cover that in the demolition section. >> chairwoman: thank you.

>> so we're going to come back and ask questions on the second phase of the presentation. >> chairwoman: they may have been answered during that presentation. >> mr. reardon, i have a few questions for you. thank you. so if we could go back to the slide -- i kind of just want to walk through it to make sure i have a really good understanding, particularly to the blind wall section of the presentation there. if you could -- if john could come up there, or somebody, and get that back to that slide area. and then i have kind of -- as i was reading last night, i was preparing the question for you. i want to be sure i have a clear understanding. in most older homes or buildings that water-proof is broken down or ripped or isn't performing anymore, can you explain to the public what happens when you take these older, leaking walls, and fill them with, say, insulation and sheet

rock, as described by the code, what is likely to happen? >> so the best weig way i can kind of explain that is if you go to slide six in your package, where it shows a picture of monterey boulevard in the 1920s. when people file for permits now in regard to maybe adding a story or updating those buildings in some way, where it would involve the removal of the interior surfaces, the code requires the insulation of insulation to meet the energy code requirements, and it requires, obviously, sheet rock on the inside. the sheet rock that is applied to the inside in modern construction provides much tighter construction than the old lathe and

plaster provided. not only is the sheet rock taped at all of the joints, but caulk is applied around the electrical boxes and switch boxes, and so you have a much more air-tight enclosure, at least from the inside. in the existing wall cavity, if you look at the following slide from the second blind wall slide, you will see those cavities are going to be filled up when installation is provided by the code. essentially, it provides an incubator for dry rot and mold because you're introducing insulation to a wall that is probably lacking in weatherization from the outside, and really it just harbors the growth of the fungus, and that is mold and dry rot. so our effort is to achieve

minimum code compliance. and the minimum code compliance would be to make sure that we have a code-compliant wall when said wall is exposed. >> and i hear a lot of building inspectors, from their experiences, this -- moisture doesn't become a problem with these older walls until a remodel occurs. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. because we don't see the problem until the wall is opened up. once the wall is opened up, we're looking at what is illustrated in the slide, where you see the open wall cavities between the studs and the wall. >> the other part of the equation, which i talked to a lot of contractors over the years, can you explain why it is impossible to fix or patch the papering of a wall without actually taking the wall down? can we talk a little bit about that? because that has been a real field condition problem for years. >> it is about accessability. because if these are zero

lot line buildings, you don't have the ability to get to the outside of the wall. with a front wall or back wall, you can work on it from the front or inside of the front wall, and likewise with the back wall. with the lot line walls, if they're to be kept in place, there is simply no way of doing any work to the outside surfaces of that wall. including the application of sheet rock for fire protection, or paper to ensure we have proper weatherization for that wall. >> these walls, as you kind of pointed out in your presentation, are very important. now most people in the general public don't know what that means. quickly explain what it means and how important it is when we're remodeling that we do achieve these walls, particularly on the property sidelines. >> most people don't think

about 1l walls. the 1-r wall. but what it means is it creates an allowance of time for people to exit from the building. it means that a fire that occurs in the building is less likely to spread to an adjacent building or vice versa. if fire occurs in an adjacent building, it may not be able to make it to the building you're in. at least within that one-hour period of time. >> i have one more question: this site permit process, if i may ask -- we talk roughly about the side permit process. and planning now see it as a lot more work that has to be done, plan check. do we have really any understanding how much more work and plan check is going to be created by, you know,

basically removing the side permitting process, as we know it as it is today? >> i'm going to turn this over to cyril yu, and he would probably have a better answer for you. >> and as quick as you can, cyril, if you can -- >> we don't know how many revisions there are. it occurs during the site permit. they establish the building envelope. so i'm going to let liz talk about that. >> i would say on a very typical normal site, we probably see about four revisions that happen while planning holds the permit. those are things like code compliance, and making sure there are adequate notations on the plans. after design review, and historic preservation and environmental review, all of those times we ask for changes, and it is routed to us without d.b.i.'s review. we get the project to a good

place, and send out notice once it gets approved, and then it goes to d.b.i., and site permits are issued, and then the structural drawings are then prepared. this change, ordinance, would require that at the beginning, and at the first revision we ask for, they have to redo their drawings, and the second and third revision. so will is a lot of additional time placed on the applicant to pay for the structural engineer to pay for all of those drawings. >> so it would be a huge cost factor. i have more questions, but in the interest of time, madam president, the next commissioner, please. >> chairwoman: commissioner walker. >> thank you very much. thank you for the presentation -- the ongoing presentation. one of the issues that sort of encompasses all of this is how we define "as is." it sounds like we currently do it with just drawings, with the submittal.

and it is defined at untouched. so unless something is -- so the concept of what commissioner mccarthy is talking about, replacing something that is dry-rotted or mold, even if it is in the same configuration the original, that is currently not "as is." there is a lot of reliance on what is going to require an additional use. even in the case of a deck that is rotted out, if you're replacing it as is, if it is not compliant, or in this case of this legislation, it would require a review under conditional use. i mean, that's what i'm reading -- how i'm reading this.

is that correct? >> basically, that's correct. one of the major issues as it relates to blind walls, under the current code, a lot of folks keep their blind walls, because it keeps them under the definition. right now in the current code, if you can demonstrate a need for repair due to dry rot or something of that sort, you can document it, d.b.i. validates it. we will let you do whatever is needed to be done to put that wall back into place in a repaired state. but a proactive improvement, an applicant cannot take a wall down, even if it goes back up in the same place. that's a lot of where we're seeing this issue. if it is not an identified dry-rot need. but it is upgrading for energy code compliance, structural load, things being generated from the scope of the project. those are things where they're not allowed to take the wall down and put it back up. which are part of the code challenges we're seeing right now.

>> let me ask another question as a follow-up to that. under this requirement, how do we verify? that seems tob th to be the issue when we see projects, is that somebody runs into these kind of issues in the process, and we don't know what the process is for our department and your department of evaluating that on-site. >> i think our current best practice is when there is an issue identified in the field, the developer applicant is supposed to call the inspector that is working on the job, and have them validate that is an issue that needs to be remedied, issue them a notice, they come to planning and we look at it and look at the documentation and we approve it the same day. the proposed legislation, and we'll touch on this under the dry-rot section --

it isn't going to allow for that same process to occur. >> thank you. commissioner fong? >> the interspace between curb and the proposed all indicate significant greater review. has staff from both departments estimated what that impact is on completion of the review process? >> sure. we've been struggling with this very question. since this ordinance came out. we do not, right now, have exact numbers, and here is why: we would anticipate, and as we chart through the rest of this presentation, you'll see some additional increase in workload that we anticipate. we definitely anticipate a very, very large uptake in projects that would trigger notice. the issue when we get to

additional use criteria and the subsequent sections, there are criteria to be made by the planning commission, which affectively removes all discretion. so it is basically a check list that shall be met. most projects will not be able to meet all of those criteria. so there will be a huge uptake, we don't anticipate anyone will file those applications because they wouldn't be able to meet those criteria. so it is hard to predict what the actual workload implications will be. it may have the opposite effect of completely reducing the volume of applications, and permits in the city, even though there is a an increase in the current flow. >> in regards to the d.b.i., we don't have the numbers as far as how much staff we need. but we know that 95% of the site reviews that come in, they can be done within an hour, but because of the new structural calculationsnand

drawings, everything would have to be reviewed in-house. that is going to take a lot more time. >> chairwoman: who is logged on as guest two. is that you, sam? >> yes. >> chairwoman: okay. sam. >> thank you for your presentation. i appreciate everybody being here today. i think we talked a lot about the increased costs to both departments, and that is very valid. we need to get to the bottom of that. i guess i'm wondering if anyone on either staff has calculated the estimated percentage of increase to the project sponsors, to the actual people applying for these things? you know, my humble opinion is i think we have a city where it is already very onerous, and at times it makes people already not apply for much-needed repairs. has anyone taken a crack at -- even if it is a percentage increase in overall costs because it

seems pretty astronomical. >> thank you for the question. while we're sympathetic to the costs that would potentially be incurred under this new legislation, it is not in our wheel house to speak to this. >> okay. >> chairwoman: any other questions, commissioners? okay. we will go on to the next part of the presentation. moving on to the mergers, conversions, and demolitions aspect of the ordinance, which would amend section 317 of the planning cold and the building code -- there we go. the first change will be that we'll be redefining

what "removal" means. >> if you recall, planning commissioners, there was consensus about the fact that the definition of "removal" was part of the problem as it is too complicated. this ordinance expands the definition and creates several different definitions of what constitutes a removal based on the project being proposed. we have several categories there. and going on to the general conditional use criteria, so for any merger, demolition, or conversion defined as such and therefore requires additional use authorization. ithere are specific criteria, and there are general additional use criteria that have to be met no matter which you're trying to seek, whether it is a merger or demolition. the most significant of that would be no tenant may have

occupied the space in the last seven years unless it was through an ellis act eviction. and some of the implementation aspects of that are just the simple definitions of merger conversion and demolition. because there are some circular logic with the definitions that i won't get into the details, because it would take me a while to explain, but i'd be happy to answer if that comes up -- technically, a project can be made ineligible. just by being defined as a merger, you cannot meet the c.u. criteria to be approved as a merger. so continuing on with mergers, the definition of "merger," would be refined to say taking 10% of one unit and giving it to another unit.

and the legislation codifies a version of the commission's removal of residential flats policy. commissioners, this was a policy that you adopted that stated that any change in a residential flat so that it no longer results in a residential flat as you defined it, would require a mandatory discretionary review and public notification and a planning commission hearing. at that time, you defined the residential flat as having exposure at the front and rear of the property, and generally occupying a full story. however, that is not the black and white definition. that was something at your discretion. so this residential -- the residential flats in this ordinance have been defined. it states that mergers of residential flats, taking 10% of one and giving it to another, would not be allowed. it would be prohibited. so looking at the conditional-use criteria beyond just a general

criteria for a merger, in order to be approved through the conditional-use authorization, you cannot have more than 1200 square feet per unit or exceed the average unit size of all of the units around you within 300 feet. so if all of your neighbors, you cannot exceed that per unit in yours. you cannot adversely impact the exposure of any of the existing units, and there cannot have been, again, a below market rate unit there. it cannot be rent controlled, and you cannot have had a tenant there in the last seven years. going into residential conversions, the biggest change to granting an approval of a conversion is that the proposed new use of that residence must be principally permitted in the underlying zoning district. wra as righwhereas right now it can require an

additional use authorization, as long as you received that approval. some of the largest anticipated impacts and concerns about the mergers and conversions, as ms. watty said earlier, all of the conditional-use hearings allow for no discretion of the commission. they're criteria and have to be met. and most of the criteria are very black and white. you either meet them or you don't. again, due to some circular definitions, the mergers of rent-controlled housing would be prohibited. and the department is not sure how we would calculate whether something is a removal based on the qualification of having to be no more than the average of your neighbor's unit size because we do not have reliable data stating what every single unit size is in the city. on the public side -- on the conversion side, because of the fact that things like

planned unit developments, hospitals, colleges, religious institutions and schools are actually a conditional use in most residential districts, these would be prohibited from establishing themselves in any former residentially-spoanzoned building in an r.h. district. delays in permit processing and increased costs and additional staffing needs would be the major implications. going into unauthorized dwelling unit removal, to receive a conditional-use authorization you would need to establish that to legalize it is 15% higher than the average cost. and the applicant would need to hire a property appraiser to conduct that presentation and present that at the commission on the cost. again, going into our implementation impacts, the

requirements here are predicted to increase the cost of these types of applications. we also know that appraiser values can be subjective, and therefore can be challenged, which can add confusion and uncertainty to the process. and with that, we'll turn it over to cyril. >> okay. so i'm going to go over the definition of residential demolition. currently residential demolition defined in the building code is a total tear down and destruction of a building, containing one or more residential units, containing one or more residential units. this is what we have in the building code currently. what is going to be added is the temporary or permanent removal of more than 50% of

exterior elements or 25% of street basic services, or 75% of interior walls and/or floors, and that will be incorporated into the building code. so if you remove any of these percentages, then any of the projects that concede these percentages will be subject to the same controls as a complete demolition. the demolition calculations will also include work permitted in the past five years of that building. i'm going to turn it over to pat to talk about dry rot. >> dry rot removal: currently the way it is now, dry rot removal and repair is subject to the standard building permit processes. for vertical additions, contractors are encouraged to notify d.b. i. when dry

rot is noticed. the way it would be under this proposed legislation, no permit to remove dry rot will be issued without an inspection to confirm site conditions. as written, any removal of dry rot would require a demolition permit, which would require conditional use authorization. [please stand by]

and just to maybe answer commissioner melgar's earlier question about dry rot. there is a provision not constituting a calculation to do the demolition calculation. the way the ordinance stands right now, the building code, so on page 64 of the ordinance, starting at line 10, it's section 1 03 a.3.1 of the building code change. it says no demographics to remove dry shot -- that's where we came from with the packet that you received. we're going to go into some case

studies about this, instead of implementation impacts. because we feel like that's the best way to illustrate this. with that i'm going to turn it over to liz. >> thank you. good morning again. i'm the deputy director of current plan. real-world examples would help hammer this home in the most clear way. so the example here, this is a case study of the demolition definition and this example is a simple facade reclad. this scenario is a two-story single family home, zoned rh-1 and located in the outer sunset. the hypothetical project here is they want to remove the per ma stone and replace it back to stucco, which is likely the original material. that's the totality of this project. under current controls, it's not considered a demolition. it's actually a no-plans permit. it's approved over the counter by both the planning department and the building inspection, so you leave that day with the permit and you can do the work.

under the proposed ordinance, this would considered a demographics under the building code, as it removes more than 25% of the surface of exterior wall facing a public street. it's considered a demolition, therefore, also in the planning code, because the planning code definition now references the building code. so demolitions under the planning code require conditional use authorization, based on the proposed ordinance, this demo, which again facade recladding could not be permitted and here's why. the commission no longer again discretion -- policy priorities through their review of c.u. findings. instead all of these criteria shall be met. and specifically for this project, the ordinance prohibits the demolition of a building if the existing building conforms to the height, scale of other buildings on the block, as you all probably know in the utter sunset, pretty much all of these buildings are of the same height and scale. so you couldn't meet that criteria alone, would prohibit this project.

there's more. we want to chart through the ways this couldn't be met. the ordinance prohibits the demo of the new building, which we have to presume, although realistically this isn't a new building. as soon as you trigger a demo, you're then subject to the replacement building criteria. so we're going to call this the replacement building. the replacement building has to conform to the materials or architectural details found within the surrounding neighborhood. well, here as you can see in the little snapshot, there's a variety of materials and architectural details, some of the homes have small projecting balconies, some of the properties are stucco, one is a combination of brick and shingle. there's really no way that this building can conform to all of those different features. we may find that it complies with the residential design guidelines, but that's not how the ordinance is currently written. the ordinance prohibits the demolition of the old building, the project is an rh-1 building.

so they're not increasing the density. it could not be permitted for that reason. this ordinance prohibits the demo if the new building's affordability is not equal to or greater than the affordability of the existing building. as you can imagine, this would probably improve the curb appeal and would likely, you know, even if relativelydy minute mousily decrease the value to some degree, so it cannot be approved based on that. if the new building includes a garage, this one is a little unclear to us. again it's not really a new building, but the existing building has a garage. we have to treat it like it's subject to the criteria, which says it can't be approved if the replacement structure includes a garage. so currently that's a little ambiguous, but we think it wouldn't be permitted based on that criteria. lastly, the ordinance prohibits the demolition if the existing building was occupied by a tenant within the last seven years. again the city does not maintain that information, unless there's been some sort of eviction that's registered at the rent

board. so if this is a new property owner and the previous tenant left before the sale of this house, this project would also not be allowed to move forward. so with that i will turn it over to my colleagues at d.b.i. to walk through this example and how it would be impacted under their purview. >> so for this facade change, currently d.b.i. come in, you get the permit, no plans, over the counter, facade change, get the permit same day. now granted that they get their c.u. for this, that they will now have to come out, fill out an application, provide the plans showing elevations, demo calculation and submit it for in-house review. so what became a same-day permit, over-the-counter, now could take up to 9 to 12 months for the process of just changing your facade. [laughter]

back to planning. >> okay. it sounds like the demolition criteria for c.e.u. to be approved have kind of been highlighted through the examples. happy to go over those in questions. but the power point presentation does have them. it's two slides. it's page 35. actually i'm not sure -- yes. slide 35 and 36, if people have questions about that. and then we'll go into our second case study. >> thank you. i did have a question for mr. hepner. so the -- i wanted to understand the numbers for the conditions, under which mergers -- i mean, so the 1200 square feet average

size or existing units within 300 radius. where did those numbers come from? >> i believe that was based on recommendations from the mayor's office of housing, in the context of the construction of affordable housing. i might be misremembering that. but 1200 is not an entirely arbitrary number. if we were here to discuss what the appropriate size is, i would be very, very pleased. because that's a discussion that i think is worth having. but that number is not pulled from thin air. i think it was a recommendation for a two bedroom or three bedroom sized apartment, under m.o.h. standards. >> so an average of two or three bedrooms. >> yeah. it was one or the other was where the 1200 came from. >> help me just understand what the thinking was about it. because families come in all shapes and sizes. and the way we use residential space, a lot of times has to do with what your family looks like, or a cultural norms about

intergenerational living. so, you know, having a one-size-fits-all could be problematic in the way that people use space, depending on, you know, their culture, the size of family. why pick a number that is an average, as opposed to a percentage or a proportion. i don't understand the logic. >> i think it's fair criticism. the alternative that we proposed is this, you know, average size within 300 feet. i understand that the legislation currently says the lesser of those two, i think that could be changed. but i'm not entirely convinced that the data does not exist somewhere in the city to determine or to put that burden on somebody to find that information, if you want a unit over a size that we deem acceptable for y., y., z. purpose. to expand to accommodate other family members or what have you. you know, i would love to sit down and have a conversation with folks about whether 1200 square feet is sufficient to raise a child or to welcome

grandma into your home or to exand in 10% and be able to bring somebody else in. that's a conversation absolutely worth having. >> okay. thank you. >> great. so we are going to go back to continuing with some of our -- >> nobody else has questions about this section? >> i do. >> okay. commissioner walker. >> we're still on the same section. >> all right. go ahead. >> this is the most complicated -- one of the most complicated sections. so if we can go back to the power point here. so this case study is an example on the full demolition and new construction. and how outright demo, new construction would be affected under this new ordinance. so this is a case study. this is a real project. i think the commission should actually recognize this project. you all saw this and approved it february of this year. this is a two-story, the existing property on the left is a two-story, about 1700 square foot, single family home in the rh-2 zoning district.

this project came in and we're doing an outright demolition. this is a nonhistoric resource. we're going to do new construction. we're going to do two units, maximize our density. they did two full-floor sized flats. the units were both equitably sized. and the commission actually applauded this as a great example of a project, that really ticks the mark on what the commission was looking for. under the current -- under the proposed criteria, outlined in the ordinance, this project would similarly be subject to a conditional use. but it would be subject to the conditional use under both the 317 demolition demolition and the new section 319 that audrey talks about in the next section for major expansions. and this project, though, could not be approved by the planning commission. again the criteria, rather than findings for the commission. so i'll charge through these again, some of them are the same as in the previous example. first, unclear if we know if the building was rented to anyone in the last seven years. the est