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 existing building conforms to the height and scale of one adjacent buildings, that it contains a gable roof, like several on the block. it contains a raised entry, like several on the block. and it contains some double-hung fixed encasement windows, all of which are found throughout the neighborhood. therefore, doesn't meet that criteria of the ordinance. the project, although compatible with the mixed character, does not prescriptively conform with

the height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. the project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. so it wouldn't be approvable under that criteria. and the units, although similarly sized and with similar exposure, full floor flat plus down, and the other is floor floor unit and up, it exceeds the cap placed in the ordinance. both roughly 2,000 square feet each. and lastly, the project includes the garage, which is also prohibited under this ordinance. under section 319, just to sort of weave in all of the implication of this project, some of the criteria are redundant. it wouldn't be permitted under 319, as it adds a new garage. architectural features are inherently, because it's a demo, all of them are being removed. that's a criteria that makes it prohibited from being approved. the project is less affordable.

and the rental question. so again a lot of those criteria are cross referenced. with that i'll turn it over to my colleagues at d.d.i. >> so d.b.i. doesn't know how many reviews that this project went through with planning. we don't get to see that. that's entitlement process. but now with every iteration, with planning, there has to be new structural drawings and calculations submitted for d.b.i. to review every iteration, constructability, what not. so if this isn't going to be approved during the new process, regardless of how many iterations that's done, all of the -- your -- when you front load the project to retain a design professional, to review and to prepare all of these, you know, the structural drawings and calculation becomes mute at the end, when you can't get approved for the c.e.u.

thank you. >> yeah. okay. commissioner. >> very quickly. mr. reardon, please. first of all, the case study is very helpful in planning in d.b.i. thank you. just on slide -- residential demolition definition there on slide 30. just -- i just want to kind of put it in real-world terms for me, as i understand it. 50% of the exterior elements. 50% include the back of the house? >> the exterior elements would be inclusive of the exterior walls. and the roof structure. >> okay. >> so those would be -- it would be what literally boxes in the interior of the house. >> the back of the house. if you remove 50% of the back of the house, that would trigger it. >> the back of the house would be extear wall. >> stairs probably a good

estimate. that's probably about 25% of a front of a house, right? >> the way it reads, it reads 25% of surface material. so it could just be stucco or shingles. >> yeah. >> or such. >> the big one for me is the 75% of the interior. so most of the homes that i look at right now, they're kind of open floor plans, right. so if i'm remodeling a kitchen and i've got to make an open floor plan, it's probably safe to say that you would be removing close to to that 75% inside your home. >> it's very likely based on the drawings that we see coming through our department, because there is a push towards having the open floor plan. and not only that, but in -- as my colleague sue will probably explain to you, there's typically a requirement to upgrade the structure of the floor, to make -- to spend for this new open floor plan. so that would also include removal and replacement of the floor structure itself. >> okay.

all right. >> that could potentially be another calculation that would move the number upward. >> okay. thank you. all right. madam president. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. thank you. in general, you know, i'm looking at the sections that -- section 5 specifically in the criteria does not contain a below-market rate unit, a rent-controlled unit or a unit that was occupied by a tenant within the last seven years. i think all of us know the state of a lot of these old buildings. and it -- i don't want to create a situation where rental units are not upgraded. and so this really needs some attention. i think that the issue is eviction not occupying. so i just want to make sure. maybe you could clarify if you've had a conversation about

this. i know a lot of this stuff is rental units. so i just want to -- how do we manage that? >> right. >> i would like all of the rental units to be actually habitable. >> a couple of comments. one, as to the dry rot issue, which i think is rightfully causing consternation among folks, i think we were driven by an imperative in this ordinance to prevent the demolition of sound housing. i think the flip side of that coin is that we should be incentivizing the rehabilitation and maintenance of unsound housing. to the extent there's a conflict here between the planning code and the building code and that the planning code says that the removal of verified, documented dry rot, whether -- weatherization, with like-for-like replacement, does not count towards the demolition replacement. that is the intent of the legislation. i will be the first to admit that in the course of working on

this, the building code came second. and i don't think that enough attention has been paid to the particulars of the building code, in this ordinance. but i just want to be clear that the removal of dry rot, the notion that the removal of a dry rotted deck could require a c.u. is absurd, even by the sponsors assessment of this ordinance and not the intent of the ordinance. so let me just be clear about that. that we should be incentivizing the rehabilitation and maintenance, that's not the intent of this ordinance to say that dry rot triggers demolition c.e.u. >> okay. >> and just one more comment about the affordability question and i think planning mentioned that the enforceability. seven-year lookback on the presence of tenants. this is an emerging idea, an emerging consensus. i do think it's interesting that, you know, that standard becomes unenforceable in this context or assigning that burden

to -- and in other contexts it's the basis for standing up and i'm thinking about statewide legislation that uses a similar standard, to say that this is an enforceable tenant protection. so i just want to be clear that it's, you know, addressed one way in another context, when we're actually talking about making our regulations much more per missive, relative to upzoning and demolition of existing housing. >> commissioner moss. >> thank you. for mr. hepner again, please. a lot of the upcoming rehabs, as we've called them, that the housing bond is going to pay for, are hope s.f. projects. i'm just wondering if you believe any of those, what might be full demolitions will be affected. >> i think it's a good question. if they're like-for-like replacements and actually rehabilitating housing stock that needs to be rehabilitated, that's not in the crosshairs of this legislation. >> commissioner hillis.

>> just a question for planning staff on mergers and conversions. it's my sense that we've seen less and less of these, because of the controls we've put in place. do you have any data? i know this ordinance goes into some detail on changing definitions and adding additional controls to that. but do you have data on how many vergers or conversions we've seen or approved or disapproved? because i don't recall. >> sure. >> or at least i recall ra dwindling number. >> we don't have data in preparation for the hearing. we do anticipate we'll pull together as much data as we can. anecdotally a decrease in mergers. i think the commission's policy has been incredibly effective at the staff level. a ton of projects have come in, removing flats and we've been able actually nip those in the bud, because no one wants to come before the planning commission at a hearing and changed the project to retain the flats. i think that's been a big driver of the reduction in mergers, as well as the commission being

really strict about really not tolerating the loss of housing. >> okay, great. i think that's good to codify that. mr. hepner, on the last example that miss watty went through, which, you know, we talked about, it was the -- it was a demo. what i would call sound housing. you know, it wasn't historic and two-unit house built there, it could be a three unit. this is where i kind of get just the goals of the legislation kind of conflict with the legislation itself. so on that example, do you think that's a -- what are you trying to do in this legislation to get at that example? do you want to see that approved in the and -- and the process quicked to get at the density increase or seeing that goes through more process. that's what the goals of the legislation don't quite line up is the language in the legislation. >> yeah.

honestly i'm not familiar with that case study. i'd be, you know, probably irresponsible to apply on the particulars of that case. so i won't. but, you know, in as much as the intent of this legislation is to preserve the existing sound housing, as a supervisor mentioned at the outset of this hearing, our existing sound housing tends to be our most affordable housing. even if it's not the rent controlled or the deed-restricted affordable housing. the existing housing that we have tends to be the more affordable housing. i see this case study, it's a compelling case. >> we see this all the time. >> sure. >> we see a single family, nonhistoric home that's in an r-3 going to three units, is that good or bad, the demo? i think you have to answer that to get at what you're doing here. >> respectfully, commissioner, i don't know the particulars of that project. >> again that's generally.

>> how can i opine on a project that i don't understand -- >> please, be respectful. >> the intent of this informational hearing is precisely to illicit this type of feedback. that is important for me to take back. this is the first time i have seen this presentation. it's the first time that i have seen this criticism and these case studies, in spite of meeting with the departments regularly for the past six, seven months. the intent of this informational hearing should be to illicit? of this feedback. i appreciate that. i'm not opining on the -- >> i agree. and i appreciate that, too. i think when -- you know to write legislation, we should have -- your goal, one of the goals up there was to increase density. and if you have a nonhistoric home in an rh-3, should you be able to build three units, 1200 square feet or 1300 square feet or are we making that harder or impossible? >> yeah. i think it's an important point. on some level to that simple

question, absolutely yes. should the density be at the cost of an existing tenant, 120,000 single homes in the city, a third of which occupied by renters not protected by rent control. there's some exceptions to that. >> single family homes are protected. >> so i look at that case and another question that i have, and i, you know, this presentation is not geared toward understanding what the impact on tenants is. i will -- i think that's apparent. but i want to know. you know, how many tenants evicted in the past seven years. should we have the metric before the commission? absolutely. i think nobody disagrees with that. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. commissioner koppel. >> question for mr. hepner again. i'm not going to get too granular with this question. i'm going to kind of take a step back. i'm only speaking for planning here. whether it's b.o.a. or b.i.c. we're up here every thursday. commissioners moore and fung and myself have some

constructability or kind of job-site knowledge. i feel that we do a really good job in taking all of these projects seriously. and i think we do a good job making our rulings. and, you know, without taking this personally, this kind of language and ordinance is almost slighting us, saying, haney, i don't think you guys are honestly doing a good enough job. is this even necessary? >> let me answer that with a sort of broader assessment of the context that we have trying to address. and this is i think a secondary goal of the legislation is to confront what we perceive as real efforts to eliminate discretion from the approval process. i think that there are merits to that, as long as our code is -- as long as our code is clear and serves the purpose that it should be serving. but the removal of discretion for this commission is not -- is happening in other spheres. i think the residential flat policy that this commission has adopted is amazing.

it's the reason that we've tried to codify it here. i do believe it has led to a reduction in problem projects. i believe that when staff tells me that. i believe that. i think that codifying a good practice so that it has not changed administratively by a future commission. so, you know, also honors some of your work in that regard. but i do believe that creating clear and objective standards in the schedule, provides better notice to project sponsors, provides better notice to departments, provides better notice to community members, who might object to those projects down the line. i think that that is a good thing. now what those clear and objective standards should be, that should be the topic of debate. where we set these thresholds, where we set the percentage, where we set the size of existing occupies. that should be the topic of discussion. i agree. >> so, sorry, commissioner more, before i let you ask, i just had

a follow-up question to commissioner koppel's question in, in that, you know, aside from the -- a bit unfriendly language towards the commission. this legislation is going to have a lot more work in terms of the commission and conditional use applications. we get a couple hundred hours, you know, before 30 and 40 hours of work every week. so i'm wondering if this legislation is going to provide a raise for the commission or any other, you know, outlet for the increased workload? [laughter] >> i appreciate the comment. i will say that a comment was made by planning staff earlier, this might actually lead to a reduction in c.e.u.s in as much as you're not getting the c.e.u. you apply for "capital -e

you shouldn't apply for the permit to get the c.e.u. i think that planning staff and our office agree that there's a version of this. that hits that intent in the proper way. and actually leads to a decrease in the number of c.e.u.s. planning staff is right. if you apply -- if you meet the definition of merger, that under the current draft of the ordinance and we've submitted changes to resolve this, that the conditions of the merger would prohibit it. it's a little bit circular. that's to say that maybe we should prohibit mergers and not require a c.e.u. for them. >> we should just say it. >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. reardon. could you please give me a better understanding of how you define 50% of exterior elements or 25% of street-facing surfaces. does that include windows? >> that question might be more for planning, regarding the definition surrounding calculations based on wall and if that is inclusive of windows

or not. >> for me a window is surface and obviously the numbers get very skewed if you eliminate window as opening, rather than just solidly built -- wall surfaces. i'm curious. >> yeah. >> like to leave that open. >> the way i read, if it's surfaces, that would be wall surfaces. and it would just be limited to the wall itself. so maybe. >> yeah. sure. so currently those similar type definitions are in the plan code, the definitions are in the building code. in the planning code, because this hasn't been cleared, the interpretation that we've made over the years is that if a window opening remains a glazed feature, even if it's changed and in the same size shape, form, it's not considered removal. but if a wall becomes a window or a window becomes a wall, that would constitute removal. so that's how we've interpreted it to date.

>> if we move into the future and still using percentages, i would encourage us to include windows as surfaces in order to get a better handle of what's the amount of demolition really entails. the one comment i'd like to make -- thank you, mr. reardon. i appreciate the examples, except when we join to really struggle with the more unified definition of what demolition is, we looked at cases which were far, far more egregious than any of the small examples we saw today. because none of the examples we saw today, and i appreciate the physical presentation of real-life situations, had anything to do with the discussion which originally touched on the need to find more common ground for demolition means. thank you. >> thank you. we can go on to the next section.

>> okay. so moving on to the changes regarding major expansions. this would be a new section in the planning code. it would be called section 319. so the new control again be called major expansions. and we would truly like to thank the sponsors supervisors, both supervisor mandelman's office and supervisor peskin's office, through the conversations that we've been having with them on almost a weekly basis since december. this section has been reenvisioned and does include our preferred way to measure what constitutes a major expansion to a home, by using our floor area ratio calculations as they are sizable. we believe it floor area ratio

-- also incentivizes density. we're hoping that the offices are open to continuing talking about the specific numbers that have been set forth. right now the allowable f.a.r. that you are given doesn't incentivize density, rather it just provides the generalized set amount per unit, whether you're building one unit in an rh-3 or three units in the rh-3, equaling about 1500 square feet when you look at the average size of lots in residential districts. we know that's a work in progress, though. we're hoping those are something that can be a topic of conversation and amendments in the future. so if you meet -- if you exceed the -- if your proposed major expansion or alterations exceeds the f.a.r. thresholds that are set here in this chart, you would be required to obtain a

c.e.u. and so the criteria are fairly similar to the criteria that you must meet for a residential demolition. in order to be approved, the project must add density and affordability equal to or greater than the existing structure. there can be no planning code amendments required, there will be no new garage or parking. significant architectural features are not being removed. if the existing building is a potentially historic resource or any historic district, it must comply with the secretary of the interior standards. there can be no loss of affordable or rent-controlled housing and there cannotting a no-fault he conviction within the -- eviction within the last seven years. with that we'll go into the planning department's case study. >> thank you, audrey. before i come into the example, quickly follow up on commissioner moore's statement. one of the reasons we did choose the examples is to really

identify how this ordinance would impact really the bread and butter of what we do. we see an incredibly high volume of projects that the commission never sees. that never make front page of the new and that are process without any issues from neighbors and we really wanted to highlight the high volume of work that we do. and how this legislation would impact the day-to-day work that we do, not the few really bad actor examples that we are all very familiar with. so this example, again of the major expansion, this is specifically a vertical addition. this property is a historic two-story, single family home in the rh-2 zoning district in noe valley. the project was approved and again this is a real project for a one had -- one-story vertical addition. a two-story rear addition. the building went from about 2100 square feet to just shy of 3,000 square feet. under the current rules, this was not a demolition.

this was subject to section 311, neighborhood notification. it went through all of the design review, it complied with the residential design guidelines, as well as the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. and it went through notice without any d.r.s being filed by neighbors. under the proposed ordinance, this project would be considered a demo under the building code, due to the amount of interior demolition exceeding 75% of floors -- floors and walls. even if that interior demolition, let's say was reduced down to 74%, it would trigger the 319 major expansion, as it exceeds the c.e.u. triking for f.a.r. right now the f.a.r. trigger placed at .6f.a.r. so any -- the addition of the size would further trigger the 319 controls. so that punts into requiring a c.e.u. then we're back where we talked before about does this meet all of the criteria in the section 319 c.e.u. criteria. this project could not be approved under the proposed

ordinance, as it doesn't add density. the proposed project is not equal to or less affordable than the existing structure. and again it is unclear if a tenant has occupied this home in the last seven years. with that i'll turn it over to my colleagues at d.b.i. >> again to drive the point home, we don't know how many iterations this process takes, you know, with the planning department. you know, currently the site would be done 100% over-the-counter. now with the -- under the new ordinance, with the new structural calculations, again calculations, drawings, this would have to be submitted for in-house review, no longer qualifying for over-the-counter review, so what could actually take one day to review can take, you know, a couple of weeks. so that's how that would affect the department of building inspection. >> thank you.

>> yeah. okay. so do we have any commissioner questions on this section? okay. oh, commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: >> when the department looked at the f.a.r. as a guideline, more than a guideline, how have you looked at it as a nexus between the amount of f.a.r. versus what is a mcmansion? if you have .5 f.a.r. on a typical san francisco lot of 2500 square feet, that's 1250. so how is that relate then to a mcmansion?

>> so again as part of today's effort, we're not putting forward a recommendation of what we think is an appropriate threshold as audrey mentioned. the percentages that are listed, we hope we can continue that conversation and make some changes. i guess the one point of reference i would make, and commissioner fong, you weren't on the planning commission last year around this time, when we were presenting the residential expansion threshold, which was the department's proposed solution for dealing with sort of the mcmansion issues. we set the f.a.r.s differently. there was not consensus around what the right number was and i think that in part was one of the reasons that the residential expansion threshold didn't move forward. a lot of strong feelings, whether too large or too small. so i don't think there is a magic number there. it's very much a policy call. >> well, consider my question more as to a process to discuss the nexus between f.a.r. and too large of a size. >> commissioner moore.

>> in san francisco doesn't have the same lot sizes. the f.a.r. is a generalized number, it's a very, very difficult number. and might apply in certain areas, we have a huge incidence of less than standard lots and less than standard conditions. where a generalized f.a.r. is suggested, i think it's bound to fail. >> okay. we will go to the next section. >> so kind of jumping back in the code a bit to section 176 and 317 and 319, we grouped all of these together, because we're going to be talking about the fines and penalties for illegal demolitions, conversions, expansions, mergers and generally some changes to the planning code section 176, which would be how we handle all of our other code enforcement violations.

so going into illegal major expansion and a illegal demolition, the sign for this would be, in addition to the fines that we would have under section 176, a fine equal or greater to the -- equal to increase in the value of the property, resulting from the illegal work. and it would also state that no permit, except to redo the work back the way it was, could be issued for five year. and all of the penalties for that fine, except for staff time and material, would go into the san francisco small sites fund. for the illegal alterations of a historic building, there would be the additional fine of a zoning administrator penalty of up to $500,000. the zoning administrator may waive all or part of that fee, if they determine to -- that the illegal work was restored back

to its original condition or if permits are obtained to legalize that work. so i think the intention there is for more minor violations. the same exact provision that no permit may be issued for five years for the property, unless it's to revert back to the original. and again the penalty, except for time and material, will go into the s.f. historic preservation fund. for an illegal merger and conversion, in addition to being subject to the standard, there would be a fine of up to $50,000. the merged units must be restored to their exact previous condition, down to the existing previous floor area ratio and square footage. and again no permits for five years. and all penalties go to the s.f. small sites fund. so we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317.

some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. we're also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our code enforcement fund. that's a fund that our department relies on to continue our code enforcement work in the first place. most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if you're found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or property owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isn't going to pencil. so going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled through section 176. so it would increase the daily fine from up to $250 a day to up to $1,000 -- i'm sorry, to $1,000 a day.

there would be no discretion, a straight $1,000 fine. and the board of appeals right now can reduce fines to no less than $100 a day, this would change it to say they can reduce fines to no less than $500 a day. really our only implementation concern here is the inability for the fine to be up to $1,000. it has to be straight $1,000 fine. most of the time we do right now charge the full $250 a day. but we do have the discretion to charge less than that, if we find that the violation was truly very minor, corrected in a timely fashion and that the cost of the fine, the daily fine is more onerous than the actual violation. and with that we'll go over to building inspection. >> for inspection requirements,

the way it is now, individuals found to have purposefully misrepresented information on applications or plans can be referred to the city attorney's office for legal actions or professional licensing agencies, for disciplinary actions. the way it would be requires a building inspector to conduct a pre-inspection before a permit is issued, for any work on a residential building, if anyone associated with the building or project has a prior violation for doing work without a permit or for work exceeding the scope of a permit. this includes any person, property owner, contractor, permit expediter or firm, corporation or other legal entity.

>> so procedurally many more projects could be considered demolitions. customers will have to include structural drawings and calculation for d.b.i. to review now. d.b.i. staff has to review multiple iterations of the structural drawings for the same project. many projects ever considered over-the-counter will no longer be considered. many projects will not be considered -- now be considered residential demolition and have to be submitted for internal review. determining demolition calculation based on a five-year permit history will require more review than could be accomplished in a few hours for d.b.i. staff. >> so to conclude, going over just the next steps and the timeline going forward. so we plan to have an informational hearing at the historic preservation commission in july.

and we presume or hope that this will be going in front of the planning commission for an adoption hearing in late summer. and at the beginning of the board of supervisors' fall elective season, we believe it is the sponsors' intention to have this ordinance heard at the land use committee and the full board of supervisors. that conclusions our presentation. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mccarthy had a question. >> i'll keep it quick. just on the penalties and, you know, let me be very clear. i think everybody agrees we need to make these penalties count, particularly to bad actors. but i am a little bit confused about the way it's written here. i don't know who could talk to me on the penalties, who would be the best person on that? so we have two scenarios. one, this contractor rolls into town and takes down a beautiful shack. that's one set of penalties. excuse me. and d.b.i. deals with this. we have contracts who seizes the permits, maybe it's just the interior and so on.

as i read it, he has fallen into the same category as the guy that comes in and takes out a historical piece of property. how does planning receive that working? >> sure. so again if it is found to be historic or historically significant and the definitions are changed in terms of this proposed ordinance in terms what's considered historic, expands what's considered historic for the purpose of fines, if we do find that it is considered to be historic, which it sounds like it would be in this case, the good news is that the zoning administrator has the discretion, if they find that this is a more minor violation, that can be corrected easily. so the scenario that we often envision, is that historic building received a permit to put in a window and they exceeded the scope of that work. maybe they put in a patio door instead in the back of their

property. the $500,000 fine is not mandatory. the v.a. can look at that and say this is something that can be corrected or legalized and, therefore, the $500,000 fine can be reduced or waived, so long as they seek the permits. they would still be subject to all of the other penalties that are nonmonetary and the meants under section 176, which under this proposal would be $1,000 a day, once we've issued our notice of violation. but again the no permits would be issued for five years, unless it's to fix or revert back. and, yes, i believe that's it. >> particularly on the exceeding of the permits, doesn't account for if you're the first-time offender, anything like that? you're painted with the same kind of brush as it were, for lack of a better word? >> that's correct. >> somebody genuinely makes a

mistake, it -- >> in theory. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. so this question is directed at anyone who wants to answer it. either from d.b.i. or from planning. you know, i think we often see -- do see the most egregious cases, in which we're seeing demolitions that are criminal and that are putting workers, neighbors, and other folks at risk. and one question about the way it is, that folks can be referred to the city attorney's office and can have -- can be held accountable is just a curiosity about how often that happens. how often do we actually do that? and how is that process working? and what teeth could be added to that? >> well, one of the more notable cases in the last several years,

i won't mention the address, but it was referred. and the city attorney's office did take it all the way through to imposing a fairly significant fine on the project sponsors and the people associated with the work itself. so some of the other projects and the bad actors that we see and the situations that cause -- specifically to d.b.i. unsafe conditions, we do have lines of communication with the city attorney's office and keep them up to speed with those projects also. and there are ongoing -- there is ongoing activity with regards to the city attorney's office looking at multiple projects. so it's -- it's an ongoing effort. >> i think this is the place to really kind of double down as we move forward. you know, when those bad actors

do just get a penalty and they're able to continue to do business in the city of san francisco, it hurts our credibility. it hurts the industry. and it hurts our community. and there should be much -- they should not be able to continue to build in the city of san francisco and they're putting other people's lives at risk. >> i absolutely agree with that. and when we see the unsafe conditions, we are on the phone with osha, cal osha. our concern is worker safety. so as recently as two weeks ago, we had a case of excavation and unsafe condition, workers were in there, underneath the building and they had undermined the adjacent building. and that's osha. that's a call to osha right away. and the city attorney is updated in regards to, you know, what's going on, especially if it's one of the frequent flyers let's say. so, yeah, we have good lines of communication with the city attorney's office on all of these projects.

>> mr. teague, did you want to add something to that? >> sure. >> good afternoon. good morning still, commissioners. cory teague, zoning administrator with the planning department. just to give the planning department perspective there. the city attorney's office is not involved with the vast majority of our enforcement cases, because they tend to be more minor. the more egregious cases we absolutely do coordinate with the city attorney's office. they also do work themselves to stay abreast of these situations. we have a lot of interagency coordination with d.b.i. and the city attorney's office for these specific types of enforcement cases, for example, illegal demolition. the city attorney is -- they have the ability to take civil action. and basically take the enforcement further than we can through the planning code, the planning code actually specifically states that our enforcement procedures and penalties are not designed to be punitive. they're purely designed to bring

about abatement of the violation. so we're very -- there's a lot of due process, there's a lot of work that just tries to make the problem be fixed, as opposed to penalizing the parties who have conducted the violation. the city attorney can take that further and they're primarily interested in situations where life safety issues arise or where there's been a very kind of egregious and clear violation, that's resulted in like significant monetary gains for the person who conducted the violation. so we definitely coordinate extensively with the city attorney's office. and also with our sister agency at d.b.i., especially when there are life safety issues. >> commissioner fong -- sorry. >> sorry. to follow-up -- commissioner to follow up with pat's comments, once these bad actors are established, d.b.i. establishes a protocol, where then we create

a check list, you know, of projects that these bad actors are coming in with. and which has to be quality controlled by a supervisor, just so that we know, you know, that we put extra eyes on these projects, that these bad actors are coming in. just to elaborate on pat's comments on what we do at d.b.i., when we establish these bad actors that, you know, we look at their projects, we know who they are, we look at their projects. we send the projects to a supervisor for quality control to make sure that everything looks kosher. >> i'm sorry. i have a follow-up question to that. is that codified anywhere? >> codified? >> is that protocol that you just described, is that written down, is it codified anywhere? >> not to my knowledge. but it's just the fact that once this is established and we put extra scrutiny on the projects, just to make sure that, you know, -- >> it's really up to staff and your supervisors? >> correct. >> thank you.

commissioner fong. >> general question for both departments. based upon the stateed -- stated goal for the legislation, i presume that the departments can establish what attributes of permits and projects have created this response. can you tell us the number of permits that relate to the various types of situations that might have led to the creation of this legislation? i mean, the easy one would perhaps -- you know, a major demolition without permitting and review. but i'm looking at other

instances, other attributes that are covered by this legislation. >> we haven't. we haven't been able to pull together that type of data. it's not a very -- it's not a queriable-type data set. we are -- we are anticipating that we're going to pull together some numbers as best we can, prior to any adoption hearings on this. but again anecdotally, it's a very small percentage. those really egregious scenarios would be a very, very small proportion of the permits that we see in total. we process a huge number of permits over-the-counter, that are one-day permits, that don't cause problems. so it's within those projects typically routed for additional review and a small subset of that bucket of permits that are really the bad actors that are generating a lot of the concern for the need for changes. >> is that cullable from your computer systems? >> no. but we could do some manual digging and parsing of project

types, what we have done in the past and we'll do that again in the adoption of any hearing. >> direct huey, did you have something that you wanted to add hold on. you're not on the mic. okay. try it. okay. >> the department of building inspection. one clarification i want to make is any, you know, we want to scrutinize the bad actor, it's not the department acting alone. we always consult with the city attorney for the permits. only a handful of people. we're scrutinizing their project, with the consultation with the city attorney. >> thank you.

commissioner moss. >> thank you. just one last question for mr. hepner, if i could. [laughter] concerning the fines. specifically that the fines would go to the small sites program. i think i could see why that would make sense if we're talking only about single family homes. i guess my question is why wouldn't we let the fines just go into the mayor's office of housing, general fund. and let them have discretion over how to spend those funds? and i say that just because the new construction of affordable housing is and will remain the way we get the most amount of new units of affordable housing. i know we're talking about preservation. i guess i'm wondering if that was considered at all. >> i will say about the fines, it is, you know, irrespective of where they're designed to go, i think we're operating from a position where the best penalty is one that is never enforced. on some level, look, i believe there should be some level to

distinguish between first-time innocent bad actors and repeat bad actors. to be able to reduce fines for that reason. i think we could probably incorporate other interesting ideas. but generally fines should be scary enough that you're not willing to run afoul of the code requirements. this is not the cost of doing business. as it has been for far too long. so we are trying to, yes, increase those fines to apply them more swiftly. and essentially to send a signal that, hey, you don't want to run afoul of the requirements, because it will land you in hot water quickly. >> okay. is that it for commissioner questions and clarifications? >> madam president, mr. reardon would like to make a comment. >> i'd just like to add to a question that was asked just a few minutes ago, in regard to data, in regard to some of these

projects. just for your information, d.b.i. has been tracking vertical additions. and we have been receiving information from our m.i.s. team weekly, in regard to the issuance of vertical addition permits, constituting more than $350,000 of valuation. so we have that data over the past year. and the purpose of collecting the data was primarily to identify the projects and reach out to the projects. and encourage them to schedule an inspection before they start the work. and it might be interesting to note that we haven't had any touch wood, we haven't had any of these calamitous projects since we started doing that. so we do have data. >> thank you, mr. reardon. okay. with that we're going to take public comment on this. i'm going to call out a few speaker cards. if you want to comment, please

come on up and line up on the left wall, when i call your name. so anastasia, vivian wire, stephanie peak, dana, john, luke, john, suzannea, and michael. i'm sorry. please line up on the left side of the room and don't block the door. thank you. >> and thank you, madam president. before we get started, i think we should acknowledge that, you know, supervisor peskin came here today and set the tone for this meeting. and this is an informational and there's going to be a lot of changes made to the legislation. so the idea here today is to hear from everybody and what their concerns are on the legislation. so that they can process this and go back and maybe make those great changes that we're looking for here. thank you. i just want to make sure everybody is respectful to the process here. thank you. >> good day, commissioners.

i'm anastasia. district 8 tenant. we're here to address the problem that we're losing affordable housing, including rent-controlled housing stock. and adopt a solution to stem this loss. as supervisor peskin, the author of the proposed preserve and protect act points out, in the past ten years, over 4,200 affordable units have been lost through speculation by demolition, merger or expansion in san francisco. district 8 has experienced 10 demolitions this year alone. i welcome the planning code revisions proposed that will preserve existing affordable housing, curb development of monster homes and add moderately priced units to our housing stock. i'm pleased that tenant protections are enhanced, including the prohibition of demolition or removal of any

housing unit, formerly occupied by a tenant, and declaration of tenant and tenant history by the project sponsors. having a simple and easily calcuable way is a key to preventing the loss of affordable housing. though i feel the 50% thresholds should be lowered to guard against gaining the system. also a.d.u.s should be included in the f.a.r., based expansion limits. [bell ringing] expansion limits by themselves will not safeguard against demolition of sound and affordable housing. i urge you to think about the housing that we're losing and not about the expense -- the expense is going to be -- look, you've got to provide us with plans that are clear and

transparent. [bell ringing] thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> we understand what we need to do. >> can you state your name for the record. >> we have about 10 to 20 problem buildings a year. there's about 100 cases, though, that come in front, because of a firewall issue, where they took the wall down to put up sheetrock. that's a demo, believe it or not. we have a short choice. you're putting in new joists, you take the joists down, because they're worthless, they do nothing. that's a demo. if you have fire damage, i have a case now, where they tried to shore the building, it collapsed. that's a demo. the staff time you're putting into these hundred cases, when there's a small 10 to 20 bad actors is ridiculous and we're creating means and methods in the field. we're going to kill somebody one of these days. that's the current legislation. i agree it doesn't work.

we need to fix it. the new legislation is going to take those 10 to 20 bad cases, going to make it 1,000, because of the expanded definition. we're going to do 10,000 reviews. you're effectively going to stop construction in the city. the average homeowner they're not living here any more. we're just driving the average homeowners out, because they can't afford this. and what is the current purpose of this legislation? i thought it was for affordable housing. i don't think the current legislation has anything for affordable housing. prevent monster homes. rear still building monster homes in the valley where i live. percent just doesn't work. and all of this does is say, well, we'll just add on to this percent. [bell ringing] it's fundamentally flawed. we've got to look at what we're trying to do is add housing, so if you want to build a big house, then build an affordable unit as part of it. but then write the legislation to what we really want to do and focus in on it. and then you guys need to look at the staff time.

you think you got a lot of work now, you're going to be swamped with thousands of cases. no one is going to be able to afford people like me to do the paperwork to deal with the ordinance. [bell ringing] thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. architect john lamb. i've been in practice for 25 year. i employ 18 architects. the planning code has always asserted that by limiting demolition we preserve affordability. i would ask the commission to preserve this premise, i think the reality shows there's no relationship between that concept and reality. my question, first of all, the loss of 4,000 units of affordable housing. is this through acting, is this through buyouts? i have no idea where that kim from. it would be nice to understand where the problem came from.

we always try to avoid demolition in our projects. i stated the goals to preserve affordable housing. how does putting more restrictions on expansion and restricting homeowners from growing their houses going to save affordable housing? the fact of the matter is nothing is affordable in san francisco. the average cost of $1.4 million for a derelict house. the premise or the concept of preserving or saving is not going to solve this problem. i agree demolition needs to be redefined. we're struggling to make sure that our projects fit within the definition of non-de facto demolition. in fact, the planning department uses our drawings as an example of how to do demolition drawings. to show that's not a demolition. i still don't understand why this demolition discussion morphed into an f.a.r. restriction. [bell ringing] how does it happen? and why is monster homes somehow related to the concept of illegal demolition?

it's really curious. we currently have 31 projects in our office. my colleague michael morrison, an architect, in my office, will show you some statistics that will show you how our project load will be affected. and basically the f.a.r. restrictions is a very suburban concept. i don't think it applies and it's not appropriate way to design in san francisco. [bell ringing] >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> thank you. the projector, please. >> apologies for that.

michael morrison, architect. we have 34 projects in an r.h. district. i want to talk about the major expansion policy alone, the demolition i think has been covered successfully. of our 34 projects that are current in our rh districts, we have no conditional uses. however, under the new legislation, because of the f.a.r., 33 of those 34 would now have conditional uses. that's a significant increase. and then of those same projects, we have down here 13 new units being proposed, within 40 remodels. and other than that one, the 33 that are going to the commission, zero of them would be allowed to go to commission, due to the punitive requirement, not findings, but criteria. so we would be losing 13 new proposed units, that would otherwise have been built without any heartache or heart attack. -- headache. it's not about increasing the

affordable housing stock. it's simply going to stop everything in the city in r.h. districts. and it's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it's burning the whole house down. >> could you please share that with staff. thank you. next speaker, please. [bell ringing] >> william. i guess architects on a roll here. i have lived and worked in the city as an architect for 43 years in the hate ashby. i do specialize in residential projects. i'm going to agree with the two former architects in terms of my load, this is going to make things and mostly the stuff i could, i would say is from middle class. i don't do anything for the super wealthy, for the c.e.o.s. this is going to have a serious impact on the middle class, the stats are already, that i have heard of, 11% families in san francisco. and probably as a result of

this, it's going to continue on its current downward trend. i did appear in front of the planning commission five times. i do feel like i got very fair and honorable treatment with the projects. and we came out to a really good resolution. i think the idea of needing higher density is really been the push from both planning and from the planning commission. and the need for more housing, you know, for folks. and i won't call it affordable, but certainly i would call it middle class housing is what we need, that's really a pressing need. i think in all of my projects, starting i think after the '08, there was a huge wave of money that came into the city. and a large number of houses -- smaller houses that were either added on or in cases where they were no longer structurally sound were replaced with