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 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 se