Building Inspection Commission - June 20, 2019 - Minutes

Meeting Date: 
June 20, 2019 - 10:00am

PDF iconSpecial Joint BIC & Planning Minutes 06-20-19.pdf

Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400
Aired Live on SFGTV Channel 78
ADOPTED July 17, 2019



The Special meeting of the Building Inspection Commission and Planning Commission was called to order at 10:10 a.m.
1. Call to Order and Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

President: Myrna Melgar
Vice-President: Joel Koppel
Frank Fung
Richard Hillis
Dennis Richards, Excused

President: Angus McCarthy
Vice-President: Debra Walker
Kevin Clinch, Excused
John Konstin
James Warshell

Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney

Tom Hui, Director of DBI
Ron Tom, Assistant Director
Millicent Johnson
Kathrin Moore
Sam Moss
Frank Lee
Daniel Lowrey, Deputy Director, Permit Services
Patrick O'Riordan, Chief Building Inspector
Cyril Yu, Supervisor, Plan Review Services
Bill Strawn, Legislative and Public Affairs Manager
John Rahaim, Director of City Planning

Elizabeth Warty, Deputy Director of Current Planning
Audrey Merl one, Planner, Legislative Affairs

2. Discussion and possible action regarding ordinance amending the Planning Code to increase penalties for violations of the Planning Code and change the administrative enforcement procedure; provide new definitions for Residential Demolitions and Residential Flats, expand definitions of Alteration and Removal, expand definitions of, require additional notice, and impose new conditional use criteria for Residential Demolitions, Mergers, and Conversions, in addition to other requirements.

President Melgar said that both Commissions would like to give as much time to the public to opine, and asked that Commissioners ask questions of clarification.

Supervisor Peskin thanked the Building Inspection and Planning Commission for vetting this piece of legislation. He said there has been disagreement for years regarding the definition of demolition in the Code and he has tried to incentivize density. Supervisor Peskin said that he would like the Planning and Building departments to work together to stem these types of demolitions. He said that he and his office are open to any ideas regarding this and how to get rid of "bad actors" in the industry.

Ms. Audrey Merlone, Planner, Legislative Affairs, presented the following items:
• Background Goals
     o Develop straightforward permitting process for residential projects  
     o Eliminate loopholes that result in illegal demolitions
     o Promote density while discouraging the creation of monster homes
• Background Timeline of Ordinance

Mr. Patrick O'Riordan, Chief Building Inspector, thanked the Planning Department for their cooperative teamwork and efforts, and presented the following information on behalf of the Department of Building Inspection:
• DBI's Mission:
     o To ensure life and property within the City are safeguarded
     o To do this through efficient, fair and safe enforcement of San Francisco's Building, Housing, Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes
     o These Codes are updated every three years
     o Encourage owners to upgrade buildings to make them safer, healthier, more efficient, and more accessible
• Aging Housing stock
     o The majority of residential buildings were built prior to 1950
     o Because of this building inspectors often see obsolete and unsafe components:
          ■ Dry rot, pests, water intrusion
          ■ Unsafe wiring (e.g. knob and tube wiring)
          ■ Ineffective plumbing
         ■ Blind Walls
• Blind Walls
     o Present specific set of challenges to property owners
     o Requires significant alteration or temporary removal to bring up to code
     o Frequent problems include (lack of proper fire protection, leaks, poorly insulated, susceptible to pest infestation, mold problems, etc.)
     o Benefits: healthier homes more energy efficient, safer, able to support greater loads, have at least 1-hour fire rating, allowing more time for escape and firefighters to stop the spread

Ms. Audrey Merlone, Planner, Legislative Affairs, presented the following items:
Neighborhood Notices:
• Current Code:
     o Neighborhood notice required for most expansions
     o Removal of Dwelling Units also requires an on-site poster during the 30-day notification
     o Notification Packets include at least the address/lot number, Planning case number or Building application number, basic details of project comparing existing and, proposed conditions & instructions on how to access copies of the plan sets
• Proposed Code:
     o Neighborhood notice required for garages, roof decks, light well in-fills, Health Service uses and occupancy changes
     o Removal of dwelling units requires an on-site poster about removal within 5 days of submitting the permit to DBI
     o Notice Packets also need:
• Renderings, engineering calculations, construction drawings, rental compliance documentation, listing of all previous permits for property from last 5 years

Anticipated Impacts & Concerns:
• Increased cost to applicants
• Increased time to process simple applications

Permit Submittal & Review:
• Internal review procedures not codified in the Planning Code
• Planners verify the accuracy of demo calculations
• Plan submittal requirements determined by DBI
• A licensed designer, engineer, or architect can submit plans for any project
• Projects in R Districts must comply with current version of Residential Design Guidelines

• Internal review procedures would be codified in Planning Code
• Planners would be required to verify accuracy ofDBI's demo calculations & conduct site visits with DBI
• Plan submittal requirements now in Planning Code
• Only a licensed architect may submit plans (including change of use, expansions, demos, & interior alterations)
• All projects must comply with Residential Design Guideline

Impacts & Concerns:
• Significant delays in permit processing
• Increased costs to applicants to hire additional consultants

Mr. Cyril Yu, DBI Plan Review Supervisor, provided the following points:
Permit Application Existing:
• To obtain a permit for alteration, demolition, or construction, an applicant must fill out application form which details proposed project
• Only architectural plan is required for site permit & entitlement phase Permit Application Proposed:
• Application would include sworn declaration attesting to accuracy of submitted plans, demo calculations, and state impacts on tenants, construction means & methods
• In addition to architectural plans, structural plans & calculations needed for site permit

Permit Issuance Existing:
• When DBI determines work beyond scope of a permit, a NOV is issued (2x permit issuance fee), project sponsor must obtain addition permit to document work performed without the original permit
• When DBI determines work has been done without a permit, a NOV is issued (9x the permit issuance fee)

Permit Issuance Proposed:
• DBI would no longer be able to issue permits "after the fact"
• Before a permit authorizing such work may be issued, the project sponsor would have to file and obtain a permit to remove the illegal work and return the building to its preexisting condition
• Pre-existing condition is not defined

Commissioner's & Staff Question & Answer Discussion:
• President Melgar asked about the dry rot removal triggering legislation as this was not found in the legislation
• Ms. Merlone said that is addressed in the demolition section of the upcoming Power Point presentation, and if President Melgar could wait until then
• President McCarthy asked what will happen in older leaking homes that are then filled with insulation and sheetrock as prescribed by the proposed Code
• Mr. O 'Riordan said insulation would meet energy code requirements, the sheet rock applied in modem construction provides much tighter construction, in existing wall cavities, but other insulation encourages dry rot and mold because you are insulating a wall that is lacking weatherization
• President McCarthy asked if moisture was not a problem until the remodel occurred
• Mr. O'Riordan said yes
• President McCarthy asked why does a wall have to be patched instead of taking it down completely
• Mr. O'Riordan said it is about accessibility when it comes to Lot Line walls
• President McCarthy asked about 1 hour walls
• Mr. O'Riordan said it allows time to escape, and prevents fires from moving quickly to the neighboring building
• President McCarthy asked about the site permit process and how much more work is needed with this ordinance
• Ms. Elizabeth W atty said about 4 revisions are typically needed, this ordinance would require a structural drawing needed for each revision requested
• Vice-President Walker asked about defining as-is and whether most demolitions would then be reviewed as conditional use
• Ms. Watty said yes, currently owners replace dry rot within their blind walls, but if they wanted to upgrade their walls instead, that would be considered an upgrade
• Vice-President Walker asked how this would be verified and evaluated on site
• Ms. Watty said when this is identified in the field, the developer has to call the inspector to validate the issue, issue them a correction notice, they go to Planning who reviews the documents, and approves same day. The proposed legislation would not allow for the same process to occur
• Commissioner Fung asked if staff estimated the impacts of increased review time on both departments for completion of the review process
• Ms. Watty said they currently do not have exact numbers, they anticipate a large increase in projects that would trigger notice and conditional use authorization but cannot file an application due to not then meeting further criteria
• Mr. Yu said 95% of residential site permits are eligible for over the counter review at DBI but with the new structural calculations required, it would have to be reviewed in house which would require much more than an hour
• Commissioner Moss asked about estimated costs to project sponsors
• Mr. O'Riordan said they have no information to address that

Ms. Audrey Merlone, Planner, Legislative Affairs, presented the following items:
Defining Removal Existing:
• Removal means the dismantling, relocation, or alteration of the exterior function by construction of a new building element
• Removal of Unauthorized Dwelling Units are required to obtain a Conditional Use Authorization (CUA), unless the Zoning Administrator (ZA) determines the unit could not be legalized
• Removal of Dwelling Units requires a CU unless in an RH-1 district & demonstrably not affordable

Defining Removal Proposed:
• Removal will additionally be applied to internal walls, partitions, floors or ceilings of a structure, or the internal structural framework, interior bearing element or floor place
• Removal of all Unauthorized Dwelling Units would require a CU, regardless of feasibility of legalization
• Exemption only for exterior repair so long as approved and replaced "in-kind"
• Removal of all Dwelling Units regardless of value/affordability would require a CU General CU Criteria (Proposed):
• No loss or removal of any rent controlled housing or affordable housing as defined in Section 401
• No tenant may have occupied the space within the last 7 years, unless through an Ellis Act Eviction

General CU Criteria (Implementation Impacts):
• Prohibits the demolition of rent-controlled housing even to increase density and when the rent controlled units are replaced
• A project defined as a merger, conversion, or demolition constitutes a "removal", which disqualifies most projects from meeting the criteria to not remove affordable or rent controlled housing
• Makes any building with a tenant in the last 7 years ineligible, even if the tenant left voluntarily. The City does not have the tenant history to implement this

Residential Merger (Existing):
• Merger is defined as merging two or more units or reducing the size of one unit by at least 25% to make another unit larger
• Commission has adopted a Removal of Residential Flats Policy
• Mergers require CU Authorization. Commission evaluates whether
     o Property would remove owner-occupied housing, the new unit is intended for owneroccupancy, if affordable units are removed, if replacement is similar, how recently the unit was occupied by tenants, increase in the bedroom count, if the merger is to correct a design flaw, and the value of the least expensive unit proposed for merger

Residential Merger (Proposed):
• Mergers would be defined as merging two or more units or by reducing the size of one unit by at least 10% to make another unit larger
• Codifies a version of the Commission's Removal of Residential Flats Policy
• Mergers would continue to require Conditional Use Authorization, unless any of the following conditions are met, in which case a merger would be prohibited:
     o Any involved unit would exceed the less of 1,200 sq. ft. or the average size of existing units within 300'; or any unit would have less exposure to open areas, or a unit that is below market rate, subject to rent-control, or has been tenant-occupied within the last 7 years would be eliminated

Residential Conversion (Existing):
• Changing a residential use to a non-residential use requires a CU
The replacement use can be principally permitted or be a use that requires a Conditional Use Authorization
• The Planning Commission can consider the owner's personal financial hardship among other factors

Residential Conversion (Proposed):
• Changing a residential use to a non-residential use would still require a CU
• The replacement use must be principally permitted; a new use requiring a CU would not be permitted
• Financial hardship could not be considered when reviewing the removal of existing illegal dwelling units

Anticipated Impacts & Concerns:
• Significant delays in permit processing
• Increased costs to applicants
• Additional hearings required

Unauthorized Dwelling Unit Removal:
• In addition to the CU criteria for Residential conversion/mergers, criteria for removal of an

Unauthorized Dwelling Unit (UDU) are as follows:
     o If legalization cost if reasonable based on comparison to the average cost of legalization per unit
     o Financially feasibility to legalize the UDU
     o If no City fund are available, whether the cost would constitute a financial hardship

• In addition to the standard and new general CU criteria:
     o If the cost to legalize the UDU is more than 15% higher than the average cost of legalization per unit
     o Whether it is financially feasible to legalize the UDU based on an appraisal; appraiser must present to the Commission on the cost

Impacts & Concerns:
• Adds appeals time & confusion to the process

Mr. Cyril Yu, DBI Plan Review Supervisor, provided the following points:
Residential Demolition Definition (Existing):
• Total tearing down or destruction of a building containing one or more residential units, or any alteration which destroys or removes, principal portions of an existing structure containing one or more residential units
• Principal Portion construction which determines the shape and size of the building envelope which alters two-thirds or more of the interior elements

Residential Demolition Definition (Proposed):
• The total tearing down of an existing Residential Building; or removal of one or more Residential Units or Unauthorized Units; or the temporary or permanent removal of more than 50% of exterior elements; or 25% of street facing surface; or 75% of interior walls/floors
• Any project that exceeds these percentages would be subject to the same processes and controls as a complete demolition
• Demolition calculations would have to include any work permitted in the past 5 years for the building
• Removal of exterior elements done solely for the purposes of repair is exempt from removal calculations, provided damage or decay is verified

Mr. Patrick O'Riordan, Chief Building Inspector, provided the following points:
Dry Rot Removal (Existing):
• Dry rot removal & repair is subject to the standard building permit process
• For vertical additions, contractors are encouraged to notify DBI when dry-rot is encountered unexpectedly, so that a building inspector can field-verify and issue a Notice of Correction if warranted

Dry Rot Removal (Proposed):
• 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 a Conditional Use Authorization
     o This appears to conflict with the provision exempting removal for the repair from the demolition calculations [ 48: 12]

Ms. Audrey Merlone, Planner, Legislative Affairs, presented the following items:
Demolition Definition (Existing):
• Total tearing down of a residential building
• Removal of one or more Residential Units or Unauthorized Units
• 2/3 of a building's foundation or the majority of a building's walls and floors

Demolition Definition (Proposed):
• Residential Demolition would be defined as the permanent or temporary removal of any of the following:
     o Total tearing down of a residential building, or
     o Removal of one or more residential units or unauthorized units, or
     o 50% of exterior elements, or
     o 25% of the street facing surface, or
     o 75% of interior walls/floors

Ms. Elizabeth Watty, Deputy Director of Current Planning, presented the following items:
Case Study: Fa9ade Re-cladding (Planning Department)
• Two-story, single-family home with RH-1 Zoning in Outer Sunset would like to remove PermaStone fa9ade & restore building with stucco
• (Under the Current Rules) It is not considered a demolition & requires 1-day process of over-the-counter permits
• (Under Proposed Rules) It would be considered a demolition, requiring a 9-12 month process, requiring a conditional use authorization & not approvable for the CU authorization

Mr. Cyril Yu, DBI Plan Review Supervisor, presented the following points:
Case Study: Fa9ade Re-cladding (Building Inspection Department)
• (Under the Current Rules) It is not considered a demolition & same day issuance, Over-The-Counter (OTC) No Plans permit
• (Under Proposed Rules) 9-12 month total process, building permit application along with architectural drawings & demolition calculations required, and must be submitted for internal review

Ms. Elizabeth Watty, Deputy Director of Current Planning, presented the following items:
Case Study: Demo & New Construction (Planning Department)
• Two-story, 1686 SF single-family home, RH-2 Zoning District, in Noe Valley wanted a CU for demo-new construction to maximize density, equitable unit sizes, full floor flats
• (Under Current Rules) CU approved for demo & new construction of 2-unit building
• Planning Commission applauded project & approved unanimously
• (Under Proposed Rules) Subject to 317 "demo" and 319 "major expansion" CU
• Project could not be approved based on CU criteria for both

Mr. Cyril Yu, DBI Plan Review Supervisor, presented the following points:
Case Study: Demo & New Construction (Building InspectionDepartment)
• (Under the Current Rules) Site permit only; structural plans/calculations not required until Planning approval
• Multiple design revisions reviewed solely by Planning
• (Under Proposed Rules) Structural plans/calculations provided at submittal and for every revision
• CU not approvable: review of design/calculations is moot

Commissioner's & Staff Question & Answer Discussion:
• President Melgar asked about 1,200 sq. ft. or 300 ft. radius conditions for residential mergers
• Mr. Lee Hepner, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Peskin, said that he believed the numbers came from recommendations of the Mayor's Office of Housing in context of construction of affordable housing.
• President McCarthy asked if 50% exterior elements included the back of a home
• Mr. O'Riordan said yes as the exterior elements would be the exterior walls and the roof structure
• President McCarthy asked if 25% of the street facing surface included the front stairs of a home
• Mr. O'Riordan said yes
• President McCarthy asked if having an open floor plan inside homes would trigger the 75% interior rule
• Mr. O'Riordan said it is very likely
• Vice-President Walker asked about section 5 regarding below market unit or previous tenant occupied units, and how these could still be up to standard
• Mr. Hepner said regarding the dry rot issue, the ordinance wanted to keep sound housing, but it should also incentivize upgrading unsound housing. The intent of the ordinance is not to trigger a CU when attempting to remove dry rot.
• Commissioner Moss asked about housing bonds and full demolitions
• Mr. Hepner said if they are rehabilitated housing stock, it does not apply to this legislation
• Commissioner Hillis asked if there was data regarding mergers and conversions
• Ms. Watty said they do not have data, but anecdotally they have seen a dramatic decrease in mergers
• Commissioner Hillis asked about the case study demolition example and how the legislation addresses such examples
• Mr. Hepner said he is not familiar with such a case study and the intent of the legislation is to preserve existing sound housing
• Commissioner Koppel asked if this language and ordinance is necessary
• Mr. Hepner said the legislation is to confront limits to the approval process
• President Melgar asked about monetary compensation for the potential substantial increase in workload
• Mr. Hepner said this legislation may lead to a reduction in CU s and workload
• Commissioner Moore asked if the new calculations included windows
• Mr. O'Riordan said he read it as wall surfaces. Ms. Watty said Planning does not include windows in the calculations, but if the window becomes a wall and vice versa, that would constitute removal

Ms. Audrey Merlone presented the following items:
Major Expansion Proposed Controls:
• A new control would be added to the Planning Code called "Major Expansion"
• Major Expansion would be defined as "any work that would increase the building's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to exceed the FAR threshold, or for buildings already over the threshold, would be an expansion greater than a "minor expansion"
• Any project deemed to be a "Major Expansion" would be subject to a Conditional Use authorization

Major Expansion CU Criteria Existing & Proposed
Existing: NI A
Proposed: CU Criteria for a "Major Expansion"
1. Project adds density & affordable equal to or greater than the existing structure
2. No Planning Code amendments are required
3. No new garage or parking
4. Significant architectural features are not being removed
5. If existing building is a potential historic resource or in a historic district that it complies with section of interior standards
6. No loss of affordable or rent controlled housing
7. Hasn't been a no-fault eviction at the property within the last 7 years

Ms. Watty presented the following Case Study- Vertical Addition (Planning Department):
• Historic, two-story, single-family home, RH-2 Zone District, located in Noe Valley
• Approved project: 1-story vertical, 2-story horizontal rear addition, increase from 2079sf to 2978sf
• (Under Current Rules): Not considered a demolition, met all design guidelines & section of interior standards
• (Under Proposed Rules): Considered a demolition, 9-12 month process, if reduced, would still trigger "major expansion", project not approvable for CU authorization

Mr. Yu presented the following Case Study- Vertical Addition (Building Inspection Department):
• Historic, two-story, single-family home, RH-2 Zone District, located in Noe Valley
• Approved project: 1-story vertical, 2-story horizontal rear addition, increase from 2079sf to 2978sf
• (Under Current Rules): Site permit only; structural plans not required until Planning approval; multiple design revisions reviewed solely by Planning
• (Under Proposed Rules): Structural plans provided at submittal and for every revision; CU not approvable; review of design/ calculations is moot

Commissioner's & Staff Question & Answer Discussion:
• Commissioner Fung asked about the correlation between the amount of an FAR and a McMansion
• Ms. Watty said they are not putting forth an appropriate threshold for today's efforts, there will hopefully be conversation regarding the percentages, the Department varies with numbers as it is a policy call
• Commissioner Moore said the FAR is a generalized number, and there are less than standard lots or numbers

Ms. Audrey Merlone, Planner, Legislative Affairs, presented the following items regarding Fines and Penalties:
Illegal Major Expansion & Illegal Demolition:
The proposed changes would be, in addition to being subject to standard fines, illegal demolitions/expansions will also be subject to:
1. A fine equal to any increase in the value of the property resulting from the illegal work
2. No permits maybe issued for 5 years unless to revert back to the original building
3. No permits to legalize the work may be issued
4. All penalties collected will go to the SF Small Sites Fund

Illegal Alteration of Historic Buildings:
The proposed ordinance would, in addition to standard fines, also subject:
1. ZA penalty ofup to $500,000. ZA may waive all or part if illegal work is restored back to original condition, or if permits are obtained to legalize the work
2. No permits may be issued for 5 years unless to revert back to the original building
3. All penalties collected will go the SF Historic Preservation Fund

Anticipated Impacts & Concerns:
• Dilapidated housing stock
• Subjective fine amounts via appraisal discrepancies lead to appeals
• Lack of funding to enforce violations

All Violations of the Planning Code:
• Maximum daily fine of up to $250
• Civil penalties are no less than $200/day
• Section 176.1 allows "minor" Code violations to be subject to lower fines
• Board of Appeals may reduce fines to no less than $100/day

• Daily fine of $1,000
• Civil penalties are no less than $1,000/day
• Section 176.1 will be deleted
• Board of Appeals may reduce fines to no less than $500/day

Mr. O'Riordan presented the following regarding New Inspection Requirements:
• Individuals found to have purposefully misrepresented information on permit applications or plans can be referred to the City Attorney's Office for legal actions or professional licensing agencies for disciplinary action

• 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 work exceeding the scope of a permit
     o This includes "any person, property owner, contractor or permit expeditor, or a firm, corporation or other legal entity" ·

Mr. Yu presented the following regarding Overall Procedural Impacts:
• Many more projects are going to be considered demolitions
• Customers will have to include structural drawings and plans with their site plan application for DBI review
     o DBI staff would likely have to review multiple iterations of structural drawings for the same project
• Many projects that are currently over the counter will likely no longer qualify
     o Many OTC-eligible projects would now be considered residential demolitions
     o Determining demolition calculations based on the past 5 years of permit history would likely require more review than can be accomplished in a few hours

Ms. Merlone presented the following Next Steps Timeline:
• July 2019 - Informational Hearing at the Historic Preservation Commission
• Late Summer 2019 - Adoption Hearing at the Planning Commission
• Beginning of BOS Fall Legislative Session - Ordinance is heard at the Land Use Committee, then the Full Board of Supervisors

Commissioner's & Staff Question & Answer Discussion:
• President McCarthy asked about penalties regarding demolishing an earthquake shack compared to a historical building and how/if the ordinance will differentiate
• Ms. Merlone said if found historically significant the Zoning Administrator has the discretion to recommend legalization or correction or heavy fine depending on the scenario and if the applicants thereafter seek the appropriate permits, but would be subject to all other penalties
• President McCarthy asked about first time violators and whether the penalties would also apply in that case
• Ms. Merlone said that is correct, there is no difference for repeat off enders
• Commissioner Johnson asked how often offenders were referred to the City Attorney, and how is that process working
• Mr. O'Riordan said the City Attorney does get involved in some cases and imposes significant fines on the project sponsors, but it is an ongoing effort
• Mr. Corey Teagues, Zoning Administrator, said the City Attorney is not involved with the vast majority of Planning cases, though the more egregious cases are. The Planning Department is able to bring about the abatement of cases, but cannot enforce punitive damages as the City Attorney can.
• Mr. Yu said DBI has established protocols and supervisors often quality control check different sites
• President Melgar asked if that was codified
• Mr. Yu said no, it was at the staff's discretion
• Commissioner Fung asked if based on the state goals, what were the number of projects that relate to the various types of situations that led to this legislation
• Ms. Watty said that staff has not been able to pull together that type of data
• Director Hui said that the Department does not act alone in scrutinizing bad actors, that the City Attorney is involved
• Commissioner Moss asked why the fines would not simply go into the Mayor's Housing general fund
• Mr. Hepner said they would take that recommendation to the Mayor's Office, and they are aware that the best penalty is never enforced. They would like fines intimidating enough to discourage skirting requirements
• Mr. O'Riordan said in regards to data, DBI has been tracking vertical additions, receiving information weekly to identify and reach out to projects

The following members of the public spoke during public comment:
(Note: Our apologies, but some names may be spelled incorrectly.)
1. Anastasia 
2. Vivian Dwyer 
3. Stephanie Peek 
4. Dayna Beuschel 
5. John Maniscalco 
6. Luke O'Fressia 
7. John Lum 
8. Susanna Douglass 
9. Michael Morrison 
10. George Wooding 
11. Joel Medina 
12. Robert Fruchtman 
13. Carol Koff el 
14. Georgia Schuttish 
15. Theresa Flandrich 
16. Rose Hilson 
17. Nancy Wuerfel 
18. Harrison Dillon 
19. Jennifer Fieber 
20. Fabien Lannoye 
21. Ray Regaldo 
22. Lorraine Petty 
23. Cary Bernstein 
24. Eileen Boyken 
25. David Gast 
26. Patrick Buscovich 
27. Siobhan McHugh 
28. Christopher Peterson 
29. Eileen Bradley
30. Nina Dosanth
31. James O'Driscoll
32. Lang Chung
33. Richie Hart
34. Catherine Watson
35. Karin Payson
36. Serena Calhoun
37. Jerry Dratler
38. Sarah Willmer
39. Jonathan Peakeman
40. Dan Calamucci
41. Timothy Riken
42. Neal Schwartz
43. Ross Levy
44. Christopher Roach
45. Ron McClean
46. Michael Barnacle
47. Laura Foote
48. Megan Silver

49. Tim Rooney
50. Michael Robbins
51. Leslie Arnold
52. William Paschkalinski
53. Mark McHale
54. Rick Gladstone
55. Steven McElroy
56. Irene Velasquez
57. Cathy Lipscomb
58. Greg Fulford
59. May Lee Young
60. Ivory Collins
61. Bruce Bolen
62. Ozzie Rahm
63. Jeff Hamberger
64. Jonathan Moftakar
65. Myron Cassidy
66. Pete Brannagan
67. Steven Buss
68. Seth Brookshire
69. Leo Cassidy
70. Robin Evinski
71. Bridgette Duffy
72. James Numacher
73. Michael Cassidy
74. ErnMcGill
75. Ryan Patterson
76. Gary Gee
77. Sean Keighran
78. Alice Barkley
79. Redmond Lyons
80. Heidi Holcomb

Following are some of the comments made by members of the public:
• This legislation does not produce or preserve housing stock
• Average homeowners are being driven out because they will not be able to afford this, this legislation has nothing to do with affordable housing
• Not sure how this legislation morphed into FAR restrictions
• Under the new legislation 97% of an architect's current work would now qualify as subject to conditional use, this is the opposite of adding affordable housing
• Horrified at overreach of proposed legislation, it's already too expensive to live in the city, and this will.make things much more difficult for homeowners to make simple additions, request to reject legislation
• It is supposed to create more density, but now it's now based on FAR and not on demolition
• It will be impossible to do a meaningful horizontal or vertical expansion or demolition under the proposed legislation to add density; penalties should factor in whether it is a first time offender or repeat offender
• Dry rot should not be considered demolition
• Preserving existing buildings does not provide affordability
• The legislation proposal is too broad and the sq. footage calculations are unreasonable, we should not accept it as it is
• The conditional use process would push families out of San Francisco
• This would stop residential construction and reduce housing that we have, creates a more difficult lengthier process for owners
• This legislation will prevent forever homes where multigenerational families can stay in the same place for long periods of time.
• This legislation is tantamount to down-zoning, highly irresponsible in the midst of a housing crisis, we need to build a lot more housing, and in every neighborhood
• Legislation makes it difficult to expand and settle their roots in San Francisco; not family friendly
• The average conditional use timeline takes over 290 days, this is not fast tracking; requested minimum zoned density, get rid of RH-1 zoning.
• Conditional use process for families that want to add an additional room for their parents is burdensome
• Strongly opposed proposed legislation, taking care of a few bad actors can be taken care of with a pre-inspection and call for an inspector when dry rot is discovered. Terrifying piece of legislation especially removing fire and building department overseeing imminent safety hazard buildings and rather wait for conditional use for over a year will affect property owners and adjacent neighbors. On average, clients spend 2-5 years awaiting a permit for a conforming addition. Peoples' lives can change dramatically while they wait for a permit to be approved, and construction costs can double while you're waiting so you can't afford to do the project.
• Scattershot policy with no consideration for real-world implications, request rejection of legislation
• Supports legislation, wants licensed architects to submit penalties, and wants fines raised, requests additional funds for both parties
• The legislation goes beyond stopping illegal demolitions and will undermine city's goal of providing housing and retaining families
• There are a host of contradictions in this legislation. It is pro-housing wrapped in anti-growth law. Politically motivated piece of legislation that is divisive, exclusionary.
• This will cause older homes to go rotting as no new owners would want to purchase and upgrade due to the additional extensive time and costs. Old housing will be virtually impossible to improve.
• SF has the lowest percentage of children of any U.S. city, and the highest construction costs of any U.S. city.
• Rent control does not work, it kills housing and profits, and so will this legislation
• Some of the requirements expect impossible professional expectations they demand work beyond the professional standard of care. Demands are impractical, uninsurable, unethical, and even unlawful. The legislation expects perfection from architects that displays ignorance regarding procedures and the flow of information during a project. Signing an oath regarding the accuracy of documents is inconsistent with duties to your clients.
• The time and expense needed for a conditional use permit to move parents into a home, will simply encourage families to move out of San Francisco
• Encouraged Board of Supervisors work with Planning Commission to come up with practical legislation
• Online building permit application long overdue
• This legislation needed to give us an enforceable definition of demolition
• This legislation will take care of runaway demolitions
• This legislation would prevent regular families from constructing the homes they need
• Lessens affordability
• Would greatly hinder housing production and hit everyday family residents, can we afford to lengthen the approval process in the midst of a housing crisis, and does the Commission have the bandwidth to hear the increase in conditional use cases ( every 1,2,3 units in the city)
• Makes it impossible for anyone to remodel their home or own a home
• The purpose of this legislation is muddy and the consequences will be a denial of service attack on both Building and Planning departments. The city should up zone
• Currently Planning observes whether the project preserves and increases supportive housing, and this has been replaced by aesthetic languages, removes Planning Commission discretion
• If you want to eliminate the middle class, this is how you would do it
• This would be at odds at increasing housing production and result in killing construction jobs
• This would cut off construction careers
• 1,200 sq. ft. is not a reasonable calculation size or reasonable family housing. How dare this legislation not allow a simple bathroom or kitchen remodel or the option for an open floor plan in resident homes
• It would require a disproportionate amount of resources to review innocuous or benign projects, th~ r~quirements are so strict, it would not increase density
• Living smaller is where we need to go as a planet, need to lower our carbon emissions, everything has to change, building less is the way to go
• It's not possible for the new to be as affordable as the old
• This legislation is an attack on families, it took a year for this guy to write this garbage. As a builder, the Building,Department has my complete cooperation and they explain the best they can the policies, but this proposed ordinance is pure nonsense politics
• This legislation is the sledgehammer approach, not well thought out and is not the way to handle our current needs. The legislation cannot be amended; it must be scrapped completely. When laws and codes are not clear to all affected parties, they constitute bad government.

Members of the Building Inspection Commission and Planning Commission made comments and asked various questions:
• President Melgar thanked everyone for their participation, including staff and Mr. Hepner.

The legislation may not outweigh the unintended consequences.
• Commissioner Moss said he looked forward to additional information provided in the future.
• Commissioner Hillis said he agreed with the ordinance goals, but not with the means to those goals, and he is not seeing the promotion of density.
• Vice-President Walker said it is important to incentivize promotion of housing stock and livable rents.
• Commissioner Johnson said she appreciated that the Supervisor has attempted to take on this task, and to keep in mind the needs of renters, preserve and upgrade housing, and increase housing.
• President McCarthy thanked everyone for their participation and hard work, despite some challenges due to some codes. He said we all have our concerns and believes this is a good place to have next steps for a comprehensive piece of legislation.
• Commissioner Fung said the legislation goes beyond the stated goals and needs to be reviewed in a broader form.
• Commissioner Lee said he appreciates the definition of demolition they can agree on, the increase in penalties for illegal demolition, considering serial permitting, but the proposal today goes beyond getting a handle on illegal demolition. He does not understand the FAR section, and would like to see replacing structural elements not considered as part of the demolition, and in regards to architects signing an oath for renovation projects is a reach because you will not know what is hidden until the demolition.
• Commissioner W arshell said he hoped both Commissions could come together frequently to communicate on these goals to which bad actors cannot find loopholes through.

3. Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Shirley Wong, Assistant BIC Secretary

Sonya Harris, BIC Secretary