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 youre in. At least within that onehour 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 . Im 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 dont know how many revisions there are. It occurs during the site permit. They establish the building envelope. So im 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 dryrotted 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 youre 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, thats what im reading how im reading this. Is that correct . Basically, thats 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. Thats a lot of where were seeing this issue. If it is not an identified dryrot need. But it is upgrading for energy code compliance, structural load, things being generated from the scope of the project. Those are things where theyre not allowed to take the wall down and put it back up. Which are part of the code challenges were seeing right now. Let me ask another question as a followup 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 dont know what the process is for our department and your department of evaluating that onsite. 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 well touch on this under the dryrot section it isnt 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. Weve 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, youll 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 dont anticipate anyone will file those applications because they wouldnt 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 dont 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 inhouse. 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 im 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 muchneeded 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 were 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 well 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 youre 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 wont get into the details, because it would take me a while to explain, but id 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 commissions 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 conditionaluse criteria beyond just a general criteria for a merger, in order to be approved through the conditionaluse 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 conditionaluse hearings allow for no discretion of the commission. Theyre criteria and have to be met. And most of the criteria are very black and white. You either meet them or you dont. Again, due to some circular definitions, the mergers of rentcontrolled 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 neighbors 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 residentiallyspoanzoned 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 conditionaluse 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, well turn it over to cyril. Okay. So im 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. Im 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 melgars 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, its section 1 03 a. 3. 1 of the Building Code change. It says no demographics to remove dry shot thats where we came from with the packet that you received. Were going to go into some case studies about this, instead of implementation impacts. Because we feel like thats the best way to illustrate this. With that im going to turn it over to liz. Thank you. Good morning again. Im the Deputy Director of current plan. Realworld 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 twostory Single Family home, zoned rh1 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. Thats the totality of this project. Under current controls, its not considered a demolition. Its actually a noplans permit. Its 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. Its 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 heres 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 couldnt meet that criteria alone, would prohibit this project. Theres more. We want to chart through the ways this couldnt be met. The ordinance prohibits the demo of the new building, which we have to presume, although realistically this isnt a new building. As soon as you trigger a demo, youre then subject to the replacement building criteria. So were 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, theres 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. Theres 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 thats not how the ordinance is currently written. The ordinance prohibits the demolition of the old building, the project is an rh1 building. So theyre not increasing the density. It could not be permitted for that reason. This ordinance prohibits the demo if the New Buildings 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 its not really a new building, but the existing building has a garage. We have to treat it like its subject to the criteria, which says it cant be approved if the replacement structure includes a garage. So currently thats a little ambiguous, but we think it wouldnt 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 theres been some sort of eviction thats 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 inhouse review. So what became a sameda