100-year-old victorian, what should the planning department do? you actually think this is possible without receipt o-- retrofitting, without insulation? so what should we do in that case? building a home is a concise and math matcally driven activity. there's certainly no reason to have a definition of what demolition is, for it to be qualitative. there's no reason for a builder to say we have an addition and it is a horizontal addition. what about demolishing a building entirely? that is a demolition. then there are issues of implementation and enforcement. we need the building and planning department to know what their responsibilities are to avoid passing the buck.

as part of their job description, the planners should be required to verify the democalculations vigorously, and failure to do so should be reflected in their job performance. now, there was something that paul webber brought up to your attention, and i want to echo that again. we do need to have findings. when things come to the planning commission as part of the conditional use authorizations for demolition, there needs to be findings, and one of those findings should be has there been tenants here for the past five years. this is not the opinion of one person. you heard a whole lot of people who are echoing the same thing. this is what the community wants, and we are intent on getting it, so we hope that you could join us. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good morning, president

hillis, president mccarthy, commissioners and directors. ryan paterson. as a lawyer in the city, i have dealt with many issues of demolitions, both for government clients and neighborhood clients, but i'm here as a citizen interested in bringing in rationality to the laws here. i think there were some great ideas here this morning. i also want to make sure that the broader policy goals are really being impacted by whatever law's reformulated, and as i see it, there are four goals that we're seeking to achieve with demolition controls. the first is protecting rent controlled housing. i think that allowing demolitions and reconstruction is not really the issue of preserving rent controlled units, the issue is one of dwichgss, and that's purely a legislative question. depending on how it's defined, this concern could be i think quite easily addressed without

causing these knock on impact that distort construction processes. the second impact is preserving affordable and neighborhood character. this, i believe, is mostly a function of the size of buildings, and the size of buildings is a zoning issue. it's not really a demolition-construction issue. that can be done with size limits, floor area ratios as part of the planning code, and that should be done district wide so that it's not targeting solely buildings that are in need of reconstruction, but it's -- it's imposing consistent rules for the entire district. the third interest is historic preservation, and i think we have good rules around that already that protect historic resources. maybe there's some fine-tuning there, but that should be accomplished through the historic preservation resource

area. and then, the last is you currently have a division between alterations and new construction with higher fees for new construction and that imposes a burden on people wanting to do significant construction and distorts what they call their project. this could be rationalized so that for example, fees are imposed based on square footage expansion, rather than just what definition or label you apply to a project. you have less opportunity and probably less actual skirt willing of the rules th willing -- skirting of the rules that way. i think the rules need to be easily enforceable, with useful definitions and easily calibrated. i suggest that there ought to be a rule for catastrophic

events such as an earthquake and suggest an interdisciplinary work group. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> president hillis: all right. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. i spoke to both commissions previously on the irk of bringing factory built housing into compliance with san francisco's building codes. this morning, i wanted to just reiterate that the city and county of san francisco must ensure that any factory built housing installed in the city complies with the same minimum building standards required for traditional site built construction for all the reasons that san francisco has amended the state's building code in the first place. despite assertions of proponents of exclusive state regulation who site the factory built housing law of 1969,

multifamily factory built housing is subject to local building standards regulation pursuant to the state building standards law of 1979. proponents assertions are based on an inaccurate and incomplete analysis of the irrelevant statutory framework regarding building construction in california. in fact, the legislative intent of the factory built housing law was to regulate single story residential developments. moreover, the legislative history leading up to the passage of the law indicates the legislature, back in 1969, did not anticipate that factory built housing would be stacked and used for multistory development. continued for mour housing units as is being seen here in san francisco. testimony in 1969 indicated

that the law was intended to apply to single story housing. little background. the state building standards law of 1979 vested in the building standards commission the responsibility to approve and publish the building standards related to all occupancies in the state of california including factory built housing. furthermore, the state building standards law vests in local governments the authority to issue building standards to protect public health, safety, and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. the state building standards law expressly gives the commission jurisdiction over any building except any mobile home, manufactured home, specially purposed commercial coach, and recreational vehicle. the legislature defines

manufactured homes as built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a single-family dwelling unit or without a foundation when connected to the required utilities. my time is up. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: mr. lansberg. >> thank you, president hillis. i want to finish up mr. campbell's comments. he actually ended up at a perfect spot. factory built housing is conspicuously abbo conspicuously absent from the list. the authority includes adopting approving standards, adding arrest deleting to a city or a city and county like us to establish more restrictive housing standards. san francisco has enacted amendments to the building code for specific reasons, and the california building standards

commission has accepted them as one of the building inspectors here said, these are minimum life safety standards, and everyone should be complying with them. in short, the legislature peeled back the reach of the factory built housing law and put it under the building standards law. in conconclusion, the building standards law has provided the building standards commission with the authority to publish the building standards code related to all occupancy in the state of california. buildings must conform to the code to obtain development approval from the planning commission and building permits from the department of building inspection. factory built housing law has again, i want to underscore this, limited preemption on the health and safety code. [ inaudible ] >> -- in installation.

the city is empowered to apply the same building standards to fbh as other forms of construction and must do so for the health and safety of san francisco's visitors, residents, workers and emergency responders. my understanding is when the firefighters local 7 # 8 has sent in a letter to the mayor supporting this position, and we just recently spoke with mr. keegan of the residential builder's association who also believes that factory housing should not gain a competitive edge by being built sub standard to everything else that's going on in this town. so thank you very much. i look forward to this being taken up later on with the building inspection commission, but it's really important that we make this stuff right. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. miss gomez? >> good morning, commissioners. cynthia gomez here, united local 2. again, as my colleagues just

mentioned, this is under the general public comment, and i also still wanted to echo that the topic which you've mostly been hearing about, which is tantamount to demolition, our members live in the city as well, we have approximately 6,000 members who live in the city, so we're definitely concerned about anything that -- any changes that would eliminate their ability, that would so weaken them in terms of being demolished -- using those rules to sort of work around an eviction. i also want to note that the timer doesn't seem to be going. >> secretary ionin: sorry. we'll dock you a minute. >> so what i'll do also is read portions of a letter that we wrote to mayor farrell regarding factory built housing. and in particular, i want to mention the way that factory built housing and the lejs

wlags that affects factory built housing may also end up applying to and being relevant to other forms of factory built constructions such as hotels. so i'll read the portions of this as much as i can. our union represents approximately 13,000 hospitality workers in san francisco and san mateo counties. local 2 agrees with our analysis, and we urge your office to move quickly to ensure our members don't have to spend their workplaces in buildings that don't meet minimum local safety standards. one of the trends we're noticing is the growth of so-called modular construction and it's nearly always promoted as a way to cut costs. a full-time hotel worker may end up spending more than 67,000 hours of their life inside their workplace, so we want to ensure that they're spent inside buildings that are

safe, again, not to mention their homes are as well. again our understanding of the council's report is that ultimate inspection authority for factory built housing resides in the state's department of housing and community development. nevertheless, we believe their steps san francisco can take to ensure compliance with local building codes and fire codes. so that end we have four points that answer supporting. require a department of building inspection to conduct building inspection and plan check agencies and inform them of the building and fire code requirements. two direct the planning department to advise applicants of the requirements of the requirements of the entire san francisco building code. three inform the mayor's office to inform prospective funding recipients of the requirements, and four inform ocii to inform all recipients. the majority of our workers live in the city and they

deserve safe homes and safe workplaces. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. miss gallagher. >> mr. ionin, can i have the same timer deal? commissioners, good morning. thank you so much for convening this important meeting. my name is mary gallagher, i've been a planner for 30 years, most of that time in san francisco. my concern is today if you can just give us some feedback on two ideas, it would be helpful for those of us working on problems and concerns in the planning and building departments. the first is the definition of demolition because neither definition is working anymore. the definition of demolition needs to be rewritten and adopted in both the building and planning code, and specifically we're look for a clear easily underable definition and that comes with significant and mandatory penalties for violation.

the second concerns the problems of inaccurate plans which unfortunately is the worst i've seen in 30 years. this includes adjacent homes that are drawn much taller and longer than they really are, grades not being shown accurately which affects ceqa and height measurements, and omission of neighbor's light wells and side facing windows. this results in the misapplication of qualitative design standards. some planners require extensive adjacent building photographs and check google earth to verify plans, but others don't. some planners make sponsors fix erroneous plans, but others

don't. my question is, whose job is this? a number of us would like to see the following remedies to the problem: drawings that are signed under penalty of perjury, plan check stops entirely until errors are corrected, progressive monetary penalties and serial violators are publicly identified and reported to licensing agencies. if you want to take that next step of preapplication inspections, i think that would be great. that would shutdown this problem for sure. several speakers and miss waddie brought up the issue of goals. fortunately the city and county of san francisco has this document called the general plan. the goal of this effort is preserving housing

affordability, protecting tenant in rental housing, especially rent controlled housing and preserving neighborhood character. tenant protections right now not just in demolitions but in all kinds of alterations, it's a significant, significant perhaps emergency situation, and i'm just not feeling that you're getting that. thank you very much for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> jacob adaratti. members of the commission, thank you for allowing me to speak today. i appreciate your time. we recently organized two factory built housing factories, locally here within northern california to disrupt the industry which has really taken traditional methods of construction for the past, i would say century and really evolved into what we have today. building housing in a safe environment, more efficiently and cost effective than traditional construction, knowing they can provide for their families and live where they work. the workers in the factories made a choice like many unite here workers in hotels to be

union. they made the choice through a card check neutrality process and through a collective bargaining unit to be represented by the carpenter's unit. our plan is to create more housing, affordable and market rate and for the homeless in order to meet the regional demand. these factory units will be over built, meet the standard and i might add state approved. the housing problem which continues to plague us nationally and locally will not cease to exist until we find a solution. i ask you to look past the attempt by the mechanical-electrical-plumbing trades at this restraint of trade tactics, according to labor law, and join our efforts in creating more head of household jobs, more housing

affordable, market rate and for the homeless. the only constant is change. the only constant is change. whether we like it or not, it's here, so let's make certain we are on the right side of development to bring solutions. join us in our efforts. anything we would view as inhibiting this process is antijobs, antihousing and antihomeless. let's make sure we're on the right side of development. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you sir. next speaker, please. mr. butler. >> good morning, president hillis, press mccarthy, members of commissions. my name is gerald butler. i'm an architect here in the city, 30 years in private practice. existing housing in our city is the most affordable housing we have left. the planning department uses language in its master and general plans that would conserve and protect existing housing and neighborhood

character. the building department, not so much. since this same problem has been ongoing over the 30 years of my architectural practice, broken is how we apparently like our housing policy. robert pathmore once told me when he was the housing administrator told me that housing ownership can only be met by enforcing the planning code. those days are over. $400 persquare foot when built, that results in thousands persquare foot when sold. from the days of joe dodonahue and planning scrutiny to hurry their projects along, new private players come up to fill

the shoes of those who have retired from this fraudulent game. the favoritism process, once quiet and incident insular and epidemic. throughout all these things, only one thing has remained the same. and that's dbi management. when we lose an 1861 house on russian hill to vandals, and a 1961 house to greed, you can chalk it up to anything you want, but things just continue. friends of ed sweeney can get

anything they want. they can have hidden from planning all manner of violations that would be apparent. if the two departments cooperated, the lost fees from hiding scope of work cost the city money, the collapsing buildings cost the public its safety. the lack of inspections undermine the confidence that should exist with multimillion dollar properties. the uneven playing field encourages others to cheat, and the result is a city out of control with illegal work and demolitions and $600 persquare foot profits on every rule that can be broken. you should change the codes to agree on demolition, but you may need to clean house in the departments before any enforcement comes from it. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, mr. welch, and if there's other speakers, please lineup on the screen side of the room. >> thank you very much for a critically needed hearing, as you've heard.

i'm -- would associate my remarks with mr. webber's and miss gallagher's and expand them to say that we're now on the verge of a fundamental and basic change in state policy which will render demolitions even more significant. and as the last speaker reflected rather eloquently, i thought, make it even more profitable to demolish existing buildings, and that is the state mandated and unfortunately the city kind of going along with a local version of density bonuses.

>> it is critically important that we take a look, close every loophole, dot every i, cross every t in our local demolition ordinances if we are to avoid the massive displacement of existing residents in san francisco. miss gallagher is absolutely right. the policy is clear. it's clear in the housing element of the general plan, it is to preserve affordable housing and to not allow demolition of sound housing except to enhance affordability. the voters made it clear many years ago in section 101.1 of the planning code. the preservation, it is generally assumed in the housing element that the most affordable housing stock in san francisco is the existing

housing stock. it won't be existing if it's demolished, so we have a critical important role to play in preserving our communities and neighborhoods in san francisco by understanding the enhanced critical role of demolitions and demolition controls. it's not enough to only solve the problems of the past, we have to look at the challenges of the future that we are facing. we may be able to stop 827 this legislative session. the pressure is going to continue to be applied, to gut local land use laws. the only way that we can avoid the worst possible outcome of that policy is by stringent demolition controls. this city is 99.9% developed.

new development can only happen with demolition. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, everybody, and thank you for coming. and building and planning department. my name is kieran buckley. i'm a builder in san francisco for some time now, an basically an agreement with most of what was said here today. 317 is very confusing. as a builder, doing these projects, i don't -- several of these projects where it just -- you know, just to be straight, we want to do the right thing. you want to keep everything that's significant, but i often

wonder why we're keeping with the blind walls that are built 100 years ago that no one will ever see skb nand not up to co. i understand whethn there's a signature part of the building that's significant to the neighborhood, i understand you've got to keep that. but when you're keeping walls like that or joists that you never see or nobody ever sees, and they're not up to code, so you're -- you're trying to get that up to code and try it into the new stuff, which in turn drives up the cost. and then, when the cost goes up, the end result is -- it's an expensive building to build. i guess to do it, it's very difficult because you're lifting -- i don't know if any of you have gone out and saw

how the process works, but you lift up a building slightly to take the weight off because you've got to put in a new foundation, and all these buildings are -- they're pretty old. if they're a new foundation, the walls are hanging there, and there is a wall that nobody will ever see in between two buildings. it's not up to code, it's dangerous. it's dangerous working in these conditions. you're always concerned about life safety. then you've got the water safety about that, which is another problem. let me see what else. i guess the -- yeah, that's about all i've got to say, i think, as a builder. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. buckley. >> all right. bye. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> william pashwinsky, i'm an

engineer. i've done smaller projects in town. i think i'm one of the few people that understands 317 in town. it is almost like rocket science sometimes, but i still think it's trying to solve a problem that has to do with affordable housing, that it's being used in lieu of using the codes. instead, i know i was in front of the planning commission on several projects several months ago. i will no longer take on a substantial single-family house anymore. i've let all my clients know, both no, sir practic both for practical reasons and because i am in the haight-ashbury, being a resident there for 40 years. i think a lot of the answer to this is higher density. so in my little area of the world, i do feel it's important to get higher density buildings. if you want that, almost like a bmr, you really should be doing

an edu or adding a unit as part and parcel of the project. i think that would be a better way to go to get higher density housing instead of doing these reasons for demolition that other people have talked about. contrary to many of the things that we've heard, there's a lot of anger out there. there were many projects talked about. there was one i actually interviewed with a developer. i got m my car as fast as i could go and got out of there. the there are bad developers out there, and they need to get more than their hands slapped. there was another building, i won't give you the address, but it's in a historic building. there was a victorian, it had been stuccoized in the 20's. we presented the planning pictures as much as we could to document what had been there originally. project was approved. during the construction, we

took off the stucco, there were scar lines. we asked -- richard sucre of the historic preservation department come out, work with us, get a closer representation. i defy anybody to go out there and tell the difference of that building to any of its neighbors. we do work hard to submit plans and keep them as close as possible to what's been approved. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. junt want to say thank you to liz and pat for the presentation and the opportunity to have an open conversation with the whole community. i work in the construction industry, and we agree with a lot of what we've heard today. the current code isn't working for a lot of people, and i encourage something that is new and consistent between both

departments and transparent and understandable for everybody involved, which is the contractor, the neighbors, the community, the inspect skbrors, and everybody. speaking practically, life safety is something that i consider very important, and structural soundness is also a big priority. i think the code should address unpredictability of things that come up in the field and unexpected site conditions. it should include allowances for this to be addressed in the field honestly in an efficient and practical way for the sake of the neighbors, the workers and the community and the safety of the workers. i also support a strong code of ethics for all developers, and these professionals who aren't complying, for there to be penalties setup because clearly they're giving a bad name to those of us who do respect the

process, so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. mr. keegran. >> thank you, commissioners, and thank you staff for your presentation. i'd like to start off by saying i do agree with most of what was said here today. we have a problem when people can't understand this very complex system called 317. it is extremely confusing. we need to coordinate and have one single definition of demolition. that is such a common sense request. at the need a modern penalty system. it's not just one system. there's many different variations of this penalty system that we need. we need a professional code of ethics, and why do we need these things? we need them because we're seeing fracktures in our trust, and the minute we see a frackture in our trust, we have

a problem, because our system of approving housing is not that great. it's clumsy, it's awkward, it's anything but nimble and quick, and to make it work in any way, it takes trust. and if we lose that, we're all in trouble. my second and final point is we need a system of rules and policies that aligns our efforts and our energy with our values. if i took you out and i showed you a blind wall condition, and i asked you, is there a one month old stud in that wall, a 100-year-old stud in that wall or a metal stud in that wall, nobody would tell the difference, so how does that add value? so what if it came down? however, those walls that don't add value, maybe they have a soet set

-- a set of values and a set of priorities that clearly have value. get them approved by planning. color code them on a set of plans and have a different set of standards for those walls where value is added. have preinspections on those walls. have a different penalty system for those walls, and any changes to those walls gets routed back to planning. the industry more than anybody, and i know it's staff at dbi, and i know it's staff at planning, and i know it's the community, but i feel more than anybody, we need a clear set of rules which puts the emphasis and efforts of our staff, of the industry, of the community in line with our general and broader goals and policies. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. and if there's anybody else

who'd like to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the room. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: just pull that mic down. we can hear you better. ma'am, will you pull that mic down so we can hear you better. >> i want to thank you all for having this meeting. i want to be at short as possible. i think the consensus today is that there needs to be a qualitative rather than discretionary definition of the word demolition, and it needs to be consistent for both departments. the reason that it needs to be consistent, and the reason that this demolition issue is so very important is because as joe butler and others have said, the preservation of existing housing is the preservation of the most affordable housing in san francisco. unfortunately or fortunately if you're going to demolish a

building and construct another building, the cost of rent is going to increase dramatically. assuming that we can obtain a qualitative definition, my next point is that the definition needs to be enforced, just like all the laws and rules regarding planning and building inspections need to be enforced. as i walk around the neighborhood, and i walk around the city, almost every day, a lot, i can see that there are various projects in various states of construction that do not appear to be consistent with what is on the building permit. if i can see that, others can see that. and unfortunately, when city agencies fail to enforce their own laws, it leads to a disrespect for the law -- for those laws, and all the laws in the city. and as we all live in

increasingly close quarters, we need to engender respect for all of our laws, not to discourage it. finally, i have a suggestion which may seem overly simplistic, and that is when there's an outstanding building permit that some official with some authority be dispatched to review the site of that permit with some regularity. it seems that these permits are issued and no one from the building department even visits these sites until the building is finished. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment on this item? great. seeing none, we will close public comment. at the all very much for -- for this ongoing conversation. i know we don't have a lot -- but maybe commissioner

mccarthy, if we want to go around first with the building commission and take an initial shot at questions andment coulds and then we'll do the planning commission, and if there's follow up beyond that, we can do that. commissioner konstin, do you want to start if you have any questions or comments? >> i was wondering why there hasn't ever been a thought of having an inspection to verify the as built when plans are -- are presented. >> you want to -- if staff wants to respond, that may be helpful. >> yes. that probably has been discussed in the past, i wasn't part of the discussion. as was mentioned by a couple of the speakers here, when a design professional submits documents to both dbi and planning, they're state licensed, and they're probably

should be -- in my opinion, there probably should be conversation about penalty to be truthful, of perjury, but yes, we're willing to entertain any suggestions and make changes as needed to make it better so that we catch these things as early in the game as we can, start of work or preissuance inspections, they're all better ways of ensuring we don't have to deal with from time to time presently. >> thank you. >> not knowing all of my commissioners might want to speak on this, but commissioner, do you want to speak on this? if you want, then commissioner warshell? >> thank you. chair mccarthy. actually, i sort of want to start with more comments. first i wanted to thank both

planni planning staff and dbi staff for this presentation. i want to thank everybody from the public who came out today. i'm really touched by thement coulds that were made, and so these are broader comments and not so much technical questions. i would definitely like to see us moving forward either a joint technical group between the two departments so we can take up many of the suggestions made by the public or get to a point where it's a common definition or two definitions, we have more clarity. i think some of the most important things that the community brought up that i'd like to see explored by both of the departments as well as as builts that what's being brought across the counter is accurate in correct. i think in particular, too, as we're seeing more demolition used to built more units or displace more tenants, i'd like to look at one, requesting rental information going back

five years to see what the tenancy records are, particularly when it comes to rent controlled units. i'd like to see us looking at policies and procedures similar to what the affordable housing community has around what it calls resident briefings and notifications around different stages of development. when we do acquisition of large projects, we're mandated monthly to tell people what's going on. i think we should look at a threshold of x number of units to require these briefings. whether tenants are on-site or off-site. i'd also like us to take into account that this tool is being used for displacement and for illegal conversions. and i know it's the second agenda item we have, but i think we need to seriously look at our fines and our enforcement authority. i concur that lately with the boom in the real estate market

over the last 15 years, we're being asked way more to ask for forgiveness, and not permission. and i think we need to get back to asking for permission. >> thank you. commissioner warshell? >> commissioner warshell: many thanks for the staff and the speakers for providing all this educated and worthwhile commentary. several of the points are also ones that commissioner gilman just mentioned. we obviously need simple, clear, and common definition of what a demolition is, and there is clearly a need for a task force inform immediately commence to begin work on making this happen as quickly as possible.

some of the other points she made, prepermit applications to ensure that we not have surprises, that we're following those things carefully and well are clearly needed. tenant protections, the recommendation providing five to ten years of records, especially where rent control is involved, seem to be quite reasonable and characterize city goals. in addition to those she mentioned, one thing i'd like to bring up is several speakers mentioned it's been 3.5 years since we've had a joint session. and i certainly think that this has been a very productive day, and i think that we should be looking at calendaring regular joint sessions, whether they be quarterly or semiannual. this is how we should be working together to be sure

we're presenting consistent and clear policy to facilitate our standards, to improve housing stock, and to move projects forward as expeditiously as possible with minimal confusion. one of the other things that's very high in my mind, the issue of serial bad actors. i think we have to, at this point, accept that we have some serial bad actors, and our penalties currently are not an adequate deterrent to them, and we need to immediately begin to look at improving real penalties, and if we need that to be through the legislative

path, to work with the land use committee of the board of supervisors to really have some significant penalties for serial bad actors. it's the fool me once, shake on you, fool me twice shame on me. i think we've been fooled more than twice by some people, and there have to be serious penalties. how we develop what those are, whether they include licensing, whether they require more perjury or misrepresentation penalties, that needs to be seen, but that needs to be addressed. a last issue brought up by people was these historic protections. obviously, historic buildings

are a very key piece of our city character, and they are some of the our most vulnerable buildings, and developing protocols in particular for our historic assets is one of the most important things that we can do jointly between dbi, planning, and where appropriate, hpc. thank you. >> commissioner mccarthy: commission commissioner lee, please. >> commissioner lee: thank you for coming to this meeting. i thampg the members of the public, and i agree with what they said and our commission is thinking about, too. i do agree we should have a simple or single definition of what demolition should be, so that both departments can understand and know exactly what those criterias are, and as well as the public and the

project sponsors, for they all need to know what the definition of demolition should be and what triggers it. i also like the idea of our department going out to do a presite or a site visit prior to issuing a permit or allowing a builder to start construction. maybe these should be limited to projects that has a 311 notice, maybe, something like that? i think that's a great idea. i also like what our department's engineer told us about how certain hold items are triggered and may eventually lead to what we currently call a demolition, and those are very important factors. i think we need to decide whether we need to incorporate those type of code upgrades

into the definition of demolition or not. i think the public may misunderstand a few things, and i'd like to plain those. i think a lot of our project sponsors, contractors, engineers, architects may already know this. correct me if i am wrong but when project sponsor wants to alter a building or build something on top of it or horizontal addition, vertical addition, they submit plans to the building department, and those plans are very simple. those plans just show this is what i want to do. i want to add a room here, i want to add a floor here, but that's it. then, the project sponsor, i think sits back and waits until the planning commission rules on whether or not this is appropriate and go ahead and do it. after that approval is done, then, the negotiation or actually the review goes to the building department, and that's when the project sponsors start learning what code requirements

are triggered, right? which walled need to be thickened, which walls need to be taken down and applied back on with weather proofing or whatever. which column needs to be strengthened. these things are then decided before the permit is issued. but guess what? this isn't broadcast to the neighborhood, right? the neighborhood doesn't know that. they only saw the first 311 notice that said hey, we're just adding this. but now, they don't know about the code requirement that triggered, hey, this wall needs to be removed and strengthened. now something has to be done to let the public know about those changes. that's all. >> commissioner mccarthy: thank you, commissioner lee. commissioner walker, i believe. >> commissioner walker: thank you, staff, and thank you, commissioner, and thank you all for coming. many of us have been in this conversation for well over 20

years. i want to enjoin in the recommendations of commissioner gilman and warshell and especially around there's three sort of elements, the definition, focusing on the definition, implementation, and enforcement. i think that there are relevant actions to be taken and conversations to have in each. the addition of site visits when we are reviewing plans is really an important step. it ties in to the second calendar issue that we have about when you have false plans. it also ties into serial offenders. that's the enforcement part, too. but we need to make sure that they're accurate plans, and that they're actually -- what is being reviewed by planning when they're talking about it, but it's this -- one of the

things that comes up for me in this whole conversation is you go in when you intend to do a -- a demolition, you have a certain process that you use. what we're talking about is those projects that end up being demolitions in the field. a lot of -- a lot happens behind those 8 foot walls that be some was mentioned before, and i want to just put out there, it's not really around what your intention is around demolition. a demolition is a demolition if it fits the definition of demolition by the quantitative measurement. so someone who has to tear down a wall because it's got dry rot or add a wall because their need support for the addition that was approved by planning, in the field, they determine they have to structure it so that it effectively fits now

into the definition of demolition. you know, it's still a demolition, so at some point, it needs to really -- we need to focus on noticing the neighbors, making this information transparent, making sure our staff goes when to reroute it back to planning to review it as a demolition, and, you know, it's a -- it's a whole process that we're counting on the public to tell us about. and this idea of doing regular visits on these projects is probably the best way around this, is to really get people out, especially on projects where we know that there's going to be additional weight that's going to affect the walls, and where we actually can anticipate certain things happening, we should be scheduling regular visits on-site to have somebody really review what's going on. and i know our inspectors do, but it's -- again, it's not the intention that's important here

of whether they're intending to demolish or not. it's the fact of what happens. and so my issue, of course, is because when something is demolished, all of a sudden, you're losing rent control. so the issue of how we use our new permit tracking system to flag this information, to include information about, you know, when flagging us, when certain things happen, if certain permits are issued on-site, that we actually flag to notice neighbors, this idea that i -- i liked from commissioner gilman about actually scheduling regular meetings with folks involved to preempt issues that might come up, it's a good idea. i mean, it's something that we should -- i don't know that we require it, but it's certainly something that needs to happen. so the -- the five-year history

of tenancy is really important. this should be required at the initial stage of permit application. it's something that the planning department should look at, and this information -- you know, the issues that we have around code enforcement and making sure the public knows all of what we're doing when this stuff happened, so the acela system that we have -- i know the planning department already has it, but there's all sorts of opportunities to make information available to the public through that system, and i hope that we take pull advantage of that, working with what has been suggested of a task force between our departments, but also some representative members of the public to tell us what, you know, their issues are and their ideas are and make it

available. because again, the trust issue is because this happens behind walls, literal and figurative. if we have a process that is more inclusive and that people can really find out more information about, it's going to help with our trust issue. so again, thank you all for being here, and i hope that we can do this regularly. it shouldn't take us three years to schedule meetings. we like doing this, so -- and it's really helpful. it helps our staff, and it helps the public trust, so let's try to do this on a regular basis. >> commissioner mccarthy: if it's okay with president hillis, i would like to hear from the planning commissioners before i fold out my final comments. >> president hillis: sure. commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: sure. i think it's pretty difficult. i'm in agreement with the public and staff, and i think there's an absolutely need for

a modification. i think it's a challenge. i think we should not necessarily blame ourselves. the city has grown a tremendous amount. valuations of real estate have gone up tremendously, so the point that we'll talk about penalties. i don't think penalties have increased nearly for the value of the projects. way 4,000 bucks for a $4 million project in no big deal. stepping back a little bit, i think it's important that we setup a task force, a group with maybe some community members, some of us involved, get that next date scheduled. i have great confidence in both staffs of both departments to be able to come up with some is fresh ideas and fold in some of the ideas that the public also brings in. one question i've always been kind of concerned about, and this is citywide, and even beyond these two departments is the enforcement teams in which the city -- we sort of respond

to problems by phone calls or complaints driven by the public, and i don't know if that's going back to the time when the budget was greater when there was an enforcement team out there, make random checks, have a greater presence on the job sites. i don't know if that has been discussed. i know it's more money, but again we're talking bigger stakes and maybe it would be worth bringing that back. >> i have not seen that as a full potential, but looking forward to seeing that both from staff and the departments. really, this is -- i think we're in a time and age in this city, in this nation where we need to catch up on some things. technology is speeding up, cost of living is speeding up. if the old days, if you had a question for the architect, it would take a week to come back.

the speed of turning things around in efficiency has increased exponentially. i think this is a time where people are pushing very hard, and for good reason. and so now it's time for public policy to catch up for that and frankly get ahead of the curve and again, try to be a little bit futuristic and get ahead of this for now. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. commissioner fong, i think this is not a case where we're blaming ourselves, we're blaming each other. having set on both commissions, i've listened to the discussion on both commissions, you know, not surprisingly, well, it's, you know, it's the planning department or it's the building inspection department. you know, i think in this case, there's clearly an area of growth in terms of both process

and legislation, i think. you know, it seems clear to me that our current planning definition actually encourages folks sort of hedging their bets so that they will come in with lower costs and also not have to come in front of the commission for a c.u., and i've seen people do that, to play that. it's actually an encouragement to the situation we have. it's a powerful economic incentive to play this game, and i think on the building code side, there is the -- just public perception that inspectors will interpret the code in a different way whether or not it's happening, so vagueness of the code, you know, invites that, and it's not a good thing for the department or the public. so i think you know, i do -- with