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 all due respect, i do

think there should be one definition, a very clear transparent definition that's understandable and easy to calculate, and it should be quantifiable as much as possible. we do have the technology to work together. i'm not sure we are using it. i will just point out to spike's comment that in oakland, building inspection and planning, and neighborhood preservation were all in one department. now we're not going to do that here, most likely, but we do have the technology to have a more seamless process. i know it's a complicated problem, as miss waddie presented, so i don't think there's going to be one fix, you know? i think it's both legislation and process, and i think that, you know, working with our legislative partners, you know,

supervisor peskin is already on this and has been for quite sometime. i think that we need to make sure that staff and the department are both involved in that process. because sometimes, you know, between policy and procedure, a lot gets lost along the way, so we have to make sure the legislation hits what we intend in terms of the preservation of sound structures, affordability, neighborhood character. but also that the process works, and that it's transparent, and it doesn't have unintended economic consequences, because clearly, it does, and i think the staff in both departments have enough experience to be able to foresee oh, if you do this, that's going to happen because we've seen it. and then lastly, i would say that this talk about, you know, recurrent bad actors is something that's been going on for years, to commissioner

warshell's point. and i think, you know, perhaps -- and we'll talk about fees and fines next, but i think maybe we can start in this new seamlessly technical collaboration by requiring folks who are those bad actors, we already know who they are, we already have a list, we've seen them over and over, to have that initial inspection. it's an idea that has been brought up. i'm not really sure how it'll work out in -- you know, in practice, because you have to open up a wall to see if the two-by-fours are rotten. so at what point would that happen? do we issue a temporary permit until the inspection happens? i think that staff really needs to for the kektded

and there are rules for the rest of us. you see very egregious things happening to building where they building beyond what the stated permit shows. we've seen out right fraud. 214 states, 655 alvarado. we've had one on tungsten. the building that was built in its place wasn't according to

plans. that's absurd. we actually -- i want to follow that one because we actually had the building cutback. i don't know if they cut the building back or not, but that was the ruling on the d.r. i also think -- the one question that i keep asking is how do these people that keep doing this stuff keep getting permits? there needs to be a flag somewhere that says hey -- i forget what somebody said -- the schmuck's back. i believe criminal acts deserve criminal penalties, and i believe what we're seeing are criminal acts. they may not be criminal by some statute, but what they're doing to people and what they're doing to the process and what they're doing to people's views of us are criminal. and i'm sitting up here and i feel like we're being compared to the epa from the public. we're in charge of the rules, and yet we interpret them and we break them when we want, and poof, no problem. it pains me to sit here and

hear all this stuff. two, i hear -- thank you staff, thank you miss w 5 ddie, mr. o'reardon. coming sn coming into the city after tech in 30 days was shocking. when i hear some of the solutions here today, i take pause because i keep hearing are solutions going to be based on the existing conditions of the organization? we don't have people that have any expertise in structural engineering or whatever, do we're not going to go get it. we're not going to change anything. our law enforcement's based on public complaints. why? what's that getting us? ourks our enforcement's base -- we're going to be talking about this. it's based on getting them into compliance. what's the effect of that been? it's only encouraged it

happening more and more. so i think a fundamental look back in questioning everything we do, from organization structure, like in oakland, all the way down needs to be looked at. everything should be on the table. i think everything that we do needs to have a basis in reality and stop being constrained by what we think we can and can't do. i was sitting in a supervisor's office this week, and we were talking about evictions, and i kept hearing, well, the rent board won't do that, well, the rent board won't do that. and i said, either you get them to do that, or you replace them. we're not there to coddle the rent board, we're here to get something done. i think that's my question here. i was with staff in a very good meeting, and they said everything else's unaffordable, so what's the purpose of saving anything? i thought that's kind of right. not many people can afford

much. i actually looked on the california association of realtors' website, and they actually have a graph. since 1991-2, what's the affordab affordable median rate of housing in san francisco. so the highest it's been, and that was in first quarter of 2012 was 30 -- nearly 30%. for people to say -- and it goes over time based on economic cycles, so we have highs of 30%, and right now we're at about 12. so do we want to just say we're going to freeze the unafford jabl rate able rate because it was 12% a few years in the past. we need to look at if preserving it is getting us what we want. 17 temple, it was a shack.

it needed waterproofing. it needed all kinds of stuff. i had a project around the corner. i used to walk by 17 temple, because it was a d.r., and we had it indefinited forever. it needed a lot of work. now, the question is what do you do with the 17 temples where we see all the building code issues that are there, needs to be weather proofed and fireproofed, and that needs to be considered, and that needs to be considered with what we're trying to do here, the definition of demo, if we're trying to prevent things from being super sized and magnified in value back to the person who's doing the work. so mr. welch raised a very, very interesting point. with all the discussion around sb 827, housing accountability act and rent control, we need to get a handle on what the definition of demolition really is, because clearly, there's a carveout for local demolition

control should the state mandates pass, it's essential for us to have a definition. i don't know now what is rent control or not based on definition of demolition. i don't know. is it taking foundation away, is it getting cfc? is it getting so many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work? nobody will tell me, and i think we need to decide that in our work group because this is a real issue and it's causing displacement. i also think that from a process point of view, two things we need to look at: how the definition of demolition -- i'm sorry, the definition much demolition interplays with different state laws. so if we finally figure out that sb 827 or son of sb 827 whatever comes our way -- there will probably be son of sb 827. you put the housing accountability act on top of that, what does that do to our

definition of demolition? we've got two projects that are continued, one coming up in may at 792 capp, the replacement project's bringing more units in than one unit and the single-family house. we have one at 137 clayton, as well. we need to understand the interplay between this. i'm suspicious that it's an end run -- even further end run around local control. i also think if we're going to go down this route. we should separate demolition from replacement project. so if truly, there is an issue with housing accountability act, we should look at first, do we want to demothe building, yes or no, and then we look at the project behind it. i think that's key. tenant considerations, number five. when evictions are happening, they're happening a lot, and it's whether -- we had one out on, i believe it was ninth avenue where the developer pulled in some type of machinery, and it was running

on gas or kerosene, and he ran it all day long, and he smoked the tenants out of their units, they couldn't stand it anymore. that's what we're dealing with. the incentive to get rid of tentan tentan tent -- tenants is so high, people are doing a lot of nasty things, and it's creating a lot of issues. the other thing i hear, we don't have the budget, we don't have the people. you have to remember, we have to look at this holistically, and why don't we try to just prevent it up front. lastly, i think they're kind of the guiding principles around what we're doing, and it's what everybody else said here, i agree completely, clear cross definition of both planning and building demolition is needed.

if you're going to demolish a unit, and we can figure out if you're going to add units or not, we need to deal with fraudulent plans and bad actors quickly and effectively, so people don't think this is the way we operate. whatever we do, it needs to be kprensibl kpre comprehensible. clear definition of demolition, alteration, expansion, implementation is key. we need to make sure we minimize fraud and appeals, so i think the give me to some of the people in the development community will be it's going to be clear-cut, understandable. you're not going to get d.r.ed, automatic d.r.ed on everything, which happens today because people don't trust the system. enforcement, we're going to talk about that, and whatever we do with demolition,

alteration, expansion needs to do with how you bring the building up to code the best you can. we need to reverse engineer anything we do and hack the heck out of it and be like one of these schmucks, where is it and how can i drive my truck here through it. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just want to echo all of my colleagues' thanks to members of the public for your testimony and for looking to are true partners with us in addressing this issue and challenge. i will say that this is an incredibly complicated issue but the good news is that we are all aligned. what i've heard again and again from planning staff, from dbi, from my fellow commissioners, from the public, is we need better tools to address this issue, and we want to work together to address them. i think we absolutely need a

good, clear definition of demolition that helps to direct guide folks in the community and folks that are in the field inspecting these buildings, one that is accessible, and so that looks again from builders to our departments are all on the same page. we need to be proceed active, and many fellow commissioners have mentioned the fact that we have ak nolg to be proceed active to flag projects that are likely going to be problematic and help us all work together to protect our end goal, which is affordable housing. i've heard again and again, not only on this issue, but on other issues, that we need to be better about protecting our affordable housing and being proactive are. again, understanding what the uses of these buildings are before is incredible important. and then finally, being able to

hold bad actors accountable. we all know who they are, and we need a process to be able to do that. this issue actually came up in another city that i used to work in called -- in boston, where we had these same types of issues, and what it actually took was an interagency working group coming together, not just staff or elected officials, but folks on the groundworking together, coming together weekly and monthly bringing up projects that are either blatantly against the rules or exhibiting possibilities of -- possibilities of actually going against the rules and making sure that we're all on the same page constantly. and so i look forward to working with my fellow commissioners and members of planning staff and dbi to address this issue.

>> president hillis: thank you. commissioner koppel? >> yeah. thanks to everyone for their very important opinions today. this is a very extremely important topic. i look back at my past in the field. i've built hospitals, i've built commercial buildings, i've built residential buildings, i've pulled permits, i've passed my inspections, and i've passed my fire marshal finals. i do think that calvin welch made a very important comment when he said we're going to keep dealing with all of these topics. this is a small city. we don't have a lot of unbuilt land. whenever we do develop something, there's probably going to be a demolition involved. both of my parents live here in the city in separate rent controlled apartments, so rent controls, demos, fires, development, displacement, the building codes and more

important life safety is what it's all about. if you guys don't trust us, if you guys don't feel safe, that's not okay. dove tailing off the health and safe, i'm not going to talk about jobs, i'm not going to talk about politics, i'm going to protect safety. our codes are the strictest in the world for a reason, and they are the bare minimum, bare minimum to which we should be constructing our buildings. construction shortcuts and sub standard building measures should never be our goal with housing. our safety is at stake, the importance of this topic, we must remind ourselves that this issue deals with dwelling units where tenants will be sleeping and thusly may not be aware of a potential fire until it's too

lite. i wanted to look at a couple specific examples instead of just talking generally about this. i do understand there's two prefabricated modular housing developments in the city, one at 38 harriet street and one at 3830 third street, and i question whether these buildings were built to the local san francisco building code. did electrical, plumbing, fire sign off for the rough end of these build outs? if not, as it relates to disclosure and transparency, were the tenants made aware of this noncompliance? as it relates to understanding what the implications are of remodels, were the tenants made aware if they open up walls or ceilings that they, at their deem are responsible for bringing their units up to the local building code? if they were great, but i'm just asking the question 'cause

they may not have been. they are very, very concerned with the safety of our residents and the safety of themselves, and they need to know what they're getting into when they go to a building's that's potentially on fire with residents in it. at some point, i'd like an informational presentation from dbi staff regarding these concerns. i think it's in the best interests of the residents of this city to know when and where buildings are not being built to the san francisco

local building code. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i want to thank the public, i want to thank my fellow commissioners for a most concise and inspirational exchange of ideas and thoughts. i appreciate that the public, who has not always been fond of us is not showing anger but is basically asking us to take the responsibility of why we're sitting in this place in this seat for the first -- in the first -- for the first reason. there is consensus on developing a single, more stringent demolition definition. this is a first because the history of two different definitions has been around for an extremely long time, and while there were very valiant efforts in the last two or three decades to come up with additional controls, such as

the 317 mp, in the end, it jus wasn't enough control, and the devil was in the details, and unfortunately, the devil went into the details, and we somehow lost control and oversight. we're also having people unfortunately who knew how to play the system and basically outsmarted the system and skirted the rules. i think that is one of the most painful realizations when you sit here today, and you hear that we as two departments need to come together and stop this practice. and then coming down to important elements that lay the foundation for change practices, and i'm not necessarily quoting them in the order of importance. perhaps the most important one are tenant considerations and protection of rent controlled housing, particularly because older buildings are the target

of where these practices by bad actors have been practiced. it is the start of also something which is difficult, given the nature and the age of our buildings. i've picked up on your comment, verified as built, for example of fairly complicated subject matter. i am going through a seismic retrofit, and to produce stilts even more a building that was built in 1950 is going through a heroic act of trying to find a needle in a haystack. those are microfiched records whi and when you go to the department, you have to first prove -- i'm saying that for the public to understand how

difficult the challenges are, for dbi and anyone who tries to do it the right way, you have to prove that the architect who built this building is dead. otherwise, you will not be given the drawings. however, the history of how we do drawings has completely changed, so when i got my drawings four months later, and i happened to know how to look at drawings, i barely recognized my building because the requirement for what is how drawings are submitted today are completely different from what they were at that time. so long story short, to start with verifying a build and clarifying adjacencies and topo graphy needs to be brought into the practice. if somebody who wants to do an alteration has to basically go through the effort to prove it. it's not some kind of a finger in the wind interpretation but it has to be based on tieing the existing records together with what is being presented, and there's one of the biggest

problems. when we have in planning, when it comes to us looking at alterations and the different kinds of alterations which lady to de facto to demolitions, there are all kinds of ways how they are described. and between the world in which we -- this half of the room looks at drawings and this half of the world is basically a huge gap. ours is there for entitlement. if it's reasonably described it can be entitled, and there lies the problem. i sometimes ask additional questions because a drawing, because something looks strange. i say, by the way, does this really work? well, it will be figured out later, but it's in the figured out later is where the real trap lies. one, it's the devil in the details, but it's two realities which is the general idea which deals primarily with land use

and workability to liveability and code compliance. and that is the chasm that we fall into in terms of credibility, the public's trust. the public has to believe that planning and dbi work hand and hand, that it's basically a smoothly layered process, and it isn't. there's a huge gap, particularly when it comes to going into the field and figuring out that the major portions of a building, which we don't work anymore, the building paper, the weather insulation, the completely changed fire code kicks in when you have a major alteration -- and, and, and, and. it's in that gap where i think the entire discussion falls apart, and i think we have to go back to the roots to figure out how planning approval's entitlements can you closer related to the totality of creating a liveable, safe,

compliant building, and we are at this moment not doing that. i think we all are operating with good intentions, but our intentions do not quite meet up. it's not our fault because we are bad people, but the two practices are very, very different. this was a long sentence i needed to add here. i believe that the suggestion about finding and penalizing bad actors have become a real enforcement element in how we look at real penalties. i agree with your thoughts on advanced inspections. i believe that a preapplication joint meeting with dbi may be incredibly necessary, given the dwindling stock of homes which fall into the category that we're discussing today is getting increasingly smaller. we do see a very serious threat on the decrease on affordable

housing and only using those tools can we create more interactive mechanisms by which we are stronger in doing what we need to do. i spoke about -- i believe that an interagency working group to deal with these issues would be a very, very strong thing to do that may be involving trusted structural architectural and other engineering professionals because this gets very, very technical, and i appreciate the presentation by dbi to really show us that there are many things that we just don't know. i am not talking to all of you, but i believe that many of us were pretty awed by miss waddie's presentation, and we are clearly out of our area of

expertise. another idea, but if we are to be establishing more stringent definitions and inspections, is there a possibility to look at a finer-grand definition of what alterations really are? is there a possibility to distinguish between minor alterations, substantial alterations and demolitions? that is not, when you take a whole building out, but when you're so close to changing a building that it starts to resemble demolitions. perhaps the idea of the vertical and horizontal calculations that currently the department is using that has today proved effective anymore, that provides a more subtle way

by which we would look at different percentage ranges for the three types of alterations that we would be able to at least capture those which exceed those amounts that are now becoming critical when they move from entitlement into dbi, and that is i think the ones we are primarily talking about. they're the egregious ones, which are basically saying how could this happen for years and years and years. you've shown them to us, and i think they're more in that latter range rather than that simple kitchen-bathroom remodel, not to talk about the kitchen remodel that mr. hugh pointed out. i am encouraged that we are all on a same page, similar page, i don't quite know, but i look forward to working with you.

and i do hope, and i'm addressing that to both directors, that the meeting frequency by which dbi can inform planning and planning can inform dbi becomes something which is part of standard city operation together with the departments now with more ability to work together. >> president hillis: thank you, commissioner moore. i think -- i won't -- i think a lot of this has been said, so i won't reiterate. the rules are complicated. i don't think they need to be that complicated. i think we've made them more complicated. i don't know if we mental to do that for design. they work for those who know the rules, but not for the general public. dbi's rules of demolition are vague, and i think planning's are over kind of complicated

and difficult to interpret, and, you know, there's that area between the two where you can be not a dbi demobut a planning demo, which just doesn't make any sense. these should be -- the public should be able to look at a building and kind of understand that it's a demo, or not, and it's not clear. the public brought up a building that you can see through, but it's not a demoby anybody's definitions. that just doesn't work. it hassto pass a logic test, and i don't think they do. most planning staff and dbi staff have starts down paths. i've heard comments from commissioners that can make that definition a lot easier. the difficulty is when do we discourage demolition or when do we say it's okay to demo a building? we certainly want to discourage

it when it's a historic resource and it fits in the neighborhood character. we want to discourage it when it's rent controlled. we've kind of uncovered buildings that are rent controlled that weren't in the plans or understood to be rent controlled, so we want to discourage those. but i think when we did during the much maligned residential expansion threshold, we actually tried to encourage demolition of nonsignificant nonhistoric buildings where you could build more units, where you could building a two unit building where there's a nonsignificant single-family home or build a three unit building. i think we should still do that. i think we should densify because that's going to be the affordable housing stock of the

future. so i think there's elements of r.a.t. that we should pull back into this discussion. i agree that we need one definition of demo. there's too much gray area amongst this. i agree with miss sciutis. it'll be interesting to hear why you think there should be two definitions of demo, but i think one would be more consistent with enforcement, and for setting forward policy goals. so i agree with everything that's been set out in enforcement and penalties, and we should set a timeline to meet, whether it's a couple months to meet from now or less when we hear back from the group that's working on these issues, 'cause i know supervisor peskin's been on it also and look to staff kind of come back, hold public meetings on this, get further input from

those that have come here, those that haven't to testify on this issue and come back with real solutions, so thank you all for coming back and taking the time to do this, our fellow dbi commissioners, my commissioners, but mostly the public that have come and the staroom, and i

s see gallagher is here. you know she means it when she talks. i'm surprised sue hester sisn' here. there was one particular speaker i felt was more

interested in creating facts that didn't exist and was more interested in staying in the turmoiled times that we're in, but everybody else was in tune with whether you like it or dislike it, we need to do something. trust is the word that was used, and it was used there by mary. i think the trust is broken, and i think we have an opportunity to address it here and fix it. i have some comments here, and i apologize if i'm repeating myself, but the planning code and the building code are in conflict. we all agree in that, and with one another, and they create a series of cruise confusing and frustrating -- of confusing and frustrating incidents for our neighbors. the planning code section 317, it is confusing. it's labor intensive, and particularly to the planners, and for them to implement. i think we've seen that in the

presentations here today. there is often confusion in the field with the contractors and dbi inspectors trying to address, for example, the dry rot, waterproofing, and other random unexpected field conditions while a hearing to the current demopolicy planning code of 317, and that was brought out, i think particularly in the structural presentation here today. what it does is, to me, in my opinion is it creates many judgment calls for dbi inspectors who are stuck balancing 317 with other portions of the building code, and i think that's something we need to help them out with, and i know there are some building inspectors that feel very strongly. some have ten, 15, 20 years in the field dealing with this. neighbors don't ubds the difference between a demoand an alteration, and it's not their fault. it's just that complicated. we need to do more, excuse me, user friendly transparent system to establish the

difference, and i'm hoping in our working groups that that will come out of that. demo versus alteration and the planning process. currently, there are two very different processes for these two types of projects. there is the market incentive to be an operation, which i think is apparent on some of the projects to be in trouble. if a project starts out as an alteration but due to some unexpected field conditions become a demolition, there can be belong delays in the process, and the project sponsor will need to start the process all over again, and it just doesn't make sense. i'm big on the current penalty system is restrictive. it's not transparent to the public, and it doesn't adequately address misrepresentation of plans which we've talked about here today. it's a big one, and it's a big one in my book. projects demoed beyond the scope of work but demoing what

is not considered demolition. a project sponsor who chooses to illegally demolition a certain domain. it's certainly been in the papers, and there's a few bad actors out there, and they need to be addressed. the professional design teams must conduct themselves in a very high standard, and those who work -- [ inaudible ]. >> -- to be punished. i would -- at this stage, i mean, i think to commissioner hillis's point, that i think we should -- both our directors, i know director hui, if we could put a work group together and work on some solutions and answers to this hearing today, and i don't know the time frame. i'd lean towards staff, is it two to three months that they'd need for something like this. but i also think it's important

to capture what supervisor peskin is trying to did a as well legislatively so that as we could in a timely fashion give some language that ecowork and legislatively push this through the system and so we could put this to bed once and for all, start out fresh and see how we do with a new policy and get one that goes where it needs to go. >> just to answer your question, three months would be a good starting point to look at a first stab at a proposal. i think it would be helpful to have representation from the two commissions, working with supervisor peskin's avenueoffi think we could have something before our office goes on recess in august. >> president hillis: i think that would work. sometimes we throw out like a committee or a blue ribbon panel or something like this, which isn't going to solve it on its own. we've got processes where we

solicit comments from everyone who has stake in this to really kind of formulate and start floating ideas. again i wouldn't wait three months to come back and present those ideas. i think we're encouraging to go out and talk through solutions, to community groups or having meetings at the department to we get responses and start to get some of that feedback and come back with something that we can continue to evolved. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: at what time are we dpg to soob our two computer systems be integrated, because i i this it would be a helpful tool to expedite the process? [ inaudible ] >> september.

>> and i was to strent to stre commissioner walker said that. i did not say that. i understand go live day for a fellow with dbi to be september 4th. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just to reiterate, i think we need to make sure whatever we come up with, we need to have the rent board's opinion, the dbi opinion, because there is a tax, so that they're tuned into this as well as well as the city attorney for potential state law stuff. >> president hillis: any other comment, director ram or director hui? >> just to thank everybody for coming. there was one idea thrown out that commissioner melg talked about, ju -- melgar talked about, i think that director hui talked about taking that job.

but thank you all for your comments today, and i think we'll organize the hearing within the time frame you talked about, probably this summer. >> president hillis: thank you. and certainly we can be updated as this moves along. we can hold an informational at the planning commission to get an update where things are. dbi can do the same, so we look forward to that. >> yeah. i look forward to workforce between our department and planning. and we can give you any drafts or welcome one to two commissioners want to join us to how to discuss. we have little bit idea how to do it, but right now, after the hearing, we heard about the rent board situation and all those, i'm going to engage them into our equation. >> president hillis: great. lr all right. thank you very much. >> commissioner mccarthy: no, thank you, everybody. thank you commissioners.

look forward to it. >> thank you for your patience we had a joint hearing with the building inspection commission

earlier today. please be advised that the commission does not tolerate any o outbursts of any kind. if you could silence your mobile enti devices and when speaking before the commission if you care to, do stern for the record. [ roll call ] >> commission president hillis will be absent. first on the agenda items for continuean continueance. case at 160 caselli avenue. proposed for continuance to may 10, 2018. i have no speaker cards. >> would any member of the public care to comment on this

it item? s >> commissioner mo? >> i move to -- >> second. item 1 to may 10. [ roll call ] >> motion passes unanimously 6-0 and places under condition matte matters. it item 2. march 222018 and march 29, 2018. >> commissioner -- commissioner moo moore? >> i did not press a button.

>> commissioner richards. >> we do need to request. >> would any member of the public care to comment on the draft minutes? >> commissioner richards. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you to adopt the minutes for march 22 and march 29 of this year. [ roll call ] >> so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimo unanimously. and places line item 3. commission comments questions. >> commissioner richards. >> it's been a busy week as commissioner johnson said news wise. we weren't here last week. i hope the department and the keeping with what we were talking about would reanalyze the amendments to the bill it's good know the impact of the city and it's fair to evolve what the amendments are to understand what they are and how they

impact us. the other than is while we were away there was this article, portals of the past. an interesting anything the con corr call for the bay area section. last week the title was lively [ indiscernible ] i don't know any red it. -- read it. there's few places left to bury anybody. paragraph in the lengthy battle whether to exconsume everyboexs everybody and. people that wanted the cemeteri cemeteries weremoved are recent arrivals that have no respect for the people. this is 2018 and we have -- we can't change anything. there's a lot of parallels and the growth of san francisco what is happening today as we continue to grow. and lastly. we talked about construction

costs and their impact on ability of building or have a [ indiscernible ]ing th interes ross had a call on immunity platform on chase center. warriors arena? i guess. i'm not up on my branding. $33 million dolla$33 million. 166 dolla$166 a foot. they are worried nobody willed by on it because there's not -- bid on it. i think that says -- that's comment that says a lot of what is going on in terms of the scarcity and ability to put projects through because there's not enough workers to do it. thanks. >> if nothing firster we can move on to item 4. >> good afternoon. the only announcement was to let the commissioners know that we are in fact looking at the, i think the third version of sba 5

sba25. weav we're having a hearing on the 6 26 26th. you will receive memo in next week's packet. ask if there's anything in particular you are interested let us know so we can include it in time for the packet next week. thanks. >> commissioner richards>> i thinkin think i mentioned this. the interplay of the different laws and their ability to aplll local control those are concerns of mine. talking you have maybe two law ace applied to the same project. >> item 5. review of past events of board of supervisors. there was nothing of interest and there was no historic preservation commission yesterday. >> aaron star [ indiscernible ] this report covers two weeks since you were on break last week. they didn't have any planning related items. this week the community considered a resolution on san

francisco biodiversity policy sponsored by fewer and kim. the resolution focused on eff t efforts of 35 years of disconnected policy work sported by -- diversity and elevate issues to a city wide prorate and -- operator. and>> san francisco planning staff has been engamed in the effort and reviewed the language. ten people spoke during public comments. including representatives from the sierra club and literacy for environmental justice. the port. and the public library also spoke in support of the resolution and the inner agency collaboration co-led by san francisco fire and planning. the community members added one amendment from survivor. to -- supervisor.

on city owned land. supervisor kim also raised questions from their constituents whether or not the biodiversity would increase conflicts with public access and pesticide and herbicide use. director rafael and the san francisco environment integrated pest management responded to concerns and clarified that the resolution does not impact areas or ordnance. in the end the committee passed the resolution and sent it to the full poored. at the -- full board last week [ indiscernible ] 16carmalita street was adopted. developing agreements. passed their first read and a resolution urges amendments to california senate state bill 827 sponsored by senator weiner was ado adopted.

and the appeal for 4590 lee land was continued to this week. the full board this week, the 2 van project received the second read and off to the mayor for a signature and the 590 lee land environmental appeal was continued to april 16th. last week tlerp two zbruinterrun of note. the first one from supervisor , sfaie. to allow catering as accessories to limited restaurants. and we have an ordnance that would prohibit canvas retail and medical cannabis retail. [ indiscernible ] so you all will have a fun time with that one in a few months. that concludes my prisonation. -- presentation. >> thank you. commissi commissioner. i watched the board of supervisors hearing on isb827.

there were two votes. can you explain>> one was to add an amendment it to it and the final vote was to recommend it. or to adopt it. >> and the amendment was to -- >> soften some of the language. i don't have the exact amendment but i can find it for you. >> i know maybe when you do will be public comment you can mention it. >> thank you. >> seeing nothing further we can go to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission of demit within the [ indiscernible ] with respect to agenda items your opportunity address the commission will be afford when had the >> reporteitem is reached. up to 'three minutes i have no speaker cards. >> mr. davis? >> good afternoon. david on behalf of the san

francisco housing. what happened at the board of supervisors is that out of the land use commission there was a vote to change supervisor peskin's opposition letter to aask senator weiner to amend. sb8 sb827. out of land use a recommend -- amendmented recommend occasicam. supervisor said i don't want to move forward with an amend letter. i want to move forward with an opposition letter. the first vote of the board of supervisors was to amend the amend letter to an opposition letter and the second vote was to whether to approve the opposition letter. so that -- that's where -- that's where. so the other thing i want to take the time. as we've been talking about sb827 was amended this week and

i just wanted to give a couple of highlights not getting into details. but a couple of things that changed is that it established inclutch ordinary rules for any -- inclusionary rules using using sb827 that does not have an inclusionary role. so you would not be able to use it. it has stroerng demolition crueltiontrols mainly [ indiscernible ] it could not be demolished and for is b827. the height restrictions they were moved to 85 foot now just 45 feet and 55 feet. what that really means the san francisco that the most any area would be up zoned ten feet. i think the most interestingly is there's a delay until 2021. giving local jurisdictions the opportunity do this themselves until 2021 and if it's not done

then sb827 and then also there was another big event that happened this week. 17 national housing rights advocates and civil rights advocates endorsed is b827 and it got hidden in a lot of the other things going on. one of those people who did endorse it was richard roth ste stein. who is the author the book called color of leaw or the colr of law forgotten history how our government segue segment gated america. blo his day job a senior [ indiscernible ] as a thorough good marshal institute and as the hands institute of berkeley. a significant endorsement in my mi mind. thank you.

>> laura clark. following up on what todd said about dens doments that come in for sb827. one of the largest orangganizats of nonprofit affordable housing developers in the state has endorsed sb827. they are excited about how much affordable housing this is going to mean statewide. they are going to get to build as well as others. i will be sending all of you the letter from the fair housing advocates as well as the none [ indiscernible ] of northern california. these are significantan endorsements of a powerful piece of legislation that is going to right a lot of historic wrongs. additionally it's worth noting that there are other places like minneapolis that are considering up zoning everything to four mre-xs throughout their --