i think it would probably be above your abilities to hold that for so many years but the alternative is you are all really, really ignorant and stupid because we have 50 years of failed policy and if we're not able to look back at the years of policy that we already have and understand that making things harder and longer makes things more expensive and continues to limit the amount of housing that we need. we're 30 years behind on housing. we need affordable housing because we don't have any housing. making developers the evil fear mongers doesn't really add up considering unless someone on this board is tremendously wealthy, we all live in-housing developed by developers. that's how housing is built. it's your job and the planning commission's job, the planning department's job and the zoning administrators job to make sure we have enough housing not to shut it down or make it more did the to build nedifficult to bui.

i guess i'm done. i have one last thing to say and that is simply, what is the job of planning? isn't it to make sure we have housing and we have infrastructure and we have subway systems? we have a subway system that is brand new and doesn't go to the stadium or trance bay term ina it's a failure. he have a new trance bay terminal that is built for a train that will never a arrive and yet doesn't connect to bart? what are we doing? this makes absolutely no sense. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is timothy right and i'm a field representative with carpenters local 22 and i was born, raised and still living on the west side. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm here today to speak against the proposed legislation. the legislation will be at odds of the city's over all goal of increasing housing production and improving affordability for

residents. this legislation goes far beyond residential demolition. this would difficult in decreased housing production in the city. we don't need anymore layers or challenges for critically needed housing in san francisco. we do not need any job-killing legislation in the city of san francisco. thank you for the opportunity. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. dan, i'm a district 1 resident and researcher for carpenter local 22. we're opposed to this legislation for many of the reasons already stated. throwing additional zapped into the gears of the city's development entitlement process is the exact opposite approach the city should be taking to address the housing crisis. further, the proposal legislation will mean perhaps thousands of opportunities lost for our local construction workforce which means less work opportunities for city-build grad squats other lola prentiss.

slowing or completely stopping housing production means more than just less housing, it means fewer jobs, shrinking tax revenue and cut off construction careers before they even start. like many members of our union, i live here. i rent here. i hope 2 to raise my daughter here. we know the importance of protecting tenants in today's housing market and of course we support exist, strong tenant prediction and preserving affordable housing units. we urge you to enforce these already exiting policy or do something to make them stronger but do not prohibit change just for the sake of prohibiting change. thank you for your time. the carpenters look forward to working with you to address our current housing crisis. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is leo cassidy and i'm a builder here in san francisco. some familiar faces here for the

last 30 or 40 years here. i'm looking at long range planning and long range visions that the commissioner and the planning commission and the future of san francisco, if you look at what happened in the '8d '90, we're talking about the same thing. why we're here today. we talked about transit corridors back in the '80s and '90s and we were down at 40 feet. we were capped at 40 feet and we couldn't go up. look, i don't know where you are coming from aaron this time. you are at the wrong side of this. i just don't understand it. you need to gather together and they need to work together and hammer and get back on track and i'm sure someone there eat that banana. talk to you later. >> commission walker wants the banana. >> i do.

[laughter] >> you don't want an avocado? at home i do, yes. i'm georgea. my time. i want to start over again. i'll wait until you set it. thank you. i think the findings are really very, very good and they get to the point that i only heard -- i heard heard from loraine and that's the speculative problem we've had. that is where this is all coming from. that's the genesis. that's why people are upset. i think that's why supervisor peskin's office and mr. heppner worked so hard on this. both of these commissions have seen my list of 70 projects that show an average increase of $3 million. in the last four or five years, because they screwed the demo merger rules. 70 projects. mostly in knowy valley. i think the legislation has these new definitions of

demolition that were referenced in the building code -- or referenced by the planning code in the building code and they suggest that you are all going to work together and that's a good thing. i think all the regulatory aspects of the legislation are really good in dealing with the bad actors. we can all agree that a vertical expansion, especially with a facade removal, is a demolition. and that is the reality and that is mostly on my list. and that's what needs to be taken care of. i do worry about the tenants. i think the flat policy is good. i'm glad it's there. i hope it stays there. i worry about the 75% interior demo of multi-unit buildings because i think it's a way that tenants can be forced out. i'm not really totally comfortable with the f.a.r. in section 319. i understand it but i think because it hasn't been in babes

beforeneighborhoods before, it's worrisome. it's a pandora's box with the state and stuff. i think those who like the r.e.t. it's a good thing. that's t i kind of feel like i need a nap. i guess you all do too. >> next speaker, please. thank you. >> if we have anymore speakers lineup now so we can get a read. >> hi, commissioners. my name is robin and i'm here to speak in opposition of the legislation. i do currently work as a real stor and has been in san francisco my whole life and i am married to a native so i said my chancing. in 1992, my husband and i decided -- back of the room, thank you. please. >> to purchase a property in bernal heights, one-storey over a garage that was 1,050 square

feet. at the time we weren't married. we were married by we didn't have children. and i want to look at this from a practical standpoint or maybe you currently have a house that you live in or an apartment. i don't know where you came up with the 1200 square foot single-family dwelling being a reasonable housing size. i had 1,050 lot. i went through this expansion and vertical addition and at the time in 1995, interestingly enough, it took me three years to get through d.r. we had to do massing. we have to do design set backs. that's what your planning code did and we got about an 800 square foot addition. at the time, interestingly enough, we were required to put a freeze on our rh-2 lot so we only would have rh-1 so we had to promise that we would put in a second unit. we had to add a garage space to

the space. i recent the fact, for my clients and for myself, that you think the 1200 square feet. my daughters are home from college. we couldn't live in 1200 square feet. how dare you think it's a reasonable family housing. how dare you think we can't do our own remodels of our bathrooms or kitchens. how dare you think you can't take a wall away to make an open floor plan. how dare you do anything in my house? that's my house. i tell this to people that i'm here today and i'm going to this. people think we're crazy. we're crazy. >> thank you. >> next speaker, thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is christopher peterson. i agree with the goals that are supervisor peskin articulated. i don't think they would accomplish those goals to primary concerns that i have. first of all, i think it would require devoting a

disproportionate amount of resources to the review of innocuous or benign projects. the primary position of the planning commission should be planning. i think it would be farber for those resources to be devoted to planning for increasing, the density, the amounts of housing in neighborhoods that are not currently supplying that especially in the western parts of the city. the other concern is although the ordinance has some language on its face would seem intended to allow for additional density, the requirements are so strict in reality it would not result in that so i urge you to ask to be sure that the final version of this ordinance, if it's enacted, would in the world result in the creation of additional housing. thank you. >> thank you mr. peterson and next speaker, please. thank you.

>> hello, my name is brigitte duffy. they haven't gotten the memo yet. the planet is at risk. human life, i don't know if you've heard it. the u.n. just put out a report if we don't lower our carbon emissions within 12 years, human beings may go extinct within 100 years. this is dire warnings and everything and living small and living less is the way to go. i appreciate you are making efforts towards that in san francisco. there is more than enough space. we have lots of public land. we can put tiny house communities on public land.

these sorts of there's a way being made for that to happen from the top and realtors, builders. it's to understand when realtors and builders show up to oppose something, chances are it's a really good idea for people and planning. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. throughout the city for many,

many years and i spent half my time on this. it's tremendous. the owner's process is existing is already difficult and expensive and we all know that. to make a more bis process to accomplish what we know what we need. it doesn't make sense for anyone. interestingly enough, i have a young high school incompetenterh us and i was explaining what this legislation was about and in particular, he asked me a question which i found profound and interesting and how could at least -- how could with the residential additions and new construction, for example, new buildings, go off a major expansion and new construction projects, how could the new be as affordable as the old? how is that possible? it's not possible. it's not possible. you know the construction costs

of what they are today, everyone knows that and they're between 600 and $1,000 a square foot. we know that. what's the end? how does this get improved. >> next speaker, please. i've been here in the city as a builder and working construction since 1982. i just had my speech going until i heard the previous speaker saying when you see builders down here, it's usually for the wrong reasons. this legislation is a total

attack on families. i mean future families. they want to be in the city. period. they can't live in miniature homes and drive bicycles around with their kidsment bring them to school and bring them to the doctor. where do these people come from? it took a year for this guy to write this garbage. a year. oh, it's partially demolition and it's -- what? no one knows what is going on here. i don't even -- i hope some of you understand some of it. it's hilarious. me, as a builder, i build anything. we will do whatever it takes. we listen to the building department. you have heard them today. you heard the experts understand it. they can explain it to you.

some of it actually they couldn't explain. planning says one thing and building says another thing and politics say another thing. this is all politics. and it's total b.s. politics. please, turn it down. thank you. >> it is, mr. cassidy. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i'm arnold mcgill. thank you for holding this hearing on this anti housing legislation. i got involved in this problem back in the 1970s with what some of you may remember were called richmond specials. planning codes, d.b.i. regulations have been changed since then in an attempt to correct the problems. the schemers and scammers will always be with us. we need something to handle it. this is not the way.

legislation and enforcement can overcome the problems, particularly enforcement in my mind. it's a ledge hammer approach. approach. there are far too many negatives that unnecessarily effect perfectly logical, legitimate and standard projects. it puts massive unnecessary -- it must be scraped completely. break it into and problems and consider whether they're go from there. take a fresh start at it. something that is as

incomprehensible to the general public and judging from your own questions, some nearly three hours ago, some of it is incomprehensible to you. when laws and codes are not clear to all of the effective parties, this piece of legislation is ridiculous. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president mccarthy and melgar and commissioners. ryan patterson here in the city. the proposed ordinance before you implicates core constitutional interest and it likely constitutes a taking of private poverty without compensation in violation of law. as you've heard today, it would amount to a radical down zoning of the city. displaced growth and traffic and

other communities will occur as well as other ceqa impacts and i'm a land use attorney and people should not need a attorney just to get a building permit. the rules should be simple and easy to understand and easy to apply. penalties should be commence -- it just just enough. so, i think we're to the point in the conversation where we should be considering alternatives. so i think there are some good alternatives we can credit and and the interest and that can be done pretty simply by redefining what a demolition is under the code.

it's allowing more housing not less. if we're trying to penalize the defenders, we can do that under the existing laws and it will be more effective if the laws are clarified. the demolition calculations are very difficult to apply. especially for a contractor in the field. simplify that and have a standard across the board between departments and have a appropriate penalties for that. if we want to move forward, we can do that and we should look at starting over. >> thank you, mr. patterson. >> thank you, very much. >> i'm the president of sunset park side education action committee also known as speak. i am here on my own behalf. in many municipalities, d.b.i. and planning are a single department. the department is not face

issues of inconsistency, san francisco has two separate departments. there's the need for a demolition code that both departments are clear, consistent, enforceable and have objective requirements. this would provide predictability for developers and help curb speculative behavior. expansion limits themselves and square footage won't pre vend the housing and i would surgery the additional improvements to this legislation. lower tolerances to avoid gaming the system and include use and far based expansion and limits for and lower floor and require provided by the project sponsor. i support the -- that plans are

submitted and true and accurate as some of these 311 notices are questionable. it is my understanding that there are cities in southern california which already have the requirements. >> next speaker, is that the last speaker? i have one more. >> commissioners, gary. we've been practicing architecture residential and commercial work here? san francisco for 35 years and just a quick synopsis. we've been challenges by legislation that's come down from both the board and the planning commission recently. it's a parent to us that many of our clients are -- many cases we

have families that want three bedroom units and this is a mandatory requirement in the program. we want to continue that. there's some families that require parking in their residents whether it's addition or new construction. so we clearly need something much more simpler that allows us to work within these parameters. i'm requesting a recommendation allowing a meaningful expansion and demolition as mighted and eliminate the restrictions for size and massing and typically in our experience, we've done new correction in san francisco and it's taken at least four years for us to get through the planning reviews and for new correction to include larger project and smaller projects. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ please stand by ]

who that having policies like the flats on the mergers of units, you know, it is as intended. aside from that aside from that legislation, you know, it is supported by folks that i really respect. like the tenants union, senior disability action, and i think it is folks like it, because in the narrow slice that you are dealing with in terms of the problems it addresses that. the way that i am saying, is it

doesn't outweigh the unintended consequences that it will have. i am afraid of that. i, you know, support living smaller. i think we definitely need that for the environment. i'm not sure that this legislation addresses that. i live in a 2700 square-foot home but i live with six people. for that, you know, each person gets about one of 50 ft. , and i think that that is living smaller than most. like i said, families come in different sizes and we use the land differently. i would like to have an approach that is much more targeted to solving our issues. i think the fundamental question that commissioner hill has asked, and what i think we need to answer is this legislation that prohibits the

demolition of sound housing? if that is countered to the densification that we need to have for environmental reasons, then are we not just setting ourselves up for failure? just answering that question, for me, is going to allow us to make progress. aside from that, i would suggest a few things that i would like to see in the legislation. i would like to exempt cosmetic, nonstructural things like cladding from the demo calculations. i would like fines to fit, you know, the crime. i would like things in addition to fines, like process, to weed out bad actors. so we know who they are, we know they are there frequent flyers. we currently do not have a process that codified to disallow them

to keep gaming the system, other than fines. i think we can do that through a process. i would like to have the demo calculations and additions to be more targeted to neighborhoods. i know we have resisted that, but really build housing is very different in bernal heights than it is in balboa terrace. the consequences of maxing out bulk and height are very different in those. i would encourage us to look at that. i would just end by saying, we in this commission see the most egregious things. that is what bubbles up to the surface. as somebody who has raised three kids in the city, and have seen, in my generation,

the outmigration in my entire community and all of my friends, once they have kids, you know at five-six years old and they cannot be housed, it hurts. it hits me in a place where, you know, i sit up here giving all of this time to the city for a reason; to address that. i feel like this is going to make that worse. i want folks to be able to stay in the city, to be able to move in mom to be able to have their kids come back from college like i did with mine. to be able to use theirone a way that they can. i also want to be able to protect tenants. i want a rental registry. i want folks to be able to stay in place and protect that. i fear in this legislation they are. i look forward to keeping this conversation live and to keep

working on it. i want to thank staff particularly for the work they have done prior to this. mr. heppner, i am available if you want to recruit me and draft me too, you know, to be involved in this process. i think we can solve the problem. i think this legislation is not right there. thank you. i have commissioner phyllis on the - >> go ahead. >> commissioner moss. please press the button if you want to talk. >> i want to thank everybody, and again mr. heppner thank you for coming up and hearing all of this. i echo that i do not believe the legislation is there. i am most concerned about the amount of no answers we got whenever specific costs were brought up both to the various departments. this is wide sweeping legislation that would

have drastic consequences for lots of what are now feasible and absolutely necessary projects and i think for us to move forward without having more specific information regarding the costs associated with that would be a little irresponsible, and so i was looking forward to more information being brought to the commissions. i want to thank everyone for coming here today. thank you. >> thank you. >> again, thank you mr. heppner and his supervisor peskin. we took a stab at this a couple of years ago through the residential expansion threshold. many people opposing the suppose that also. we endure many aspects of doubt that i liked and thought were good. so, we get that this is a contentious issue. i agree with the goals that were laid out here. straightforward process, eliminate loopholes for demo,

promote density and discourage monster homes. i don't think it gets there. it may be gets there on eliminating loopholes on definition. i don't think it does a good job at all on the other items. i get it is difficult in some of these things are competing against each other. there are no definitions of monster homes, i know you kind of focused on this 1200 square-foot, which i think is a good sized unit. it is typical of these three flat buildings or for flat buildings. but if we are going to preserve our h1 zoning, 1200 square-foot is not allow for a family. i invite you to spend time with my three teenagers, and my mother who lives with us in 1200 square-foot zoning, i can guarantee you doubling that over the weekend. i don't know if that is the right way to do it, defined advice where you footage of the unit. one way to get at that is to eliminate our h1 and

require everybody to build to the maximum density. he would get rid of monster homes. i agree with the goal but i don't think this gets at it. more so, i agree, i didn't read anything in this legislation that actually promoted density. i think it is doubling down on you can't demo that single family home to build three units. which i think this commission has wanted to do over and over again. i actually think it discourages density instead of promoting density. like commissioner mel garside, i would work with you to inject language, or changes in this legislation that would promote density. again requiring people to build to the max, ease

demolition. allow demolition where people are building to increase density. without example that we showed, it was an okay single-family home but it wasn't historic. if you can get three units in that, that is great we should actually encourage it. there is a house on the street for me that i am familiar with. it is an old single-family home, it is not historic. the builder wanted to build a larger single-family home. the planning department encouraged them to add units so they are doing two units. they wanted to avoid to come to this commission to go to a demo. they could build four units if they had it in adu, incentives and code are all in the wrong place in not doing the right thing. we have seen progressive cities, minneapolis and others get rid of exclusionary single families and promote density, elizabeth warren running for president, who is progressive is

encouraging that. this does not do it. i would expect some of this language, it is more of what palo alto would propose as a solution to some of the problems. again, i think it is courageous to start on this path and work on this. our flat policies should be quantified. i would be happy to work with you to further this. i don't think it gets there. >> thank you. commissioner walker. >> i want to thank the supervisor for putting this forward. i personally have been involved in several different taskforces that dealt specifically with this issue over the last 25-30 years and it has resulted in no real action to help us with the definitions and enforcement around this issue. i think the problem is definitely here. i know that our commission sees projects that come before us where as a

neighbor you see the front of the building go away and then you see all the way to the sky in the back. no pun intended, it is about transparency of the process and making sure what is happening is what the department has approved. it has been really obvious that the issues about getting a common definition of both demolition itself, and the process by which it happens. inspections at the onset of certain projects as well as how to engage our departments both when changes occur on site. those are things that are real and i think need to be handled more administratively than requiring an extra process that actually adds to the cost of housing. i am really sensitive around tenant issues. i really appreciate the tenants union

being here and senior disability action network. those are real issues. the issues of affordability. the issues of eviction. they often stem from these kind of projects. it is really important that also, the improvements and the repairs and the maintenance be made on these buildings so that the places are habitable. not just today, but 25-30 years from now, this housing stock has been mentioned here that most affordable housing is the housing that is already up. it doesn't mean in the state it is in. it means that we must make sure the housing stays up. seismic work, mold remediation, all of those things that people have to live within these old structures where plumbing leaks and there is a lot of work to do. the walls have to be replaced because of mold. it is real work

that is needed. i think i would love the supervisor to focus on how to incentivize keeping rents low when this kind of work happens. i think doing the work is necessary. the pass-throughs are the issue when it comes to tenants itself. having programs, i know that we find a program through tbi called the cover program where we offer low or no interest loans to landlords who need to do the work that can afford it. those are programs that we actually should put out in front to make sure that the rents stay low as well as the housing stock safe. i am also willing to work with you all. i think our code enforcement outreach teams that we found some of the tenant groups on landlord groups would be willing to sit in to make sure what we are doing does not have consequences that we have not anticipated. again, thank you it is an important issue, i hope

that we can really solve this that 30 years from now we are not doing this again. thank you commissioners. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i want to thank staff, i think you did an incredible job making the incredibly complex and technical understandable and easily digestible, so thank you so much. i also want to thank everyone for coming out. i'm going to read my notes because i have a lot to say and i want to be as distinct as possible. there is a reason that we are here, in case anyone thinks we do not understand that there is a problem there is a real problem that needs to be addressed and i want to go through what i think where we can go from here. first of all, i want to bring voice and context that i don't think is represented enough. if you don't own a home and you want to own a home in this city you needed three hunter thousand dollars down payment grade you have to have an income of $200,000 a

year. if you have those things you might be able to get a condo, or a small house that has not been renovated in decades. and then you need several hundred thousands of dollars to make it to the process to do any upgrades. all while paying off student loans, creating a family are taking care of aging parents. if you are a renter in a rent controlled apartment you live in housing that has not been updated since the 60s or 70s. substandard non-code complying housing unable to move because the rent is too damn high and you live here day today that you will be evicted because of an alice act or rent eviction. the issues i'm trying to address today are ones that hurt the entire city. illegal mergers taking off the markets and the need to hold bad actors accountable. so we should really focus on that. one i think there is a better way to do our 311 notices. i appreciate the fact that this legislation tries to address that. you should not

need a planning degree to understand what's happening next door to you or down the street. we need our fellow community members, organizations to be able to help us understand when illegal demolitions are happening. i do not envy mr. halder's job, and the committee taking on this issue. i also appreciate in those recommendations that we need to center the folks that are being evicted and the renters, in thinking about how we protect folks as we do look to change our housing and i appreciate miss fevers comments on that. i believe there are cases where demolition is warranted. there is no way were going to get out of this housing crisis without demolishing homes. we have to create the conditions for people to i densify the parcels without illegally evicting tenants. we need to preserve affordable housing, or housing that is

existing, that we have to build more housing we have to allow for the housing that people are living in to be upgraded. one point on demolitions in general, you know what, i would rather let us create the conditions where we can call a spade a spade. if you're going to do demolition here's the building envelope. here's how we want to see tenants protected and the number of units we want to see. make sure there is equity in all unit sizes. i get really uncomfortable week after week when we tell people you can have a parking garage, you can have four bedrooms, but you can't. that's an overreach in my opinion. i like oprah, i don't want to be oprah handling out - - handing it out that way. we really do need a more objective way to do that. saying people can only live in 1200 square - square feet in my mind is inappropriate. i just want to

reiterate, there is a problem here. we have seen scores of illegal demolitions that have come to us. even though both of our departments are working hard there is a clear leak that is demoralizing to advocate, it is demoralizing to staff, it is demoralizing to us. what we need to do is move into codifying the processes we do have. staffing up so that we can do better enforcement. actually helping our community organizations and tenant protections help us as well getting better to make sure illegal evictions do not happen in the first place. those are, i think, really important places to start. i think it has been said in many comments, but often i think because we see the worst cases, we feel like we need to create legislation that really errs on the side of stopping anyone from wanting to do anything wrong in the first

place. we create in some ways a sledgehammer where we really need a scalpel. we need to get very surgical about the places where there are leaks and people are moving to the system and illegally evicting, and illegally demoing and target exactly those places. the good news from all of the fervor that happened today, as we have developers, we have neighborhood organizations, we have concerned citizens, we have folks that are willing to sit around the table and work to come up with those solutions and i feel hopeful that together we can get to the heart of these important issues for our community. >> thank you, commissioner. pres. mccarthy. >> thank you. once again, i echo a lot of the comments from my fellow commissioners obviously it is safe to say there is not

too many sales, building or architect work being done in san francisco today here. everybody seems to be here. i complement everyone coming out here. the architects that came out here, in force today, they are an important part of helping us write this in future legislation hopefully to clean it up and give us consensus where we really need it. i also want to thank the department, planning and dbi working closely with a lot of the inspectors that spoke here today. how frustrated they are doing their jobs, it's very difficult. sometimes this code does not allow them to do it. it puts them in bad positions. i think everybody, at this stage, is a little bit, we been doing this for many years, i'm a little thick skin here, it does hurt me when contractors are blamed for everything, okay? we are an important part to this family of how we are going to get this housing crisis fixed. i

think it is important, what i would like to complement particularly supervisor peskin and mr. lee today for starting the conversation. i think supervisor peskin coming out here, using the terms that we might've bitten off more than we can chew right now, tells me a lot that this is a first draft in which a lot of work has to be done. today, i would call this therapy, which we haven't had in quite a long time in our community. from all sides. i think it's very healthy and i have sat through a few of the sessions over the years, i think i can honestly say, this is one of the better ones and i appreciate this going beyond the 2 o'clock so we could have this conversation. i know we are not going to answer everything here today. we all have our concerns. i think these are real questions that we can address in a property draft that piece of legislation. with that, i will not take any more time, but thank you to everybody for

coming here today. what is the next steps which does not have to be answered now. answering where we go from this, and where supervisor peskin's office would like to go with this. and how this time we stay at it and get it finished and have a comprehensive piece of legislation that gets us to where we need to - we need housing in this town as we said over and over again. i think this might be the best stuff that we have right now to play. i would like to see this through, okay? thank you. >> commissioner fong. >> the architects in the room should be happy since building designers and engineers would be prohibited from participating in this process. that means more work for the architects, i presume. the question - the

goals and the proposed legislation, in my opinion, the perception is a disconnect. the legislation goes way beyond the resolution of some of the issues that are being brought forward as the goals of what is wanted. i think the implications of the legislation are also not being brought forth in the following way. this legislation is basically a non-growth/no growth process. that, i think, is something that needs to be reviewed in a much broader form

>> commissioner lee. >> there are some things i do like on this legislation, i like it tries to come up with a definition of demolition, i like the idea that it increases penalties for illegal demolition, and i like the idea that they considered serial permitting and take those permits into account when trying to decide if something - but, the proposal that i see today goes beyond what i thought we were supposed to be dealing with which was to get a handle on illegal demolition. i'm not going to bring up all of the other things that everybody has mentioned on what is a concern, but i do want to add a few things, forgive me if i jump around, because there is just so many things. the floor area ratio is part. i don't

understand it. i would also like to see replacing structural elements, removing and replacing them, not to be considered as part of the demolition. namely, a lot of these things are structural elements that needs to be upgraded. you won't know, some of these things you will not even know until you start tearing things apart, removing a wall, that brings up another thing about having the architect sign an oath to make sure that the plans are accurate. when you're dealing with renovation projects, a lot of things are hidden. you will not know what is there until you start opening things up. and then are you going to start saying your architect is in violation and is criminal, foundations or underground, you can't tell how

big a foundation is, if the foundation is sound and able to support your addition until you start digging into the ground. common walls or structural walls. if your architect said we expect this to be a 2 x 4 wall and you open it up and you find out, actually if you want to build on top of it you probably have to strengthen the wall if you're architects assume that the wall is already thick enough to hold it, that is the plans you submit. but then when you open up the building you find out both of the walls are too thin, the studs are to short, too narrow. you have to increase your stud size. those are the things that are very difficult to determine prior to construction another thing about distributing structural drawings and calculations during the 311

process. what is the purpose? i am an architect and i can read structural drawings but the structural accounts are beyond me. i don't understand them. what is the purpose of having the neighbor see the structural drawings and structural calculations? this increases the cost to the project sponsors. they have to produce the plans and then if there is a problem and those need to be change they need to reproduce everything again. and then that brings up the part of distributing the architectural plans, the construction plans to the neighborhood. how does that affect the architects on the engineers copyrights? right now what we want to see, some architects or engineers plans we go through the public records process we need to architects

and engineers permission to actually give copies to the requester. if we provide them out there, in the first place we just threw that out the door, we don't even need public records request. is that proper i don't know. i don't know these answers. i'm just tossing them out there, these are things that i see in the proposal that should be looked at more carefully. >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you. again, i have agreements with very many of the comments and and abroad philosophical way, the comments ms. johnson made some up many of the feelings, and broad issues that i share. i will focus on some rather specific points. before i get to that, you know, i would also like to be sure

that i am expressing a concern that i have that when we were going through these egregious demolitions we all talked very much about this is a terrible problem and that we have different building and planning standards and that allows for confusion and manipulation by bad actors and all kinds of things. we set out that we were going to try to resolve that and to some extent what we had asked of our legislative branch was to really look into many of the things that are beyond our scope such as real changes to remedies and fines and the like that require legislative fixes so, that we did not come together quite as well as i would have

hoped that a commission or staff level to really resolve these differences and come together and say, here's what we really believe is a good way to go forward, i find disturbing personally. you know, i would like to commit to, again, working together so that we do this and that we meet frequently to make sure we are on track and that we are accomplishing these common goals of getting clear fair standards that any good actor can understand, and follow, and any bad actor cannot find loopholes in. that brings me then to the piece that we did invite legislative assistance

on. that in part is the remedies. one of the things we were looking at as a problematic, in our process on demolitions is that one of the primary things that is available to us is the five year moratorium. unless you want to build exactly the same square footage - you know, rebuild a demolition to that square footage and basic configuration, you have five years of having it sit follow. we all know that's one of the problems that we have all encountered, with that, is neighbors come in and tell us "i don't want to live next to an empty hole". they have temporary shoring up that is supposed to last a year or two and now you're going to tell me it's been there for five years and i'm worried about my foundation, and i don't want to live next to a hole anyway. i can completely understand that. we always sympathize,