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 fivesix 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 dont think it gets there. It may be gets there on eliminating loopholes on definition. I dont 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 squarefoot, 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 squarefoot 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 squarefoot zoning, i can guarantee you doubling that over the weekend. I dont 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 dont think this gets at it. More so, i agree, i didnt read anything in this legislation that actually promoted density. I think it is doubling down on you cant 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 singlefamily home but it wasnt 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 singlefamily home, it is not historic. The builder wanted to build a larger singlefamily 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 dont 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 2530 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 2530 years from now, this Housing Stock has been mentioned here that most Affordable Housing is the housing that is already up. It doesnt 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 passthroughs 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. Im 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 dont think is represented enough. If you dont 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 noncode 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 im 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 whats 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. Halders 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 youre going to do demolition heres the building envelope. Heres 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 cant. Thats an overreach in my opinion. I like oprah, i dont 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, its 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, im 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 mightve 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 havent had in quite a long time in our community. From all sides. I think its 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 oclock 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 peskins 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 nongrowth 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. Im 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 dont 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 wont 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 youre 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 cant 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,