Square footage. And again no permits for five years. And all penalties go to the s. F. Small sites fund. So we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317. Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled through section 176. So it would increase the daily fine from up to 250 a day to up to 1,000 im sorry, to 1,000 a day. There would be no discretion, a straight 1,000 fine. And the board of appeals right now can reduce fines to no less than 100 a day, this would change it to say they can reduce fines to no less than 500 a day. Really our only implementation concern here is the inability for the fine to be up to 1,000. It has to be straight 1,000 fine. Most of the time we do right now charge the full 250 a day. But we do have the discretion to charge less than that, if we find that the violation was truly very minor, corrected in a timely fashion and that the cost of the fine, the daily fine is more onerous than the actual violation. And with that well go over to building inspection. For inspection requirements, the way it is now, individuals found to have purposefully misrepresented information on applications or plans can be referred to the City Attorneys Office for legal actions or professional licensing agencies, for disciplinary actions. The way it would be requires a building inspector to conduct a preinspection before a permit is issued, for any work on a residential building, if anyone associated with the building or project has a prior violation for doing work without a permit or for work exceeding the scope of a permit. This includes any person, property owner, contractor, permit expediter or firm, corporation or other legal entity. So procedurally many more projects could be considered demolitions. Customers will have to include structural drawings and calculation for d. B. I. To review now. D. B. I. Staff has to review multiple iterations of the structural drawings for the same project. Many projects ever considered overthecounter will no longer be considered. Many projects will not be considered now be considered residential demolition and have to be submitted for internal review. Determining demolition calculation based on a fiveyear permit history will require more review than could be accomplished in a few hours for d. B. I. Staff. So to conclude, going over just the next steps and the timeline going forward. So we plan to have an informational hearing at the Historic Preservation commission in july. And we presume or hope that this will be going in front of the Planning Commission for an adoption hearing in late summer. And at the beginning of the board of supervisors fall elective season, we believe it is the sponsors intention to have this ordinance heard at the Land Use Committee and the full board of supervisors. That conclusions our presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner mccarthy had a question. Ill keep it quick. Just on the penalties and, you know, let me be very clear. I think everybody agrees we need to make these penalties count, particularly to bad actors. But i am a little bit confused about the way its written here. I dont know who could talk to me on the penalties, who would be the best person on that . So we have two scenarios. One, this contractor rolls into town and takes down a beautiful shack. Thats one set of penalties. Excuse me. And d. B. I. Deals with this. We have contracts who seizes the permits, maybe its just the interior and so on. As i read it, he has fallen into the same category as the guy that comes in and takes out a historical piece of property. How does planning receive that working . Sure. So again if it is found to be historic or historically significant and the definitions are changed in terms of this proposed ordinance in terms whats considered historic, expands whats considered historic for the purpose of fines, if we do find that it is considered to be historic, which it sounds like it would be in this case, the good news is that the Zoning Administrator has the discretion, if they find that this is a more minor violation, that can be corrected easily. So the scenario that we often envision, is that Historic Building received a permit to put in a window and they exceeded the scope of that work. Maybe they put in a patio door instead in the back of their property. The 500,000 fine is not mandatory. The v. A. Can look at that and say this is something that can be corrected or legalized and, therefore, the 500,000 fine can be reduced or waived, so long as they seek the permits. They would still be subject to all of the other penalties that are nonmonetary and the meants under section 176, which under this proposal would be 1,000 a day, once weve issued our notice of violation. But again the no permits would be issued for five years, unless its to fix or revert back. And, yes, i believe thats it. Particularly on the exceeding of the permits, doesnt account for if youre the firsttime offender, anything like that . Youre painted with the same kind of brush as it were, for lack of a better word . Thats correct. Somebody genuinely makes a mistake, it in theory. Commissioner johnson. Thanks. So this question is directed at anyone who wants to answer it. Either from d. B. I. Or from planning. You know, i think we often see do see the most egregious cases, in which were seeing demolitions that are criminal and that are putting workers, neighbors, and other folks at risk. And one question about the way it is, that folks can be referred to the City Attorneys Office and can have can be held accountable is just a curiosity about how often that happens. How often do we actually do that . And how is that process working . And what teeth could be added to that . Well, one of the more notable cases in the last several years, i wont mention the address, but it was referred. And the City Attorneys Office did take it all the way through to imposing a fairly significant fine on the project sponsors and the People Associated with the work itself. So some of the other projects and the bad actors that we see and the situations that cause specifically to d. B. I. Unsafe conditions, we do have lines of communication with the City Attorneys Office and keep them up to speed with those projects also. And there are ongoing there is ongoing activity with regards to the City Attorneys Office looking at multiple projects. So its its an ongoing effort. I think this is the place to really kind of double down as we move forward. You know, when those bad actors do just get a penalty and theyre able to continue to do business in the city of San Francisco, it hurts our credibility. It hurts the industry. And it hurts our community. And there should be much they should not be able to continue to build in the city of San Francisco and theyre putting other peoples lives at risk. I absolutely agree with that. And when we see the unsafe conditions, we are on the phone with osha, cal osha. Our concern is worker safety. So as recently as two weeks ago, we had a case of excavation and unsafe condition, workers were in there, underneath the building and they had undermined the adjacent building. And thats osha. Thats a call to osha right away. And the City Attorney is updated in regards to, you know, whats going on, especially if its one of the frequent flyers lets say. So, yeah, we have good lines of communication with the City Attorneys Office on all of these projects. Mr. Teague, did you want to add something to that . Sure. Good afternoon. Good morning still, commissioners. Cory teague, Zoning Administrator with the Planning Department. Just to give the Planning Department perspective there. The City Attorneys Office is not involved with the vast majority of our enforcement cases, because they tend to be more minor. The more egregious cases we absolutely do coordinate with the City Attorneys Office. They also do work themselves to stay abreast of these situations. We have a lot of interagency coordination with d. B. I. And the City Attorneys Office for these specific types of enforcement cases, for example, illegal demolition. The City Attorney is they have the ability to take civil action. And basically take the enforcement further than we can through the planning code, the planning code actually specifically states that our enforcement procedures and penalties are not designed to be punitive. Theyre purely designed to bring about abatement of the violation. So were very theres a lot of due process, theres a lot of work that just tries to make the problem be fixed, as opposed to penalizing the parties who have conducted the violation. The City Attorney can take that further and theyre primarily interested in situations where life safety issues arise or where theres been a very kind of egregious and clear violation, thats resulted in like significant monetary gains for the person who conducted the violation. So we definitely coordinate extensively with the City Attorneys Office. And also with our Sister Agency at d. B. I. , especially when there are life safety issues. Commissioner fong sorry. Sorry. To followup commissioner to follow up with pats comments, once these bad actors are established, d. B. I. Establishes a protocol, where then we create a check list, you know, of projects that these bad actors are coming in with. And which has to be Quality Controlled by a supervisor, just so that we know, you know, that we put extra eyes on these projects, that these bad actors are coming in. Just to elaborate on pats comments on what we do at d. B. I. , when we establish these bad actors that, you know, we look at their projects, we know who they are, we look at their projects. We send the projects to a supervisor for Quality Control to make sure that everything looks kosher. Im sorry. I have a followup question to that. Is that codified anywhere . Codified . Is that protocol that you just described, is that written down, is it codified anywhere . Not to my knowledge. But its just the fact that once this is established and we put extra scrutiny on the projects, just to make sure that, you know, its really up to staff and your supervisors . Correct. Thank you. Commissioner fong. General question for both departments. Based upon the stateed stated goal for the legislation, i presume that the departments can establish what attributes of permits and projects have created this response. Can you tell us the number of permits that relate to the various types of situations that might have led to the creation of this legislation . I mean, the easy one would perhaps you know, a major demolition without permitting and review. But im looking at other instances, other attributes that are covered by this legislation. We havent. We havent been able to pull together that type of data. Its not a very its not a queriabletype data set. We are we are anticipating that were going to pull together some numbers as best we can, prior to any adoption hearings on this. But again anecdotally, its a very small percentage. Those really egregious scenarios would be a very, very small proportion of the permits that we see in total. We process a huge number of permits overthecounter, that are oneday permits, that dont cause problems. So its within those projects typically routed for additional review and a small subset of that bucket of permits that are really the bad actors that are generating a lot of the concern for the need for changes. Is that cullable from your Computer Systems . No. But we could do some manual digging and parsing of project types, what we have done in the past and well do that again in the adoption of any hearing. Direct huey, did you have something that you wanted to add hold on. Youre not on the mic. Okay. Try it. Okay. The department of building inspection. One clarification i want to make is any, you know, we want to scrutinize the bad actor, its not the Department Acting alone. We always consult with the City Attorney for the permits. Only a handful of people. Were scrutinizing their project, with the consultation with the City Attorney. Thank you. Commissioner moss. Thank you. Just one last question for mr. Hepner, if i could. [laughter] concerning the fines. Specifically that the fines would go to the small sites program. I think i could see why that would make sense if were talking only about Single Family homes. I guess my question is why wouldnt we let the fines just go into the Mayors Office of housing, general fund. And let them have discretion over how to spend those funds . And i say that just because the new construction of Affordable Housing is and will remain the way we get the most amount of new units of Affordable Housing. I know were talking about preservation. I guess im wondering if that was considered at all. I will say about the fines, it is, you know, irrespective of where theyre designed to go, i think were operating from a position where the best penalty is one that is never enforced. On some level, look, i believe there should be some level to distinguish between firsttime innocent bad actors and repeat bad actors. To be able to reduce fines for that reason. I think we could probably incorporate other interesting ideas. But generally fines should be scary enough that youre not willing to run afoul of the code requirements. This is not the cost of doing business. As it has been for far too long. So we are trying to, yes, increase those fines to apply them more swiftly. And essentially to send a signal that, hey, you dont want to run afoul of the requirements, because it will land you in hot water quickly. Okay. Is that it for commissioner questions and clarifications . Madam president , mr. Reardon would like to make a comment. Id just like to add to a question that was asked just a few minutes ago, in regard to data, in regard to some of these projects. Just for your information, d. B. I. Has been tracking vertical additions. And we have been receiving information from our m. I. S. Team weekly, in regard to the issuance of vertical addition permits, constituting more than 350,000 of valuation. So we have that data over the past year. And the purpose of collecting the data was primarily to identify the projects and reach out to the projects. And encourage them to schedule an inspection before they start the work. And it might be interesting to note that we havent had any touch wood, we havent had any of these calamitous projects since we started doing that. So we do have data. Thank you, mr. Reardon. Okay. With that were going to take Public Comment on this. Im going to call out a few speaker cards. If you want to comment, please come on up and line up on the left wall, when i call your name. So anastasia, vivian wire, stephanie peak, dana, john, luke, john, suzannea, and michael. Im sorry. Please line up on the left side of the room and dont block the door. Thank you. And thank you, madam president. Before we get started, i think we should acknowledge that, you know, supervisor peskin came here today and set the tone for this meeting. And this is an informational and theres going to be a lot of changes made to the legislation. So the idea here today is to hear from everybody and what their concerns are on the legislation. So that they can process this and go back and maybe make those great changes that were looking for here. Thank you. I just want to make sure everybody is respectful to the process here. Thank you. Good day, commissioners. Im anastasia. District 8 tenant. Were here to address the problem that were losing Affordable Housing, including rentcontrolled Housing Stock. And adopt a solution to stem this loss. As supervisor peskin, the author of the proposed preserve and protect act points out, in the past ten years, over 4,200 affordable units have been lost through speculation by demolition, merger or expansion in San Francisco. District 8 has experienced 10 demolitions this year alone. I welcome the planning code revisions proposed that will preserve existing Affordable Housing, Curb Development of monster homes and add moderately priced units to our Housing Stock. Im pleased that tenant protections are enhanced, including the prohibition of demolition or removal of any housing unit, formerly occupied by a tenant, and declaration of tenant and tenant history by the project sponsors. Having a simple and easily calcuable way is a key to preventing the loss of Affordable Housing. Though i feel the 50 thresholds should be lowered t