there are certain parts of what you are asking here of us and guidelines for the review of the continuous tie down system to be used and resist and over turning the light frame wood and sheer walls and i don't think that we have an issue with that,; is that correct?? >> we could approve that, but i think that i would like to make a motion to pull out ab 332 and have the further discussion. >> if i could get a second on that. >> second. >> okay. >> the item will be continued. >> yes. >> ab32. >> and we should continue it either to the call of the chair, so it would be up to you, or, set a specific date. >> to the call of the chair. >> if that is okay with my fellow commissioners.

>> and the motion that ab 032 be continued to the call of the chair, is there a public comment on that. >> seeing none do i have a roll call vote? >> a roll call vote on the motion to continue this to the call of the chair? >> president mccarthy? >> yes. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar? >> yes. >> xh commissioner walker? >> yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. the second part of this is to approve the ab84, is there a

motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> and with the motion and a second. and is there any public comment. ? >> mccarthy nyes. >> mar. >> yes. >> lee. >> yes. >> mccray. >> yes. >> melgar. >> yes. >> commissioner walker >> yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. >> on to item 7, discussion and possible action regarding a proposed new administrative bulletin, ab 107, application of engineering criteria in sfbc chapter 34 b. >> from the building department, and we can't change the weather, but hopefully we can give you a sunny report on the soft story program. >> we are here to give you a short summary of the program and to ask for your approval of

ab 107. and so far, we sent out 6,000 forms, screening forms in september, and we have accepted 341 forms, 219 of these are in the program, and 122 are exempt from the soft story program and 59 forms have been rejected because they need the additional information and they might be missing a stamp. 6 permits have been issued since september. four are in plan check right now.

>> section a is general and applies to all criteria and section b is for p, 807 and cthrough f is for 41, 31, and a4. so, part a is the general requirement and again, this starts on page 2, and again it applies to all of the engineering criteria and the ab 107 is part b, 807 and the publication is written in the commentary form and not in the building code language. and so that is why, we dedicated the section to putting it into a building

code, format so that all of the architects of the engineers can use it. this applies to all of the engineering criteria, sfc, 31, and 4 also. >> so, here is a picture of a soft story building. and when the earthquake comes all of the damage is usually concentrated on the first floor, and if you put up a piece of plywood in between the opening, and you will improve the performance of the building, when the earthquake comes there will be less damage on the first floor. and if you put in a second piece of plywood on, it will improve the building a little bit more but eventually if you

put in another piece of plywood, the performance does not improve because are the shifting the damage to the second floor and that is why we are making this change to the other engineering criteria. and so, to summarize, there are two main components to the ab and the first one is to put into the building code language, 807 and the second component is to limit the strength of the retrofit of the first story. and we are asking your approval for the ab today. >> i have a question. so. >> i get the concept of putting of transferring the damage up to the second floor. does it necessarily flow that there would be an increased damage on the first floor if you don't, you know, if you stop allowing that? i guess that it does not matter, i guess that it is whether you... >> so if you don't do anything, we have a soft story.

>> yeah, i understand. >> and you have damage on the first floor. >> so, my question, and yeah. >> go ahead. >> and excuse me, i think that, what i am trying to get at it is allowing or limiting what you can do on the first floor, if we allowed it, it would not strengthen the first floor and it would shift the damage to the second floor. in addition to not strengthening the first floor any more. >> that is correct. >> i got it now. >> the idea really is, if you could retrofit the whole building, you are better off putting the plywood on the second floor basically. >> i see. >> but the purpose of the ordinance, we are restricting the work to the first floor that is why we are stopping. >> i get it. >> i commend you on all of the good work. >> no, we like it. >> a lot of the people, it is well done on that program.

>> is there public comment on item 7? >> okay, seeing none, is there a motion to approve? >> move to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? >> okay, and the motion carries unanimously. item 8, update on status of abatement of notice of violations. >> good morning commissioners. this item number eight, is similar to the other item, and the other code enforcement and dbi monthly update. and so, what we did is as far

as housing goes, and we will put these numbers together for bid, and we did not have a date and we will give a date range from the year from january 1 to november 19, filed was 2703, and the complaints filed on notice of violations closed and abaited, and so that is notice of violations, that we will not do the inspection and the notice of violation and pull the permit out and comply and which was 1911. and the bid notice of violations of the complaint were still active is 98. and the complaints still investigated to 694, out of the complaints that are being investigated some of this is access. and some of this is research of the documents for that number. and as for, the calendar year, up to date.

and with those complaints and notice of violations, 70 percent, 71 percent of them, abaited. and all of the issues you know, for the calendar year, here. and the nov from the complaints 3 percent. and in the open ones with the 26 percent. >> make sure that the grand jury gets that report. will you? >> okay. >> that is very good. i think that is a very good statistics and i think that we are getting there. >> we are trying very hard. >> the staff are trying very hard and the housing and everybody is paying close attention to this. >> and a lot of these novs are just housekeeping. >> that is correct. >> well done. >> and if i could just add the

report that we did for a monthly statistics show that we have abaited a lot of cases and our, and we are in a significant increase in the amount of inspections, because the 7 new inspecters are now in the districts a couple of months and writing notices of violations quite frequently and so we are trying to keep on top of all of them. >> thank you. >> there are no more commissioners comment? >> is there any public comment on item eight? >> see none, item 9, discussion of how fees and penalty are assessed for the dbi enforcement actions under the building, electrical plumbing and mechanical and housing codes. >> and the deputy director of the apartment services and i have been asked to give you an overview of how and what we assess.

as far as penalties. with bid, plumbing electrical and building inspection and there are three kinds of assessments that can happen and there is the ones that you are familiar with and the nine times penalty for work without a building permit and i would like to add that we are the only jurisdiction in california that charges the 9 times the penalty. and that is if you absolutely have no building permit, at all, that is what, that is what we assess on you. the second one that you are probably fairly aware of is, beyond the scope of a building permit. and so, for instance, you have got you are supposed to do a foundation, only, and we go out there and we see that you are doing the foundation, but you have a little bit of an addition going on and you have an extra kitchen, or something like that. those penalties are assessed at

times two. and the third one that is not talked about too much, we get them every year and not that many thank god. is for the fires, floods, land slides, cars in the buildings, act of god. and most of those we get called out through the fire department sometimes the police department sometimes the dpw. there is no penalties for those. we issue a notice of violation, usually unsafe building. a lot of them we call unsafe building because the car goes into a building and it takes out three or four studs and it is more of a fix it ticket and so there are the three notices. in the building code, it or how that is how we assess them. and on the third floor, where the building, plumbing and

electrical, they, issue a notice of violation and the building code does not give any specific time to, like, for instance, you put in the inlaw, or you put in the three windows and you must have a permit in 30 days it does not do that and we give them reasonable time and the reason that we do that it is so vast that it could be someone built a building without a permit and not going to get one for two years or if you do a demolition, you could be in planning for the next three or four years. if you do work to historical building and you alter it, you might never get a permit and as a matter of fact if you get complaints from the neighbors, or other departments, you could be stuck in planning, building, or one of the other board of appeals, abatement appeals? for periods of years.

the time clock really starts when we give them a second notice of violation. and the code says that after they get a second notice of violation, we have to take into what we call a director's hearing and you have 30 days in which to get them to a director's hearing. the code is, specific and it says at a director's hearing, the hearing officer has some discretion, but you have to he can't give you more than 365 days and not more than one extension of that and that is not to be more than 365 days, and i could tell you through the experience, giving 365 days for somebody who is at a director's hearing is extremely rare and it is never happens and it is 30 or 60 and it is something about a permit.

>> it allows that if the person who is doing the work was unfamiliar with the code, or one of his, or if he can prove that one of his employees was negligent, we could take that into consideration, and the like, the time is nine penalty we can probably reduce it a little bit and also, if you buy a house as you all know, it is a buyer's market, people are finding it difficult to get housing, they will buy a house with notices of violation not really understanding what that is all about. and then they come to us and say wait a minute this is $100,000 times 9, it is $100,000 worth of work, they ask for a relief and the code allows us to go from time to

times two. in the work is particularly bad, we have the ability to go into the repair and demolition fund and we do that often, the only ones that we have used we are waiting on the payment. we have the option after the director's hearing to give an order abasement after an order of abatement, and it basically, let's everybody know that there is a problem with your building. after order after abatement for the buildings that we consider are unsafe and hazardous, and we have the option of sending it to the city attorney and of course, at the end of the year, everybody gets, and everybody who has not taken care of their order of abatement gets to go to the board of supervisor where we place a tax lien on your property. and i am available for questions and i am sure rose

mary probably has a few things to say. >> commissioner mar? >> it seems like this report is a little bit related to the previous one on the nov, problems, that we have had. >> and so, here is one of the things, especially because this is on the building side. and i know that the goal is compliance. and not just the fees, or the penalties the people that started to work without the permits and i am just trying to understand and especially for the building, and beyond the scope of the work. and there seems to be little effort. to take down the illegal project and rather it is much easier for them to say that i can get it legalized and i am just going to apply for a

permit, or apply through the planning that will take years. and so then, it sits there. the work just sits there while they apply for their permit or the plans, which may or may never come. and so that, i think that is part of the frustration, of some of the novs and some of the frustration of labors, and i know that we have criticized and the anonymous neighbors and that is the frustration out there that there is no attempts to say that look you built this illegally and very easy to resolve, take it down. and you know, so what, and i am just trying to get a handle on what you see there. >> the building permit, the code, it specific, and it says that you must legalize or remove. and you get that option. >> so we can't tell you where the building department code

says that you must remove it and then we talk about it, what the code says is that we have got you and we have got you for fines. it can get worse and there are the tax liens and everything else and while they are in the code enforcement, we do have the option of sometimes saying, you know, we know you, and it is not the first time. and we are going to give you an order, and we are going to give you an order of abatement. and there is a few things that we can do. and but essentially, the building code allows you to legalize it. >> and so we are, it is the code. >> and deputy, sorry commissioner mar? >> just, don't we have a pretty clear assessment of some projects where we know that it is impossible to legalize. and i mean that of course some things can be legalized and the small project and the minor project and where there are zoning issues involved and where there are mostly beyond the scope of the permit it happens on your small jobs but

they are the ones that will be difficult. and there are there is one on procidio that, it was a fourth floor deck and we treat it and it was more than 500 square feet and so we treat it as acting as a new floor and he had to put in two means of egress during the course of the investigation. and we or one of it is places that was going to be a second egress he had to have an easement through a partial easement through a neighbor's property and we caught that and stopped it. and there is a lot of things that you can do on things of violations of that nature and it is, and it, the building official has that power to where he can say okay you can't give me two, legal means of

egress however if you put the floor, the floor ceiling assembly at one hour and you put that one exit that is the local equivalency and we can give you your deck. so it is very vast and it is very complicated. >> commissioner lee? >> i am not sure if commissioner mar was alluding to the fact that if we find the violation during construction and we stop the construction and it takes years for the owner to get the approved permits to finish building it, then that construction site just sits there and it might look blighted, is there any flexibility on our part to tell or in instruct the property owners of what they need to do to secure the site to make it less look like a blight? >> one example that might effect them also is that if they are building an addition, they might be or have torn down

a wall and now the interior is exposed. >> i can give you an example, the documents were altered and called it in and that has been sitting there for it has got to be four years and he twoent planning and planning said tear it down. and he refused to do it and it is at the city attorney. if you wait a year you get to reapply, that is what he has done. >> would you say... >> in the meantime he has a building that is not properly... proofed and he needs to come in periodically and ask to rewater proof it. >> and so what, what do we do? what can we do to make it less

of a blighted situation for the neighborhood? >> well, he has an order of abatement and the case has been referred to the city attorney. and the city attorney is actively going after him. >> that is the only recourse that we have. >> yeah. >> i think that you know, there are some sophisticated people who exploit the system. >> yeah. >> he was an, engineer. >> with regard to, kind of, and the commissioner mar's concerns, if we don't have to go back to planning and it is all solved in the dbi structure, family, as it were. >> how quickly do the turn arounds of those ones? >> we treat them like ne other building permit >> that one did get resolved it is just when it leaves your department and it is outside of your jurisdiction, it is when you find that it is going to sit out there. >> it is when they go beyond the building envelope and now all of a sudden it is so much larger. >> if you put in a kitchen and it is an over the counter

permit. >> they are all, they are all dealt with and resolved. >> it is not too often that we get those, but yes. >> yeah, we do get them. >> it is your experience that the ones that we are talking about here are the ones that have gone outside of the will envelope of the approval. >> yes. >> okay. >> any questions? >> i have a question. >> you mentioned that after a second notice of violation is issued to a property, and it will go to a director's hearing, right? >> yes. >> and is there any way to speed up the process and i don't know if the recipients of these notice of violations would agree to it, but could they request it going straight to the director's hearing? >> well, i mean, that it might save us some. >> i believe that they could but they never do. >> are they givener the option? >> we don't tell them, >> why not? >> would that save us a little

time? >> and instead of waiting for the second notice of violation. >> i suppose that it would. >> yeah. >> i don't know too many that would agree to that. because, it is going to take them time to get the plans and the permits to fill out. and fill out the form and bring it down. >> and it will be to elect it would be. >> excuse me? >> how would the vehicle to do that? >> change it. >> and you need to change the code? it is not an appeal? >> for instance, you can get a notice of violation and you can go straight to the appeals board. or you can go straight to the board of permit of appeals. and incidentally, the board of appeals, 99 out of 100 reduced the penalty from times nine to times two, they don't even discuss it any more, the only times that they discuss is it when one of the commissioners is ... >> i am shortening the time frame and, right now the way that it is the people just sit on it and wait for the second violation to come and i am

wondering if my help... >> some do. >> i was ra her go straight to the process. >> given, your explanation of the three levels and i don't think that there is any disagreement on the last one which is just no additional cost for accidents and acts of nature or whatever. but it seems like we do have the discussion from two times to nine times and i think that is where the time question should come in. because if the owners are going to sit on it for two or three years my thing is that we are going for it for nine times if they want to resolve it quicker, and do it in 6 months or something reasonable. depending on the scope of work. then i think that we want to again, the point is to abait, not to assess the fees. and i think that we have some discretion there and the only other point that i would like to add is that i know the time and planning does not go together. and so my only thing is what do

you do when someone says it is in planning. i do feel that we do have discretion and the discretion of two times verses nine times, is the only hammer that we have. if they are going to take the time they should go for the maximum fees. >> good point. >> we need to look at this and we are speeding up our director hearing, now. this is two hearing per week and then, when, you know, we may suggest to the home owner or the permit holder to come in and go for the hearing, and you know, and speed up the process, and you have seen the incentive to come in to clean up and then we can put it in, and you know that kind of a suggestion for them and we could enter into the code that we could say that

if you come in within, 30 days and put in for a building permit. we will work with you on your penalties. >> and so how, it would be, it would be a good tool. >> yeah, how do we do that? >> we change the code. >> and what, we can do to start with, and the information sheet. and you know, yeah. >> and then to the public, and then we could have that, and in from the public and em pose it on the nine. and then, we will do the change in, and leave it on. >> could we, maybe put something together for to take a look at our next meeting? and then... >> i would be happy to put something together. >> perfect. >> if you happen to come up with anything else while you are thinking those terms bring that along. >> thank you. >> do we have any more questions? >> no. >> okay, good. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 9? >> seeing none, item ten,

discussion of dbi assessment of the 52 monitoring fee, in accordance with the sf building code tables 1 a-k including estimated budget cost. >> >> you are busy deputy today. >> and good morning commissioners. >> director. and inspection services. both divisions having division and the dbi is in person, the 52 monitoring fee. and we are loaded up and we, and we gave the one notice of it and it has to be charged as far as the few, there is some confusion that we are working with the city attorney right now, and it is difficult sometimes when the issue of notice of violation, when the date of the monitoring takes effect. and the great example of that is the issue of notice of violation and allow the 30 days before the monitoring fe