non-combustible layers on top of the roof. >> seven to 10 fires each year? assuming * 100, giving a significant fires. i would dare say that most of these buildings are wood frame, next a wood frame. generally is not just the buildings that could damage, but the ones next to them. i understand the cost issue, but i also, especially in the light of the fact we are changing our name to the department of building safety, these are issues of great concern. when you have the opportunity to avoid setting fires and you have options within the realm of cost, it is good for us to consider. .

>> is my belief that these kinds of roofs are more durable. has anyone looked to compared to see how they work compared to other options? tar and gravel roofs, they do not last as long because the sun cracks the roof surface. >> it was my understanding that the hot modified approach of roofing is similarly durable to the force applied, basically the same materials being used. i believe that with a hot glue method, it is the same method, just instead of a torch you are using the hot glue approach. i imagine that the durability would be the same as it is the same fundamental roofing material being used. >> i have one question. on the glue to be used, are there environmental issues associated with the type of glue be used? >> not that we have heard of or

as far as we know. there is approved glue. >> is a water based? >> it has not raised any environmental or safety issues. >> any other public comments, commissioner? >> good morning, commissioners. i am a resident of 1161 hayes. in the constituent that brought this issue to the supervisor in the march of 2007. there roofers in the building next two hours on the square and the result of their using fortified roofing, the fire went into our suburb of, a predominately in my apartment, essentially destroying my apartment and the apartment next to it. since that time, this

legislation was introduced. two years ago the apartment fire in my place was three years ago. i understand some of the concerns around cost, but i will present to you and other options as far as cost, the cost to me as far as a constituent and my neighbors who had to leave their apartments for eight months, the $500,000 in damage to my building owner's apartment building to get handled, and in addition the fact that there are seven out of 10 fires each year happening in san francisco. the question before the apartment of building inspection is whether or not this practice is a practice that san francisco wants to allow or not allow regardless of cost. as was mentioned, new york city in 1999 and torture by moving completely. i spoke with a fire inspector last week in new york city and he asked them about that

ordinance and he remembered the fire, brought back to the city council on behalf of the fire marshal, who said that this would be a good idea for york city with his preponderant of wood frame buildings. the concerns of increased costs in addition to the effect on small roofers, they will adjust in 11 years. new york city has infinitely more construction than seven sisters and a density that is on par. as a constituent here, seeing the apart -- department's response and the fire department's lack of response, we went for this legislation two years ago. they know it is a consistent issue. to date if you have concerns regarding the band, personally i have yet to see anyone with a vested interest in terms of a written policy or any part of

the fire department to proactively address this issue. and it is an issue. seven to 10 fires each year but there is no change in the permitting process, enforcement admits that they do not really enforcing. two weeks after my fire, picking up the remains of my belongings, the roofers came back to finish the job with the same court to apply roofing. only upon by yelling at them and eventually having to call the police department, because no one answered of the fire department, did anyone come up to say and ask them to stop what they're doing, even though the police apartment admitted they had no control over permits. i ask for your support in supporting the man. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i would like to make a motion to support the ban on fortified roofing.

-- torch applied roofing. >> what is before us today is prohibition. banning the practice this material is wonderful for rooftop backs. they are all over the city and it is a wonderful material that is lightweight, expanding and contracting with the material. i have no problem with paying more money to have a system put in if it is safe for the neighbors and the building occupants. of course, this has come up a number of times where there have been fires due to this. this certainly should be watched and carefully monitored, but to take a product that is an excellent product and prohibit it from use, it really works

well in san francisco. particularly on these rooftop decks. their light weight compared to the old fashion systems with many layers that are heavier on the buildings and light weight in an earth rate -- earthquake prone area, which i think we should certainly regulate. no doubt about that. thank you very much. >> thank you. the next speaker? >> good morning, commissioners. luca brian. we wanted to weigh in on this. i think it is a bit of a monument to the reaction of the action that occurred. i detected from the speaker whose fire was affected some emotional backlash from what happened to him, which is very

understandable, but we would caution ourselves not to let emotions said in and dictate decisions that we make. i would like to investigate this a little bit more. i have been around job sites for many years, putting on routes myself. -- roofs myself. fortunately i have not had an incident like this. be reminded, commissioners, that it is not the torch that was responsible for the fire. it is the use are flying the torch and using the device, as well as the manager involved. not the process. that would be a much more appropriate decision to take, to say we just manage it.

-- ban it. cars blame people every year -- cars kill people every year, but we blame the people, not the cars. this is not an epidemic that we are dealing with, it is being overblown. a slight reaction to a situation looking for a problem. at best i would recommend a recommendation to look at enforcement safety on the job site. i am a little bit worried, but the other motivation, i am worried about how much that

plays into this as opposed to the safety issue. that is a concern i have. thank you. >> i have a question. as the previous speaker said, basically is the people that use the equipment knowing how to use it. it is a matter having a fire watch, someone out there watching this, you would not have it happening. the torch is an excellent product, as we know in the industry. this is not an appropriate way to go through with this. i would urge you not to vote for

it. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner? >> i have a question. >> sorry, one more. >> i wanted to clarify something about the code to advisory committee. at first we did not support the proposal as it is, but we did suggest that alternatives be looked at, as there is clearly a problem here if there are that many fires attributed to it as well as loss of property and possible loss of life. we also suggested that there perhaps be criminal penalties looked into. if someone is just going to be fined a few hundred dollars for doing this and the king caused so much damage, there should be more serious action and consequence. we just wanted people to take a broader look at it.

we were also concerned that there was not input from the moving industry at the meeting. i notice that the supervisor did have some information from them. had that been presented to us, it might have changed things. >> thank you. i see no more speakers. public comment is closed. commissioner? >> one of my questions is for clarification and i wish there was someone from the industry here, we are talking about banning a process, not a product. there are a lot of ways to the same product on the roof and what we are saying, i think, is banning the use of open porches as a method of using the asphalt shingles on the rue. and there are other ways of

doing that. if someone could clarify that? there has been a lot of back- and-forth about a process and i think that that is a little bit of a difference. i just wanted to clarify. >> i can clarify with my understanding, the asphalt top of the roof is the same on each. there's one set of rules that would have it on the torch and another side that you would with a hot glue on. there are different types of the same product. yes, it is the type that uses a propane torch melting it onto the roof that would be affected by the band.

jolie of lying to combustible roofs. -- only applying to them possible routes. -- only applying to combustible roofs. >> this torch applied moving band, i would like to go ahead with my -- torch applied roofing, i would like to go ahead with my amendment. >> seconded. >> i disagree. it is possible that we could have a roofing expert explain it u.s.. -- to us banning the practice seems extreme at this point. how many groups are we talking about annually? half of them are causing fires? i would like to know what the

numbers are. can we do seven out of 10? what are the numbers? the problem is that roofers that are doing this incorrectly, is there some way to regulate this? should there be a permit process? helping to generate some statistics for us, maybe that should be the rap -- the last stop. people that come up to speak and say that their home was affected, accidents happen. i apologize for accidents. they are unfortunate but they are accidents. i would like to revisit this

issue in perhaps six months or year. [no audio]

>> an order has been recommended that uses all sorts of kinds of services -- services -- surfaces, but said nothing about keeping the flame from going

through. i also sympathize with anyone who had a loss caused by fire. anyone can have a fire. i just do not think that banning it is practical. it is not a practical thing to do. and people are willing to do it anyways. a lot of contractors are going to do it. and they will do it under cover. put up parts and covers and the business will continue doing it. probably putting the property in more danger. you know? you know? i would like to refer this back to the department and have them come up with some ideas. some people in the department that know what they're talking about instead of having people that have probably never spent too much time on a roof coming

in here and telling us what we should and should not do. >> we have a motion and we need to take a vote on the motion. >> i would like to make a couple of comments by a response. i appreciate the concern over the impact of the idea of using enforcement methods, but what we have seen in the years since the fire is the difficulty in enforcing this. no one is really out there looking to enforce this. basically the only way to get any substantial enforcement would be to hire more officers at a cost that would be conveyed to the permit holders. which would negate any sort of savings that you could have by being able to use this applied roofing. and i think the difficulty of knowing who is a permanent roofer and was not, the clarity that we see in this is if you

have a torch on a wooden roof, that would be a violation of the law. that is the kind of clarity that we need to ensure the safety of wooden roofs. as far as more hard statistics on the fire, we would work with the fire department and bring it back to you for future consideration. what you have made a good point there regarding enforcing it. i think it could be made part of the inspection process. when a deck is ready to be roofed, it should be inspected first. one more inspection. the department would collect a fee for that. dad is the suggestion. there are ways around this if we come down and talk it out. we would love to work again. >> i appreciate that.

we would be glad to look into it as well. >> perhaps we would find more information about what this gentleman was talking about. was the reverse certified? was he licensed? or did you roll off the street and go up there thinking he could do this job? >> we have a motion on the floor. my question, would you like us to continue this and resolve these issues and work with the department and code advisory committee and roofing industry? >> that sounds like the best. reviewing this further and coming back with a review. >> in that case i withdraw my second. [inaudible] >> just to let you know, this is

sort of the same situation as the last item, regardless of what we do, the board of supervisors will vote on it. what we do afterwards, they may vote for it or against it. we are simply not giving a chance to give them our opinion. >> i can say that i could definitely relate our conversation to the supervisors , delaying a vote on this until we have had further discussion. >> we would certainly love to talk to them and trade ideas. >> at least for me, there does not seem to be the body of statistical information, or at least coordination between the industry or cohesiveness to the direction of thought necessary to create a prohibition as opposed to where regulatory enforcement can put it in place.

an option for homeowners, as opposed to outright preventing or prohibiting the use of torch's. because flames are used for a lot of other instances and there is no provision of using, for example, a barbecue gas flame barbeque on a wooden deck. >> how about i make a motion to continue this item and have the department come up with some suggestions on how we can regulate this practice. building some statistics, perhaps looking for the supervisor's office to sign it. hopefully he will understand and take that into consideration once the discussion is on the level. >> we would be very supportive

of that. >> second. >> do we have to call a vote? >> can we continue the item? >> all of those in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the motion is continued. the next item is item number 7. >> good morning, commissioners. the development impact program went into effect on july 1. as of yesterday we had 30 applications in the feed program with total valuation dove over

$2.5 million. we are expecting some bigger projects to be submitted near the end of the month. we have spent hours of staff time explaining the process to project sponsors that would like to take advantage of this program that have not heard of it before. of course, we have frequent customers to know the program and are working with applicants. it is working, albeit very slow, but it is working better compared to last year at this time. it is having an impact on the amount of projects being submitted for plan jackets. >> how many were on the list that were potentially going to apply or had permits?

aside from the 30 that of wide and can be notified or educated on this? -- that applied or can be notified or educated on this? >> in terms of readiness for approval without government impact fees, we have had three of those projects come forward. they are still held up in planning. the permits i am talking about our applications that are brand new to the system. these are brand new projects, family homes, replacement decks, additions and things like this. when people do hear about it, they are really proud of the fact that we're looking towards them and trying to help them financially. >> thank you. are any of the eastern

neighborhood projects moving forward? >> i think that one of them has submitted further, that is all. just one so far. >> thank you. >> any public comments on item number 7? >> i see none. >> item #8, report on the process of handling, managing, and resolving billing notices of violation issues to property owners. >> good morning, commissioners. i am handling ore processing the building violation from the property owners. i am pleased to report today on this item. i will give you a brief overview

and respond to some specific questions as we get more details. i have some reporting data, if you need that, and welcome the opportunity for discussion. as you know, let me begin with an introduction and i will go over some terms and complaints, notices of violation and orders of abatement. in general, for our approach, as public safety is a matter of paramount importance and the goal of the code enforcement section is to obtain compliance with all required safety regulations while protecting due process of the parties involved. ideally there is voluntary compliance. >> unfortunately, punitive measures can be necessary to