over there and you can ask him a question that you can answer for you. is that is what we need in san francisco. and you don't see it in the last (inaudible) and (inaudible) you can ask anybody here (inaudible) you ask those guys and then these two guys, they are the best in san francisco and we used to get them for the (inaudible) thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, president and commissioners. jeremy shaw from (inaudible) architect and while the rest of the speakers in front of me probably have a lot more experience than i do been working in san francisco for 8 years now and i have always known if there is an issue i can speak to tom or dan and they have been always available to speak to the public via, the citizens or architects like myself or anyone involved in the project sponsor team and i

would like to express my support. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> hello, gardener again, before you. and i would like to emphasize, the important of continuity in the department and not only in the building department, but, among the other departments. and dpw, and water departments, and you know, fire, in particular, and tom, and his team and a lot of them are here today, and we have been working with for the last few years, since we went to this process in the last time. and you know, we have made, significant progress. and we have learned a lot from that last process. and you know, we understand that you have to go through it again and you have the proper procedures, and you know, at this point, you know, we have

not established hierarchy and we have not established the people running the department and they worked together and worked well with the community and i just think that you know if you hire somebody from the outside, there is going to be a disconnect, a huge disconnect and it is going to take, you know, months and maybe years for a new person to get acclamated to the way that the city works, there is so much involved that someone from the outside is not going to be able to comprehend and we feel that tom is in place now and he has got his team. and you know, i think that when you are going to find is that tom, you know, is going to stack up, very, very well. against those that you bring in from the outside. i mean, he and you know that we have the hill span and the head and shoulders above them and tom is humble and he is sitting

over there and but, you know, we just feel that way and we hope that you guys agree with this and you know we will keep him in place and his team. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> mr. president, and commissioners, my name is john mccain artle and i became a resident of san francisco in 1969 and i started out as a tenant. and in the mid 70s, i chose to with some friends of mine become a housing provider. the skills that i provided that i had at that time, was i was able to be a painter. and i was able to be a window washer and able to be a janitor in the housing that we first invested in. and i was not familiar with the code work and i did not have any background as an electric an or a plumber or a carpeter

and so in order to do that kind of code work in the buildings that i was involved in, i had to get, people who have the skills and the capabilities of doing that. the thing that i found at that time, was their reaction was, yeah i will work for you, but you go and get the permits. and that is when i learned something about permits that were required, in san francisco. and in the past several years, as i was able to grow the business that i was involved in investing in, that became something that was not necessary. because, the contractors that were involved could go to san francisco's department of building, to get the permits and the reaction was we will take care of that. and now, i can't speak to the technical skills of these gentleman, that are being talked about. but i can talk about what it is

like to be able to accomplish what my objective was. and my partner's objectives are, in being able to go to someplace to get the work done which was necessary and that the code requirements of san francisco. and the other side of it, that became interesting, was that as we did the development of the units in buildings, and other tenants who have been much longer tenants and who were under rent control they expected and we are entitled to the same thing well i am sorry but the numbers do not support that. and we can't do a new piece of appliance for your unit, maybe we can do it for those that are moving in as the new tenants coming into the property that we are involved and invested in. >> if that issue became the complaints by the tenants and the housing department, and the dbi got involved, we were able

to communicate to those that are involved and that were living in our buildings that say hey, it is not all the same for everybody. and that was a benefit that we saw from the last few years and i would encourage you that those that are involved in running these departments continued to be involved. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> i just want a quickly state my support for tom, and he is an outstanding gentleman, and very hope helpful and knowledgeable and i hope to see him in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners my name is john singleton and i am a retired

building inspector and i worked for the department for 20 years and i have known tom and worked with him for a long time. and there is no better man for the job than tom. >> i also met dan when he was working at the park ball and he was very inquisitive asking me all kinds of questions. he said any chance that i can be a building inspector and sure this is what you do and he is there now and i fully support him now too. >> thank you. >> next speaker? is there any more speakers after this >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is homer jim and i work for a company that requires me to do a lot of interacting with the building departments in the bay area. and i am just speaking from my own personal professional experience with tom and dan. and when you go to a big

building department like san francisco, you can get lost in the stuffle. and my experience with tom, and it has always been that they have always had a hope door poll policy and they are responsive and promote the training and enrichment with theirs and so i support is with tom and dan, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> i am a contractor in the city and i have been working with the department for many years and i would like to voice my support for tom and dan, i find that working for the department today is the most pleasured experience that i have with them and i feel that the morale of the department personnel is also at an all time high like you to appoint them to the permanent position and it is the best thing for the city. >> next speaker. is there any other speakers

after this? >> good afternoon, i support tom hewey. >> thank you. >> seeing no more speakers, we can close public comment. >> >> okay. >> and i need to and the city attorneys and i will need to read item six and we will have a motion to not hear the item. >> okay. >>closed session public employee appointment director of the department of building inspection. discussion and possible action to interview candidates for the position of director of the department of building inspection. >> move to not go into closed session. >> any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, we can make a motion to not go into closed

session. >> move to not go into closed session. >> seconded. >> okay. there is a motion and a second to not have closed session. and to continue this discussion to the september 5th meeting. >> okay. >> so moved. >> and we have a roll call vote on item? >> president mccarthy. >> aye. >> vice president mar. >> yes. >> commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> is that motion carries unanimously. and on to item number 7.

discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance (clerk of the board file no. 130782) amending the buildingcode to modify some of the evaluation and retrofit criteria for the mandatory earthquake retrofit program and add seismic members to the board of examiners; amending the housing code to require a report of residential building record (3r report) to include information on whether a building is included in the program and whether the required upgrade has been completed; adopting environmental findings and findings of local conditions under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board to forward the legislation to specified state agencies. >> always a pleasure and before you is a few things and so i would like to focus on item 7 specifically which we are looking for action from this commission today on. and the other items that he will be presenting are for information only and to give you an update as to what is happening with the soeft story ordinance and it is enforcement and so before you, is a might a change to the ordinance which we knew was coming and this was discuss at len it ising and it provides a few things and it provides some technical bench marking and so what is unique about this is that it allows for five different standards to be utilized and the association in the california deserves a lot of credit and they took it upon themselves to embark on a bench marking study to use the new standards that we have not

dealt with before in san francisco, like fema or 7 and they spent the summer looking at different solution to make sure that if the applicant choose to use any of these five that they are relating in the same level. and it does not change the ordinance and it does bring in all of the standards in line with connection with one another. i would love to show you this example which is down here, here you go. so this is a typical san francisco-style apartment building, which has been constructed on the largest shake table in the country at uc san diego and this is in involvement with several parties, (inaudible) with a large sponsor and they really what was unique is that they really build a building that belongs in our city and they have been testing this for the last two months with several solutions and the best video is when they took all of the solutions out and shook it to the ground and so that is on you tube if you feel like

looking at it. so this is great and validates our work. >> the engineer community is behind this 100 percent and so through this study, they have made some minor tweaks to the standards and the level and the other technical issues regarding the soil conditions that really bring it all in ini form with itself and recommended unanimously by the sac which i would like to thank (inaudible) who has done a phenomenal job leading that group and this is a simple change to the different subcommittees and so aside from the technical modifications, some of the things that have been added is the board of examiners and so we don't anticipate that many of these will hit, and it is an unlikely situation and the event that it does we were prepared for that and we will take an approach similar to that so in the event that there is case, and specifically for the soeft story, they will have three

seismic improvement members and all of these members are required to be a licensed architect or engineer and in addition to that one is required to be a property owner and one a tenant and one is required to be a seismic expert and so this is very similar to what is been done in the past with other programs and it is really just a housekeeping issue to make sure that we are prepared. and the other thing in there is something that we agreed to when the ordinance was going through the process with the realtor association and other the interests that made sure that this is disclosed. and that these were transferred at the time of the sale, this adds two simple questions to the report and was this building subject to the program and has the work been completed and that is coming to you with the approval. and so aside from that, those are the items that are before you today and there actually is pointed out a clarity sake and one more addition to the code.

and i would like to go up there and that is the item that we are asking for action to today. okay. >> thank you, if there are any questions. >> yeah. >> regarding the membership, and have anybody done a study on the pool of structural engineers that would be qualified to sit on these committees? >> yes. >> how is that? >> the pool is very large. and we don't anticipate any of the problems with the members meeting any of the three qualifications. >> are they required to be san francisco residents? >> technically no, they tend to be the make-up of the board of examiners but it is not specified that they have to be a tenant or a property owner in the city limits. >> the tenant and the property owners do not need to live in the city. >> well, it might be further it

is in the text. however the charter may say something different and i may be incorrect on that. >> it is my experience that all of the appointees have to be and unless there is no pool in which case we can go outside but there has to be. >> that is why i asked. because i don't think that the pool of san francisco structural engineers are that large. is that large. >> and yeah, initially, i hate to disagree with you it is the contrary. >> it is very, very... >> yes, okay and so i don't see any problems of how to assign these with the san francisco residents. >> okay. >> okay. is there any further discussion? >> so we need to make a motion to accept these? >> yes. move to approve. >> and we need to take the

public comment first. >> ned, finny i wanted to thank patrick to the pardon work and, it is helping us to deal with the issues so that we are prepared and i also wanted to call out the seonk's efforts as patrick mentioned and did a fantastic job to make sure that all of the codes are in alliance to make sure to get a quick and easy fix and we are talking about all fixes are uniform and that was an important step and we knew that it was coming and we kind of had a place holder for it and they came in just in time so that when the projects actually start it will go off as planned. >> perfect. thank you very much. >> commissioner walker has a question. >> i do. in looking at the tenant who is also needs to be a licensed and

registered architect we have collaborativives that are going to help our department with the technicalities of going through this and helping with the tenant displacement and getting or dealing with the tenants on the ground. it would be advantageous. and so, i don't know that we need to put it in the discretion in the legislation, but it would help in our department process to have somebody that is already connected with that process. and so, i don't know, i don't think that we have to further delen ate. >> i completely agree, i think that would not be a problem and since you all would be appointing that member any way, i think that is more than fair. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> thanks. >> okay. >> so i am actually up here for the second. >> and you can stay there for a second we have public comment up first. >> that public comment was done. >> now we need a motion. >> move to approve this legislation. >> second. >> take a roll call vote on the item. >> president mccarthy? >> aye. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner lee >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> and commissioner walker. >> yes. >> the motion passed unanimously. okay. thank you very much. commissioners. and now i can do the fun stuff now that we got the business out of the way, i am pleased to inform you that the soeft story out reach and the preparation was starting positive and i would like to thank acting

director and robert from the team and thanks to the efforts this is going swimmingly, and we have done... >> i am sorry to interrupt you. >> we are on item 8 and informational presentation from the earthquake safety program. >> the funds have been given to the department as you as commissioners are well aware as well as a small amount to my division to team up and do the out reach. >> the director and i will be reaching out through the supervisor district and groups. there is four main areas of out reach that we are anticipating, the engineering community, and there is the builders and the community that want to make sure that they are building these constructing these to the proper standard in accordance with the documents and the property owners that are affected and the tenants living in these buildings, we want to are sure that they have the avenues to stay in their place of residence during these and

apply for any rent, or hardships if need to given the individual situations. >> so through this, it has been exciting and as i mentioned did an out reach event and it was well attended and a lot of thoughtful questions and as we get out there and talk to the community more and more we are starting to see the knowledge base grow. when we started there were the questions and the general questions have been addressed to the larger extent and this is great. and tracking wise this is right where these people should be at this time. dbi is on track to send out the notices next month and the way that property owner notification project will look, if you are one of these 6,000 people there will be a notice to say what this is and why you are sent this information and gives you the important dates with compliance and it will be

offering you the first brown bag lunch. and we have already provided uppeder a separate contract, some training to dbi staff to be able to plan check this, but that is just the beginning, we inend to do more work with the staff. make sure that the permits are coming in and matching what they are. and it is tentatively schedule the seminar and we will be speaking at and will continue from there on and we are hoping to record these and put them as live on the website so for those who are not able to attend they can actually see the experts themselves speaking on this matter. >> underneath the notice, there will be a screening form and it can be completed by any architect or engineer and it is a screening process and you opt out of the ordinance and you have completed a voluntary retrofit and you only, and the

architect and engineer to sign that form, the property own cer put the application on there and opt out provided that it is signed by the department. >> underneath that screening form, is the ininstruction form and we know that the people will have the questions as they start to go through this and when we drafted the screening form we did not want to create the big form that had all of the instructions, it is simple and as you read that it is a tax document and if you look at section one and you have a question, you can go to the ininstructions that are ten pages los long. and so it works hand in hand with the screening form and so in addition to doing the public out reach, the instructions themselves are self-explanatory and the fourth item in there is a flier for a financing workshop that we are going to be co-hosting with the department association and this is going to be on october 23rd at fort mason from 6 to 8 p.m. and the we know that people will need access to funding and

so by this mailer being sent out we can take advantage of the unique timing and notify the effective property owners very accurately that there is a financing workshop in place for them and this is a place where the team of over 20 private lendsers will be setting up their own tables as well as the exciting news that i am happy to share with you today that the program is being amended to issue the loans to the mandatory and voluntary up grades. we started creating our own parallel program which is a similar financing mechanism and we realized that the department of the environment was willing to team up. this is a great way to use an existing program for a real public need and also have representatives from that to share about their program. prior to take action on, but we do have legislation that is traveling through the board right no and introduced by the

mayor and co-sponsored and for the legislation to basically change the minucia of the tax laws to issue the loans on this but we are excited about releasing that funding mechanism as well. also so in addition to the financing workshop, some of the technical workshops that we are doing and also working with a lot of the tenant communities and indicated to us that until this notice goes out there is not a lot of knowledge happening there, once this mailing goes out in september, we are going to see a big blast frefsh, we are going to understand that the property owners get it and the tenants are concerned about it and we have been trying to hold at this point and i think that is when the rubber hits the road and that is where we are geared up for the out reach and we are working with the community to make sure that the people now how to deal with this >> just a question about the financing, if people come to the city for the financing and there may be a connection

between tenants and not increasing rents obviously the safety is a big concern, but obviously, the pass through allowance. and so it does not change the pass through allowance at all. through the green, financing you can do several different improvements or solar panels and which follow the existing controls some of them are 50 percent and the goal of the program is not to change that at all it is really to maintain the same requirement and deal with the existing rent board processes. so is there a difference, if you are using the criteria that already exists, that exists the 50 percent pass through. it depends on the building size, so it gets complicated. quick. and if we are talking about seismic work required by law it is 100, and... >> is it per the state? >> per the rent ordinance. >> local? >> local.

>> and i don't want to comment further on that because it gets outside of my realm of expertise and on the voluntary basis it is not always a 50/50 for the buildings with smaller units five or fewer you are able to pass through 100 if it is six or more it is split. we are trying to provide a funding option and follow the existing processs in place, i know that a piece of legislation that was going through that was part of the agreement in getting the soft story ordinance is supervisor chiu has introduced legislation that will help to stream line the hardship process for those people that we know are on the means tested income, and actually living in these situations under a hardship it will stream line the process for them so this is a big win, but this is for all capitol improvements and so i think that improving our own shop there is a very good for the city to be doing and so we look forward to working with

supervisor chiu as he pushes that legislation through. >> thank you. >> so, years ago, when commissioner walker was working with non-profit owners, and who may have had some of these properties, there was a lot of talk about sort of the process and i guess that it is not that the owners are sort of unique, because usually the titles to their properties are encumbered with all sorts of stuff to keep the properties affordable and so the process of even adding a little bit of money for some thing and you know it can be cumbersome and you have to do the paperwork and the restriction and so i am wondering if that is the part of the out reach and education and capacity building that you are thinking about doing? and in terms of working with like one person, and just somebody who can be the go to expert on how to do these things, for the non-profit owners. >> sure that was actually one of the biggest concerns that the mayor had before

introducing this ordinance and one of the first things that we addressed was figuring out a way to fund these for the non-profit buildings, and the surprising thing that we found was a surprisingly small number of buildings that would be required to retrofit and that does not change the situation. we need to provide the funding and the loan fund has been our partner and identified the loans at one and a half percent for these buildings and again, this is as part of the out reach through the non-profits a lot of time you have the non-profit where you have the group and they have a housing group and these were separate in the non-profit and we have been trying to have the meetings to make sure that we are understanding the funding needs as well as the advocacy needs. >> just on the updated list of the first 6,000 home owners.

is that list on-line. >> that is an important element to the program and we want this to be transparent and live, and we want it to live on the internet and don't want it to live in a book at dbi and so what dbi staff has agreed to do is keep this list and keep in mind this 6,000 property owners there is probably only 3,000 that are required to retrofit and so the owners that are able to opt out. this will capture that as well and so you will see all 6,000 as they go through the process and submit their screening forms and opt out and as they submit an optional evaluation form and to when we will obtain the cfc and agreed to update that two times a week and thing that is a great step forward for the department and i give them a tremendous amount of credit for that because what we don't want is a list on-line that is updated every month months and there may be transactions that are depending on this or sales that may need to happen and we want to make sure that whoever is looking at this is