i apologize. >> there is another one and i am going to the one this afternoon. but, we still, and i mean that was the big concern that was laid out to the director back then, the time and count. and it was never really addressed, otherwise, they will take care of it don't worry but i am sorry if someone intrude, it is not working, so maybe i kind of lean to you the dreker are you satisfied with this policy being in place right now? >> and that you are satisfied that they are going to turn around but in a... >> personally, i don't say this... >> and but, can we get it. >> and i guess this afternoon, we will address that, but the post and the planning, and coming in but they promise with the staff and they will do that and what they do. so this is not an action item for us right now? >> it is an action item. >> it is an action item. although this bulletin does not explain the time frames or

anything, the time frames are kind of outside of the scope of this. >> but even if... if we vote this or don't vote on this, the policy is that it goes back any how, right? and so we are just symbolically being told about a policy that is going to effect our industry a lot that we don't have any controlling at all and planning going to do it any how, right? >> i just asked a question of clarification. >> yeah. >> so do we have the authority to just change this policy, and this is, and it is the advisory committee and it is not the advisory committee advisory? >> and so, if we were going to change our process and say, this stops here. you know, rather than, you know, if we were going to change it in any way, why, do we have to go through this process? i am just asking, this is a question of clarification. you can do what you wish. >> i imagine it. >> that we will call it. >> but to answer the question, doctor, what are we vote or not

vote on this, the policies in place right now. yeah, for the last two years already, have that to go to them already. they can check us to send to them. >> what is their authority in instructing us to do this. is it in the planning code? what is the process based on? who has the jurisdiction? >> john, let me at least explain the building commission authority. and so the way that the charter is written is the building inspection commission is required to hold a hearing on all code changes, but the charter does not say that you have to approve code changes before they can go to the board of supervisors to be enacted. so it no longer requires a hearing. we treated administrative bulletins, in the same way as we have treated the code

changes where they are brought to the building inspection commission and typically, the way that it is set up is you vote on them and you can vote up or down, and i guess if anything, while it has no, a vote, and up or down, on a building code change or administrative bulletin, it is not necessarily binding, its direction to the staff that the building inspection commission does not support it and maybe, then, they would need to go back and make further amendments. because the administrative bulletins don't go to the board of supervisors, they are not a legislative thing and so it sort of begins and ends with this action that the building inspection commission. >> commissioner mar? >> maybe, another question to add to a little bit of the confusion. so, if the process now, is that we send these permits back to

planning, why didn't we do that and do we have to do that? i think that is the question, not whether we support doing this now, but why don't we do it at all? if they already approved the plan, we approved the permit. and there is no changes why do we have to send it back to them now? >> and can we just stop that practice? >> john, from the city attorney's office. so, in the same way that the building inspection commission and dbi has jurisdiction both under the charter and local law to administer the certain codes, the planning commission and the planning department also have authority to administer the planning codes. so the issue is while the planning department may have approved from a planning code standpoint, changes, that they have seen through site permit

or that they say that they are okay with it and then subsequent changes occur, after it leaves the planning department and before dbi gives its final, or gives its approval, there is a rereferral process to insure that the planning code provisions are being satisfied, because the department of building inspection does not have jurisdiction, because it is a safety valve to make sure that the project even though there are minor changes still complies with the planning code historic research protection and things like that, the planning department has jurisdiction over. >> and both commissioner lee and commissioner melgar? >> wouldn't our department have the authority to say whether there were changes or not? >> and if we say that there were no changes, why do we have to send it back? why can't we just keep it? >> commissioner melgar? >> i get that, that is the

point. but, we, but it is since we are the building inspection department, we are perfectly capable and our staff is perfectly capable of assessing if a change to the building, is happening, actually i think that we are more capable than the planning department to do that. in the instance where there are, then it is totally appropriate to send it back to planning but the bulk of the permits that don't have that, why are we farming that off to planning? it seems that it is actually our jurisdiction? >> commissioner walker and then, you have to field three questions. >> so, i think that there can be challenges to a permit, even going through our department, being built as applied for. and in which case there are not necessarily changes, and it is just determinations in our department in buildings, like, you know, where lights, or where, i mean that we have

heard a case of many years ago, where a project came forward, and it was a big project. and it was totally built as proposed, but there were issues with needing to do different configurations of this stairwell and none of which are planning issues really. but what happened is that it changed the even though the plans were not necessarily changed, they were adopted enough to change the positioning of the roads, or with the roads or something like that and then it went straight through the department and it was not until the very end of the project where the fire department came in and said that we can't get our fire trucks in there. and so i think that i have no problem with somebody looking at it just to make sure, because we are not responsible, and often times we don't even know what is attached to it as a condition of the planning department, in the process and so i would say that somebody from planning should look at

it, but there should be a clock, there should be some sort of a time frame that they return it to our department if there is no issue. >> commissioner lee? >> back to the example that commissioner walker described. wouldn't we have the knowledge to say, okay, if we would make these changes, this is going to effect the planning? >> it didn't. >> and then send it back. >> it didn't in this case. i am just saying. >> i would need to see that. >> and i am not even sure that the planning would pick up on that issue to be honest with you. >> that is a building code. >> but it missed us. i am just saying... >> and i would blame dbi for that not planning. >> dually noted, i have been around long enough to know that the planning department wants to see everything and i respect that and when the product that they approved is samely the same on the curve side when it

is built i get that and that is what this is about, okay, if i have a professional engineer putting a stamp on it saying that i have made no changes because i spent five years in planning and i am not going to make a change because i know that it triggers off a review, why isn't that good enough for planning? that is the ghe front of us, and if it did have to go back and this is something that we have to swallow this pill and do this, and send it back, i kind of refer to commissioner walker's position at least there has to be time certain, or time frame as to when that plan is back ready for the stake holder to pick up. and unfortunately, that has not been offered by planning other than to say that we are making good diligent effort to get this back to you and in my particular case it was two months. and is it was the exact same plan that was approved the year

beforehand. >> i think that some of these projects, you know, go over quite a time frame, and there is a chain of different design professionals, you know, something that was approved five or six years ago, and probably night not have the same design professional, and so, there is so a little bit of that, that you going to run across and we don't collect a statement saying that me as the time professional of record here, and provided this

addendum, that exactly is the same as the sight permit and they certainly should and we would expect them to and we would call on them if it was not. and but, they don't give us that statement and so they are not really swearing that is all exactly the same. >> commissioner lee? >> well, there is a lot of thought about this, if we are worried that the professionals, are misleading the department or misleading planning, once they put a stamp on it and say, these plans have not changed. maybe the planning can sue the professional. for misleading them. and maybe that might save us sometimes. >> and i know now, that the inspecters are completely

diligent. where is foul here is this constant and rechecking of the reviewing of the product as it were, and have paid their sins and got approved and we have to go back and do it. >> and okay, so i know that i think that commissioners we are all on the same page here and 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