>> sorry. and and what is the time frame that they had said that they will do a check on the addenda to the plan that is the same as the site plan? >> i have not been given any time frame, and imagine that if there is no change it will be fairly quick and we are talking a couple of days but there is a change. but it could be quite some time and then justified too, because that will keep the client that spending a lot of time building something that is going to have to be unbuilt later. >> yeah. >> my experience with the site plans, and quite extensive, is that the site plan is relatively almost as good as the architectal addendum and it is put through right now and it literally goes to every department and it goes through fire and it is the major plan check done.

why do we have to send, drawn as the staff, and we have planning and to have the drawings and a couple of years to plan check. >> you have to make sure that you don't have an answer for you and it is made at a level than mine. but the things that may come to my mind is the required bike parking on it and the addendum and now there are no bike parking and we will go through the approval process and it will be approved, and the addendum on it and now it does not have bike parking, but it was supposed to and that is what planning requirement was that it was in there and maybe a bad example. >> but they have not given you a commitment as to the time frame as to how long this will take. >> if they have it, it was a different level in mind. okay. >> it is an open book. >> so it fits, and to the director? >> yeah. >> commissioner, and that was

discussed in the public advisor meeting and planning and what did they (inaudible) and they can turn around fast, but my experience is state that they are fast paced is not our pace. how long does it takes? two weeks, or 30 days or whatever? what i did is all that we have a lot of arguing and the communication with them and why they need to look at it. and they, the system and they for the way and so they say that there are some changes maybe the windows look differently. and if they are the same size,

>> the shop and the approval, and it is first and it will take a longer time and once we finish then the clock is on their side. >> and so this procedure, it is in place now, director, right? and i mean, that i asked somebody who went through it who had my plan rechecked and it has been two years in the planning and plan checked and been rechecked again for the same planning that was approved two years agoment >> yeah. >> and you see, you understand my point, my point is that i get the spirit of what we are trying to do if you make a change and that is visually different, than what was approved, i get it, i understand that. but, an architect is supposed to, and my understanding is that an architect who is licensed and an issue of responsibility who got a plan approved that if he makes a

change that he thinks would interpret that the planning department would see it differently, would highlight it and then in that case it would go back. but we are going back plan checking. the planning department drawn and it has no changes and that an architect will stamp and say that there are no changes. i thought that we were kind of thinking in those terms, rather than saying, hands up everything goes back, because, you understand what the volume of business that we are doing right now that this is really burdensome on a department who will admit that they cannot plan check what they have right now. >> yeah, i understand that. roughly, i can roughly in 2013, on that lot on their side, and the problem is that i want to lay the rouding for the crumbels and when the single family addition in the back is not effecting planning and they want to look at it and it is

weakened from our side and that is what i highly welcome you to talk to planning. because, planning is you know, some of the staff say that they are different, but with even work with the order and engineer, and architects are certified and they did not change it and usually the same permit is going to have a rough and set with the submit the architecture. >> and i understand the spiritual, but what i don't kind of sign-off is the fact that they will not commit to us aten day turn around. >> yeah, or a five day. and i am sorry, if somebody has gone through it who was told the x, amounts of time and ended up far from that time frame and i am getting a lot of calls from a lot of smaller contractors who are really feeling the burden of this, and they have posted the site permit and they have a demolition and they are waiting on the architectural drawings and they will not inspect it and they want to see a full set

of construction documents on the site and so any way commissioner walker. >> i tend to agree that i think that in fairness, to both the departments, we could accommodate, doing this but only if they give us a turn around time and a definite, two days to determine if there are changes or not. or one day or whatever. >> they had to send it back to planning for a month where it came back. and i tend to agree with this spirit of what you are talking about that they need to give us a commitment if there are no changes and they can determine that quicker. so if it has to go backward and

assigned and saying, no changes, and turn around in an x, amount of time and they concur, no changes and where is the... so at the advisory committee of which i have missed a couple of them and so 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