>> >> this is the regular meeting of the small business commission. it monday august 24, 2015. and the time is 2:03 p.m.. the meeting is being televised live and the small business commission thanks the media service and sf

gov tv staff. electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. speakers are limited to 3 minutes. please complete a speaker card. please give me your speaker card prior to speaking. additionally there are sign up list at the table for those who would like to be added to the mailing list. commissioner steven adams, dooley, monetta white, paul tour sarkissian, commissioner irene riley. >> general public comment allows members of the public to comment generally on the matter of

commission's purview and not on today's agenda and agenda items for future consideration. >> do we have any members of the general public today that would like to comment on any matters that are not on the agenda? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we should give a shout out to all of our tv viewers. we've been getting fan mail all month and we want to let them know that we love them. >> we have no competition with land use. >> we are in an open time slot today. so for people out there watching us. >> let's move on. item no. 3 is approval of the august 10, 2015, regular meeting minutes. do we have a motion? >> i motion to approve. >> second. >> i second. >> commissioner adams made a motion,

commissioner riley seconded. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? item no. 4. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on bos file no. 150270 public works code contractor parking plan. this ordinance amends the public works code to require a contractor parking plan as a condition precedent for approval of excavation permits for major work that is 30 conservative calendar days or longer and specified temporary street space occupancy permits for construction work. i have a presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is jess montejano. as i have sure we know the construction is

booming here in san francisco and the shear amount of construction in our corridor is causing quality of life impacts for residents in our neighborhood and our small businesses and our commercial corridor. the genesis of this legislation came from constituents in our district. district 2 had the highest number of residential construction and parking permits in the city. especially owners along chess nut and union as well. we know the scarce amount of parking especially for parking that is vacant for hours and days at a time. we wanted to come up with a proposal to remedy some of the problems. we definitely feel the city can be more proactive to let the residents know about the impacts to residents and we can do better with that. we

teamed up with her initially when we first introduced this legislation back in march and have added supervisors wiener and breed and kim to the legislation as well. we have support to make it through the board. as brian was stating this amended the construction for the parking plan for on street space for parking permits issued by the department of public works and also includes new fees to really help with the enforcement of this plan to ensure that our contractors in our neighborhood are following the permits that were stated in the plans that are going to be submitted to the city. the components of this structure parking plan the contractor will now permit includes the following: the number of parking permits and the average number of employees at the site. the timeline and phasing of the project and the requirement of the contractor to notify the department of

any unexpected changes. it also requires the contractor to use carpooling or park side such as parking garages instead of taking up valuable street parking. there is also a component in the plan that mandates the contractor come up with a proposal for how they will make on street parking available to the general public and to business owners by 4:00 p.m. each day if that space is going to be used after that time. when we are working with supervisor christian and cohen we want to focus outside of our traditional from our office which is in a residential neighborhood and they want to expand it to encompass more of business commercial as well and we had an amendment issued by the land use committee that includes pdr districts and citywide. that was one of the concerns of the commission. we

are open to hearing additional construction that should be included as well. additionally the last component of the plan gives dpw some flexibility to request any additional information that they find important to have as part of the construction parking plan that the contractors will be submitting. additionally all of this information is made publically available to dpw so any resident or any owner of any part of the city can see the parking plan and see how this is impacting their neighborhood. we believe this is a straight forward proposal. we work close with sf mta and contractors on this proposal and we have the majority in support and some of the contractors aren't too happy about the fee increases but before the legislation we did a budget analyst report that shows all the

permit fees per capita with other cities are relatively low so they can stand to be increased a little bit. we understand what's going on right now but most of the times those contractors pass through the additional permit increases to the customer or the client they are working with on behalf and we believe them to be minimal. the legislation today is supported by all the departments and i understand on friday there were some concerns and i had a chance to review this today since we were on recess. i will be happy to walk through any of those questions and answer any concerns that you may have. all right. thank you very much. >> commissioner, adams? >> first off i want to thank supervisor farrell and cohen for this piece of legislation. this is awesome. this is something in my opinion long

over due especially with all the construction going on and i appreciate that you are looking at commercial districts as well as residential because that's where a big part of the problem is right now. i was in the valley a couple weeks ago and they had a few signs up there but no construction going on. my question is what department is going to approve this plan? >> the department of public works. right now most contractors how i understand the process they will go to sf mta. they will come up with a proposal and sf mta and manages and overseas that process. we are primarily working with those two departments to come up with the proposal and how it can be implemented correctly. i think the biggest thing for dpw was to have

permanent funding for enforcement and limitation. i think we all believe that the success of the legislation would come with the enforcement and the additional fees will help with that. >> do you know if there is a minimum amount of parking spaces they can take? >> right now our requisite, one parking space for 30 days. if there is more than one, they will have to do that as well. we didn't want to necessarily slow you know some projects and especially good projects that need to happen in our neighborhood, but at the same time we needed to institute some sort of balance for the residents. >> here is an idea too and i was thinking about this a couple weeks ago. do you have these school playgrounds that they use for parking in the summer time when a lot of this stuff is going on. we can get something in there and maybe it would be a win win for

the schools. use those as a parking spot instead of taking up street parking. >> yeah, i think that's a fine idea. when we were crafting this legislation, we had to be really mindful in what was in our jurisdiction. obviously school parking is a great idea. it would be in the jurisdiction. school district and what they choose to do there. >> what will be added that we plan to introduce at the board is another requirement that states that a contractor has to use the on-site garage parking before they take on an on street parking space. especially in our district we saw folks with park is available on their garage parking and using parking in front. that didn't make sense. >> commissioner dooley? >> i wanted to ask about it

mentions having them say how many employees they have. it's certainly been my experience in north beach, pretty much everybody wants to have their own truck there all the time so they can run out and get their tools. is there someway of limiting maximum amount of street spaces. >> i believe they can take more than 60 on street parking permits. that's the threshold we have now. at the same time we hear clearly from residents and business owners that the city needs to be more proactive in planning and letting citizens know pro actively what's happening in their neighborhood and no process and no notification exist. we think this is a really helpful first step into providing that plan outside of our traditional noticing requirements that we have on the books now. >> is there some kind of

incentive that encourage carpooling or truck pooling amongst these folks so not every single person working on the site has to bring their own vehicle. >> yes, one of the components we have on the plan is the contractor has to submit to dpw whether they have carpooling options. so that's a requirement of the current parking plan we are working on now. i would add some gray area here. there were some difficulties working with the city attorney in what we could restrict versus what we couldn't restrict. what this is is our best attempt to provide the parameters and pro activity for the contractors about what is happening in their neighborhood. >> i also have a question about if they aren't using a space from 4:00 on, i find that a lot of the spaces

aren't being used at all during the day. those are 10-4:00 p.m. our prime business hours where those spaces could be really used. i know a lot of residential space the sign says if no construction is started by noon, i would urge you to roll that back to an earlier hour. >> i think that's something that the cosponsors would be happy to look at. we were trying to find that balance and from the residents especially their coming home after work, the traditional 4:00 hour. they can understand in the morning construction but for the proposal that makes sense. >> the last question. i have a pile of notes. >> it's what we are here for. >> the storage issue. i know when they went to a site, they stored

large pipes for weeks at a time taking on an entire block of parking. so it didn't seem clearly that it was not going to happen. that could still happen is kind of how i saw it, but that is a real problem if they do that. >> i'm looking back here. it looks like on section 4.20, section 8 there. one of the components of the parking plan is how the contractor, excuse me, it's no. 7. sorry. i was wrong. it's no. 8. it requires that they at least submit as part of their plan as to the material of the storage and pipes and construction materials are going to be used as permitted parking spaces. that is identified in the plan. what i will do before this makes it to the board on tuesday, dpa

drafted up one page about the project and parking plan. i will be sure you see it to be sure there isn't anything on there. >> i understand when they put materials in the parking space and they are going to be using them soon. my experience has been that they are not using them soon. they are just sitting there for a month or two and eventually they are going to be used. so i would like to see some kind of time limit for how long they can use it for storage. >> that's what we are looking at and providing this plan making it available to residents and business owners on the website, having a point of contact, i think with additional fees that are going to help with enforcement and this kind of pro activity and contract the business owners will have

because the residents and business owners know their own neighborhood. >> thank you for bringing this forward. it is really necessary and really happy to see something move. >> yeah, of course i appreciate that. >> commissioner ortiz cartagena? >> thank you. this is way over due. the only question, did you reach out to the parking sector companies and explore any ideas? >> i know they have with the parking companies. are you talking about a specific kind? >> just to get their expertise? >> yes. one of the things, or one of the components of the parking plan which is the contractor evaluating whether they can use kind of off street garage parking. all of those sites and majority are own by sf mta and

we can host construction materials or permit out those spaces instead of the on street parking spaces as well. >> okay. >> director? >> through the president, so a quick question as i couldn't really, i wasn't clear in reading this. is this being applied to private contractors or is this parking plan also being applied to city like when we do excavation for water pipes? >> definitely all of the above. anyone that received an occupancy permit, they are all going to have to submit this construction parking plan as a prerequisite for receiving that permit. >> one more question. >> 5 days notice is pretty

short. we need to have more like 2 weeks so if it's going to have a major impact on a commercial district, people can figure out what to do. it's got to be at least 2 weeks. >> that -- does that seem like the overwhelming thought from the commission? >> i would prefer 30 days. the most as possible. >> i think we take this to heart. we understand one of the most important things in business is certainty and knowing what's going to happen on your storefront and corridor. we'll definitely run that to ground. i have to better understand from dpw and the timeline they have in giving out these projects. i can imagine maybe the construction project in district 2, someone just wanted to get it and have a contract maybe tomorrow. with other

projects, i'm sure it takes long to mapping out what the project is going to look at but we can have more flexibility on that. i think it would be non-substantive. so it won't cause any delay. >> i would be surprise anything that impacts parking gets a permit with lead time with more than a couple of days. the contractor might say i mailed them out 5 days in advance and if it happens on a monday, we don't see that for a couple days later and you only find out because the parking spots are gone. we got noticed by cal trans 2 days after the construction occurred saturday and sunday night. all the residents were pissed off. they said we noticed everybody per the legal statute. so there was a case where it got

hung up in the mail and the government transaction didn't happen and none of us got notice. i don't think 5 days is enough to allow for what happens from the time of leaves the person that's putting the stamps on it to get it to the person who should get it. >> i think you are exactly right and that's a reasonable request. john maloney the our city attorney on that request and those that are supporting this legislation as well. i would just add to that i will be break -- back in front of you in about a month or so. so it isn't their standard mailing anymore. so we'll be able to get it out to the business owners through e-mail. >> it tends to be going out to the landlord. most of us never see what the landlord gets because we are all

tennants, commercial tennants but all residential tennants. but the noticing needs to go directly to the tennants as well as the landlord. and the language in this particular item keeps saying neighborhood. neighborhood tends to ring residential. we have so many mixed use corridors here that it should specifically include neighborhood and i think we have some recommended language here about how to call it commercial tennants. neighborhoods, commercial corridors and/or business districts right now. we can recommend some wording to you. >> yeah. i got at the mail from regina. we are happy to include that. that makes sense and that is definitely our intent. what we heard from small business owners is we need to be notified.

>> commissioner sarkissian? >> i would like to join my colleagues this congratulating you. >> thank you. >> just coming back to the tenant issue, i believe that the ground and second floor should be included. >> okay. that's not a problem. thank you. >> commissioners, any other comments? commissioner riley? >> hi, when you determine to noticed the neighborhood, where do you get the information. commissioner dwight just said that usually the notice sent to the landlord? >> yes. >> is it possible to get the information of all the tennants? >> yes, i believe so. that was our intent. we are happy to work with the director and our city attorney to match that intent and all the tennants that are affected. i believe it's 300 feet in our legislation. we were sensitive

to some of the cost included because of the permit fees included as well. that's the intent. we want our neighbors and business owners to know what's going on. that's the plan where we are going to have a contact person and they are always available and they will have a point of reference to go online to check on what's happening in their neighborhood. >> they get planning. planning has to notify owners and tennants of projects now. so when you get your notification in the mail, it says to current occupant. it doesn't even say the landlord's name. it's whoever is living in that unit. that's how they notify you. >> that's good. >> commissioners, anymore comments or questions before public comment? okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> commissioners, do you have any other comments or questions? jess, thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your support. >> director? >> well, i think timing wise can you just sort of review with us since we had some discussion about possible amendment what timing wise is. this is agendaized as an action item. you might want to take action on it with a proposed recommendation. >> okay. >> do we want to simply make a motion, read out the recommendations? >> yes. >> okay. >> and real quick to provide that quick timeline. it got out of land use at the last land use on july 27th. it will be on board agenda for the 8, but we have a couple weeks between now to come up with what should be simple fixes to

match the needs and desires of the commission. >> okay. would someone like to make a motion? >> i would like to make a motion on this piece of legislation and i would like to hear what amendments we would like to add to it. >> we have a list of them. >> yes. >> do we need to read them into the record or can we just enter them into the record. there are seven recommendations. >> there are seven recommendations and the only one who hasn't had enough discussion, but making the recommendation is i think recommendation no. 1, just making sure that the parking plan. the alternative parking locations definitely apply to -- when commissioner dooley talks about the number of employees that they are

also making sure they are presenting their parking plan where their employees are going to be parking. >> yes. but we could work through the seven recommendations that we have presented to the supervisors office. i just bulleted them out in your binder, but those are the specific recommendations. >> and storage to keep an eye on that. >> they had that in their no. 8, the storage. >> yes, the timeframe of the storage and commissioner dooley you also, i don't know how much, if this needs to be in the legislation. you said noon? >> it should be noon instead of 4 p.m.. :00 p.m.. >> you might want to note in commercial districts if it makes it easier.

>> i think there is some wiggle room because with the residential construction we are seeing but i think dpw has a policy in place and i will come back to double confirm with their team that any contractor can put this upon themselves if that parking is going to be used for 2 days put up a sign and let them know if that parking will be available to the public. >> we would like to do that. >> right. >> all right. i think easily enough commissioners because we have the seven recommendations that were presented to the supervisors office pretty much specifically address them. >> so i can make the motion that i would like to make a motion to approve this legislation with our seven recommendations and we can just attach these seven to the legislation. perfect. >> great. do we have a second?

>> i second it. roll call? city clerk: commissioner adams, yes, commissioner dooley, yes, commissioner dwight? yes, cartagena, yes, riley, yes. >> success. >> thank you for your outreach. i know you spoke to several merchant groups. this is a great piece of legislation and i want to thank you again for your outreach too. you heard from a lot of people on this. >> yes. it's a big issue citywide. >> thank you very much for your support and i will see you in about a month with our neighborhood notification notice. we are happy about that. >> thank you. >> all right. onto our next celebrity presentation. item no. 5, discussion and possible action to make a final recommendation on file no.

150790 planning code establishing a new citywide transportation sustainability fee. we have adam varat. >> good afternoon. it's great to come back. speaking of good pieces of legislation. as you know we came before you a couple weeks ago and you gave us food -- feedback and we have information for you. i believe this document was distributed to you all and i'm just going over that quickly. it's just to read a couple of simple pages. the first page is questions raised by the commission, second page a few keypoints and the last one is comparison that breaks the text down into a more readable form so

you can see some of the changes we are proposing. i will start this and run through it quickly and happy to answer any questions you may have. one of the questions that came up were about the new construction trigger proposed to the tsf and how that would apply to pop up retail which generally these days may include shipping containers. a couple examples that came up were proxy and the yard. i mentioned the yard and mission bay project that is temporary and the impact fees because mission bay has their own set of rules in this situation, but proxy was treated like a permanent use and whatever fees were applicable at that time. i wanted to go over that. in terms of shipping containers you can get them in various sizes. the

largest is 8 x 40. theoretically you can get two full large size shipping containers on the lot and that would be less than 800 feet before you trigger that fee. also reminder that tsf like the tdf is a one time fee when the new use is being created and that basically lives as a credit on that site. if you change the use in the future to an even more intensive use or if you demolish and rebuild or replace, you do get credit for that. something else that is interesting about small pop ups is generally speaking they may have this container space or some other type of small modular space but they typically use a lot of outdoor space as a primary area for seating and that space does not count towards the fee. just as

if you have a restaurant, that area is not counted towards the fee because the fee is calculated using the area which measures from the exterior walls. any space outside is not covered by this and currently on tdf or any of our impact fees because they are all calculated through the floor area. another question that came up is where does the 5,000 square footage. it outlined the proposal there for the change of use to take down 800 but create a small business policy credit along with the parking credit and keep that 3,000 square foot threshold for that credit and at that time there was some conversation with the

small business community about whether or not 3 thousand was too small and raised to 5 thousand and there are numerous place in the planning code. to give you most of our commercial parking controls and areas where we require parking still are not triggered until the use is 5,000 square feet. in the downtown district in the ground floorless than 5,000 square feet. they are exempt from fees and far's to add how much you can build on the site. in typical districts, it's up to two floors and some allow up to three which is

about 5,000 square feet maximum on a typical lot. similarly tying back to the rg3,000 square feet number. that these businesses are a finer grain. the vast majority is 3,000. again, we also have a conditional use permit authorization required for a certain size. depending on the district you are in, it could be 5,000 or 10,000. in china town similarly the lots are restricted to 5,000 and we have a conditional use requirement in grocery stores if they are over

5,000 feet. that's kind of a proxy for a small business. obviously a small business can be measured in different ways if it's area, number of employees, establishment and so on. in terms of the fee, the area is the easiest to use for us. there are questions about other businesses. as an example i quickly through in some existing businesses. i won't go over that. you can look at that at your leisure. those numbers are approximate. onto page two, just a couple of key points which we touched on last time which is the changes we are proposing are basically benefits to small business with the tdif now and the existing area plans. the only thing changing in the other direction is the fees girting higher -- getting higher and we are

bringing the residential in that category which is not today. other than that, every change we have made is a positive. if that means the fee will apply lessor there is much more likelihood for the credit for the use that was there. if you go to the last page at the table that just outlines that point which is if you look at the different factors of impact fees. we have three columns here. one for the area plans, one for tidf or tsf. as we talked about the number of land use categories which is an important issue in our area plans is 3 and now it's 9. down to 3. tids is unique in that and we wanted to remove them. small business is not in

our areas. and limit tdif in the policy credit pool. that limitation would be taken away and it would be a permit limitation. and in our area plans all new construction trigger the fee except for tdip now to 800 square feet. tidf and tsf 800. small business and adding the dwelling unit requirements. we just wanted to go over that information with you and give you chance to ask any other questions or comments you like and we are available for any questions you may have. >> commissioner adams? >> thank you very much for this. this really cleared it up for me. i very much appreciate the impact fee

comparison. i like this. you did a great job on this. >> thank you. >> it's definitely something i can support. how is the prime rib at $360 square feet. >> that's a lot of prime rib. >> that's big. >> about the size of a bag factory it turns out. >> director? >> so, commissioners, i just want to provide you with a little bit of information. i had a conversation around 1:00 with lisa pagan and oed and doesn't have the ability to oh pine on it. some feedback that ben hoot an, the industry person. one of the feedback from ben is that with the nexus study takes a look at retail and retail at mostly

daytime travel and the nighttime industry, you can look at it. there is a high number of individuals using it, but also there is less public transportation available at that time. so from the nighttime industry perspective, paying into the fee, if they are over 5,000 square feet for an entertainment establishment they are paying a fee where they are not getting service much return. so in terms of the dealing with the consideration of if you are going to consider putting forward in a final recommendation whether the consideration for the small business exemption should be 5,000 square feet. that was one particular feedback. then, the other was that with the 800 square feet for new development

if retaining the 5,000 square feet is what is going to be retained especially looking at neighborhood commercial development for mixed use building that we have some pretty sizable ones in hayes valley but if you are planning to do one in these respects, could there be consideration for neighborhood commercial new development where it's again sort of working with something simple, a flat 5,000 square feet small business exemption for commercial space, new development, non-new development. those are put forward for some potential ideas to give consideration to. it's not to say that's officially where oewe is, but to give that some thought. >> right. well, i think as we discussed last

time, the one beneficial caveat is that it's a change of usage issue. the limit comes into effect if it's the change of use. if it's the same, it doesn't affect it. anyway, we just put it out there. any other questions or comments? >> then, if you don't mind. can you briefly go over how office space works in the downtown and opportunity to -- the high rises? >> in terms of fees? >> yes. >> large office projects, let's say anything over 50,000 square feet, whether it's downtown or anywhere, there are certain fees that are going to apply. obviously tdf is going to apply. you get into the job

housing linkage fee which is triggered at 25,000 square feet. and the 50,000 square feet with a child care fee if not provided. if you are downtown, there is a downtown open space fee as well. if you are not downtown, if you are in eastern neighborhood in soma, doing this kind of project, you would be subject to the eastern neighborhood impact fee. it depends on where you are exactly. there are various fees that those are subject to. >> is that just for new development. let's say you go into business and into a new building and you take 5,000 square feet and you grow and go to the next floor and the next floor and often the tenant improvement, discussions in

tenant improvements are sometimes done by the property manager if they are expanding? >> if it's just tenant to tenant there is no change of use. there is no new construction triggered. if you have a building, if you are in soma, but you are near downtown, on second or third street corridor and you have a warehouse that you want to convert to office. that would still apply. >> i think where the sum of this question comes from is whether there are exemption that are similar to the other exemption that were made for certain high tech companies moving into central market area and whether this just is a part of a bundle of fees and thing that would be negotiated, but in

fact most of those developments were not change of use, probably. so this particular fee would not apply. >> it depends. so, if you are referring to the tax incentives that were created in the market, >> those are different. >> right. >> if you have a project that have or going through the process of receiving a development agreement and that is a separate process that takes the project away from the codes and negotiated with the city. obviously from a negotiating perspective, the city uses what is required. it's not completely thrown out. but that's a much higher bar. they are doing a development agreement while what happens more often now is not something that happens more often. it's kind of a separate beast that we put in the code.

>> okay. commissioners, any other questions or comments? >> adam from the planning department. i want to clarify the point with lisa and i'm happy to follow up. one thing to red -- remember about this fee is it goes to capital improvement and not operating improvement. the improvement for the bus system can help with the speed of the bus service and the program about when it runs. this fee in particular as the impact fees are tied to the built capital improvement. >> okay. so we can feel better about paying. great, any other comments? okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> do we have require any action? >> well, i think commissioners, from your recommendations at the last meeting and the action that you took you wanted to get more information in terms of whether 5,000 exemption was satisfactory. if you wanted to consider making a recommendation for more as a policy decision for you in terms of whether you received enough information to finalize that decision and then also you wanted a little bit more clarity around the 800 square foot and the impact. so i haven't heard much conversation in relationship to

that. again, home of those kinds of projects are going to happen and so it's an evaluation for you in terms of that a little bit of money going into sf mta's budget, or what that may mean for those small businesses and just another kind of as we often hear about stream lining and various things on that end. >> as a practical matter, it seems to me there is a fair amount of inertia around coalescing around this 5,000 feet even if there are urging of more or less. i would imagine that it would be somewhat difficult to change that inertia at this point. also we would want to consider where the diagram overlaps. how many things are really going to be over 5,000 square

feet for small businesses. of those how many will be triggered and used. i feel that ultimately over those intersections of things there are very small projects. to change the inertia behind this for an unspecified but likely small population of projects is highly unlikely. so we can of course make a recommends if we want, but i think any recommends other than 5,000 carries it's own arbitrary nature and all we are doing is advocating for more. the question is where do you draw the line. adam has been very thorough in providing something we all know and love and that their indeed there is one kind of case here where or one example that a company is larger than

5,000. certainly it bears witness to the idea that they are less than 5,000 feet. it's where to pick your battle. >> right. >> where is the reasonableness plays in. commissioner adams? >> i agree with everything you just said. and i got to thank you guys. when i read these comparisons, you answered my questions and i'm more than happy to support this piece of legislation. so i would make a motion to go ahead and approve this. >> just want to throw out one last thing and reflecting on elisa's the conversation. in terms of the 8,000 square feet, any variability in terms of permanent and non-permit

structure. throwing it out there before be get to finalize and the policy for you for consideration. >> more from our i would say neighborhood economic development in trying to activate different spaces. so, and again, the space that proxy is on, that is city owned and eventually the city to be building on it. but when that will be. that space is not intended to be permanently used as a space as it is now. >> great. are these activations, oftentimes these activations involve the city. is there a case where an activation like that would be subject to a negotiated situation not

like a very large construction project? >> no. not really. ultimately the planning code treads everything from a land use perspective as permanent except for those things that can be permitted as a temporary use. that is very limited. such as christmas tre

>> there is nothing to pass with taking applications now should the ballot pass. if the ballot does pass, the application process will have to be amended because historical preservation will be engaged in part of that process. so there is interest from the supervisor's office. they have been contacting us in terms of

wanting to begin to do their nominations. so i would like to start out with the process of working with the nominees that each supervisor has. i'm not really opening it up just yet for allowing the individual businesses to initiate an application that would be forwarded, but i would like to have you give some consideration and i will have follow up conversations with epa of you over the next week. if we do start taking these applications starting september, last part of september, that means we can officially start hearing it the october meetings. is your preference to schedule these items to be heard at one

particular meeting in a month or to hear you know at each meeting. >> why don't we see how they roll -- in? >> okay. >> i have no idea. i have some idea, but no stated ideas how fast it's going to happen. >> i think in moving in 2013, where am i? sorry. i am somewhere else. 2016 then we will take a look at, i will work with building in terms of meeting time availability and what that means if we need to have an additional meeting. i don't think this is a meeting that needs to be televised. so that will open up our ability to have more flexible

dates available. so if we have it in room, i think 412? what's the one? 408. >> what will happen at a meeting where we review. these will be legacy businesses that have already passed through the application. correct? presumably they have checked all the boxes on the application. i believe we will see businesses that qualify under the rule. so the only thing that would happen here. we are not going to have a huge debate about anchor -- and bakery. i'm not clear what the discussion will be other than to say, that's very nice. i'm glad these people have applied and presuming there is no financial

request which many of them will come without financial request, i believe. then i don't think there is going to be a lot of discussion. i would you are thely encourage us to acknowledge them at this meeting rather than not, why not. we are using this platform as an acknowledgment as it's great. you won the award. you applied and you are approved. what i would like to see is how many people applied, what are the complications, why wouldn't there be anything but acknowledgment and the brief discussion here. >> i have a question about the timeline rolling out when individual businesses can apply. you are saying only businesses that are recommended by supervisors will first be looked at. >> right now it's pure staffing. i mean, it's just having being able to have some control of the

floodgate at the staffing level so that we are working. there needs to be review, discussion time with the businesses that are nominated by the supervisor or the mayor in terms of what's in the application. you know are the applications complete. so and then assembling and getting the packets ready in time for you to review and agendaized and noticed. so really right now it's really just trying to make sure that there are some realistic controls over what we are able to handle and then >> i also would expect, if history is any indication, supervisors are not going to spend a huge amount of

time finding the nominations themselves. they are going to be to those i heard about and other businesses and here is the recommendation. because supervisors are busy. they are working on limitation. to direct their limited staff to say, hey, go find me some legacy businesses. it's not going to work that way. there are others who may have their list already but i think the supervisors may respond to suggestions or interested parties. i think we don't need to unduly prepare for what we do not know what's going to happen. i would recommend that we see what happens initially and we can always react accordingly. >> i do think there is a lot of interest out there in terms of

self initiation and until we have staff dedicated to this program. i want to make sure that staff is handling what is being nominated right now by the supervisors and not working and handling and facilitating the legislation that is not nominated by the supervisors until we have the adequate staff. >> requesting acknowledgment of the legacy businesses other than requesting financial support for a business that is going out of business. i think it's mostly people requesting acknowledgment. it's a restaurant in business for 25 years, a cleaning company in business for 25 years. at the end of the day we should have a very low bar for acknowledging these businesses that have been in

business for 25 years or more. who is to say the restaurant or cleaning business or brewery is more elegant or more worthy of being an elegant business wechl should stick to very objective thing when it comes to acknowledging those businesses because it is nothing but goodness to be bundled up to say this is a great business that's been around for a long time. the businesses that are in trouble and the business for the legislation. this legislation has two prongs, how do we acknowledge businesses that have been around for a long time. that's a good market for the city. the other one is how do we assist businesses who are in dire straits. i think we've all acknowledged the funding available under this program is pretty limited when it comes to being in dire straits. so, those are going to be the exceptions and those are

going to be the things that require perhaps more conversation. i just don't have any sense whatsoever to know how that's going to break out. i don't think we are going to have a land rush of people going, finally, i'm going to get some financial business. i would be completely wrong but if you are in that condition, you need a lot more than what this offers. >> right. well, currently there is no financial assistance. so that is not there until -- >> right. that's the legislation. >> right. so any application that comes through right now is subject to what is currently written, in law, in place. and what's the legislation and not the ballot measure. it would be up

to the board of supervisors in making the nomination. it's up to them to give the consideration in terms of who and how they nominate and should that fund be there in the future, the prioritization of who they are nominating in relation to that as well. because even if a business does apply through our office before the board of supervisors or the mayor nominates, that application gets to the supervisor or the mayor. because they have to be nominated. but again, it's a work flow issue even though we are not asking a lot of them but it's still information. it's enough information to be tracking legislation and dealing with that and processing it and getting it ready for you. i just wanted to let you know i'm going to be very mindful as we start to learn

this process. what's going to be submitted in our applications, what's going to be involved with it to have a little bit of control right now until we have a staff person to really facilitate the program. >> that's fine. if there is anyway we can assist with that, maybe that can help as well in terms of reviewing the applications. i think the ner term incentive for any supervisor is to celebrate how many legacy businesses they have in their district and to pat themselves and their businesses and those companies on the back for being part of san francisco's legacy. it will clearly not be until after november election whether there is any movement trying to determine whether any of these businesses qualify and to what degree that would be helpful to them.

so, again, i think the initial vetting is going to be very straight forward. i think that the candidates are probably going to be companies that are well-known to us and it's largely a pr sort of activity. >> i'm just a little concerned. i understand where we are coming from. i agree we need to see our rolls out. politics from what they are, there might be someone in a given district that may not be necessarily nominated by their supervisor. i would like to see in the future that a business could apply on their own. >> there is nothing in the legislation that passed or in the ballot measure that says that the supervisor who nominates, they can only nominate businesses from their district. it's the high probability because they have

those relationships, but nothing precludes another supervisor from nominating a business that is not in their district. >> does the rule allow only the supervisor and the mayor to make nominations or can the business person make the nomination? >> the law states that it's just the mayor and board of supervisors who can nominate. there is no jurisdictional limitations in terms of the supervisor. >> could it be as a potential not maybe won't happen. but i would not like to see any deserving business not nominated or put forward by their supervisor. >> i would have to think if the business wanted to be nominated and appealed to the supervisor for being nominated. let's say an article in the chronicle about it. they can appeal to us. i'm in

small business. i have literally been there and they will not nominate me. i think i meet all the criteria. then we would advocate on their behalf. >> it's not uncommon for businesses especially ietsz -- either if there is a cultural distinction about the business, other elements that they might have with a supervisor over their district supervisor for other reasons. the legislation didn't spell out anything precluding and i hear what your concern is and i think that -- and the supervisors did say in our meetings with them that they would also like to they don't necessarily want to be in the position of only doing the nomination. that if businesses apply

they would like to receive those applications and then decide. so, but an application, a business that might submit an application that hasn't first been nominated by the mayor or board of supervisors will not come before you. >> it has to come from the mayor's office or the board of supervisors. >> the nomination. it has to come first and whether they look at it or it goes other way around or inform us we want to name x business and the staff reeps -- reaches out to that business and have them submit the application. >> is there an opportunity where they can self nominate?

>> not as it's currently written. but if they want to the nominated they can appeal to their supervisor. rather than having it here. we'll wait to see the first one. >> this is again why i'm saying i want to start off with some controls whether that business will call our office and we will have the conversation and one of the recommendations will be finding out do they have a relationship with the mayor or the board of supervisors to start off with, anyone of them and if they don't, working through the process, there can be organizations that they are associated with and have a relationship with. but clearly the nomination has to come from the mayor and or board of supervisors.

when we have adequate staff, that's the kind of i think sort of kind of massaging and working with the businesses that will be able to do, but until that time. it will take up time. so i just want to have some controls. in the future, there is no reason why we cannot be, if a business says i heard about this program and want to be considered and we walk them through the process. >> i can imagine a few businesses that some might find objection. i can see that. i think maybe we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. okay, any other commissioner comments

or suggestions? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. no action required. i don't believe. city clerk: which brings us to item no. 7. directors report. >> commissioners, i wanted to bring to you, your attention for the gross receipts to help advise the city and outreach for the business community around to the transition into the new gross receipts. there is going to be a follow up meeting on thursday to kind of talk about give libtd -- a little bit of a preview on where things are in terms of how it's going and the roll out and because in the law it does say that it's how the city is meeting it's revenue goals will affect sort of the

percentages in materials of the payroll and the gross receipts. >> who is on that committee from us? >> okay. commissioner adams. okay. so a heads up on that. and beginning of september will be the official announcement of that we'll have a presentation for the commission. and then did want to bring to your attention that richard hall ran and learner. richard hall ran with the department of building inspection, they are on the commission. they have started to meet and i have been invited to meetings to discuss about how we are going to be working the outreach and working with businesses and the property owners and the appeals

commission to get prepared for supervisor tang's legislation. so i think that's going to be exciting to be a part of. and i will be forwarding to you. there are several bills at the state level that i just became aware of last week. one is looking at doing a similar kind of tax credit and deduction that the federal government has at the state level. another is permanently implementing the dollar fee. it was sunset in 2018. we'll make that additional dollar fee that we charge. a permanent dollar fee. this will be great for us because it's helped fund our cast inspection program. so to help subsidize

it. it hasn't passed yet. but we soon will be mandating the entry ways are dealt with. there are still other issues to be dealing with in terms of accessibility with not just the entry way that are equally as important to make sure the businesses are mitigating. there is still definitelily continuing e working with the subsidized section. i will leave it at that for my directors report unless there are any questions. >> no. >> item 8. president's report. item nine, we do not have a vice-president's report.

item 106789 commissioner reports. >> i attended the -- negotiation with google business. they had about 300 people attend that event. it was very good. so that's all i have. google did a great small business presentation. so i want to give her a shout out as well. >> commissioners, any other items to report? >> item 11. new business. >> any new business? no. item 126789 do -- 12. do we have a motion for adjournment. >> i second. >> get ready, here it comes. [ gavel ] >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

>> this is a regular meeting of abatement appeals board. please turn off all electronic devicesism the first item is roll call. vp clinch, here. commissioner mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mccray, here, we vaquorum and commissioner waumer and melgar are excused is commissioner mccarthy is expected. the next item on the agenda is item b, the oath. will all parties givingtume today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you, you may be

seated. next item is item c, approval of the minutes. >> move to approve. >> i'll second. >> there is a motion and seconds. is there public comment on the minutes? seeing none all commission rs in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minute are apruchbed. next we have item b 1 and b 2. announce for the public and the staff each side has 7 minutes to present their case and immediately following that there will be public comment. item d 1, request for rehering case 68102. shakespeare street decided june 17, 20s 15.

action to grachbt request for rehearing. we'll hear from the appellate first. >> good morning. [inaudible] owner of 120 shakespeare. [inaudible] it is a long process, but-the first issue i would like to bring in, i would is a the history of citations information and one thing i would like to be on the record is there is a missing link to this. the information is about the complaint that is-i would like to show it on the screen. i know that you have the copy of this. >> i want to acknowledge

commissioner mccarthy joined us. >> thank you. >> now, [inaudible] assumption to this but the complainant has been asking for the [inaudible] last 3 years on the property and he [inaudible] 3500 numerous times and they were all recorded. the fine that [inaudible] constructed a storage house, a detached storage house that is 60 square feet and it is masonry bricks, no foundation what so ever. the allegation is that

the owner wants shakespeare street is doing construction without permit. i wonder how she knows without permit. putting all the dirt against the complainant retaining wall, which is a common retaining wall [inaudible] based on that i would like to let you know the storage house which is 60 square feet is about 30 feet away from the retaining wall. [inaudible] no mechanical what so ever. of course that is pretty much addressed by the san francisco building code, which ask defined by the clerk, mrs. [inaudible] california building commission and the

code is about 106.2 which is right on the list. it says that less than 120 square feet, there is no need for building permit and also it said [inaudible] that is one of the items. the next one is after citing that then we have a citation of the retaining wall. [inaudible] to the complaints saying that because of the work being done on the storage house it cost the [inaudible] foundation wall and make it unsafe and unstable and about >> to collapse. on the basis, we have absolutely employed the services of structural engineer. i think you have a copy of that. it came from

-this is the [inaudible] his aessment is the wall is 4 feet high and it is stable and therefore safe so we just actually [inaudible] to the citation that is on site and unstable and to had point of collapsing. this is performed by a structural engineering, which you can see he is a pe. that is additional evidence. [inaudible] what is said

about the retaining wall. on the other hand, under 60106 a.2 which is embraced by san francisco and approved by the california building standard commission is that it is a 4 feet high and under the provision which is i think embedded under the 2013 california building codes which is part of the ordinance approved by the state which is -there is a particular ordinance approved for that and it is saying a wall not above 4 feet high is exempt from the building permit. that is what we have at this point. um, i'm not supposed tosay this

because this actually-just for sake of the records is that, [inaudible] has taken a very [inaudible] decision. he called me the [inaudible] i don't want to [inaudible] for the city. why don't we just make building applications? on that basis we have a investigation report and the investigation report is clear the retaining wall is also 4 feet high and i have a copy of the investigation report as well quh which i believe you don't have it and also for the structural engineer it is 4 feet high. to my understanding based on experience and so on, what we submit today the building inspection is pretty much compliant, so we had the

soil investigation report and structural design, everything that is needed, details and section squz so on. i can sow some information about the structural design which is performed by a structural engineer. then zee the soil investigation report and then we have all the information about [inaudible] and so on which i believe is secondary to that. it was denied for some reason and i think that is within the review and when we asked for-the reason why >> sorry that is your 7 minutes but want to for the records point out the point of this agenda item is state new

evidence we would then decide if we rehear the issue. for the record your new evidence is-what is the new evidence? >> the new evidence is the structural engineer investigation report that the retaining wall is stable on the site. >> okay >> and also the additional information is the agreement between the sit a and the state of california with regards of enforcement of 106 a.2 which is supposed to be enforceable with the city of san francisco. >> thank you. now we'll hear from the department and decide if we rehear the case and if we do there will be more time to discuss the particulars. >> thank you so much for your time . >> the department has 7 minutes, right?

>> yes. >> good morning. [inaudible] i'm not hearing any new evidence that would likely change your decision that you made at the last hearing so i have no further comments. >> inspectorhension or mr.hension, i wasn't here for the june meeting, is it correct that the small structure is roughly 30 feet from the wall or is it on top of the wall? >> we acknowledged at the last hearing that the permit filed if that is issued when the inspector goes out under thar permit and verified that the shed is no longer there, it or less than 100 feet we accept that as the solution so we are not taking issue with the shed at this time. >> commissioner mar >> put aside the shed issue is

the issue the retaining wall needs to be rebuilt ? i think part of the new evidence is the engine ering report sayatize isn't in empinant danger of collapse and is the departments positions that it was in eminent danger of collapses >> that is wiey give time to repair it or we build it. >> if you look at the engineering report that they included for today dated july 27 of this year, it clearly states item b, inclusion and suggestions. new engineered 4 feet high retaining with adequate footing is recommended. that is completely supports the decision that was made by you at the lasthering >> that is the position

department, but that is our position still-the main issue is the retaining wall, not the shed? >> yes, exactly. >> thank you. is there public comment? sorry, seeing none, is there a motion or i can make a motion? >> we move that we [inaudible] >> i second that we grant the rehearing. >> based on? >> based on the evidence of the the engineers report. >> there is a motion to grant the rehearing. do a roll call vote. commissioner-vice precedent clinch, yes. commissioner mccarthy,

yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner mar, yes. that motion carries unanimously. on to item 2, possible rehearing of case sickt 802, 120 shakespeare street. action requested by appellate who seeks reversal of abatement. the appellate can come up. >> this is a 7 minute? >> saechb 7 minutes and 3 minute for rebuttal time >> what the building department mentioned about a letter b soph the structural engineering report and this is a little small but it was shown on

the definition. the second paragraph is only a recommendation, it has nothing to do with what is the general findings and observation during the inspection. now, the same recommendation was built in by the soil engineer so that can not be used against the property because it is only a recommendation and what is mentioned in the report is that whatever you have there is part of the norm lal wear and tear when it comes to structure and doesn't pose a safety hazard at this point. thank you very much. >> thank you. the department has 7 minutes. >> just for clarification to the city

attorney, should i represent our original report or should i just act as rebuttal? >> the board has granted rehearing based on the new efds they are interested hearing about the new evidence at issue. >> thank you. just to comment on the engineering report, it acknowledged that the height of the wall is 4 feet, therefore a permit is required to deal with that retaining wall. item 2 on the report, due to existing lateral soil pressure the top layers of the retaining wall are pushing out of [inaudible] so, any retaining wall that is pushing out of plumb is a hazard and needs a permit to repair it or

replace it. and then the conclusions we mentioned earluritem b and item a is approach saying the existing retaining wall shall be structurally repaired sooner better than laterment when you take all those comments not from our engineer, from his engineer it is clear that the decision you made at the last hearing was correct and this information that is newly presented further supports that you made the right decision at the last hearing and would hope that you would uphold your previous good decision. thanks. >> mr.hension are you very familiar with the conditions out there? did you go out there or did somebody

else? >> there were a number of people from the department went out there originally when the noits of violation was issued and shortly before the last hearing 2 staff were out there also. >> if i can ask a question from the engineering perspective, is the high side of the wall, is it hard scape or planted area? >> there is a photograph-let's see. the neighboring side of the wall there is a much greater height drop off. >> it looks like the down hill side is concreate, but i'm curious about the up hill side. this appears to be

it here. ya. the appellate before us today is which side of the wall? >> um, that looks like if you take a look at this picture here, so that picture there is from the neighbors side and you can see there is a major crack there and if i was the neighbor i wouldn't like to be looking at that. in fact, the neighbor has filed a permit also so in the event that the appellate doesn't move forward, the neighbor also has a permit filed so that they can move forward

sothey don't continue to look at this and have this hazard impended upon their patio. >> okay. >> also for the record, the neighbor has already got a order of abatement relating to this condition so they were willing to consider abatement on their property and the cost associated with that knowing that they are not entirely the cause of this problem, but they were willing it do that to show good faith that they are a cooperating neighbor. >> commissioner mar >> the permit they called was to repair the retaining wall? >> yes. >> any other questions from the commissioners? >> um, is the permit that the neighbor pulled, how long do they have

to-what is a time limit on the permit? >> 30 day order. >> 30 days. >> thank you. now the appellate has 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> is there public comment first? >> before rebuttal? >> public comment and rebuttal 3 minutes. >> i believe you asked about what is behind the retaining wall which is inside the property of the owner. this is the-behind the fence and that is actually 25 feet from where the storage shed was actually contracted so i can show that to you. that is a

storage shed that was constructed and it was removed and the first citation which is 102 was removed straight away so leaving the retaining wall issue in tact. now i believe the picture that was actually showed to you is pretty much the blown up area of the cracking and the issue of any out of plumb, [inaudible] significant beyond tolerance then you can say it is structure issue but we have a structural engineering saying the property based on his expertise and license that it is stable and safe. now, i wanted to show the actual picture of the retaining wall, not just the portion that was a little --this view is actually taken from the

neighbor. that is the front elevation and this is the side view which i believe is a little closer. as yoi can see recollect it is out of plumb-sorry? >> lower it. >> there you go. as you can see the retaining wall is what the engineer said is stable and safe and if there is any-[inaudible] he say that on the report that there is no diagonal cracking that will actually make it truly unstable so based on the [inaudible] of the structural? gen ear it is stable and based on what they said, which is the department, the person who performed the inspection

[inaudible] i'm not trying to put the person down because it is his job between the qualification of this inspector citing that it has a structural [inaudible] even some other engineering in the electrical or they don't comment on something that is structural, so here we are and have this structural report that says it is safe and stable. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment? seeing none. any questions from the commissioners? >> [inaudible] >> we haven't, you are right. >> don, do you have rebuttal? >> just one other item then on the report they presentsed. item 4, there was no drainage system to leave

the water behind the retaining wall out so that is a further example of where this talk of [inaudible] coming back, if we have a lot of rain you can have a major sur charge of water and further impending the retaining wall and wouldn't like to be the neighbor on the other side. thank you. >> commissioner mar. >> i have a question. so, john, the other neighbor has taken out a permit to repair the wall and also receive the notice of violation so our opposition this wall needs to be rebuilt again like mentioned sooner better than later so it is the opposition both neighbors are responsible for that wall, is that why we gave both neighbors the nlv? >> yes and i would anticipate

if both neighbors cooperate they would take the permit that the neighbor filed, they would use their own permit and use one of them to remedy the situation and that would clear the retaining wall issue on both properties >> the neighboring property the retaining wall has no other issues with the caish of the palt there are 2 issues there is a shed and the retaining wall, so it was a neighbors permit and it clears the retaining wall issue. the appellate would still need to get a permit deal wg the shed that that was removed. if the appellate used their permit they are taking care of the retaining wall issue and theshed so that permit clears it entirely >> i thought we taurked earlier about

the shed and someone said it was below 120 square feet. >> at the time of the violation it exceeded 100 square feet. we were in good faith that if they have this permit issued it was just enough for the inspector to look that retaining wall and look to make sure the shed is reduced in size or removed. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> it is probably more to the appellate, if you decide not to -i'm a bit confused here, if the other neighbor is willing to do the work recollect are you willing to do this work or repair-i do understand your argument in regards to structural engineer that it is safe and it is not a unsafe wall. are you going to object to the other neighbor fixing that wall?

>> as a matter of fact, we discussed that with 3 4 f1

we were not given a answer. the only answer is we were given a 3307 remove ing the foundation from the neighbors side as part of the common property and that only pertains to protection of the neighbors property and also giving him 10 days s before construction. out of that we were denied but we agreed to go for construction of the retaining wall. now, do so that we have to

remove the foundation it means the neighbor is not going to take anymore [inaudible] as far as construction of the wall is concerned so that is what it is all about. as i said [inaudible] is willing and we discussed this many timed and have dmun communications and we agreed and- >> you answered the question, so just if you can answer this--are you willing to participate in fixing the wall? have you got the finances to do it or you don't? you are agreeing to fixing the wall but you don't have the financialing to do it? >> that is what we told the neighbor is we are willing to fix the wall but you have to give us the time to [inaudible] our financing. >> thank you. that's my only

question. >> [inaudible] >> we have to [inaudible] our time here. any other questions from the commission or public comment? i think- >> i have a quick question from the appellate. since you are will toog do the wall with the neighbor, what would be a reasonable amount of time? what the reasonable amount of time mr. hui will need to cooperate with the neighbor to fix the wall because you said they need more time, what is that time? >> it is brt the financing side but we have completed the sign and so on and provided a copy to the neighbor saying this is what we have, but the main problem we have that according to the [inaudible] he wanted all the

foundation that is supposed to be between on her side to be moved on our side and we have to revise the structural design i that increases the cost of construction. [inaudible] he is not going to share it. that is the point of the review is. >> it seems to me 2 or 3 month is enough to do that. i think 2 to 3 months ought to be enough time to do what you kibeed described to get the revised design and calculations done and submit ted to the city for permit. >> the question we have is the neighbor willing to share the cost with us. >> that isn't before us. >> it is mandated under civil code 841 and common ownership so we deal with the cost involved and we are

willing to do that. we will construct the wall provided they share the cost. >> any other questions from the commission? it is my opinion that the wall, the engineers report says the wall is fine that moment but should be replaced. is there a recommendation? i think we should support the engineer said letter but think it is reasonable to give more time than 30 days so it is my opinion that something along theorder of 3 months is reasonable. john stol my thunder with elnino and they are talking about a lot of rain and so water will pond. the wall has been there for a long time but don't know if there are conditions

modified over the life of the wall that could make it more vulnerable at the time so i'm agree fl wall to be replaced but think it is reasonable for 3 monthss. my motion is uphold the order of abatement but allow 3 months for the work to be done. >> second. >> clarify, is 90 days? >> i have a question for the department and maybe the city attorney about this motion. if we prove it would that also apply to the neighbor because it seems like it is a common wall so if they are work on it we say this person has 3 mupth months and that person has 30 days? >> the neighbor has an abatement of issue so they are a are on the

same terms >> so they are given the 3 months as well? >> no, it is irrelevant because the order of abatement is previously issues so if you issue a order now both neighbors have a order of abailtment pending upon them. >> we are saying the nar is getting a permit and pull the permit and will rebuild the wall so in 90 days that will be a new wall. mr. hui doesn't have do deal with it or is the argument then between them about who pays for that wall because we are making the neighbor rebuild it right away? >> i assume only one of the 2 permits we move forward. they will have to cooperate. the neighbors not going to build the wall without having some agreement with the appellate and vice versa.

>> that was the just of my question, if we give one person 9 odays and the other 10 days to get it done, it seems like the fire is under the person with the 10 day limit. >> the other neighbor hasants complied yet and it doesn't have much impact other than we could send it the to the sinty attorney but we won't do that if they are cooperating so i don't see a problem there if you go ahead. >> there is a motion and second. >> we have a motion and second. do a roll call vote. >> restate the motion uphold the order of abatement for 907 days to give the appellate additional time to increed the work. >> [inaudible] >> it includes the [inaudible]

this is only with respect to the retaining wall, the additional 90 days. >> yes. >> vice president clinch, yes. commissioner mccarthy, yes. commissioner mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mu curry, yes. the motion carries unanimously. item a, general public comment. is there general public comments not on the egenda? seeing none, item f, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor, we are now adjourned. it is 955 a.m. i have a brief recess and reconvene at the building inspection commission. thank

>> good morning. today is wednesday august 19, 20s 15. this is regular meetding of building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to fern off all electronic gises. the first item is roll call. president mccarthy, here. vice president mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mccray, present. commissioner clinch, here. commissioner mill gar and walker are excused. we have a quorum and the next item is president announcements >> good morning everybody and thank you for attending the august 19, 2015 meeting. i have some comments from president announcements. congratulations to director hui and dbi executive team which is finalizing the department plan setting dpoles

and [inaudible] join the next current and coming fiscal your. the strategic blan will be post odthen internet as a standing guide for all staff and will help to improve our efficiency and effectiveness as a department. thank you to director hewee and dbi which are party of mayors city wide effort to prepare for impacts from the celebrations tie today the superbowl which will take place laet jan, early november. dbi's role is alert contractors for building projects that may be effected by any superbowl treat closures and other activities that can disrupt building supplies and require schedule modifications mptd thank you to inspector alert leonof the electrical inspection division

who was helpful in assisting a customer. he gave the customer a care package to follow and helped close the case [inaudible] inspector cristmer greaty who received a letter from a customer thanks him for his assistance rchlt we encourage if you have a good experience to write in and that experience be sknoe. kudos from [inaudible] who received a letter of appreciation for their work and excellent service in the field. finally, special thanks to ron tom and the dbi response cordsination team who are preparing for rehushal operation to enable staff to train and improve preparation responsive skills so they are ready for it next

big earthquake. dbi employee recognition members met, reviewed nomination jz for dbi's quarter of quarter 2 of 2015 and selected code enforcement daniel hendrix. daniel was nouminated by 2 different dxr bi star for #c3ustmer service skills. for her impress chb skill sets and understanding code enforcement and process. congratuless to danielle and those who nominated her and dii's enforcement team. that conclude my announcements. >> thank you. danielle, would you like to come forward? vice

president mar has a certificate. >> danielle and on behalf of the commission we would like to thank you for your great work and congratulate you on being elected as employee of the quarter. >> thank you. >> get a photograph there of the nominees. >> for the news letter. >> congratulations. >> thank you. if you want to say a few words you more than welcome. >> i just want to say thank you for the recognition, it means a lot to me and every day i just strive to be

the best at the department of building inspection. thank you. >> we are happy to have you, thank you so much. >> thank you is there public comment on the presidents announcements? seeing none item 3, general public comment. bic will take pub luck comments on malters within the jurisdiction not part of this ajenlda. seeing none item 4. discussion and possibly action to approve and square in a member of the code advisory committee. appointment recommended is jonathan rod regs seat the exspire [inaudible] reviewed by the nomination subcommittee at r also may consider include robert [inaudible] and bill [inaudible] >> commissioner mar doia want to take the lead on this?

>> commissioner lee, commissioner mar, you keep quite. there we go. >> nomination subcommittee met i guess about 10 days ago and interviewed all 3 candidates at the committee meeting and each candidate had their own strength and what we appreciate is this coming forward and volunteering their time to be on the committee. we selected jonathan rod rige to be on the committee. we felt that his background and resume was unique as being a attorney and working with people in the industry. we felt that

characteristic wasn't on the committee and felt that is a good thing to have on the committee so we nominate to appoint jonathan [inaudible] to the seat at large on the members of the cac. >> second. >> is there any commissioners comment regarding that? >> so, if we just do the nomination then we make the comments then, correct? >> is there any public comment on this item? then commissioners discussions, if there is any or we just go ahead and vote? >> i just want to echo. i'm

excited for you to sit on the city and great qualifications. thank you for serving. >> if there is no pub luck comment we'll do a roll qual call vote on the item. president mccarthy, yes. vice president mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner melgar is excused. commissioner clinch, yes. that motion carries unanimously. we now accept it. >> if you would like to say a few words. welcome and thank you so much. >> thank you commissioners and i'm very excited about this appointment and very excited about doing everything i can to help out with the code development in san francisco. my resident here since 1992 with a family iving in the [inaudible] of the city and i have been in and out of the department of

building inspection many times for various reason yz got to know lot of the people there. i'm very eager and excited about actually being part of looking at the code development that is unique to san francisco and beading a leader in code development. i will say that as much as we do, it does have not only benefits but impact state wide and country wide. we look at what we did with the destination based elevator systems in the abo 90 and the hard work we did. i remember writing the first draft and thinking this will take a few munt but there a lot of stake holder squz it bexha california building code for the state of california and thipg the rest of the country is looking at that as again a plat form for

their code development. we can be leaders and think i'm very excited to be part of the committee and appreciate the appointment. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] i forgot to bring in your oath of office and will have to have you come see me one more time soia can be sworn and get your oath of office. thank you. >> thank you and thank you for committee. excellent choice. >> nest item is item 5. discussion and action to swear in a member of the code advisory committee major contractor seat. appointment recommended by the nomination subcommittee is miking chauv rosales seat to expire [inaudible] eligible applicants by the subcommittee that they also may [inaudible] >> at our second meeting as a subcommittee, commissioners we

interviewed mr. chavez and he brings to the position of a major project contractor seat just a wealth of experience and background workic with high rises and companies throughout the city and we were excited about his presentation and time with us , so on behalf of the subcommittee we nominate michael chauv vez rks >> i second that. >> any commissioner comment or public comment? >> call the question. >> is dollar there a motion to appoint mr. chauv frz the seat. present mu

carty, yes, vp mar, yes. [inaudible] the motion carries unanimously. >> mr. chavs if you would like to say a few wurz you are more than welcome and again, excellent choice here on behalf of the committee. >> thank you, i want to thank the commission and dbi for throwing my name in the hat. i have been in san francisco for 21 years. i met my wife here the first day i worked so i fell in love with the city and wanted to call the city home. in my 21 years san francisco main library was the first project i built, asian art museum. i have been with web corp several years and built several high rises in the city y. have been on the back side of the code changes and challenges they

present so i thought it was exciting to be part of the process reviewing codes and looking to the future. i take great pride in the working reslaigzship i have with dbi. it sex citing to be part oaf the process. part of my job is bring the information back and i'm trying to share and mentor some of our newer talent coming along where wl they are project engineers or superintendents that will live and work in the city to come soime rrb excited to be part of the process. thank you >> thank you and thank you for your future service. >> mr. chavez i'll contact you as well about being sworn in. item 6, appeal pursuant to section d.3750-4.

appeal by working group [inaudible] represented by zacks and freedman llc. director tom hui's april 24, 2014. pursuant to 17975 of the california health and safety code. discussion and possibly action to adopt written notice of decision and find frgz appeal filed by working dirt llc. note the item was heard by the building inspection commission at july 15, 2015. at that meeting the commission voted to deny the epeal, uphold the director determination of relocation benefits and adopt findings at subsequent meeting. there will be 3 minutes allowed for presentation by the appellate and the department.

>> thank you. >> the appellate. >> good monching again commissioners. i appreciate the time that has gone into this and we reavooed the findings. i want to address the finding that relates to the finding this matter results from defeoffered maintenance from conditions that occurred quite some time ago. it appears from reviewing the departments records these conditions existed for as much as 20 yours and yet the order issued on april 3 or 4 didn't nocontain the necessary information for the landlord and tenants to meaning fully department from the property and handle that. the question i have and the owner had is why didn't this happen sooner? why didn't the department not plan

for this and why were the amounts not stated in the order issued? the problems we heard about the unfortunate situation the tenant were put in resulted in the 3 week lag between the order isued and the stailt about the relocation benefits issued. the landlord paid thumount they were owed. the tenant believe they were entitled for more and there was a dispute and this could have been avoided on clear [inaudible] within hours of issuing those checks as we heard a lot about, the payment was stopped but the landlord advised the tenants they would dothat and issue new checks which were for more than what the department ordered. in realty the sequence doesn't matter, the tenant received what the department ordered

they are paid and the prior owner who was responsible for 15-20 years of this happening is off scott free and perhaps that is what the current owner bought and perhaps that is what he or she or they should have expected but from our perspective the owner bought this property in mid-jan applied for permits, the deapartment gave a permit, the owner noticed the tenants to relocate. the owner stepped in and did that on its own. the owner attempt today do everything he could. it merely lacked dweckz from this department. there was no reason why the department couldn't have given that direction and from our perspective the non compliance resulting with the health and safety code could have been avoided and perhaps nothing will be done but all we ask is the future the department consider some regulations, the city consider regulations

so that landlords and tenant will be better off in this situation in the future. thank you. >> thank you. members of the commission, good morning romary bosky chief housing inspector. i want to commend the commission for a rather extensive hearing on this issue. at the big hearing-i will indicate that early in february the housing inspector assigned to this case, network #re79s of the property ouner handed every notice of violation out standing at the time and walked through the property with them so there was effort on our part early in the process when the property owner bault bought the property to answer questions they may have and insure they were well aware of

what was going on and at that point in time since there were notice of violation they had the opportunity to see chapsed ceilings. with that we believe with the testimony you received and the staff reports that we submitted that we completely support the findings as they have been indicated to us. thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? commissioner discussion? >> commissioner did you want to say anything? i concur with the report and do concur with regards to the representative from zacks freedman. prestigeerally i think we could have handled this better. going forward do we have a more better way of if

we have a situation like this again we have a more direct way of itemizing and quantifying these type of expenses that a property owner may incur as policy going forward? >> yes, tom hui department oaf building inspection. as you are a weir this is the first case we have and will work close with the city attorney and knh xh come up with a better procedure. >> we have learned a lot to this and to the credit of the property owners lawyer, if this comes in front of us again i will be not as lenient on the department how we get to the

the solutions here. i think it is very important we have a written and clear policy and think the report gives us that and want to thank the city attorney for giving this report. other than that it is just a comments looking to the future. >> commissioner mar. >> i would concur with president mccarthy's remarks. the other thing is, i don't think this is the first time we dealt with very long standing problems where the previous landlord chooses to deal with it just by selling the property, so i'm not sure if it is just within the purview of this department. maybe there needs to be stronger legislation or something because unfortunately given the market and what it is, there is nothing to stop people from selling a building in any condition. also, some

people will buy it under any condition. yes, i think we could have moved better on how long the nov lasted from the previous owner but don't know how to resolve this thing about. we have said to the new owners who come before us, you bought the mov's and should have known when you bought that building you bought the mov's and those tenants in a way. that is the problem. while there were unique things about this case in terms of the scope, i don't think it is that unique for those problems which people sold the mov's because they don't want to deal with it and sold the problemwise the tenants because they don't want to deal with it. i don't know if the dbi can deal with that other than the fact we are

saying you bought those. you should have known you bought that you inherited it. >> next steps, do we need to vote on-- >> wree voting to adopt-the motion is adopt the proposed findings dating august 19, 2015. is there a motion to adopt the findings? >> i move we adopt the findings. >> is there is a second? >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. do a roll call vote. public comment , sorry. public comment on the findings >> my name is jerry [inaudible] when we issued a civil grand jury report on dbi

and a findings is some of the dbi divisions didn't collect the fees when [inaudible] i would like taknow if that is remedyed because that is something that would address this problem. thank you. >> thank you. you have been very vaurfbed and had meetings in the past. i would make the argument we are doing a lot better. a lot better. that said, we still have outstanding issues on nov's and collecting the fees. as we find out these problems i think we addressed them very speedily but if you have any other cases that say we are not getting better i'm interested in hearing them >> i think the [inaudible] is a solution to the problem once the data is available to the general public and

it is-the old saying sun light sadis infectant is true. i think not to be negative, but ones view of acceptable isn't necessarily the same as another persons view. progress is important, but still if we are falling way short of the goal we are still way short of the goal. thank you >> thank you for your comment and to your point and think with our new computer system this should help and look forward to you coming to us and letting us know. >> i look forward to the discussion later in the meeting on accela. >> any other public comment? seeing none, roll call vote on the motion. presidents mccarthy, yes. vp mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner

clinch, yes. the motion carries unanimously. item 7, update on dbi policy regarding decks and balcony. >> good morning commissioners, ron tom assistant director of department of building inspecting. last month we were tasked to provide a overview of departments effort to address the issue of balcony and deck safety. the balcony failure in [inaudible] decks balconys and other building

elements. those includes stairs, [inaudible] despite the cities marine environment. dbi records of the past 5 years show very few ins dochbs deck, balcony and stair failures. the currents permit tracking system doesn't contain a data bis that provides nrfgz on specific building features such as balany decks stairs and fire escapes. we have existing building code sections that require [inaudible] like the projections of wood frame construction. they also require water flow management. if there is a impervious that exceedss 200 square feet the drainage has to be taken back towards and into the drainage system of

the building. unlike jurisdictions outside the city drain water [inaudible] terminated on a splaush block generally prohibited. we do have a housing code section 6 04 and applies to hotels that have balconys stairs fire escapes [inaudible] and inspected every 5 years. that is the responsibilities of the building owner. under section 604 the owner retained the service of a license general contractor, a license pest control inspector, license architect or civil or structural engineer. those parties have to complete a affidavit and submit to the department. the submittal could be done by e-mail and we accept

digital signatures. move on to the outreach efforts. we are taking full advant squj plan to take advantage of radio and television interviews, press relaces and other media such as social media. we currently have in our site on the dbi website information sheet number s 10. that is currently available and it is signed by the director and included in this s 10 is the section 604 requirements and the compliance affidavit.

additionally, we've utilize thd website since very recently and we now feature a website page on deck safety. all is a screen shot. if you click on this, it will take you to the page that specifically needs you-through the elements and content of the inspection of residential balcony and safety and deck safety. contained at the bottom of this page is a link. and that link is the 7 on your side hosted by

michael finny, very familiar figure in the bay yiria. that is a 2 minute clip and features our director showing how a person even a lay person can begin some of their own inspection by taking a screw driver and doing probing. not just the support elements but the fall protection elements as well because those are exposed and can fail just as much as the deck and structural elements supporting the weight. last june in our news letter we had a feature by director hui and he spoke about deck and balany safety. we are also going to feature a letter this month again on the subject of

deck and balany safety. the communications group has been reaching out to bomo, san francisco realsters association, san francisco apartment association and small property owners. we also plan to attend community events and partner with code enforcement outreach organizations. what are our next steps? we are going to assess in plan review how to do training for our staff to reach out to people coming in for over the counter permit where they have deck, balcony and stair repairs and when those issues come up we want our staff to spend a little time

and advice the applicant about not only the obligations but insure also that the details necessarily for water management and water proofing are contained when plans are provided. we want to also open a discussion at the code advisory committee and other submities for code change recommendations. during cochbdo conversion we have inspections conducted by staff. we want to issue the affidavit at that time and make it part of the package. we also want to expand the use of the affdivot when we have a notice of violation we'll include it. when we investigate apartment and hotel complaints we'll include it at that point in time and during routine and complaint based inspection, what features we

think are applicable we'll provide the affidavit. so, continuing the next steps, we are going to continue our outreach to property owners, contractors and other stakeholders. they include mailing notice reminders to property owners of affidavit requirements. we are start featureing a brown bag where we talk about deck and balcony safety and maintenance. e-mail submitted are available by the property owner and they can e-mail to our department for the affidavit completion and the continuing on the web seat and on line outreach sharing with the news letter. we plan to put a nrgz

information board on the 5th floor where we had other green building boards but now we are going to provide one for deck and balcony safety. we also hope to develop a powerpoint presentation that will be streamed on all the different floors where we have monitors which we currently show on a rotational basis probably a number of feature of important subject matters like earthquake safety in general. and we'll continue our outreach and partnering with organizations and stakeholders. commissioners are there any questions? >> commissioner mar, we'll start with you. >> i want to thank you for this. i think it is important that the department get ahead of these problems, but i have a problem because this deck

and balcony has something that we have been dealing with and dealt with it as a nov and in litigation. for example, there was a clearly illegal deck in a neighborhood that i was aware of and the reason we got such heat about it is because the neighbors were calling me complaining about the illegal deck. we did everything we right. we filed the nov and moved it up as quickly as possible to director hearing and it finally got to the city attorneys office which i think is where it still sits. the problem is this illegal deck and unsafe deck which the neighbors didn't know about. the reason they complained is they knew it was built illegally but what they were complaining about is this apartment building was rented mainly to callling

students so every friday and saturday night this deck was party central so that was the main concern and why i got these phone calls and finally i put heat on our code enforcement and finally the city attorneys office. the bottom line is, it is still there. this is one of these owners. the deck is still there and so august is rolling around where there will be a new host of college students moving into this apartment building and there will be the friday, saturday night goings on again. it is these things where unfortunately with the berkeley situation, if that tradagy didn't happen, that deck would have been probably still there and it would probably still be used and this is what is happening with this deck. i know the city attorney is moving on it because i called them on it,

they are pushing it and putting as much heat as possible on the property owner financially and all that, but the bottom line is, the deck is still there and if the deck is still there and the young people in the building are attracted to it obviously. i was wondering if there is anything the department can do? it is like the previous discussion about nov, there are intransit owners that's will not deal with the nov so is there a way to say this deck is red tagged andiocannot use this deck? put a ply wood door on the deck because it is unsafe to walk out there. short of that, i don't know how we'll prevent people from walking on that deck. we don't have that right now. >> commissioner mar, i really

appreciate not only bringing this to our attention but also the concern as a individual. we will all be remiss if anything should happen. in this situation i think first of all in this particular case where it is now perhaps our department can make contact with city attorneys office and get a response and convey our concern about the conditions that can potentially endanger people. injury and death in the wirs case scenario. for future conditions like this, i think what we need to do is insure for the public as well as for the commission that we do everything in a timely fashion. what that means is we don't put it under a

pile. it takes a priority and moves to the top of the pile and we have continued oversight and high level within the department all the way to the executive level to insure that everything that we legally and administrative processes can do we'll do quickly and hold the and schedule a hearing as soon as we can. but, we are faced from time to time with this dulima as a department over many many years. this is one that escalated because we know it can endanger lives. in other situations where we know we have people who thumb their nose at the process in place, this is a process we had to try to address but with

very great difficulty and know it is right in front of us, but someone in their own volition says well, i'm going to not do what you require me to do. what are you going to do about it? it is something that needs to have a greater open discussion and it takes on the effort of more than just our department alone. we would initiate the process and we can watch over it and shepherd it best we can but probably needs a greater discussion on higher level and engaging other agencies as well. i don't have the magic bullet to provide but i have taken note of it, everyone hear heard it, the directors heard and we'll definitely bring it back for discussion and we'll get back it the commission. >> okay. first a question for

director hui, does chapter 17such building code require special inspection for water proofing? >> [inaudible] special inspection for water proofing and such because water proofing is not in the inspection needs. >> because everything you presented today or most of what you presented today is about existing conditions but what concerns me is that the balcony collapse in berkeley was a fairly new structure and it points to we don't know the findings but it suggests there was a error in application of the water proofing membrane or fasteners or such. >> i agree with you commissioner. first of all, when i review a case in that particular deck [inaudible]

quh you have a hole under you see the water coming down and the water damage won't be much. second thing is they put the water proofing of the concrete on top and further the [inaudible] you don't see the damage there. also, the engineering materials when they have a composite, once you touch the water it detearierates a lot faster than [inaudible] as you are aware. that is what i see from the sheer off and that is sudden failure and overcrowding is another issue in this particular case. that is why we want to go back to improve our code. that is why we are going back to the [inaudible] committee to make sure the regulation under neath the [inaudible] sometimes when we don't have the specification on that

we won't to improve in that area and also maybe the material we are thinking about a pressure treated wood or something but want to go through the process. the water proofing is one issue but [inaudible] the water will seep through there. water migration is a big issue >> i agree with everything you said in the sense there is a need for better oversight in the detailing and assembly and that is a difficult one because the dbi is responsible for enforcing the code and the code isn't that explisant on durability which is a life safety issue in this case. i think we can strengthen the requirements our building code for durability issues.

2ndly, i wonder if we can require a special inspection of the water proofing assembly. that would be just making sure that the installation is done right. >> we can talk to the [inaudible] committee, but water proofing is very specialized. >> the manufacturer of the product. >> [inaudible] they do a good job and shouldn't have that type of problem. that why it is a combination. we'll give our inspector [inaudible] >> just to follow through on that, as a part of special inspection criteria we need engineering letters if we did a retaining wall and so on that the department it is in their scope to make sure it is done correctly but

the special inspection at the end of the job saying it was done. could the water proofing-i'm cog of the fact we could be over killing there to your director, if it is done roit it shouldn't be a issue, but what would it take to be a part of special inspections in water proofing like for decks where there will be a life safety possibility problem if it isn't done right and we can make it part of the special inspection at the end of job or a letter is sent in saying it was done correctly and all the guided principles how it should be installed was done correctly? >> one thing we can think about but the problem is you have toop find architect or engineer to sign off on it and then how do you find a special guys to sign off on it? who is qualified?

[inaudible] >> i gree with everything you said. >> plus at the end of the day when i do a project and i have >> student to bring in a water proofing contractor who specializes in water proofing is because i'm not doing it so why not have a issue of where they can back up their work in some form? i know a engineer has to do it. it is a interesting point he brings up here because the venting was a big problem on the deck and you eluded there was no venting and that is a remedy for disaster. it is something we could-i see mr. rod rige rosales taking notes so if is on it, but it is something we could look at if there is a form of where we as a department feel that little bit better there is another set of eyes on the water

proofing and there is a form of communication to the department saying in our opinion this is done correctly and deshould sustain for many years as commissioner was saying this is only a 5 year old deck or 7 or 10 year olds deck which is rel tivly young so something seriously went wrong there. to your point i think that is something we should consider. i don't want to-do you have anymore? commissioner lee? >> yes, i'm curious about what programs we have in place for the smaller buildings? i understand we programs for apartments and hotels but what about single family unit. last mupth we had an abatement appeal case before us which was a rental home and the back deck was deteariated and had to decide to close that off. i'm curious to hear what the plans are for the

smaller buildings or is it just all voluntary? >> i think it is a matter of resources related to the numbers. with the apartments there are more people involved and in terms of tenants and we have a housing inspection services division. single family and 2 family dwellings generally fall into the purview of our plan revuiew inspection and building inspection division and the numbers there i think are spread out and all over the city, so it is a matter of developing a database . wrun one of the things we hope to do and think you brought up a excellent point here commissioner lee, we intend to roll out the accela program

and expect the project permit tracking system to provide the opportunity to capture features more so than the current permit tracking system. right now basics are the unit count, construction type, height, story count. adding and capturing features like decks and balcony, stairs fire escapes, if we start developing that especially for single family and duplexes perhaps that is where we can over a period of time be able to develop a program that is effective. right now there is only one way to make a determination. you go out and drive out or you make note of it when you do a regular

kitchen or bathroom remodel inspection or when you go and search through our records management division to see if there are drawings and then you can verify it. the issue now is we don't have a complete data base available to put together a effective program. i think it is something we definitely want to think about and think you bring up a slnts point. we talked about what are we going to do about the smaller buildings and we'll continue this discussion and i think that is currently perhaps director hui has a problem. >> commissioner lee, to answer your question up to this point there are 1 and 2 family [inaudible] our results can not be [inaudible] we want to concentrate on [inaudible] and

also some of the small commercial buildings. there are 2 thing tooz look at, one is a [inaudible] and the other one is a self supported polls and beams to support the back [inaudible] is more dangerous because they have water proofing on top you may not see and that is why we want to capture those-right now this time with the [inaudible] regulation type of construction, water proofing is a issue we want to make sure. the other for single family or 2 unit buildsings that is why we encourage the owner using a screw driver and [inaudible] trying to see themselves. you walk on top of the deck and you feel it isn't safe then you should ask professional opinion to come in and fix it. [inaudible]

they should come in to do it right away. that is the advantage thrai v. thereat is why we encourage them for repairing your deck or rear stair or anything, you don't need a plan, you just come in and file a permit and you don't need it go through planning. everyone knows you issue it right away. what we call a [inaudible] that is what we approach to encourage people to get permit and come in sfr small building. the bigger building we want to encourage them to come in [inaudible] how to improve the water proofing situation. water proofing is a issue eerfben 20 or 30 years ago i remember when was

outside, evethen roof before they were [inaudible] water migration into the building that is why the roof want a quarter inch per foot otherwise they don't guarantee [inaudible] your water won't come in. it isn't a new things it is a old thing but they come back again and again and we learn from it. >> i see the point where it can be a challenge to document all the balconys and stairs and decks for single family home jz duplex but it is incumbent on the property owners to take a look at their buildings. since the tragied in berkeley, i look around at the build squgz i see small single family homes with whault i call decorative balconys. they are just metal looking

balconys and not real bal conys just bolted on the wall and see people standing on them and they are smoking. i have seen a case where they are bbq. maybe single family home people don't know that structure is safe or not and it is incumbent for them to find out. >> thank you commissioners. i just close- >> my comment is a observation. when i received this i saw balcony deck safety and looked at the picture and saw a fire escape, no deck, fire escape and was only in the last comment that we mentioned fire escapes. whatever the codes are i hope we are also including information about having these

checked and these kept up to date because they are everywhere and i been thinking balcony and deck and when i saw this i said i have one of those. >> [inaudible] was included. we are going go into all those because they attach to the building with a screw in there. >> that is covered in our section 604. >> to commissioner mars point i am off line and would like to talk about concern to the regards of the other deck and maybe we can talk after the meeting. first of all i want to thank you mr. tom, i asked for this last meeting and wasn't aware you had done so much-work so quick and give such a great presentation today. it is a outstanding first step for the department to be taking and so

i'm happy with what you presented here today and feel confident the department is doing everything within their prirfby to do the right thing going forward because now after the tragied that is all we can do is look real hard going forward and how do we do what we need to do to make sure it doesn't happen. [inaudible] to 3 of the families left here and visit with them today. i'll share this with them and say this is your-this tragied is triggering a great awareness this can happen to anyone and will do our part to make sure it doesn't happen in this city. as a part of the policy we are going to do-- >> i believe up to now i haven't shared any of this yet. our housing chief has been in contact with the

berkeley representatives and maybe perhaps our communications group has done it, i'm just not aware of it >> i think it is something as soon as you feel is appropriate to do that because--i just to my commissioners points here, i think this is touched everybody so dramatically so if we could and i also want to thank lily, i know she worked hard on this, if we can keep updates how the outreach is going if you feel confident it is getting through. i want tobook you for the buildsers meeting which will come up soon. you mentioned you are outdreaching to the groups and think you do a great job presenting it [inaudible] greater step

forward. thank you to the the staff and your hard work. i wasn't expecting this great report so thank you. >> thank you very much on behalf of our staff. it is a team effort and we convene and everybody-what you saw today is a contribution of many people and we just happened to put in a powerpoint presentation but the collective effort of different ideas because everybody has a different take how >> to reach out to people. thank you commissioners with time to share thoughts and concerns about this very important subject that we are not going let it go and continue to pursue the outreach and bringing this into the collective consciousness of building owners. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on item 7? seeing none, item 8, directors

report. 8 a, update on dbi finances. >> good morning commissioners [inaudible] deputy dreper for department of bilgdsing inspection and in the packet is july 2015 year to date financial report. given july is the first month of the fiscal year there very limited data so i'll give a brief summary. the revenue there is a slight reduction in revenue, but one percent compared to last year. i see this as being the same what we collected as last year. on the [inaudible] side we are spending slightly more than we did this year last year, however because july is the first month of the fiscal year we are doing a lot of prep rakez for the year so we are setting up contracts and po's and work orders.

also i discussed this earlier, july is the month that we use to close out the prior fiscal year so we are doing a lot of close outs and hope we'll be done with the close out of 14/15 and can provide a report next month. happy to answer questions if you have any. >> commissioner mar? thank you for that. just probably a little off topic but the reduced fee in progress? >> yes, the reduced fees are not in progress yet. the legislation is currentsly approved by the board at the last meeting july meeting so we have to wait for a meeting in september so hope it will be effected after the mayors signature so in october so & that is timely because a few months ago

we had approval to extend the temporary fee to the end of october. bill strom will have more information about the legislation in his report too. >> thank you deputy. >> item 8 b, propose a enacted state or local legislation. >> mr. stom. >> pub luck comnlt for the directors report will be taken at the end. >> good morning bill stom legislative and public affairs. to deputy director madisons point just a minute ago, the mayors legislation did pass for the budget. it was attach today the full budget for our fee changes and one reading took place so the second reading will take place at the boards fist meeting in september and

expect that to pass unanimously and the mayor to sign it that same week so roughly around the week of october 6 or 7 is when we expect new fee tables to go into full effect. as the director mentioned earlier, it is going to be roughly a 10 percent reduction. it will be a little higher than the 7 percent that we have right now. there will be finer gruidations on the evaluations tables as well. that will be fully in place by the middle of october. i know i had more than one conversation with some of their directors staff and berkeley did not have the requirement that we had since

20s 2 where owners are required at least every 5 years to have a engineer or architect reinspect those types of appendages to buildsings subject to climate deterioration and wood root. the new ordinance is fashioned on housing code 6 04 that i and mrs. bosky sent it them. [inaudible] they added a couple additional elements in the adopted code such as pressure treated wood being now a requirement and i believe they will require even more frequent reinspections. i believe what the council decided is every 3 year, which is possible and berkeley was a more limited building supply, that would be very challenging in

san francisco given our overall situation. but with that i want to mention too that the mayors legislation for waving plan review fees for building and planning on the legalization of in laws did pass and that will take effect in early september. right now we've issued about 61 or 62 permits on the legalization of in-laws and we'll have to wait and see whether this fee reduction effort may stimulate more interest. you may remember it is a voluntary program and as a consequences we have to wait for people to come to us and then we offer them the advice that they need. other issues that are going arounds supervisor wiener and christensen both have added in

the additional dwelling unit opportunity within the existing building envelope. that also will be having a second reading early september and will take effect about the middle of aublt. as a reresult anybody doing a seismic ret row fit if they have space within the envelope of the building to add a dwelling unit. to date we had about 6 percent applications submitted to us. no one has yet been issued and those are in process. we do anticipate and heard from the permit services section this is a very likely source of increased building permit applications in the very near future. i

think the only thing i want to menshz mention is there is a piece of legislation supervisor chew introduced, ab 1236. we had a conversation with his staff about that would require the immediate prioritization of review and permit issuance for electric vehicle charging stations. our concern with the legislation didn't have a caveat about life safety to let the building official continue to have the authority prioritize that ahead of a electric charging station. san francisco is already according to mr. chew's aid the gold standard in the state and the reason for the state legislation is to try and get other jurisdiction

tooz do what we already do. they did agree to have a discussion and make sure that the health and safety exemption still stands and we are going to have to drop everything to deal with electric vehicle charging staishz if we vahigher life safety priority. with that i'll take any questions. >> thank you so much. >> item 8 c update major projects. >> good morning commission. tom hui department of building inspection. as you see from the [inaudible] compared to last month, roughly increased by.9 percent. [inaudible] any questions you have? >> nope. we have the commerce

or [inaudible] still. that is good. >> item 8 b, update on code enforcement. >> good morjing commissioners. dan lowery deputy director inspection services and here to report on code enforcement and monthly update for the month of july. it is very buzzy in the building department if you come by between 730 or 830 you see masses of people. all the inspector squz clerks are really busy. building inspections performed, 5625. complaints received, 348. complaint response within 24-72 hours is 347. complaint with first notice of violation sent is 34. complaints received without notice of evaluation is 185. abated complaints

are 54. second notice of violation is 14. that is for building inspection division. for housing inspection services, housing inspection is 947. complaints received is 355. complaint response within 24-72 hours is 353. complaints with notice of violation issued is 1ten. abated complaints is 392. number of cases sent tothe director is 17. routine inspection is 145. code enforcement services number of cases sent were 48. number of aboughtments issued is 13. number och cases undrb advicement are 4. number of cases abated are 7 twampt code in enforcement performed is 159. cases referred to the [inaudible] were 2. other thereisologist graphs

attached to give you a outlook for the past year for these complaints. thank you. >> thank you deputy. >> any public comnlt on the directors report items 8 a-d? >> my name is jerry dratler. my first comment is that historically notice of violation is a problem specifically the time required to clear them. my suggestion on the directors report will be that the revenue section would show the neb of nov's out standing this year versus the same period last year. also the number of nov's over 12 munts olds so we can see if there is progress made. secondly, with respect to the revenue that is required it be

collected for nov's that run beyond the normal abatement period, i would like to see nat revenue broken out separately this year versus last year. it speak tooz chairman mccarthys point of view that progress is made but you can't see it and if it was shown as revenue we could see if it was substantial. my second point deals with activities versus outcomes. it may seem like a fine point but let's say you and i have a children and recorded if they went to school or not and whether they did homework, those are actirfbties. outcomes is did they learn anything and graduate. what i see us doing is reporting a lot of activities, things we did, but we don't report outcomes and think outcomes should be the focus of the

bick. management is managing activities but see what the outcomes are. the third point is a question on the 3 million dollars of expenned in the first period for community based organizations. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> any additional public comment? >> deputy director you don't have to come up, we have that data of this year versus last year would we? why don't you come back. just to the comments there. >> i'm not sure if i understand all the comments but on the revenue report we yooyuss specific accounting codes so nrd for us to getthality nrgz that is information that you get from a report from different division if that actually happened. because he

is looking more not on the revenue he want said to know on each specific case what is happening on that case and whether or not it is going forward is that correct? maybe i didn't understand your question. >> what i'm interested seeing is some oaf the divisions were not collecting that and i'm interested seeing the total or aggregate amount of revenue that isect collected for nov's that run 60 or 90 days past the abatement period where there is a monthly fee and there were some division collecting zero and some doing a good job. if we can see the total and also we could see the number of nov's we can make judgments about if you have 4 thousand

nov's over a year old and collect 120s dollars it doesn't look like we are doing much >> i'm trying to get to is it possible to answer that. >> probably something the department will have toget back on because it isn't a agendized item. >> ya. >> so, i'm sorry i wasn't clear before. the information probably exists but outside the financial program so there has to be a way to merge the data together. when we collect for permits i cannot tell you how much money we collect on a bundle of permits. we do things on accounting code so maybe we need to get together internally to figure if that is something that with can be done and reflected in

the revenue report because that is based on high lechbl. it may be a separate notice of violation report. >> commissioner mar >> i want to clarify for my own standing for the fees. if nov's are issued a lot of times the fees actually require recorporation of staff time and cost, so for example if housing is recoperating more of those costs, we would want to know that versus let's say the sections of the building department where there is leckical plumbing or mechanical, if they have a nov on a building problem or lack of permit problem we want to knee their staff time that recoperating this. is that right? we are looking for the tolet total to see where the staff time is getting recoperating.

>> hement wants to make sure the fees are collected so if we have 100 nov's we should have x number of dollars. that is what we are trying to figure out and i'm with him on that because that is something the grand jury focused where we have-it was like a million something dollars that we couldn't account for that wasn't collected. i would make the argument we are a lot better now because we are focusing on nov and collecting the fees and bringing them forward. >> actually thank you. we were a divisioned by the jand jury collect ing the fees. we are talking about not a penalty but assessment of cost for the hourly rate and have a complete accounting of that because we have the

lean cycle where the property owner hasn't paid them. we originally had about 800 thousand dollars bnch the board recollect people came in and paid those and it reduce today 600 thousand but that information specific to each of the cases so there is a complete accounting of that. in housing we do a hourly billing that support the letter the property owner gets with a total so if not just the 52 dollars the monthly fee is just doing the inspection and issuing the notice and reinspection. we have a complete accounting of that it is in the shape of assessment of cost and once the board of supervisors adopt that for those in arequire t is recorded on the praurnt tax bill and appears as code 55 in the special assessment section of the tax

bill. there is a complete accounting from when we issue the first bill for assessment of cost all the way to if they haven't paid and it is recorded on the property tax so we have that information going back 20 years with about 35 cases in the late 90's so we have all that data. >> commissioner mar has a comment there. >> it was related about a different topic than the fee. >> it isn't about the million dollars which is significant but it is also about the earlier issue of nov's notd being addressed by property owners and dbi using all the tools in their arsenal to do that. if that procedure is outlined by the deputy dreblter is follow than the property owner will see that and there will be a

financial incentive not to let this run. right now there are no significant penalties for just gaming the system. >> okay. deputy i just-please tell me if you do this that we have a tracking system so this time last year we had x amount of nov and this year we have- >> we can track that and as far as the 52 dollar assessment fee we implemented that right away and that is being built. some of the penalties when it go tooz order of abatement it goes on the lean cycle so that is being tracked and when there is a notice of violation and don't respond there is a penalties >> to jerry's point i ptd to claim this because i know this is good

news, to his point when you do your reports is it something that can be done on a muntly basis or say x amount och months we can give to show we are moving better into the going forward on this and we are- >> we can give the lean cycle amounts built out on the order abatements, as far as the outstanding neats i don't think we can track that. we would have to go through avenue wn. if he wants compliance of what is happening with we have tolook to make sure and look at the permit. >> you have to look and say that is correct >> we can take a example maybe 10 or 20 cases. >> you have ideas on this? i want to wrap this up. >> i appreciate the time.

[inaudible] are the pts which requested from director hui that showed all that data and there were 10 thousand records in excell so if is easily summarized and you can see whether the fees are collected or not. there isn't a need to do sampling extract or report is easily run and somebody needs to do manip ylthz in excell and summarize it and it is just right there. >> right. okay. closing on that point, inspectorhension. >> as a result of the grand jury report all building and plumbing cases received from august 15, 2013,

everyone is immediately assess frtd the fee back to when the original notice of violation was issued. any case after august 15, 2013, we can account there is a monitoring fee every month from the first time it was issued until the department signed off. >> whether we collect it or not we are doing our job, right? >> anyone that dozen pay it goes on the property tax. >> it is out of our hands. >> it is on the property one way or the other. >> at some point i would like to see a state of the union where we are now from where we are 2 years ago and something we can talk off line or have a item we can bring back. >> i'll provide information you

like. [inaudible] >> i just want to see if it is big deal and set a time month or 2 months from now or whatever. >> most och the tracking is on excell so may be able to do it quick. >> let me know and if it is something we can put together we'll have it for the next meeting. i would like to state of the union because we are working hard but what are the results? >> a lot of times permits are being filed and do take time. some are stuck in planning and some are being performed now. as far as resolution of notice of violation. >> i know everyone is doing their job. thank you. commissioner mar. >> this is related but not the same point is the question of the

cbo's because i raise td before. the 3 million that we give to support service do a lot of education work. one of my main questions because this might be on a general topic is that i feel that the cbo's are getting more property under their purview because of the things the mayors office of housing is doing privateatizing the properties. my point is we don't get as much regular reports from the cbo for subcontracts as i would like since we pay them 3 million dollars. it would be nice in the future to say what are we getting for that 3 million dollars in terms of the same heat we put on staff in the divisions to tell us what they

are doing with code enforcement and stuff. there is that and the other question i have which is more direct and reason i didn't put it on the agenda is because their contracts are not up. i want to know when are the cbo's going out? i believe it is yearly but we are still far out. do you know off hand when they rfp's go out? >> i don't know that but included in the 3 million dollars there will be a rfp going out shortly because there is new funding for seismic safety outreach but standard outreach and sro, i donot. i can follow up >> the next meeting will be great. thank you. >> item 9, discussion on project

tracking system. >> good morning henry bartry and with department of technology and project manager for accela implementation. the status you receive brings us to date. on the configuration and testing front which is the functionality of the system, we have 53 critical and high. those are severity 1 and 2 and needs to be fixed for go live. this

number is plux waiting and have 22 items that are closed out since i was last here on the list. right now we do have a request to excell to get more resources and support this activity because the list has grown and know as we go through the sim ylshs there will be more items on the list so want to-we know we are at a deficit for staff to handle the items so that is a key item we are work to mitigate that risk. on data migration, we have 54 items remaining that are going through the fixed and qa cycle and this continue and wrap up in september. there is work there but it is within the resources we have allocated to it to stay on the time line. on the reporting fronts we have reports developed by

[inaudible] and another set developed by dbimis staff. on that we have 14 accepted othf accela reports and 27 going through uat and then 19 in development qa from the accela side. the dbimis team, the 72 on their plate we havetony accept squd 24 in uat which means the user are looking at them, 19 in development and 17 queued to start development. on this particular aspect we added a new resource in the team 2 weeks ago, a full time hire and wilson and work wg hr staff to supplement the staff and add resources to get more reports developed at a greater rate. as i mentioned earlier we started yesterday. yesterday we have 10 scenarios we are

going through and [inaudible] is going from started yesterday and go through close of business friday. we have 11 scenarios are first we did yesterday was one of the most complex which is site permit. the way these are organized is we have representatives from all the decisions in dbi in the room so we simulate the flow and hand off between the department squz the planning department is there because they play a key role so we ran through that simulation starting with someone walking into the door and getting the intake of the site permit, handing to planning and going through the planning cycle and then proceeding to issuing site permit squz addendum and inspections against those items and resulting of the inspections and getting a certificate of completion. we went through that yesterday.

we had items raised and had no items blocked our progress getting through that scenario. the room is filled again today going through the 2 more scenarios and more this afternoon. we are doing that each day this week. as we said, the second bullet point, the go lifen date, when weget through the second rountd which is the first full weekf october thereat is the point director hui and his team can set a go live date. under concerns we did talk to you last time about issues we have with av test which is our internal name for the test plat form where we do testing with the users and we had issues with performance and availability. that had up

until yesterday had been improving however yesterday we did experience a outage in the plat form in the middle orf our morning session with our end to end testers where the system started degrading and after 15 minutes we couldn't access the platform. it took 2 and a half hour tooz resauvl it so we had to counsel the morning session and resume in the afternoon. i still don't have the full root cause report back from accela but the early information is it was a router and fire wall issue within their equipment but they work would the vend toor get resolve squd it was very very bad timeting that occurred whether we were in the middle of testing and we are trying to build crfds in the users and showing a clean run through the test. the second bullet is unchanged from last time where we talked generally about ability

and performance and customer support of accela team. 2 weeks after we met with you we did have a meeting with accela with their chief technology officer, their head of west coast data center which is where dbi and planning is hosted and the customer service met with us and had a very candid and frank [inaudible] as well as what are they doing to make sure capacity of dbi when we go live is planned for and accounted for in their infrastructure. it was a very positive meeting that they were very candid and owning to the issues we have seen and they have work to

do in terms of their customer service pross and responsiveness so we are looking forward to seeing evidence of those things taking place and working with them further to make sure that we see the kind of performance and stability the city dissevers for their money. with that i'm happy to take questions. >> commissioner mar >> i'm sure it is already he but have to ask it, still there is no go live date but it will come in october? >> octis when the date is decided. the first week of october is when we'll have enough of the results that we can go back todbi and say we have the evidence and backing of the managers to say the system is ready to support the business of dbi. >> my memory may be fuzzy but

being in the meetings i thought it was going tobe in august when would decide when the go live date was. >> it is just a point of information because somebody pointed out to me during the break we are approaching the 5 year anniversary of when we started this thing and if accela was a building the owner would be jumping up and down on the contractor right now. i know we want to do it right and think we have been very patient about making it right but wanted to say that i think people are still waiting for it. >> i'll go easier on you henry, i know you are doing everything you can and go all the dates are moved and sounds like a broken record up here. my concern is make sure

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ in well with the innovation

capital world i can't think of a better k with the wifi connection in our city it is crossing different economic lines and neighborhoods it helps not only young people with their education but regular folks to find out where their muni bus is or their routine or opportunities in the city it was lead by the department the of technology they've proven themselves they wanted to take on such a great responsibility on market street i want to thank the department of technology they've found great partners with marcus in the valley along with mayor 42 boss of them gave us very expensive equipment to

use but also gave us some great guidance how to do that the combination of the public private partnering was another compliment off our department the government some work with the technology to do those sorts of exist things and compliments all the things we're trying to do to use technology in a positive woo san francisco is one of the greatest city's in the world and suddenly give a support to a service that - wifi is a utility like power and water and it has to be available i think in all the public venues >> i will live in oakland i'm here on microsoft a lot and not familiar with the area especially the part of market street so be able to navigate

around is really, really helpful and i appreciate the fact the city is doing it's civic duty in providing a connection to everyone there was a huge manpower effort 3 shops involved with the overhead the underground cable company and the radio shop doing all the turn on and trouble shooting all of the shops put in at least 3 months of manpower hours time and six or eight people in each shop no issues are the app the access ptsz points out to the system there were a sophisticated innocent that was broadcasting the signal ate. >> as far as mobile devices we can use a public-private partnering to hit up the

corridors corridors across the city where people traverse with small businesses and transit corridors and they want to get online with their education folks connecting with friends are looking for a job i think we have a lot of people in the city veterans they're not just on market street they're all over the city and want that. >> it is an old market street has been did you live up several times since installed we had to run links to link the conduits system to get the links to the fiber $3.1 million is a lot to pull that is the fiber to our shop procuring it getting it to the job. >> we pay a good amount of

taxes in san francisco it would easy the burden to have access r sees to wifi we won't have to pay egregious cell phone bills when they can connect to the intersect is it so kind of silly why not. >> free internet and wifi is a way forward for the division of the city across the country oakland and san jose and chicago and filled we're saying we want our families and kids particular from backgrounds with they're used a to be an great deprived people can look for jobs or a game for the 21st century is it it is about making sure we take care of the

>> >>[gavel] >> i guess we are ready. okay. good morning. the meeting will come to order. this is the meeting of the government audit and oversight committee for july 16, 2015. i named his supervisor yee and chaired a committee to my right is supervisor christiansen, vice chair. and on my left will be supervisor read. the committee clerk and the sfgtv. we have jesse larson and cameron smith who recorded each of our meetings the transcripts available to public online.