>> good morning, today is

wednesday september 21, 2016, this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices, the first ie fem on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> commissioner konstin? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner gilman. >> here. >> commissioner walker? >> here. >> commissioner clinch is excused along with our newly appointed commissioner warshell. we have a quorum and the next item is president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody, and we have a pretty full calendar, thank you for all attending here nor the wednesday september 21, 2016 building inspection commission. with that, i would like to open this commission today in honor of rose pack who passed away last week and obviously

as somebody that's been involved in the building world, rose has been a force of nature in this community, in the san francisco community in particular in her own community for many, many years, so obviously we were saddened at her loss and the city has lost a great ambassador and community leader, so with that, ieding like to honor her today and i know everybody feels the same, so thank you for that. there's been a few changes here in our commission, we have a new commissioner, commissioner melgar has gone to the planning commission and she is starting there pretty soon, i don't know if she's already sworn in, she has been sworn in, so we wish her well, we're going to miss her and we're going to miss her common sense and her expertise particularly nr the operations of the city because for many, many years, she has worked closely there,

we all wish her good luck and well done on her new appointmentabilities we have a new commissioner, mr. warshell, i haven't met him yet, but i believe he's on vacation and will be at the next big commission, so we're looking forward to meeting that commissioner, so welcome aboard there. with regard to that, i have a prepared statement and it's particularly in regards to what's been all over the news here in regards to the 301 mission high rise, so i've prepared a statement here that i would like the read into the record, recently, we the department and myself as president of the commission have been taking many questions and i feel many concerns about the seismic safety of some of downtown high rises, in the past waoe, mayor lee has been convening relevant department heads and commission presidents to proactively reconfirm the safety of the downtown high rises, he has directed the city m*insadministrator and

[inaudible] to spearhead this work convening and also to convene outside experts as needed for an independent and transparent and undais reconfirmation of the safety of our high-rises, the mayor has directed us to reconfirm the safety, not just 301 mission but all high-rises in the area and the projects also in the pipeline. we wanted to reconfirm that our existing building codes administered bulletins and independent expert review process ensures safe high-rises, the last week, the mayor struktd dbi and the office of resilience and recovery to immediately amend the 30 year earthquake safety implementation plan to expedite the safety of new and existing high-rise buildings, he's also requested a dbi immediately review failure mitigation measures for buildings in

geotechnical hazardous areas. dbi welcomed the mayor's direction and urgency as the protection of the high-rises is called in question for the residents. the mayor wants to fear, not facts to drive this conversation, so i look forward to the director working with you and along with the commission to follow through these requests, if you wanted to add any particular comments to that, you're more than welcome to do it. >> yeah, good morning, commission, our department is going to work with outside experts trying to make sure whatever we can do to improve -- you know, to ensure all the safety of the high-rise building in the area. >> okay, alright, we look forward to working, we have a long road to go there. one final note, i would like to welcome annie, she is new, she is our madam secretary's new assistant there and

welcome to the team and i look forward to working with you, that's annie down there waving her hands, introduce yourself to everybody afterwards, that concludes my president's announcements, thank you, for this morning. >> okay, thank you, is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction na are not part of this agenda. >> good morning, commissioners, i'll try to be brief, i'm here for another item but during public comment, i wanted to suggest something that would be a good idea to refer to the code advisory committee. our most important document at least in my mind and i've been doing this for 37 years is the csc, the

certification of final dmaoetion, it's the birth certificate, since you've been incredibly long time since that's been looked at the, code advisory committee should look that the and bring it up to today's building environment and i'll give you an example. we're about to do 5 thousand soft story retrofits. they get a cfc for seismic. do we really want to be doing a seismic retrofit that will give a cfc that will also establish the legal number of units? they do both, if that's the intent, that's fine, but i'm a little concerned that a cfc for seismic may not want to have the number of units because that's not the intent of the work, and we're going to have problems just like we did with the parapet program where they got cfc's, the [inaudible] that created cfc's for the seismic and if you look at that cfc,

they're a powerful document, they created strange number of units so it's just a suggestion to send to the code advisory committee. we have to look at how we allow people to dig in this city, i have my own opinions, but i think the code advisory committee would be a great place to take a look at it so we don't continue to have people excavating underneath people's property. i get calls all the time, so i see the other side without the building department being involved ahead of the issue, and an easy suggestion is we have structural notice, you want to build a deck, the neighbors get a notice, it would be easy to amend the code to say, you want to dig underneath the neighbor's property we're going to give you that neighbor that same notice, very easy to do, but the whole totality of that needs to be looked at and the code advisory committee would be a great place for that.

thank you. >> next speaker, please, thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, i'm [inaudible] from 65 montana, i'm sorry, 59 montana, and i'm here to thank whoever have something to do with uncovering our windows, now we have fresh air coming in. i aoep hoping our health is going to get better. talking about digging, our property at 59 montana has been going through a lot of excavation from 55 montana, and now it's sinking, it has sunk one inch in the bathroom where all this excavation had happened. >> we have images that you can see if you put the projector on. >> there it is. >> it's a deep thrush crack

that has surfaced from our foundation and to the side of this is where the adjacent building, 55 montana is. now, we hired a structural engineer who came to see the property and said this is the fresh crack, and there's some structural integrity that has gone down with the bedroom that has sunk in one inch and that's a huge structural concern. this is a retaining wall that we're also asking to be in place, this was finalized from an inspector who came to see the site. now, things aren't finalized here, there's still things that need to be completed. this is a retaining wall that's needed so again on the same note from the previous speaker that came up here, this is a huge concern. this was an illegally built structure that encroached our pop-out. now, when we came in front of the discretionary review, they mandated that our neighbors take this building down, and after a year, 16

months or so, they finally did but the work is not done, so we don't know how it was finalized, fire treated fly wood is still existent, no siding has been done, we need a retaining wall from this. this crack that is present needs to be fixed and it is quite deep, it keeps going, our structural engineer dug and the crack kept going down, so work is not yet done and we're asking if another inspector can come out and see this and report what is currently happening and what's on-site to this day. do you have anything else? >> we'd like an end to this accidenter it's affecting our health and our pocket because we are paying a lot of money to get engineers and get some help, thank you. >> if we can put -- yes, so you can see here this is

what encroached our property this was the illegally built structure and you can see how it hugs our pop-out which is the white building here, this was demolished and in the demolition or construction this, this undermined our construction, why it hasn't been taken care of, we don't know and we ask that someone please come check this out. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> my name is kristi yakeem and i live in san francisco and i'm here to support the peretus fam whoi *fly who spoke in their case for additional attention to be paid to this project. first of all, i want to thank the commission and any members of the dbi who may be here for finally taking down the structure. it's made an enormous difference. i was there two days ago and finally you can breathe. there's sufficient light and air in the house and now i

hope the peretus family will be on the path to improving their health, but i do hope that the dbi staff will follow up with the concerns just raised, i don't think this should be between isabel and her neighbor to address. she's put an enormous amount of cost into fighting this structure for a long time and it should not be up to her to have to see this last part addressed, these structural issues, there needs to be additional cement work to prevent the damage and the crack needs to be fixed, so those are the two remaining issues and i really hope there will be follow-up and as soon as possible before the rains come. thank you. >> i appreciate your comments, thank you. >> good morning, commission,

my name's mark, i have a few comments that i would like to make, more about a procedural matter, i think there might be an issue that's falling through the cracks and i just want to see that it gets the attention that it deserves, in particular, it relates to an address at 1026 clayton street, two complaint that is are open right now, it's complaint number 201408641 and 200345254, the owners of 1026 clayton street were issued a notice of violation back in november of 2014 and it was resulting from a roof deck, a very large roof deck that i had witnessed that was installed without the benefit of the necessary permits. subsequent to the first notice of violation having aexbacker expired back in 2014, a second notice of

violation was issued and that was done on july 3, 2015 and eventually the matter was transfer today the ced, direct door's hearing was eventually scheduled and that was scheduled for september 29th in 2015 and eventually that hearing was heard, the owners' requests were denied an order of abatement was issued on december 14, 2015, that's almost a year ago, later that month in december, the owners properly filed an appeal with the abatement appeals board and that was on december 22 of 2015, and since that time, absolutely nothing has happened, there's been no scheduling of any aab hearing, after the second notice of violation was issued back in july, a lawsuit for abatement per se was raised for nuisance, for public nuisance, abatement of private nuisance and for injunctive relief and that was filed on july 9, 2015 and that's been pend ining the

superior court for some time now. trial in that action was supposed to have been brought on september 12th of this year, just a few weeks ago, but because the abatement appeals board hearing never occurred yet, that trial had to be rescheduled and i had to go down the superior court and request that a judge reschedule the matter and because this aab hearing hadn't happened yet, i was successfully able to do that and i got a court order reschedule the trial to take place in march of this year. i've gone down to dbi two separate times already and tried to request this matter be set for an aab hearing and i can't get any definitive answer from anyone. the most they'll tell me is it will be scheduled at sometime within the next few months or two months is the word they use, the problem is now i have a court order that already rescheduled the trial once before, you have almost a year that this aab hearing's been outstanding and it hasn't been scheduled

yet and i think there's a public interest that this be given the attention it deserves. er >> thank you, your time is up, i appreciate your comments. thank you. >> thank you. >> there is no additional public comment, or is there? >> yes, hello, my name is joseph thomas and i'm a resident at the budget inn national hotel, 1139 market street and i'm wondering if the commission can give me a definitive answer to a question i've had for some time now. you're familiar with this notice, what i want to know is what the residents are supposed to do when we see

this? i mean, we're living in this building with this notice that says basically that we're not supposed to be in the building. >> we need the address. >> 1139 market street. in addition to this work that's been disturbing, asbestos for over a year now, we've been without the required number of sanitary facilities meaning toilets, showers and sinks since may 18th. so, i'm just wondering why we haven't been relocated. there's only maybe 10 permanent residents in this building and in type of

work, obviously we shouldn't be there, so -- and as it relates to that work, i have this -- well, you can't see it, but about a year ago, well, last summer, there was a permit pulled to replace all of the doors in the building with fire doors. all of them were replaced except the ones on the rooms with the permanent residents. however, the permit is marked completed. so, i just wanted to bring your attention to that. can you see this? >> there it is.

>> and that relates back to this notice which was eventually posted after this work had been going on last year for over a month, but during that month, we had also been exposed to lead dust and probably asbestos. i just want it to be on the record. >> thank you for your comments. >> and hopefully i can get somebody to respond to me. >> thank you for your comments. >> thank you, you can follow up with the department staff. you can follow up at the department. >> excuse me? >> contact the department of building inspection. one of the staff can talk to you later, okay, thank you. if there are no additional public comment, we'll be on to item 4, commissioner's questions and matters, inquiries to staff, at this time, commissioners may make

inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner walker? >> great, thank you so much, i have a couple of issues just as a result of the public comment, i would like to get a follow-up for us maybe at the next meeting. the issues brought up to have the code advisory committee review our process or our forms, maybe that isn't a bad idea, certainly we've experienced a lot of issues around the digging issue and it would probably be a good thing to have some suggestions about how to move forward in a proactive way on that. and the cfc, that is -- if we haven't revised it in many decades, i think it's probably time to look and see if we can do it in conjunction with our permitting system upgrades maybe to better reflect that process. i would like an update on

1026 clayton. i always will have issues if things remain dangling out there and we have somehow lost track of them, so if you could update us on the status of that, if there was a director's hearing and we are in limbo around scheduling an aab, we just want to know why -- i mean, if they didn't do it, if they filed for an aab hearing and we continued it and it's linger, i want to know, or if we just allowed them to not file sxit told them they could file it later, there's a deadline for filing appeals, so it seems to have passed. so, that shouldn't be an issue administratively. and i guess i would like an update, i got a brief one on the market street hotel. i think that it is under renovation. there has been work, so i

just want to have staff respond to that. i think that's it for now. >> any further comments? no? just other than i concur with commissioner walker's ask here, so maybe in the next commission meeting, we'll get updated. thank you. >> okay, item 4b, future meetings and general das, at this time, the commission may sdpusz take action to set a date of a special meeting and/or determine those ie tep that is could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. our next regular meeting would be on october 19th, i believe. is there any public comment on item 4a and b? seeing none, item 5, discussion on accela permit and project tracking system.

>> good morning, director [inaudible], may name is henry artily from the department of technology, work witching the dbi on the accela project restart. you should have been handed an additional sheet to go with -- yes, thank you, with the material you've received in advance and i wanted to start with this one, is everyone -- >> i'm sorry, i'm trying to catch up here, go ahead. er >> i wanted to -- i was gaining to start with this one. >> my apologies. >> i wanted to make sure you all had cop pis. >> you can put it on the overhead. >> do you have an extra one? >> yes. >> or i can grab one off the table. alright, so as i mentioned last time, i wanted to make sure we turn this into

reporting out on a timeline and status, so i wanted to make sure that everyone on the commission had a good understanding of what work was under way during this restart effort and this one pager shows the different streams of work. so, i'm going to go down them quickly from top to bottom, feel free to stop me and ask questions. task 0 is really the overhead, getting started with the project, forming the team and that's the management of this effort that's going to continue across the timeline. task 1 is the relaunch preparation, so that's having the consultants in this case gardner accela 21 tech be familiar with all the work that's been done since we paused the project and that's one thing we haven't spoken about to the commission prior to this, but in january or february of this year, after

having passed the project in october, the dbi staff in participation with department technology, freelanced a full requirements gathering process because we knew obviously one of the biggest findings that came out of the assessment was that we did not have a good set of requirements and of course a project of this complexity needs to have firm, validated signed off approved requirements so that's what was done from january through august was we had participation from business leads from every division within dbi in our work room, every single day of the week, going through and documenting all of their detailed business requirements and also producing use cases or test cases so the things you can test the system with to make sure that the requirements are gathered so all of that whole body of work was put together during this pause. so, that's where -- when gardner and accela came to

restart, that's what they began with, that set of requirements because we knew if we hadn't gotten it done, we would have to get it done because we can't restart the project without it. task 2 then is to take that set of requirements and validate what has already -- because we have a system that has been substantially configured to meet requirements but we know it wasn't ready for go live yet, the work of task 2 is validating that the requirements are understood by all stakeholders and to perform that analysis against the system as to which requirements are already satisfied so we don't need to spend more time on them and which ones still need to be worked on because that will come up with a level of effort which then will establish a project budget and a timeline which is the end goal of this next -- this phase of work. and then in parallel with these things, we also have

establishing the governance and memorandum of understanding so that's establishing the governance for the project going guard, all the stakeholders, both the vendors and the other stakeholders outside of dbi, this commission, and the constituent groups at city hall, department of technology. task 4 is the finalizing the contract, so once we have a new scope of work, timelines established, we need to get the contract redone, that's task 4. so, that we can go back, secure the funding and launch the project. and then task 5 at the bottom, ocm stands for og ideational change management and that is in addition to doing the project, we have to make sure that dbi is prepared organizationally to accept the new system so, that in addition -- so, obviously that's training but it's also more than training, it's making sure a each group has looked at their processes, they understand how the adoption of the

accela system will impact them operationally and that we prepare them for that so that on day 1, they're ready to operate with the new system. that's what's going on in this timeframe on this project. i'll pause for a second to see if there's any questions. er >> commissioner walker, please. >> so, i mean, this is helpful and the bottom line is it's going the take four months to figure out how much more it's going the take essentially. >> correct, and this started in august. >> i know, okay. oh, okay. it did start in august, but this is the next phase which is the next four months, right? where reare we in this? >> we're into week 6, week 6 and 7. >> okay. >> so, we are well down the

path of task 2. >> so, at the end of this process, we will know how much and how long more will it will take. >> we'll have a budget, a timeline and a contract. >> and a path forward? >> and a path forward, yes. >> and how much is this costing us? >> the engagement of gardner for this four months is roughly in the ballpark of 400 thousand. it's a bigger team than had done the assessment work. >> [inaudible]. >> how big the the team? >> gardner has six resources on it and they will also have participation from accela 21 tech and they have another six to 7 resources and not all the resources are full time on the accela 21 tech side, it varies.

>> so, is gardner creating all the work product that goes along with this as well? >> they are -- they have a large portion of it, accela 21 tech, when it comes to doing the analysis of what's already configured and working and what still needs to be developed, na's the deliverable that accela 21 tech will produce. >> i guess i'll ask my question in a different way and i apologize if i wasn't clear, so in essence, our staff at dbi can walk into a room, be thought partners, be experts on their day-to-day task and all of the mou's, work processes, redoing forms, redoing systems are being done by consultant that is we're paying 100 thousand dollars a mother a month to do this work. >> right. >> if that's not the case, the dollars being spent, but if you're saying our staff gets to be thought partners and doesn't have an additional work product on top of their day-to-day

workload, that that's being handled by this team, that makes sense to me. >> yes, understood, and that is correct, so the work that the dbi staffers did was that requirements gathering process that i spoke about that has concluded, that is the most substantial important piece of input into this process for the consultants and the vendor to work with, but the participation of the dbi staff at this point forward is sitting and consulting to review those requirements to make sure they're completely understood. >> as the active core team participant? they will be in that? >> yes, -- the team leaders will be -- >> what we're calling work partners are starting next week and continuing for three weeks. >> and henry, just so -- at the end of it, you have a contract, you know the dollar

amount, what it's going the take, is that correct? >> we will, yes. yes, we will. >> so, that dollar amount, so do we have to go then to -- back to the board of supervisors with that or we don't know, it depends on the dollar amount ?frjts i'm going the defer to [inaudible] or someone else. >> good morning, taras [inaudible], deputy director for dbi, yes, it's my understanding we would have to go back to the board because the contract -- the assumption is that if we -- if we're already at 8 million, we would be exceed thing 10 million threshold sx, in addition to that, we also would need to go back to civil service commission because we'll have to -- usually whenever you do an amendment to the contract, you have to go to civil service commission because they have to do a review to make sure we're not

outsourcing any work that could be performed by a city employee. >> what is the timeframe for those processes? >> the board probably since we have something firm, we could probably get on the board's calendar and probably have to go through a committee and then after that, it will have to go to the full board. the civil service commission will take longer because normally before civil service will even hear something, it has to be sent for review to the unions, and the last time we've -- we did this, there was a 60 day review for the unions before it went to the civil service commission. >> so, is there a way -- i mean, we essentially do have 2 million more before the threshold, is there a way to use it as an intermediate keep the process going while we wait for the bureaucracy to catch up? >> well, i don't think there ao's a way to do that, the

one that will take the longest will be civil services, whether you're adding a million or two million, you still have to go back to civil s*frs, we did that for all the other amendments, so that wouldn't limit that. also, probably it makes sense to just do it right the first time instead of piecemealing things and getting something done. i know that the rest of the city has been working with us on this, so i think as soon as we have a number, we can work closely with the mayor's office and others to try to get it on the board, but ins just the process that we have to go through. >> i'm sorry, but -- i'm sorry, president mccarthy, but what you're saying is if this wraps up in november which would be exactly four months from august, and let's just assume -- and this being completely forthright that my experience with the city is nothing happens in december, this is going to civil service in january, we could be waiting from january to

march waiting for them to authorize to do this work? >> first i'm not saying it will be wrapped up in november, i believe that's what [inaudible] said it will be wrapped up in november, the first thing we'd have to do is get approval, unless the rules have changed to exceed the 10 million, so the first thing we do is go to the board so we get that approval, and then after we do that, then we would move on to civil s*frs commission, yes. so, i haven't -- i did not see this, but the administrative portion of it will probably take realistically three months or so, but i don't know when that -- what part that starts from. >> and i think what commissioner walker's question was, and i'm a new commissioner since february, so a lot of this is rolling along before i joined, if we still have 2 million dollars in our contract and let's say -- i'm just making this up for conversation, the scope of work that you scope in

november is 5 million, can't we move forward and do the first 2 million dollars of that work and submit the plan and wait for the approval for the additional 3 million pr the board and from civil s*frs? i think that's what commissioner walker is asking. >> i'm not an official on what the board would do with contracts, i defer to the city attorney, usually with anything that has a dollar threshold even when you're ordering something, you can't break something out to bypass the procedure or bypass what we're supposed to be doing. if we believe that this is going to exceed over the 10 million dollars, we would probably need to go to the board ahead of time, and 2 million dollars, we don't have 2 million dollars on the contract, we don't have anything on the contract. we have 2 million dollars authority that we could add to the contract which means that we still would have to go to civil services, so it isn't like we have 2 million dollars of funding left over, it's just the authority we have. >> thank you, that was great clarity. >> sorry, one final

question, and maybe i don't know if you have the answer to this. if it goes to the different committees and the dollar amount is not appropriate, in other words, they don't feel -- is it possible that it could stop there? >> that's a good question. i don't know that. i have not had to go in front of the board for a contract that exceeds 10 million dollars, we could do a little research on that, but the hope is that because we have so many partners working with us, we're going to be able to get a good firm number, a good firm work plan that would not give anybody pause to not believe that we can get what's being done, so for the question of go 2 million here and 3 million late e it would be best for us to go for one full comprehensive, this is it, this is where we're going and hopefully that will be okay. >> but we could be declined the actual extended dollar amount on the contract

that's needed to get it done. >> john, do you know if we could be declined on this, i guess anything is possible, are you aware of -- >> john malamut from the city attorney's office, if you need board approval, it's a discretionary mrao*ufl from the board of supervisors so they could decline it or they could amend it because they ultimately make the decision on contracts. >> and the civil s*frs, they're part of that equation, they can't decline the contract, they need to make sure it's done according to the rules of the city, is that correct? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> okay. thanks, commissioner walker has a question, i believe. >> i think that i probably will speak for everybody that we really want this to move forward in the right way. if there's any way to not stall so much, i mean, stall

is the wrong word, let's use the word pause, i think it will help the project, so maybe we could look at options as we go forward of how to factor that into the schedule. it's over budget at this point and way beyond the schedule by double almost both, so i personally and i will speak for myself, have run out of patience with this project, and we need to get it done. i think that it's just -- it's not okay with me if we have to sit around after this process and wait for three months, so if we could somehow roll that into a continuous schedule, that would be great. >> understood. i think the reason that this

isn't on a schedule simultaneously is there's nothing that we can do administratively to get it to the board until we have the final work plan and dollar amount. if there were something we could work on during the same time, we would, we couldn't fit on the calendar if we don't have something to give. >> commissioner gilman. >> in the initial report that we reviewed now a couple of commission meetings ago with the scope plan and game plan, there was i think appropriately an admittance from all parties that there had been some fail yaou, so i guess what i would like us to explore with gardner and with tech 21 is that we don't have a three month pause in work and that even if they have a contract that's not been approved by the board of supervisors and by civil service that they in good faith continue the work with the department because as

who has tried to move a larger organization the same size to a paperless group, if you pause for 60 days, you're going the lose all the change management and momentum you're trying to create in the dment and buy-in and it's going to be incredibly demoralizing, i'm requesting we ask our partners to continue working on this pending bureaucratic approval of a new budge, we're an enterprise department, our revenue is higher than it's been for years, we have the money, that's not the issue, i'm requesting that we formally ask that the work continue and we don't have a pause for this. >> okay, and i'll let -- say what i was going to say. there's restrictions. >> sore rising madison, deputy director of building inspection, we cannot have a contract or a vendor do any work with us that is not in a contract, but maybe henry can elaborate on maybe there is

some other things that's included dm the existing contract that they'll be working on while we do that. >> thank you, and that i believe is the opportunity we have is within our current contracts to leverage those so that we don't have that pause. >> great. >> in the interim of getting the final approvals. >> yes, i think the commission too will be -- i don't know what exists but to john, if there was an emergency roof for something so important tha, we could take that, you know, the expediting part that's going through the different supervisors straight to the other commission that needs to be reviewed. you know, we get all those access and we get as fast as possible to get this done, rather than it's a normal procedure, it's not normal, as commissioner walker says, this has been probably most of the trying things the

commission has had to deal with over any amount of years so i think it should be given every expedite possibility through the different departments or the supervisors, whatever it needs to look at to get this done because this is an emergency situation at this stage. >> i agree. >> let's get the contract, let's get it in place so we can put it forward and let's see what's available, maybe some supervisor will champion and get this through for us, looking at nobody in particular, andreas, and help us out, so okay, i appreciate it. thank you very much. >> okay, thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 5? okay, seeing none, item 6, discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance, board of supervisors file number 160965, amending the planning code and green building code to establish requirements for certain new building

construction facilitating development of renewable energy facilities and living roofs, setting an operative date of january 1, 2017 in addition to other requirements and regulations. >> good morning, president mccarthy and fellow commissioners, andre from supervisor scott wiener's office, it's the second time i've been after an accela update, i feel your pain. so, today before you is what i think is exciting legislation, hopefully you do as well to support the greening of rooftops here in the city. the propose sam buildings off of legislation that supervisor wiener authored earlier this year and that came before this commission requiring that new rooftops in san francisco have solar power or solar heating installed on at least 15% of their rooftop area, we were the first large city in the nation to do this, there's been strong interest across the country and we think this was a significant step

forward to making our city cleaner and greener and more sustainable. and as i mentioned, this legislation was heard by this committee and supported unanimously earlier this year. today's legation is the second piece of the rooftop ordinance, what we're calling the better roofs order narntion it proposes to expand the ordinance to include green roofs, otherwise known as living roofs as an alternate compliance method to satisfy the 15% rooftop requirement, and that be at a ratio of two square feet of green roof for every square foot of substituted solar and again this is an alternate compliance option so a developer would not be require today do green roofs, it is at their discretion if they choose to do so, and that's what we think is an important aspect of the ordinance. so, with this amendment just to be clear, most new rooftops here in san francisco would have either 15% of their rooftop area covered with solar or 30% which reflects the 2-1 ratio

covered with green or living roofs or what we think is a much more likely scenario, a combination of both somewhere between 15 and 30 percent of the rooftop area. and just -- we went through -- when we went through the original solar ordinance with the committee process, we talked about this issue and the green roofs all along and it was a late decision to move forward only with the solar first but the idea always and how this ordinance has been presented was that it would be a combined solar and green roof proposal. and just very briefly, green roofs have been widely documented to have a variety of health and environmental benefits and i just briefly, they help reduce the quantity of stormwater and water runoffer and also improves the quality of the water that does run off, reduces heat island, although that's less

of an issue here in the city, it helps with energy efficiency and the building itself, improvers air quality, reduces noise, provides habitat and enhanced biodiversity and also provides for an extension of the life of the roof itself. so, -- in closing, a greener city we think is a more sustainable city, rooftops really are one of our last untapped resources and it builds out environment and starting to focus our attention on making these rooftops more than just a place for pipes and vents i think makes a lot of sense, and in close, i want to thank staff from your department, from dbi, from planning and the department of the environment and the puc for helping develop this ordinance and also last week the planning commission for supporting it unanimously. we do have a brief presentation at the commission's discretion,

i'll leave it up to you, it was a presentation that was produce produced for the planning commission last week, i know you have a packed agenda, it's at your discretion if you want to have a brief overview. >> thank you, andreas, thank you for coming out today and presenting. >> thank you. >> is there a motion on the -- to approve the item. i'm sorry, public comment, is there public comment on item number 6? i'm seeing none, then is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> is -- there's a motion and a second, i'll do a roll call vote. president mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. commissioner gilman? >> yes. >> commissioner konstin? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> that motion carries

unanimously. okay, item 7, discussion and possible action regarding the building inspection commission's response to the civil grand jury report. >> good morning, commissioners, bill strong, legislative and public affairs, just to let you know that we complete our departmental and commission response consisting primarily of our housing division section for the various questions that the civil grand jury raised on how procedures are managed today and some recommendations for improvements. all of that was completed and submitted to the court on monday of this week. there will be a government accounting and oversight gao hearing as is typical in

these grand jury reports the 6th of october, so we will be at a board committee to answer any questions that members of the committee may have about that, but the good news is we completed the process on time, the mayor's office and budget did help coordinate with the fire department because the fire department was also a kind of co-responder to that process for the specific grand jury series of questions and i think it's safe to say that we covered all of their questions quite thoroughly, so with that, i think unless the commission has specific questions, it's in the court right now. >> commissioner walker, please. >> thank you so much for this. i just want to sort of tag on to this by saying our department i think for the last year has been working

around code enforcement coordination with other departments as a result of scott wiener's legislation that sort of redid our process to include the city attorney and other departments more, specifically around these issues, so i think i want to applaud us for being a little bit ahead of this in starting that process. in reviewing a lot of what is in this chart, i think that a lot of our deficiencies if it were are telling the public what we're doing, we may be doing it but we're not very good at either designing our website appropriately or letting the public know where to get stuff, so to that end, i think that we could always do better. one of the things that i have looked at in our process lately and especially as we

go through abatement appeals and that is it would really be good to have a notice of violation available online, and i know that we planned that in our new system, but in the interim, it would be great even if we just attached a pdf to the list of complaints and that stuff just so that we can see what's on the notice of violation, you know, online, and i think it would be good to do it rather than wait for the revamp, it seems like a simple enough thing to attach, and that was a big issue in many of these items where we had the chart of what actions were being taken but there wasn't a description specifically about the notice of violation addressed, so i have a couple of other things. some of the issues is around inspections and i mean, i always bring up if we need to

hire more staff, let's hire more staff. i think it's not a very good excuse to say we're too busy. we do as commissioner gilman said, we are an enterprise department and make money and our job is to make sure that the enforcement happens, so being too busy is not a good answer. so, i think that's it for me at this point, but maybe other commissioners want to -- >> commissioner gilman, please. er >> along the same lines as commissioner walker, what i noticed was a lack of public untszbacker understanding for some of the things that things aren't happening and it was a theme throughout public comment today, so i'm wondering similar to when we do seismic safety or neighborhood events where we hand out backpacks and we do those large fairs, i know we've done that in the mission and in chinatown, i think we need to do a better education program with the public. we just can't tell that person to tear down his deck on clayton street, we don't have that authority, and i

think either through the website or through some aspect of accela that can can issue dashboards to the public, i think we need to do a better job of setting expectation ts. i recently learned a great leader is disappointing at a rate they can absorb it and i think we need to sometimes have people understand what dbi can and cannot do, i think they think we can walk in with a badge and tear down something, i think the grand jury was sort of lack of understanding, so i want to say that and i want to say if you're having hiring issues or problems, i think we can ask the head of -- i'm going to get the department wrong, the head of h.r., i don't know her name. >> mickey. >> i think we can ask her to make a report to a commission why we're struggling to hire, [inaudible] they're having no problem and expediting their hiring process, so i think i've heard that's an issue from staff and from the director.

i think it might be something, i know i missed the [inaudible] agenda part, but i think to have her come here and smrien why our hires take so long miegbacker might be telling, particularly on the housing inspection side, we need more inspectors, i think we should hire them. >> i can only say that the director has already been talking to staff about increasing out rao*efrp and educational opportunities, i will say that's been a constant as long as i've been here and of course it never stops because some of our processes are complicated and people don't always read as carefully as we might hope they do in a more visually oriented communications world where a lot of people are just quickly glancing at something on their cell phone and not necessarily understanding what this process is all about, but no

objection from us, we will certainly redouble our efforts on trying to increase and improve educational outreach and understanding. >> yeah, and commissioner gillmanger's point, i think it's opening old wounds here back when we had the cutbacks and when we were trying to gear up and how difficult it was to get -- i would be interested to a point, i think that's been now 3 year, i would be interested in what the department and particularly has done in streamlining the application process and i know there was discussions around that, but i know that other departments don't seem to go through what we go through in hiring, so i would be interested in an update on that, if there's new procedures in place based on our past history which was not very good, i remember it was a very slow, hard time to get people aboard here and there were all these reasons as to why they couldn't do

it, i'm wondering was there improvement in that area. >> we can have a special session on that. >> yes, that would be good, just an update, informational for the commission. thanks. commissioner lee, please. >> i do agree that the inspection process is all complicated and it's very confuse tog a lot of people. i'm just wondering if the department could maybe dedicate somebody, take a step back and look at the whole process and see if we can simplify certain procedure and is certain nov processes because right now, some of the nov's list a number of items that -- what we call complaints, a number of things that can be resolver quickly and some of them can't. that's very confusing to people because when you say the nov is still open, some of these are already solved but i'm just saying just go take a step back and look at the overall process and maybe see if we can streamline some stuff and simplify some

stuff and make it understandable for everybody. >> we can do that. >> thank you, bill. >> is there any public comment on item 7? seeing none, is there a motion on item -- there is public comment. >> hi, everyone, jennifer freedom from coalition on homelessness, and commissioner gilman, so wonderful to see you, usually when we come and speak to departments, we have a lot of kind of more critical things to say, but i'm here to just speak about the work that we've been doing with your department that's been going really well, and you know, speaking in kind of contrast to the report that came out. we -- we're engaged with the sro families united collaborative and we do a lot of work with families with children that are living in hotels, specifically in the

tenderloin, and oftentimes, the conditions that people are living in and they're paying very high rents are incredibly dangerous for the folks living there, negatively impact their health, negatively impact a lot of different aspects of their lives, so we ao*f been doing this for many years and i think 16 years, and what we've noticed over time is there's been a strengthening of the department of building inspections response in a really positive way, and we know that they've -- landlords have been correcting issues in 88% of the over 30 thousand complaints that have gone in, and i wanted to just give two examples, we had a hotel at 50 turk with a lot of families living there that it goes up like 6 or 7 storeys and each of the emergency x*its where there was nothing on the other side of them, the doors were broken and propped open, the doors were

off the door and it was just this big open thing and kids are running up and down the hallway, so on the fifth floor watching this and the child can just trip and fall and then fall five storeys really easily, so when we got dbi, they responded quickly and the building has completely transformed there. in another situation, one of our families noted because it was visual that the elevator cable was frayed in another hotel, i believe it was the oak hotel down to basically nothing, and probably would have broken and we got very immediate response from dbi and the landlord corrected that immediately. part of what's happening is the responsiveness from dbi, there's also in those cases when the landlords don't respond, they're referring them over to the city attorney and doing lawsuits, i think that's made people -- the landlords who have been really bad actors a lot more responsive and a lot more willing to correct these things, so i just wanted to

give that feedback from our perspective, we're happy with the responsiveness of the department. thank you. >> thank you, jennifer, for those, it's always nice to get compliments, so thank you. >> you're speaking on the next item or -- sorry, thanks. we need to have a vote on item 7. we need to have a motion on item 7. >> to accept it? >> yes. >> i move that we accept the -- our staff's response for the civil grand jury report. er >> second. >> thank you, there's a motion and a second and we'll do a roll call vote. >> president mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yaoe yes. >> commissioner gilman? >> yes. >> commissioner konstin?

>> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> it carries unanimously. item 8. >> there can be comments still? >> sorry, the public comment is closed. >> not on that item, sorry, thank you. >> discussion regarding department of building inspection's emergency demolition process. >> good morning, commissioners, dan lowry, deputy director inspection services, i'm here to speak on the process for the emergency orders due to serious and imminent hazard. our offices for emergency orders, what happens when there's an imminent hazard, fire, it could be a public nuisance, what will happen is it will come to our office as a complaint or somebody said

there's an imminent hazard, what we do is say if there's a fire, what we do is we request an engineer write a letter saying it's an imminent hazard and the build wounding have to come down. we would send our engineers out to verify the imminent hazard, and if there is an imminent hazard, the engineer will have to write a report and it gets reviewed. upon review, the director signs it and the two deputy directors will review it and sign the report for an emergency order. recently in the last year, we have tightened up on the emergency orders because there's more requirements for an emergency order. we want to make sure they show the qualifications where demolition, where asbestos and lead hazards exist, where chemicals are present, we also want to show all licenses to perform a demolition included in an

active and [inaudible] contractor's state license, a new c20 2* 2 asbestos requirement from the state. we also would like to show the contractor's registered hauler with the department of toxic substances is trucking subcontractors who haul hazardous material, we want to provide a structural geotechnical engineer to make sure the demolition is in sequence and being demolished properly. we also have to have the department of environment involver where an emergency demo, they don't have to list all the debris but they do have to provide receipts for the department of environment, so they could keep track of the information of the debris. we also when we do file, they have to file for a form 6

demolition permit and they have [inaudible] quality management. and then upon that, we would review it and then we would issue an emergency demolition, it gets a number and it gets recorded. that's the emergency order. >> okay, thank you, deputy director, therefore, -- i asked for this just to kind of -- a summary on the procedures because it's kind of -- you know, unfortunately, we have been experiencing particularly through the mission a lot of emergency demolitions and it's very hard to get one of these things done and i know that, and then when it does happen, it has been -- and i'm trying to get us to why some of these emergency demolitions take so long from start to complete sx, i think the department's been not

necessarily blamed but came off as being inefficient in issuing these when i think it's important to acknowledge it's not just the department, we have a lot of partners in the issuance of this demolition ordinance which you have kind of talked to, you know, the j number, particularly the materials and the environmental aspects of things, and so i guess the question which i think -- which i think a lot of the media were very unfair to us was that when these are issued, right, there really isn't really an emergency, a state of mind for some of the other departments when we request it and i'm talking about a few of the demolition contractors, they would say, okay, the city's issued a scope of work of demolition, we started, then we were told by the department of environment that the materials have to be tested,

analyzed, so the job becomes frozen again in the middle of the demolition and some will make the arguments that it's probably a little more dangerous, then of course we have these repeat fires starting and in one particular location, you know, the people were going back in there and it was extremely dangerous, so i guess the point is, are we able to -- when we identify the different departments for the demolition contractor, is there some form of emergency where they can act and move as quick as we can and is there any outreach being done with regards to that, with we do issue an emergency demolition, it exactly means that? >> yes, president. we've been working on out rao*efrp with the other departments right now, this

morning, i tried contacting pg&e, i had numbers to call and tiered to make appointments, we are talking to other agencies so when we have an emergency, we have a contact person to try to expedite the issue there. you know, on the mission street fires, they had trouble with mta rerouting the buses and closing off for street closures, there was issues of pg&e, they had to remove the meter and all these things do take time. they had trouble with asbestos free port and we're trying to be cautionary in our department to make sure the contractor is qualified that is familiar with the city process, part of the problems we had in the past f a contractor's not familiar with the city process, they get the demolition permit, it's out of our control, we can push and lean on them, they have to go through the other agencies, we're trying to make sure the crack tor is familiar with the other agencies so they know how to get through process.

>> would it behoove us that before we issue an actual emergency demolition that they come to you with all the other criteria are met because technically we're telling them to go ahead and demo and they can't because the other departments aren't signing off. you brought up pg&e, they have a particular way responding to things and to cut off a gas line could take three days depending on where the gas line is for this, so i can see where the contractor is -- and his hands are tied but the perception in the a media and the perception in the community is the demolition has been issued but nothing's happening, so -- and so i mean, is that something we need to really look at before we can -- because not to beat a dead horse here, we're talking about issuing an emergency demolition, there's no urgency about it, we're

looking at it for two months maybe. >> it may be an exaggeration, but you're correct on where it did start and it stopped. there's labor issues on one, there's street closures on another where they do get stopped. >> yeah, and i know that there was, yeah, i just want to have this conversation because i'm tired of the department getting blamed for why they're not doing their job and from where i'm sitting, they're doing their job, it's the outside forces that are making them kindbacker kind of look bad here. >> good morning, commission, tom hui, department of inspection, lately the last cum of years, we had trouble with the contractor, some of them not qualified to do the job. that's why we have the nov now, the emergency order and put down special requirement they need to qualify because

they should do all those certificates ahead, they cannot be doing the demolition trying to apply for it. meanwhile, i also tried to outreach pg&e, that's why i complain to pg&e saying when we're under emergency and then they seed to have their contact and we need to do it right away, and another thing i'm thinking about to go to other agency to make sure maybe we need to work with the mayor office to make sure other departments, we'll be working together, that means two side -- one side is we want to make sure the contractor are qualified because we experience some of the contract not add good, we experienced a few years ago and then we want to have more qualified person to come in and not the low bidder, we want the people qualified to the job. then second thing is to try

to westbound with other department including pg&e and then to try to expedite. >> yes, but i think a lot of it -- sorry, commissioner, i'll let you reign in, i mean obviously if you're the owner of the building, you have the right to pick whoever you want to do the demolition and i certainly don't have a problem with that, but i mean, i'm not necessarily blaming the contractor here. i do know that the outside forces here are -- the demolition here outside this building department and after talking to a few demolition contractors, depending on the job, and the complexity of the job, some departments like pg&e or let's say the environment don't work very well under pressure and their hands are tied. so, there's not too many demolition contractors out there so i don't think we have a big pool of people to

work with, so most of them are in the industry a long time, so i'm not here to blame the contract torx i'm here to say to your proint, direct torx there should be a shek list in place before we issue a demolition permit, the blame is not necessarily on the contractor, he can say i can't go down and pull the permit because pg&e hasn't come out, muni hasn't come and rerouted the buses, we have not got a j number, but new mexico i get them, i can't pull the permit. i think that's more acceptable to me and to get those people, put the pressure on those different departments to do their job first before we issue the demo permit. >> commissioner walker, sorry. >> in responding to you that we list all of these requirements on the nov which is great and i think that the issue may be that we aren't getting the information out, so again, if we have the nov

online, it may provide the opportunity for people to understand what needs to be done, what's been done, what hasn't been done and where it is in a way that is attached to the issue. i think, again, we already have the information there, we just don't have it available, so if people can go see our list of complaints or sort of where in our chart of where things are and who signed off, it doesn't deal with the stuff that's outside of our department, so having an nov and having access to the nov is an important part of this i think as far as the public knowing who. >> we are trying to screen the contractor more because the problem we also have too, when they issue the emergency order, and they're not responding right away, the pressure's on us, we put the pressure on them but we lose control at that point because they have permit. >> that's to my point.

i think this is a partnership, and i think, you know, a contractor comes in and says, okay, i have to get a, b and c, i need your help to get a, b and c, pg&e won't respond to me but they would respond to somebody in the authority to say that this is a serious situation, we need expedited emergency on this, my contractor's ready to go, he needs to be told that this is being done tomorrow so we can do the plan. i think it's partnership and to your point, you issue the permit, it's nothing to do with us anymore, blame the contract, and being in those shoes, understanding these departments, we don't as a contractor, the civilian have the autonomy that you guys have, i'm trying to explore this that when the emergency demo is to be ibacker issued, it's not issued until the department and the demolition contractor who's been selected the owner helps them get these boxes done before they issue the perm.

how far is a stretch of that to do? >> i think it's realistic. we don't have control who they pick as a contractor because a lot of times they'll get the emergency order before they get the bid, we will scrutinize that before we issue the emergency order to make sure they meet the qualifications and we can work with them. >> okay, well, maybe then -- what i'm trying to figure out is can we have a mechanism in place and we can discuss this, maybe i'm taking long doing this now, can we have a mechanism in place where it's a partnership, where you as the contractor says we need to get a, b and c together, mr. demo contract torx let's call j1 together, this is the dbi, this is the contractor, we need a j number, yes, you got it. pg&e, can we work together, yes, we got it. you're working down that list rather than saying here's the demo permit, you're on your own. er >> i agree with you, we

should try to get a lead person for those different agencies, we can call, direct and we could have a meeting on that and try to put that together. >> we're under a lot of pressure to get an engineer to get out there and we say, oh, this is bad, we know because of our street smart and is our engineers and then we have to get a support letter from an independent source, we're invested in this, i see this as another part of the checklist that has to be done, but you are partners with the demolition contractor to get that checklist, so when the emergency order is issued, it's issued, it's done and it's not stopping because this thing wasn't which he could or, you know, and i think then from a public persona point of view, we've done our job. if the contractor fails to perform because of his issues, then that's a different conversation,

yeah. okay. so, i guess maybe we could talk further about this and maybe come up with a strategy to put that kind of a policy in place, if it can be downswing i'm not saying it can be, but that's what resonates with me there. >> yes, we could look into this and report back to you. >> i appreciate it, director, deputy director. okay. thank you for that. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 8? >> i'm here for the item i came for, thank you, commissioner, this topic is really important to me. demolitions are final, you want to make sure you're right on when you do this. there is no oops, i made a mistake. we have to be very careful and it should be hard to get a demolition, but the standards needs to be discussed and need to be

transparent and everybody needs to buy in on these, planning, building, health department. as i understand it and i've done a bunch of these, it's an imminent life safety hazard where the building is physically moving and it can't be shored. i think we need to broaden what the standards should include, particularly fire, how do we handle fire damage buildings? what about worker's safety, is it safe to try to shore the building? is the building going to be torn down anyway in six months and it poses a hazard? do we want to do something heroic to save a building that's going to be torn down and as a practicing engineer, i get nervous sending people into a building that i know is danebacker dangerous to the workers. we need to be discussing that. we also need to be paying attention to some of these

buildings that are just blight in the neighborhood. yes, they're dangerous but they're not immeant so we're not going to let you tear it down but they're blight to the neighborhood and i worked on a building that was an alterative nuisance for kids and i was concerned the kid was going to fall through the building so we need to be looking at more than just the imminent moving blight, i think we should get a second opinion too, you know. in the 89 earthquake, and this is the other part that we need to start talking about, you want to get a demolition, require two engineers to agree, in 89, we had hundreds of people trying to convince the city that my building is so badly damaged, i need to tear it down is i can invoke the act of god clause and get a brand new rent com exempt building. well, we need to be set up for that too because when the earthquake comes, if we don't have this all worked out, we're going to say my build

ising so badly damaged, and one building i went out to, i couldn't find the cracks that the guy was saying it's so dangerous, he wanted to tear it down, so we need to set up a program for normal buildings and a program for earthquake damaged buildings and i think the bs suggestion is we need to have a corkbacker working group of all the stakeholders, the deputy directors, the director, they've all been great, but thsz coming our way, a working group of all the stakeholders, getting a buy in, and during the next flog of that next big *irt quake, we are e will maintain our affordable housing stock. >> thank you, just one second here, i think you know obviously i kind of procedural where i was trying to clean that up, you've expanded this now to what exactly is the program and

what exactly are the policies. when you say working group, what are you thinking there ?frjts i think a couple of engineers who do this, contractors who do it, someone from planning, someone from pg&e, obviously your great staff, they're invested in this because it is a big issue. probably someone from the commission. it is a big issue, particularly when we have the earthquake, so there's a large group. i also want to get this concept of blight. do we want to maintain a building that's not moving but it's blatantly a blight to the neighborhood and why should that neighborhood have to suffer with it, so some stakeholders on housing issues because it's coming their way. hopefully like a group of 10 people and maybe come back to the commission with some suggestions so that we can formalize regular demolitions and the demolitions post earthquake,

get it all resolved now, i was the engineer in 89 for all the demolitions, that wasn't a big earthquake and it was a lot of buildings to look at. the earthquake i worry about will be much greater damage in the city, we want to be prepared as much as we can. the soft story [inaudible] is addressing that, but i think this is good opportunity and i commend you for bringing this up because i think it's a great forum to start talking about this. >> okay. alright, and so in your expertise because i know you sit in a lot of committees, would you say a two or three month, how long would you need for that? >> a three month working group, you would need to get buy-in from the other agencies, if they don't buy-in which you will if you say we want to have your say, you want to be involver, but i think in three months, you can come up with a pretty good recommendation on the

day-to-day emergency demos and the post earthquake evaluation demo which is we need to have that, we need to have both of them, and i think you could have some pretty good recommendations back to the commission in three months. >> okay, and as a matter of policy then, if there was an agreement, this is something that would just amend the code? >> well, i think i would needs to be codified, it could be an administrative bulletin, but it needs to be just like when i was talking about the soft -- the cfc's, we need to have a bulletin like this that goes through all the requirements, a checklist, so that they can make sure they've got everything right so at a minimum, some type of administrative bulletin, maybe a change to the code, but first thing is we've got to discuss it openly, trance -- transparently with everyone, all the

stakeholders coming. er >> thank you for your comments and i appreciate you making them. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment on this item? item 9, director's report, 9a, update on dbi's finances. >> good morning p commissioners, tara madison, director of building inspection, and before you is the fiscal year 15-16 year-end report, and it basically highlights our actual and revenues and expenditures from july 1, 2015 through june 30, 2016, so i'll just take a couple of minutes to go over -- summarize some of the highlights so r*efr knew and is this won't be a shock to everyone, this is a banner year for the department if

for rao*ef knew, 15-16, we collected our highest revenue tos date, we collected and earned over 84 million dollars in revenues this year. you will see that right there. and primarily, we did well in almost all of our revenues, we have over 60 revenue ifs you look at your packet, we have the details on each of those, i'll highlight the ones that really did well for us, and once again, they're primarily the revenue that is are based on valuation, so for building permits be collected over 50 million dollars, for plan review, over 34 million dollars and then for premium plan review, about 5 million dollars, we received just those three revenues alone brought in a lot of money for us, and as i just stated a second ago, based on valuation, if you look at page 2, ofp the memo, you'll see for valuation, we have increased the valuation,

a 37% increase in fiscal year 15-16, we drk buildings permits issued over a million dollars and more, and by june 30th, we issued 564 compared to 411 in the prior year, we had over 7 permits valued at 100 million dollars or more and that's the most we've ever had, so once again we did pretty well with the revenues. on the expenditure side, we continue to have savings in our expenditures, but we are spending more every year, so for instance, in salaries, although we still had some salary savings, we spent over a million dollars more in 15-16 than we did in the prior yaoe, we're spending a little bit more on our work orders also, so overall, if you do a comparison, if you look at page 2 and you see the comparison, there's huge variant that shows we spent 60 million dollars less but that's a little misleading

because it's project funding, when you take out the project funding and what our real annual funding is, we spent 3 million dollars more in 15-16 over 14-15, so we're continuing to increase our spending, and at the next meeting, i will give you an update on fiscal year 16-17 which began on july 1 and i can give you a quarterly update, so far we've gotten through august, we are seeing a little slight decrease in revenues, not that much, but at our next meet, i'll be able to give you what's going on nr the current year, but i'm happy to answer any questions on 15-16. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> item 9b, update on proposed or ce cent enacted state or local legislation. >> bill strong, legislative and public affairs, i would

point out on the legislative front, two or three areas that we talked about last month as well, tao*er 2 on the soft storey r retrofit ts, the deadline was september 15th, as of that date and i think thanks to a pretty aggressive outreach and reminder program to those owners, we got that number down to about 101 or 102. you may remember it was 4 or 5 hundred the last time we were talking about it, so the reality is, i hope to have a conversation with the director to see if we're going to start code enforcement immediately or if we're going to give people a little bit of time if they don't respond, let's say that 100 group plus by october

15th, then we will have to start applying the notices of violations through our inspection program along with those placards that say essentially the buildings are not meeting earthquake safety standards. we obviously are all mindful of the seismic safety aspects, the director's taken some of the additional revenues that we have and put into aggressive outreach programs, more than 500 people around the city and chinatown and the western edition and we've expanded to two more districts in the richmond and the sunset to try and increase local awareness and have people essentially trained and ready to respond during those first 72 hours that we know will be pretty critical in government agencies may not be able to assist directly, so i will just say that while we're not quite there yet with tier 2, we're in a much better place

today than we were a month ago. the other aspect i would mention is the fire safety legislation that supervisor campos sponsored for increased fire safety requirements where dbi and the fire department are working more addressee in a coordinated manner. there is a meeting later today where there's a new working group on looking at sprinklers and what might be done with sprinklers in some of these older multiple unit buildings that supervisor campos is convening, so dbi staff will be participating in that. i don't know exactly where that will go, but it could lead to proposed legislation by supervisor campos and/or others, but we will be part of that discussion. and the final one i'll mention is on september 6th

right ahlay boar day, the city attorney's office did introduce on behalf of the department the triannual code update ordinance, as you know, we're on a timeline to get the san francisco amendment portion all done, so that come january 1 of 2017, we'll have a new set of code based on any change ins the california state code as well as locally. that is moving forward and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to take them. >> no, you're good. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. item 9c, update on major projects. >> good morning, commission, as you can see the major projects go down 2% as we expected, with the finance

report for the last two mothers. any questions you had? >> seeing none, director. thank you. >> item 9d, update on code enforcement. >> good morning, commissioners, dan lur uerer lowry, deputy director, inspection services, i'm here to give you the code enforcement and dbi monthly update. for the building inspection division, there was 5897 inspections performed, that's the highest inspections for the whole year. >> is that a record? >> that's the highest one for the year, it's been very busy in our department. complaints received, 379. complaints response *f responded within 72 hours, 375, complaints of notice of violations is 70, complaints received in a [inaudible] for violations were 210.

abated complaints with notice of violations were 39. second notice of violations refer to code enforcement were 20. for the housing inspection services, housing inspection performed were 1111. complaints received for 420, complaints responded within 24-72 hours are 411, complaints with notice of violations issued is 135, abated complaints and notice of violations were 349, number of cases sent to the director's hearing was 44, and routine inspections were 211. for the code enforcement services number of cases sent to director's hearings is 41, number of order of abatements issued were 4. number of cases under advisement were 7, number of cases abated were 47, code enforcement inspections performed, 97, number of cases to the litigation

committee was one. number of cases refer today the city attorney is one. there's also graspers attach today the back of this that are helpful, it gives you an outlook of the inspections performed and the complaints conformed that i think are helpful. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on the director's report, items 9a-d? okay, seeing none, item 10, review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of february 3, 2016. are there any public comments on this item? is there a motion? >> moved to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> there's a motion and a second, are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. er >> any opposed? okay. those minutes are approved. er item 11, review and approval of the minutes of

the regular meeting of february 17, 2016. is there any public comment on the items? is there a motion to approve? >> move to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. item 12, discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the director. 12a, public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. is there any public comment? okay. seeing none, 12b, possible action to convene a closed session. is there a motion? >> [inaudible]. i make a motion to convene in closed session. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> okay, none opposed,, we úcfúxss

>> hi. welcome to san francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take

any special? >> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that i'm aware of with harvey that dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes. >> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly

cycle. there is no relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain. i'm not sure which is the myth. >> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground

fracture but it's not something that opens up and sucks you up into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy

challenge. are the smaller ones less stress? >> yes. the amount released in small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco.

>> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity.

>> you want to get under the door frame but you are not moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here

was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake.

>> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for .

>> working for the city and

county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries

but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco you. >> good afternoon, everyone please rise put our raise your hand over your heart and pledge and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> good afternoon. welcome want to apologize we are starting 10 minutes late this is