president mccarthy sort of mused about in november which is asking staff to put together a comprehensive report as soon as possible for the next commission meeti in meeting. -- right now modular is proposed

for homeless housing and it's dwing to move into m.m.r. and it's going to ultimately create a tale of two cities and we're asking you guys to stop it and to ensure that it complies with our safety codes. >> thank you. >> there's no additional public comment and our public comment is closed. item 4. commissioners, for inquiries of staff and the commissioners may make inquiries with documents and policies and procedures that are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner walker. >> yes, in response to our public comment, a couple of issues. one is the issue of tenant noticing regarding our seismic upgrade programs. if i could request that staff

and our tenant outreach organizations that we work with with our code enforcement outreach program to come up with some ideas for making sure that as was always stated in our public comment that tenants aren't in advertently affected a program that we think shouldn't affect tenants, especially around evictions or relocating, that we have a noticing policy that provides more access to information and assistance and connection to our outreach programs to guide people through that. both the landlords and our tenants that are involved. so i'd like to see that on the next agenda if we could. and i also -- i than the president will also bring this up. this issue of modular housing, it's really up because people

are looking to it as a way of containing the time constraints and costs of building much-needed housing but we do need to do it in a way that doesn't create two sets of housing, those that are safe and those that are not so safe, so we need to make sure that our local codes are complied with the housing that comes here and we need to do it sooner than later and i request that we do an update with that on the issues brought up, the white paper that is provided, is informative, so i think that we want to resolve this so if we could have that one on the agenda as well. and this other issue of the 665 alvarado, i'm concerned because we might see it as a course

before us and i don't know how to agendaize it, other than the -- the president could weigh in on that. >> and in regards to 665 alvarado it's only of great concern so i have requests, without getting too deep -- through the director to have a hearing on that to bring it to the commission which is not traditionally what is normally done but in this particular case i think that it would be in our best interest to get to the bottom and to really understand where -- where -- where the department could have done better and where we did, you know, you know, what are the issues here and, obviously, the bigger question is -- i think that it was brought up is this continuous disconnect between the two departments and planning and d.b.i. on these policies. you know, we need to have a conversation about that. and so director, i did request it. and obviously i don't think that

we could do this next month because of our joint hearing but i being that th think the follo, unless that has changed for some reason, because the giant hearing calendar is not necessarily set by us and it's set by the planning department. we have our two points that we are bringing up on stuff -- >> one which is code enforcement which i might say does include this. >> no, no, i agree. >> the public should probably be aware that we're having a joint meeting with planning and that they would be well advised to be there and to let us all know. >> yeah, i just can't guarantee that it's going to be on that particular item. but i am guaranteeing that it will be here at this commission on the following month. so we can really have a further discussion on that. so that's that. and in regard to the modular factory built housing and i think that it is time that we should have this conversation and obviously i'll calendar that as well for the following

meeting after the april meeting, if that's enough time for the staff. and i think that the goal here is as called out is how is a product like this going to fit into -- you know, our city is unique in many ways and it's not your traditional city. i am a believer that, you know, one size doesn't fit all and san francisco is one of those cases and i see this as a product that i have a lot of questions about and i have concerns in regard to where it does fall in regard to the planning and with regards to inspections like life safety and what impact it means to people living in these buildings down the road, but to the commissioner -- to the vice chair walker's point, it is coming and so we need to have a good understanding where we stand as a department on that. so i'm looking forward to that conversation. and what other one do we have here? obviously, on the -- on the displacement of tenants -- i definitely thank we should have a good conversation about that.

i do concur with some of the comments here that it is suspicious that some people are left and others aren't and i think that, you know, once again this is a program that is important to pass and to be successful. so i really want to make sure that everybody is protected as it was written. so an update on that would be very helpful. commissioners, any other comments? >> i concur with all commissioners walker and mccarthy's comments. these are really critical issues and i want to thank everybody who takes their time to come in here and to make public comment. i mean, it is absolutely critical and we really do appreciate you making that exitment. as commissioner mccarthy has just indicated we will do our best to address all of these issues and get them calendared. i am very much looking forward to the joint d.b.i. planning

meeting next month and again invite you to join us. so, again, we thank you for your -- taking your time, bringing your very educated observations and increasing the awareness on all of these critical issues and the only comment that i was going to try to interject out of order before -- when i was hearing the concerns about 655 alvarado, as we know that currently the legal resources are somewhat limited. while there is interest from supervisor peskin in evaluating what other changes to legislation could have a more effective or practical set of

legal recourses, you know, right now the five-year moratorium is one of the most strict legal remedies and as has been pointed out one of the issues is it's usually not enforced by planning because they have so much neighborhood opposition to having a five-year empty hole sitting next to their homes. so given that we have have owners very nearby and impacted by this situation it would be very interesting for them to consider is this a case where they would actually like to see this remedy enforced and what other issues in terms of

securing their foundations, repairing their foundations, nonnuisance upkeep of the property during the five-year hiatus. if that's a path that they'd be willing to pursue it would be interesting to discuss given that as current law exists or at least as i understand it that it is most severe and compelling remedy that we have until there are other modifications. so i would invite all adjoining property owners to really consider that and to understand, you know, what they're asking for and whether this remedy is possible as far as they're concerned. but, again, thank you all for coming and we really do

appreciate you taking the time. >> thank you. no further comment? >> future meetings and agendas at this time the commission may discuss and take actions for a date for a special meeting and determine those items to be placed on the agenda at the next meeting and future meetings with the building inspection commission and the next meeting is on april 18, 2018. any public comment on item 4, a or b? okay, seeing none item 5, discussion of possible action regarding a proposed ordinance for the supervisors found 171284 to have the city slope protection act and clarifying the scope of this application to the properties exceeding a 25% grade. and mandating review by the department of building instruction and re-enacting and modifying the paragraph in the sub-section regarding the type

of supposed construction of the application of the act which was omitted inadvertently in addition to other requirements. >> good morning, mission members and commission president mccarthy and director huey. from peskin's office who is proposing amendments to the slope protection act. you are receiving right now some copies of a report from the state of california that i'll address in a moment. just some quick background on thonthe amendments before you t. supervisor peskin offered the original act and it was passed by the board of supervisors that year. as introduced the slope protection act made reference to 25% slope, that was how it was introduced over the course of the legislative process and that 25% threshold was replaced with a reference to the hazard zone

map released by the state of california. so the back story is that the 25% was in there, it was removed and replaced with the seismic hazard joan map. that hazard map was released at the time by the state of department california, departments of mines and geology, that's the report before you, and in that report actually it makes explicit reference to the 25% slope. so that's actually where the 25% slope came from. i provide that background by way of sort of addressing and maybe anticipating some of the comment from the code advisory committee. i hope that the chair harris is here as well to provide some of the prospective of that committee. as to the 25% threshold, well, first let's just go to the easy part and that is that we are reinstating a paragraph that apparently everybody unanimously agrees and i met with d.b.i. staff and the code advisory

staff agrees that this erroneously omitted paragraph should be back in there. so that's the easy part. as to the 25%, the code advisory committee issued their recommendation against that. and the basis for that as they put in an email to me that i hope is in the packet before you is that the cost delays and the added work were -- if those costs delays and added work were necessary for public safety we'd consider the proposal more favorably but as they saw it there wasn't enough proof or showing that the 25% threshold was necessary. at the time that i met with the code advisory committee i was just picking up this item from an outgoing staff member. i did not have this california report before me. i admit to being a little bit lost as to where the 25% came from and so i would hope that the inclusion of this report at

this time provides a little bit more of that background clarity. so i'm happy to address other comments and concerns as they arise now. >> so in layman's terms as we say for us here, this 25% was existing no matter what, as we know it we would have had to have deal with this -- a small lot would have had to deal with this before we're updating this existing legislation as we see it today? >> that's my understanding, commissioner. and it was just incorporated by reference to this outside map. so i don't think that our office sees it as a drastic shift. i think that there's consensus within the department staff and that the blue map needs to go. and that is something that was in there at some point and it was incenterred after reference to the seismic hazard zone map, that the blue map was being relied upon and everybody agrees

that needs to go. we thought, well, let's just refer back to the 25% threshold and understanding that that may create some implementation on the back end of this which i think that our office is willing to collaborate with the department in making sure that that is as smooth as possible, that project applicants understand, you know, clearly and easily whether they fall within that 25% threshold. >> so -- >> sure. >> so most of the people that i think that would be impacted on this, first of all i get the spirit of it and on the legislation, but there's unintended consequences that we can work with sometimes. is it geared to smaller -- so, for example, is there any of the legislation that points to lots of 25 feet by 100 which is standard lots size here in the city. is that 25% from the back of the lot or measured from the front of the lot? because there's big impacts that

it could have on particularly smaller projects. i do understand, you know, that you have to go get a peer panel and you have to have standards and six, seven months, maybe longer delayed. there's a cost there. so we're trying to make sheriff that it's justified. >> absolutely. >> is there any language in that that talks to that? >> so on page 3 of the amendment -- and this is not changed at all -- but the applicability would be to structures having over 1,000 square feet of new projected roof area and horizontal or vertical additions having over 500 square feet. that has not changed, if i'm incorrect, somebody will correct me i'm sure, but i'm pretty certain that part is -- has remained the same. and that would be relative to the size of the project, the thresholds there. >> so help me out here -- what size a project would that be? is anybody from the department here to talk --

>> new roof area. >> so that could be -- >> so theoretically if you talk a 2500 square foot lot than the size of the project would be the roof area 1,000 squire feet so a ratio of 1 to 2.5 of the entire lot. i don't know if it's -- yeah, it's not an f.a.r. calculation... >> well, okay, okay. that was always in there, right? >> yeah. >> okay. okay. fair enough. okay. please continue. >> well, really that's all that i have and unless the commission has other questions or other comments i'm happy to provide a brief rebuttal before the commission takes a position. i'd be grateful for your support of this legislation today. but, otherwise, we'll stick around. >> so, essentially the criteria is the same, just instead of referring to an old report that

is outside of the legislation itself that it reiterates the same criteria within the legislation? >> that's correct. and i think that in my conversations with staff really the problem that it poses is, well, do we have a 25% map existing. and the answer to that i believe is that the planning department creates similar maps. they rely on a 20% slope threshold for a couple formulas, so the -- i don't think that it would be terribly challenging to construct a 25% slope. we discussed at some point decreasing the slope threshold to 20% and based on the seismic -- or the information before you from the state of california we didn't think that there were grounds to reduce the slope threshold from 25% to 20%. >> so, would your boss, the supervisor and you -- if we were

to just kind of quantify the sizes of the lots and things like that as added language, as this goes through the process, that would be something -- that a few amendments like that if we were able to establish more of a tighter criteria and the understanding of the 25%, above and beyond the size of the roof? >> yes, absolutely, we're here to solicit your input on the legislation as well. there's certainly time to amend this at committee. we are certainly not interested in watering it down, but if there are amendments that for the clarity for the public, absolutely. >> it's more geared towards the smaller projects who normally probably wouldn't need to go to this expense and delay normally on a project. but it's not going to be watered down and it's just a criteria that jumps out at us if you see that you're going to trigger off? >> yeah and i might suggest too at risk of just running my mouth and negotiating against myself -- but i did discuss with d.b.i. staff at one point that, you know, for smaller projects

or for projects that are going to be very low risk in despite the slope, and the substrait, what have you, if there's a way to expedite the review for those very low risk projects in a way that we maintain a paper trail and a justification for, you know, something like a tentative opinion that says you are very low risk and by virtue of that we're not going to, you know, put you through a four-month wringer or foreign process. maybe there's a way procedureally to expedite review of some of those very low-risk projects. >> yeah, it might be a particular size or type that would trigger it off in the smaller projects, things like that. >> sure. >> so, yeah. so what is the timetable on this, how fast is this moving here? >> i think that -- well, this is the last procedural hurdle before bringing it to committee. you know, i think that we are ready to bring it to committee as soon as we get the

recommendations from this commission, one way or the other, or with qualification. and there's certainly time before it gets to committee, even if it's a couple weeks to hammer out and clarifying amendments if that's what this commission prefers, absolutely. >> okay, great. we can't ask for more than that, thank you. thank you for your presentation. >> thank you. >> is there public comment? >> so this is why i'm actually here. pat buskovich, the practice and challenge of practicing since the 1970s is that you have seen it all and i was here when the bloom came out and there's a misunderstanding of -- a scary misunderstanding -- you may want to give me my three minutes. the bloom map which is basically the city and two bridges and a big circle, it's huge, about 40% of the city, that was the state

of technology in the 1970s. it wasn't that great. but when everyone looked at the blue map they'd understand that there are dots on the map and when you have made copy after copy after copy, the dots disappear through the copy fax problems. so no one knows that the blue map has dots on it. and that the dots represent 100 landslides. and there's an accompanying book which i have and i have given to the building department because they didn't know that there was an accompanying book that shows the map on a city block within the accuracy of a foot. so we know where the slides are down to a foot using this book. and then when frank -- or upgraded it by seismic hazard map act he took this book of 100 maps, thres a big circle with le dots and created very specific locations where we know where the slides are. so going back to this 25%

threshold is going way back in technology. when we know where the slides are because the blue map, which is a big circle saying, hey, you've got to know that there's a slide here and there were numbers attached to it. so the current map, the current seismic hazard map act is the latest state-of-the-art and the 20% is going back 40 years. i don't know why we would want to do it. and it's extremely complex. i was the appointing body in the 1990s when i was the president of seon, and the public hearings, they require a lot of work and they'll probably start requiring full-time employees to manage. and they went about $50,000. i'm not really sure how much design problems we have except for one building and this thing doesn't even apply to that building because it's a flat lot on piles. so as a practicing engineer and i pretty much know that i have

my hand on the heartbeat, there aren't design problems. there's construction problems in the field where people are digging below people's homes but i'm not aware of any substantive design -- these are like 30, 40, $50,000, and the other issue is going to come out is the liability issue. i'm not sure that the city is going to be willing to extend their liability protection to private design consultants doing peer review. and pretty sure this is going to come out soon that people who have done sacs are not immune from a lawsuit. so right now you have a challenge getting retired people to do them on really targeted buildings where we know that there is a side here because we have the -- a slide here because we have the map and we have the map down to addresses. i have the address book where i can look up an address and say you're in it. and now we're going to do a 25% blank, there's not enough engineers to do this, and it's

the full employment act for engineers and there's not enough to do it. so you're going to dilute good quality work with a lot of work. so if they want to change some of the requirements, great, but use the latest state-of-the-art and we know where the sides are, the 25% is going back in 50 years in technology. >> thank you. >> kirk main, c.b.i. and steve harris for a couple comments. >> mr. harris, welcome, thank you, sir. >> thank you for your time. the advisory committee is concerned about this proposal because there's no evidence

indicating that the current trigger which is based on the usgs and the map is inadequate. that is, that landslides have actually occurred on lots that were steeper than 25%, that were not shown within the areas indicated on the map of landslide hazards. we have no evidence of the particular choice of 25% is justified. we're concerned that the proposal would result in significant increase in the number of affected properties. this would mean delays in construction, additional costs to owners, considerable additional workload for the structural advisory committee and for d.b.i. if the costs and the delays and the added work were necessary for public safety we would consider the proposal more favorably. however, we have seen no evidence that that actually exists. >> mr. harris. >> to the point there in regards that you actually have the mechanisms in place to show

where your danger areas are, would you concur or disagree? have you seen this book? >> yeah, i concur. it's very clear where the problems occur. >> yeah. and what would be the problem -- i'm not making that 25% connection and you know where the problems are. the chances are that it's going to be -- if i have a project in this area it's going to be in it no matter what. so if i have a project -- okay, one map says you're in it and then this is the policy and procedures going forward, what's -- why are we pushing back so hard against the 25%? >> the reason that we would pushback is, first of all, that it affects a very large proportion of the city, many of which -- much of which is not unstable. and, secondly, where does that number come from? it's just a nice round number. it has no fiz physical meaning.

>> yeah, but it was it was written originally and we have lived under those circumstances and i have never had anybody in all of the years that i have done it, i have never had anybody complain about it before and that's both here in these chambers and outside from the private sector. >> no one has complained about the version of the 25%? >> yeah. >> that may be just -- that may just be because no one has tried to build on those lots. as time has gone on and construction technology has improved and the available space has been diminished i think that we see more and more housing that are actually getting built on those lots. so that may be -- the fact that there's not been complaints in the past may not be an indicator of the future lack of problems. but the big thing as we see it

is that we now have much better information than we used to. why not use that information? there's no need -- there's no evidence that says that that map that we have from usgs and cdmc is not adequate. we have seen no evidence of problems there. why not use that good science that we have? if we decide that, in fact, that map is not adequate, that there are, in fact, landslides that have occurred and damaged houses outside of that area, then where is the basis for 25% as a slope that is a trigger? maybe, you know, if there is a problem, maybe that basis should be a different number and maybe it's 20%, pain it's 30%, i don't know. i'm not suggesting that we use a strict slope measure as a means for determination in the first place because some areas of rock are much more stable than

others, but the 25% just seems to be -- to me to be a very arbitrary number with no basis behind it. >> wasn't it included in the map that you're discussing as a criteria? >> it was in -- the older criteria, yes, before we had the good information that we have now. it was a number that was based upon judgment at the time. >> now we have more detail about where specifically the danger might occur but we don't have information that changes that percentage other than being able to locate more at risk? so i would say that it's -- >> the current information -- the current information is based upon both the slope and the stability of the geology. what we had before -- >> so you're saying that it

changes the percentage for those not identified? i mean, so you have areas on the new map that identify problem areas. >> correct. >> but that doesn't make the other areas less problematic potentially. >> you're talking about the other areas and the areas that were previously defined? >> well, the ones that have been dodotted as described. those are more -- those are more at risk? those are known to be more at risk? it doesn't mean that the others are less at risk is my point. or does it? >> well, it only means that they're less at risk because they don't fall into this category of slope plus -- slope plus instability which we know that means more risk. so just so that we have better information now so we should just use it. >> is your understanding if you have a small -- let's say 25 by

100-foot lot, where does that measure come from, that 25% slope, what is your understanding of that measurement? >> my understanding on how the current proposal is mentioned is that it's not very clear. it could be that it's from property line to property line or it could be that if, for example, you have a lot that's fairly flat that actually has a much steeper section in the middle of it, it's not clear to me how that's intended to go forward. i didn't complain about that lack of specificity in my response earlier because i thought that the whole thing was inappropriate. but if you choose to go ahead in that direction i think that it needs some cleaning up. because it's not clear if it's the entire lot or any portion thereafter. not certain.

>> mr. hepperman, can we talk to that and what some of our commissioners are thinking with cleanup action and so on. if this 25%, you think that it should stay? just briefly i think that there's reasonable basis for the 25% and it's in the report before you and it was incorporated and considered in the seismic hazard zone map. to the concerns this is going to be a cumbersome sac process, there's contention that additional process and cost is a basis to waive -- for the broader public -- i don't think that in a seismically vulnerable place like san francisco that we should cut corners around that review. to the incident that there's a cumbersome sac process i think can be addressed, again, through process improvements. i don't think that the sac process needs to be a six-month, $50,000 project, we're not trying to create an industry of

permit expediters and a new demand for engineers that are demanding new costs and that's not the intent of this legislation. i would recommend something like this, what if you have a project come in, small project on a slope that is 25% or greater, the staff does an internal review and discovers that the geographic material underneath this lot is very strong, that there's going to be a very, very, very low risk of any seismic or landslide hazard to the property. i don't see why the staff doesn't make a recommendation at that point that says -- or after a certain period of time that says, you know, that we recommend this be added to the consent calendar based on the strength of the underlying geographic material. it's a signal to the applicant they don't need to, you know, to do a whole lot of additional legwork. there's still a paper trail for the staff's internal assessment of the strength of the property but we still get what the public deserves and that is a review of the seismic landslide hazard to a given project.

that's what i would suggest. and for those projects that do -- that do exist on -- or are proposed lots or blocks that have a very shaky geographic material underlying the project, yeah, maybe there is a justification for a little bit more time to get consensus between the architect, the engineer, the geotech, around exactly what is necessary for this project and maybe there is a justification for that higher staff process review and timeline. i don't think that any of that needs to be addressed legislatively. i think that is rather a process improvement that we can address through implementation, but that is my suggestion to sort of split the baby. we got the review that we need and there's a mechanism on the backside that can mitigate some of the additional costs and concerns around the scopability of this new requirement. >> with regard to language, to clear up how we get to that 25% on some of these lots to mr. harris' point there that some could be in the middle of

the lot. could we do anything to tighten up that measurement policy or you think that could be done administratively as well? >> i think that would be a administrative legislation, and i would be happy to review language and take it back to the supervisor. i'm not sure what that looks like exactly. >> i don't know either and i'm just phishing here but there is a loosiness there on that. >> yeah. i mean, inasmuch as the seismic hazard zone map took in consideration not just the 25% slope but the geographic material underneath each block and lot, if there is a recommendation that, you know, staff assess the geographic material as a sort of staff recommendation to the structural advisory committee and that helps alleviate some of the concern or the ambiguity around the sac review process both in terms of how long it's going to take and the additional cost of the sac review process, i think that is actually a very fair way to meet in the middle between

some of the concerns that you have heard and what our legislation proposes in terms of public safety. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so there's going to be a motion on the item? >> mr. walker, what you said to me earlier... >> well, i feel like this addresses -- or hopes to clarify something. i think that it sets a threshold to our department as to, you know, when to dig deeper, so to speak, or not. i mean, i would like to see the comments that have been brought up here addressed in some language change but, i mean, i am willing to support this kind of effort. i just don't know if we want to move it forward with an approval until we see language. but, you know, it's kind of --

>> i'm okay with moving it forward and i think that we can get an understanding from now to the time that it's implemented and i think that administratively if we could -- maybe if i could sit down with the members of the staff this week and we just send you some recommendations and see if it can be administratively done on our side or if it's something that you feel that could be tied into your -- into what you're doing moving forward. so i think that it would be fine and i'd be okay with that. i think that it's a big part to me is that this was already in the process before, the 25%. we're not trying to rewrite the script here. i think that we are just fine-tuning it and making it more effective. i do understand the argument that our technology is better now and our science is better but i don't see the 25% -- yeah, i don't see it as being -- >> i think that this puts it as a minimum and the new technology

is on top of it. i'm one who would rather be safe than sorry, personally. so i move to support this with some amendments. >> john, could you help us with the language here, please. >> thank you. >> john malnoth from the city's attorney office. let's see what i would suggest. i would think that the commission could recommend approval of the legislation subject to having the present work with staff on amendments -- like how you would define -- how you define how the 25% is applied. is that the open issue? >> and how it incorporates the new technological information

that was referred to in the original -- i mean, it's basically identifying more extreme slide areas which is what we were saying. it's like the new technology has identified areas that might be more dangerous. that's great. we still need to incorporate those but we don't want to lessen the -- you know, the 25% on other areas. how would you -- >> i don't know if we have to approve or disapprove of the proposal. i'm thinking that maybe we should say something -- that the commission agrees with the intent of the legislation to provide more safety, seismic upgrade -- or legislation to prevent problems.

and maybe that we should offer all comments and that maybe the supervisors should take into account the comments from their commission into the legislation and perhaps tweak it at the board level. something like that. >> john nalmoth from the city's attorney office. another option to consider to continue the item if that's acceptable to the supervisor's office and then work on what amendments you might like to see and then come back and have another hearing on it with the amendments. >> i'm not -- i'm not interested in bringing it back. i mean, i think that we could solve this as it goes through, you know, i really do. so let's just leave it at this -- my recommendation is to approve with -- with the caveat that we would be able to work with the supervisors office on

recommendations going forward before it's finalized. >> second. >> then we can take it from there. okay, it's not going to be complicated and just fine-tuning. okay. which we have done before and it worked out fine. okay. so that's my recommendation. >> clerk: so motion and seconded. >> i seconded it. >> clerk: do a roll call vote. president mccarthy. yes. vice president walker, yes. commissioner konstin. yes. commissioner lee. yes. commissioner warshell. yes. the motion carries unanimously. okay, item 6, update on tall building process review.

>> overhead, please. >> clerk: there we go. >> good morning, commissioners. ron tom, director, department of

building inspection. today we have an update on the tall building review process. last time i made this presentation it was in january's commission hearing. so we want to thank you for the opportunity again to present to you and to give you this update and we do appreciate the building commission's work and oversight. we look forward to continuing to collaborate with you and other city agencies, the chosen experts and others. the technical task force has completed its review of ab082,

that's the guidelines and the procedures for structural design review. and we're awaiting the board of director's action on task force recommendations in late march or early april 2018. the technical task force has begun its review of ab083 and that's the requirements and guidelines for the seismic design of new tall buildings using the nonprescriptive seismic design procedures. now the information sheet, interim guidelines for geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review for new tall buildings was reissued

on december 27, 2017. this applies to buildings 243-foot or taller. projects located in the city's softest soils and/or liquids did faction zones and has the two reviewers on the design team, tells it has piles driven peers on to bedrock. new requirements and new requirement and s18, for owner to monitor the settlement for 10 years. after the issuance of a ctco. the notarized legal document by the responser to be recorded against the title. listening to the qualified monitoring surveyors and

instrumentation engineers contact details. part of permanent records and readily retrievable from d.b.i. settlement monitoring data will be submitted annually for each of the 10 years to d.b.i. building inspection division. if annual monitoring settlement data exceeds the project sponsor's geotechnical engineer by 1.5 factor or more in any annual data recording period, the project sponsor is required to immediately notify d.b.i. deputy director for inspection services. once so notified, an immediate and additional investigation will be conducted immediately.

we completed the r.f.q. to establish a new structural and geotechnical and academic seismic updates for future tall building designs review panels and the list was posted on february 28, 2018. this prequalified list includes, 25 structural engineers, 11 geotechnical engineers, five seismic experts from a academia giving us excellent technical resources to draw upon for future tall building reviews.

the ordinance to enable d.b.i. cost recovery for the third-party design review experts was passed unanimously in february by the board. signed by the mayor on march ninth, and will take legal effect on april 8, 2018. finally, d.b.i. continues to work closely with the city administrator's staff on the new applied technology tall building study which is expected to be completed in september 2018. no updates to this report at this time, but we will provide b.i.c. as we receive them. and thank you. that completes our tall building review process and update and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. what other major policies and changes -- are still on process,

would you regard? i mean, i can see a lot there and the pool there is fortunate have, the secondary pool there available to us going forward -- >> if you recall from last year there were a number of strategic moves that we could take as a requirement, some of it is at a low level in terms of making sure that we retain the proper records through the review -- design review process. and that was done immediately with a memo and changes in our processes and procedures at that time. some of this has been at a higher level, extended beyond our own department and the b.i.c. that included working with the board of supervisors like, for instance, the cost recovery. and also most importantly we no longer have the applicant decide

whom they would use in terms of the review board but we would as a department take on that responsibility, have them pay for us and work out a process internally but now we will have cost recovery legislation to give us the authority to charge the applicant. we are working in tandem with seaonc and they're reviewing our administrative bulletins, 82, up to now and we're just waiting and we believe that by april we'll have their findings and recommendations and they'll start on the next one which is the ab -- or they have already started on ab-083. so we've got seaonc involved and we have cost recovery and we have internally workers retention now that we've strengthened. we have policies that are now required of our own staff. and also we are now looking forward to implementing the

information sheet s-18 so that will now have very clear steps of what you have to do to monitor and to be responsible for a 10-year period and also to bring in when we need them in the worst soil, the softest liquefaction zone and unless you go to bedrock you will have two geotechnical reviewers on a panel. i think that we have strengthened it in a lot of areas and i am very confident that going forward that we have developed a very holistic approach both at the low level of details within our department and especially working with seaonc and being in contact with the board of supervisors and the applied technology council. so it's very reaching in this process. when you think about where we were, say, a year, a year and a half ago and where we are now, it's night and day. we have a level of transparency

that the board can be provided with as we develop this even further. actually what's really going to be important is the implementation of all of this. and in all of the little pieces added together makes a very strong process. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions? >> no. >> thank you very much. thank you very much for that. >> any public comment on item 6 in okay, seeing none, item 7, update on the joint meeting of the building inspection commission and planning commission. >> well, it's happening. that's good news. you know what, madam secretary, to touch base with you before this -- this is probably unfair -- did you get the details of what time and so on? >> clerk: april 12th at 10:00 a.m.. i believe that it's going to be in the -- where the planning commission holds their meetings, i believe in 400 but i'll

confirm that. i'll confirm that but i believe that it's in 400. april 12th at 10:00 a.m.. >> 10:00 a.m. room 400, joint planning and building commission meeting. >> so really that's basically all the update and we'll get there and have our meeting, okay, thank you. >> clerk: any public comment on that item? >> hi, i'm georgia shutus and i have been talking about alterations that in my opinion are demolitions for the past three plus years. and a couple weeks ago i went there and president hillis said why don't you go to the b.i.c. and talk to them. have you ever done that? and i said, no, i haven't really. so i came today and i'm going to show you a bunch of photos. now i think what has happened lately is there's a confluence of building code, planning code definition problem. i have always felt that the

problem had to do with the demolition, but we'll see what you say. and 317. so i'm going to start with this, the overhead, please. okay. so it's that one there that i'm talking about. here it is -- there. here it is here. and here it is here. and here it is pretty much now. okay? here's another one in noi valley. there it was, a nice house. there it is during the process and there it is, you can see the facade going away and there a little bit of facade and there it is now. and here's another one, there it is... and there it is... and a nice old facade. there it is raised up. and here it is during the process. and here's the rear of it. and here it is with the addition on the top.

and here it is pretty much now. here's this one here. it's got the original windows. here is a detail of the underneath. here it is... here it is now. for those of you interested in historical buildings here's a current one, the planning commission hasn't seen that. there's that. this one i didn't bring the before picture, this is in the pioneer district, 1071 alabama, if you want to look it up and there was a penalty on that. here's another one, this is the original house there, two units. and here it is now. sold for like $7 million but that's another story. now what oil show you are things that you could have put a violation, the d.b.i. put a violation on this one but planning commission -- there's the house -- it was resold -- planning department said, no, it's want. they said that it met -- it

didn't meet the demolition calcs, so it's not a demolition, but your guys did. here's another one... that was it... that had a notice of violation but planning said, no. here's another one as it was in the beginning and here it is now. and here's another one, there it is. here's another one... you can see the big underneath -- state street is very similar. here's that. see that underway? here's another one. here's another one. here's the underneath. and here's my last one. so i think that you get my point. we'll see what happens next month, april 12th. there are other issues with 317 that i'll relate and write you a letter. i don't think your deadline for your packet is april 2nd or 3rd? >> clerk: i believe the second and i will let you know and i will contact you and i will let

you know. >> we'll also be dealing with it back here at our commission meeting. >> i won't do those photos aga again. thank you. >> thank you, thank you, really. >> good morning, new name is jerry grantler. an issue that on on the agenda for the joint meeting is the coordination of legal remedies between d.b.i. and planning. 214 state street is a very good example. the litigation committee referred this project to the city attorney and two or three months ago the planning department was supporting the project before the planning commission. this makes no sense. one of the fundamental

differences between d.b.i. and the planning department is planning's belief that they are not responsible for planning code enforcement. when i sunshined the planning department regarding the penalties assessed when they issued a notice of enforcement for the unpermitted removal of a three storey bay at 2,517th avenue, the planning department responded that they work with violators versus issuing penalties and fines. this says a lot about the planning department's notice of enforcement process. i would suggest that the planning department removed word "enforcement" from their process. the planning department's lack of enforcement is one of the root causes of unpermitted demolition in san francisco. can you imagine what parking in san francisco would look like if the parking control officers did not believe in enforcement, but -- and did not iss