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 issue tickets with fines, but worked with individual violators? thank you. >> thank you. any more public comment? seeing none -- just on -- you know, i think we're really -- both departments are understanding the importance of getting to the understanding that we need to do a better job in implementing our policy and procedures, particularly 317 has been a challenge for us and at the department here. it's been a challenge for us and also for planning. i do want to point out in a statement that, you know, there are a lot of projects out there that might have been presented as being illegal demolitions and they are not. and they have not exceeded the permits. and what i'm finding is that

when the drawings are produced and the facts are put on the table that what is perceptually seen by some community members as exceeding the permit, they did not. so i think that we have to be fair about this when we say that when buildings are -- some of the photographs that are produced are produced and they're automatically presumed as exceeding the permit -- and they have not. there's been cases like that. and we welcome anybody who has an issue to come to d.b.i. and to talk about the inspectors and to go through the plans and to see what was approved both by planning and d.b.i. i mean, i think that is a very important part of this process that needs to happen. then there are projects thought who have egregiously exceeded the permits and they need to be dealt with. so i think that it's important that we keep it consistent that, you know, we need to get all of the facts first before we necessarily condemn every project that we see that we feel

has exceeded its permits without getting all of the facts on the table for us. i think that is important. as a builder it's a very difficult thing out there sometimes to do these buildings where there needs to be an understanding between d.b.i. and planning that sometimes the permit -- we need to sit down and discuss this and communicate to everybody what needs to be done to make these buildings more seismically safe and fireproof and so on and that's what is happening out there in a lot of cases. in other cases it's quite different. but, anyway, i wanted to make that comment. commissioner lee? >> another issue that goes a long way to resolving it is communicating with the neighbors. i find out that i think that the planning department does a very good job in the beginning of a project, meaning, makes the project sponsor notified in the neighborhood and telling them

what their plans are and what is being proposed. but between that time and when the project gets approved and the permit is issued, the neighbors don't know what was discussed or what was finally approved. we don't know if a room has been added or there's been approval for demolition. we don't know that. so that's why some of the neighbor comes by and say, hey, why is this all missing now? because it was approved. it did go through a process but nobody was notified in the neighborhood. so that's something that we may want to talk with planning about, about whether -- what should we do once the project is approved, how do we get the notice out that this has been approved and this is what is going to be built, this is what the department, d. bimple deparg at to say that it's going to be built this way. i think that would solve a lot of problems. >> i think that is hopefully

that we will have a good discussion in april on this. sometimes a front facade is not historically significant but it triggers off emotions that it shouldn't have been removed though on the plans the contractor shows that it can be removed. obviously, you have to communicate if you have concerns and that's not the issue but i think it's important that we balance it. there are a few bad actors out there and there's a lot of good contractors out there who are trying to do exactly as approved. and who have no interest in exceeding their permits. they get caught in this web sometimes and i have to feel that we have to talk about them and recognize that they are doing a good job out there as well but there are definitely people out there who need to be dealt with and who are abusing the system. that's hopefulliy in the planning commission joint hearing we can talk about that and we'll be straight about that. as i said in projects like

alvarado is coming back to us and we'll walk it through and learn as much as to why it went as far as it did and take it from there then, okay? so thank you all, and commissioners pointed out, thank you for coming out and presenting your cases here today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. item 8, update on accela permit and project tracking system. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm shawn beulin from the department of technology, helping out on this project. you have the status in front of you. the good news in terms of major accomplishments, we've had a big wave of reports, specs approved and there's a bunch of report development going on. we have been going through the project and working on build

activities, meaning working closely with the frontline staff and making sure that the new screens and that they do exactly what you want them to do when you hit this particular button and the right values are in each drown down list. it's a -- drop down list. it's a long drawn out process but it's proceeding very well. and most of the interfaces with the external departments are now in development or being tested at the moment so all of that is very, very positive. in terms of the major activities planned for next month, bottom line is that there's more of the same. we've got a lot more reports to do, we've got to wrap up the data migration activities, we've got to wrap up the interfaces and wrap up all of the scripting work to make the application behave exactly as we need it to behave, so that's all, very, very positive. over the last few days for your information an issue has arisen that actually came up after i had produced this one pager and i'll give you a verbal update on

it so just so you're aware -- for awareness purposes. we talk about all of these interfaces and one of the interfaces is a payment adapter to help people to pay when they use the web to do certain activity. that payment adapter is completed. of course, just about the time that it's completed we learned that, you know, this company that provides the adapter has a contract with the number of the departments throughout the city and there are some contractual issues going on. d.b.i. is not the only department impacted and there's a number of departments impacted by this and it's outside of d.b.i.'s control. so we are rolling with the punches and exploring possible options for dealing with this interface to be able to deal with web payments. >> what is this -- what does it mean a contractual issue? >> you know, i'm actually not

quite sure how much to share out loud because this is a vendor relationship and there's some sensitive discussions going on but there is a possibility that we're not licensed to use the product towards the end of the year. and that is what we are working on at the moment. one of the welcome to big project implementation and all kinds of contractual disputes. we are exploring multiple alternatives to address this. i must say that d.b.i.'s management is being very proactive in pursuing and helping us to pursue these options, identify them and put this issue to rest. but it is literally something that popped up over the last few days and we felt that you should be aware. >> okay. i'll get more offline, i guess.

>> just a brief note on the change management roadmap. i have shared this before and we are executing to it. detailed planning is underway. we're going to have a far more detailed plan and we'll share that with you in the next month. some of these dates are changing a little bit as we get down to the next level of depth on the planning. so there's going to be a couple shifts in the dates but we're going to have a much more flushed out plan for our outreach and communications, both internally, within the department, and externally with the other departments and outside people. so this one pager will be blown out into multiple pages and we'll be sharing the greater detail with you starting next month. any questions? >> we're getting close. >> yes. absolutely. thank you. >> clerk: public comment on item 8? seeing none, director nine,

director's report, 9-a, update on d.b.i.'s finances. >> good afternoon, commissioner, the deputy director for the department of building inspection. before you is the february 2018 financial report provides that revenues and expenditures for the time period of july 2017 through february 2018. i'll just go over a couple of highlights. on the revenue side we continue to see a slowing of revenues. so ending february 2017, last year, we had collected about $50 million and this year we're at $47 million so we're down over $3 million in last year. and to plan checking revenues, it's down by a lot.

however, although we are continuing to see a reduction from prior year overall we're still doing pretty well because if you see the first page we're actually -- we had predicted to be even be lower so we're actually projecting that we're going to be about $6 million over budget. but we are seeing a steady decline. so, for example, i went back and i looked at revenues and i think we haven't been this low in february since maybe fiscal year 2014. but once again it's still high and we're coming down from a low high. -- from a high level, yes. so that's on the revenue side. on the expenditure side, similar to what we have been reporting over the past few months, we are down a lot from the prior year. that is primarily so you'll see that we have collected about -- we have spent about $33 million this year and last year we were almost at $40 million but that continues to be due to a lack of

billing from other departments. so basically about $50 million, $60 million is work orders or services with other departments and we're paying the departments for other services they are providing. and this is city-wide, pretty much the billings have been a lot slower. so last year we had already seen bills and approved bills over $6 million and this year we're only at $1 million so it's hard to make projections because the billing is just really slow and that's linked a little bit to the departments just getting on board with the new financial management system. so we hope by the nine months that we'll have a better picture and nine months is supposed to be march. we're starting to see a lot more billings come in so hopefully if not by march, that by april we'll have a better representation of what our work order expenses are. after salaries it's the second largest expenditures. i think that is it. i'm happy to answer any

questions. >> thank you for that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 9b, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, bill strom, public affairs. i'll just mention some of the highlights from the report that is in your packet. you have heard assistant director ron tom talk about where we are with the cost recovery legislation, the mayor did sign that on the ninth of march and, therefore, in 30 days that will will be in effect. so i think that we're in a good position on that rather important element of our tall building aspect. we also mentioned earlier about the accessible entrance business program and supervisor tang met with the director and the deputy

director sweeney and the office of the small business and some other folks. there's been a fair amount of comments coming in from small businesses to the supervisor about how much time may be needed in order to meet the initial compliance deadline for these checklists that was going to be may 23rd. she has agreed in principle to extend that out. we're thinking probably to a deadline closer toward the end of the year that will give people a little more opportunity. as was mentioned in the president's announcements we did send a second notification to approximately 24,000 of these small property owners that we think are going to be in this program. to date we still have not had very much of a response from the two notifications late november, early december, and now this

past week. as we know constant outreach and communications is necessary in order to make owners aware that they do have a compliance issue here. and particularly those buildings that are already exempt. we think that out of those notified 7,000 or 8,000 of these buildings, all they have to do is to file a declaration form that they sign and get it in here to the building department. and that number would obviously go down quite a bit. but so far we aren't yet getting that response. that's one of the reasons that we have scheduled two more brown bag workshops at d.b.i. and the first is march 30th. and there's another one in early april that we'll be letting you know about. i guess that on other matters i would just mention on the mandatory seismic retrofitting

tier 3 that we're down to where we have about a 96% compliance level. there are approximately 130 buildings that are noncomp pliant and the code enforcement division has posted all of those buildings and we'll be scheduling a director's hearing for those. i'll let you know once we actually have a date for any of those hearings. they have not yet been schedul scheduled. one other matter i'll mention is on accessory dwelling units. i understand that supervisor tang and some others at the board yesterday did introduce a new piece of legislation. i haven't yet seen the details of it, so i don't yet know what's in it. i do know that director hulie has an internal accessory unit task force that is headed by the deputy directo dan lowry and the permit services section, working

with internal staff as well as pretty closely with the planning department in order to see if we can find a way to move forward those units that we know are meeting the life safety standards. as all of you have heard last month from the fir fire marshals presentation that there are some builds that do present challenges and to president mccarthy's point i think that the goal going forward is to give owners a pretty clear picture of whether they're going to be able to qualify for this type of a unit or not early on and not drag the process out, unknowingly or unwittingly, so to speak. but with that i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 9-c, update on major projects. >> the director of the building

inspection and this month compared to last month roughly only 1% increase of technical reasons, nothing changed from before. any questions that you want. >> thank you, director. >> clerk: item 9-d, update on code enforcement. >> good afternoon, commissioners and president mccarthy. the numbers for code enforcement and d.b.i. monthly intake for february. building inspections performed, 4,947. complaints received, 427. complaint response within 24-72 hours, 383. and complaints with first notice of violation sent, 67. and complaints received and abated without n.o.v.s, 215. and updated compliance with notice of violation, 34. and second notice of violations referred to code enforcement, 22. and h.i.s., there was 1,072

inspections performed. complaints received, 476. complaint response, within 24-48 hours or 72 hours, 450. complaints with notice of violations issued, 188. and a baited complaints with n.o.v.s, 329. and the number of cases sent to the director's hearing, 48. routine inspections, 226. and code enforcement, number of cases sent to director's hearing, 71. number of order of abatements issued, 17. the number of cases under advisement, 9. and the number of cases abated, 56. and the code enforcement inspections performed, 158. and cases referred to city attorney, one. those are the numbers for february 2018. >> clerk: is there any public comment on the director's report items, 9a-d.

seeing none, item 10, review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of february 14, 2018. >> approved. >> clerk: is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? all commissioners in favor. any opposed? the minutes are approved. item 11, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of february 21, 2018. >> moved to approve. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment? okay, seeing none are all commissioners in favor any opposed? minutes are approved as well. and item 12, adjournment. a motion to adjourn. >> adjourn. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second and all commissioners in favor? we are now adjourned and it is 12:20 p.m.. thank you.

.

>> hi everybody, we down here at the /ep is a center which is our pop up space down here in san francisco where we operate a store front to educate the policy from the home owner who has center which is our pop up space down here in san francisco where we operate a store front to educate the policy from the home owner who has never done anything in the house to the most advanced structure engineers we have working around here. we we're going to here from kelly to talk a little bit about san francisco. how are you doing kelly? >> very well, thank you for having us here. >> in front of us, we have a typical soft story building. when i see this, i think this is some of the most beautiful architecture our city has. a lot of people don't know these are problematic buildings. why don't you tell us about some of the risks he we have in these buildings? >> soft stories are

vulnerable in past earthquakes and the northridge earthquake to this type of building and character of building. when we talk about the soft story, what we're talking about is generally a ground story that has less wall or other /pwraeugs to resist the lateral forces that might be imposed by the earthquake. so we're looking for something that is particularly weak or soft in this ground story. now, this is a wonderful example of what some of the residential buildings that are soft stories in san francisco look like. and the 1 thing that i would point out here is that the upper force of this building have residential units. they have not only a fair amount of wall around the exterior of the building but they also have very extensive walls in the interior and bathrooms and bedrooms and corridors and everything that has a

certificate amount of brazing yea it's significantly less country /srabl in those stories. now very often, we get even a garage or storage or sometimes commercial occupancy in this ground story. that very often not only has a whole lot less perimeter wall but it often has little or no wall on the interior. that wall is the earthquake bracing and so he see very significant bracing in the top floor and very little on the bottom. when the earthquake comes and hits, it tries to push that ground floor over and there's very little that keeps it from moving and degrading and eventually /paoerblly keeping it from a collapse occurring. so we know they're vulnerable because of this ground story collapsing >> is this only a problem we see in sentence france? san francisco? >> no, this is certainly a

national problem. more acute in western but more up to california, washington, moving out into other states. this kind of building exist and this kind of building is vulnerable. >> when you're involved with the community safety, this is a different way of thinking about these types of things. we had a community group of over 100 people involved and upper 1 of them. tell us about * how that conversation went. why did we decide as a city or a community to start fixing these types of buildings? >> there were a lot of aspects that were considered well beyond just the engineering answer that these are vulnerable. and that effort brought in a lot of people from different aspects of the community that looked at the importance of these buildings to the housing stock and the possible ramifications of losing this /houbgs in the case of an earthquake. the

financial implications, the historic preserve vacation s implication as you mentioned, these are very handsome looking buildings that are importance to the tourist city ask which make san francisco something that people are interested from outside in coming and visiting. >> it's such animation story when you think about the 10 years that the community spent talking about this /seurb but we actually did something about it. now we have an order unanimouses put in place to protect 100,000 residents in san francisco and retrospective in 2020. so on behalf of residents and employees in san francisco, we want to say thank you for the work you've done in pushing this forward and making people more aware of these issues. >> and it was a fantastic community effort. >> so in an earth quake, what happens in these kinds of buildings? >> what happens when an earthquake comes along is it moves the

ground both horizontally and vertically. it's mostly the horizontal that we're worried about. it starts moving the building back and forth and pushing on it. when you see i'm pushing on it, the upper stiff of the wall stay straight up but the lower floors, they actually collapse just like i did there. >> luckily, we can put this building right back up where it came from so it's a lot easier. now kelly, obviously these aren't real frame walls here but when you talk about buildings, what makes the property for stiff? >> the easiest and most cost-effective type of bracing you can put in is either put in a brand new wall or to potentially go in and strengthen a wall that's already there where you don't need to have an opening is where you maybe have a garage door

or access to commercial space, you might go to a steel frame or other types of bracing systems that provides the strength and stiff if necessary but at the same time, allows continued use of that area. but some combination of walls or frames or other tools that are in the tool kit that can bring the building up to the strength that's required in order to remove the vulnerability from the building so that when ground shaking comes, it in fact is a whole lot more resistant and less vulnerable. ideally, this story down here would be made as strong and stiff as the floors above. >> if i'm a property owner, what is the first thing i should do? >> the first thing you should do is find professional that can come in and help you evaluate your building in order to, 1, figure out that indeed it does need to be retro fitted

and 2, give you some idea of what that retro fit might look like. and third, evaluation and design to help you determine the retro fit requirement. >> well kelly, i can't thank you enough for being here today. thank you so much for your wealth of information on how we can take care of our soft story problem in san francisco. and you the viewer, if you have any questions, please feel free to visit

good morning. welcome to the government audit and oversight committee. this is april 4th. i am the chair joined by supervisor aaron peskin as well