bonds. and six recommendations. first two recommendations to measures and reportings. first being that the committee should complete the process of standardizing the reporting format used by all bond programs. will ensure the committee is receiving adequate information from all bond programs to enable it to confirm that the proceeds are spent in accordance with the relevant bond measures. further, stake holding engagement. in regards to orientation and training, the committee should consider instituting an enhanced orientation plan for new members. this will ensure that all members begin their service with an adequate understanding of bonds and finance and should development supplementary training for continuing committee members to enhance knowledge and effectiveness. in terms of public transparency and access to information, the

committee should ensure it provides to the public adequate information about its activities, functions and members, by enhancing the cgoboc website and more frequent audits to ensure bond proceeds are spent as the voters approved. thank you. >> thank you. any -- would you like us to comment at this point? or do you have more to present? >> no, that's pretty much it. yes, i think this is now the opportunity for the committee to discuss any aspects of our memo. >> first of all, let me commend you for really having done a very good job in this survey. it's very thorough. i read through it and i'm personally very pleased with it. i have some comments that let me invite my fellow members to

comment on the presentation. >> yeah, i, too, thought it was a great report and appreciate it very much and did notice that two of the recommendations are covered in our work initiatives, standard identification of website design, may be on the right path or road and orientation of new members is a great idea as well. so, again, thank you very much for this report. >> let me just remind our fellow committee members, this was a study that we had commissioned the staff to do, so they are just coming back with results, what we asked them to do. >> i would like to also thank you for the report. i think it's been something we have needed for a long time. i think the recommendations are all solid and good. questions i have are whether or not in reviewing what other -- did you find trouble spots that

you needed to make us aware of so we could avoid the pit falls that others may have fallen into? my attention was drawn to the p.u.c. bond where i understand there are now criminal investigations underway for bid rigging. and i'm not sure to what extent we would be aware if there was bid rigging going on. >> certainly on that note, that we conducted, one of the authorities is also to enlist any analysis or audits of the commission. it is within your authority as cgoboc to also ask the controllers office for commission any types of audits

or investigations or more audits in the purview of the committee. so the extent that you do ask controllers office to conduct such types of engagements, that's something that we have considered in the past. >> but nothing came from your review. >> no. >> as a warning sign. >> one of the things that you also recommend is increased audits asked for by the goboc committee. any particular audit areas that you think should be priorities for us? >> so, within the authority that is given to the committee, i think what you have asked the controllers office to conduct, which are the expenditure audits, certainly a great start. i think it's within the realm of the authority of this commission, or this committee to

ask us anything that relates to bonds expended appropriately, and any related to overhead or continuing costs. those are things that you have asked us in the past. what other jurisdictions have typically done, and correct me if i'm wrong, alice, on similar engagements, compliance audit to ensure the bonds are expended, that the measures that are actually being either voted on by the jurisdictions are completed, performance audits can also be commissioned and those are things that and speak to effectiveness and economy of programs. again, those are the types of engagements from other jurisdictions. >> i think commissioner larkin had asked at one point about the use of change orders increasing bond costs.

and asked that we had done more to look at preplanning to avoid cost overruns and change orders. >> i think that was responding to the public comment about change orders, and explaining what change orders were. but -- yeah, change orders are bad. so while we can look at expenditures, does that look at the planning that goes into the bond that's put on the ballot? >> i know we can't comment itself, esar 2014, that will probably be shared the next meeting, the audit report. >> right. so, a month ago we issued an audit of the preconstruction phase of the 2014 -- to the extent that the committee would like for us to present on it while you are also hearing the

2014esar update, we'll be more than happy to do so. >> thank you. >> i just want a clarification on page nine, functions and activities exhibit 8. the first paragraph below exhibit 8 said follows three of the four leading oversight practices related to monitoring bond projects and expenditures, that they identified. and in the table you identified four items, and cgoboc got a yes on each. is one wrong or did i just misread this? >> it looks -- >> one thing we included in the report on the appendix, the results of our benchmarking. there are -->> looks like that

is incorrect, it should be 4 of 4. i'm sorry about that. >> no, actually looks like you are doing -- we are doing better than we think we are, which is what i always thought. >> so, i would like to thank you for a very thorough report. appreciate it very much. i think it's going to be really useful going forward. it's a great analysis to begin a review to see what steps going forward are appropriate.

and accurately reflects the criteria that we use, how it measures against other existing, within the city and other similarly situated cities. so, thank you very much. yeah. we have other committee members that are not here today, so i'm sure this will be an item of discussion going forward at some point. but a great starting point. thank you. >> seeing no other comments, invite public comment on the presentation. >> i heard the report, jerry durantler. released a week ago, it's also not on the website, and there is some public reporting requirements. so basically what we have done

is we have discussed and reviewed a report the public had no access to. right, but -- the requirements -- >> under reports, under reports. it's on the controller's website under reports. >> i'm told that under public under the controller's office, and this -- this committee is being staffed by the controller's office. >> just share a comment. >> so i was unable to realize nor see these materials prior to the discussion. and i think that's inappropriate. thank you. >> mark blake, i'm covering for kim ru, and i staff the sfmta oversight committee and the

p.u.c. revenue bond committee and one of the items that we have talked about at the other committees, and i don't know if it's taken up with this committee, but the benchmarking study was very good. but one thing that we have talked about from time to time is how we transfer knowledge from each of the oversight committees, each of you have, i would say, 90% overlap in terms of your tasks and your responsibilities, but the knowledge that may be obtained from the, for example, the p.u.c. revenue bond committee if they discover practices or something that they make improvements for don't necessarily make it to this committee, don't necessarily make it to the s.f.m.t.a. so, what i've been kind of a small champion for, somehow figuring out how we can transfer knowledge among the oversight committees, all performing the same function for taxpayers. so, maybe at some point you

know, this committee, along with the other ones, could figure out a way to take it up. not sure how. >> that's a good suggestion. at some point, someone should spearhead this discussion, and if you can tell the oversight committee was one of the survey subjects if you will, for their practices. thank you. can we go to the next item, and that would be standardized templates, website redesign. >> so maybe also address that, her staff and her department have been working on many of these. so, maybe peg, you can just comment on them, standardized template. >> sure. and just so you know how this agenda item will appear, every time you meet, all the things that were put into your work

plan for the fiscal year will appear on the agenda so it gives us the opportunity to present and you the opportunity to comment on any of them. not necessarily an action report or progress report, but that's how the agenda item seven will show every time. so just running down the list, you have heard about the benchmarking report, i don't have an update on standardized t templates, largely due to the financial reporting you discussed on the other bond programs. we have had a process with the department of public works that does the bulk of the reporting to look at their reports and moved on some of the recommendation that is have arisen. it's on hold while the capital reporting getting approved but we do plan to show progress on it during the fiscal year. for website redesign, we have good progress to show. i, we have engaged a contractor,

i think i mentioned in the previous meeting an available pool of website designer through the tech store we can go to very easily. we have had them working on a redesign of your website. we included a paper copy of the landing page in your packet so you will have seen that. we, i'm not going to show you the live designs right now, just for time. but i will at your april meeting, and i hope by the time your next meeting, by the time that comes, we will have each of the improved pages populated with content that we plan to put there. so, just to, you know, comment on the landing page, we borrowed a lot of the design actually from the capital planning committee which has a good framework for this type of work. there will be a large format photograph across the top. a mission statement there. which actually i drafted, just because we needed a place to

have one in the page, and maybe a good thing to do is to have that as a discussion item for your next meeting when we are looking at the website and more completion and see if you would like to make any edits to it. i just tried to make it short and simple. the landing page will have your current meeting and your most recent meeting shown. the bond programs will have an icon each below them and just chose icons available in the standard library. when you click on each icon, jump to a page about that bond program, which will just have a 2 to 3-line blurb about the general purposes of the bond program and then the most recent quarterly reports, rest of the material archived, probably not more than five years. you are archives on the existing website going back to 2002 or

something like that, probably more material than is really useful. so, i will check the record retention rules but i think five years of archives will be plenty. and then is simple drop down in the upper right, allows the public to go to standard, charter and ad min, bylaws, and about us section which lists the committee members' names and responsibilities under the charter assignments. very good progress. a frame on each of these new pages and we will pull the content that's involved by the time you meet again and we'll show you the frame live. we talked about brenda in the premeeting and i would certainly be happy, if you have any comments on the landing page, please email me and let me know

and i can take your comments when we look at it live next meeting. happy with the progress and thanks to tamara, who helped with the designs. moving on to -- >> stop here, and thank you for the update for the members. kristin, who is absent here, she had initiated or supported this project, and i had joined her in a couple of the meetings. since this website redesign, i think it's very important to this committee. if anyone has an active interest to join, you know, if there is a next meeting, you know, please let me know. i don't think there are going to be five members, but i think it will be a small enough group if you are actively interested,

have something to add as we work through with peg and the designer. but thank you very much. this is progress and i think that next meeting, which is just next month, we'll be able to see something, a sample live that you are going to load some of these, one if not all, maybe an example, so that we can visualize and see the walk through how to find information. thank you. >> right. >> may i say something? i would like to come to the next meeting, but on terms of the landing page, one of the things that i think is going to be important for us is a higher profile for citizens to comment or make observations. perhaps under each icon, because it's clear that we are running into problems of the public not feeling like they are getting enough early opportunity for

feedback. and so this is one of the places where both transparency and feedback can benefit our process. i would like to see, you know, you have contact us at the bottom, i think it should be a stronger encouragement. >> let me check into, there's a standard public comment tool that's used on some of the city's other committees, let me look into that, and we can look at it as something to add to your pages. >> we can talk about that in the april meeting. >> so, having no comment, why don't you carry on. >> so, the next item is public satisfaction survey, and again, good progress here. to refresh everybody's memory, committee discussion here has been to, as part of your mandate, to add survey of, to

the public, on the satisfaction and opinion about some of the bond constructed projects. we have a lot of practical information, milestones, completions, costs, you know, it's also important to add to your data opinion information. we do thin the controller's office where we do city surveys and many agencies that use public opinion data and complaint data as standard reporting tools, idea to add opinion data, feedback you are getting on bond programs. we have a pool of contractors that we use for opinion and public satisfaction survey, focus types, a project type in the pool used for surveying, so what we are proposing is to choose two projects, one from the 2008 park bond, and one from

the 2011 road repaving and streets bond, and ask our contractors to give us a bid price on doing a public satisfaction survey on those projects, so we would use the contractors expertise here to advise us on all the elements of it, what types of surveying should be done. intercept survey where you are standing at the facility and saying would you mind filling out a form or would you answer some live questions. should it be a web survey where you are asking users of a facility like a recreation facility to respond to something on the web. focus group where you are getting, a couple of different ways to get this kind of information and experts in our pool can also talk to us about sample sizes, geographic distribution, those types of things. so, what we would do is take the r.f.q. draft, put a not to exceed dollar value and put it

out to the pool asking for bid prices doing public satisfaction surveys on two facilities, and we are ready with the r.f.q. i have updated it to reflect current language with the city's current tools of this type. what i would recommend, just looking at the list here, we talked about this briefly with brenda when we came in for the premeeting last week, we talked about choosing a facility which has completed relatively recently, 2008 park bond, the lists that i provided, back to 2012, probably too old. we should choose something more recent and currents in people's minds and something moderately scaled. mission delores park is probably too big. other things on the list, what i would recommend, if it suits your approach to it, to choose the raymond kimball playground. it's complete, we have known costs, relatively moderately sized and 2015 was a while ago,

but not too long ago that i don't think we could have good public feedback on this. so, that would be my suggestion for the park bond. for the road repaving bond in our discussion with brenda, it came up here that we have also done work with our office of economic analysis on measuring the economic impact of city construction project. it has come up in the board of supervisors and used sales tax data and other data to do a detailed report on how much impact city construction has on local businesses to help inform the board of supervisors desire to have some pots of money available to help local businesses that are affected by city construction projects. that type of data is really most strongly available on just two of the projects on this list, 24th street urban village, castro to church and the

bartlett street scape improvements, a significant retail corridor nearby both of those projects. so, in keeping with the notion of being able to cross reference against our sales tax study and choose something that's recent, my recommendation would be the bartlett improvement project. these are my suggestions. if any committee members have strong opinions or you want us to look at further lists of projects, please stay so. >> petrillo avenue, that's a huge project. what are the reason the large projects are not -- >> it would be perfectly possible to put them out to the bid pool and find out what they think it would cost to survey on it, but i think that's probably the issue is that something like that, a couple of miles long and years and also affected by the hospital project, i'm just, a

little leery about the size of the bite that you would be taking and might want -- >> that would get confused with the hospital. >> yeah. i would recommend the first outing to go relatively small or moderate and see what kind of data we get back. >> i have no problem with the two. >> i think relatively small, moderate and recent are excellent criteria for selecting it. ill agree with both suggested recommendations. raymond kimball playground and bartlett street improvements. i don't know if it takes a motion, or guidance. >> guidance is fine. bartlett convenient valencia and mission, a number of pedestrian

improvements, a farmer's night one night a week. >> wanted some diversity -- >> and raymond kimball playground, the western edition, bounded by gary, l.s. pearson steiner. >> so it's -- appears the committee accepts your recommendations. >> great. >> for the reasons that you cited. >> we will go forward and hope to have the contract out to bid in the next month and report back at the next meeting. upcoming issuances, public finance, i'm sorry we did not get a moment to do this earlier, but the right place to introduce our new director of our office of public finance, anna van digna, not sure if i'm pronouncing properly. just a moment to have her introduce herself and she's taking the job that was -- we

are very happy to have here. >> thank you, peg, for introducing me. good to meet you all. i want to just touch upon forward calendar through the rest of the fiscal year, planned bond issuances. at tomorrow's board of supervisors meeting consider three resolutions that would authorize the sale of three series of bonds, 2018 c, d and e, estimated 388 million to fund projects for esar, affordable housing and public health and safety. >> and -- >> thank you. >> anna had worked with the city before through the firm that she

was at, so she's very familiar with public finance and has a significant background and we are again, very, how happy we are to have her and nadia has a big shoes to fill, but anna is going to be a huge addition. >> thank you, peg. and just to add a little bit to my background, i spent 17 years working as an investment banker and 15 in public finance here in san francisco, so working with cities, counties and other public agencies throughout the state at a firm that was originally known as stone and young, but later acquired by stefal. and this is my third week here, so -- definitely new to the position, so bear with me. >> well, thank you and welcome. i think that we started presenting as part of our meeting materials upcoming, you know, bonds, so it will help this committee get a sense as to what is coming up and what to

expect. so, thank you. >> one quick question on the upcoming bond sale, 388 million. will there, or is there an official statement being produced for that sale? >> yes. there is an official statement being produced, just in draft form currently. that is something that will be finalized before the offering to the public which is expected for may. >> and so that would be available if we came by and wanted to see it. >> most definitely, yes. >> great. that concludes my presentation, we don't have updates on items f or g at this time, but you will at your next meeting. >> just one question, peg. i see mark is here, maybe you have the answer, because -- we are getting fairly late into the fiscal year, and we had three expenditure items, scheduled for this year, 2014 earthquake

safety, 2012 clean safe neighborhood works and 2018 -- do you have a status on what phase we are in in those audits? >> certainly. actually, an hour ago, we just issued the 2008 parks bond. this is the series as you all know coming construction management on our behalf. we just issued it publicly about an hour ago, the 2008. 2012 is currently in the fieldwork phase, and should be completed before the end of this fiscal year. so, by may, june, it should be completed. just last week issued the notification to start our audit of the 2014esar, so starting in the next few weeks. >> one quick question you may or may not. do any of those audits cover

expenditures made in the current fiscal year? >> one we issued were costs that were through, yeah, june 2017. so not this fiscal year. >> because i'm real curious if we can maybe in the 2014, get some of the fiscal year cost in the scope, maybe through december or something. >> we will consider that as we are just initiating it and scoping out the scope of the actual audit. >> well, there being -- let me just add, to ask if there are any other matters that committee members want to be brought to this meeting. >> as we are coming to the end of the fiscal year, more or less, are we going to have a summary of what unexpended funds we have in the goboc budget, or

can we get that for the next meeting? >> do we normally request that, peg? if not, this would be -- >> i'm not aware that you have, but we have a current report on that all the time. so, yep. we can bring it. >> talking about adding audits and so forth using the goboc. >> that probably is appropriate as we approach the end of our fiscal year as you know, some, an item to say that, to show the data that mr. bush asked for. >> sure, yep. >> thank you. >> so there being no other business, we'll consider the meeting adjourned. >> so moved.

. >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco planning commission and building inspection commission joint hearing for thursday, april 12, 2018. i will remind members of the public that the commissions do not tolerate outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and when speaking to the commissions, if you care to, state your name for the record. i will take roll for the planning commission. [ roll call. ] >> and for the building inspection commission.

[ roll call. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: very good. commissioners, we have your special calendar, 1(a) and(b) for demolitions, and fraudulent fines, fees and penalties. >> good morning president mccarthy and hillis and members of those commissions. i'm liz w addie deputy director of planning. we are looking forward to having the opportunity to discuss the challenges that we are all experiencing with demolitions and major alterations, and to collaborate on working towards a productive solution. joining me today in delivering this presentation is chief building inspector pat o'rear don. we are joined by cory teague as

and dan lowry, and joe duffy, senior building inspector. today's presentation will cover the following topics. we have four primary items that we would like to cover. after overview of the current demolition regulations, inspection issues, dialogue about unauthorized demolition processes, including penalties and fees that currently are in place, and our general key take aways of what the major issues are that we're facing. so as all of you are probably aware at this point, the city has a handful of demolition controls, and before we begin into what we see are the challenges, we wanted to go through a little of a technical overview. although normally i try to steer clear of this technical jargon in any kind of public presentation, i think it's

critical to really set the stage of understanding what the challenges are. so first, i'm not going to go into a lot of detail. this is the building code definition of demolition. chief inspector reardon will go into this a little bit more, but it is important to know that the building code does have a definition of demolition, and that is something that again, pat will go into in a little more detail. what i'm going to be focusing on is the planning code definition of the definition of demolition. what the planning code states is there are two ways that a project can be considered a demolition, and once that's considered demolition, it's subject to a conditional use authorization. so the first is if dbi considers it a demolition. the second part is what i am ache going to focus most of my presentation on, and this is when an alteration permit is considered tantamount to

demolition, this is considered tantamount to demoor 317. there are two ways to do this, and those are highlighted on this slide. each of the two ways is a two-part clause. each of them is an "and" clause, so you have to meet both before it can be considered. the first, lineal feet of the foundation level, removal of more than 50% of the sum of the front and rear facades, and removal of 65% of the sum of all exterior walls. you need to meet both for it to be considered tantamount under the lineal calculation. the second is a square feet calculation, and that is a two-part clause, removal of more than 50% of the vertical lomt and more than 50% of the

hort who a horizontal elements, think flooring and roofing. the keyword in this presentation is removal. so what is that defined at? it's defined as with reference to a wall roof or floor, the d dismantling of a wall near or close to it. this is an example. this is a sidewall that's taken off and it's put back on. this is dismantling it. this is a graphic demonstrating building a new exterior wall, so perhaps they kept their old exterior wall, made it an interior wall and built a new exterior wall close to it. what's equally important here is what is not removal under the definition of tantamount to demolition, and this is i think

one of those challenges that has resulted in a lot of consternation by members of the public and a lot of public perception issues to be perfectly honest when you're in the field. this definition in our code says when an exterior element of the building is removed and replaced for repairs and maintenance in like materials with no increase in the volume of the building, it's not removal. so in practical terms, if somebody is in the field, and they discover that an entire exterior wall is termite infested or has serious dry rot and it needs to be repaired, the developer dcan take that down, put it up with fresh exterior materials, and that is not counting against their demolition calculation. that is our current code language, and obviously there's a dialogue and conversation that has to happen for that to be analysised and reviewed between the building inspector and the planning department, but that is allowed under the

current code. again, this slide is a little bit for visual effect and a little bit for some technical information. there's a lot on this page that i'm not going to go into, but the gist is is this what this when a plan comes into the planning department. most of this is information that we ask the architect to provide us, so we can determine whether the project is or is not tantamount to demolition. so this first slide aligns with that first definition, the lineal square foot removal. and in short, the top aspect of this slide, the front and rear facade requirement, you'll see on the -- this is effectively the foundation footprint. it demonstrates that the fool elevation is removing part of the foundation. 22 feet, specifically in this table. the rear elevation is removing the entire facade. that's a total of about 78%. the threshold here is 50%, so

for this, the front part yes, it's looking like a demo. the part two, you look at the total foundation, how much of the total foundation is being removed. in this example, you'll see most of the sidewalls are staying intact and aren't being removed. when you review this, the percentage of removal is 49%. the minimum for a demolition is 50%. so this project is not a demolition under the first criteria. so we go onto the second criteria. it could still be a demolition based on the surface area. the information on the left is relating to the horizontal calculation, the information on the right is the vertical calculation. with experience working on this, i always train our staff, start with the horizontal, it's an easier calculation. if it's no after doing the horizontal, it's not a demo. so on the horizontal calculation here, you'll see

that the grand total is 45.5% removal, and that equates to the picture at the bottom left where there's a little bit on the second floor on the right-hand side highlighted with a red box just for ease of quick review here, bits and pieces on the third floor and then the entire roof is being removed, so that grand total of 45.5% removal is under the 50% threshold. since it doesn't meet the first part, we don't need to go on because it doesn't meet one of the two clauses for demolition. so all in all, this project which is doing a lot of work, is not demolition under tantamount to demolition. i do also think it's important to take a quick step back to find out how these controls came into place. they came into place about a decade ago for many of the same reasons that we're facing today and some real challenges, some things that don't make sense in the real world or make sense from a common sense perspective, and we tried to put regulations in place that

would solve and recognize the policy objectives that existing housing is more relatively affordable housing and to preserve neighborhood character, so those were really the intent of the policy going into it. and i think it's very, again, timely that we're now looking back about a decade later to assess were those policy objectives met or were they not? so moving forward, from a planning department's perspective, there's a few challenges on the planning department's regulations. the first is there's a very strong incentive to be an alteration. once you're a demolition, you're pretty much with a few exceptions going to be going before the planning commission for a conditional use hearing. that's significant difference between just a processing permit. equates to a significant amount of time, money, uncertainty in the outcome of the process. secondly, the regulations are not effective. again, going back to those

policy perspectives of preserving relatively affordable housing and preserving neighborhood character, we certainly don't feel those are being addressed through this specific policy. similarly as i went through that example, on most typical san francisco homes where you have a zero sidewall building, if you keep your calculations, you're going to result in an alteration. if you just keep the sidewalls when you have a zero lot line neighborhood, you're seeing through the building, but technically again as we went through those democalculations, you're not meeting the code rule that we have to follow for implementation. lastly we feel like in the planning department there's a misalignment of rules and responsibilities with the current regulations. the demolition analysis is that responsibility is placed onto our staff and planners are not experts regarding construction and building code requirements. it's hard when you're putting

our expertise pitted against what a lot of the building inspectors and plan checks really understand how buildings go together and how you can build them in the field and so we'll kind of come full circle at the end of what we see as some of the direction that we would like to move forward with. and with that, i'd like to turn it over to pat o'reardon. >> thank you, liz. good morning commissioners. my name is patrick o'reardon. i'm a chief building inspector at dbi. first of all i'd like to say thank you to both commissions for giving me the opportunity to both on dbi on this very important topic. one of our suspect right lane engineers at dbi will also be a contributor in the presentation. firstly, as liz did, i'd like to emphasize the challenges presented to dbi in record to the inspections we perform on these projects.

existing walls are often deficient in weather resistance, fire resistance structural and seismic. must be upgraded throughout percode. electrical and hvac work is required, and i think what's really important is when we have shoring that's required to preserve walls, floors and roofs to comply with the demolition calculations, this can often lead to unsafe conditions for workers who are working in the area of the shored components of the existing building. and demolition calculations are determined by the architect and approved by planning. site permits often approved without lots being completely vetted. there's a disconnect between architecture and engineering outsets. it's common to have unexpected field conditions, for example

dry rot that would require additional demolition and may with the new filing of a permit trigger a conditional use hearing at planning. continuing with the inspection perspective, vertical additions, building permits for vertical additions are the most common source of unauthorized demolition. an estimated four or five instances of exceeding the approved demolition are substantiated annually. substantial upgrades of the building's bearing elements is needed to support an additional story or sometimes maybe two -- two stories, that is. means and methods to add upgraded structural components from time to time. unanticipated conditions, again such as the dry rot we previously mentioned are found at initial approved that's gov

san francisco building code chapter 14. section 1403.2, performance requirements for weather protection, exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather resistant exterior wall envelope. the exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed with the walls suddenly providing a water resistant barrier from the existing wall. as you can see from the diagram or picture from the top left, that's a code complying weather protect wall assembly. you have the exterior wall siding. after that you're supposed to have building paper and flashing on -- with the sheathing. then you have the stud insulation, vapor barrier and

your interior finish. so on the bottom, as an example of an exposed exterior wall of older building, you can kind of see the extensive dry rot due to insufficient weather protection. so what the contractor did wassub in the existing wall. they did their due diligence in situ, without removing a value. however this is still not a code compliant weather protected exterior wall. next i want to talk about fire protection, specifically fire protection exterior walls. this is governed by san francisco building code chapter 6, section 602, fire resistant rate of requirements for exterior wall based on fire separation distance. example i'm going to use is your typical two family dwelling, nonrated, three

stories. bottom story, you have garage, and dwelling unit on each of the top upper fluors. if you look on the top left, fire resistant rating for fire walls based on fire separation, because typical san francisco we have zero lot lines, your spice distance is zero, and because this is a minimum occupancy, it needs to be a one hour rated assembly. so the bottom -- on the bottom left, this is what a typical one fire tested and approved one hour exterior wall assembly looks like. you know you have your stud, your insulation, and you have basically five eights type chip board on each face of the studs, so your minimum fire protection perbuilding code exterior wall cannot be left as is if they're undergoing

renovation. basically, this could potentially lead to health issues from, you know, mold infestation or growth within the cavity walls. it is possible for the gyp board -- [ inaudible ] >> this becomes life safety possible issue. [ inaudible ] >> so next, i want to talk about the structural requirements for substantial alternatations. so picture to your left. basically, this is a demolition plan which shows the demoof some interior walls to open up the kitchen, enlarge the bathroom. this appears to be a simple and basic kitchen bathroom remodel,

but this can turn out to be substantial alteration. existing structures are governed by section 34.047.2, this says they basically have 30% of their tributary roof or structural building, that kicks you into 3401.10, lab reports design requirements for existing building kicks you to section 1604.10, and then basically, that requires a full wind and seismic detail of youren tear building perasc 7. so the point to take away from this is the 30% rule. if you're doing a remodel and it affects any structure of your bshlgs you have to provide a full lateral strengthening of your entire building, okay? so example i like to use is a simple third floor remodel.

again, i'm going to use a two family dwelling, wood framed nonrated building, numbers three -- three stories. so you look at the picture on your left, this is existing condition, you know, idealizing existing condition of your building. you're trying to open up the kitchen so it's open to the living and dining room. 50% of your load goes to the interior wall for tributary area and exteriors take 25%, so hypothetically, let's say we get rid of that interior wall. now you have the bottom left condition where then the load gets transferred, distributed evenly into each of the walls, so 25% to each of the exterior walls, right, so your load increases from 25% to 50% of the exterior bearing walls, right. that's 100% increase of the loads for those walls, so which is greater than 30%, so that

kicks you to full lateral strengthening of the entire building. so what do you need to do? so you need to -- for this kitchen remodel, you need to strengthen the existing exterior walls. so here you have a picture of the contractor doing work. what they did was they -- they double up or they tripled up the studs of the exterior wall. they sistered two new studs to each of the existing studs. potentially this could -- you know, you have to strengthen the studs all the way down to the ground floor, and this might lead to a foundation upgrade, as well, so these walls also need to be exposed to basically run the electrical and plumbing associated with this kitchen remodel. the problem with that is these are both considered unlawful demoby definition of the planning department 317 because we're not doing repairs, we're actually upgrading these walls, right? so the structural integrity of the existing walls is able to be complete. next example is a vertical

addition. this is a substantial alteration due to vertical addition. the example i like to use is your elementary physics principal, force equals acceleration. so the acceleration or ground shaking of your building, that's subject to the location of your building to the fault line. what type of soil your building sits on, some like bed rock, that's less kind of -- less subject to shaking whereas if you have sand or clay you know that's higher subject to shaking. so basically, when you add the -- if you add the additional structure -- if you add that addition on, that increases the mass you're building which actually increases the innertial force of your building that it has to be withstand. there's a direct linear relation between mass and force exerted onto your buildings. so with the vertical --

[ inaudible ] >> -- which is the gravity. how do you support that addition on your building and strengthen your existing building to support that addition and also the lateral component too because you're adding more mass to your building, so how do you strengthen the rest of your building to actually hold up that new addition. so i mean a lot -- so the vertical addition involves exposing the majority of the building, so that's practically unchiefable without altering the existing building envelope. again, considered unlawful demoby planning. bottom left, you see a picture of a new moment frame installed at the ground floor. ceiling of that exposed, walls of that exposed to basically connect that into the skeleton or framing of your building to make it a coherent building system. in summary, it's practically p

-- [ inaudible ] >> so i was nt it to be clear, full code compliancy, these are just minimum standards by the building code. these are the bare bones for life safety and building performance. so stakeholders spend all this money on a remodel and addition and they still end up with a substandard building because it doesn't meet regulations of the planning code. so you end up with insufficiency. in the interests of public safety, i feel like there has to be a compromise on the restriction of code 317 and the minimum life and safety requirements of the building code. >> thank you. >> thank you, cyril.

those are just the basics of the building code that cyril put in front of us. the goal is to have a good building, solid, strong, and weatherized. dbi's definition of demolition, the san francisco building code is 03(a).3.2 under definitions states demolition, the total tearing down or destruction of a building containing one or more residential units or any alteration which destroys or removes as the terms are defined by the building official of the department of building inspection, principle portions of an existing structure containing one or more residential units. and it goes onto define principal portion as the construction which determines the shape and size of the building envelope, such as the exterior walls, roof, and interior bearing rmts or that

construction which alters two thirds or more of the interior elements. san francisco building code 103(a).3.2, this hear re is an example of a demolition where the scope was exceeded back in 2006. it was deemed to be an unlawful demoby dbi. the picture on your left shows the building two years later in 2008, and again, the picture on the right shows how it was in october 2017. now, i drove by there last week just to see if it had progressed any, and it's pretty much still like the picture in the slide shows of the october 2017 picture. in regard to these projects, when -- when they're abandoned, we receive a lot of complaints. the initial complaint is a