>> this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

>> we have a quorum. the next item is item b. for all parties giving testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give us the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. our next item is hmc. approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for a meeting held on september 19th , 2018, at october 17th,

2018. >> okay. colleagues, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes, or is there a motion to approve? >> moved to approve. >> second. >> okay. >> there is a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> and he opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item is item d. that continued appeal ordered abatement. case number 685-2261 amber drive owner of record as is alice wong revocable trust. in action requested by the appellant and release of the abatement. also just for the record, the department will present its case first and then the appellant to,

each side has seven minutes to present their case. there will be public comment and each member of the public can speak for three minutes. lastly, there will be a rebuttal time of three minutes. would stop like to come forward? -- would staff like to come forward? >> good morning. i am with the -- the building department. 261 amber is a vacant building complaint. this is the second vacant building complaints that we got. we got one in 2017 which was also a notice of abatement. this case was an order of abatement as well because the owner has failed to comply with the making building requirements we understand that the owner has paid the fees to register the building, but he hasn't complied

with the full ordinance, which is maintaining the property exterior. we understand there are issues going back to 2016 which there is a case that was referred to the city attorney. there was a work without a permit in the past. i know there is a permit on hold but that doesn't make it okay or acceptable not to comply with an ordinance that requires you to at least maintain the site. the staff recommendation here is to uphold the order of abatement and assess all cost. at this point, all costs are minimal, even though he has already registered, there is still a cost for the order of abatement and the monthly monitoring fees. >> did you want to detail what those fees are? >> basically it is $48 a month for the monthly monetary fees,

and the order of abatement is it is probably a little bit more than a thousand dollars worth of fees at this point. >> thank you. commissioner walker? >> to comply, to be clear on the record, he would need to put panelling on the front, close up all the windows, et cetera. >> yes. one of the sanctions of the ordinance requires you to maintain the exterior of the building in good conditions. at this point, we took some pictures yesterday of the site. >> i see those. it just looks like there are cloths. >> are there any additional pictures? >> yes. >> thank you. >> this is the front. it is only paper.

they used to have plastic tarp. that one got ripped down so we started getting phone calls about that. the openings are not secure and now the paper wrapping on the house is flopping. there are areas where we have weather coming in. and it will probably get worse over the years and we will probably get another of these complaints next year, and we will probably write another notice for the same issue. every year the owner has to maintain the property under that >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank you. >> the appellant can come forward.

>> this is my architect speak into the microphone next line this is my architect. can hear he has a full history of our property. >> this all started in 2016 and i can go through the history, but basically we spent about two and a half years trying to get through the planning approval for some additions that we were going to add to the property. originally, there was a lot of damage to the jackson we decided we would do the work. it was so extensive we had to remove a lot of the large part of the front of the house. at that time, the owners decided

they wanted to enclose the front like what their neighbors had done a couple doors down. we thought that because the neighbors had done that, it would be a pretty simple process to get approval. it turned out that the house is a historically styled house. that started a two-year process where we try to work with the historical committee, and the planning department in general to add living quarters to the house and enclose the decks that were damaged, and we basically had to go through about three different designs before that was approved. what was approved really was a much reduced version of what we

wanted to do. so there is back and forth and it took months and months and months. finally we did get approval just recently, and just a few days ago we got approval for an over-the-counter building process permits. within a week, we should have the building permit to allow us to actually complete the project that we started over two years ago. we expect to not only be able to maintain the property, but to restore it, and continue the building, which probably will take about two months to bring the whole residence up to a completion that will solve all of our problems.

>> in addition, whenever we have received notice from the department of building inspection, we have registered the house for vacant and empty building for both 2017, 2018. we have paid the assessments, and the monitoring fees. the last one being just this month. so i think, as far as i am aware , we are caught up in any of the fees that we need to pay for this property. we go out every month or two to clean up the bushes in the front of the house and try to make sure the tarps are tucked in and tight. but weather permitting, the house needs to be protected. that is why the paper on the tarps were up. >> actually, up until a few

weeks ago before the rain started to, there was a plywood covering of all of the openings in the building and we thought that any kind of opening was secured with a padlock or some kind of secure latch. we didn't get feedback, but we felt we have secured the building. >> commissioners, any questions? >> according to the pictures, i don't see any plywood. i see flopping material that is not waterproof, and this is the second year, in my understanding that this has happened. it is great that you are moving forward with the construction, and certainly we appreciate that , but we are talking about the violations for previous

noncompliance with keeping the front of the building secure, and none of what i see as appropriate. it is not waterproof. >> i thought the paper is supposed to be the waterproof? >> it is a waterproof building paper. but we can certainly does as soon as tomorrow or the next day , put a new plastic covering on the front, if that helps. >> it doesn't change the fact of the history, but i appreciate that. so i am looking at that. >> that was quite a while ago. i think before we had the second hearing, and then we made changes after the second hearing >> we look at some rebuttal from staff on this. thank you.

>> thank you. >> does the book department have rebuttal? i'm sorry, public comments first is there any members of the public here? okay. seeing none, rebuttal for the department. >> said the department understood that the owner paid the fees,, the registration fees , but they paid the fees for this year. 2017, the whole process, both processes went through the order of abatement. after the fact, the owner paid the fees. the ordinance requires you after 30 days of the property being vacant, you have to -- once the department his right to a notice , you are required to put it on the list as well. i have both payments here, which

were of this year. they are both sort of the same thing. but i'm trying to explain that the 2017 case was handled this year. it wasn't like they handled it right away, and also the 2016 permit to, i know they're going to the process, but they started the work without the -- without the permit. that is why the cases with the city attorney. >> can i ask a question about the treatment -- so that was in 2017? >> yes. >> and then they put up the picture -- they put up that paper. is it an appropriate response for a vacant building? >> no. they have to provide some type of means to protect the site. that even have to work within this the inspector to work with the case to make sure it is acceptable. at this point, the paper is not doing anything. as soon as it hits it, i mean, there are areas that are exposed

the ordinance requires you to provide gutters, any water source, you have to secure it. as you can see from the other pictures, some of the corners, they just keep patching the paper over and over. >> are they supposed to put plywood up? is that the general -- >> they are supposed to put up some type of material to protect the building or weatherize the building think i understand there is an issue with getting the permits but there is something they can talk to our department and say, hey, what material can we use or provide other than the plastic material that we had or provide the plastic? we might say yes. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> does the appellant have rebuttal? does the owner -- would you like to come out where are you done with your testimony? you can come to the microphone, please. >> we would be happy to replace the paper with a plastic sheet covering. underneath all of the covering is a half inch plywood which is a pretty secure layer of protection for the building, what is inside the building. so i'm not sure -- the paper is not like regular pay for it. it is a waterproof tape paper. >> so the issue is, that is fine for now, but that is something you have to deal with the inspector on. the issue is the historic fact that it wasn't there, and that

the building was exposed to the elements. it is not only a cosmetic to the front, it is also -- i see pictures that i have where the house and everything and it was exposed to the elements. that is a problem. it is great that you are here doing this now, but we are being asked to address issues that have been historically present. >> yeah,. i think that you can see that when the house -- when we originally put a vinyl tape covering on the building, and we did not expect at all the permit process would take even half as long as we thought. so over time, -- >> i get it. that is the problem. that is what we are dealing with

>> any other questions or comments? okay. commissioners, any further discussion? okay. i understand the challenges of having a historic property. it is a double edged sword. along with the challenges, the benefits of having a house of historic merit when you get through all the process should make the effort worth it. preserving the architectural history of san francisco is a very serious and current topic. i think we are all in agreement that we are very much in support of your going through the process to have these historic

homes properly reviewed by planning. getting their guidance to be sure that the final recommendation is in keeping with the merits of the house, and the final product reflects that. it is always good to hear that the process is complete. they are satisfied with it, and the departments are issued. obviously as the building department, you will be interested in seeing they are executed to the quality standard that is demanded for a high quality historic property. to my mind, commissioner walker has been mentioning we have been really dealing with the issue that there had been some measure of inadequate waterproofing or

maintenance of this property, and that is solely the issue we are looking at. i would recommend that we upholds the ruling that it was correctly written, and assess the cost. unfortunately they are minor, and again, i would urge you to work with the inspectors to be sure that this is adequate protection for both the weather and security concerns. i think i have it quoted, every month or two, you check out the tarps appeared to me, if i were living next to your house, i wouldn't consider that adequate supervision of this, especially when i see the photos of the condition that they had

deteriorated to, at some point in the period that we are looking at it. so again, my recommendation is that we upholds this correctly written and assess the cost and urge you to work with the inspectors to have adequate security and upkeep as you go through the process now of renovating. >> second. >> that is the motion and a second. >> any concerns on that? >> from the city attorney's office. there was a motion to uphold the order abatement and impose the assessment of costs on the basis that it was properly issued and the department did not err on their use of discretion? >> that is correct. >> thank you. we have a motion and a second. we will take a roll call vote.

[roll call] >> the motion carried unanimously. the next item is item easy. general public comment. is there any general public comment for any items that are not on the agenda? seeing none, item f. adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> i motion. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> we are now adjourned. it is 9:22 am. let's take a ten minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you.excited.

>> when we had that big rainstorm last year that was racing down this hill i went out and when there was a break in the weather to make sure that was clear and that was definitely debris that draws down i make sure i have any bathroom we me and sweep that away that makes a big difference sfwrts can fleet floated and every year we were coming home he it was rainey noticed it the water with hill high on the corner and she was in her rain boats so she had fun doing that. >> i saved our house. >> so adopt a drain 25 locations that you can >> we are about to begin the

meeting. please take your seats. good morning. today is wednesday, december 19 th, 2018. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. our next item is item two. president's announcements. >> good morning everybody. welcome to the december 192018. we hope and we try and we pledge to have a quick meeting here

this morning. it is definitely geared for a quick meeting. might present announcements are short. good morning and welcome to the building inspection commission. my announcements are short today first of all, thank you to are a housing inspector who received a letter of appreciation for helping a customer resolve a problematic issues. customers have been sending letters of appreciation and the commission today is delighted to join in this well endured salute for outstanding public service. believe it or not, that concludes my public comments. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none, item three. general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the

jurisdiction that our martin oath -- not part of this agenda. there is no general public comment. i will go to item four. commissioner comments and matters. commissioners may make inquiries to staff requiring various documents, policies and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> commissioners, seeing none, madam secretary? >> h.m.p., future meetings and agendas. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and determined those items that can be placed on the agenda of the next meeting in future meetings of the building inspection commission. let me check the date for the next meeting. >> our next regular meeting will be on january 16th, 2018. and january the budget will be

introduced so there is a possibility that we may have two meetings in january but i will keep you posted. >> please do. how is everybody's schedule? what everybody would -- would everyone be around? >> i am gone the next week. >> at least we will get a quorum >> thank you. is there any public comment on items four a and b.? seeing none, item five. presentation of the safety strategy report recently completed by the technology council.

>> which microphone? >> either one. >> this one is better? great. thank you so much. my name is brian strong and i am the chief resilience officer and the director of the office of resilience and capital planning for the city and county of san francisco. it is good to see you. thank you for taking the time to hear this item. we appreciate it. we have been working on this tall building study for about 14 or 15 months, and let me see, we have a fair amount of material to go over. we wanted -- i will make my time as quick as possible. we will certainly be available for questions as you have them or as they come up. part of the reason that we ended up doing this study, certainly the issues around millennium came up, but we have also been thinking about how neighborhoods

will be able to respond to earthquakes and different disasters and events. we have seen a number of them happening around the state and different earthquakes happening around the country. and certainly situations like christchurch where the entire downtown closed off or two years that wait heavily on us when we started to think about our downtown and some of the vulnerabilities that we have their, and how downtown has become more of a residential area than it ever has before where it used to be a commercial area, now it is residential. we really wanted to understand and be aware of the risk that that poses, and the way that we treat recovery, or response to an earthquake or something and the avenues to where it will be different than we do downtown and how we think about this buildings and how they are inspected and so forth, especially these really tall and complex ones. it is different. we put together a team -- let's

see. we put together a team of folks and took advantage of the work with the applied technology council. they are a nonprofit that is based in redwood shores are down on the peninsula and they pull in experts from around the country and around the world to look at these problems. these are practitioners as well as academics. we put together a pretty robust scope of work for them to look at. you can see the technical committee. three of those folks are here today. professor dear line was not able to attend. we also have a project working group of various academics and so forth. and internal, to the city, we had an executive panel which included director huey and the city administrator kelly, myself , the director of the emergency management who is now

mary ellen carroll and, howell from the public utilities commission because we knew that there were geotechnical issues that we wanted to make sure we are addressing this report. having said that, we had a couple of larger stakeholder meetings will be pulled in people from the community. residential people that live in these neighborhoods, i know john boseman is here today and various stakeholders. people involved with different organizations. they also have a chance to look at the scope and what we were doing and have a chance to weigh in on the recommendations when they were released. having said that, this is a summary of the project scope. i mentioned it was initiated in 2017. we really are focused on looking at how buildings will perform in an earthquake and have those neighborhoods can expect to be

impacted by the performance of those buildings. and making recommendations where we think we can improve the process or the processes that the city has, and ultimately the goal is the buildings will be safer and they will be more resilient. after an event we will be able to get our downtown open more quickly. having said that, i will pass this on to john. there you are. thank you. >> thank you. >> a pleasure to be here today. we have a lot of recommendations and we will focus on those that are important to you and to d.b.i. there are seven of 16. we will try to go through these fairly quickly. the first one is to enforce provisions to the respect to damage to the existing trains that you have been reading about in the paper and indifferent

news articles. in 1994, the earthquake in los angeles uncovered damage to frames. it was unanticipated. they were a system that we thought was a most resilient that we had to. if we look at the pictures, we have cracks in the connection between columns, and it was not obvious at first. it took months and months to find it. the question is, how does it affect san francisco? 1989 happens and before 1984. there could be possible damage to the existing frames that has not been evaluated to date. the point here is there are triggers of ground shaking that might suggest that some of the links may have seen some damage in the whole point of this is to develop an approach to understanding where these buildings are relative to the possible shaking from 1989, and look and investigate those and see if we do have disk --

undiscovered damage. there is more work to put into this. there are documents that have been developed. the recommendation is to amend the triggers an existing building code for san francisco regarding alterations, change of occupancy and occupations of the project. as you are aware, it takes two thirds of the building to be modified before an evaluation or potential retrofit. that really never happens in a tall building. it never gets done. the question is, should we be doing something different in the city of san francisco? just applying aggressive triggers might not be the best way to go because it would be a discouragement to attend improvements and upgrades to buildings. that probably isn't the best idea potentially. our recommendation is revise the triggers. in the scope of those triggers,

and any suggestions is that may be you do it in a different portion of the building. change the scope of so it is an evaluation scope as opposed to a retrofit scope. but only do a retrofit acquirement for the most egregious buildings that we would find. we don't want to overburden anyone building unless the building can take it. also should we weighed for damage to occur? or alteration to occur? there is potential for an acquisition trigger to be added. this is done for the government sector every time they lease a building. they have an evaluation. given that, that is something that could be done when this building is sold or large portions of the building are least. so we could provide a different alternative trigger to suggest this evaluation to occur before an alteration is made to the building. now i will jump on to post- earthquake inspection material recommendations three a-see --

three a data iiic. we have a large group of trained engineers right now to look at the buildings. right now the department of emergency management and public works requested volunteers. there are thousands of them. d.b.i. would then manage the effort and be coordinating that. program plans are available and we are able to use those and help in that process. they are a nice precursor to doing those post- earthquake inspections. the question or the issue is, are the volunteers really appropriately trained to do tall buildings, because they are very unique. and the answer is maybe not to.

perhaps a recommendation would be to provide volunteer to the tall buildings. in post- earthquake -- post- earthquake evaluation, are we ready? we have a lot of buildings with that plan in place. we have never exercised any of those plans in simulation. and you are always under a lot when you stimulate it and figure out what is missing in the plans , and how could we better coordinate the effort? the suggestion is to assimilate that with the engineer and d.b.i. interacting in a real opportunity to learn from that sort of simulation. given that information update the report contents, update the approach, the coordination

between the various parties to make sure that we have the right program moving forward. and also consider extending more the report says, why don't we mandate it for tall buildings? we say that in the report. we could do that by mandate or we can provide incentives if you want to for people to make these plans. we think they will be very effective. and so something that is strongly recommended by the group. and the -- the last piece piece is meant for safety. sure that program or evaluation think about that as well? is it something we should target as well? post- earthquake inspection, we need to coordinate how the department of emergency management and public works requested the volunteers. they are the ones that call to arms in the city.

the d.b.i. manage that effort and we want to make sure that that is all a well oiled machine and coordinated between the departments. because the events of a catastrophe like a big earthquake need to be seamless. we want to make sure that they are and for that coordination to happen. and then a recommendation 3d, upgrade and amend the triggers for repair projects. this is something we suggest to soften some of the triggers. here the repair triggers are three types. substantial damage where we have a brace shown in the picture that gets damaged in a big event , that is actually expected because that is the peace of the building that is posted from the earthquake. the other two, the gravity substantial structure damage and the disproportion damage aren't necessarily -- those really could find grossly deficient

buildings. we need to keep those triggers peered those are the buildings that are the bad actors. the ones that are likely to be an issue given a major event and subsequent aftershocks. the recommendation is there are three triggers. the gravity one and the disproportion damage meeting a small earthquake causes damage to a building. those triggers makes sense. they will point out those buildings that really need to help. but may be we can eliminate the modify and change it so it is not quite as onerous and quite not -- not quite as indicative. conservative action because if we are asking for upgrades after a major event, it will disrupt the downtown recovery if we are having to fixed were too many buildings. let's fix the ones that are really needed. the ones that are on the margin, we can wait for some time so we can get the city back and running faster. that is the whole genesis of that thought process.

>> smart. >> this is important. we work very hard in creating the database of all the buildings in san francisco. expands the database and continue it forever. it does a lot of good. it has a lot of data. the report goes into great detail of what is included. we know a lot about our city that we didn't before. there is a lot more to learn about the buildings we didn't or don't have an inventory for and we suggest be included and also continue adding those that are coming online in the next five, ten, and 20 years. there's a bunch of detail on the maintenance of this. i will not go into that detail here, the key is, let's not lose the great work that has been done. let's continue it and move it forward. i will finish my portion of the structural aspect and turn it over to the geotechnical recommendations.

>> thank you. >> good morning. one of the main objectives of our study was to develop a best practice for foundation design of tall buildings. we focused on best practices in san francisco bay area and in the western united states, eastern united states, and also in cities around the world his, wellington, new zealand, is a good example which has the same potential for hazards such as ground shaking, and others and has the same condition such as

mud and other geological formation that is present in san francisco. the geotechnical practice for the design of the foundation of tall buildings widely varies from one geotechnical term to another. in order to bring consistency and uniformity to practice, we recommend -- we strongly recommend that the administration bulletin is developed focusing on foundation design of tall buildings. this is similar and in concert with existing ab 83. which deals with structural aspects of tall buildings, but what we are looking for is nab that focuses on geotechnical aspects.

[please stand by]

go ahead commissioners. i am from the strategy team. to evaluate recommendations. respond to recommendations. deal with the implementation plan. and the term up to 18 months. long-term over 18 months. all which requires extensive review and development for the stakeholders. thank you.

>> thank you. >> i think that is the conclusion. i did want to begin part of the packet. we do have a summary of the recommendations here. i ask if i can pass out -- or have the commission secretary pass it out. that would be great. that was what we initially put out. the recommendations in there still hold true. the time report is actually going to be online early january. we were hoping we would have it ready today. but i think, atc has been sharing this with folks in the community. we are trying to make some of the recommendations more specific where we can. and not changing them. but trying to make them more specific. the folks in -- especially in the engineer community are looking at this understand where we are going with it. that is going to be coming.

that should be out by the beginning of the year. but we did want to make sure that you had some of the documentation that we put together for this report. we are happy to take questions. we are trying to keep it short. >> mostly public comments. thank you for the presentation. it is very user friendly. we can really understand this. i note one of the commissioners here who may know a lot about what you are talking about will have questions. >> when i was gone, there was a presentation of the report in a draft form. >> this is the first one.

>> okay. thank you. >> i want to sprinkle a few questions. if i could ask about the 52 document. do you have guidance on how to be more surgical with your inspections, for example, does it suggest a series of analysis and the unit. the connection model is in your analysis. >> there are various levels of triggers and approaches to it. the first level is the trigger. how likely is the building sitting in the spot. there is more than one trigger. and we have information for that. there are other triggers how the

buildings around it do. that is the first step. it is random. we have a randomization process in looking at the building. you are looking at joints, a handful, based on a process. if you find damage in those, you go further. you don't find damage in the first 5 or 10 or 11, you stop. if it is not obvious by analysis. that is what we found in la. so the developers have a process of trying to find damage. >> commissioner. >> i think the statement may

have been -- first of all, i didn't recall any damage except one building. this is the only building. you looked at the joints and they did not find any damage there. i didn't see anything. >> thank you.

i will stand here. maybe more of a logistical question about the program and the board program. a couple of questions. if there was an earthquake, and there were engineers coming up from la to help. there would be a lot of activity needed by a lot of people. the firms in the city will be very busy. there have backup plans.

>> when the program was stopped [no audio] and screens all those. i remember the time our building -- and the[no audio] coming to help us, with our engineers on the building.

we ne we cannot do the inspection. [no audio] in the building, that's why we have this to help them to get ready and -- every couple of years, the engineer may not be available anymore. the electricians and all those, that is why --

>> it is clearly a national program. i would strongly agree with the recommendations. it is very valuable to have an entity, like a firm who knows the building already and the people are standing by. and that knowledge is transferred as people and come and go within the firm. someone dedicated to the building, who knows, that is valuable. >> to make sure they are on top of this. >> that was something i didn't know about. commissioner had a question about, did you have a backup

plan? >> we would take the building we have enough staff to do. we don't over commit. i am hopeful that other firms feel the same way. they can't maybe have 50 buildings they are responsible for, they may not be able to service them in the time frame needed. i make sure that the resources of the firms that are under the program, make sure they have the staff. we have a backup plan to make that happen. >> okay. i understand the gaps, including the gaps shown in the picture. >> what are you describing, it is an excellent program. it is spot on. let's see.

my last question, it is more of a -- perhaps, doctor, it is faulty here. we had a presentation, maybe last meeting, that's when the administrative work was being done by the department on geotechnical procedures. are those being considered as part of their work, are they duck tailed? are they separate? >> first of all, the last meeting, we discussed the tall building. and also, it is good to have the recommendation from the panel.

when we are looking at what they did, we are working with the recommendations already. >> that's good. >> you have a head start? >> yes. >> the units of differential. these are not specified in your practice. and you need to quantify the values. has the building, the framing, and the structure elements, those are the type of recommendations that you are

looking to activate. >> yeah, that makes a lot of sense. differential, one could argue that the building should withstand the differential side of it. and i can up until a few years ago, we wouldn't have been too concerned about the total sediment. as we know now, you can exceed [indiscernible] there has to be a prescriptive requirement with the building maintaining service. >> our first chapter in part 2 of the report talks about the very issue. >> okay. i see. i looked at the report last night for the first time. it is fresh in my mind, but i didn't have much time to digest it. thank you for the paper copy. i notice the damage is stated

short-term and long-term. i think the time frames are very good because some of the things like the space design requirements, there has been a lot of work on those over the years and they seemed to be applied. i understand the process. i think 18 months is good. it is a reasonable time frame. maybe not always met. we may have legislative things that will take longer. easy for engineers to blame somebody else. i think that is a good time frame. 18 months would be good. >> we have access to two very senior areas in the coast. i have been in contact with the

technical society and had interaction. we think t >> i guess that is all my questions. thank you. >> if you think of anymore, go ahead. commissioner? >> obviously i don't have the technical knowledge of this. but it is a delight to hear that you are making this strong outreach to new zealand, western canada, the other u.s. cities. i am assuming portland and seattle have been