>> good morning. wednesday, january 16, 2019. regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices first item is roll call. [roll call was taken]

we have a quorum. next item, item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? [oath was given] you may be seated. and for the record, i wanted to let everyone know that the way the meeting will take place is the department will present their case first and the appellant. each side has seven minutes. next there will be public comment and members have three minutes each to speak. and lastly, rebutt of three minutes and then the appellant. item c, approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt minutes for a meeting. >> move to approve.

>> second. >> motion and second. any public comment? seeing none, all commissioner in favor? any opposed? minutes are approved. item d, new appeals or abatement. 6854, 428 grove street, owner of record, jahangir sadeghi, 950 northgate drive, action to reverse order of abatement and provide more time to file plans to comply with a notice of violation. department come forward. >> good morning, all. chief building inspector for code endorsement. this case has been going on since july of 2017. the department got a complaint for work without permit, a permanent roof is being constructed over their garden wi

within two inches of the residence. went to the site on july 17th and observed there was work done without a permit. notice of violation was issued for work without permit for walls, windows and roof built over the existing roof deck to enclosure area without building permit. the area is approximately 25 feet by 15 feet and eight foot tall. the owner was given an extension to comply with a notice. the owner had 30 days to file building permit with plans, 60 days to obtain a permit and 90 days to complete the work. inspector provided an extension. permit was filed to remove the unpermitted work. permit 2017-10231944. the permit was only filed. after that, a final warning

letter was issued and referred to code enforcement. the case was sent to director's hearing on 2/20/18. the case was actually continued but after that, the permit was never obtained or any work was done to correct the violation. therefore, the order of abatement was issued. the department is here to have conditions to uphold the order of abatement and assessment costs. i have some pictures of the work itself. i don't know if you can see, but this is actually the roof and this is where the windows are, the back wall, you can see the

siding of the back wall. >> so on the right there is the actual real wall and then there's a roof deck? >> yeah. so, that's the roof itself. there's actually a couple skylights that were built on the roof. >> the room we are in is the one that's illegal. >> yeah. >> the deck was existing? >> the deck was existing. another picture where you can see the railing of the deck. >> was the deck approved? >> yeah, we checked that and the deck was actually approved. >> ok. i'm not sure if you can see, by the window, the existing railing, so everything was enclosed. the railing was left there.

so on that corner you can see where the actual deck starts and how it was enclosed to show as a separate sun room, you can call it. at this point this is the only permit we know of that the owner tried to obtain, but this is going on since 2017. so only came into intake and after that, never went through the proper process. >> could you elaborate that, submitted and then the department held on to it? >> no, a lot of times they come in and file application but don't know whether they just walk away.

>> never any plan committed, just the application itself. >> commissioner, it was submitted as a form 8. the appellant has possession of the permit. he just chose not to do anything with it so he came in and got a number and then walked out. a lot of times they do this to say see, i'm trying to do something. >> i see. >> commissioner walker. >> what is the process needed to legalize it? i mean if they were to act on the permit or get it, has it been approved to do work, or does it need to go to planning? >> it will need to go through planning and planning might even need notification to the neighborhood, they probably consider this as an addition. >> we are looking to look at it as a horizontal addition, he'll

need engineered plans. if there's another bathroom, to p.a.c., d.p.w. >> ok, thanks. >> one item that some of the windows were not rated, so it's new construction, and it was, the neighbors were not happy with the enclosure of the deck itself. >> any other questions? ok. thank you. >> appellant like to come forward? >> good morning. my name is manshir comeberry, appearing on behalf of the owner of the property.

after we received the notice i would go through, let me explain what happened with the procedure, then i will explain the picture you see and everything. come in to apply for the permit. and then come in to apply for the permit it has to go through the circulation. one of the main circulation was the planning department. and the planning department looked at the plans and says you have to get the variance for this particular thing. so we were given an application to file a variance and we follow the applications and we paid our fees for the application for the planning to review. and then later on i got the note, we receive a notice to appear on the internal commission of the inspection department. and we appear and we show them the paper that the permit is in

the planning's hand. there is nothing we can do. and they said ok, we give you one month so get the permit. and we told them we have no control over the planning department. from that time we work with the planning department. planning department gave us january 31st of 2018 to, for the intake. there's a process that you have to go through the intake. we did that, and we followed through. and then later on we find out that we receive a notice from planning department that we are not in compliance, we need to reapply.

and then we told them we already applied, given the application, the copy of everything we give them, we hold to that copy. so, we give them the copy and everything, they said no, there is a new form of application because the code changes or something has changes. there's a new application. and we work back and for the with them and we send them the -- the owner got tired of it at that time and he says okay, why don't we just remove everything and get on with it and then we apply for the rebuilding. so no problem. let's do that. so we go to the city, apply for the removal. this was the original we apply for, for the -- what it was there and we want to legalize it and everything, and when the

owner got tired, we went in and says ok, we want to remove everything. they said ok, go through the circulation. went through the circulation, they said oh, there is a building permit you already apply, you know, we have to take care of everything, not just let you go, because there was an existing that is unfinished. we told them ok, we don't want to do that. ok, then no, go to the planning department, get the paper back so i can void it and issue the removal. i said fine, we went to the planning department to get that back. the planning department looked at it and they said oh, the plan is to the hand of somebody's name with the phone number that the planning department cannot locate it. they don't know who this person is, this is the copy they give

me, and i have extra copy for everybody. >> can we see those? >> sure. >> extra copy with me. so, we give him, we give him the -- i said ok, i need the plans to take you to the building because they won't give me the abatement, you know. because we cannot just go bang it and take it out. we have to get the permit for it. they said, and then there was a lady there, she says ok, what, you know, this is difficult to go through, let's do these other things. i said what should we do? ok, fill out the new application, go pay the new fee, and we are going to follow through with it. i said no problem. i called the owner, i said this

is what happened, owner says please do that. so we went out and filed a new application with new documents and paid the new fee, 1,000 something addition, and i receive email that your application is approved, is going to the process. you have the copy of it there, the email she send me. >> this is at planning again? >> this is the planning, yes. it says the intake portion of your variance application has been completed and routed to the new west corner manager elizabeth gordon for review and planning. and this is the dates of december 10, 2018. and she send me the copy of the receipt because when we send in

the check with it, we keep the copy of the check but what happened from there on we have no control. she send me the copy of the receipt from the city, so we follow and i keep trying to call to get it going through and we cannot get anything, any answer, we go through the answering, punch number 1, 2, all of that, so this is -- this is the process. now, what happened with this roof that you saw on the picture, there is -- this house, the next door was a parking lot before. this is two-story building. this -- this parking lot -- >> ok, sir. we'll stop here, and you know, we'll ask you additional

questions. >> are you the general contractor or architect? >> no, i'm not under registered civil engineering state of california, helping the owner. >> thank you. >> were there any other questions for the gentleman? ok. you can step down if you like. and we'll good to rebuttals. >> through the chair and deputy sweeney, could you walk me through this here? i think i do have an understanding but need to hear it from you. walk me through this here. because it just shouts of somebody trying to do the right thing and just getting swallowed up in procedure here, you know. >> they did a horizontal addition without a building permit. when we went out and cited them, they came to get a form 8 for $3,000. and didn't, probably did have a conversation with the planners.

obviously the planners told them that a variance would be required. there's a six-month backlog on variances. a lot of paperwork. it's very -- there's a lot of work that has to be done to get you on the list for them to set up a hearing for you. >> not only that, but it's illegal, very illegal. >> usually you get a lawyer to do it for you. >> go ahead. >> where he is on the process, i don't know. i don't know who he has working for him. he seems to be a bit overwhelmed. >> if i was to fl through on the comments and correct me if i'm wrong, he did decide to apply for removal permits, right? rather than going through the variance, and planning process? >> i don't see it. >> did he give us the paperwork? >> the only permit on file is it got back to remove roof

including plywood. >> commissioners through the chair, you have to do everything through the chair. >> this permit, i don't believe -- >> mr. sweeney. >> we have two permits here, one that we know about. this one looks like he spoke to, he spoke to code enforcement, but never, but never followed through. if he wants a permit to remove this -- >> i think this is it right here. >> i can get it for him but he's going to have to cancel this one, because we have dualing permits. >> and i think he's making that point. i think when he -- he, don't want the word rabbit hole, but one way to try and resolve this, and even planning said, ok, let

me just remove it. went back to pull another permit to do that. he was told he cannot do that. >> he can if he cancels the first one. you can't have two permits for the same thing. >> what does it take to cancel the first one? just i cancel it? >> a letter. a letter from him. >> that's all -- >> to cancel the filed permit. >> letter to d.b.i., letter to planning? >> d.b.i. >> d.b.i. so he would kill that and then come in and say hey, i don't want it any more, put it back to where it's a deck, and later on if he wants to do the horizontal addition, he can go through the process. >> i think he's starting through the chair, i think he clearly said he doesn't want to do the horizontal addition now because it's just, you know, and he's just trying to undo, so he's trying do undo the violation and not even able to remove it, either want to legalize it or

remove it. >> he most certainly is welcome. all he has to do is cancel the existing permit he has and file the new permit. >> why does -- i'm just -- why is it so difficult for a stakeholder to get that information at a counter? why -- >> it's not that hard. that's, we, people do it all the time with us. >> i'm just, you know, i know the director is not here, there's something wrong here, planning telling them to go back to d.b.i. and cancel the permit, if it's through the chair, ok, i would not mind asking the question here. >> but commissioner, he can do it. all he has to do is request it. the process is, provide a letter. >> sir, could you please come back, through the chair. >> just so we can just cut right to it, is that your intention, you would like to cancel the

permit? >> at this time it's on the planning, and they paid twice to the planning to go through the planning to legalize it. now the legalizing it, it requires that we remove the existing plywood. >> to my question. do you want to cancel the violation permits that's in front of you? >> we would like to proceed with the existing planning process that they already accepted, we worked so hard. >> so you do want to continue with the planning. >> yes we want to go through -- we fill up with the drawings, work with 'em this. these are the copy of the email that we followed through. >> all right, sir. >> commissioner walker. >> so, rit could be a situation where we -- can we have an application, a process to remove

the illegal construction and there is a permit to approve the legal construction of what they want, so we can make them remove what's illegal and then start from scratch with the new one? >> i believe he just told you he didn't want to do that. >> well -- >> he can if he wants, yeah. very easy. >> i mean, that's -- that's what we have in front of us, that we could actually uphold the order of abatement, with the direction to remove the illegal construction and then if he wants to continue with the other process it could just good ahead. >> the request for the legalization in detail explains that removing the plywood, putting the curtain and all of that, so the planning is reviewing, so it could be all one permit. once they go through it.

and we are going to comply to whatever the requirement is so we can do whatever is required. >> if this had happened at the beginning, it would have been easier for us to deal with, and so what we are looking at is that there is illegal construction, and the way to remedy that in the short-term is to remove it. likelihood you are going to have to rebuild legally anyway. so, it's not on our table now to -- it's not on our plate to tell you if it's ok with zoning, planning, if you get a variance or not. that is the future and that is beyond our jurisdiction. what is in our jurisdiction is the illegal construction that happened without a permit. so, i would like to deal with that. >> thank you. and -- >> i think she just nailed it, i agree with that. and caveat, you are entitled to

get refunded your application fees from planning if you want to start all over again once you mitigate the permit that's in front of us here today. >> i do understand. now, if you let me explain what that illegal situation is. it was this -- this was there from 1977. once the building next door, four-story apartment building was built, it narrows, it creates a wind tunnel to come in, so they had wind coming in through the window. so what they did, they didn't want to block -- the window other places, they put that window so to stop the wind

because the wind that is created, all of that is explained in the planning department request. so that -- that was the -- the situation. >> sir, sir. we understand that a building was built next to you. it may have changed different dynamics when you have a four-story building next to you than when you have an open parking lot. understandable. very often when there is new construction going up and permitting process, neighbors request accommodations from the builders, i'm assuming that you were aware of the construction next to you when it was done. and did you request any accommodations when it was -- >> they did not know -- nobody did not have knowledge that this is going to create a wind

tunnel, and that was -- now, maybe -- >> did you have any conversation with the builder and have any -- >> i wasn't involved -- i wasn't involved. i cannot answer. maybe i can ask the commission to give us more time, at least six months time to see the planning, what they do. we are not here to, you know, we went through so much to get everything legalized and do everything per the law on the book. the problem was, inspection department and planning department have no connection -- if you can give us time so we can resolve this. >> thank you, sir. thank you. >> okay. do we have any rebuttal from the department? >> we have public comment first. public comment. any members of the public? seeing none, rebuttal by the

department. >> i do want to say i know you said that this was built in 1970, some of the pictures that we have on file are actually new construction, like the roof framing is actually built out of pressure treated material, it's brand-new. so, and also there is enough time given, we even gave a 60 day extension to the owner, seems like we were trying to work with the owner at that time, and explain the process. even to the point that when he was referred to code enforcement, referred in november of 2017. he says he had a letter from planning in december but he never showed that out before the directors here and it was actually sent out for january of 18, so there was enough time to

communicate all this to our department and said hey, i need a variance and he can talk to the supervisor and maybe give him another extension. but, so -- but for them to say this was actually built in 1970, we kind of disagree with that. based on the pictures that i have, and what i talk to the inspectors, brand-new construction that was built. >> so, gs let's assume that we uphold the order of abatement with the direction to legalize it, mean demolishing the existing construction and give them, i don't know, three months, six months, something like that to do it. nothing is stopping them in the meantime to get approval for construction. and if it doesn't happen, then they have to remove it in order

to carry out our directive, is that correct? >> yes. order of abatement is not going to stop them from getting the permit. it's just -- and i want to point out the complaint was actually a next door neighbor, not an empty parking lot, it was somebody concerned that this, you know, has morphed into an addition. for them to say it was 1970, difficult to say it was yeah, sure. we would have noted on the notice of violation that it was an existing construction, you know. >> ok. thank you. >> hold on a second, sir. >> you can have your three minutes rebuttal, you have to come up to the podium. >> please come to the podium. >> three minutes. >> all our communication was cc'ed to the inspection department.

so i put the name in there. but the inspector keep changing, so the latest communication with the -- with the planning department might not be there because the planning, when they put in the cc, was just replied to that. so it might have been omitted. but in the beginning, because we ask for extension to prepare the drawings with the planning department and everywhere, every department involved, we give them the cc to them. so i have to find the exact. >> ok. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> okay. seems to me that commissioner walker summed the situation up very accurately. a problem occurred because essentially an illegal addition was being attempted without any

permits and a neighbor complained, started a process, we inspected, the department has gone out of its way to allow extra time while there clearly is some confusion as to what the proper channels you should have pursued are, and that's regretable. we would certainly at this juncture, i would recommend we uphold as correctly written the order of abatement, maintain the fees assessments, and we have to insist that this illegal construction be removed as you

are proceeding through the process of trying to now file it correctly through planning and getting their approvals. so, that would be my recommendation. >> i do support that, and i think that there's two separate things. so, whether or not the owner of the building wants to go forward and try and get a legal approval of an addition, that's, you can still carry that forward but in the meantime this is illegal construction without permit. there's ample evidence presented to us that this happened. i move to uphold -- if that is not a motion, i move to uphold the order of abatement and provide maybe three months to do the removal and assess our fees

and then it's up to the project sponsor to do what they want to do. >> correct. >> moving forward. >> no, sir, i'm sorry, no, sir. do i have a second? seconded by -- >> city attorney's office to clarify the motion by commissioner washer -- >> walker, whatever. >> the motion would be to uphold the order of abatement and abeyance of three months to allow the project sponsor to obtain a permit. uphold the assessment of costs and on the basis that the order of abatement was properly issued and the department did not error -- >> correct? >> that's correct. there's a motion and a second. >> can i ask?

issue about removal, you said three months obtain a permit. if they don't record the abatement. >> order would be on the property and the order -- >> sir, we are in process. please have a seat. >> motion and second. >> roll call vote on the motion. [roll call vote taken] the motion carries unanimously. next item, item e. general public comment. is there any general public comment for items not on the abatement appeals board agenda? related to abatement appeals,

but just not on the agenda. >> ok. >> seeing none, next item is item f, adjournment. motion to adjourn? >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> we are now adjourned. 9:48 a.m. and will reconvene in ten minutes as the building inspection commission. >> a way of life in san

francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft story program. what is it? >> it's a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level

aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. >> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber

band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors. where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse.

and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story.

it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake ready, today is wednesday, january 16, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turnoff all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: we have a quorum, and our next item is item 2,

president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody, and welcome to the big meeting, january 16, 2019. happy new year to everybody. so with that, to director hui, well done, presentation of 60 certificates in the graduation of the seismic safety outreach program on january 30. this training includes members from district six, supervisor vallie brown's district. it trains residents throughout the city to be prepared for -- to be prepared for the next big earthquake, which everybody would have felt a little one this morning at 4:30, and we now have several thousand residents in each neighborhood to know what to do in each neighborhood to begin recovery.

hopefully, please can attend. deputy director dan lowery will attend the training on january 30 and provide a report on d.b.i.s internal group, prioritizing the recently applied recommendations from the department's tall building study. d.b.i. welcomes this review of active buildings that are 240 feet and more higher, especially since there are more and more of these buildings coming to the skyline of san francisco. a big help to bill strong, d-b-i and special affairs manager, who received a letter of special commendation from a customer with a problem

resolution. also, thank you to director huey and d.b.i. staff who continue to take steps to make approximately 11,000 customers aware of the a.b. program. a per our most recent tracking report this week, we now have 4,300 property owners in compliance. though we still have a way to go with full compliance and are accepting six-month extensions. another a.b. notification will be soon sent, and i do urge any owner with a public accommodation, business must comply with the accessibility requirements to submit the required documents as quickly as possible.

the plan director, steven kwan was selected as the employee of the fourth quarter. executive director -- london breed's 30 executive directive to accelerate the approval of these affordable housing units. in addition, he's played a roll in the city's affordable housing program as well as our housing program here. in addition, steven also was selected by d.b.i.'s employee recognition committee as d.b.i.'s employee of the year in 2018. congratulations again to all of our quarterly winners in 2018 and to steven for winning both quarter four and employee of the year. madam secretary, that concludes my announcements. >> okay. thank you.

would steven like to come forward? >> would steven kwan come up to the podium. >> hi. good morning. i want to thank everybody for recognizing the work that we put into every day for the department in making sure that we review permits in an expeditious matter, and we provide the customer service necessary to get everyone through the system. i -- you know, going forward, i continue, you know, to pursue that passion, and make sure, you know, everything is addressed in a proper manner. and we work diligently to inspect all accessory dwelling units and other projects coming forward for the department. thank you very much. >> well done, steven. thank you.

[applause] >> okay. thank you. congratulations again. that concludes our president's announcements portion. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item three, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within their jurisdiction that are not part of today's agenda. >> good morning, director hui, commissioners. i sent a copy of the statement that i'm about to read to sonia harris this morning, so it should be included in the record and also, as i was

leaving my house this morning to cycle down here -- my name is lee heidhus. on january 12 and january 13, my wife and i filed separate electrical complaints. without a call from d.b.i., both complaints were closed the day they were opened. we filed the complaints because our next-door neighbor illegally and absent a permit installed what only can be called cheap, dime store lighting throughout the rear of her property. the outdoor lighting is not grounded. the back yard shed to which the outdoor lighting is affixed floods severely during rain storms such as the one we are currently experiencing. the absolute hazard of this lighting prompted me to come to

the commission and speak out today. these cheap lights are hanging from garden shrubbery, trees and bushes. the lights are attached to the property owner's home, are hanging by a metal hook attached to the property to the north our neighbor does not own, ran along bushes and strong along a shed in the rear. this shed, corroborated by a may 2018 land survey which can be found on a grand dote at city hall trespasses onto our property. the property owner is not a licensed contractor. she is an amateur who climbed onto her kitchen roof while struggling to install the illegal lighting and wiring. these lights shine directly into our home. it is light trespass, we did not give our permission. for d.b.i. to close our

complaint is insulting and outrageous. our complaints were not closed by an electrical inspector. both complaints were closed by building inspector ed dougherty. i called him twice, i did not even receive a kurty call in return. the reason given for both complaints was nuisance. what nuisance? a site inspect will corroborate what i am complaining to the commission this morning. closing complaints absent a physical inspection is beyond outrageous. sadly, this cavalier behavior of senior inspectors is all-too-common with this agency when a citizen falls into disfavor. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good morning, commissioners. regina dick andrizzi. i'm here for item five, but i thought i'd take the opportunity to congratulate the entire team on the work that we're doing. it's big and complicated project, and i think they're doing a great job. they've been a tremendous partner with our office, especially tom working with my staff, rhea maldonado. i just wanted you to know they're doing a great job, and i really enjoy working with them and really appreciate their work. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you for all your work. >> okay. is there any additional general public comment? seeing none, item four, commissioner's questions and matters. 4-a, inquiries to of staff.

at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various policies, practices, and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> i don't really have much more. i'm just wondering if there's any -- has there now -- i think it's been 30 days. is there anymore about the new demolition ordinance that's been proposed by supervisor peskin's office? has there been any engagement? >> i don't -- we receive the draft, and then, bill is looking into it, but i don't think anything new coming out yet. >> bill string, legislator public affairs. that's correct. we have been in touch with the supervisor's office. they have extended the opportunity to meet with staff in order to discuss the first

version that we've seen that was released just before the kma christmas holidays, and i've sent that around to senior d.b.i. staff. we have not yet decided to convene a meeting, but i do expect that to happen possibly later this month. >> okay. and -- yeah, okay. and -- the other thing, if you could be cognizant of it. one of the other things, if you could give us the time frame on that, we would be kind of building it around our joint meeting with the planning. i haven't been able to engage -- that's one of the reasons we want to have the joint meeting. you maybe next hearing could give us more information on where you think and the information where this is going? >> yeah, i'd be happy to do that. i do remember attending the press event the supervisor had when he announced it right

before it was introduced, and he said he was hoping to actually go through the board process by march. so i expect he is thinking about the first three months of the year to focus on this particular ordinance. >> okay. commissioner, please? >> yeah. those are exactly my concerns, as well, that we get this timetable established so that we can setup this joint meeting with the planning commission. following up on this is a very high priority, and the other piece of it that we had discussed was there was supposed to be some staff engagement between planning staff and d.b.i. staff so that we could do some background work on clearing up any differences of our definition of demolition. to your knowledge, has that been proceeding or was it held in abeyance?

>> again, i don't think anything has happened during this holiday period, but i will circle back with staff after this meeting and see if we can put that into motion. >> i appreciate that. the sooner we can do that, the better. thank you. >> thank you, bill. no further. >> okay. all right. next item is 4-b, future meetings and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that can be placed on the agenda the next meeting and other future meeting of the basis inspection commissi-- bu inspection commission. the commission will actually have a special budget meeting on january 30 at 9:00 a.m. in this room, 416, and our next regular building inspection commission meeting will be on february 20. and at both of those hearings,

it will be the first and second hearing of the budget. >> fine. >> okay. is there any public comment on items 4-a and 4-b, okay. seeing none, our next item is item five, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance amending the building code to require vacant or abandoned special storefront owners to pay annual registration fee at the time of registration, require annual inspections of vacant and abandoned storefronts, and update regulations to require registration of vacant and abandoned storefronts. >> commissioners, bill strong. i'm here to introduce ian fragosi from supervisor fewer's office here's here to introduce the changes in the regulations of the vacant storefronts.

we've been working closely with the supervisor's office to pass this, and i'm sure ian will give you the details on this. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is ian fragosi, legislative aide to supervisor sandra fewer. i'd first like to share just a bit about the goals of this legislation, and then, i can walk-through the specific changes. as part of a broader strategy to reduce the number of vacant storefronts citywide, the purpose of supervisor fewer's legislation is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the current vacant storefront registry. so better tracking will ensure that vacant storefronts are promptly identified,

registered, and monitored in order to maintain or remain safe and avoid hazards and nuisances that result from being vacant or abandoned. so specifically, we hope to improve the vacant storefront registry by ensuring that all vacant properties are identified or registered regardless of whether the property is being advertised for sale or lease, by increasing d.b.i. resources to enforce annual requirements, clarifying the enforcement process, and penalties for failure to register, and requiring annual inspections of vacant storefronts to ensure that they're safe and avoid becoming a hazard. so since introduction, we have also made two small amendments to the original language, which we have discussed with the code advisory committee, which i will also go over with you, and

you can see actually that should be in front of you, the specific changes that were made. this legislation will do the following. as you can see on page three, line one, this removes s 103-a-5.13 of the building code which says that a commercial storefront shall not be considered vacant if the storefront is actively being offered for sale, lease, or rent. so this provision has really diminished the purpose of the registry, which is to identify vacant storefronts, and it has resulted in long-term vacancies, sometimes 10 or 15 years not being registered solely because there's a for lease sign placed in the window. so the next change on page three, line 18, changes section 103-a-5.2, in order to require

owners to register their storefronts and pay the $711 annual registration fee at the time of registration as opposed to having a 270-day grace period. and so as you can see on page four, line three, we have also made a change to the originally introduced legislation so that if a renter -- excuse me, so if an owner rents out the storefront to a tenant less than a year after the date it was registered as vacant, the owner shall be refunded up to half of the registration fee based on any remaining days before the storefront's annual renewal date. and so our original proposal, as you can see there, was to do a prorated refund, but we found that that would be a little too complicated and burdensome to do administratively, so instead made the change to a half refund. and on -- next change, on page four, line eight, we add a new section, 103-a-5.3 to require

annual inspections of vacant storefronts at the owner's expense in order to confirm that they remain safe and do not pose a hazard. and this annual inspection shall be performed within 60 days of the vacant storefront's annual renewal date. so this is where the second can change that we have made to the introduced legislation is, and that is to allow a third-party licensed professional to conduct these inspections and require the owner to provide a report in order to comply with the maintenance of the storefront exterior and interior as pointed out in those two codes referenced. so page four, line 25 is the next change, which changes section 103-a-5.4 to require d.b.i. to issue a notice of violation to the owner of a vacant storefront who hasn't registered and