show that no work had started. if you go back again to what the building code expects of department, a new application is required. a new permit shall be issued. the comments about our behavior -- i regret that it caused her emotional difficulty, but the complaint was found to be valid. they were deeper than 5 feet. it was an excavation in place. there was no shoring in place. they had no permit. the photograph was taken -- together, the 5 feet between the houses is two and three, and the photograph was taken from that side yard. i would like to say that the issue is whether or not work had been performed, and if no work

had been performed -- and no evidence is in the record to date to demonstrate that -- then you must find that a new application must have been made. when it was revoked, that was correct, and it was revoked for a dbi reason, not a planning reasons. [bell rings] if i may continue? commissioner mccarthy: we have to give equal amount of time for both sides. thank you. at this time, public comment is closed. it is back to the commission. at this stage, i guess, i will hold my comments for now and open it up for the commission.

>> i certainly appreciate the rights and responsibilities of the public for appealing permits if they feel that there are issues. however, appealing permits is not in our jurisdiction. these permits and these issues all are appealable to the board of appeals. as in the sand it, the issue before us is only one of whether or not the director appropriately or inappropriately did not issue a written response -- as i understand it. i have seen nothing as far as evidence one way or the other about it, and and the clock -- inclined to deny that appeal. the other issues brought before us may well be issues. it feels that it is not in our jurisdiction to be deciding on them. commissioner mar: i just wanted

to say i think it is important to clarify the point. i think the city attorney was very clear. all we're talking about today is whether or not the director of the department issued in a timely way, which was 15 days, a written decision. that is all the jurisdiction we have today. not whether to revoke the permit, real issue a permit, or any of that stuff. that belongs to another body. commissioner lee: let me speak a little bit about determination. as a city employee with dpw, our director issues a lot of determinations. the definition of determination that dpw is what the director decides after a hearing. i think we are all misinterpreting the word determination here. i think this would have never

went to a hearing. if it went to a hearing and the director failed to make a decision based on the testimony at the hearing, that, i think, is of appeal -- is appealable to us. i think all we see today is a letter to the director that did not get a response. i feel we do not have jurisdiction in this matter. commissioner mccarthy: any other comments? commissioner clinch: i would like to weigh in at this stage. obviously, this is a complex case. as commissioner walker, i respect the fact that there is a process in place for citizens to that their concerns and one of the reasons we are here. the key important thing for me here in this whole case is -- were the concerns addressed? there is no question about it. every aspect of this case has

been addressed. every inspection has been performed. what is interesting and which was in the package today, and i guess the planning department had a hearing on this. if this is correct, scott sanchez was very clear, the zoning administrator, that the project complies with the current process. everything in this project past -- passed their concerns. there was no foul play. obviously, about the department did a good job -- i thought the department did a good job rectifying coming to explain to us. we had a thick of year in operational, and obviously, the director talked about the stance. you process almost 52,000 permits a year based on the information i have been given. a human error has been made here.

from that, all this has come from it. i think it is important that when we do find problems that the department addresses those problems and makes them right. that is what has happened here. i want to commend the department for doing a very thorough job and making sure everything was addressed that was offered up here today from the appellant. >> i just have one more question, maybe to the appellant -- why were these appeals not done to the board of appeals where generally building permits -- >> perfect question. i notice a permit issuance for major alterations was not issued. notice of permit issuance was post on the building. the letter was sent to the neighbors. even though it -- even though there's no authority in the code to permit, that is what happened. because no new application was made, a permit was issued, and no notice when to anyone.

no notice went to anyone. 15 days later, the board of appeals window shop. we could ask for jurisdiction. it might snow tomorrow. commissioner mccarthy: mr. butler, did you actually hear the hearing that took place? >> i was at the hearing. commissioner mccarthy: did you hear the comments of the zoning administrator? determining that the -- that no notice was needed? >> i did hear that statement. our complaints with planning were fourfold, one of which was that a new environmental review process would have had to occur if they had checked these plans in february 2011. we went to the landmark preservation advisory board's predecessor board, and senior staff said it would not be allowed under the current

environmental review procedures that are in place at the department. a decade ago, the city did not apply -- the planning department did not apply the same review procedure as they do today. while mr. sanchez has the ability to issue a zoning administrator is determination erie we have a memo discussing having met with the zoning administrator, but he did not issue a determination. there was no appeal will document. we are here because there is no place else for us to be. >> i just wanted one question, and thank you. you kind of continued beyond the question i had asked. there is not a landmark building. this is not a landmark building. this is not a historic district. nothing about it would trigger a

hpc review even today. i was there was somebody here from planning, but i think there's no question the planning department are comfortable with the original approval and the renewal permits is what it was. obviously, the hiccup happened, and it was addressed, and we are here today because of that. basically, i did not think there are any more comments today. i would like to make at this stage vote on this. commissioner walker: i would like to know how we go about saying that we do not have jurisdiction. i guess we would just -- because we are not the body to address the building code issues? it is not that i did not hear what the concerns and frustrations are, but we do not have authority to make a decision about the permit itself. to the other point, i do not --

i guess i would ask or move that we deny the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction or based on lack of evidence that there was a requirement to file a written report. how is that? >> the question in front of the commission is whether or not the director erred and whether she failed to render a written decision or determination within 15 days. that is the question in front of you. i think you do have jurisdiction to hear that question. the other issues that were discussed regarding with the permission have been issued, or revoke -- all of those are not in front of you right now. >> if i may weigh in on this -- help me with this. this is new to me, and i want to make sure it is right and ready. i think it should read somewhere -- to uphold the director decision not to apply

mr. butler's letter with that. >> or how about "move to deny the appeal based on no requirement for a written response"? >> i think that is in essence what i would recommend. the language i had worked out back in the office was that you move to find that the director did not abuse her discretion in not rendering a written decision. commissioner mccarthy: that language is important to put in, especially in this case. can i get a second? >> i second. >> roll-call vote on the motion. commissioner mccarthy: yes. commissioner mar: yes clinch: y. commissioner lee: yes. commissioner melgar: yes.

commissioner mccray: yes. commissioner walker: yes. >> the motion carried unanimously. commissioner mccarthy: thank you. next item. >> item 7, discussion and possible action for the commission to convene a closed session regarding a public employee appointment -- deputy director. a -- public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. if there's any public comment on the item 7a? seeing none, possible action to convene a closed session. pursuant to government code section 54957 (b) and the san

francisco administrative code 67.10 (b). is there a motion to build a closed session? >> mou to go to close session. >> second. >> second. -- move to go to closed session. >> we are reconvening after the close session, item number seven. is there an item tmotion to rec? >> move, seconded. >> we are now in open session.

>> item number7b, action to convene a closed session -- reconvene in open session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session. >> move to disclose. >> the commission has agreed to discuss the item. >> thank you. as president of the commission, you have been overwhelmingly approved. thank you for taking on the job and responsibility. duquesne now come to the mike if you want to say a few words, finally. congratulations.

>> thank you. unfortunately, this is good. the way i have believed timor, besides myself and we need the support of the director and the commissioner because by myself i cannot make the work. also my staff and below the knees to be working together. the last management, we were working at with acting. then, everything hopefully improving. the number of backlog.

hopefully this is in there for a major project. there also serving to the amount of income starting to really sit. thank you for the opportunity and myself. also, as an engineer, i am sure that the building is safe before we can issue the permit the appeal case, whatever. i wanted to come up and say something and now i can say it. we are all human. when we find mistakes, we need to connect it. first of all, the point we wanted to make sure that planning was okay because the neighborhood has their voice. the second thing is to make sure

that the section is safe. when i looked at the package, it looked like a huge building. unfortunately, it is only a two- story residential single-family. why are we spending so much time on it? all of the history of it, we make mistakes. we are trying to help the homeowner or any small developer. we also have major development. that is my philosophy, the commissioner, to make it fair for everyone. we are trying to get our permit and evaluate. i don't want to spend too much

time in discussing the item. thank you very much. >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> discussion and possible action regarding the proposed ordinance file number 120188, recognizing small business month in may 2012, amending this emphasis the planning code and the san francisco building code to waive fees for the month of may for certain improvements, make findings including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan. >> abilene towards the past commissioners, if you have any comments -- i will lean towards the past commissioners, if you

have any comments. the recommendation is to support. >> there is somebody here to talk to us. >> good morning, good afternoon. i am from supervisor garmin chu's office. -- carmen chu's office. we would like to provide permit fee waivers for businesses that would like to replace their awnings or provide it pedestrian lighting. we are pursuing legislation because our city does have a tradition of celebrating small businesses during the month of may and what we have noticed is that one of the focus is that supervisors chu has is working with the commercial corridors. it is difficult to make them get a lot of improvements because cost is a huge impediment for them. we have done some projects where the city has provided some

funding for them to improve their storefronts. we have changed at the awnings and in exchange they are supposed to maintain it. it has made a huge difference in the appearance. obviously, we don't have the resources to continue to give out money to merchants for this. we are providing an incentive for them and considering them a pilot for the month of may. the premise behind that is that we want to improve the appearance of store fronts that are lacking in nature and not for new construction. in terms of the pedestrian level lighting, we want public safety. what we want to encourage is the store owners to install lighting on the outside of their stores that will hit the sidewalk. so, that is one of the waivers we are proposing.

we have the support of the small business commission and we recently went to speak at the code advisory committee and they offered some feedback there that we have incorporated into legislation so we actually had substitute legislation yesterday. we are applying this to small businesses. we are using a definition which is 100 or less employees. the other things were clarifications that the permit fee waivers would apply to the structural component of the awnings as well as this linage. this is overseen by the planning department. i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> i think this is a great idea. we have done a lot of improvements on six street and it really makes a difference into the general activity. i wonder if you projected the cost. >> i don't have planning

department numbers but they did an average for the month of may. we have $15,000 for the month. we believe that the budget impact is minimal but also the trade-off is that we are educating people that we need to have permits to do this type of work. we see business owners slapping on a banner. also, there are investors that have to go out to enforce and make sure that there are no lights that result from the bad awnings. we see this as a good trade-off. >> maybe what we can do is a follow-up. if this is a successful program and as a lot to regenerate this area is, this might be something to do not just for one month. >> we agreed that we would come back about how the program went.

>> this is a great idea. i am glad you are doing this. there are some many businesses in the neighborhoods. generally speaking, there are people that may not read the paper anymore. there is a small window of time. we have produced fires which we will translate in various languages. they were very supportive of the idea. they have worked with the merchants. they have prevented them from wanting to make any changes. once it passes through the commission, we need we know -- we know we need to make

merchants aware. >> maybe we can put signs in our department. >> that is correct. we can express that this legislation is being presented and is probably going to get passed in may. last night, i was having dinner with one of my friends who happened to be a small or realtor of commercial corridors in the richmond district. i said in may you might be about to replace your all running without the fees attached. and he was excited. hope that will spread the message. >> when the legislation was introduced, but the the major chinese newspapers already covered it. i mean, we're definitely going to continue and expand on that outreach efforts. >> any other commissioner comments? i actually echo everything that was said by my fellow commissioners. congratulations to the supervisor for creative thinking.

it is the kind of step that makes the world go round. we would like to get feedback on this. and maybe look into the idea of expanding it if it it is a success. keep us informed, and we would like to see how it plays out in the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> any more comments on this item? >> any public comment on item 8? >> deputy director from the review service. i support this legislation, but i want to clarify -- when building for the outside lighting, generally it is not required for an existing building, more than 42,000 square feet. that is why on suburban streets, i do not think there are substantial areas to be remodeled.

>> point of clarification. if they want to do so, they can. but if they do it in may, they will not have to pay for that permit. >> in may, they do not have to pay for it. the other catch is, there was a mention about how many employees and so forth, but that will be worked out with the computer system. and the website mentions this. >> good point. thank you, deputy director. any more comments on this item? commissioner walker: moved to support. >> second. >> madam secretary, call the question. >> ok. a roll-call vote on the motion. to support the legislation. commissioner mccarthy: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner clinch: yes.

commissioner lee: yes. commissioner melgar: yes. commissioner mccray: yes. commissioner walker: yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. on to item number nine, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance file number 120191, building code definition efficiency unit introduced by supervisor wiener amending the san francisco building code section 1208.4 to reduce the square footage required for efficiency in its pursuit to section 17958.1 of the california health and safety code and making environmental findings. >> thank you, madam secretary. we will probably take public comment on this first. is there anybody here to talk to this item?

>> good morning, commissioners. i have more. for this item, i would like to be delayed, because this will be discussed more and will continue in a committee for the next meeting. that is our recommendation. >> director? >> yes, and the supervisor has asked that it be continued because of the code advisory committee's questions that arose during the actual presentation of this item. >> vice chair? >> yes, there are those questions. i think the supervisor is going to revisit some of the questions. i would like to move that we postpone this discussion until it gets to clarify. >> i second that. >> call the questions.

actually, i will close public comment? >> yes. but just to clarify something -- the motion -- the item needs to be continued to the call of the chair or to a specific date. >> i move to continue its recall of the chair. >> point of clarification, had the supervisor indicated when this would be brought back? >> no, not a specific date, so it would be better to have it at the call of the chair. >> that is fine and then. just call the question then. >> ok. there is a motion to continue the item to the call of the chair. commissioner mccarthy: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner clinch: yes. commissioner