on item six? >> okay. >> seeing none, which item would you like? >> commissioner walker? >> one more comment. you know, will you let us know on friday, what the new schedule is? and inform them. >> i appreciate it. >> madam secretary, if it is okay, i think that we should go to item 7 now and do the closed session. >> okay. >> we are going, and we are now going to be on item 7, discussion and possible action on conference with legal council. and is there any public comment on that? on all matters pertaining to the closed session? >> okay. seeing none, is there a motion to convene the closed session?

>> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> okay. >> are all commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? >> we are now in closed session, it is 9:37 a.m.. [closed session] >> this is the meeting of the building inspection commission and we are on agenda item 7 d. reconvene in open session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session. >> i move non-disclosure. >> second. >> second. >> there is a motion and a

second to not disclose are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? >> okay, the commissioner which? >> item 8. >> okay. >> we are going to item 8, discussion and possible action regarding ordinance amending the building code 107 a.2 to refer to multiple data sources for cost schedule for permit issuance fees. >> good morning, kirk dbi and technical services we are proposing a code change to the san francisco building code administrative chapter, to add back in wording allowing us to use the statuses updating the cost schedule. >> currently the building code the valuation is to be determined by the building officials who gives him the final authority on determining that. he can use a cost schedule or

you can use the actual cost which ever is greater. the cost schedule that is referenced there may be updated annually based on construction data reported by the valuation engineers. frequently and over quite some time, san francisco unique area and requests come in to clarify and costs for items that are not covered example might be tower cranes or seismic up grades or things like that remodeling things that are not necessarily uniformly nationwide. or covered in these documents. so this change will allow us to continue to gather information from authorized sources that help us put together these costs to help the general public come up with the valuations that they are permit fees are charged based on.

the cost schedule is not necessarily the exact cost, since we can use the exact cost of the actual cost or the cost schedule cost which ever is greater. you have that option, they don't necessarily have to match it is helpful for people if they are within a certain range, but all that it is is a bench mark to be able to charge the consistent fees for the same type of work to everybody. so pour crane at $150,000 we would charge the fees based on that if you are doing a power crane of 150, and the same thing to everybody and the exact amount does not vary, that the important part to be consistent and there was not always a cost schedule, historically, in 1948 building codes there were a single fee

table of 4 items on it so you pay zero to $500 and you would pay 4 dollars for a permit and 500 dollars to, i don't remember the other number was x-amount of dollars and that was based on the total estimated cost and it was to say, coming up with that estimated cost was left open and over the years became more difficult and more difficult and more arbitrary and so, the initially they defined that total estimated cost is the total cost upon completing. they are trying to be all ininclusive and so you would not have to pay or take out portions of the total job cost to determine mechanical, electrical and plumbing as well. in 1956, there was a cost

schedule added to the code. and they stated that it should be updated 6 months according to marshal and steven's evaluation engineers or other accepted authorities and that is what we are asking to put back in the code or other accepted authorities, we have a little bit different language and the various data sources so it was in there at one point in that same 1956 code, they broadened the cost definition to include other work so they are trying to get the people said does this include my blah, and the code tried to address those things that they were bringing up. 1962, the fee tables were split from the little four item fee table to new verses alterations and alterations were split, and both of them were split into permit fees, and planned review fees, but the cost schedule stayed the same and definitions

stayed the same. 1973, they changed the name, i guess marshal and stevens evaluation and engineers changed to marshal and swiss. so the code was modified. to reference marshal and swift evaluations but they did neglect to put in or other acceptable authorities in there. so we are not sure how that happened. but like i explained we have always had to use sources that were not available there to come up with the cost that people request. and the definition was broadened to include paintings and sprinklers and the date that it adds to a few other things and so. that is the basic reasoning behind the proposed code change we just want to allow more flexibility to publish a consistent number that everyone uses the same number to come up with the evaluation that they

pay, any questions? >> commissioners? no. >> so there is public comment, and then --. >> okay. >> is there public comment on item 8? >> okay. seeing none, is there a motion --. >> commissioner? >> items 8? >> commissioner walker? >> yeah, i think that it is a very good idea. we have a very unique city and the more varied information that we can get, the better that we can get, i move that we excuse me amend the building code section 107 a.2 to refer to multiple data services for the cost schedule of the permit issue. >> i second that motion. >> there is a motion and a second. a roll call vote. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> vice president mar. >> yes. >> commissioner lee.

>> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> the motion carries. item 9. >> and where we would go to item 10 and then 11 and then back to nine. >> okay. >> and then we will go to the director's report. >> item 10, up date on 3450, 21st street. and by commissioner walker we were approached regarding getting an up date from our department about the project at 3450, 21st street, there apparently has been a very long construction project that has closed down the streets and some of the neighbors contacted me. and maybe other commissioners to try to get to the bottom of what is going on, and so i just

asked that it be put on the agenda to up date the commission and the public about this project. >> good morning, commissioners. >> good morning. >> highway deputy director. >> that project here at 3450, 21st street. and there was several permits on that job. and they looked at the scope and they found no deviation and they amended their complaint, as far as plumbing and electrical, i checked with the plumbing chiefs and the electrical chiefs and there are several permits on that job and they are all in compliance and as far as evaluation on plumbing and electrical it goes by fix your account and goes by devices there is just a basic rate on residential remodels and they have several permits taken out on that.

as far as building inspections there are several plans several permits on that, and there was correction notices and there has been a couple of notice of violations but everything is corrected. >> and as far as the last correction notice, the one on the $65,000 on the kitchens and part of that scope is incorporated in the structural part of it. and part of it was in the $65,000 and also gave a correction notice to increase by another $173,000. and that has been accomplished here. and so, for all of their permit evaluation of that job they have close to $2 million in permit valuation for that project. as far as building insprekses we have been out there for over 30 times and everything has

been approved. >> when you have a project that seems to have a serial permitting situation, where the things change so much, and even if they are following the letter of the law, which may explain why it has been going on for so long, to the neighbors, is there ever a time when we actually step back and say, what is being what is happening here? because it seems to be that this is a serial permitting thing there is one thing that goes in another permit to do something different, and >> i lot of these permits i think that the main permit was a major permit for structural upgrade on the job. and i think that as they got into the job they needed more, permits to clarify like one of the notice of violations was for work for 20 foot of foundation and extension that did not get approved and they actually when they got into the excavation of it doing the foundation and added to the additional work that was not

depicted in the plans, that they got a notice. the first was $120,000 and ne took out the subsequent permits for correcting, you know, issues of the buildings there. >> do you and what i am kind of asking, is that normally with the project, that when it gets to its planning permits and it is all there, and instead of, coming in serial. >> and that --. >> it makes it difficult for the public to know what is happening on these processes. >> correct. >> so, i just wonder if we have any threshold at which point we step back and actually ask for some sort of a coming together. because it is, it could be or could lead to the scope or could lead to the permit creep and it could lead to the monitor houses where there are smaller units and i think that the public has the right to

know what it happening in a more cohesive way and that is kind of what the process is, and so i am just curious, if we have 15 permits. >> correct. >> and at one time, you can do, and will the inspector will ask for the set of drawings, and if it varies from the scope, i think that on this project itself, though, a lot of the structural work was in the basic set up plans and will allow these permit and one was for adding an air-conditioning unit. and there were others that they wanted to envision for that he asked for that they did do. and so the basic plan is there, there was complaints from 3-11 that deviated. >> two planners went out there and met with the contractors

and architects and representatives and they abaited the complaint and felt that the proper notification was given in that job. and there were multiple jobs in that block for many of the workers there and they were actually providing the parking for the workers so they prevented the congestion on the top of the hill there and currently our finishes are applied and outside landscaping is near completing of that job. >> and are the roads back open? >> a lot of the road work was dpw doing a water main service for a sprinkler service in that building it was not necessarily the job, that was public works doing the work where they closed up the street there.

>> okay. >> so, you may have, answered, this already. too, but, for the original job the remodel, it was a submital to planning and so they had, the major plan got approved through planning. before they pull the permits. and this was not over the counter job. >> no. >> these were all submital and notifications given on these jobs. >> okay. >> so, in summary, you are satisfied that all of the permits are in place, and abaited. and i think that the big one there was because i had heard about the notification issues but two planners we want out there and --. >> that is correct. two planners went out there. >> and the next thing that i think that i heard the only thing outside of that was that i heard on the news i think, that the streets were closed down through to the construction, but you are understanding of that was because dpw had to do their job to get the water main in there

and that was one of the reasons as to why the streets were closed down in that particular period. >> and at the other time, it was closed down and the crane erected and putting the landscape in the back of the building. >> all of that was permitted. >> yes. and it didn't need a permit, but a lot of them it was not a crane itself, it was a crane off of the truck, and so when it came in it was the planning and able to unload it. >> yeah. >> okay, grit. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good morning, president mccarthy and commissioners i want to thank commissioner walker for putting this item on the agenda, i i am steve williams and contacted by the neighbors of the project and asked to review the project and its approvals and entitlements

etc.. and as you said, president mccarthy there is a lot of news report on this in the president and in the newspapers and on tv about the unhappy neighbors because the inconveniences, created by having 40 or 50 workers on the job for nearly two years noise dust, and blocked driveways and even the closing of the street, that is my understanding that was not all dpw some of that was for the fiber optic cables and the loss of parking, and even reports of people being hired to camp out over night in cars to save the parking spaces camera and security guards etc.. but while these complaints are extreme there are the type of complaints that we are used to they are just at the hire end of it. and you know that is not why i am here. i am here because i think that there has been a lack of disclosure, to the neighbors,

and a lack of honesty about the true scope of the project from the beginning and that is what has people upset feeling like they are deceived about that project from the beginning. project sponsors representatives met with the neighbors, april third, 2013. and the neighbors expressed concerns about heavy traffic blocked driveways, etc. and you know they were told we are really careful, with work site and we are very conscious of the neighbors, and we will give you 24-hour notice or could even work with your schedules. none of that has happened. the neighbors were concerned about you know when work would start, that sort of thing they were told that work would not start for at least six months. and in fact, work started immediately. and there was an exterior wall completely demolished without a permit. since january, 2013, there have

been 16 permit applications not counting electrical and plumbing, and for the project and the projects continue to grow and expand over the past year and a half and as commissioner walker alluded to, this is real serial permitting and the first big permit was not only the counter, and that permit applied for march 6, 2013, new space of a creation of an office, media room and half bath and laundry and wine room. second floor expansion and half bath interior remodel and second third and fourth floor. seismic upgrade and exterior stucco replaced and three doors replaced that was all over the counter and since that time, all of those have been expanded with serial permits and one of them have gone by way of 311

notification and it listed the work as existing and i have not been able to get all of the documents on this and it is very complicated and there a lot more to tell and what i would like is for the commission to put this over for next month, planning has the documents in boxes and i have not been able to get them all even though i started applying last week and sent them the sunshine request, etc.. so to expoundingly fast approvals that first permit was received in 6 days. >> i have to stop you there, your three minutes are up. as you know the rules. >> so i do have a question. >> okay. >> clarify --. >> the original permit, that all of these flowed from was over the counter? >> yes, and it was issued in six days and three working days, and so it received on the historic resource it received all of the planning approvals

and structural and all of the other approvals in 3 working days, $720,000 permit and all of those things were approved in three days and i have a lot of friends that were doing the work around the city and they probably would be surprised to learn that a permit was obtained in three days. i see that throughout this entire history, very quick approvals, and very quick turn arounds even the complaints they were abaited the same day. they were they were issued and in 20 plus years i have not seen that. >> okay i believe that the question was answered, is there any other questions for commissioners? >> thank you. very much for your comments. >> thank you. >> are we doing item 11? >> we are going to go to item 11. >> i do want to finish this out.

i think that i have concerns about this type of situation, it feels a lot like serial permitting and it feels like a huge project with huge impacts that are not being properly evaluated from the beginning. and so i because it feels like favorism is what i say. >> as a follow up, can can we get a report, maybe at the next meeting from the director?

i want more investigation about what that application for that permit consisted of, whether it consisted of all of those items that the we just heard. >> and how that was issued. >> (inaudible) inspection and we can give you the report, sounds for the job, but when you come in, you know, with, you know, doing seismic with the foundation is the single family. and you know, it needs the friendship and i think that it

is very consistently, you know, in the 5th floor, and you can ask my deputy, and make sure that everybody is the same and we are coming in or give the comment and it may not be issued at the same time. and you know, we will ask all of those consistent, you know, with the question, but we will give your report next meeting, yeah. >> deputy sweeny i see you coming to the front and i know you are here. >> i didn't really fully, i briefly looked at it, but if it was within the envelope of the building, it was, it sounds to me what was described was eight rooms down permit. and changing in the doors and windows that is an over the counter permit and being that the single family dwelling the engineer is not that difficult. our rule is if we can do the architecture for an hour and structural for an hour, that is an over the counter permit.

i was not aware of this job, until it got into the media. and i believe that is probably why we are here. but i did briefly look at it. and it was different plan checkers at different times and so there is no pattern, planning did look at it. and mechanical, looked at it, and i believe that probably did qualify as an over the counter if that is true, but i would be happy to look at it and give you a report. >> that would be great. >> it is obvious that you want a report back on this. >> yeah. >> and to the point maybe, a little bit more details. to kind of back up what you are saying there, would be helpful. that might explain some of the questions that you brought up here this morning. and what is important to me is the evaluation and the permits to up hold and where i am sitting, everything seems to be in order, however, there seems

to be a sense here with the commissioners that we need to go further into this to explain some of the other details which i have no objection whatsoever. as a part of something that we can do next month. >> that would be great. >> it just seems like something that has gone on for two years. >> yeah. >> over two million dollars over the counter and it is a little bit i don't quite understand that. >> okay. >> thank you, deputy director. we will close public comment. >> okay. >> what item are we? >> why don't we go to 11. >> okay. >> item 11. >> commissioner walker is on. >> up date on 219-6th street. 200-12th street. >> these again, thank you for accommodating this, this is a discussion about the sro,

building's converting to another story in the press about tec, dorms or something and i think that we just need to be updated as to what the status is and what happened. >> good morning, ross mary, chief housing inspector, the 6th street property is 219 to 2216th street and this is four stories and three stores of residential hotel overcome mer shall and the building was run as a non-profit and we currently have 8 open notices of violation, on this property. and a couple of those have occurred earlier this year, and based on some tenant complaints and in the course of addressing those tenant complaints which dealt with violations we found that there were issues regarding the total room count

of the building and then also investigating whether they were keeping the appropriate records that they are required to keep as a residential hotel and then subsequent to that as we, we did further site inspections and saw other issues that then, required us to essentially sat rate this building with further site inspections because we were finding additional problems, and so we have, just 6 open cases from the last two months. and which also then included the routine inspection in room inspection and a hotel conversion ordinance and inspection in which we went to the property to look at those records, they did not have them and so they have been fined. >> and they are responding to these and they are obviously there is this property that was in the articles that commissioner walker alluded to. and they, both of these properties are on a short list for us. and we are watching them to see whether or not if we don't get

the response that we need, to cure the violations we will definitely be considering referral to the city attorney, and we have not yet made that decision because we are in the process of allowing them to respond to these. those notices that they have not complied with, i have already been schedule for a director's hearing, and such as, repairs to the fire escape and things of that nature. that is what the property --. >> light safety issues? >> there are light safety issues associated with the buildings that we are dealing with and when they don't respond to those, we are referring them to the director's hearing and looking at other code enforcement tools, you did allude to the issue of conversion what we are seeing is that this is not necessarily a condition version from a residential use, it is just a different type of client that is occupying this but we are looking closely to make sure that they are keg