>> good evening and welcome to the april 17th, 2019 meeting of the board appeals. and come up the stairway is deputy city attorney is here for legal assistance and i'm the board's executive director. we'll be joined by represents if the city department that have cases before the board this

evening. the zoning administrator representing the planning department and commission. the acting deputy zoning administrator also representing the planning department and commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing building inspect and deputy city attorney representing the department of public health and we expect the senior environmental health inspector and our compliance officer with the office of labor standards enforcement on behalf of the department of public health. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turn off or silence electronic device. carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. departments and respondents are given three minutes to present their case and three minutes for row boutal. for continued cases the parties get three minutes each and no

rebuttal. parties affiliated must have comments within the seven and three minutes. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in accurate minutes you're asked to submit a speaker card to staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are on the left side of the podium. if you have a request on request rehearing please speaker to board staff after the break or during a meeting or visit the of the on mission street room 304. the meeting is broadcast live and will be rebroadcast on fridays on 6. the video is available on the website and can be downloaded from sfgov.org.

if you wish to have the board give your testimony evidentuiary weight. do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the huge -- truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seated. we'll beginning with housekeeping item appeal number 19-014 has been withdrawn by appellants. we'll move to item one general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who reich to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but not on the board's general calendar. anyone here for public comment? moving to item 2, commissioner comments and questions. no? okay. we'll move to item 3.

this is the before you for discussion of adoption minutes of the april 3, 2019 board meeting. it's for your consideration. >> any comments? >> a motion to move them. >> clerk: we have a motion frto adopt the minutes from the board meeting on on that motion. the minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item 4. this say special item given by the zoning administrator an informational presentation regarding the annual limit program called prop m or office cap. >> must be springtime.

it is. i hope you're enjoying the weather and cory teague from planning staff and here to give an update on the limit program in san francisco. some apologies in advance. i'm seeing geographic anomalies at the way the presentation is showing up on the screen so if it looks odd i apologize for that. why are we here to talk about this today? to get started, so the program's been around for a while. the reason we're here today is because there's been a number of recent actions that make it more likely maybe in the past that the issues of office allocation and specifically appeals of those approves in the planning commission could be in front of you at some point in the future.

to my knowledge there hasn't really been an informational presentation on prop m and office allocation annual limit to the board of meals in recent times. we thought we'd come today to give you an overview of the program and that would mainly include a history of the program. how it works, what the mechanics are and the current status of the program and i'm available for any questions you may have. so what is the annual limit? it is a regulation that was put in place to try to limit the pace of the city living and there's light reading it's a good read. it does apray -- apply to any project 25,000 square feet for

or more or bay view or sunset or anywhere in the city if you're doing an office development of 25,000 square feet or more you'll be subject to the annual limit program. and in a nut sell, it gives the ci ci city 950,000 square feet for the purpose of projects and splits it into small sections. small project with a small cap and an amount goes into the cap and the other 185,000 or more. while most and actually at first it was adopted by the board of supervisors in 1985 as part of the downtown plan. that was a different program. it only applied to projects with 50,000 square feet or more and didn't have the small cap provision and it allowed up to

about 2.8 million square feet of office space to be allocate and was is the to expire in 1988. it also created certain exemptions for certain types of projects and it was specifically adopted and could have been modified by the board of supervisors. so the following year after several attempts at other propositions that had failed, 1986 proposition m did pass and took the program in the downtown plan and made it much more robust it was initiated because of concerns and some of the marriage differences is that it got rid of the three-year expiration and a program that will last in perpetuity and create the small cap that was

not a requirement before if you were 25,000 to 55,000 square feet and this meat you subject to the -- made you subject so the program and prop m included our priority policy we are required to find in our approvals they're designed to protect maybe businesses and character and affordable housing among other things and created a job training and placement program not very well known either. because the program was adopted by the voters it can only be modified by the voters. how's it work? again, any office project 25,000 square feet or more must get an allocation from the planning commission. that is appealable to the board of appeals. as we mentioned before, we don't get a lot of the appeals here. the last was in 2013. and that was 350 mission street. it's not a very common appeal that comes before you.

the way the program works is in any given year there's a certain amount of space allocated to the space and any allocated footage rolls to the next year. some years we allocate 1 million or 2 million square feet and you think how much do you allocate it's because it rolls over and on the down years it adds up. approved projects can be revoked by the planning commission similar to any other planning commission approval. the performance period required for an office allocation is generally 18 months in trans bay it's three to five years. so if a project lags and it's just not moving forward and it's been some time the planning commission can request to have a hearing and revoke that allocation. they've had for a chile since the recession actually a policy in place to not do that for

projects if they're moving forward in good faith and having trouble finding financing. if you're a project and get 100,000 square feet allocated but through the course of finalizing the project and having it built you only use 90,000, we can come back and revoke the last 10,000 square feet you didn't use and have it go back to into the respective cap. there are some exceptions to the program. regional, state and federal office buildings are exempt from the program in the sense that because state and federal properties and governments are not subject to our local controls, they're not required to get an approval from the planning commission. but we do have to account for that in the cap. so if a federal office building is built, it doesn't require the

planning commission approval but when they start construction that area has to come out of the respective cap. similarly, port and redevelopment jurisdiction properties similar principle, they don't have to go to the planning commission to get approval. they're pseudostate agencies. but we have to account for it. here the accounting's different. the space comes from the cap when the building permit is issued opposed to when construction starts. lastly, city office buildings are completely exempt from the program. there are also some prior planning commission resolutions that have been adopted that give certain areas priority in terms of coming the planning commission. those include mission bay, portions of hunters point and a certain amount of office space within treasure island. specifically back in 2016,

proposition o passed and that completely exempted office space from the program in hunter's point shipyard phase two and candle stick and any office space that would be developed in that area will not be accounted for in the cap and doesn't have to get approval from the planning commission. so when the planning commission does have to review a project, prop m does include specific criteria they have to consider. i'll paraphrase what those are. they have to consider the pace of office growth over the course of the current approval period. they have to consistent of the plan the quality and design of the project, the suitability of the office development and the location, the type of office space they're proposing, the number of office tenant as a single tenant or multi tenant

and whether they used controversy property rights and the planning commission can't consider payment to transportation and housing funds beyond what's required in the planning code when considering whether or not to approve an office allocation. one thing that's important to understand is that prop m gives the planning commission the authority to adopt their own rules and regulations how they'll review and allocation office projects within the parameters of prop m. so this has happened basically twice before in the late '80s and early 2000s they had criteria how to review projects versus the standard case-by-case review process. this gifs -- gives an understanding of allocations by year since adopted in 1986. you can see the first 10 years

there wasn't that much action and then in the late '90s in the dot-com boom you saw more allocations in '98 there was 1.2 million and then you had the bubble burst a little bit and those numbers go down and starting to peak back up in 2008 and then especially once we came out of that recession you can see 2013 was far and away the most office space we've allocated and then in 2015 was the second most. that period of time even going into 2016 we've seen basically the most office space being allocated in the history of the program. so is looking at the small cap and large cap and what the current numbers are. in the small cap we have available right now a little over 900,000 square feet and pending projects and another

117,000 in pre-application project and if you took all the availability and subtracted every project on the book we'd still have more than 500,000 square feet in the small cap and it's not susceptible to running low because no project can be more than 50,000 square feet. the large cap is different. it has to account for everything that's over 50,000 square feet whether it's 50,000 square feet or 2 million square feet. and you see right now as of today we have 2.9 million square feet available to be allocated. the big number is we have almost 9 million square feet in pending projects. and then another 600,000 in pre-application projects. if we just take a snapshot there's more office space than to allocate within the program.

i just want to provide a few caveats to the number to help you understand. this is a snapshot in time for today. it doesn't account for future proposals that could come in the door at some point in the future. based on general office demand over time. also, we're generally not given much of a heads up if the bay or federal government are wanting to propose a new office building so we're we can't plan for those. and the pipeline right now doesn't account for future allotments we get and we get those every october 17th of each year. that's the date when we get the the 950,000 square feet that goes in the small cap and large cap. and then many projects recently required and received large re-zonings or authorizations to make them to be ready allocated office space. right now sentra soma, 5m,

mission rock and central soma with the passing there's i think right now 6 million square feet that's ready to go. in the short term of office space and within that planning area and that will put immediate pressure on the numbers because we don't only have the 2.9 million square feet right now. that's a quick overview of the program. i hope it's been a little bit helpful and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the history of the mechanics or how the numbers work. thank you. i have a laundry list.

what comes from the cap. >> very a cap for small projects which we call the small cap and that's any project between 25,000 and 49,999 square feet and we have to take 30,000 out of the bucket that's reserved for small buckets and same for large. >> i was thinking in buckets. >> how do you evaluate when there's a mixed use project. take the building on sansome and battery with the hotel and residential attached and some commercial. how does that allocation done

and is there any favoritism offered in any way where there's a mixed use with residential where's desirable. >> in terms of how we mix it up the allocation is only required for the office portion. it's not uncommon for a project that requires an office allocation to also acquire other authorization for the other project whether it's conditional use or large office authorization and those authorizations look more at the total project. the office allocation is focussing just on the office portion of the project so whether it's an office project or a mixed use the allocation is just for the office. so to your question about whether or not there's favoritism given to mixed use or certain uses, there's nothing

specifically within the criteria of prop m that caused that out. if the planning commission think that's an important aspect of it they have the prerogative to have that opinion and have that affect their vote. >> if there's a million square foot project and one third is hotel and one third residential and one third hotel i understand the one third of commercial comes out of the bucket but given it might serve other segments which may be beneficial for residents for obvious reasons, that might be attractive in the overall evaluation process? >> that's up to the planning commission but they could have that opinion, absolutely. that perspective is not automatically part of the property and review. it's not one of the criteria they have to consider but something they can consider. >> in the form of redevelopment areas like mission bay, are

there still development opportunities that are outside the prop m purview and are they grandfathered as being in previous redevelopment agency land areas? i believe mission bay was exempt because i a re-development area. >> well, we have to account for it. mission bay is interesting. it could be a whole separate conversation. and because it's in a development area it didn't require it from the plan commission but it did need the planning commission to sign off on the design of the office space so you'll see those projects like the warriors project and the uber project they had to go to the planning commission for the office

developments but they weren't going to get office allocation. they were going get just the design component of the allocation. >> so they're not coming out of the bucket. >> they do come out of the bucket? >> redevelopment and port projects come out of the bucket. we have to account but they don't need planning commission authorization. they come out of the bucket. >> so if the feds decide to build the build from hell 2 million square foot, do they jump to the head of the line. >> they never have to get up line. >> they skip the line. it would negatively affect the aspirations of those in line

>> yeah. they get to build that office space regardless of how much in the cap and we have to account for it even if they bring it into the red. >> i have a question. can you describe at what point in the process in the en titlement does it come from the bucket and you say there's pending projects. i assume they've not yet receive the allocation. we just know at this point we have roughly 2 million or however much is and know through p.p.a.s or other processes there's people when want it. when do they get to say i got my piece and i'm going to hang on to it? >> when the planning commission proves the officeal cake -- allocation at the same time they're reviewing other projects in front of them. that's when it comes out. >> then they have 18 months,

whatever time period whatever time period maybe longer if needed to build the project before it would potentially be revoked? >> correct. and to be clear it's not an automatic expiration. the planning commission would have to take an affirmative action to revoke the allocation. but one of the reasons they could take the action is because the project has not moved forward in a timely fashion. >> so i'm assuming but i want to make sure i'm not making an inaccurate assumption because we have the gap between what is pending and allocate people will appeal receiving or not receiving olcation -- allocations or other appeals that would come to the body? >> the main reason we want to give an every view is because it's the appeal body for this type of approval but we don't see them often. we haven't seen one in five years.

we know the plan is contentious and there's things going on about that so it wouldn't be surprising if at some point in the future this board would see an appeal and considering that is helpful for you guys to have a stronger grasp of the program itself and the history and how it works. is there a cap to the rollover? >> every square foot not used rolls over to the next. >> thank you for your presentation. and second you did a good job in front of your old boss.

is that like driving with your parents in the car? >> no comment. >> when prop m was first passed and the first round of the so-called beauty contested, every project that was selected for the allocation was appealed to this body. i remember 12 boxes were delivered to my office for the appeals. at the time the board was different because we could ahear -- hear appeals on environmental. i'm assuming the office allocation allocation environmental appeals and c.u. appeals still go to the board of supervisors? >> correct. >> was there also at one time a

caveat where you had to show assigned tenants? >> there's never been a requirement to show assigned tenant. one of the the criteria in prop m the commission must consider if is the office building is going to be a single-operator building, obviously, if as a project you're making the claim it's a single tenant, there may be some request for documentation or letter of intent for who the tenant may be but i'm not aware of any other specific caveat there needs to be a single tenant or any specific pros or cons to having one tenant or multiple tenants. >> thank you for your presentation. >> >> clerk: thank you. any public comment? we'll move to item 5, appeal

19-0111,eredmann ogge and robyn zach and convert space to a new dwelling space and new kitchen bath, sprinklers and fire alarm under separate application. this is application 2017/07/25/2899. on april 3 this board voted to continue it to april 17 to give the planning department to review revived plans and if acceptable to bring to the departments to bring the revised plans back before the board for the purpose offi issuing a specl

permits. we'll hear first from the building inspections. [please stand by] . erdma

>> yes. those drawings were provided i believe late -- not last week, but the week before to the appellants. >> clerk: thank you. okay. you can be seated. we will now hear from the appellants. >> hi. good evening, board. thank you for inviting us back to talk about our permits, and i'm going to have erdmann -- >> hi. thank you for having us here. we did get copies of the plans dated april 5, and we basically

think that they look fine. we did have discussions where we just brought up a couple things. we have been told that according to their lawyer, they were going to provide us with reimbursement for housing costs during that time, and those co costs only, and we agree with that. we just brought up that we had noticed that the revised plans showed that the three columns that are currently in the garage were not engineered but

they were going to be removed that might be supporting the building. basically, they said that they -- the plans as they were submitted would be structurally sound. the third thing that we also discussed with them is the laundry area that's currently in the building would be available for us to use during the construction period. with all of those three items discussed with them, and with our agreement we would approve the revised plans. >> clerk: okay. >> one thing, though, that we -- whether this is a conversation to have with the owner's party or not is we just -- tom moscini, who i believe is representing them, we conferred with him the three

questions addressed, and he conferred with us during e-mail. the other was the timing of the project and who would be our point person. we asked if it would continue to be the timeline in the letter from daniel bornstein, asking us to temporarily vacate the premise of the garage for construction at the time, and he said it should continue to be around the same time of four months, so we just wanted to have an understanding of what the timeline looks like, and if it's not the same, discuss that with the board. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this? okay. seeing none, commissioners, this is turned over to you for discussion. >> could i bring the sponsor up for discussion? one, thank you for bringing

this up with the appellants and letting this go forward. did you hear their question regarding their question of the services and timeline that that was going to be lost? >> i did. without giving an exact date -- >> i'm sorry. could you speak into the mic? >> i don't think the scope of the project has changed significantly. all i would ask is we have a little bit of time to work with the structural engineer who did the original drawings and make sure that they crossed their t's and dotted their i's. and once those drawings are approved then i don't see any reason why we couldn't stick to the original. >> and you think the original timeline of four months is still applicable at this point? >> for the seismic retrofit, i don't want to speak for the owner, but at this point, i think so. >> okay.

>> commissioners? >> before we get into deliberation -- >> we are in deliberation. >> before we get into deliberation moving towards a motion, one of the issues that were discussed in our last hearing was the issue of notice, and it was pointed out that while there was no notice because this is a.d.u., it doesn't have anything to do with building envelopes or affect the neighborhood, i think i took the position that in fact apartment buildings are their own neighborhoods and common areas within those apartments are somewhat like

small communities and their halls are streets. it seemed this a.d.u. program did not consider for renters in apartment buildings the -- the potential for need for notice. so i think it might -- i'd like to have the discussion to send it to the board of supervisors -- and one just having walked in the room. >> i was going to say, we have one in the room. >> -- that maybe they, for the finalization of the a.d.u. legislation, or as the a.d.u. legislation moves forward, that they consider the issue of notice where it comes to things like this where apartments are being adjusted in their internal footprint and would have impact on their

neighborhood which is inside that footprint. >> correct. thank you. >> okay. so can we -- how do we come to a decision after we make our motion to send a little note to the board of supervisors with regard to their evolution of the a.d.u. legislation. >> we can just pin a note on the supervisor that's here. >> i understand that. he conveniently walked in at the appropriate time. >> he is going to beat me up. >> commissioner swig, we have to agendaize that item in advance. >> can we agendaize that item because i think it's an important enough itemt for renters to then pass it onto the board with our thoughts. >> now back to the permit. >> now back to the permit. >> at our last hearing, we asked for some information. we asked that the parties come

together and have more than a meeting of the minds, and it appears that that has happened here. i see the nods of heads on both sides and it's not as emotional as it was last time, so i would support allowing this permit to go through and to deny the appeal. >> do we have to -- >> grant the appeal. >> grant the appeal and condition it towards what is it? the april 5 drawings? >> is that the motion? >> yeah. sorry. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the permit and issue the permit on the adoption of the revised drawings of april 5, 2019. on what basis, commissioner honda? >> that -- i don't know -- code compliant and -- god, what would be --

>> the agreement -- >> yeah. i'm going to miss you, frank. >> on the agreement of the parties and it's code compliant. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion is adopted. okay. we will now move onto item number six. this is peal number 18 ---appeal number 18-127, carolyn duffy versus d.b.i. on november 14, 2018, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to allow time for the board to review approved plans for this permit and for the department of building inspection to perform a site review and review the

appropriate documents to coordinate how the site coordinates with the plans, so we will hear first from the permit holder. >> good evening. my name is ryan patrick. i represent the permit holder and owner of the building. i do have the set of plans. i tried to get them here today. this is the soonest i got them. i've given them to the tenants. i have copies for mr. duffy. >> do you have copies? >> i do have copies. would you like a copy? >> first provide it to the tenants and then provide it to the board.

>> and then, would you guys like a copy, too, i assume? >> yeah.

>> did you want to put one on the overhead, too? >> yeah, i can put one on the overhead -- i gave you all my copies. >> go ahead and start. >> okay. so we -- first of all, i want to apologize for getting the plans late, and i want to be able to apologize for not being able to answer or provide enough information at the first hearing to both the commissioners as well as to the tenants who were here from the

building. there was a mandatory seismic retrofit that needs to happen at this building, and i mean, as you know, it's in the telegraph hill neighborhood, and it hits right on that cliff. so in getting the mandatory seismic retrofit work done, we were still wondering, okay, what other safety issues need to be addressed at this building? there were still a number of other items that the owner or contractor that i have worked to put together a complete scope of work, and in addition to the mandatory seismic retrofit, there is a whole host of other things that need to happen. there are stairs in the building that are going to have to come out. those are the interior stairs leading in and out of some of these units, and we're going to have to take those down because the concrete for the building that has to be reinforced is

going to go through that. so we've got to take the stairs down and put sheer wall back up. i've even got pictures of that if you want to see a picture of that. in addition to doing the stairs, the roof on this building is probably 60 years old. we've patched it, and we'd like to do the upper decks and the roof of the building. there were two individual decks that happen -- that each of these buildings have -- it's almost like a single building that sits on two lots, so you've got six units in each. there's two units on the very top that have -- there's a community deck, and then, there's two individual decks.

and so the goal with redoing the roof would be to stop water intrusion because it's old, but the railings -- there are railings on this deck that are dilapidated, there's dry rot. the goal would be to put in replacement steel, and the goal would be steel cables or steel material or tempered glass along the building. and i can show you a copy -- or a picture, rather. so this is a photo of the deck area, and as you can see, it's all wood in that area. >> okay. time it up. i'm trying to layout the phases of this thing, full and fair

disclosure. >> so let me ask you a couple questions, counselor. this is a continuation, and you had five months to prepare this information. >> right. >> so you know that it's proper to supply a brief to what we hear or speak about this evening, and you're trying to present all this case in three minutes when you've had five months -- >> i had a presentation that i'd like to give to you. >> but you knew there was a brief due, and you had five months. >> i guess i'm trying to explain how this work at the property is going to go through. if you guys don't want to hear that -- >> i'll wait for the appellants to speak as well as the departments. >> i think the point is, you're a smart man. you've been here before.

i saw you sit here in this gallery and see the protocol of this courtroom, and you know the protocol, you know that there was supposed to be a brief filed. you had five months to file a brief, and now -- and you know your time limit. and you come up, and you say okay, fresh news, i'm going to come up and do it now. that's not the way it works, and it puts you at a severe disadvantage. i'm sorry. you blew it. >> it sounds like you guys don't want to listen. >> no, we like to listen to everything. we like to come in prepared. we work -- we work hours and hours to prepare for hearings, and when somebody doesn't pay attention to the protocol, somebody who's a professional who doesn't pay attention to

the protocol, it kind of makes us upset because it all puts us in a difficult decision. we want you to know that you've upset us. >> i guess i'll reserve my time for rebuttal. >> it is a continuance, so you don't get a rebuttal. >> i'd like to thank you for all your hard work, mr. swig, and sometimes you don't get all the material in one presentation. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspection next. >> may i have the overhead, please. sorry. [inaudible] >> okay. thank you.

so the -- commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. as you maybe remember, i was not here for the original hearing. senior inspector carlton was here representing d.b.i. i probably got involved in this yesterday and realized that just reading through on the -- on november 4, the board voted 5-0 on this matter to allow appropriate time to review the permit and to allow d.b.i. to conduct a review of the relevant documents to determine how the site corresponds to the plans. when i got in today, i contacted the real estate agent, arranged a time for this afternoon to go and visit the apartment five at 50 alta, which is the permit that's under appeal for permit application 201809241235, with

a description of work of renovation of kitchen and bathroom, removal and replacement of two interior partition walls. and as i said, that's for number 50 alta. that's the only permit that's under appeal here, and i did go out today, and i want able -- i was able to print out the plans from d.b.i. on microfiche. you have existing plans on the bottom here, showing -- this is the entry door from the deck, go up the stairs. you've got an existing kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom, and a living. the intended scope of work is to leave the existing work. you come in, they're going to demolish this wall between the bedroom and the living, move

that wall out a little bit to create a closet for the bedroom, and then that then changes the door into the bedroom and they're going to do some modification to the closet, make it a little bigger so it goes into the kitchen area. from a d.b.i. perspective, it's a relatively easy repair to do. new plumbing, new electrical under separate permits. from that end of thing, that's what i was there today and that's what i did, and that's what i'm reporting to, so i'm available to any questions. >> so since you did a site visit, inspector duffy, what were the site conditions as you saw them this afternoon? >> inside the unit that i was told to go to? >> yeah. >> they had started a couple of days demobefore the permit got appealed and then, the sheet rock had been removed and walls, typical demothat was

underway and got stopped. so they have the unit -- it's under -- it's under construction, but everything was just left. obviously, they got the suspension and stopped, it looks like. >> okay. thank you. >> so mr. duffy, staying focused -- and thank you for focusing on the plans at hand. i know we all wish that we could have had the opportunity to have them earlier to review them in a proper fashion. part of the rhetoric that is existing in the appeal really doesn't apply to this that's the rhetoric of the moving of stairs. we heard from the project sponsor. part of the rhetoric has to do with the side effects of other

projects, and then, the seismic retrofit which is pretty generic to a lot of older buildings. so it would seem that this is a simple renovation. so how does the other rhetoric and -- fit -- fit into this? is this going to be an ongoing bunch of permits that are going to be filed and could that be potentially perceived as -- i'm not accusing, but serial permitting? are there notices of violation potentially due to deficiencies in capital improvements? where is this going? this is -- from a simple renovation, you're right, but i'm worried about the dominos that are falling left and right and where we're going as a

project as a whole. >> i'm going to try and answer your questions in three parts. sorry. i'm going to try and remember everything that you asked. >> i'll reask. >> it's okay. as you know, they are under permits, and they're not appealable. the owner expressed to me today that he is under violation from d.b.i. to do that work, so you know, i mean, if there is an appeal, he's got his time to go through that. we've had appealed on soft stories -- appeals on soft stories here before, and that issue before the rent board and the ordinance. i think that's probability all ahead of us. if it's not all dealt with by

the owner and tenants working together, which other projects do in san francisco, because we have a lot of soft story repair being done in buildings. in answer to your question, i wouldn't say serial permitting from my experience. i do see a permit filed for the stair relocation. i didn't see anything imminent either today that was going to collapse, that was endangering anybody. there was a little bit of softness on one of the guide rails typical of what we see. i advised them to get a replacement for that. the stair rails would have to be brought up to code, 42 inches, handrails, rise and run on the stairs. there is a lot of work on it. again, focusing, the issue's going to be the tenants in the building and how that is. and this, as we've heard it many times in front of this board, is a concern, and it's something that really -- it's

not a d.b.i. issue, i suppose, but it's something that's going to be appealed because of that. >> so as a follow-up question, this is a simple renovation of an apartment, but with all the other issues that you just elaborated on -- thanks very much for capturing all of ththat. one of the very obvious concerns that the public has, and especially the tenants in that building is seeing this list of potential permits, seeing relocation or displacement from their units, seeing you'll this stuff that's going to be done that may put them out of their units for a long period of time, and again, that will contribute to upset, which will contribute to appeals on future permits. i'm not picking on the project sponsor, it's just a reality.

but how would you, looking at this project as you now have and captured it in your editorial, how would you design a protocol so that the project gets done, but also a protocol so that the other necessary stuff, either mandated legally or necessary by virtue of wear and tear, how they get done and have the least amount of impact on the tenants so we don't have appeals for the next five years on this project? >> well, i spoke to the owner a little bit about that today, even though i wasn't there for that, he was very keen to talk to me about his plans for the soft story and the work that he wants to do. i did reiterate to him when you're in front of this board or anybody, you're going to have to come up with a plan to protect these tenants. he could be a means and methods, which if you're going

to be doing one part of the stair, is someone going to be out of there so many days, project management, like, week one, that's going to mean these people aren't going to live there. you put that together, and that could be part of the documents going forward. obviously, we're talking about down the line here. i think we had one a long time ago, i think it was 1100 lombard. same issue. people got displaced for seism seismic issues, and we did have to come up with a plan to protect tenants in the building. holding them to a time code from a planning point of view is tough. but i think the owner probably wants to speak to you more about that than me, and i did say to me, and i did say tonight that he wanted to address the board on those concerns. so he's down there. >> okay. >> if you want to hear from him, maybe he can elaborate on that. >> well, if we have a question, but how many applications are