, waiting for this permit. it seems to me the project is stalled at the minute. but i do think that the foundation issue was dealt with at the time. it's not an open complaint with us at the minute. it's closed. >> the only -- are you finished? >> yes. >> the only complaint is for being vacant and abandoned. right. >> correct. >> that's with the inspector. >> it's an old violation. i think he did that program or used to. it's a city thing. >> so the sooner they get it back up and running again -- >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, i'm assuming that the foundation work was issued as a separate permit based upon the previous design. >> yes, i believe so. yes. >> because -- and i'm guessing also that the previous design to this design varied substantially. >> right. yeah. >> so any further foundation work would have to be reissued as part of the addendum for the site permit. >> that's correct. yes. i haven't seen -- i didn't look at the full drawings for that, but i was assuming the same thing, that this foundation word

>> the site permit set. all you have to do is eliminate that floor from the one drawing. >> well, the site permit was already issued. >> actually, just to be clear, the site permit is not issued. it's on appeal before the board. just so you understand, that's the subject of this appeal. so it's not issued yet. >> what we would like to avoid would be to submit the site permit as a revision and have to go through a whole process of that. >> that's why you want us to condition it. >> we're trying to help you here. >> all right. >> i don't think you understand. we'll make our thing and then you'll hear what we're asking. >> we can't do anything but a conditional at this point. you need to talk to inspector duffy what you have to do to get this appropriately done. okay? >> okay. >> we have rebuttal from the department, and i think at least one of them is eager to speak. mr. teague. >> good evening again, commissioners. i don't have anything to add from the department specifically, but just to clarify, if i unders

that is the subject of a separate permit, isn't it? two permits? >> the permit holder. >> the appellants. >> i assume the drawings -- i believe the permit talks about bracing. >> no, no. the people arguing against this permit -- >> yes. >> if they're bracing their retaining wall, which is leaning , that would require a permit for each of those three properties. >> correct, yes, that's right. to be honest with you, i was at the counter when the appellant came to speak to us about it. i encouraged them to work with the other property owners to resolve this. we have this situation throughout the city with these retaining walls, they crack, they stretch across property lines, sometimes they go over property lines but the key here is they've got to work together to get this resolved and it's disappointing that we're out on appellant. i don't encourage that from the work go. as you heard tonight, they're talking in the halls. this needs to be cooperation between all the property owners to get this work done. now mr. santos said tonight in his presentatio

it is a site permit currently. it has been reviewed by different city agencies including planning and plan check. the issues about the foundation are valid. i do remember speaking to the neighbor about this. i will give the different scenarios when i am asked that question. i have seen it done right most of the time, but i have seen it done wrong. i have heard how the permit holder intends to do the right thing. the statement about referring to damages to the property is fine, but they do need to get an underpinning agreement in place before they start which will take care of the neighbors' foundation. i did explain to the neighbor that is pretty common. it is seen all over the city. we have talked about it here many times. it is under section 33 on 7 of the san francisco building code and 832 of the california civil code. there are parts about who pays for what and the civil code actually would tell you the neighbor has to pay for that. in my experience and a lot of experiences it would be the developer to cover t

but as i look at the permit it's an alteration permit form 3, and it clearly says alteration. however, the code says that illegal demo would actually -- is -- whenever the demolition of any building or structure containing one or more residential units takes place without the issuance of a demolition permit. so there's no one wall, is it 50%? it's almost 99% gone. so i think that we need to send this back to the building inspection -- the building d.b.i. to look at this again and maybe with consultation with the city attorney to re reevaluate because it looks like they must have misinterpreted this section of the code. >> a summary of how the interpretation is, when the project that is set up to fall would be this unlawful demolition would be a project that the house is there and it goes away and someone comes in with a new construction building permit and then it's found out later that that building had been there, that was the impetus of -- they explained to me -- of the creation of this code. >> i'd like the city attorney's opinion, please. i mean, that doesn't make sense.

many happen before the permit department permit is submitted. then it's like wow, this thing ain't here. don't jam them together and say they're one thing when they purposely pars them so they're not. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i have been practicing 38 years and i want to get to 40 years, a year and five months. most of my comments will have no affect on me, i'll probably be retired. the unlawful demolition in the building code was written in the 80s to deal with not intention of this use. that's all there is. that doesn't make it good. 317 is intended to preserve affordable and historic buildings written with a set of calculations that the planning department developed. you have planning definition and building definition. it doesn't work. and d.b.i. goes out three months after the permit is issued. it's too late. there needs to be a joint workshop in rewriting the two codes so they integrate and work. and the people who are going to enforce them will be in that room to get something that actually works. coming out after th

permit status: permits issued is 109. permit approved waiting for the owner to pickup is 23. work completed is 23. permits withdrawn, revised is 22. permits undergoing plan review is 419. undergoing planning review, under review by planning is 308. under review by dbi, building mechanical is 49, under review by ppc and city agencies, san francisco fire department, 14, dbi, 12, puc, three, permit processing center, one. no routing, owners have not paid fee is 32, so we do a weekly track of this to just to see where they are in the movement of this. >> so just, if i may, so 109 applications filed, right? >> permitted issued is 109. >> excuse me, permits issued. >> okay. >> 23... >> are done, finished. >> and i can assume the 109, the rest are underway. >> correct. >> okay. all right. >> and then -- >> and the 666 one more time is -- >> okay. the total screening forms. >> so people that just came in for the preapp. >> are 666. the total permitted submits is 5 # 6. >> that's pretty high succe-- >> that's pretty high after that. >> yes. >> we have a weekly stat of what i just pres

however the decision hasn't been made to issue jump a permit until january. as jamie mentioned there were intentional discussions about that and motivate indicated they may have a problem with issuing permits for a stationless bicycle. that's why they initiated the settlement negotiations per the contract. so we had to clarify with them what san francisco's intentions might be and then we had to confirm what san francisco intentions were and it wasn't until january the policy call was made to give jump the permit. we were steadying it up to that point and once the decision was made the permit was issued, we offered the same information to all the applicants at that time. >> if i can hop in and i have the same memorandum i received twice, as far as i can tell just paging through it, it speaks to everything you're talking about. the is dated december 11. and the second is dated january 8. the december 11th one seems to come to the conclusion you came to not in january but in december that there was only one company that you recommended which is jump. are you re

i have a permit application in planning. it has been there for almost a year with everything in place but they have not looked at it yet. so, i understand the problems. i'm an architect i try to make a living in the town the way the others do. when these guys come in and they soft shoe the senior managers and end up with a permit that isn't legally binding until somebody goes down and finds a third floor or goes down and finds a basement that's now a story, how does this happen? and why does it continue? five years ago the whistleblower complaint told sweeney to stop taking in permits. they said it's not your job. so, now, now duffy and others do it. but it's the same old dodge. favoritism is rife in the department and the reason that we pay so much in fees when we come down is because others aren't paying anything. they are lowballing their costs, describing parts of the work already done and just need an inspection. are you kidding me? when you go in for a permit at planning, they look up the building online, they look and

for working without a permit. what's interesting, prior to the permit holder purchasing the priority, there was only one complaint against the property for like 90 years. the project exterior height exceeds the limit, two sets of railings and one set is at the building's edge that requires 5 feet from the edge of the building to protect the property and ensure privacy. he changes non accessible set back areas to accessible placing planters in the area and blocking the natural light in violation of the railing requirements and violates our privacy. and if you look at his measurements here, when he measures down on this corner to this corner, the blue line is a slope and here's a real slope, of the street and sidewalk, it is way off compared to the sidewalk and the murmeasurement should be in this area. his slope is about eight inch difference in height. i respectfully ask you to please continue the hearing, do a site inspection to verify the site conditions and require the respondent to submit plans to ensure the p

and the one time event permit is morphed into the one time indoor event permit. it's just a name change. you can click on the name of the permit and it takes you to the applications page. and you can apply using fillble pdf, in some cases you can use the smart pdf which is more streamlined online sort of form. we added the extra things like if people aren't sure what the permit is, you can click on that and it will take you to the page. at least it should. slow, there we go. another thing to highlight, we consolidated the fees and pay online information into one place. before it was buried in the permanent applications page. if you want to look at the fees, you can click on the matrix or if you want to pay, you can go to this link here and we clarified what the different fee waivers are for the one-time events. so community based organization or individual declaring financial hardship. and then lastly, the biggest enhancement has been finally the addition of an outdoor events page. yay! that's my area. so this will grow. the outdoor event guide will live on it ev

, we still have a permiting process structure that exists. i won't read that process, but these processes exist so that, as so not to give the appearance of preferential treatment to any company which seeks to do business in san francisco and to communicate with the public that we are making decisions that are centred in their best interest. i'm not comfortable and i don't know that i see value in having the only approval go through. the director of transportation as opposed to coming through the m.t.a. board or the board of supervisors. i will admit that i have a series of questions that i will ask the representatives from m.t.a. with that, i want to recognize director ed riskin and jamie parks from the bike share programme. they are here with us in this chamber and madame chair, i would turn the rest of the hearing over to you. >> ok. and supervisor cohen, who would you like to call up first? >> director riskin. >> welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, chair tang. members of the committee. supervisor cohen, thank you for giving us an oppor

greenwood has a long history of submitting inaccurate permitting plans. when he didn't have a garage he certified he has one. this is $275,000 big project not including the work he did not disclose, demolish the roof with construction 40 feet high. this roof in violation of planning code 134 that railing five feet from edge of building for privacy. they have the railing remain at the edge of the building and at the second of the railing parallel to the first one and violation for planning requirement. he he has three decks. the decks are directly facing our kitchen bathroom and room windows. he and his people have stood on the existing decks looking down at us and took picture of us using dirt on to our property. more decks and planter would make the problem worse. they use prior architect when he realized higher than the limit they move the line about four feet higher to manipulate to code. he concluded it's three story but dbi said it is four. they did not require him to comply with code. plan must be accurate. permit application to disclose the scope o

permit. that would -- i disagree with mr. hammond there respectfully. i think dbi would be looking at the sprinkler require many going from three to four, but it's entirely possible it's an existing -- that's -- we can deal with it on a continuance or approve the -- >> it makes sense for both -- if they have the ability to negotiate, that's fine. but for us, the question of whatever is required, if it needs to be revision, they're smarter to have us incorporate that revision into the permit set instead of having to go wait for another period of time ha that it takes. >> and it's appealable. >> you're saying a continuance. >> i think it makes more sense for all parties. >> and are you, again, the appellant, talked about access to that area in her house, access to that area in a twin house on one side and then we just heard that, you know, there are stairs up to that -- formal stairs up to that area in the demolition. wouldn't there be a permit on file. >> not from 1900. >> no. no. if there was

jump was the first operator that was eligible for a permit under our program. jump submitted its initial application in july of 201 prior to any other company. it developed as the first and only company to fulfill all the permit requirements with the november 2017 submittals. one requirement was the data sharing requirement. that's something we heard a lot of reluctance from from other companies and jump was the first to operate e-bike. >> was there a set of criteria about what the sfmta was looking for? did it say in october when these got ahead of transportation technologies did you say to the potential world of stationless bike sharing companies, we are looking for e bikes. that is a criteria. we're looking for data sharing as a criteria. if you do not have these you'll be considered incomplete. >> yes. we developed permit application materials based on the legislation that were very detailed in what we were requiring from the operators including detailed data sharing provisions and making sure they had a plan for us that made sense to us about how they'd ma

unless of course, the agent for the permit holder -- >> could the permit holder come -- >> i have a question for for the building department. >> senior inspecter, batter up. >> this is not meant to derail the setment. the drawings, your department requires to show existing. >> this does not show existing except they show proposed was done on, i presume, was done onto the original drawing. everything looks like it's new. it creates massive confusion to the appellate. >> it's a revision permit to an easterly year approved permit. >> i'm not even sure it's that. the fact is all the things that the a a a brought up relate to items existing. >> yeah. i mean, revisions are common occurrence, as you know yourself people file them every day of the week to make changes. i can make the department aware of your comments to double check this one if you want. >> i think it's just a suggestion to the department, if they're going to do a revision, the revision should be on the different format. >> yeah, they're normally bubbled and that's the way it's supposed to be. the areas they're changing is supposed

on the permit, it said that prior to issuance of the permit that the concrete needed to be fixed in front of the house. this is a picture of a concrete that was never fixed. and this shows the largest tree in the back yard which is well over 12 inches which is right next to that alley so it should be covered under the street tree ordinance. it will make a great difference in the neighborhood. we're cutting down the back yard. we're taking a two bedroom one bath house and turning it into a five bedroom four bath house. they're trying to disguise that it's going to be multiple families by saying that they have two laundries in the house. there's going to be a laundry upstairs and another one downstairs. i say that downstairs one, which on the original plans which i received, was called a wet bar is actually going to turn into a kitchen and be another unit. thank you. >> president honda: thank you, sir. good evening and welcome. >> i'm paula davis debella. i'm at the same address of stanley. i wanted to bring up the fact that two years ago we were given plans by the owner or his agent. we ha

permit application to disclose the scope of work but he did not. dbi issue architect plan required him to respond. both planning and building say as long as architect signature and not worried about the this is a good day. washing the deck and do other things. this is the people looking at us. he is fire rating. it is not complete. no details for the column and no structure calculation. our tenant need support. >> we have those. >> thank you. >> since i have time. i was told when we were to send to the permit holder. she is a public member. if they do i think you should be a architect here. i have a problem. seven minutes altogether they used it for public comment. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. there are two appeals. you have 14 minutes. >> good evening. my name is craig gene wood, i am the property owner and the permit owner. the way i am going to present is to provide you with a background in history because i think it is very important for the context of the case. then i will talk a bit about the project and a privacy issu

for outdoor permits. any questions, let me know. i think it's pretty self explanatory. >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> the good neighbor policy, is that a download or -- >> so that exists in the codes and policies page. so i didn't include all of the pages but like that page will be virtually unchanged. same thing with public notices and meetings. but there is going to be a new page that i'm going to oversee called the outdoor events page, the hub and resource for my work. >> okay. great. thank you. i just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle. >> commissioner perez, i make sure to always highlight that in great detail in my intake meetings. >> thank you. >> if you guys -- do you have questions about the web site or any of the changes? we're hoping it makes it more clear to applicants on how to apply. >> so what's the timeline for updates? >> the end of the month by the latest. we're putting our ducks in a row in terms of the documents that go along with anything we're missing here.

plan review and building permits. that's why we like to highlight to give everyone an idea of the type of projects coming in. in earlier reports, we normally have the permit valuations and would stop at 2 million and above, we worked with mis to get a better read out of the valuation. now going up to 200 million above. it's very high valuation, that isn't the case anymore. if you look right now and see the bottom of 200 million plus, you can see in this fiscal year we received two permits valued above $2 million in this fiscal year and overall valuations are actually up. that's it. that's all i have. i'm happy to answer questions. if there are any. okay. thank you. >> thank you. good luck over the next couple of weeks. >> 9b update on recently enacted state and local legislation. >> good morning, good afternoon commissioners. in your packet you'll see a number of pieces that we're continuing to track. i think you may have noticed earlier these code advisory committee did review the slope protection act amendment that

we got complaint about work done without a permit. commercial space being divided for living space, stove, washer and dryer installed. the inspection complaint officer visited the site. he issued a notification for work without permit for the commercial residential on the third floor. legal use is b. it was converted to residential without a certificate of occupancy. there was a sleeping area, the mezzanine was used for that. new partitions were constructed. washer, dryer installed. the case was issued a notice on january 24, 2017. the case was seconded and referred to code enforcement. january 31st it was referred. on february 1st it was received by code enforcement and a hearing was set up april 10th. there was a director here on the 28th. it went to an order of abatement on july 24th. at this point we haven't had any permits from anybody so the case is still ongoing. so, we would like to uphold all the all the abatement procedures. any questions? >> thank you so much, inspect hernandez. >> secretary: the appellant would like to com

we can work with the permit holder to figure it out. it's an amendment to the permit. it needs to be made if that's the case. and maybe the sprinkler requirement may kick in. the gentleman referenced an information sheet. i don't have that with me tonight. it wasn't really part of the brief. but if -- i would like to do more research with the plans department and records department and make sure what they're putting down is what they're doing. there's no problem with having the four levels, but if it's going from three to four, we want that reflected. we want to do what needs to be -- >> it could be true, but a 1900 area feet, each one of these full foot prints are 800 to 1200. if it's 1900 square feet, how do you get two living levels and a den and that space that comes out to at least 2300 square feet. >> and when we reach -- whenever we deal with these -- and we deal with it all the time. we put the onuses on the property owner or the architect to show us documentation that we're wrong. then we just amend the permit to reflect that you're getting that additional squ

we look looing at permitting the of 2018 we'll process every permit up or down. then, that combined with the changes we'll make with this legislation to have outside time period of two years is radically going to transform how be see investment to this package. your leadership has been extraordinary, mr. president has done, the cabinet well putting this back together. president trump: than you very much. he are finished with this meeting you probably won't see it for some reason. will see all about daca they will talking about my remarks which lasted ten seconds this is so important for what we're doing. you like to say, gary? talkedmr. president, we before you got here. this has been a big team effort for the last year. white house and the has been work on put together a plan. we worked with many mayors, governors in the room, many ledge sly taurs we a robust plan to get offing you want over a invest. and a half we are excited to you have launch it here today. we are cook ited to get to work secretary chow said. president trump: ralph, congratulations on your vi

if a permit holder is not operating within the permit conditions, then a citation can be issued. so, that is in addition to some on-street parking violations citations. >> for the benefit of the public, i think i imagine what an administrative citation is, but could you tell us how that works. >> that would be in the permitie is not operating pursuant to the permit conditions, if they're operating on weight restricted streets and we can see that by the data that comes into our system. if they're stopping in locations that aren't allowable. than we can follow up administratively as well as sending out taxi investigators to investigate the behavior. we'll be looking at the data as the data comes into the office on the actual specific trips and where the vehicles are driving, the gps /* /- /* gps /- /* g.p.s. data will flow. they may not be complying with the permit program. >> i think that my primary concern is that i want to make sure that the companies that we're working with here are held accountable. i have this concern that what is happening out there, the rotation of drivers