the engineers. if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be

the engineers. if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be submitted so our engineers would have the ability to review that. i didn't bring an engineer with me tonight. a kind of is all engineering but i did not bring a d.b.i. engineer with me. the question is an engineering question and i would not be qualified to answer that question. >> the thing that is riding is that there is a claim that there was, a long time ago, and far far away, a set of plans that people relied upon for these two buildings and then, as the appellant states, there suddenly is a new set of plans which differs from the original set of plans that was submitted. so this is the only thing that is concerning. and it would be, seemingly, again speaking fro

i'm here to report on the code enforcement activity at d.b.i. for the month of october. building inspections performs, 6,159. as you can see, it was a very busy month. >> oh, really. >> complaints received, 491. complaints responded to 48 or 72 hours, 476. complaints received and abated without n.o.v., 241. abated complaints with notice of violation, 73. second notice of violations referred to code enforcement, 40. housing inspection services, house inspections formed, 1,041. complaints received, 388. complaint response within 24 to 72 hours, 385. complaints with notice of violations issued, 158. abated complaints with n.o.v.'s, 361. number of cases sent to director's hearing, 344. routine inspections, 154. code enforcement, number of cases sent to director's hearing, 74. number of order abatements issued, 20. number of cases under advisement, eight. number of cases abated, 87. code enforcement inspections performed, 307. nothing -- nothing was referred to the litigation committee, and we did send one to the city attorney's office for action. >> thank you. >>clerk: is th

accounting. >> perfect. >> on the other two questions, in terms of resource c constraints -- so -- the d.b.i. staff is fully participating. we have an excellent business sponsor in ron tom. so if the project needs anything from the business, we generally just go and ask the business ourselves, but if there are any challenges that we need help with, ron tom is our go-to person in that area, and he helps on u helps out, and he's available to us every single day as our business s business sponsor. in addition, accela, they have added their staff when we need it, and p.r.o. which would be a combination of department technology and d.b.i. -- additional d.b.i. staff, apart from this morning's announcement with the departure of sean, we are fully staffed there, as well. so we're not hampered by any resource constraints at this point. and then, the last question in terms of process and requirements, yes, requirements are frozen. they've been frozen. we wrapped up the design discussions, which was the last opportunity to introduce anything that hadn't been discussed through all the rounds of requirem

the preapplication meetings and d.b.i. are very good process. they are one of the best deals that you can have. you can talk about your upcoming project and you can get code questions answered. whether you need sprinklers, what will be the requirements for fire ratings, et cetera. in this case i have never seen a preapplication meeting processed and use that term legal number of dwelling units. the preapplication process was abused here. i do recognize we do have ab 28 i have never, in my history of looking at preapplication meetings, seen a number of dwelling units decided at a pre application meeting. i have spoken to the gentleman who had done that us after the meeting with the fire department and i spoke to him today he is semiretired so he is hard to get a hold of every day. at this current time. i am looking at -- i have spoken to the city attorney office and i'm in the plan just process of looking into the preapplication meeting to see -- i just don't think that we should be at a pre application meeting looking back on c.f.c.s 30 years ago

then the d.b.i. inspector under this would have to verify complaints if there had been a violation and someone took corrective action. >> right. there would be a follow-up inspection to see that the corrective action was carried out. >> supervisor k. tang: okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor a. safai: one of the things we added, if you look on page 3 of the ordinance. it says the n.o.v. shall require the owner or owner's authorized representative have to apply for a permit to bring the existing service back into the area of compliance with the code. so not only do they have to, administrative fine, they actually as part of n.o.v. have to apply for, we added that language, they actually have to go through the process of applying for a permit. they can't just pay the fine and make it go away. that's another tool that both planning and building can work together on this issue. that was one of the major changes we added. >> supervisor k. tang: okay, and then also however, the regular trigger still apply

you get the sign-off from the city, get the sign-off from d.b.i. and d.c.p., i mean, to what extent can we be overseers of the planning process, the d.b.i. process? i say to you, that's ridiculous. and the final criteria, is there an injury to the public in this matter? there's absolutely no injury. is there an injury to us? there's a huge injury. we've been fighting in courts. normally you go through the administrative process, then when that fails, you go to the legal process. that's what normally happens. not in chernoff's case. so what i'm putting to you is this pure retaliation, it's documented in the hearing, the a.a.b. hearing. it's absolutely clear that that's retaliation. they said it's retaliation, and it's retaliation in the -- i have 18 e-mails. there have been some more arrived. there's 18 e-mails from the neighbors that support us. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: okay, thank you. is there public testimony in support of the project? okay. >> no. >> president hillis: d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> i'll keep my com

we could accept the application before having the d.b.i. permit. we could go through the site selection, the noticing, all that, all those procedures before they receive their d.b.i. permit. >> supervisor a. safai: maybe through the chair, could i ask deputy city attorney? mr. givner, do we need to make that an amendment or could that be done through the process of d.p.w. >> i think you do not need to make that amendment in the ordinance itself. >> supervisor a. safai: okay, thank you. that's it. >> supervisor k. tang: all right, thank you very much. so with that, seeing no other questions, comments from colleagues, we will go to public comment on item 4. any members of the public wish to speak, come on up? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues could we get a motion on item 4? >> supervisor j. kim: i would like to make a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor k. tang: i would like to note president malia cohen has joined us today. but first we will jump back to agenda item 1, please. 1.180282 [de

the director. this is a new process by d.b.i. sf-dbi new process retains the reviewer's responsibility to the director in align with the number of jurisdictions that the contractor -- that the contract directly with reviewers attach the clause for the project sponsor. previously the city of san francisco procedures for procurement of professional service have not been suited to directly contracting with consulting engineers. and reviewers instead contracted with the project sponsor. the revie rears are, nonetheles, responsible and under the directions of the director. so the change to this is that we contract directly through the peer review group down. the engineers -- the engineer records is solely responsible for the construction contract documents. documents in the reviewer will be retained as part of the fdbi files. each reviewer is selected by the director based on the reviewer's qualifications applicable to the project and considering the availability with the project scale. the director may at his or her discretion consult

it would have given some warning to the people without going onto the d.b.i. site, which i did this morning and found out this is happening. this is the ultimate in sandbagging. both the public, the appellants and the board. i would ask you to continue the decision on this anc, seven a, and see into a new hearing. you can't -- you have to hear me -- me. it is what they did to initially remove the unit and put it in that place for the developed -- for the developer. that is a violation of the planning code and the billing code. is a violation of humanity for loss of housing. so i would ask you to stop, take the testimony. i don't even understand what the time limit is anymore. i asked ms. miss rosenberg yesterday and we refreshed our memory about the amount of time that would be allowed for speaking for the project, for the developer to speak and for rebuttal. is that all washed away? we now have a seven unit presentation and one month minute of rebuttal. explain away what is happening here. because i don't think you should be making a decision this way so fast.

the website. [laughter] >> good morning. i'm a communications director for d.b.i. i wanted to respond to your question, commissioner. it is something that we are developing right now. the website is definitely something that we have had online. i do think, is more focus and -- this has been since beginning of this year, more focus has been on vacant storefronts with supervisor fewer, supervisor ye, there is also some legislation that is looking into possibly providing stricter adherence to the registration requirements for vacant storefronts. we will be doing a number of outreach and marketing efforts on that. whether it is notifying businesses along the corridors. we are trying to figure out with invest the neighborhoods also in how to best do outreach. we unfortunately don't have e-mails as you are saying. it is something that they have to sign up with us and that we use for that purpose only and then also we only have property information. there is about 26,000 of them. >> yes. thank you. >> thank you. >> clearly the vacant storefront is a huge problem and the 50

we'd like to see copies of the permit drawings, and we'd like to have d.b.i. do a correlation either through a site visit or review of the documents with what has been done on-site. >> may i ask a question -- well, first of all, mr. kern, can you step up. just trying to alleviate a car crash here, which is probably going to happen any way, so what the heck. how -- the new permits -- the permits that were suspended or -- and administratively flushed down the toilet earlier this evening, when -- those have been reapplied for at this point? >> yes. >> vice president swig: all right. based on typical timing or your own vision of possibilities, when do you see those permits probably getting appealed? >> as soon as they're issued. as soon as they're issued. >> vice president swig: so i can see what's going to happening. i think if they issue them, we're going to appeal them, but think cleaned up the language as far as the verbiage. that was the reason they put down for the cancellation. >> vice president swig: regardless of that, you probably pretty much see that the

the approval was just for site permit as you know the addenda still has to come into d.b.i. for review and building code and structural review title 24 and anything else that's part of that package. the building was to convert the single family residents to a two-unit residents with a horizontal and vertical addition. they're going to add fire sprinkler system throughout the whole building under a separate permit. as you know, the family in the building code is an r-3 occupancy. it's till an r3 under the california building code. it's going from three-storeys to four-storeys. most of the discussion was about the planning department and the planning codes and the objections. there was one building code issue that has been brought up and i think the architect addressed it and his comments and i would agree with them on that. the discussion about the exiting to the public way, you can't exit through the rear yard under the two-unit building. we have an information sheet at d.b.i. it's eg2 and it would probably be better to read it out. it will clarify what they are going to do o

so the planning department has to step up and tell d.b.i. cannot automatically approve tentative they have to go to the planning department and they have to pay attention to what fees might be the responsibility of the owner of the building that will go into them. the building where the planning department is, 1650, not an office use and the planning department has to do a little bit of research. they have the ability to dot research, i don't. hey, pay attention, i don't think people should go into office use where they can make a lot of money charging high rent and not impose fees that allow us to give better transit in the city muni and housing and child care and any other fees. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i guess question for the director. i just heard what ms. hester said. these will stay offices, i imagine. >> where we disagree with ms. hester is we believe and through

and this is an appeal to the site per permit, d.b.i. has approved that as an area of safe dispersal. the environment for egress to the public way is not required here. yes, we did have an error on our -- with the curb cut in the first and the middle. it was pointed out and we immediately changed it and as you know, there's been numerous -- there have been an enumerate number of meetings and we tried to make the drawings and as accurate in possible and we showed a curb cut. it was not meant to mislead anyone. i courage you not to take the appeal and approve the project as submitted. i am going to turn the podium over now to brett gladstone. thank you. >> good evening, brett gladstone. >> and appellant gardener is correct that the rear would be eliminate and three or more bedrooms are lost and the renovated building would not reach the depth of the other buildings. which i will show you in a few minutes. not even the adjacent building oen the other side of our building is substantially deeper than our existing building today. i wanted to a

the plan was subjects quently reviewed by the planning department and issued by d.b.i. in february 2016. that permit was not appealed. as was mentioned, the permit holder was going through an additional subdivision process after the site permit had been issued when at that time they discovered the n.s.r. on their property regarding the original variance from 1970. as is mentioned in the letter and the briefs, because the variance actually provided variances to specific code controls for the property at 3030 larkin street and did not grant variances to 898 north point street, our on-line record provided variance information for larkin street property but it did not show up on the 898 north point street property, so that is why staff did not see that. and ultimately it was not brought to our attention until after the site permit had been issued, and it was clear that pera condition of approval for that 1970 variance, there was this 30 feet set back open space requirement at the rear of 898 north point. just quickly, that variance as it was described was required because of

is a project the developer is looking at d.b.i. is looking at the thing that it would require to get the housing built and is deciding not to. you guys can use the stick of the condition use and force them to try to figure out how to build housings. so long as it is project by project decision making why not, i would support building housing on his site. you should think through why they made that decision. what can due to make sure we are not doing the same rodeo over and over. the economics and policies make sure they are choosing housing every time. sure, it is a condition use. squash whole foods, i don't really care. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, research analyst. i want to concur with the neighbors on this being inappropriate for the neighborhood and concur with union brothers and sisters, this is an inappropriate employer to bring to this town. 50 units versus eight units of housing seems easy in terms of comparison, we are talking about a company known for opposition to collective bargain

d.b.i. potentially partnering with the merchant district association to help track vacancies. this last slide shows examples of our services that are covering the continuum of needs of small business owners. i would like to invite each of these organizations plus an additional organization to speak a minute about the service that they are providing on this continuum. after that, we welcome any questions do any of these organizations, or to what we brought up in the slides, or any small business issues that you would like to bring up. let's start with met up with credit counselling. >> hello. our agency, what we do is make sure that we -- our clients are ready to take a debt or take on a loan to start their own small business. or to suspend their -- expand to their own small business. we have been focusing on credit counselling. we do have different ways through credit negotiations, with collections, or we help a lot -- we work a lot with people who don't have credit established yet. we help them open a secured credit card or things like that. we also help people do their taxes

so these projects are all in the process of getting their site permits issued through d.b.i. >> supervisor safai: so by the time -- as long as they've pulled their first site permit 18 months after their planning commission approval, then they would fall under the -- and how many of these, as you've negotiated this new time, less than 30 months, have you spoken to all the different project sponsors? and how many of these do you think will be able to meet the 18-month deadline? >> we have not looked into all the sponsors since coming up with this 18-month compromise, but in our analysis, we think there are four to six projects that will not make the 18-month deadline. >> supervisor safai: do you know which ones those are? >> sure, i believe it's 651 geary street, 1515 south van ness, 519 ellis street, 2140 market, and then possibly 524 howard and 430 main. >> supervisor safai: can you say that again slower? 430 main, i got it. >> 430 main, 524 howard. >> supervisor safai: wait a second, please. >> sure. >> supervisor safai: 524 -- okay. >> 2140 market. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> 519 elli

chrisly exists a 3 foot, 3 inch side setback and this setback provides an egress to the right-of-way as required by d.b.i. code and fire and safety code. the project brief document incrementally states that this is 2 feet, 9 inches. it is 3 feet, 3 inches in width and running the entire length of the existing building. the brief states in this right-of-way was maintained, there would still be two units in the project, but the amount of bedrooms would be recreased. the favoring of extra bedrooms in exchange of removal of existing fire and safety egress is unconscionable. further more t project brief also states that there is no reason to keep the egress. i think that is explicitly false. i can think of four reasons walking and talking in my house to keep compliant with city fire and safety codes. they may not be important for profit, but they are important to me. the egress exists -- the proposed project is a remodel, not a new build. the egress should be enforced according to the existence and leaving it is not code compliant, it can be grandfathered in under this remodel project. why the project would s

the contingency. little bit of changes with d.b.i. in terms of their code code interpretation. want to remind or refresh on the contract close out status and methodology. close out process involves these main bullet points. we need to be in receipt of the warranties. the punch list must be completed and accepted commissioning and training systems completed and then full and final close out change orders for all the various trade packages associated with webcor's work. in terms how we're progressing through that, i think the work to complete list is a few thousand items. many which are accomplished by wewebcor. we're starting to close out the punch list items. in summary fashion, where we stand in terms of the 42-43 trade packages associated with the project, we're at cusp closing out 10 trade packages. we're just buttoning up the full and final closeout change order resolving whatever remaining issues with webcor and the associated trade package subcontractor. seven trade packages will be nearly the same position. however, their activity is being protracted by the girder issue.