d.b.i. of about $400 which, you know, we can work with the customer on that potentially when they come to see us. so permit signed off and we have compliance, the stairs is complete, and we are ready to close out the case pending the payment of these departmental costs. and i think that it's before you simply because the appeal was filed just before the permit was signed off. any questions? >> do they still want to have -- >> based on their appeal it sounds like they're petitioning on relief of the costs. >> was it fair to say that there were delays with the complexity of going to the different departments while they were trying to do the right thing? >> i think that initially the delay was on their part because if the n.o.v. was issued in february, and they didn't file for a permit until july, there's five months right there that, you know, the permit wasn't filed. they were given 30 days to file the permit. so they went beyond that. the case was referred to code enforcement because they ha

d.b.i. staff who responded immediately to the four-alarm north beat fire on the night of st. patrick's day which made the press. quite an extensive fire there where thankfully ended well with no loss of life. the department is awaiting the owner's engineering report to see what will be required to repair of that building. so looking forward to hearing the update on that. with regard to director and other d.b.i. staff who met with supervisor kathy tang on the implementation time line and deadline for the new accessible business entrance program, per request from the small business community and the slow response rate to the initial d.b.i. notification to more than 12,000 property owners likely to be in this new a.b.e. program. the supervisor is receptive to extending once more the initial compliance checklist deadline to date beyond the may 23, 2018 required in the current ordinance. d.b.i. staff will provide b.i.c. with the extended data once we hear from the supervisor, so thank you to her

d.b.i. if the costs and the delays and the added work were necessary for public safety we would consider the proposal more favorably. however, we have seen no evidence that that actually exists. >> mr. harris. >> to the point there in regards that you actually have the mechanisms in place to show where your danger areas are, would you concur or disagree? have you seen this book? >> yeah, i concur. it's very clear where the problems occur. >> yeah. and what would be the problem -- i'm not making that 25% connection and you know where the problems are. the chances are that it's going to be -- if i have a project in this area it's going to be in it no matter what. so if i have a project -- okay, one map says you're in it and then this is the policy and procedures going forward, what's -- why are we pushing back so hard against the 25%? >> the reason that we would pushback is, first of all, that it affects a very large proportion of the city, many of which -- much of which is not unstable. and,

finally, d.b.i. continues to work closely with the city administrator's staff on the new applied technology tall building study which is expected to be completed in september 2018. no updates to this report at this time, but we will provide b.i.c. as we receive them. and thank you. that completes our tall building review process and update and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. what other major policies and changes -- are still on process, would you regard? i mean, i can see a lot there and the pool there is fortunate have, the secondary pool there available to us going forward -- >> if you recall from last year there were a number of strategic moves that we could take as a requirement, some of it is at a low level in terms of making sure that we retain the proper records through the review -- design review process. and that was done immediately with a memo and changes in our processes and procedures at that time. some of this has been at a higher level,

d.b.i. and to talk about the inspectors and to go through the plans and to see what was approved both by planning and d.b.i. i mean, i think that is a very important part of this process that needs to happen. then there are projects thought who have egregiously exceeded the permits and they need to be dealt with. so i think that it's important that we keep it consistent that, you know, we need to get all of the facts first before we necessarily condemn every project that we see that we feel has exceeded its permits without getting all of the facts on the table for us. i think that is important. as a builder it's a very difficult thing out there sometimes to do these buildings where there needs to be an understanding between d.b.i. and planning that sometimes the permit -- we need to sit down and discuss this and communicate to everybody what needs to be done to make these buildings more seismically safe and fireproof and so on and that's what is happening out there in a lot of cases. in othe

joe duffy, d.b.i. the building permit under appeal addition of two units on the first floor per ordinance 3-15 seismic application is referenced on a 2015 permit. the permit was reviewed by housing inspection services, building inspection, city planning as you heard, building department plan check, and also went through mechanical plan check, fire department, d.p.w., and our central permit. it was filed on the 11th of january, 2016, issued on the 11th of january 2018. and suspended on the 19th of january. the only issues that i felt was brought up that had a building department issue and if i can get the overhead please. put that up a little bit. so on grid line four, on the plans, and grid line six, if you see the existing first floor plan, we have a solid wall going on totally along grid line four. and along grid line six. and on the new floor plan, we have windows now installed and doorways and one doorway, window, and window, and a door. and then on this side on the back here there are two windows

planning approved the permit in december of this past year in d.b.i. then issued the permit in january of this year. i'm available for any questions. >> mr. teague, i noticed in planning there were four commissioners so there was barely a forum. >> yeah. >> so three didn't show up. so the other thing is from the back of the property so the other is 48 feet? >> yeah. >> commissioner: so it's not the light and air more the view of the sun? >> to that point, the residential design guidelines does not protect light and air onto other buildings. it's really in the rear it's about protecting light and air into a cohesive open space and issues relate to view whether it's the bay or sun or whatever are generally not protect. >> commissioner: last question, for clarity, there's no shadow or 3-d rendering required for this, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner: mr. teague, the appellant talked a little bit in his brief about the height limit. what does the department say about that? >> sure. and this is confusing because there's often two separate heights. there

number of really local people not just regional people to have that inspection so we are working with d.b.i. and the mayor's office on disability to see if we can also utilize some of this funding to help do a certification program locally one time. we will continue to utilize the funding to help our businesses with the c.a.s.p. program as well. but it will be roughly, four times more money than what we had been receiving each year so, this is something that it's nice we will have these funds to help our businesses get through the process of the accessible business program. >> president adams: great. thank you. any more questions for director dick-endrizzi. let's open it up to members of the public. do we have any public who would like to comment on the director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. any other comments? commissioner dooley? >> you probably heard we had a large fire in north beach, recently, which destroyed about six businesses. >> excuse me, commissioner dooley but we haven't closed out -- >> president adams: we are still on director's reports. >> i thought this m

d.b.i. and planning are authorized to enforce the code not waive the code. these have arisen after our rebuttals or the hearing. if no one could have affected the outcome pop the architect's measurements and elevation wrong. thank you. >> the clerk: we can hear from the permit holder next. you have six minutes. >> good evening. president fung. i'm the holder. they have not provided new facts which on the board meeting march 7 could have affected. i ask the appeal be denied. >> the clerk: is there departmental questions? >> planning department start. briefly, again, i don't see any new information being provided. the issue related to the survey was discussed. and to clarify the planning code did not require a survey to be conducted or provide for this permit. generally it's only required for new construction for a building code and not planning code but i'm available for any questions you may have. >> the clerk: thank you. now we'll take public comment, sir, if you'd like to speak, you can. >> public comment on this topic or any -- >> the clerk: on this topic

also in that regard, they actually very quickly set up a concrete plant which is in violation d.b.i. issued a notice in that regard, so that's been stopped. and since then, though, a lot of activity in terms of discussion with the private report owner. and they have indicated in essence a willingness to allow us to start the environmental testing we need to as required per the environmental document, so we are pursuing that right now. we are going ahead and working with our consultants to go ahead and come up with the planning and get them out there to perform the appropriate archaeological testing, as well as hazardous materials testing. survey crews out there, spot checks on utilities, due diligence for the engineering work we need to go ahead and this will inform the appraisal. ordered an appraisal. so moving positively in that regard. so, even though the bad news is u.p. railroad sold it but ultimately we have an entity we are working with a little more collaboratively in that regard. so, what lies ahead in terms of future abbing -- activities, come up with an appraisal, that wil

plus monitoring fee, accruals of $145, and there will be a final assessment at closure of the case at d.b.i about

curb cut usage and that component remained part of the permit and was approved november 17, 2017 and d.b.i. issued the permit november 30 of 2017. that conclude my presentation. i'm available for any questions you have. >> i have one. so when you're department -- so first, there's no rear yard set back requirement? >> it does have a year -- rear yard. >> doesn't it mean there's a variance. it moves to the terrace? >> you're open space can be provided on balconies, terraces or decks. >> and just a question, the permit holder said he worked extensively with planners then it blows up at the commission. how does that happen? >> the majority of the time the department and the planning commission agree on matters of design and in our situations where there are agreements aand >> this is not a disagreement. this is black and white. >> the d.r. was not to disapprove the project overall and not allow any development there. it was to modify what was proposed in a way they felt was appropriate in admittedly an unusual lot. >> thank you. >> and we can move into public comment. may i see a show of hand

> commissioner richards: a comment on one of the members of the public that surprised me with that d.b.i. issued a demo notice and that the department said no demo was needed. that's backwards from what the narrative has been. i'm surprised it happened twice. it could be happening for a good reason. i don't know. can't wait until we have demolition with strong enforcement, but i would love the department to look in and verify that that was the case. completely agree with the basket of costs, mr. david. i didn't want to misrepresent your position and you stated it very well. one of the things, and i think, too, the building trades council, all this stuff goes into why isn't housing getting built? and part of it is, safe housing. so if the building code needs to be changed or we can find a cheaper way to do it, doesn't meet code, we have to figure that out. i will use mr. david's metaphor, but the basket of things to talk about on wye housing isn't getting built. and maybe it is because things are preventing it. a couple of things. when i talk to developers -- and i want to throw this in t

there is an enforcement act from d.b.i. point of view, but looks like the planning department never knew about it. it's listed today for quite a bit of money. >> commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: echo the request for a little bit more information on the affordable housing measure. make sure we, especially us, clear what we are looking at and the public is looking at if we are trying to move affordable housing forward, what are we really looking at as far as this language. as far as vacancies go, wonder if we could do a small case study, not to pick on or pick out projects, i was down in the dog patch and going past the project approved, it's complete, i'm curious for that project specifically, is it fully occupied, is it half occupied, a quarter occupied? we hear on a weekly basis we need to move it forward faster and faster. what about the projects done, full, 100% capacity, i think it would be a good indicator where we are really at as opposed to just thinking we know where we are at. also i wanted to bring up

and they've been there for us and it's primarily d.b.i. inspectors working on behalf of the tjpa who is the authority having jurisdiction, as well as some incidental special inspections and they've been at the ready and they're out there pretty much every day. you know, incidentally there was -- i understand on sunday at midnight we got an email informing us of a concrete pour on monday morning and we had a special inspector there to support the activity. so we've got a solid commitment and team to respond and to support the plan that's rolled out by webcore to get us where we need to be by june 15th. >> okay. well, i appreciate both of your efforts on this. i think that you somewhat pointed it out but then there's the good, fun part of the presentation and you have the more challenging one and i appreciate as the c.e.o. of the company your direct involvement and engaging with the principals of the key subs. it sounds like that has been helpful and the numbers of bodies that you're getting on to the job sound like what's needed. so from --

could we please, when we have a joint hearing with d.b.i., take some of these and walk through exactly what happened and go this would have been a demolition, but it is not a demolition. so, it just -- it would clear the air. there could be -- some of these may not be demolitions because there was one i reported to the zoning administrator that was a bunch of the two by fours left, but none of the walls -- those were walls. they weren't removed. but everything else was gone. i really want to -- i think for the public and for ourselves, we owe it to ourselves to really understand this a little bit better and seeing these every week not only makes me mad but also makes me curious to how these things happen. >> and whether they were tantamount to demo. there are rules. we'll do that. ok, jonas. sorry. additional public comments. my apologies. >> hi. steven boss with mission m.b. i sent all of you an e-mail, i think it was yesterday, unfortunately not to commissioner johnson because your e-mail is not up on the website. it showed -- could i have the projector please? i've come up for the p

jonas, have we confirmed a date for the joint d.b.i.? >> we did.we just heard back from my counterpart at the b.i.c. and we agreed to april 12. >> ok. so, we'll talk about demo calcs and rules during that hearing. but that is calendar notices will go out appropriately. commissioner richards? >> i guess we've had a couple of members of the public last week and this week talk about the pipeline. do you have any quick sense of -- that it is indeed going off a cliff? >> i would suggest that's a bit of an exaggeration that it is going off a cliff. we saw a drop of applications in the middle of 2016 and then an increase in application in the last quarter of 2017. so i'm happy to bring those numbers to you to look at those. >> great. >> and just to remind the public that the commission did review and generally agree with how the pipeline report is portrayed. i think we had just last week or two weeks ago about that very issue. that information will be in more detail as well. thank you. >> if there's nothing further, move on to item eight for connect s.f.