i understand d.b.i. has issues in that regard. >> we drew the building up, existing eight-foot door proposed because that's the standard door. we said existing proposed because we weren't changing anything. when we did the door removal, because fire said we wanted the corridor out, and building said the same thing but they took fire's lead. preservation said when you take out the door maybe you can resenter the door and maybe it eight feet. we went to make the change, we poured the foundation so we couldn't make it eight feet, we could only make it 7' 6" because we only had three foot tolerance. so it's not eight feet. >> okay >> that's all we have. >> do you represent that was not shown on the plans? >> existing as proposed because we weren't changing anything. >> okay. that's all the issues that have been raised and all the issues that i have. so thank you, commissioners for allowing me that time. >> it was very helpful. >> thank you. >> if i might add one more thing. i did go to meet with mr. hernande

did d.b.i.verstep its bounds by revoking the permit permits in a completed project based on most minor discrepancy between the work that was done in the work that we showed at the outset of the project? as i'm sure you probably know from past experience, these types of discrepancies are dealt with routinely time and time again in a revision permit at the end of a project to have the plans reflect what actually was built. as we demonstrated in our briefs and exhibits, permit revocation is extraordinarily rare. happening only a few times per year, only one or two times per year if you take away the revocation of this board and by the planning department. those this one or two times per year were extraordinary cases. demolitions without permits, or work being done when the owner hasn't approved the work to be done. not and never, and all the documents that were produced by public records requested by this board to d.b.i. and to planning, never has there been a revocation of permits for minor violat

d.b.i. staff provided detailed information on programs including seismic retrofits, a.d.u.s accessible business entrance as well as responding to questions about building safety. also thanks to the director for hosting the department's annual all-staff meeting october 31st, where commissioner walker and i attended. we provided a view of the d.b.i. programs and the accomplishments of the hardworking staff. it includes the update on the new permit center now under construction at 49 south vanness which we will have more update on that and impressive numbers of inspections the past year. the commission joins director in thanking and applauding the d.b.i. staff recognized for many years of professional service to customers and to the city and county. throw employees have over 30 years service including director hughie and deputy director sweeney. another four are celebrating 25 years and seven are celebrating 15 years of city and d.b.i. service. the department and city benefit tremendously from

the d.b.i. programs and the accomplishments of the hardworking staff. it includes the update on the new permit center now under construction at 49 south vanness which we will have more update on that and impressive numbers of inspections the past year. the commission joins director in thanking and applauding the d.b.i. staff recognized for many years of professional service to customers and to the city and county. throw employees have over 30 years service including director hughie and deputy director sweeney. another four are celebrating 25 years and seven are celebrating 15 years of city and d.b.i. service. the department and city benefit tremendously from the highly skilled and experienced employees. the commission joins the director in thanking you for the outstanding performances. the d.b.i. employee recognition committee received nine nominations for employee of the quarter, three that includes july, august and sept. we selected senior inspector paul ortiz for his outstanding performance.

d.b.i.. >> correct. >> any other points of discussion? okay. is there a motion? >> so i move to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for six months, during which time any life safety issues are resolved while the tenant is in the building. and that fees and penalties are halted hence forward -- >> suspended? >> suspended, hence forward. >> the city attorney? >> hi. >> can we get clarification from the department what fees would be accruing in that time period? >> okay,. >> what is at issue is the assessment of cost, not penalties. i think there is a monthly monitoring fee -- >> $5 a month50 a month. >> what are the costs that have accrued to date? >> about $3,000. >> so in the scope of this project, that is quite nominal. >> okay. >> and do we have the capacity to not have these inadequate fixes, like a blowing tarp -- >> that would be a life safety issue -- if there are leaks or anything that is -- i mean, i don't know how we describe that, but... >> well, if in the course of

d.b.i.'s position regarding the property has remain unchanged since our initial complaint inspection on also time or 207 th, 2019. we want the permits to reflect the actual conditions of the address and the work that has been performed. we received a complaint about the property and responded to that complaint. we found the work had been completed but it was not on the permits, including but not limited to windows installed in the rear of the building, reroofing and installation of skylights, construction of a ground-floor level deck in the backyard, removal of garage level exit corridors, and foundation and replacement and excavation. when we examined the permits, we found there were misrepresentations throughout all sets of plans. under normal circumstances, after getting a stop work order, the property owner or their agent would work with us and attempt to resolve the issues. these are not minor violations. these are clearly not normal circumstances. the property owners' engineer permit ex

he approved the permit denied by two d.b.i. employees. first over counter denial occurred on november 19th. you have a copy of a december memo inquiring into the unusual set of events. the second employee who does not work in the area denied the permit and issued comments for the whole description on the december 12th copy of the permit. you have a copy. as of december 17, 2019, the second denial of comments have been removed for pts. this is a plug forgetting acella working. you have the facts. it is up to the inspection commission to decide if senior management acted correctly and if policy changes should be made and internal controls over permit revocations and over-the-counter permit approvals need to be approved. thank you very much. have a great holiday. >> thank you. this will be passed along. >> any additional public comment? seeing none. item four. commissioner's questions and matters. a. inquiries to staff. at this time commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies and practices and procedures,

they continued the item to allow them to work with d.b.i.e complete plans and establish a path forward. item 3, annual report, lastly, the board heard and adopted their annual report and the department will forward the final version of the report to the commission when it becomes available. seeing no questions, we can move onto general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded. each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. i have two speaker cards. >> thank you. christy evans and georgia. anyone else who wishes to come up and provide general public comment, you may do so now. >> hi. my name is cricetinae vans. i'm the president of the haight-ashbury merchants association. i'm here to call your attention to 1672 haiti street. -- haight street. you can see a headline that appeared that

sometimes for the sake of clarity one dominant agency which sounds like it would be d.b.i. takes the primary role and delegates appropriately. it may facilitate that desirable improvement in customer experience, and certainty as to how do i do this? who did i go to first? i do think that would be something that would be worth trying to evaluate so that our goal of good customer experience really happens. the second question, you know, i hope blue beam works as well as possible. we are experiencing some concerns about some of our technology efforts right now, but my only other question is what happens when things go down? where we don are the potential e fields? >> on the cueing system, it is cloud based. it is constantly reaching when it goes down and when it comes back up it only happened once since early august. you don't lose the data. it stops you from getting in the line while it is down. blue beam i don't know the answer to that question for blue beam but i can look into it and get back to you. were you talking about any other types of systems. >> okay. again, i don't

two of the applications are actually in d.b.i. and signed off but are sitting in dpw. they will not be out by the first. what happens there? >> we keep appealing to public works to see if they can come up with a little more efficient system to move this along. i will say that kevin jenson, the public works staffs does come to these meetings trying to work with agencies to make this happen. we may need to revisit some of the slope-like issues. we know as director pointed out when this first passed is the city has some neighborhoods with a lot of slopes that are greater than 4%, and many of those with probably qualify for technical infeasibility or financial infeasibility. we are trying to work with public works to shrink the total size of the universe so we don't have those properties dragging down the compliance ratio. >> your legislation is not parallel to the timeframe when you go into violation. what happens after the first? you are in violation, right? >> yes, technically that is true. if we are able to introduce this in january, then we can hopefully give people t

so in addition to the fact that d.b.i. would review its normal review -- perform its normal reviews in the reviewing process, we have the right to go to court if they don't remediate right away. >> president melgar: okay. okay. so i had -- i'll say a couple things. i heard folks' comments, and i totally emotionally agree with wanting an extra pound of flesh. i think that it really bugs me that people are so dismissive of our regulatory infrastructure. we live in a very tight seven-by-seven miles. it's a complicated thing, so that people just kind of skirt the law with impunity really, really bugs me. that said, i know that our city staff is excellent. having worked with them in a coup -- for a couple of decades prior to this, i know we have some of the toughest laws ever. i do know this is a deal that's worth approving. that being said, you know, it's also, for me, an issue of timing, and that to me is strategic and important because i think we're in a housing crisis. i think these folks caused some of what we have now, wh

>> d.b.i. has actually done an amazing body of work. it hurts when i go through all the documentation that you've given us. it's an amazing body of work. going to 540 powell, i think it's an amazing body of work, and it would be nice to have the cornice back. i think trying to add that in as a condition at this point would be kind of folly. i just think to the staff's point, the academy of art, and the legal team -- i know they've gone through a number of legal teams. i'd like to thank the legal team of the academy of art who brought this over the finish line, and thank you to staff. >> thank you. >> commissioner johns? >> i agree with what commissioner foley just said. >> great. commissioner black? >> i do, too. i think the -- the staff work has been phenomenal and involved multiple departments, obviously many multiple buildings, a lot of moving parts, a lot of issues, so i congratulate everybody for being able to pull that together because that's very complicated. also, i -- i concur -- thank you for the academy of art team that final

why did one of the most senior building inspectors at d.b.i. sign off on three certificates of completion on the very same day for the very same building showing the building to have zero, one, and two basements. i commend the planning commission's 18 july decision to restore the three units. the decision is fair and consistent with the commission's policy to require bad actors to put the building back the way it was. the proposal to pay $250,000 in lieu of creating three units of needed housing -- >> thank you. >> -- is ridiculous. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i ask you to stand by your july decision and i oppose the request of these builders. their behavior has set a poor example of proper building procedure. i ask that they pay a fine of $250,000 in return for getting out of the planning commission's july decision. it's shocking that they should be allowed to decide what sized fine they should pay. i think their plea of financial ruin is disingenuous. they lost money because they were in the genuine in the buildin

another challenge is the limit on d.b.i.'s authority to initiate enforcement proceedings. we are not considered an interested party. and therefore we cannot initiate complaints. and we do have the ability to assess penalties for record-keeping violations but not for conversions, which is the main violation of the ordinance. we encounter vacancies in room warehousing, which i can talk more about later, but there's no law that requires hotel owners to rent out their guest rooms. >> my colleagues are about to leave me so there's not going to be a much later, but please proceed. >> okay. that's it. >> what we are dealing with here really is about creating a buffer and amortization period. the reason i've held this hearing today is really to hear from the affected community about what the numbers are so we can figure out what the appropriate amortization period is. and this will not be the only opportunity for this. there will be other opportunities. but i thought it to be important as the sponsor of the 2017 legislation, to figure this out. and i think mr. luten put his finger

update on d.b.i.'s finances. >> good afternoon department at the director. before you is the october 2019 financial report. it includes revenues for july through october. on venues we are about equal to same time last year. $24 million, $23.5 million. last year was 23.8. our revenues are flat or at the same level in the prior year. expenditures. the trend remains this year at $20 million. last year at this time $17 million. that is a reflection of the increases in the budget primarily the services by the departments. we have over $30 million to other departments. that increase is due to the billings for those departments. for the projections for the budget. we are projecting to spend the budget and collect the revenues. we usely wait for six months. i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> 9:00 p.m. update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> i think we have covered all of the key legislative points. i wil will add the board did pas the try tri-annual code that will go in effect in december. on january one it is a new th

additionally, full review of the project by d.b.i. and fire would occur after the potential planning approval. this would ensure no construction occurs until d.b.i. and the fire department have fully vetted the project of any concerns. since the publication of the case report, the department received 25 letters of opposition detailing concerns about the address, density, safety and environmental impact of the project. on balance, the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and necessary and desirable for the city and recommends approval with conditions. while the lot presents challenges, the project maximizes density and is designed with the residential guidelines, creating minimal impacts to adjacent properties. >> thank you. we will hear now from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is troy. i'm the project architect and one of three co-owners. we are seeking conditional use approval for five unites. first the basics about the lot. we have a large lot, almost 8,000 square feet, lar

number of very large sunshine requests, like even for this recent case, they wanted to know all the d.b.i. revocations so ms. sullivan did an excellent job going through everything. but our new system really helped us go back and see which departments we can easily run a number of different types of reports, anything, really, with sales force, you just add different parameters. so it also helped us with the sunshine request for the wireless cases, the civil grand jury asked for all our wireless cases. and no problem, we could whip that out very quickly. and so that's great. what i'm very happy about, the new system is that it creates agendas. so our old systems did not have the capability. so it was actually manually, every time a case was rescheduled, someone had a cut and paste from one word document and put it on another and that was gather, and he was absolutely fantastic. and when he left i was saying how did he do this? because i was doing it and making mistakes. but the new system, unless you don't enter in the system, this wouldn't happen. it's just great. so it keeps track of all

but i'd like to ask joseph barber from d.b.i. up and let's see if we can get at sometime of the things we cannot have the chance to discuss last week. thank you. i will not make any comments about where to put your jacket. >> on ton of the vilers leasing to tourists for nightly stays and operating a hotel they found an additional 13 hotels that were specifically being advertised toe tourists to tour. it is in the northeast corn of the city represented by this supervisor and the supervisor to my left and a hotel that was supposed to be 75% residential and 25% tourist. that listed 100% of all of the units as tourist rentals and another couple of buildings and listed a number of rooms for tourists so the question s. how does the city enforce listings and ensure that residential rooms are not going to tourists? i say that in light of the fact that our short term rental ordinance does not cover s.r.o.s. >> i mean, just broadly, we generally respond to complaints and different hotels suspected of unlawful conversion. there are usual su

i want to remind you, jackie long didn't contact d.b.i. the owner contacted d.b.i. to get violations to wave in her face. he didn't count on her being smart and didn't count on a snarky neighbor to get involved which everybody should count on a snarky neighbor in san francisco. i have been there and watched her raise three children then she raised her husband's grandson. now she is raising a 9-year-old. her daughter is seriously disabled. i know this from what i have witnessed first hand. her own significant disabilities trying to do what is right by her grandson. i will leave one last thing. how much profit does someone have to make. they can accommodate them and make a profit on this building. thank you. >> any further public comment? public comment is closed. >> is there rebuttal? >> commissioner walker. >> this is a hard one because . >> we will do rebuttal for the department first, i'm sorry. department has rebuttal? >> thank you, chief housing inspector. this case touches on a lot of different dynamics in the city right now. real estate speculation replacement

in response to the commission's requests at the august 29, 2019 hearing, they worked with d.b.i.d unit to the project. after a pre-application held on september 24, 2019, it was confirmed that the building classification would need to change from r3 to r2 to accommodate the additional unit, which would in turn require new building system, new fire ratings, elevators, two elevators, dry stand pipes, et cetera, in other words to comply with the standards of an r2 building. i have provided the commission with a copy of the minutes from the pre-application meeting. this includes alterations that are required to bring the structure up to the standards of an r2 building, signed and confirmed by d.b.i. and fire department. it also includes a set of plans that are hand marked to include all the changes that would need to be made as well. there are two sets of full-sized plans in the commission's packets. the one on december 5 is for the existing two-unit structure and the second set is dated august 29, including three unit proposed buildings. that plan would need to be updated to include

i want to confirm that it is your understanding that when they come in for building permits, d.b.i. will refer this to department of public health and department of public health will look at all these issues? >> yes. so if they come in for tenant improvements, they will have to submit a building permit and will subsequently route to different agencyies. >> the standard practice with this, for example, a restaurant or food-related business, it goes from d.b.i. to public health or other agencies that have to be involved. >> right. and public health is familiar with all of these regulatory agencies so we can rely on -- >> yes. we are very confident of their work. they have extensive staff on this issue. >> it seems -- i was one of the folks who was advocating for not restricting the uses. however after further discussions, if i understand correctly, the categorical exemption for something that could potentially have pretty deep environmental consequences because of where it is, the context of where it is. such close proximity to residential and other uses.