. >> an update on dbi. >> good morning, commissioners. good morning, vice president mar and commissioners. today we have a brief item. as requested last month by president hechanova, we're here to provide you a tentative timetable for the plan. we will adjust it as needed. our primary focus right now is on our human resources. that is our dbi staff preparation, education, and training. the goal is to ensure the health and safety of our staff at work and ensure our ability to perform are a disaster response duties effectively integrated with other departments. i have the initial work plan that we have drafted. i put some time lines on that. i could go through that for you, or if you want to pick out anything that you notice, we can discuss that as well. we have tried to be realistic and reasonable in the timeframe given the amount of projects and objectives that we have ahead of us. through the prioritization process, we have made some good improvements in the last 60 days. any questions? commissioner murphy: the disaster service -- what d

i'm here today to keep complaining that dbi, bic, et cetera, are unfair to me. i have said many times, as i have said today, justice delayed is justice denied. anyone of you, including the deputy city attorney here -- have you done any research or any investigation? vivian day has given new her information and it is not complete. i want an investigation by the city attorney, i repeat, and the report of the commissioners. i have just 30 seconds to show you that this was the problem. there were two units, 572 and 572 a. the plan in 2002 was to have an additional units on the third floor , 674. this unit was never built. this is already a violation. how can we have this recognized as a real number? thank you. vice president mar: any other public comment? i just wanted to thank all the people that appeared for public comment. you should know that sometimes we cannot fully discussed these issues because they're not on the agenda. that does not mean they will not be and dicgendized in the futur. that is kind of the process the commission is run. they may be under our

and there was talk about the fact that this -- again, this will get into dbi areas. the final plans will be on file for perusal of the neighbors and others as they are brought together, which i think is standard operating procedure. >> that is not the responsibility of the project sponsor. commissioner antonini: that is a staff issue. but i wanted to make it clear so we know, as you pointed out, and that it will eventually go to dbi to have those available. that is my understanding of the conditions in addition to what the motion originally was. >> the only others i had written down was what i thought was a great idea president olague had. if the project sponsor would consider this potential community liaison at the local level, i think a person of that stature would be tremendous. also, age same respect your neighbors -- signs saying, "respecter neighbors." -- respect your neigbors." commissioner antonini: that would be all right with me. president olague: i think they will, but that is a courtesy. commissioner sugaya: i do not think it is necessary, but if the comm

that is something maybe we should continue it and let dbi figure out. those permits, definitely, are not right. there is no way those windows and doors on the property line should have that -- there is a san francisco building code that lets us revoked a permit when the information on the plans is not correct. so we could revoke that permit and ask them to submit a new permit. that is up to them to submit the new permit. president goh: regardless, you had said because of the distance between the two properties, the with the plans are fodrawn, they cannot go forward. either we can revise and they're stuck for a year, are we lead them so that the problem is taking care of and perhaps -- this is a problem. if your department takes care of it by revision, and the jurisdiction requestor would again have to request jurisdiction, i think. it is that correct? >> no. >> if they have a revision permit, that is appealable. president goh: okay, so they have a chance still. >> the windows would be allowed on the property line, but not for veterans. all of the rooms

if cal-osha cannot stop him and dbi cannot stop him, why do we even need permits? i think it is easier to require him to get one than to figure out a way to make the city safe if no one has to get one. can we spend a little time so we do not have to come back in a month and tell the same story? i have been working with nancy for more than one year. i've never seen such a bad set of plans as what was submitted in 2010 by this building owner/ contractor. the drawings were inconsistent from sheet to sheet. they were signed by an engineer who may or may not have ever seen the plans. some of the plans were photocopied from an earlier set. there's a problem at 23rd ave. the deeper you dig -- he digs -- the more we might find out. it's too late for a slap on the wrist. this has been going on for nine years. the property was bought in 2002 and he immediately began structural work in the house. they did kitchen work without permits. there have been new gas lines without permits. i'm sorry, but the director in this room stood on the deck, -- of the one permit that was comple

item nine, directors report. 9a, update on dbi's

there will be a peer review at dbi. we will get feedback. if the feed back is great and the structural system worked perfectly, we might be able to make some more room. but until we finish that and go through a plan check, which cannot produce anything. that is why i said earlier we are going to go to a plan check process. we are good to submit the process. it takes a lot of detail. when we finish the process, hopefully we will come out the other end with a building permit. if there is the protrusion, i am sure they will appeal and we will see you again. or we will have been able to eliminate it by that time. commissioner hwang: do you understand their complaints about the protrusion? what do you understand it to be? >> actually, i do not. if you walk between those buildings right now, we are going to do better than what it is right now in the back of the building. vice president garcia: is the simple answer that you would lose -- commissioner hwang: i am asking what 50 beale street's problem is. vice president garcia: why can't it be brough

. >> maybe dbi will offer up something. commissioner peterson: you started your argument that this pharmacy will be good for the neighborhood. has there been a change in the business plan? other products other than prescription drugs being sold? >> to my knowledge, there has been no change in this plan. there is going to be prescription drugs. it will be a general pharmacy. i assume they will supply clinics and band-aids, and things of that nature. i do not think they are going to supply more than that. i think the business plan is the same as in my previous brief that i submitted. commissioner peterson: i think one of the concerns with the pharmacy is that it is only dispensing drugs and is not serving the neighborhood with other products. i do not actually see evidence to the contrary of that. >> really, this pharmacy is serving drugs to seniors and disabled in the community, and things like band-aids and kleenex tissues, and things of that nature. but just because the pharmacy is providing drugs does not mean it is going

item nine, directors report. 9a, update on dbi's finances. >> pamela levin. there is not any real remarkable difference between our projection from last month to this month. the revenues come in strongly. primarily, the revenues are in charge for services, but there are the licenses -- the apartment licenses and hotel licenses that come in with the property tax have come in a little stronger than we expected. and we are still showing savings in several areas of expenditures and ending up with a year-end balance similar to last year -- i mean last month. i will be happy to answer any questions. commissioner murphy: have we brought back any new people in the last 30 days? >> we have brought back one payroll per cent, but the mayor's office has released the rest of our requisitions except for the housing inspector positions, so we will be posting those positions up on our website, and those are mostly clerical positions at this point. we are in the process of hiring could we will mechanical engineers. they did interview for that position on monday, and i believe

i know our dbi director is here. fire, police. our dem as well have all been a part of looking at so many programs that we have been able to put together for the effort to make ourselves resilience and to pay attention to the newer area of science beyond response, and that is to help our city and region recover quickly. we know what our role is in terms of the u.s. economy and world economy. as all of you know, we take seismic safety seriously in san francisco. we have been working on so many different programs. our office of emergency management, fire department, first responders all have been preparing for the big one for so long. and we know that the big one is about to come. the percentages increase, as you have informed us. many of you, in your expertise, a 65% chance that in the next 25 years, is what is being predicted. working closely with the fire department, certainly, we have a close relationship with chief white. now i can also reflect with you a strong relationship with a new police chief. who could have known that ju

how would we go about getting the property been -- is that where we look at dpw or dbi? >> somebody at the town hall meeting the other night sent me some info after the meeting as well. we would send an inspector out, and the way we design the process is our inspector will determine which things fall within the admen code, the plight ordinance, and if there are things beyond that that are building code related, we have a process set up. there may be both in these instances, and we would be able to move forward and site immediately based on what is under our jurisdiction, but if we identify building code issues, we would allow that to dbi, and they would send an inspector out. i gave my contact info. he has already followed up. i have already sent it to our inspectors, so they will be checking that out this week. supervisor avalos: very good. great to hear. we will open this item up for public comment. no one coming forward, we close public comment. we move this forward with recommendation without objection. item four please. >> item four, ordinance waiting san francisco

. >> it's important to make a distinction between the local jurisdiction like dbi, who is going to be looking for accessibility upgrades when you do a construction project, whether it's new construction or alteration. but adag, under the ada you still have a responsibility to survey the barriers and start removing them. >> not to meet our standard, but to meet the department of justice standard. >> i understand that. you are not enforcing the ada i think is what you said at the beginning; is that right. >> that's correct. >> so who is going to make sure we're making these e changes? . >> on complaint, i'm sorry to say. . >> as a business owner i would always suggest you document carefully the barriers you have identified and the steps you have taken to remove them so you can demonstrate if somebody ever does actually file a complaint that you have been taking care of business to the extent that you can. >> so being proactive in this is the critical key to success in removing barriers to meet your ada obligation. tom, one of your favorite elements here, we have a fire department pipe s

dbi seems to say there is nothing and no wrong with the renewal permits. we saw the renewal permits to clean up the paper work. we did not follow any code or express written policies triggered if there were not any grounds to -- policies. there were not any grounds to revoke a. it is really an issue for vanilla -- for the alj. we are saying it should not be revoked. thank you 3 much. >> this thought they could never do anything to the policies -- this body could never do anything to the policies of the planning commission. in your brief, you indicated you felt the property owner should have gotten notice. can you elaborate on anathema -- on that? >> there are three elements of the notus arguments. the first is the planning department has agreed and it is their policy to notify if they consider a sign to be abandoned. apparently they first learned it was possible sign was abandoned over a year before they issued a notice of violation, so one of our issues was that it did not seem as though either if the request that the planning department was following its

this would be similar to the development legislation passed last year that would require dbi to collect and monitor the fee and the actual installation before we sign off on a final certificate of occupancy. i have worked with both the public arts commission and the planning department on this legislation, and we are in agreement with the concept to make it easier for people or developers to pay all of their fees in one general location, so we are working very closely with this and monitoring it very closely. commissioner walker: this is of particular interest to me. i chaired the san francisco arts council where we discussed the issue, made recommendations that they do some of what they are doing. in the c3 area downtown, there is an art development fee in all private developments. 1% goes to create art on-site. the problem is that nobody manages this. nobody has any idea what actual pieces of art are actually created as a result of this. and this actually goes a step further in allowing for wider use within the framework of the money where it can actually be used not just for creating

>> the motion as earlier stated was to prove that the permit holder would have to prevent dbi and planning with actual costs. >> with that, there is a consequence. i just want to get consequence with the record. there would be a corresponding increase in the feet that should have been made to the city. >> i think it that would be up to the permitting parliament to assess. >> i don't think they could issue a fine in that regard. >> i just want to make sure that is the natural consequence. if i can hit mr. duffy to confirm that with me. i would be more inclined to vote for this. >> there is actually no penalty for that apart from paying the additional fees, which would be issued. this makes them get another permit to pay the additional fees. there is no penalty. the penalty is what the fees are. >> the differential. >> an alternative would be to get it amended or to get a new parliament that is proper. -- permits that is proper. >> this would be $62,000 according to what they have and what we have. >> that is fine. got it. thanks. >> do you believe that that process could be handled through

she did in fact call dbi prior to may 24, and was told that the permit was already in existence at that time. but that permit was for the laundry. so she got that information. she was told she must be mistaken because there was already a permit. the third of all the places in san francisco to try to put in a new pharmacy, wide this neighborhood? if there is any neighborhood that is not needed pharmacy, this is that neighborhood. they would sell over $10 million worth of drugs in their first year and net over $476,000 in profit. this is certainly not the way to go about that. this boards has the authority under the law to revoke the permit because bay drugs proceeded in bad faith. this pharmacy will impact of the neighborhood. we're not talking about the marina. i have presented evidence to demonstrate that. i have presented law-enforcement evidence that connects prescription drug trafficking with increased crime. thank you for your patience, thank you for hearing the case. >> in the brief, they talk about mom's pharmacy and they would expand and that would mean that they are going to in

formally the differdeputy direcr of dbi was the speaker. he expects the big one to be close. the most of the damage will occur on old concrete buildings. parkmerced has 11 hours with load bearing walls of concrete. they are very vulnerable for earthquake. i think the whole project is done from the wrong end. if they need to demolish something, demolish from the earthquake safety point of the. -- point of view. the towers, not the garden apartments, provide a wonderful quality of life. the project and the eir denies there are problems with the existing tower. a second project is that -- supervisor mar: thank you very much. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i have lived in parkmerced for 38 years with my husband. we happen to like it very much there. i will make this very short. we have a lot of respect for the management. we find that they have been very honest with us. they are really trying hard. they have really put in a lot of effort into keeping our place clean. i know not everybody agrees with this, but i walk the property every day and i see a lot. i want to thank the

-- was life issues and have reworked -- how we worked with light issues, whether it was with dpw or dbi issues, code violations or graffiti issues. san francisco has passed laws regarding these issues, including not only taxis parking in residential neighborhoods, and businesses being run out of homes with fleets of cars and trucks, but also dealing with graffiti. people that have pulled dealing permits and let them expire. we live with the ramifications. i know this is a big issue. i have been living here for 18 years. one of the things is, the grass is overgrown, you have a job car parked in your driveway, it brings the property value down. it does, but it is also the aesthetic value of where we live. it is the responsibility of our neighbors to have these issues taking care of. what we're looking for is enforcement, not only through building a station, but through dpw. ed riskin knows well what we're talking about. the third issue is parks. i want to qualify my statement about parks to say that we were given a beautiful park on naples between geneva and rock avenue. the first permane