d project dbi. -- project - director at dbi. we are a stage two. pardon me? it has a couple of components. as of-is analysis where we went through the business process re- engineering documentation that was already done, and we worked with representatives throughout dbi and planning and identified any changes with the car were close-- current work flows and documented all that. we are also looking through a bpr, as-is analysis, and recommendations come as well as items that have come up from the staff in terms of improvements that could happen. basically we're going to configure the system to our work flows in terms of how are they currently and what kind of improvements can be made. we did complete that as it is sessions on december 5, and based on the learnings of the session we identified an additional record types and prophecies. so we did extend the analysis schedule, but no impact of the overall schedule. the vendor added resources, and we will do some of the activities concurrently. we also released a project plan, a very detailed list of all the detai

and for the permits that we will need to get from dbi for the work. in this current fiscal year, we anticipate $92,000 in additional costs that we would be to cover. over the following 12 years, we anticipated additional permits, $150,000 for staff time from the department of technology to work with motorola while doing the construction work. and we will have electricity costs for the city-owned sites that we would incur, about $288,000 over 12 years. the lease costs, there are no lease costs of a rise in this agreement. we will have to come back to the board after renegotiate the leases and its subsequent approval from the board from each of the leases. so you have the ability in the future, with those lease agreements, to review what those costs actually are going to be and to approve of them separately or not. and we will be working with the department of real-estate to hopefully package of a set of leases and come back to the board as soon as we got the negotiated. and you would have the actual cost of the lease payment before you. supervisor chu:

it can stay in dbi for up to a year before it is kicked out. shouldn't that be the time of the clock starts ticking? >> no, the clock starts ticking at the beginning of the plan check, not the last. commissioner murphy: that is what i would like to see changed, suggestion to a change in the code. >> we can take that to -- that is a whole different way of looking at it than the state looks at it. we can certainly look at it. commissioner murphy: it would be a good place to discuss that, the pac meeting, and then bring him back here. >> definitely, we can do that. we are also looking at increasing the time limit of the vacation -- notification, from 21 days to something longer, to give people more time to actually try to get the fund together to get the permits, plans renewed. commissioner hechanova: is there a declaration sometimes why there is the delay, the basis by which the extension or approval of extension can be given, or is it automatically given? >> right now, we automatically give the extension. we have been giving more than one extens

>> we've made it clear that dbi is not the cash cow for this project. they are very rigid voluntarily working with us in terms of purchase of the equipment, power, what needs to be done in terms of capital improvement. we're working on trying to figure out how to charge rent and electricity, whether it is metered or some way. we're going to share in the cost, the benefit for them is they will not be located somewhere else where they did not want to go. there is efficiencies that can be in terms of just bought efficiency, which is i am not going where i do not want to go, verses we will have inefficiencies and operation and cost sharing. >> will that be defined by an mou? >> yes. right now we're trying to figure out the costs so we can share them. we have experience with human services agencies in terms of sharing things. wheat contract with them for the help desk. we have a history of really cooperative working with them and i am sure there will come through. i do not want to do little ones, i want to do a larger one of the actual construction. >> thank

jim duffy, dbi. july, 2011. the reason mr. sweeney from the department of building inspection, our director, when there is that there was a call about a fire in that area, and so mr. sweeney, i guess when he got into the building said to the -- said that the single- family drumming had been convicted -- converted into a three-unit building, one with a gas stove, a kitchen, bathroom, and the lighting or ventilation, with gas heaters, and then the third four probably the legal part of the building, a single residents, said mr. sweeney wrote on his notice of violation -- so mr. sweeney wrote on the notice of its violation the amount by nine times which would be the value of the work converting it into a three dwelling building, adding the two illegal units, so i believe the fire may have started in the neighbors building. i do not have that information. i do see an emergency response for 182 madrid, but i do not have information on that property for me -- before me tonight, so i do not know what penalties were imposed. two units

it is now with dbi in a structural plan check review. my anticipation is the permit will be through in the next couple of weeks hopefully. at that point, once the permit is issued, it is clients intention to withdraw the appeal. i would hope the board would look at this as an opportunity to move this casey2ñiv÷ along, i would request a continuance. commissioner murphy: how much of a continuance? >> i think 60 days should be sufficient. commissioner lee: does the department have anything to say? commissioner murphy: we agree with your decision. let's make it 90 days. commissioner lee: any public comment? >> e this item for 90 days. i need to do a roll-call vote. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. commissioner lee: ok, let's go 554 fell more strict -- filmore street. xópx#q>> acting senior building inspector for the department. appeal number is 6753, address 554 filmore street. evaluation description, work includes removal of finishes, also to stained glass windows. an order of a bit with conditions, 10 days to respond, filing her

se7a, dbi finances. >> pamela. we have to items -- two items under number seven. the first is the monthly financial report, and then there will be a short discussion about the budget instructions for the 2012-13 budget. in first i wanted to mention, in terms of revenue, we have separated the revenues that are four charges for service from the revenues from the mou's which basically include bit transbay joint power authority and the court, and we have projected to have more revenue throughout the year, so this is an actual plus protection. so far we have 43.8 in terms of the budget, and we have 42 -- 52.2 percent signed of the budget for the regular charges for service. one of the things we do look at and have started to look at is what the changes are in terms of valuation of issue permits, because that is a measure of how well we are doing. and we are actually, when you look at a year over year this year versus year to date last year, we are seeing an increase in valuation of issue permits of almost 43 percent signed, and we provided a sketch will in the report t

that is language we included in the last meeting, but the deputy city attorney at dbi in the department realized it was superfluous given the other code that has language permitting that to happen. i would like to ask that we move those amendments forward today, simply so we can have a clean copy of this when we come back in three weeks. i wanted to see if there are any members of the comic who wish to comment on any aspect of this legislation today? supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? a three-minute limit. >> supervisors. director of san francisco open government. i was concerned when i saw this on the agenda in light of this -- this is a recent audit of the san francisco arts commission and by the comptroller's office. it basically found significant issues relating to their money- handling of what funding they already get. a couple examples. the 105 projects in one category they did, they picked a symbol of 10. in all 10 of them, is that the expenditures appeared to be for discretionary purchases inconsistent with the purposes of the intendant sou

and possibly dbi will try to ensure of this project takes place, unless it is overturned, it began a timely. i intend to uphold the permit and to deny the appeal. >> my feelings are similar. this is very frustrating to be presented with an appeal on a set of stairs and then have the conversation be about a bathroom. this is free service to the city for me to be sitting here listening to this. i would love it if you could figure this out and not bring it before us. >> i would agree with that. i would hope housing inspection could get involved. we heard they had been out. perhaps he could work his magic can make something happen. >> i'm not repaired to tie this permit to the previous but i would mention to the building department that the document -- i see pieces of ruth and other structures -- roof and other structures that do not match. >> do you have a motion? >> on the basis that the permit is compliant? >> on the basis they approved it. ok. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny the appeal and upheld the permit on the basis the city approved it. president garcia: aye.

i move that we accept the arrangement made by dbi and the appellant. >> we have a motion from president garcia to reduce this penalty to two times the regular fee. commissioner fung: aye. h vice-presidentwang: aye. commissioner goh: aye. >> the motion is approved. >> moving back to item number five, a few jurisdiction requests. the board received a letter from jakke bryson requesting that the board takeover jurisdiction over variants case 2010. $1.74v -- 2010.1074v and a permit -- and a building permit application. the appeal period ends on may 16, 2011 and june 16, 2011. the jurisdiction requests were received at the board office on december 30, two dozen 11. the project, rear yard variants, adds one dwelling unit at the second and third floors within a three-story building that covers the entire lot. the project of the building permit is an interior renovation within existing shell including 730 square feet on outdoor open space within to corker corp. -- within two courtyards, subtracted from building volume, new windows on the north west and south facade, no change to the east facade

vice president garcia: does dbi have any hardship requirements? >> in this case, it did not happen, but they are here tonight, and we put the nine times penalty on the permit application, but hardships, we always refer people to the director for that. they have that discretion. we do not have been at a lower level, where we are. we are not allowed to drop penalties. commissioner peterson: what is the dollar amount? director goldstein: on this, it says -- >> and then planning. commissioner peterson: so it is just the 6116 penalty. >> $3,500 plus. that is the nine times. nine times on 40. on top of the building per is ad that is where we write our nine times and 40,000, and that was done by the building inspector when they come in for the permit. commissioner peterson: ok. >> that is what i said to mr. sanchez, their fees are almost as much as our penalties. vice president garcia: maybe you and answered this already, but permits have been drawn to abate all of these issues? >> yes. vice president garcia: and you said you do not know it two other fam

to make chips down to the offices three times because i have received 3 separate phone calls on what dbi is requiring. the first time they wanted an extra set of plans. we said fine, we dropped off the addendum. then they said they needed extra copies of the site permits and applications. i asked why. they said because it had the word canceled stamp on every single signature on the front and back of the plan applications. i said fine, but that is a little weird. the next time, later that day, i got a phone call saying that they needed two copies of each set of plans. so, in one job it is another 100 sets of large drawings. 100 sheets of large drawings. it is a huge waste of paper. even with the delay of the procedures, it will have expired in another month. if there was a way of simply marking canceled on the plans, as opposed to writing all over it and completely wasting a legal set of documents, instead of wasting our time and the department's time reviewing this, i was in front of the unit on the ground floor. took them one hour to go through three applications and double check everyt

if they are showing them as all honorable, that would be changed right away, as soon as dbi reviews this. that would require them to change them to in operable windows. it would require them to report the notice of special restrictions exactly as you indicated. commissioner moore: i hope that the applicant has been made aware of that because it will change everything. you will find yourself, potentially in the future, with no windows at all and it will be kind of dark. as for the champering of the corner, i would encourage the two neighbors to talk to each other. i do not feel -- that is not what i am asked to decide on here. that is an ongoing discussion between boat owners and the architect. i personally do not see any extraordinary exception on this request. commissioner antonini: i would have a question for the architect, if the architect is present. the first is, a suggestion was made -- three suggestions they were making. one would be to shift one of the solar panels, which it would seem would be fairly easy to do and something i would like to see happen if possible. if you have on

noise, that the construction might affect you and your neighbors' lives, i wonder if speaking with dbi and attempting to control that might be a good avenue? mr. duffy is nodding. he is amenable to hearing from you about those issues. president garcia: is there a motion? commissioner fung: i'm going to move to deny it jurisdiction. president garcia: before we take a vote, mr. duffy, will you give your card to ms. bryson? obviously someone who is involved in issues in that neighborhood. both of you would benefit from that communication. thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny both jurisdiction requests. president garcia: aye. vice rpesident hwang: aye. commissioner goh: aye. >> we are now moving on to item no. 5. -- item #6. 1290 fell st. she will not be attending the hearing and has asked that the board decide the case on the papers she has submitted. carla short this year and we can give her time to speak. >> thank you. karl a short, department of public works and bureau of urban forestry. i would like to take a moment to congratulate commissioner goh and wish he

if we could have your advice on exactly what is the procedure, so that all people are aware of what dbi would like in order to cancel a permit. thank you. commissioner hechanova: thank you. additional questions, comments? commissioner walker: i would love to have answered. >> i can answer that now. it has been the policy to have a physical, written a letter from the project owner to cancel a project and request a refund. we have a refund process and a sheet to do that in the department'. commissioner walker: the statement that we do this by e- mail, is that just an unofficial notification usually followed up -- >> it should be followed up by written confirmation that we can keep on file and have attached to their quest for a refund. that is also part of the controllers request to process a refund for a permit, that we have an actual written signature, and not just e-mail. commissioner hechanova: what would constitute, at times, when there is an attachment, or if the e-mail itself serves as the written request? >> it has to be a written signature. sign the signature from the property own

. >> from the dbi and planning. [inaudible]. >> no. it either has to be flushed or high enough for a blind person to detect it. ask also we would look at the remaining paths of travel. typically, a foot of a properly done tree well, properly done. this is not properly done. either has to be flush with the sidewalk. could be a tree great and that could be used as the top of travel. >> minimum of 4 feet, that is required by american with disabilities act. at pinch point where you have situations like street light poles, no parking signs or things like that, that 48 inch can be reduced to as little as 32 inches. >> how does that comply here. what would -- >> they would have to either raise this, >> how high is this >> about a foot. there is no regulation as far as height. >> [inaudible] has to allow water to pass through it. 6-15. >> 6-15 inches high and allow water to pass through to meet the new [inaudible]. okay. >> is that 4 feet wide you are standing on? >> right here? >> the trick is most are roughly 39 inches by 39 inches much that

we are also willing to pay for dbi staff time. we do need this additional time. order to get financing to get this project off the ground. commissioner murphy: it needs to be properly framed out, she did with plywood so that people cannot get for that. if that is done, it is up to staff. commissioner walker: our action would be to uphold this and give you four months to comply, to hold it in the n@ comply with staff. >> that would be a tremendous help to us. commissioner murphy: could we make it six months? commissioner walker: i would rather make it shorter. >> could we go five months? commissioner murphy: 6 months is pretty short. commissioner walker: i would make the motion of five months. if they need to come back -- commissioner lee: ok, so the motion is five months? at the same time, give them 10 days to obtain a shoring permit, 10 days for an engineering report? commissioner murphy: i will second the motion. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> hello, commissioners. i am a member of the san francisco coalition for responsible growth. i think we

we have recently obtained a dbi re-app letter that was circulated to the commission that covered many of the issues that were raised at the last hearing. so with all of the changes, i think the project has greatly improved and we would appreciate your positive consideration. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner miguel? vice president miguel: i don't think anyone can question the commission sending this back when they see but has come forward this time. sometimes, the public wonders why we continue items, why we tell people to go back to the drawing board. if there is to be an absolute test case, this is one of them. i like to complement david oliver and staff, and particularly commissioner moore, who have all worked diligently on this. it is coming to us as something that should be looked at by others considering similar types of projects, similar types of areas. yeah, it can be done. and when you come back from over 40 items that have variances, down to two, of a courtyard that probably d