special thanks to dbi from customers. plan review services and acting director tom hue for his great leadership. thank you very much. the san francisco chronicle published last week where the property owner has hundreds of buildings and housing code violations and whose failure to pay city cost assessment have resulted by more than 75 percent. the property owner oh owes the city. we hope we'll motivate the owner to correct the violations and improve the poor living situations the tenants are living with. dbi, staff and congratulate christina wong as employee of the first quarter of 2013. [ applause ] . >> it's my recognition committee received six nominations for the quarter of six nominations for this quarter and one award and after three rounds of voting, christina was nominated. bird who has worked for a number of years and now in the enforcing code enforcement. join me in recognizing these great employees. [ applause ] >> i just wanted to thank all the dbi employees for participating in this process because i know the

planning and will be used by dbi for further discussions. our office's next recommendation that dbi should continue to work with the office to ensure the staff positions are approved. this will allow tbi to increase levels of staff. the inspection building departments conduct a fee study every five year to ensure the direct and indirect cost are aligned with the currently assessed fee levels. it should conduct the study of the next fiscal year since the last year it was conducted in 2008 and fees were increased in 2009. the immediate next steps for dbi to incorporate the economic state and reserve for future budget. they should work with capital planning to strategic plan for these capital investment. in the previous slide conduct the next study for the next fiscal year. thank you for your attention. any questions or comments from the commission? >> i just wanted to say this is really excellent work. thank you so much for your thoroughness and clarityey of the presentation. it's really appreciated. >> thank you. it was a pleasure to work wit

and fire and sprinklers that is all to come in yet for dbi and so we are in the early stages of the plan review. i did today speak with robert chung who was the engineer who reviewed the site permit drawings, which do not have anything on them structural or not. but, he did approve them. and in the 2010, san francisco building code, we do have our administrative bulletin for site permit processing. and just one of the items i want to read rt as well. because i think that it is important in this case as much of a purpose of a site permit is to allow a review of preliminary conceptual and schematic designs of proposed construction, there is no detailed plan review of construction details required at the time of site permit review. such detailed review will be done at the time of an addendum review. i am available for any questions and i will be on the demolition if you want to know about that one. valuation will be dealt with by ddi, we do use the marshal swift cost evaluation which is a nationwide analysis and i spoke with the engineer today. and he will look at that with the project

period which i believe is running from early june to around june 14th will then be subject to normal dbi fees. i have mentioned to you before we have with us today another item that you will be hearing on supervisor tang's reintroduction on the awning replacing during the month of may. we did this last year for small businesses to replace and refresh their business look. last year we had about 10 permits that came in during that fee waiver period. we are hoping that maybe next year we'll have more advanced preparation for this and there will be an opportunity for this supervisors office and myself to do more outreach so small businesses are aware of this opportunity during the month of may. we are observing into the month of may, small business awareness month as well as building safety month that we do every year. one other catch up item is on the toxic legislation that i have mentioned to you in previous reports and the city attorney is coming up with another version based on from dbi and from the puc and b [!ez dpw and going over this, essentially this will expand the zone for these p

this slide shows the process by which planning and dbi went through cat exing november 2007 with an [speaker not understood]. the 311 notification didn't get sent out until april 2nd of 2008. that's about 4-1/2, 5 months later. cat ex needs to change poe at thectiontiontion historic resource to not harm its integrity which is a category. by doing all the things that was harmed, but planning department, you know, cat exed it. so, now it's a c category, not historic resource. so, we're sort of relying on planning to make these subjective decisions on what is a ceqa ruling on these cat x's. and the first approval as you notice from this slide, it shows that it was done way early in the process. so, the number of days forsee qua review being cut short is not going to help in these matters because eventually the project will morph and it will not allow a lot of public discussion prior to all these other changes coming through. cat x's and historical resources are listed on the planning website. however, it's not always clear when those things come out. this is the latest version, only show

i am a former dbi commissioner, and i am an active member in the san francisco bicycle coalition. so, i am a strong supporter of this legislation and i won't reiterate some of the reasons that people have said to support this. but i want to first applaud supervisor wiener for taking this on. it's a very controversial and difficult thing to take on. and i also want to applaud you for your restraint in light of some unfortunate comments that were made here today. but i agree that ceqa has some important safeguards, but we have to find ways to streamline the process, make it more fair and more workable. and i think if we do that, that's good for everyone. unless we want san francisco to be a city for only the rich and the advantaged, we have to find ways to make the construction process more affordable. and oftentimes the ceqa process adds a lot to the cost of construction. so, it's to everybody's advantage to try to make it -- to streamline this process. and i'll just leave you with this thought. the proof is in the pudding. everybody here has left san francisco for different reason

building department dbi addendums. you go et your site permit and then there's 6 or 8 addendums for the technical aspects of the building. these people can actually have 80% of this 35 to $40 million project and get their last minute mechanical addendum which is required and that can be appealed to ceqa. that would be totally devastating to a project like that. and that can happen to any project. we have addendums on small projects. it's just what happens through the building process through dbi. the other thing i'd like to say, too, i would say in almost every case these late, late ceqa appeals are just to hold up the project and nothing more and they never, never get overturned. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional public speakers? please come forward. i have called all the card that i've received. supervisor, welcome back. >>> thank you, former supervisor jakemcgoldrick. i chaired the committee four years and i certainly would never look forward to becoming the appellate party or administrative interpre

complaint we did send the 311 notifications and we have complied with all of the other requests from dbi and the planning commission. and we went through the process of the discretionary review. and we are here today, we waited several months to be heard, so, my parents, you know, they bought this property with their life savings and i know that we have all... people at all and throughout this year, we have been paying, heavy, heavy interest and basically dipped into, you know, (inaudible) the circumstance that here today that i hope that you can sympathize with and we just really want to bring the close to this situation once and for all. so, if there is, you know, any protocol, if there is any questions, you know, if there is anything that i can do at this point to resolve this issue we would really like to do that today. thank you. >> hold on i have a question. >> yes. >> have you guys had an open dialogue with the appellant at this point and how many times have you guys met trying to resolve this? >> actually, i met peter i actually personally went to his house when i believe that wh

as president of the dbi commission of the past, would you expect that mr. murphy would make sure he could follow the proper procedures along his permits. apparently there are instances that it shows where he has not. he had a house on 26th street, 3418, 26th street, he bought a single story home and in 2004, the house was demolished without a permit. that gives the appearance of that he's been getting special consideration within the department of building inspection. there is also another pattern of this happening as well. most recently last year in december, mr. murphy began building a 5-story condominium at the same address apparently without proper permits. he did not apply for proper permits until the chronicle came out with a story about it. also the construction cost were $1.1 million which were actually $1.7 million. he is getting about a $36,000 cut. i believe we are putting people in positions of authority that over see how we do our development and whether it's on the port or the department of building inspection that we need people who are going

. >> that's more of a dbi issue. the third thing this is a comment and question, the 60 day period of time to take advantage of the opt in after the passage of this i presumably the board of supervisors is on the way, it's just us, is that too short a period. i'm just asking your opinion on whether it should be ninety days. i guess if they are interested they will pay attention and take advantage of it. >> our interest is this is targeted for those impacted by the economic situation over the past few years. if projects want to move forward, it's great. but let's do it now. let's not delay any further. that is your policy and you have a great deal of flexibility. >> thank you, mr. cider. i always have a comment and that's on the period of time, 10 years. i was reflecting on the idea that we are trying to address the recession speaking in the recession in the latter probably 2007-2009 period of time maybe a little bit later than that at 8-10. whatever it was. there also was a fairly significant down turn that occurred

dbi or department of building inspection. there are permits for construction change of use and change of use would be if business is going into a place where it may have been a retail book store and then now what's is moving in is a cafe. dpw permits mobile foods, sidewalk encroachments, sidewalk tables and chair. the entertainment commission does entertainment permits and limited live permits. the fire department permits open flames so if you have candleos the restaurant you need a special permit from the fire department from that. they do restaurant inspections and they are also involved with permitting for mobile foods depending on the type of mobile food you are. dph permits all food and beverage related businesses, massage, tatoo and tobacco businesses. the police department covers the peddler's permit and it's individuals who are selling wares not in the street and programs but on the sidewalk. the secondhand dealer and tour guides. the puv has covers the wastewater charges so one conversation that we make sure that we

would recommend and request that the i-t support for this legislation be fully functional between both dbi and planning department so the public knows when something is approved to start the 30-day clock. currently at d-b-i, the project permit tracking system is still in its testing stage and they're going to have people come in and do hands on and that's not set for completion until august of 2013. so, that also needs to be considered. on the current planning website, you have something called the active permits in my neighborhood link and i was playing around with it for about a couple hours. and sometimes it works, k1 sometimes it doesn't. so, i want to make sure that the details that show up in these permits ~ for the public to know are all there. it's not just going to this active permits linkses, but also to the san francisco property information map and everything else. as you know, department of building inspection permits descriptions are based on this application at d-b-i as it shows up on the overhead. it shows the free form text that the developer will put in there. and i showe

commissioner fung pointing out the issue and the fact that the foundation work is only on part of the building dbi is going to be paying attention to that and the impact on the rest of the building. based on what you stated earlier, i was under the impression it was going to actually support the second floor. >> you know i could have alan actually come up and speak. i don't have a background. he does, he can speak towards exactly what they are doing. >> i mean earlier your comments and argument was to make sure that everyone felt safe. >> i think that anything other than and please mind i am not and i don't have engineering background, from my understanding with speaking with alan and the contractors that anything is better than a brick foundation, obviously the ideal situation is to do the foundation so it is connected in this case it is not feasible. you kind of look's options that are available and the options are that we have a vacant space whoever is going to be in that space, idealy we want to do something. >> there are three other retail spaces that are occupied? >> is that the situation? >

wanted to highlight is that there are already timelines and deadlines on appeals to planning decisions, dbi decisions. so, it's not entirely true to say there aren't. and the other point i wanted to make that the ero mentioned to one of supervisor kim's questions is she was surprised or had never seen an example of someone appealing a project after the public notification period had ended. i work with nepa in transit projects and i see it fairly regularly and i don't deal with 6,000 projects or cat x's every year. even in the instances i work with perhaps 10% are appealed after the public comment period, frequently by the owners themselves. so, this isn't an unusual thing to have happen. i think if you restrict the time period for commenting or close the public comment period, it's simply going to create more problems, legal problems later on in the process. so, if you look at the 5 37 natoma example, i had wanted to -- i had asked some questions of planning while the project was still in the planning stage. and i basically asked, is there a pre-app meeting that it happened? and the planner

together to make this possible whether it was the police department or the fire department or dpw and dbi and the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and i also want to recognize the residents that are a big part of that public safety as well. we have members of our team here. in south of market and mission bay, and all of our city works together to keep our city safe. and that involves both our taxpayer dollars, bond dollars and also the volunteer hours of the residents who want to work to make this neighborhood and city great. so it is an honor to be here and sign the last beam of steel, i was told that there are 6206 pieces of steel in the building behind us and if you lay it flat, from the ballpark behind us it would go all wait to the oakland coliseum and that is pretty incredible. but i know that i will be hanging out here for a while at least as we wait for more development to happen in mission bay this will have one of the best views of our games. >> so, some of us will be coming out to champion our giant's team as well. thank to everyone who was involved in making this ve

huey from dbi had raised the issues in his letter that he just described. can you just address them and why you don't think they need to be addressed at this point? >> sure. i think there was a little bit of confusion as to the subject buildings under this ordinance. previously, without getting into the myrrh can i details of it, there was a confusion about how you define a story previously in the san francisco building code. ~ this was more than eliminated 10 years ago to find clarity what the impact of the story is. the legislation is to protect people that are in two levels of living over a soft story. so, in most cases that means a three story building. some hillside conditions, you have situation where building may appear as a three story building from the front, but by the building code definition is not a technically a three story building. so, we feel this encompasses just a few hundred additional buildings, but that posed the same risk, but actually has much cheaper construction costs to achieve the same safety level that the three story buildings

would recommend and request that the i-t support for this legislation be fully functional between both dbi and planning department so the public knows when something is approved to start the 30-day clock. currently at d-b-i, the project permit tracking system is still in its testing stage and they're going to have people come in and do hands on and that's not set for completion until august of 2013. so, that also needs to be considered. on the current planning website, you have something called the active permits in my neighborhood link and i was playing around with it for about a couple hours. and sometimes it works, k1 sometimes it doesn't. so, i want to make sure that the details that show up in

>> possibly in the structural design criteria, but as i just said i have not spoke to dbi engineers, it is something that is going to be typically got under the addenda for the structural work. there is an item in there and it is fairly new administrative bulletin and it was issued last june i believe or maybe even september, it is some people don't even have it in the code. it is one for more recent documents in the code, but it is in there and i am glad that they brought it up and i think that mr. santos did address it as well. but it would not be, it would almost be something that would be checked during the addenda review by the engineers, particularly when you look at the scope of the work and the site conditions. so like i am 100 percent confident that is going to be dealt with. >> okay. >> i have a question just to follow up on that. >> are you saying that the structural design submission that did not get submitted as part of the initial package for the site permit does not need to be submitted on the first run? and it can be caught on the addendum part of the process? >> that