took the words out of my mouth and i am going to try to simplify it if i can and we have to work at dbi and the senior building inspector for the area and he would have been here for a while, but he is going to come here tonight to speak about it and we had several meetings and working closely in the last few weeks and we have also been in contact with the staying with the board about this case, and it is on that hillside, there is a process, and that needs to be take place, prior to the issuance of any permits or any work, i believe that some work started in the middle of the year. and the permit holder ended up with a building department and he needed to get an emergency permit and it was work that we wanted to get done before the rainy season and we wanted to go with that work and the permit got appealed and he was right to appeal the permit. he is concerned about it, and the people living below and down at the bottom of the hill and had concerns about that. so, what i think actually simple enough that if we could i know that the building department wants this, and we are even with t

, not planning. >> and yeah, the dbi and i am huky to have been to help

i want to thank dbi and tom we're going to be implementing the hot like that and dbi will help by notifying the applicants. since planning wouldn't be looking at this because their internal tenant improvement. i want to say thank you for staffing the hotline. i do understand the number of amendments i want to ask ann marie rogers to go over those >> thank you members of the committee i'm app. those are technical clarifications that we've worked out. the first one is on page 3, line 3. it said those controls are applied to commercial buildings we had some questions about the controls of one hundred percent commercial buildings or to other buildings that have residential uses and the supervisor wants those applied to any building with commercial outdoors. that doesn't have to be a one hundred percent commercial building only the use in the building. also on page 3, line 21 buildings built prior to 1979 it would be hard to ascertain when the building was built but we have information about when it was first - it indicates the issuance of certify of okaycy. on page 4 lines 3 and 4 this year's r

is gale rebel and i am the acting chief financial officer for dbi and for our finances, there really isn't a whole lot to report our revenue is coming in higher than expected. and if you see in your report we have received about over 60 percent of the charges for services for this year. we are only about 41 percent of the year so they are coming in higher, that is to be expected this year, with the code cycle, a lot of people are trying to get in their projects before the end of december and the close cycle changes and the requirements change, so we do expect to see a few more projects come in higher than expected and taper off, which also does for the winter months any way. you will see in the report, that i am projecting a little bit of an increase or a lot of increase in revenue for charges of services before the end of the year, we are going to come in 9 million dollars over what we budgeted for the year which is good, it is better to be higher than lower and shows that the projection and the things have slowed down but not as much as we expected. we have not received any revenue

. >> in dbi, not planning. >> and yeah, the dbi and i am huky to have been to help me to track every week, to give them notice, or even to start this job and so forth, by looking in the backlog. >> yeah. >> indeed, in the pac meeting, i called the planning, and like you mentioned two weeks, but they never come back to me, when can they stop? >> yeah. >> and they promised two weeks, but never this week. >> and i don't, i might be a little bit off topic but it is relevant to time, have we ever got a conclusion with the last conversation that we had where editing that must be and it has a change and it has to go back to planning if there was a revision? where did we leave off there? >> yeah, i asked, them, okay, for example, in the small jobs, a lot of contractor or designer that they use in the old site permit and then package together with no changes and they should not go back to planning and some of the big jobs, of course, we need to go back to them but say still we don't apply what to do and they go back to talk with john only. >> so we don't have it from them, if they are reviewi

commissioner martha is, we are planing to do that and as of right now, there is notice posted on the dbi and the building inspection commission website and we have, that is the process that the nomination committee is going to be working on is to do the out reach to the different groups that have those types of structural engineers and the other qualifications. >> and the cop folks. >> right. >> who include the land lords and the tenants. >> yeah, i want to make sure that the tenant and the out reach like the san francisco owners or the different housing groups are notified. and you can let me know if there are specific other groups that you want me to add to the e-mail list. >> but that is one of the reasons why i want the secretary and the commissions and the boards to discuss those strategies with them. >> okay. >> all right, thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 5 a, and b? >> hi, commissioners andy, and on this issue it is unfortunate what happened, but we just remember that it did go through the peer review and so kind that in mind and so on plan checking quite frankly

. >> and holding on to the time is difficult for dbi to do because the permit lasts for a certain amount of time. >> thank you. >> would you agree that the word contemplated here is very labor intensive? >> without seeing the plans, i can't really answer that 100 percent, but i would say that, it seems to be and most of the work and you would imagine that the work is going to take place foundation, and sheer walls, and you know, the labor insensitive but i don't think that they are totally touching 100 percent of the building to do the work just the certain areas. >> but it is all wood framed. and the amount of work that is anticipated there is quite extensive and it is probably more cost effective for them to do this and to ignore the existing electrical and plumbing and come back and put it back in. just working around it. >> and i didn't hear anything from the permit holder of how they are going to schedule the work and how they were going to do that and what you know what impact that was and that would be be a good question. >> mr. duffy, the permit that is before us, does that conte

through the peer review and so kind that in mind and so on plan checking quite frankly i think that dbi has done a great job on plan checking and also when it comes to fees, we could lot of this you and they are looking at the what the cost of the project is and they are very tough about it and they are really are. and so, i know what happened over here that came off what it did buff i just wanted to try to separate the issue of the plan checkers from what actually happened, it happened in the field and that is not a matter and, so on the whole, i think that dbi as far as plan checking they are doing a great job and i think that we and everybody else and we had them working there and so i just wanted to say that, thank you. >> any further public comment? >> okay, seeing none, item six, review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of september 25th. >> move to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> is there any public comment? >> seeing none, the minutes are approved. >> item 7, adjournment. is there a moti

>> there, i think that there are some meetings that there was no one from dbi and there was a meeting out there and at that time there was no, there was no design from any side, and subsequently 3032, and went ahead and got their design done and got their permit that and is peeled and i think that the meeting that they are referencing happened at the engineer's office and not then, we would not have been present at that time. >> okay. and i would say one thing, you know, in san francisco, we deal with these under pinning permits a lot. because of the lot lands and the excavations they are normally, and what happened in this case was that we obviously had the collapse and that started the mistrust and the doubts, and if this was done right, and this could have been addressed early on in the process and they could have done, a section of 3034, and a 3032 at the same time just as mr. santos said and i am not opposed to that idea but the problem here is the big word trust, no one trusts anybody on how to do it and who is going to do it properly, but the way that mr. santos is right, and y

to the outside of the property, once the site permit approved there is not going to be any chances dbi should be able to sign-off on it, on the code at that time and the representative from planning was going to get back to us about allowing dbi to approve those, and which they should be and so we have not heard any more about it there is no doubt though, that commissioner martha planning sort of a stumbling block for a lot of folks when it comes to complying for the notice of violation and you have to go to the hearing for a variance or something like that. and you can't get a response for them and what else i had one recently where we had a response and i will get right on it and i will have it by friday and that was last week and i have for the heard a word sense, and so i have nothing to do about that and i am not complaining about planning, and they have a difficult job they really do because they have to be watching the backs of what the neighbors are going to say about what is happening tlout and it is totally understandable but when something is in the process, they should get

. >> >> corey tee for the planning department, the majority of the scope falls under the purview of dbi and some of the exterior repair work did require planning department review, that was reviewed over the counter, by the planning department staff on october 29th of 2012 and it was, approved on that same day. i have also looked at the updated plans submitted on november 7th, that would combine this new scope of work and that appears to all be interior structural work as well that would not need additional planning department review and i am available for any questions that you may have. >> is this a building rated in any sense? or is the area? >> it is not in a district that i am aware of, but i can double check that in a moment and it is a potential historic resource and i don't believe that it has been, recognized as a historic rye source. >> okay. >> okay, is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, then we will take the rebuttal. miss fox you have three minutes. >> thank you. i think that we are kind of going in circles here, we are not the tenants and myself, we are

the permit was not in compliance with dbi. so they did apply for a permit. they filed the permit in july, oddly enough but only got it issued in october. and it was project comprised of removing existing shed at rear yard built illegally at a 36 inch from dry well and wanted to do property line and they wanted store bicycles on the light well. and i explained to the property holder tonight that can't be allowed. it's for purposes of light and not storage and he understands that. and why he wants to put a power light that is not required by code. and he spoke of taking that away. and the appellant didn't show up and the light of the 36 inch wall at the well, it's okay to have it but not approved by code. the only clarification i want to make that you can't use light well but to provide for light and ventilalation. >> we can condition that permit and remove. >> he said that he didn't want it. >> that's a good -- that's exactly what i hoped would happen. and other side is not here and should be happy even though not here. >> i will make the motion to grant the

and then i received a permit from dbi. and this is a copy of the permit now. while reviewing application there were obvious discrepancies that stood out to me. mr. christ told me that he was going to use a contractor. but on his application he listed himself as contractor of the project, in box 14. and mr. christ's response he states that he is using a contractor. but in notice to appellant, he marked no. 4 (inaudible) issue (inaudible) of california. sorry about that. and if he intended to use a contractor, i thought that no. 5 should have been checked. i certify as the owner through the agent that the performance of the work for which this permit is issued i will employ a contractor. i do not believe that mr. christ has the necessary skills or knowledge to perform this work, and since he does not reside at property, i question an issuance of an over-the-counter building permit. i am concerned without the proper permits and the without the use of a licensed contractor, the project will be completed and not to code. i feel that mr. christ has chosen the area t

also there have been examples of projects that do separate project reviews and dbi and we coordinate outside of one meeting altogether and serve the same purpose and they generally meet that requirement and are not requirement to follow another fee and have another meeting that has already been covered. i don't know if that was done for this case, but i can do research on that and get back to you. regarding the affordable housing issue. the project sponsor said what the issue was. i won't go into that detail. i will be available for any questions on that issue. regarding the noise, i simply want to point out what was already pointed out was that the shared property line with the marsh, all that mrooen property line is taken up by the circulation space and elevators and the only one is the second bedroom where the noise would be created inside the units and where the property line is located and shared with the marsh. finally the proposed conditions that were outlined and some that were not agreed to, generally speaking, the proposed condition 1-4. the department should not have a pro