our dbi engineers from the department, will eventually issue. and it will take a few months to get the permit. and from in the door out the door issued. and would expand to the 26th of october of 2018. notes from the brief, i do think they were taken from phones as well, regarding plans. i have the plans with me tonight. and they are the plans that were in the brief. and that would be the intended scope of work under this permit. and if they want to make changes, as you heard, with the revision permit. and on the plan, it could be accepted. on the comments there, i think it was the commissioner acknowledged the work, of apartment number one. it was a revised plan. the apartment number one, with the over head, we will look at the rebuttal. >> i am looking at this. it seems to be okay on the screen. >> so and this is apartment number one. shown on the inside, the upper spot. and there is a stairwell on the outside there, so i . so that was the question, then, there is also -- there is some -- there is an angle at the intersection on the joist. you

so dbi would say this is not the demo. and your course of action like taken in the past is go to planning and get a permit, because it's tantamount to demo. >> what i would say, our notice of violation is accurate for exceeding the scope of the demolition based on the site investigation. >> right, right. >> they have a demolition permit filed and replacement building permit. they're on that track. >> president hillis: okay. commissioner richards? >> >> commissioner richards: this one smacks of the one -- was it on chestnut? the one on polk. lombard. they demolished it and rebuilt it, which was extraordinary because they built the as it was. >> they added some features. >> i know i got an invitation to visit it. 214 state and the developer did over there on lombard, i think it would be -- we have the -- i think the project sponsor said they don't want to have any reward for what happened. and i think that case report says 1300 square feet. as an asset to the city and help you recoup the investment, i would ask that my fello

. >> i think it is safe to say they are expected to have the breadth of knowledge of dbi and dbi is to understand the small residential models and tall buildings and have to understand all the factors. in a way it is not fair to expect dbi to understand some of the issues that are extremely complex. there are not many to do the analysis. i would encourage that we have the strength in the peer view process or a team arrangement at some time that allows dbi to have access to the likes of some of the firms that have the capabilities of doing this analysis. and also, some people listening to this may say why are we doing this. maybe 10-15 years, we have become aware of the importance of this. the time is now. >> if i could present evidence. if there is anything i personally or the team can do, we would be happy to accommodate. >> commissioner? >> just a couple of issues. the triggers to operate the building, it is a very important factor in your work. i notice that the team have a lot of developers and real estate people onboard. i just wondered if you include the homeowners associations o

even older buildings, san francisco there are records within dbi. they are in drawing form. they need to be researched. i pulled the 1949 drawings for the seismic retrofit on the building i live in. so you have to do a lot of work, but they are somewhere. those buildings are not passed without permits. so i suggest that is also a resource and i would suggest that the historic research gets expanded to all resources that are available. >> commissioner richards: i'd like to amend my motion to include an interpretive plaque on the sidewalk out front that says this is a replica of the i know thera house. it was demolished and rebuilt according to the planning commission, and the date. so at least there is a record there. >> president hillis: i'm a little nervous about what we're doing, recreating a neutra house. are we using the same material, the same wood? i want to get our perspective on that. it's a little odd. >> it is unusual. and secretary of the interior standards don't -- there are standards for reconstruction that should be followed having to do with historical researc

dbi, if they approve inferior and unacceptable devices, it may put the building at risk where peopleould not be adequately protected from illness and the building could be out of city codes. therefore, we are respectively asking to continue this item. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: i do have a question. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai has a question. >> supervisor safai: is someone else going to speak? >> supervisor tang: okay. let's go ahead and finish public comment. >> good afternoon. hi. my name is ni too. i'm the senior inspector for the nonpotable water program dph. and i'm here to request a continuance for this item. as john scarpulla from puc already stated, relying on just the california plumbing code itself is inadequate for the protection of backflow, especially for high hazard applications, such as using soda machine carbonators. there has already been a few backflow incidents as recent as 2018 in san mateo county where people became ill and 2017 in s.f., and in all these incidents, they had less backflow prevention, less stringent back

sf-dbi new process retains the reviewer's responsibility to the director in align with the number of jurisdictions that the contractor -- that the contract directly with reviewers attach the clause for the project sponsor. previously the city of san francisco procedures for procurement of professional service have not been suited to directly contracting with consulting engineers. and reviewers instead contracted with the project sponsor. the revie rears are, nonetheles, responsible and under the directions of the director. so the change to this is that we contract directly through the peer review group down. the engineers -- the engineer records is solely responsible for the construction contract documents. documents in the reviewer will be retained as part of the fdbi files. each reviewer is selected by the director based on the reviewer's qualifications applicable to the project and considering the availability with the project scale. the director may at his or her discretion consult with the project sponsor and the engineer of record and others before selecting the reviewers. the