. >> welcome to the dbi. you'll see a strong tone of earthquake awareness and readiness in my comments today. tomorrow, as most of you know marks the 30th anniversary of the leoma skwaeurb earthquake ae city is hosting numerous events at the marina, as well as holding a table-top exercise at the department of emergency management, include within of ie structural engineers seok and brop is the terminology for that and the annual duck and cover exercise held at city-wide. that's actually an earthquake event. while much has been accomplished over the past three decades to strengthen buildings seismically. seismically, we must prepare for earthquakes around the world. with our retrofitting program in its final phase, we are at 98% compliance in terms of filed permits and that's quite an achievements. so well-done and 65% completion and that could be stronger but we'll get there. private property owners have invested approximately 250 million in retrofits so far and we reach 385 million by the end of this program.

particularly in the dbi scenario, i see a lot of problems here with this. fundamentally disagree with your numbers, because i do the numbers myself every day. it is more expensive to build a single family, all-electric home. but that's not what i'm pushing back on. i'mish pushing back on that it's not very well talked through, particularly in the planning issues. and particularly in how we do get enough solar panels on our roofs, that will meet the criteria and things like that. i see a lot of issues from the building point of view, because we're a land locked town. our zoning has not been good for this. now we're trying to adapt. so i cannot support it today. it's not i can't support it in the format it's written. i do believe you have the votes. it's not ready for prime time. thank you, mr. hooper. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we call for public comment already. we'll do a roll call vote. is there a motion to approve? and a second? >> move to approve. >> clerk: is there a second? >> seeing none. >> clerk: no second? okay. so what do i do? >> take the vote.

patrick chief building inspector dbi. i'm here to present to you an update on the project at 1369 sanchez street. to begin with, the agenda in this presentation is as follows. i'm going to speak to existing. >> one second. sf gov, can you go to the computer? thank you. >> the agenda is as follows. existing as built conditions the permits review, inspections enforcement, findings and finally next steps. this slide represents 1369 sanchez street as it was prior to the construction. the picture is from november of 2017. here we are looking at 1369 sanchez street in its current condition as it has been since august of 2018 when the violation was issued. the permit application that was filed in august of 2015 received planning reviews dbi review and review and approval by cpw. it included the remodel of the front elevation, a horizontal addition to this house towards the front of the building three new bathrooms and three new bedrooms and two bathrooms at the third floor remodeling of the kitchen add a vanity at the second flo

duffy, a senior inspector in dbi, got up and addressed that the dbi handled this incorrectly and mr. walsh wrote a whole letter saying that the building on a scale of, i think, 1-110, was a 9 in terms f damage. mr. duffy got up and said this inspector had to right to write that letter and they canceled the whole thing. mr. duffy said the building was safe. so we have that. and the third permit that they requested was to add a roof deck and three rooms in the garage so that they could turn eight-room flat into an 11-room flat. the building does not have to be lifted for a seismic retrofit. it has to be lifted because it's going to be luxury flats out of this. so as for relocation, they have continued to send checks, of which none have been cashed. i have lost count how many times they've sent checks. and basically, we have proposed to them a solution to this. the two vacant units were famil- >> i'm sorry, your time is up. >> we only allow three minutes. >> can i just say one thing? this is a 73-year-old african-american woman who has her own disabilities. her daughter, barbara is schi

the building cod demolition without permit and 106 explains what they think is a de demolition and dbi sheet dd june 2015. so that's kind of what i think. i hate to belabou belabor it bun be adjusted. it may not solve all problems but something that should be done based on the fact that the value in the rh1 has steadily been changed over the last five years. and i think they're linked. i hope you read the memo and look at the definitions on she's sheets. here is another one from mr. iona if he wants to put it in the record. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm kevin chang. i'm following up from last week to 3847 to 3849 18th street. the materials submitted reflect the original condition of the property at the start of work on october 2014. please mans arplease plans are d and not referenced in either staff reports from the planning and/or departments. there are lack of added condition space and stairs connecting from the second floor, the lack of stairs from the first floor to a first space and limited crawl space included excavation deeper fan four feet deep, steeper grade in th

we say, that's a dbi issue. i hear what mr. loper saying, if they want a laboratory, there's certain safeguards in there and obviously any urban area laboratory something could go wrong and chemicals could come out and harm people but we have these labs all over the place and i feel comfortable leaving it as is, with a laboratory use. , with no restrictions. >> there's an element of safety but an element of nuisance in laboratory buildings, but they're required to filter and they throw it out at a high velocity and therefore, the noise factor is much greater with laboratory exhaust systems than regular use. >> commissioner moore? >> it's the detail of osha and simply regulating the detailed execution of the building, the land use decision itself is a broader issue and that particular issue. >> looks like we're in a dead-lock here. any suggestions? >> mr. loper, would you opine on the commission's discussion to limit the chemistry or biological labs from the deaf ligs or prohibit them. >> sure, and we're not prepared to voluntee

we have very thankful to mohcd and the rent board, dbi, the department of homelessness and supportive housing, the art agency commission, among a number of others for their continued involvement. we also worked with representatives from 40 community organizations that implement, utilize or interact with the city's existing programs and policies that help to stabilize and prevent displacement. these include, but are not limited to the san francisco apartment association, the sr collaborative, and the tenants union. we undertook broader efforts and more than 2300 residents pratted iprattedparticipated in the cit. we determined that there are three goals that we wanted to address in this initiative. the first is to protect and stabilize communities and we seek to mitigate ongoing displacement and we want to help vulnerable populations thrive and contribute to the city's culture and economy. so to achieve these goals, we worked with our agency partners to organize all of the city's existing efforts into four main categories ranging from tenant protects to economic development and a benefi

behind that, you see significant for example,dbi, in the u.k..ed underperformance in the u.s.. the restructuring we are looking at is very much focused on those two businesses together with quite a complex group structure and group cost structure we have built up over the years. i'm not going to speculate on what that means. we intend to come back in february. we will have more details then. speak to you.o in terms of guidance you might be able to give, can you give us guidance on how much you expect the central project overcharge would be for the full year? previously guided that around 650 to $700 million to produce a similar run rate saving for 2020. i do not think those numbers have changed. in addition to that, what we are signaling to that as we do expect restructuring on top of that. in someuld result additional severance costs going into 2020. you no longer expect 11% return on equity for 2020. are you still going to stick with that 11% target? when is it reasonable to expect we might get there? collects what has changed over the course o