characterization of the building are relied upon are not conclusive, making the changes an abuse of discretion, both the change to the 3 r report by the department of building inspection which is based on the certificate of the final completing from 1970, and the subsequent request for revocation, is based on that characteristic and that change in the characterization from the 3 r department. and this is not conclusive. and no one has seen the permits that this work was based upon and no one has provided an explanation of why this cfc did not result in a change to the 3 r report or the characterization back in the 70s. and it is over 40 years and it is very hard to speculate and to get any conclusion on that today. and in light of all of these circumstances, there is no other aoe quitable solution than to grant this appeal. as a practical matter all of the work has been done and we will have to redo all of the configuration and reconstruct the unit in order to go through a 317 discretionary review hearing and we are talking about hundreds of thousands and potentially one million dollars and under the facts and circumstance its would be unfair and unjust for the appell

and from the department of planning and the department of building inspection. and this board entertained and heard the jurisdiction request which i seen on the video was on the permits of the appeal and turned that down and sided with the permit holder and based on all of these different confirmations of the characterization of the building, they spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be denied the certificate of final completion and i think in that situation you have to grant this appeal. that is not our situation and our situation what we have is, and that is confusing but what it sounds like is this tenant, the former tenant, out of nowhere, produces a document that no city employee uncovered. when prevenlted or providing the previous 3 r report and provides it to planning and the planning does not know what to make of it completely and provide it to building inspection and so they testified that we got the cfc from planning so we changed the 3 r report and planning says we got a new 3 r report and so we suspended the permits. >> okay. but this is not

chief of department of building inspection. we have department of public works, department of building inspection and bureau of urban forestry. at this time mr. pacheco would you please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all pagers so you do not disturb the proceedings. please carry conversations in the hallway. appellants, permit holders and department representative each have 7 minutes to present their cases and 4 minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7-minute period. people not affiliated with the parts -- parties have to 3 minutes to address the board, but no rebuttals. members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left hand side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questio

. >> and anthony (inaudible) department of building inspection. >> the brief history on this one, again, the no activity on the property, again until january of 2012 and then we have the permit filed to remove the illegal unit. and in that permit application, the existing building and characteristics would indicate two and then the proposer two and so that would be a straight application where this is removing a unit that was not recognized based on a 3 r report. i will be happy to answer the questions regarding the 3 r, the records management division and how the documented the information and update those reports. and the particular permit here for the remove the illegal unit issued approved, and then, there was an inspection performed as a final with some notes and that, so that job was not final, and it was revoked prior to that and then we have the permit that was to redistribute the units and that was a form 8, which again, went through our process, and in a normal review and issue. and subsequently, there was a field inspection and there is quite an extensive inspection history a

>> department of building inspection and regarding the notice of violation, which was issued on june the 11th, 2013, it was a construction dw not file the approved permit application number and it did not provide a separation between the unit one and two, and the field inspector had issued the correction notice, and we need to followed the approved plans and obtain the revisions for the unit and so it was pretty standard correction and it was not a notice of violation that involved any penaltis for exceeding the scope and it was a deviation from the approved plans and they subsequently filed the revision. >> there was an opening and you mentioned earlier a fire door. >> but there was an opening between the two upper floors and the ground floor. >> yes. >> the actual note is going to obtain a permit and opening of the interior stairway to reflect the issue application and 2012 and 04, 18, 8561 and additional plumbing and electrical permits required as well. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> we will go ahead and start. >> so. as my daytime job is a realtor, we rely heavily on t

i'd like to provided an example of why we don't have confidence that the department of building inspection doesn't have this conditional use permit that is good for you percent shortly after we got the report from the expert that an upgrading be made before at&t be put on the roof. a new complaint was filed. and a second directors meeting was on may 7, 2013. when dr.s report was referenced the office was and i quote regarding the skeptic issue the service conditions would not be effected. but we ask it be tied down in some way. after consulting with dr. carping a file was sent and a e-mail asking the hearing office to where it's writing that the building don't have to comply with current codes to receptionist codes. he never got a respond. the grand jury report that preferential treatment of the 13 yourselves. who might that be in this case? >> thank you very much sir. >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors i'm wendy. attached to mr. hagman's report is exhibit no. 2 is a copy of this san francisco planning bulletin. entitled review of project in identified areas he prone to flooding

good evening, commissioners, anthony (inaudible) department of building inspection and this certify mitt was a submitted permit on a form three. and it went through the standard review and the proper sequence of reviews. and through going the plan check under the building, one of the civil engineers reviewed the pro-yekt and had it on hold for comments that were responded to and found acceptable and then it was approved. as indication with any permit that we issue for anyone to construct the owner of the property is required to maintain safe and san tarry condition and the responsibility is with the builder and the owner of the property if the condition that resulted from the excavation or any of the work our department will respond and issue a proper notice of violation to either both a property owners if it was a shared retaining wall. and at this point, again, looking at this permit it was reviewed and issued. and according to our code. >> and properly. >> and i believe that the code requires that new structure cannot surcharge against an adjacent neighbor's structure, isn't that corr

. >> we have a report from the department of building inspection and senior and disability action on the implementation of the single room occupancy grab bar ordinance. presentation is by rosemary bosque, chief housing inspector and tony robles senior and disability action. >> good afternoon council members. >> grab bars being installed in the bathroom of residential hotels begins with the introduction in the legislation of october of last year by supervise mar and i'm happy to report that currently the property owners have been active in pulling permits to install these grab bars to minimize the amount of traumatic injury that can occur in the bathrooms and the residential hotels. there's a lot of individuals that had influence in allowing this to occur, supervisor mar had a great amount of advocacy to assist him with introducing this legislation and i'm sure tony will speak to that in a moment. the one thing i do want to indicate is that the department of building inspection felt strongly about implementing this ordinance that when it come came to the building inspection, they took

habitable so for me i think it really starts with just more accountability regarding the department of building inspection and on some levels the police department. i think if you have a video or if you have audio recording of somebody harassing or botherrerring somebody in a sro i don't think the police department is going to consider it serious. i mean for the most part i definitely believe that the police come into the sro's and have a derogatory stereotype of the people there. i think the other thing too is we also have a problem with the rent board and the visitor policy. the problem is that the nonprofits they have an exemption, so it's really like if you have a problem with any of the nonprofits you have to do a one man rent strike or start filing in court and it's excessively high barrier to place on someone who is a victim. i think my other problem is is like this spaghetti bowl of the department of building inspection. like if you have -- like say you have water hammer. you turn the water on. you turn it off and it makes a noise. consider you got 80-200 people in the building that becomes a loud

but when it was established, the department of building inspection was establisheds as the city department that would administer the fee deferral program. so, the question of whether the project is in the fee deferral program or not and what portion of the project it applies to is really within the primary jurisdiction of the department of building inspection which would make the determination of what's appropriate for this project. >> slightly wrongly, the program lives in the admin code, it did you tellxctiontionv live in the planning code. admin code gave that jurisdiction to dbi. i will say that the additional floors that are proposed to you today are paying the transit center impact fees which were not in place when the original project was approved and permitted. >> as a follow-up question to that, perhaps to mr. rubin's project sponsor. in terms of the deferred fees, when do you expect those to be paid to the city? because those are based on, is it occupancy? >> deferral fees. >> the first certificate of occupancy. we expect that to be early 2015. >> okay, thank you. >> just to clar

. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> welcome to the department of building inspections brown bag lunch series. y pleased to have a look at the stuff we're always talking about which is how things get built. we are here in the middle of a construction site in san francisco, mercy housing, being built between night and 10th, between market and mission streets. we have all of the people who are part of the project, including the contractors, the design engineers, soil engineers, structural folks. i think we should start by asking the question, what is a high-rise building? what -- what makes this different from any other building? we have the architect for this project. this is actually two projects? >> that is correct. we are building a little over 100 units, hud found it, affordable housing. there is a community center, child development center, a youth center, and there are a couple of retail spaces, the tenant of which is still to be determined. >> are these high-rise buildings? >> they are. >> a high-rise building is a building that is more than 75 feet from the point of fire department acces