people that are watching this. if you want to apply for a permit, you are welcome. we will validate the work of the staff. we are doing our work. please validate this permits or take the jurisdiction, as some people have suggested. thank you. >> may i have three minutes? >> yes, i will reset it now. >> good morning. my home is at 2514 23rd ave. it has been the subject of this commission and of the board. mr. butler, who has brought to this motion, is the architect of record of my next-door neighbor. these individuals have combined in a relentless campaign of harassment. the ferocity with which -- of

which they have used multiple san francisco city agencies to defame and harass my family, both professionally and personally is truly appalling. under the guise of concerned citizens, they have manipulated city boards, commissions, and san francisco public agencies to satisfy their own agenda, which appears to be nothing short of the complete financial and emotional ruin of my family. lest you think i am is exaggerating, please listen to this -- my children have been intimidated and harassed to the point that we have requested the police to intervene. they have formulated 23 complaints on our home. seven complaints against the restaurant we are trying to open on 21st avenue with the potential loss of 22 jobs. they have appealed each and every permit we have obtained including a roofing permit, a window replacement permit, and a foundation permit for our home.

it was suggested to us at the start of the campaign the we could use -- should we use her architect, our permanent problems would be resolved. they have brought us to the planning commission, cal osha, the spca. three times, even our children's pets have not been abused. they have reported our home vacant and abandon while we were living there, both to the city agencies and to our mortgage holder. whose interests are they serving, and what is their goal? on may 18, 2011, mr. butler appeared before this very commission with blatant arrogance, he showed photographs çlr home, and this is in the archives -- you can all watch it. he said, "when we go down into the garage" -- let me assure you, over my dead body did i give permission to this man to enter my home.

there appears to be no limits to which mr. butler will not go to achieve his goals. a fairly even breaking into my home is acceptable practice. once aware of our interests, in 550 states, they have transferred their campaign for harassment to that property. last week, during their request for a discretionary review hearing, the sole supporter of that motion -- [bell rings] >> thank you. the speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. i am was involved in the building and remodeling. i have been building in san francisco for 35 years. during that time, i have been involved with the development and construction of hundreds of buildings and thousands of units. i have followed the process, rules, codes, and laws of san francisco.

this house was built as per approved plans. all inspections were performed as work progressed, as per standard building procedure. the city inspector entered record instructions while the work was being done. the job card has dates and signatures to verify this theory the job card was finalized on december 5, 2011, pending revision for shaving the ridge beam so it could not be seen from above the parapet. the work has been completed and inspected. all special inspections were performed and recorded with the department of building inspection. these inspections were performed by the engineer of record. the structure meets all building codes of 2011, which was -- which the structure was required to meet. 550 jersey has a certificate of occupancy. during construction on july 27, we were notified there was a complaint. the permit was issued in error

appeared on august 10, 2011, the zoning administrator reinstated a permit from planning department perspective. on august 15, 2011, the chief building inspector informed us work it can proceed. this was from the perspective of the department of building inspection. this approval is the last time this permission had been allowed to be challenged. for us to be here today is a clear indication of how the process is being manipulated for unscrupulous reasons to circumvent building in san francisco. on the 17th, another complaint was filed, that the bill was two feet too high. the building inspector measured the building. he witnessed it was as per approved plan allows. on december 13, 2011, another site visits by senior inspectors. the planning department also witnessed the building being measured again. again, the house was exactly as per plan. restoration of the front of the

building was done with great care and into the corners and the passat were able to be left untouched except for prep work and a new paint job. the removal of the aluminum windows and plywood siding on the front of the house was consistent with the approved plan. the complaint about the built-in base is completely false. it is exactly as planned. zoning administrator stated at the planning commission it would never have been reviewed by historical resources committee and meets all current and future criteria. this project has been attacked from every conceivable angle. permits have been approved. complaints have been filed and challenge, and permits have been proved again and reinstated. please pass this permit and let us move on with our lives and create more beautiful homes in the city of san francisco.

>> we can close public, at this point. >> that is the end of public comment. the department has three minutes rebuttal time. >> good morning, commissioners. i am chief building inspector. the permit renewal on the third floor was looked at at the bpr system back in 2007. at the time, there was too much repetitiveness from going from florida floor, station to station, waiting a long time to review permits. our third floor does a renewal of the permits. they are looked at on a case by case basis. there are two stickers and bald -- one to complete work and

obtain final inspection, and the other permit was the second stamp, which was to obtain final inspection. there are three words of discussion between the two. one is to complete work and obtain final inspection. the other is to obtain final inspection. when we look at these to complete work and obtain final inspection, the renewals, we look at every permit. if the permit requires planning approval, we never it to planning. we have to use discretion on these permits. a lot of these large projects are beyond the limit and have to be reviewed is why we renewed these permits. some of these permits run out of money. some of these permits to small contractors need additional financing and need more time. that is why we do the renewal process. it is all done on a case by case basis. that is what we do.

we look at the evaluation of the work to be performed. i have been a chief building inspector since 2008. i was senior inspector for five years prior to that. this is the practice we did on the third floor. we have done this for the last seven or eight years. we look at these permits required to be renewed. we look at the scope of the work. if it needs to be diverted, we go to planning. if it does not, we renew the permit. we determined the valuation by looking at it, and a lot of times, we will reduce the valuation just because the prior permit, they pay full valuation theory the inspection services were not performed, and they will revalue the permit. this was a practice for approximately eight to 10 years. this was a practice we used in this permit. it was an error. it was checked to go to

planning. it did not go to planning. we replicated the permit. we waited for planning approval. week reinstated. all inspections were performed. special inspections, and we are waiting on the revised permit at this time. we feel the process has been complete. thank you. >> side, we just need the appellant, and then the commissioners can ask questions -- sorry, we just need the appellant. >> commissioners, patrick is

correct. the issue is whether or not work had started. i will show you the job card that was issued with the permit. the permit was 934215. our exhibit 1 page one. on page two, you see the department of building inspection inspection record, and that is the card that the district inspector would sign in the field that they had executed inspection, and it would make notes on the back of the card if they had other comments. there are no notes. there were no inspections. this is the actual card that the districting spector carries in her portfolio. it helps to keep track of where she is during the day, which jobs she needs to go to. she might even put them in order so that she does not waste gas driving around the city. on the back of the card, you see the initial of carla johnson, the district inspector, the

permit application number, and the box checked "expired." it is clear from these four pieces of paper that no work had been performed on the earlier permits. there might be photographs brought to you by someone who knew different, but i do not think the district inspector would expire it permit where work had expired without acknowledging it. the burden of proof today is not with us. the department was the record show that no work had started. if you go back again to what the building code expects of department, a new application is required. a new permit shall be issued.

the comments about our behavior -- i regret that it caused her emotional difficulty, but the complaint was found to be valid. they were deeper than 5 feet. it was an excavation in place. there was no shoring in place. they had no permit. the photograph was taken -- together, the 5 feet between the houses is two and three, and the photograph was taken from that side yard. i would like to say that the issue is whether or not work had been performed, and if no work had been performed -- and no evidence is in the record to date to demonstrate that -- then you must find that a new application must have been made. when it was revoked, that was correct, and it was revoked for

a dbi reason, not a planning reasons. [bell rings] if i may continue? commissioner mccarthy: we have to give equal amount of time for both sides. thank you. at this time, public comment is closed. it is back to the commission. at this stage, i guess, i will hold my comments for now and open it up for the commission. >> i certainly appreciate the rights and responsibilities of the public for appealing permits if they feel that there are issues. however, appealing permits is not in our jurisdiction. these permits and these issues all are appealable to the board

of appeals. as in the sand it, the issue before us is only one of whether or not the director appropriately or inappropriately did not issue a written response -- as i understand it. i have seen nothing as far as evidence one way or the other about it, and and the clock -- inclined to deny that appeal. the other issues brought before us may well be issues. it feels that it is not in our jurisdiction to be deciding on them. commissioner mar: i just wanted to say i think it is important to clarify the point. i think the city attorney was very clear. all we're talking about today is whether or not the director of the department issued in a timely way, which was 15 days, a written decision. that is all the jurisdiction we have today. not whether to revoke the

permit, real issue a permit, or any of that stuff. that belongs to another body. commissioner lee: let me speak a little bit about determination. as a city employee with dpw, our director issues a lot of determinations. the definition of determination that dpw is what the director decides after a hearing. i think we are all misinterpreting the word determination here. i think this would have never went to a hearing. if it went to a hearing and the director failed to make a decision based on the testimony at the hearing, that, i think, is of appeal -- is appealable to us. i think all we see today is a letter to the director that did not get a response. i feel we do not have

jurisdiction in this matter. commissioner mccarthy: any other comments? commissioner clinch: i would like to weigh in at this stage. obviously, this is a complex case. as commissioner walker, i respect the fact that there is a process in place for citizens to that their concerns and one of the reasons we are here. the key important thing for me here in this whole case is -- were the concerns addressed? there is no question about it. every aspect of this case has been addressed. every inspection has been performed. what is interesting and which was in the package today, and i guess the planning department had a hearing on this. if this is correct, scott sanchez was very clear, the

zoning administrator, that the project complies with the current process. everything in this project past -- passed their concerns. there was no foul play. obviously, about the department did a good job -- i thought the department did a good job rectifying coming to explain to us. we had a thick of year in operational, and obviously, the director talked about the stance. you process almost 52,000 permits a year based on the information i have been given. a human error has been made here. from that, all this has come from it. i think it is important that when we do find problems that the department addresses those problems and makes them right. that is what has happened here. i want to commend the department for doing a very thorough job and making sure everything was addressed that was offered up

here today from the appellant. >> i just have one more question, maybe to the appellant -- why were these appeals not done to the board of appeals where generally building permits -- >> perfect question. i notice a permit issuance for major alterations was not issued. notice of permit issuance was post on the building. the letter was sent to the neighbors. even though it -- even though there's no authority in the code to permit, that is what happened. because no new application was made, a permit was issued, and no notice when to anyone. no notice went to anyone. 15 days later, the board of appeals window shop. we could ask for jurisdiction. it might snow tomorrow. commissioner mccarthy: mr. butler, did you actually hear the hearing that took place? >> i was at the hearing.

commissioner mccarthy: did you hear the comments of the zoning administrator? determining that the -- that no notice was needed? >> i did hear that statement. our complaints with planning were fourfold, one of which was that a new environmental review process would have had to occur if they had checked these plans in february 2011. we went to the landmark preservation advisory board's predecessor board, and senior staff said it would not be allowed under the current environmental review procedures that are in place at the department. a decade ago, the city did not apply -- the planning department did not apply the same review procedure as they do today. while mr. sanchez has the ability to issue a zoning administrator is determination

erie we have a memo discussing having met with the zoning administrator, but he did not issue a determination. there was no appeal will document. we are here because there is no place else for us to be. >> i just wanted one question, and thank you. you kind of continued beyond the question i had asked. there is not a landmark building. this is not a landmark building. this is not a historic district. nothing about it would trigger a hpc review even today. i was there was somebody here from planning, but i think there's no question the planning department are comfortable with the original approval and the renewal permits is what it was. obviously, the hiccup happened, and it was addressed, and we are

here today because of that. basically, i did not think there are any more comments today. i would like to make at this stage vote on this. commissioner walker: i would like to know how we go about saying that we do not have jurisdiction. i guess we would just -- because we are not the body to address the building code issues? it is not that i did not hear what the concerns and frustrations are, but we do not have authority to make a decision about the permit itself. to the other point, i do not -- i guess i would ask or move that we deny the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction or based on lack of evidence that there was a requirement to file a written report. how is that? >> the question in front of the commission is whether or not the

director erred and whether she failed to render a written decision or determination within 15 days. that is the question in front of you. i think you do have jurisdiction to hear that question. the other issues that were discussed regarding with the permission have been issued, or revoke -- all of those are not in front of you right now. >> if i may weigh in on this -- help me with this. this is new to me, and i want to make sure it is right and ready. i think it should read somewhere -- to uphold the director decision not to apply mr. butler's letter with that. >> or how about "move to deny the appeal based on no requirement for a written response"? >> i think that is in essence

what i would recommend. the language i had worked out back in the office was that you move to find that the director did not abuse her discretion in not rendering a written decision. commissioner mccarthy: that language is important to put in, especially in this case. can i get a second? >> i second. >> roll-call vote on the motion. commissioner mccarthy: yes. commissioner mar: yes clinch: y. commissioner lee: yes. commissioner melgar: yes. commissioner mccray: yes. commissioner walker: yes. >> the motion carried unanimously. commissioner mccarthy: thank you. next item.

>> item 7, discussion and possible action for the commission to convene a closed session regarding a public employee appointment -- deputy director. a -- public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. if there's any public comment on the item 7a? seeing none, possible action to convene a closed session. pursuant to government code section 54957 (b) and the san francisco administrative code 67.10 (b). is there a motion to build a closed session? >> mou to go to close session. >> second. -- move to go to closed session. at a second.

>> all in favor? we are now in closed session. we will be taking a brief recess.