this evening. i think the failure to establish any legitimate basis for revocation -- president garcia: could you please give your name. >> i am ryan soriano on behalf of the permit holder of. we addressed in the brief that this appeal has not, as the president suggested, focus on any issues of a practical matter that affect this project's impact on the neighbor. this is an urban setting. people have the right to do construction projects and the city has a procedure for making sure that things are done in a reasonable manner in and protect the rights of the german border as well as others who neighbor of the permit holders project a. everybody in san francisco deals with the noise and annoyance of a nearby construction projects. it is a temporary thing and there are procedures to make sure it is not unduly

burdensome. this appeal does not focus on that. it focuses mostly on a roof deck, which is not going to happen. and then it focuses on the lot numbers. he had just to be clear, any concerns on the roof deck are moved. -- are moot. he attempted to put a sinister spin on our attention to get a revised permit. there was no trickery involved in that. we said that we were abandoning that job. the board indicated a revised permit would be needed for that. after that, we got the revised permit. we spend four hours with the department of building inspection to make sure the permit would be appropriate. and that the procedures had the least amount of intrusion as possible. there is nothing sinister and i hope to the board is satisfied with that. that accusation is a very offensive to mr. specter.

he and his wife are here and there is a representative from dbi who probably has insight into the procedure. " we have is this lot issue. we are not asking you to overlook a technical infraction -- a technical imperfections. this permit established it is an imperfect way. the evidence is justice that the city has more than one manner in noticing a lot numbers on these permits. i spoke with pat, who offered an article in addressing this issue, suggesting there has to be some uniformity in the city's process and he identifies a number of reasons why uniformity is required to. you cannot do this ipso facto. you cannot make that decision now and start looking back at permits that have been previously issued as say they have to follow the new regime. as i understand it, no new rule has been adopted yet.

from the declarations we submitted, we checked with the central permit bureau. they said, we do not have a specific manner for how this is done. sometimes, we use the lot number were the primary work is done. a lot of times, we use all of the numbers. in this case, it was on a single lot. the roof deck is contractually exclusive to mr. specter. as they have not conceded, it can be changed if he does ever pursue the roof deck. right now, no roof deck, no common area, no requirement for a different lot numbers. even if it was a rule, it would not apply anymore because we are not pursuing the roof is the he technical violations and that her council is highlighting for you? there is no harm. they suggest that you set mr. specter back to square one. it is going to be the exact same

permit, the exact same scope of work that has been approved twice. it is not going to have the respect. it will have a single lot number. she is going to get notice in the exact same manner with the exact same amount of detail as the notice that she currently has. despite the detail and not permit application, she has not identified one aspect of this project that is not fair to hurt or in trees in her work -- intrude on her right. this extension is going too far and is not going to go in -- get in the way of my exercising my rights. this proposed assets -- the proposed asset goes too far and violates the code section. there is none of that. she says it technically was not issued right so they should start all over to satisfy me. that is not a proper use of the sports time or the procedures for this appeal. there has not been any justification to exercise -- to force an exercise in futility

for the permit holder. he has cooperated with the city and has done a lot o permit goes forward in the least intrusive way possible. it has been improved -- it has been approved multiple times. the problems that the appellant is complaining about provide no practical benefit to her whatsoever. for those reasons, i ask that you denied his appeal and reinstate the permits so that this project, which has been delayed for over one month, can continue. thank you for your time. president garcia: if you would address the issues having to do with blockage of ingress and egress and the garage. i am assuming the port-a-potty is there because the project has been suspended a. >> it has -- it is required to be there based on the permanent.

it has been extended by stipulation and logistics of the board itself. normally, an appeal would have been heard weeks ago. to take down the port-a-potty and pay to have it back out, he does not seem like a practical thing to do. there is nothing being done to block reasonable ingraham and egress. they are completely cooperative. there is a line of communication. ms. weesner has changed her attitude but they are still open to work with her and limit the intrusion to her in any way. president garcia: the other question i have is a comment. this exhibit d, i guess that is yours, page 17, it just seems strange -- it seems like there is a logical inconsistency that

someone would have exclusive use of a common area. >> you are looking at exhibits b? that must be from the appellant. >> and i am not criticizing you, but you used the same language. how can it be a common area and someone could have exclusive use? >> under the city's zoning, it is a common area. under the ccnr's that govern the use of the property, it is exclusive use to mr. specter. that is in the ccnr's that have been provided to the appellants. they provided you with the evidence that he has the right to construct a roof deck without her approval. she is here to say the notice was not appropriate when she does not have that right carried we digress because there is no roof deck.

we have been transparent about that and followed through to get the revised permit. it takes away any issues about common space or lot numbers. we hope we can get back to work on this project and move forward with the permit. president garcia: thank you. >> with any department like to comment? mr. duffy. >> i just -- any questions that people have for the department. i do see the roof deck and i think that would leave that all interior work. it would be correct on the original permit, in my opinion. it has taken place within that actual unit. if the roof deck had to remain, we would have had to do something with that.

both lots would have to be on if there was a roof deck on the top of the building. commissioner fung: the revision permits has, in its entirety, this permit with the exception of the roof deck? >> could you say that again. commissioner fung: they filed it for a revision permits and it has been granted. the scope of work within that permit, is everything in this appeal permit with the exception of the roof? >> that is correct. >> and that revision permits is under suspension at the moment, is that right? >> i.t. -- it is an issue permit. >> it is on appeal to the board. >> i am not sure. i know there is no work taking place. the notice of violation that was

shown is standard procedure for dbi when we get a request from the board of appeals to suspend a permit. it is standard that we do that just to notify the permit holder. there was not any work taking place that i am aware of despite the suspension. president garcia: if we were to uphold permit, then the revision correct? >> correct. >> i was under the impression that the revision permit was suspended because of the proceedings on this permit. i might be mistaken, but that is what my understanding is. >> they should have been suspended and it just never showed up in the system. it is more important that there is no work taking place. you are right. i think that the work could continue if you of all the permit.

and the revision kermit then takes effect. there will not be any roof deck, obviously. it is gone. >> another option is for the sport to strike that scope of work from the permit before it. president garcia: to avoid the extra process. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. i am sorry. i did not see you. >> is this public comment? i am not paid by anyone, although i did talk to one of the parties out there. i also talked to a number of engineers. my name is pat buscovich. i spend about three hours per day at the building department. why i do is hard to say, but i do. i have learned over the last 30 years to embrace the system.

arguing with a building inspector is like wrestling with a pig. i have learned to embrace it. the way i have done it is writing administrative bulletins. i currently has -- i currently have seven and one of them has been adopted. one is in front of the board right now, which is on cfc's, very important to you because of how you deal with the certificate of completion. i have five more in line. the very next one is kondo land projects, which is this case. that is why i am here. in terms of the lot condo issue, for some reason when bruce stores, when we condo an

existing building, i am working on one that has a couple of issues, when the condo did, it became law 45, 46, 47 and lot two ceased to exist. anything like msc's, when lot two ceased to resist, everything disappeared. the building department only has legal lots 44, 45, 46, and 47. they want to work a common area. the bureau has no lot number to assign to that. it is decided that we are going to create a super lot. we will call out all the lot numbers and that is the lot number for the common area. it is an interim solution and it

is terrible but that is all there is. if you are doing work in a common area, it is all of their areas. if you're doing work in separate units, you should list only that unit. you should have to separate permits, one for the super lot and one for the lot within the unit. the trick that i am pushing for is to go back to the legal lot that existed. in this particular case, lot two. i do not know what number is here. you have to separate permits, the law permits for the common area and for the aerospace of the condo. by commingling this, you are creating a nice 5-10 years that you are never going to figure it out. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will start rebuttals.

you have three minutes. let's thank you gary president garcia, i will address your questions but i wanted to clarify to items. one is that in the permit issue, it says a skylight. it is on our -- it is our understanding that that was suspended. i will show that now and show the violation. i want to be clear on those issues moving forward, as well as for my client, to ensure that that permit, we do not lose a due process on that. here is the current complaint history with a circle to add skylights. president garcia: this is not in our package? >> it is not in the packet. it was printed off today. we did not receive the new

permit. we only found out for looking at the website that there was a new permit issued. we requested be suspended until the board took up this appeal. commissioner hillis: the new permit gets rid of the roof deck and adds the skylight? >> that is correct. i think that is a problem. it also does not remove a water heater and furnace that are supposed to be put on the roof. again, that is common area. it is not exclusive use common area. to further that point, i would like to correct mr. soria on no -- soriano. if you look at paragraph 7.14, the last sentence, after the roof deck is constructed, then the owner of 1753 can apply to amend the map to add it as an

exclusive use common area. finally, i know president garcia wanted me to touch on that the nuisance issue. i have one final photo that i will put up here. suffice it to say that my client is in the lower unit. since this term was issued, she has had banging constantly. she telecommutes and works from her unit. this has been a constant nuisance with e-mails from the contractor, the permit holder about day-to-day operations. the process was not properly gone through to issue the permit in the first place. the one item i will show now is outside of the kitchen area. there was some pain that had shipped off and fell onto the lower portion of my clients unit.

with that being said, i will leave it for questions if you have any more about the nuisance activity. president garcia: these are things that are taking place while this project was going forward and i guess what i was interested in is some statement other than a nuisance, other than technical issues. as to why your client is opposed to allowing this project to happen. i am not necessarily clear. >> as i pointed out, there is the interest, egress problem. there is parking. president garcia: that has to do with the project that is going on. as opposed to what is wrong with the project, not anticipating those problems, or not having those problems. >> i am not understanding you treated -- i am not

understanding you. president garcia: the ingress- egress problems and paint falling are terrible problems. you would ask the board to overturn a permit based upon things that are a function of the process of doing the remodeling. why is your client opposed to the remodeling? >> it goes back to the common area. the one item being this hot issue. there is still the issue of the water heater and the furnace that are going to be part of the common area and placed there by the co-owner without my clients 's consent. it goes back to the first issuance when my client was not provided notice and the permit holder had this permit issued without the proper approvals. that is going to be a problem until saatchi sells the property -- until she sells the

property. there is a problem with that, area and that person does not have a notice that my client did not approve that and that cannot be a part of this permit. president garcia: it has been a while since i read this. we read it at a meeting was to take place march 14. in my notes, i do not have anything about the water heater being a problem. was that in some brief that i failed to make a note about? >> that was part of the new permit that came up in the interim period between the briefing and looking at what has been said today, there are items in the permit that are not covered. if the board were to revise this -- were not covered being removed with this revision permit. it will be an ongoing problem and it is not clear from mr. soriano or the briefing whether those will be removed.

commissioner hillis: where is the water heater and phoenix now? >> i am not sure. it is not on the roof. it would be placed there as part of this new permit. it was part of the roof deck, that whole arrangement. it is unclear whether that is going forward. >> thank you. mr. soriano, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. i think that president garcia has hit the nail on the head with his questioning. there is no complaint about any aspect of this permitted work. they are looking for a way to dumb up this project. there have been a lot of misrepresentations on this. the revised plans do not show any water heater or furnace on the roof and there will not be anything on the roof.

to clarify this whole thing, perhaps the easiest solution from the board, what we would ask for is to modify the original permit to remove the roof deck. that way, we do not have to proceed with the revised en route deck, the notice issues or hearing issues on that. everybody knows what the scope of work is. these new items were not in the brief period that are less second items brought up to try to address the concern that there are no legitimate complaints being made here. mr. duffy said the revised permit was the same as the original permit without the roof deck. that is what we said we are going to do and that is what we are representing to you now. perhaps the easiest thing to do is to modify the original permit with the board saying the roof deck will not go forward. we have no common area issue and we do not have a single practical, articulate all complaint about any aspect of this permit.

commissioner hillis: the skylight issue, i could not tell where that was. where is that? >> i assume the skylights are from the revised permit because there is no reason? in a would allow for skylights to be there. there already are skylights. that issue could be solved by revising the original permit. commissioner hillis: it is not in your plan to put in a skylight. >> it may be in the revised plan, but it is not an important part of any job. commissioner hillis: what about the furnace? >> there is no furnace in the revised plans. that was part of the roof decking. the contractor is here if you want to ask him. commissioner fung: your original permit calls for a furnace. >> because there was going to be a significant roof deck.

now there is not want to work on the roof. if you want an answer about the furnace, i can invite brian shepherd of here to tell you about it. but we do not have an issue about common area work anymore. commissioner hillis: you have to revise that permit to move or push the furnace somewhere else. no longer going on the roof deck. >> possibly so. it has been approved. the revised plan was also approved. commissioner hillis: in the revised plan shows is someone else -- somewhere else. >> i would assume so. how do you approve it without a furnace? the plans show that there is nothing on the roof. commissioner hillis: can we hear from the contractor? >> the original permit does reference the skylight. it talks about resizing and reshaping the skylight.

>> my name is brian shepherd. the furnace, as part of the original scope of work, is located in the attic crawl space at the ceiling of the second unit. he was never in the plan to be on the roof and it is not located on the roof. it will be located between the ceiling and the roof rafters, in which there is a significant crawlspace. the water heater was originally scheduled to be where the roof deck is. that is relocated to within the unit of sanford specter. commissioner fung: in the revised permit. >> the scalise modifications are -- there were two skylights added to the revised because there is not going to be a roof deck. the permit holder wanted to

utilize the space and provide more natural light. commissioner hillis: my question on the skylight is, is that a modification of the common area since it is a modification of the roof? is the skylight in or out? >> and that is why i keep going back and suggest that you can modify the original permit to remove the roof deck and you would not have the skylight issue. commissioner hillis: i do not know if i agree with that. it is in the revised permit. >> i am saying to go back to the original permit with a modification from this board. go-ahead. commissioner fung: you made two changes. one is the location of the water heater and one is the skylight. >> he just said it is in the attic. the original was supposed to be on the roof. the revised permit is not on the

roof but in a different location inside the unit. commissioner hillis: we could revise the original permit to remove the roof deck, put the hot water heater in the unit, and make no rivet -- and take out any revisions. >> that is what my thought was. >> how would we address his desire to have skylights? >> that would require an application for a revised permit. >> mr. duffy. >> on the revision permit, i did not see the skylights. there was an existing skylight on the original permit and it was to be made bigger on the original permit.

they did have an existing skylight before this all started, just to point it out. it is really unfortunate that we do not have the revision permits or plans in front of lust. i do not know why they are not here. i have not a clue that was approved. we are talking about something without seeing a plan. that is difficult for everybody. commissioner fung: in your opinion, the relevancy of the revision permit -- are there elements of its that can be covered by conditions done by this board to the original permit? >> no, i think you are right in what you're saying.

it could have been a simple board putting conditions on the original current. the only thing that hasn't come into play about the revision permits is adding skylights. the roof deck was removed on the revision permit, but then they added scalise. i do not know what skylights they are. maybe the language to -- for the existing skylight to remain as original, that might be ok for them as well. and the water heater to remain not on the roof. president garcia: if we leave the water heater on the roof -- >> it would remain in original condition, inside the unit. were the work is being done. president garcia: