that building doesn't exist and it was demolished in the process of the work. should the applicant intended to have empty lot the application would have stated none or vacant and does not and i believe you have the application as evidence. on page two of the same application the statement that the plan show the removal of part of existing warehouse no other work. this wasn't part of existing warehouse as mentioned in the applicant's own letter in 2012 to the planning department. these were two buildings in his words 3,000, and 4,000 square feet and two buildings that were delollished and under the planning code requires any demo in one of these district tosi -- to be replaced and

no mention the building was compromised. however in the process this was compromised as evidence of by the photographs in your file. mounds of dirt and soil. was there encroachment sidewalk permit for blacking the pedestrian area? no. were there dust controls for the workers and the general public and the neighbors and san francisco driving by? no. contrary to the late response of my brief that they state two horses were tapped into the building only one garden horse was used to control the dust in addition to a leave blower and that is in your file. the code outlines what is required of special inspections and none of these were conducted as the applicant avoid the process of demolition and removed the soils after this. the grading of the

site both exceeding the scope of work. there were no traffic controls in place where dozens of truck trips were made to remove soil from the site. exhibit 11 in the file, the ordinance in december 2000 requires permits are in place for traffic. not done. this leaves us with the site today. empty lot and no postings of any type. remember the project started october 11. there are no permits filed on the site. no postings of any type. who know what is is going on? there is inconsistency in the letter of determination and the application itself. the applicant is -- when conducting the demolition work and has a dangerous compound. i respectively ask this body to

retroactively deny the permit and the behaviors when seeking approvals for a particular use only to move forward with the demolition. the arrogant disregard of instructionos the approved plans and the notification to dpw for example and the period for the start of work. i ask that you compel the applicant to do the form and demolition permit. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. mr. silverman. >> good evening members of the board. we appreciate all of you coming out tonight. we appreciate your time in hearing this matter. i am david

silverman and working with the permit holder jack tsang. much of the material submitted by the appellant concerned a lack of notice to the neighbors regarding the permit. while i am sympathetic to the neighbors on that general issue there is no code requirement to provide notice to neighbors under the circumstances in this matter. it is my understanding that the planning department may now consider new legislation to require such notice in the future. the second issue raised by the appellant was the form of permits that was selected by dbi. we have provided to the appellant the 1963 permit showing that the construction of the building in question was an alteration of an existing building. consequently an alteration permit was required to take it down. that was dbi's decision. the permit holder's

contractor spent more than a week consulting with dbi in order to certain file for the appropriate permit application. the contractor is here tonight and will be glad to go over the details if you wish. the contractor followed all of dbi's direction to the letter. the remaining concerns by the appellant either have already been addressed or will be addressed in the near future. there are some damage sidewalk squares that will repaired by the permit holder and secured the site with fencing. we provided the appellant with copies of the permit holder's water bills for 3,000-gallons of water used for dust suppression along with air district permit. the dbi permit wasn't always proper in accordance with all

regulations. we therefore request that the appeal be denied. on one last item the appellant in his comments just proceeding focused on a letter of determination that we obtained about a year ago. the purpose of the letter of determination from the zoning administrator is to analyze the zoning for the site. we do that for most of our client when is they purchase a property because they want to know what they can do there. there is no connection between the letter of determination and the permit that's before you. that letter was not a project review. its was not an application for a project. it wasn't anything of the sort siting that analysis

don't get us closer to the matter. he's comparing apples and oranges. they have nothing to do with another and submitted to the zoning administrator for his approval which he did approve. the permit holder mr. jack tsang is here along with the contractor chris ricard of peninsula hawley and we are happy to answer any questions you have. >> okay. we can hear from the departments now, whoever is speaking from the department of building and inspection. great. >> good evening commissioners. patrick o reiden from the department of building inspection. on october 9 the permit was filed for the work

at 2065 oakdale avenue. the politics necessary is listed here. on october 11 that permit was issued with review of our building plan check division along with review by our planning staff, and it was also noted on the back of the application that dpw at least reviewed the application before the permit was issued. it seems like the work started on or around october 16 or 17. we received a complaint on october 18, and our inspector went out the next day. now, he wasn't quite sure exactly what was going on, whether it was a full demo or partial demo, so

he wrote a correction notice advising the contractors to stop work until the required notification be provided for the demolition. a couple of hours later the contractor arrived at dbi with this permit we're looking at now indicating this was a pecial demolition. at which point we understood that notification would not be necessary for a partial demolition, so the work continued, and we went back out there. i should say also on the friday the inspector advise the contractor for the requirements on dust abatement and the proper way of proceeding and maintaining good work standards for the abatement of the dust. he didn't see any violation at the time, but the advice was given to them how they should proceed with regard to keeping the dust down, so i believe it

was on a tuesday of the following week which was the 23rd we went back out there and we saw that the building had been removed and at least a portion of the building had been removed, so at this point we have two correction notices. we have written four notices of violation, one of which was abated, because we couldn't determine that it was a full demolition. for quite a while afterwards -- i wasn't sure myself -- if it was demolition of a building or what and we did get records and this portion right here and we know it's partial because the permit in 1963 that we archived showed that to be a two story addition

and signed off as such, so now we know it wasn't a full demolition. it wouldn't require a form six, certificate of final completion was issued back in the day showing this addition, so the permit maybe could have done a little bit clearer on how it's spelled out the scope of work, but it was probably issued appropriately and notification wouldn't be required for the work that took place, so i'm available for any questions if you have any. >> mr. o reiden, the permit holder's representative indicated there were discussions between them and your staff before the permit was issued regarding what type of permit was appropriate? >> there may have been but i wasn't a party to them and i didn't know anything to that effect.

>> you're not aware? >> in fact i was surprised we found there was a permit for the two story addition because i didn't know if we would find something like that or not but that was archived in the record's division. >> are there any outstanding? >> right now there are three active ones. they were all issued within a two week period beginning october 25. one was for -- obviously the suspension of this permit, to document the suspension of the derment that is before you tonight. the other one for for additional demolition work performed without the benefit of a permit in the existing remaining portion of the building. the third notice of violation remains has to do with a fence. a fence was constructed around the property 10 feet tall with razor wire on the top of the

fence. razor wire is not allowed to be installed in a fence in san francisco. it's prohibited, so they have since obtained the permit to remove the razor wire, and the fence would be required to be in place to project the construction site. i also visit thrd last friday as a matter of interest and i wrote a correction notice for securing the building because apparently people were getting inside of the building and doing whatever -- they were living there, so that was in my opinion an unsafe situation sei required the boarding up of the building and making it secure. >> i've got a question as well. so what is the definition of demolition compared to what was written as far as scope of work on their work permit? i mean because looking at the

information supplied it looks like a pretty substantial building. i think it's noted it's six, 7,000 square feet and total and 11,000 square feet. >> i agree but the definition noted in the building code for demolition, a complete demolition is removal of the entire building. if there are multiple buildings on the site for example if one is removed that is a demolition, but if it's one large building and they remove a portion of that large building that is not a complete demolition. that is a partial demolition and issued on -- the permit is issued on something like this. >> okay. so something that's a partial demo that is not required? there is no determination of the building materials that were in the building they're partially knocking down? >> do you mean -- >> so evidently the building is

older than 1950. correct? no? >> the building was built in approximately 1963. >> okay. >> and permitted that year and signed off the following year. >> okay. >> it's worth noting too because there was a suggestion about special inspections required for the demolition. the special inspection having to do with a building that is more than two stories in height. we know this is two stories and it always would have to do with a building more than 25 feet in height so i have reviewed the drawings from 1963 as best as i could because the reproduced copy isn't that legible but it's a shade under 25 feet if you can believe it. it's 24 -- eight, nine, 10, something in that order and that is factoring everything in from grade because they had a loading dock and built two stories on

top of the loading dock so allowing for that and adding the floors and joyce and roof raftders and under 25 feet which means special inspections wouldn't apply to something less than 25 feet. >> okay. >> so that kind of answers the special inspection question. >> okay. >> just so i understand the sequence of events. your derment issued the permit. subsequently somebody went out to look i think you said it was yourself and you were confused whether it was partial or full demolition. was there nothing in the application that might have warranted looking at the site first to determine that? >> i mean we were probably -- monday morning quarterbacking a little bit looking at it, but i suggest it was issued permit over the counter. the notation on the back of the application

which is the second page of what we have right here, planning of a note per application plans and photos to remove part of existing warehouse, so that kind of tells me it was part of an existing building. the language probably could have been a little better on the application. >> and did you go out and look at just as a matter of course afterwards? >> well, at dbi we issue so many permits. we wouldn't have the staffing ability to look at every one. >> but you went out afterwards? >> i didn't go out personally but a a complaint was issued a week later -- >> and that triggered it. >> and an inspector went out there and he wasn't sure whether it was partial or full demolition and he told them to stop and they came to see me with this document here. >> thank you. >> on the subsequent nov's did

they comply with those? were there additional ones given after? >> yeah. we had four complaints like i said -- actually three ended up being notice of violation. one was for the suspension which you have before you right now. the other two of consequence would be the razor wire. they complied with that. i felt comfortable issuing of the permit to make the site secure and remove the razor wire and that's what we should be doing. the other issue there was a complaint regarding interior demolition at the existing portion of the building. now, we wrote a notice of violation for that. i believe it was october 26 and we got a subsequent complaint that they were still working, so we went back out -- i think november 6 or 7. we wrote a

second notice of violation. we referred the case to code and enforcement division. we posted a stop work placard on the building and that is set to be heard on january 22. >> so they didn't comply to that particular notice of violation? >> they didn't stop work right away apparently because we had to go back out and saw they were still working. that's when we issued the second notice of violation on that specific complaint regarding the interior demolition. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you and good evening members of the board. scott sanchez planning board and happy new years. i want to give a bit of background information on the subject property and located in a split district which means

there are two zoning directs. one is a light buffer district and between residential and heavier districts and pdr2 and core distribution and repair zoning district which is more intense zoning district. they did receive a letter of determine action of april of last year. they're not permits or any authorization to perform work. it's simply when someone has an idea what they want to do on a property and questions on zoning and request that letter of determination and how the zoning applies so we issued that letter this year. they decided not to pursue that project in the letter of determination request and seeked request to alter the building and that was reviewed over the counter by the planning department. it does

receive a categorical exemption and higher level of environmental review which wasn't that common. this was kag gorically exempt given the age of the building and didn't need additional violation so that permit was approved. >> >> there were concerned whether or not this was a demolition or not and with that we defer to building inspection and their responsibility to determine the permit type for the building. in this case based upon the records an alteration permit is the appropriate because this is removing part of the building and not demolishing the entire building and that's when the planning code section 230 would kick in which is requirement replacing the building and depending on the size of the building it could require something as twice as large as before and that part hasn't been

a flyd and on the books for several years now. so want to provide that information to the board and i am available for any questions. thank you. >> okay. so we will take public comment on this item now. can i see a show of hands how many people intend to speak under public comment? great. qhai would like you to do is have the first person come up to the podium and the rest of you stand on the far side of the room to help the process move a little more quickly. >> madam clerk, can you also explain what the rules are with respect to related parties? >> yes. thank you. so public comment are people not affiliated with the parties. that means anyone working for or associated with, either the bay view office community planning or the permit holder shouldn't

be speaking at this time but otherwise you are allowed to speak. you can step forward to the microphone. if you haven't already filled out a speaker card i ask that you consider doing so. it's not required but helps in the preparation of the minutes and you can hand it in when you come up. >> thank you commissioners for your service this evening i live on oakdale and really close to this site. i job up and down oakdale every morning and saw the events unfold. october was a warm month and what i saw was shock and aweand several tractors showed up out of no where and it was a mass demolition. this is not a small building. it's a large property that was torn down quickly. i didn't think of it at that time but there was tremendous dust

and tractors coming in and out encroaching the sidewalk and no person flagging pedestrians or traffic going by. i know that because i run there everyday and only in bay view would this happen. i don't know how anybody could get away from doing this. there were no signs posted anywhere. no one to provide caution. anyway so i wanted to come here and tell you while i think this should be looked at more carefully i appreciate you taking the time to look at this, and the permit holder back there. you said you were going to talk to some of the neighbors eventually. wherever you are i would love for you to come talk to me. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. i have not heard from this person at all and i live within blocks nor has anyone along oakdale has heard from this person and cars covered in dust. their

children were running in the sidewalks too. he hasn't addressed any of us and i thought of that from what the gentleman said earlier and thank you for what you do and i hope you look at this. it's a new day in bay view and people that do this thing that try to circumvent the process need to be called out and show them the right way to do this. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is william fairly and i live at 27 -- 2027 oakdale avenue and four buildings from the demolition site, and i wanted to comment that i'm a filmmaker and do post production and work space there and i hope windows to get ventilation and

during this process there was enormous dust on the sills in my apartment and subsequently after this was over i came down with a sty in my eye so my concern is there has been no supervision on the demolition of this property and i believe that it was done without much consideration. in fact it took place almost like a combat attack. i couldn't believe how quickly these people were working. i was suspicious over the urgency but it showed there was no one overseeing the site and i am concerned that they need greater supervision and i hope the city is in a position to provide it by asking for a full demolition permit, so that i don't feel vulnerable to how this procedure goes forward. thank you for your time.

>> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening commissioners and to each of you who are here. i live in the bay view. i live at 2067palou avenue. it's right in the back of oakdale. i live there. the building extends that whole block. i have been there for 47 years, and i have seen the dairy go through a lot of changes, but nothing like what happened this time. when i looked out of my kitchen window my sister and i was there at the take and i saw all these

demolition things coming in to destroy the daily, and i said "what is happening?" so she said "i don't know" so immediately i call 311, and i started with them because i didn't know no one else to talk to, but i called them, and they started giving me numbers to call. they gave me one, and thenlet first person i reached from that person to this one. okay. i called 311, and started asking questions. why the neighbors in the area wasn't notified? that is what upset me because they gave us no respect. now if any of us neighbors, and i am saying this because i know. if you build even a bathroom in the area you have to let your other neighbors know that what is happening in that neighborhood, but these people

that came in from the peninsula demolition company. no one gave us no notice, so then i started -- since i got no answers i called the building inspector district one. his name is joseph duffy and i have his telephone number. he said he didn't know they had a permit that was issued october 11. and he told me they were supposed to wait 18 days before they started because they were supposed to notify the neighbors. i called julian darns and i have his phone number. he returned by call late in the afternoon before 5:00 o'clock on october 18, 2012. i called the health department involvement. i called all these people and from one to the other including