health department's requirements to be honest with you. in this case it was a partial demolition of the building so normally these things come in when there is a full demolition. so i am not sure if i am able to answer your question for you i am sorry, but i know that we do have requirements for the removal of the soil and the protection of it and all of those types of things and there is a question to the amount of soil and i believe that it was removed from it quickly from what i remember from the last hearing. >> thank you. >> thank you. anything? >> we can take public comment. could i see a show of hands that are here to speak on this item. >> if you have not prepared a speaker card, it would help if you would hand one at the end or in the beginning if you have one ready. you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners, i

was here about a month ago regarding this same case and we heard from everybody that as a resident of oak dale street, i mean the demolition happened as i was jogging as i said earlier, earl, on oak dale from the bay view. the demolition was pretty intense and i was concerned interest the lack of preparation and regard for the neighbors. i heard your hearing and ruling and you know i was pretty confident that when i left here that night that things were going to be okay. it was just a matter of days before the contractor was out there again, i personally witnessed more demolition work happening and more cement being pulled up just after i sat in this room and heard you all saying not to do that. i just want to let you know that i live there, i saw it with my own eyes and the first time that i think that he got a pass on this whole deal and i am asking you to not give them a pass the second time. i don't feel like anybody should have the right to do that in our community.

and although, i wish him success and well, whatever he plans to do with his property. i do think that we need to take a step back and make sure that guy is following the rules all the way. >> my name is robert davis and i am going to read you a letter from captain sullivan and he is the san francisco police department captain of the bay view station. dear president hwang, i am working to protect the citizens and hoping to recognize that the larger family supports the agency and departments when the building and construction and safety are reviewed and approved and inspected. in my review of the project at 2065 oak dale avenue, it is important that the residents

and businesses near the location, were not notified of the planned demolition. and it is also come to my attention that one of my officers, sue lavenman responded to a call on this property address, during the course of non-permitted work on january 16th, 2016, the officer was dispatched to 2065 oak dale avenue. due to a report of workers at the site allegedly acting to intimidate and prevent entry to a city employee. the officer responded to attest the dbi inspector duffy who had attempted to answer the building following the complaints of the work being conducted without permit. the workers departed the scene as the call was made and mr. duffy subsequently entered the site. and a new stop work order was issued and posted on the site. i urge you to consider the importance of out reach to the community and to bay view station when the building

matter involves demolition, modification or change in use, public, safety, traffic, sidewalk and environmental issues, may be better evaluated when notefy is made and permits are issues. thank you for your assistance and if you don't mind, if i could give this to the president of the commission and if you would like a copy, i have copies for you. >> sure. >> thank you, next speaker. >> thank you. thank you, victor. >> thanks. >> my name is michael hammond and i am here on behalf of the neighborhood association. you have heard tonight, testimony about the outrageous actions of this individual, after you upheld his permit and you placed stimulations on it. he has violated every sing of

one of those. and in direct violation of a promise that he made that night. he went out and he hired uncertified workers to use a hydroblaster to blast lead chips all over the neighborhood with no attempt of containment this is in violation of state and federal law. in addition, he had an excavator and dug up and removed and hauled away a great deal of dirt before it was tested. the whole point of testing is to find out if it is bad before you dig it up. it is like asking a person to take a breathalyzer test the next day, it defeats the whole purpose, he said that he would do it, he didn't do it. in addition he was caught working without a permit. without neighborhood notification and doing demolition in his building, jack hammering concrete and removing partitions. in addition he was so arrogant,

and he tried to prevent the building inspectors from getting inside of the building they had to call the sfpd, you should ask mr. duffy how often do they need to call the sfpd to look at a building. he has got an expensive lawyer who is up here trying to spin this into my poor client was just shoring up his building. that is a lie. he was not shoring up his building, he was demolishing the building. he did not think of shoring it up until after the engineer went out there and admonished him that the damn thing was falling down and then he started to shore it up and got the emergency permit and after he got caught and after the police were called. these incidents, this evidence, demands a rehearing. it demands that you look at this again. it demands that you revisit your decision to up hold that

permit. you know in addition there is also some additional information about what your options really are in this instance, of what you can and can't do. i ask that you look into your heart before you vote. each one of you. and ask yourself if this clown were engaged in these activities, in your neighborhood, would you vote to up hold the permit? really? >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> >> good evening. my name is joe boss. i testified before you at the first hearing and to be quite honest, i think that i heard

some troubled voices coming from the commissioners. why? because this is not a typical appeal. this is total disregard for how the city is supposed to work. now, passing along the fact that you did allow the permit. it also had stimulations that in no way have been followed. so, the purpose for the rehearing is to say, okay, you need to take out a full demolition permit. you need to do it with every rule enforced and understood. the fact that i mean, i have known their attorney for years. and his firm. and i have never ever, seen total disregard for their either their advice, or, this

is the most botched case that i have ever seen. if you do not want to do a rehearing, i don't know what the appeal board is all about? i really don't. and you guys work really hard and i get it and you have to follow the rules and i get that. and you know, so, you don't have to make anything up here, though, you can just take a look at the facts and say, don't you think that maybe the building needs to have a proper permit to do the demolition? and move forward, telling them that that is what they have to do? go through this whole process? i was kind of amused when i heard that the building was kind of collapsing. well, it was collapsing because the support beams had been taken out illegally as part of the clearing the way for the walls and partitions. so, gee, there is something

wrong there. that is no excuse. if you go in and you destroy a building, and it starts to collapse, then you run down and get an emergency permit to shore it up. that is just so much fun. i appreciate if you would send this out for a full permit, to get a full permit and that should be what you should be doing, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> good evening, my name is quinscy lat mer and i live on fourth street a few blocks away from the site. i can't help but be outraged. i never heard something like this such blatant disregard for the law, the initial dust problem and the police having to called out working without permits and ignoring the stop

work orders. it is crazy, if you don't take action here, you need to take action, i can't believe this is happening. i think that it is very least you can revisit the issue and see if there is anything that you can do under the law to bring him to justice. this is just crazy. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing no other public comment, commissioners, i believe that the inspector duffy would like to come back? >> yes, please. >> yes, commissioners, just in answer to your question regarding the health department, we found something on the city website that is the health department do have a hazardous waste site assessment and mitigation and it is mainly for leaking underground storage types and developing in the historic landfill and sites with no contamination that be

being mid gated on a basis, and i am not sure if that falls into that and i thought that i would share that information with you. we did actually note, inspector duffy he did get into the property and is you a violation, and they were breaking up concrete pads as well. and i believe then that we did issue a permit for temporary shoring since the last hearing. just wanted to add that. >> thank you.. >> mr. duffy one was issued. >> we issued one and another one for doing excavating and that was after the hearing as well. >> the nov for the paint, was for not testing? >> well, they were removing, they were doing exterior lead, disturbing the paint on the exterior of the building like without the proper procedures.

so they were... they didn't have any tarps down and there is a whole ordinance in our building code about that and when the inspector from our led abatement program went there and they gave them a $2500 penalty. >> in terms of that process, but has it been proven that it was lead paint. >> it could be. >> but the nov related to not following the appropriate process. >> correct, that is right. >> yes. mostly mitigation, taps, etc.. >> and when the gentleman mentioned earlier how often is sfpd called in to enter? >> i have working there 14 years and my experience 2 or three times i have heard of it happen and donald is part of that in bay view hunter's point and so he does work closely with the police department and

he knows them pretty well there and i think that there is an ongoing thing, but certainly from an inspection point of view, not getting into a building and being harassed and it does happen very often and once every ten years maybe. >> thank you, inspector. >> thankfully it does not happen. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> do you have questions for them? >> i guess that it is me. >> the whole matter, before us is extremely disturbing, to say the least. i think that as one gentleman mentioned this board gave them the free pass. to say the least, and from that point on, the permit holder has

decided to basically cowboy through every law that we have in the city to going through the dbi putting public safety at risk, public health. i feel and this is a very difficult case, the result of having a rehearing, what will that do? i feel that something needs to be done. i mean the people in this neighborhood, at this point have not been afforded any protection. and every time that this permit has been told to do something he has down the other. the fact that the san francisco police department had to be called in just to access the

building, is absurd to stop him and threatening him bodily harm enough that he felt that he had to have the san francisco police department show up. to me, shows that this permit holder has basically decided that he is going to make the rules no matter what it is before him. i think that was very well put. i concur with the sentiments. and pending the sentiments of my fellow commissioners, i would move to grant the rehearing request. i would agree, maybe not all of it. yes, the original permit, was through a technical reading and

procedure it is gaged to a certain permit verses the full demo permit. however there are a number of things here that would without permits in contrary to some of the things that we brought up, and i'm not sure exactly what the resolution, i guess that is what a rehearing may do. or entail. but i would support that. >> okay. i would move to grant the rehearing, request. >> and on the particular date? >> any suggestions in >> probably one of the april dates would be the best, given that there is a need to give time for briefing and the

board's calendar in march is so full >> april ten? does that work for the parties? >> april ten? >> okay. >> and as for grounds, i believe that our standard for new information material to the dispute were undisputed in fact. >> okay. >> we have a motion from the president, to grant this rehearing, request and to set it for april tenth, on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is absent. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0, and this rehearing request is granted. which means that the original decision of the board is set aside, and a new rehearing on the merits shall take place april tenth. thank you.

>> we will move on to item number five, appeal number 12-155. steven greenwald and rochelle alpert verses the department of building inspection, the property at 60 presidio protesting the issue ans to jennifer chow and steve minisini of a permit to alter a building, application number 201201182486 expand the existing roof terrace, new window at top floor, family room number two and replace the existing single glazed window with new wood double glazed window and repair the stucco with integral colored stucco. >> this is back from last week, and the parties were here to present with revised plans but i am not sure if that is what we are about to hear. >> and should we, and i am not sure if we need to give seven minutes or three minutes if we

are just giving an update? >> three minutes, please. >> okay. >> an update. more than you need? >> we just more than an update. >> perfect. >> it is more than an update. >> let's go with 3. and if we have questions. >> okay. >> okay. members of the commission, last week we have high hopes that the party could come to an agreement in the set of plans that we can agree on to come before the start, however, first of all we received a survey finally of the property which was dated november 12th that showed that the walkway and the side yard does not all belong to the project sponsor and now, and what really is belonged to them. and that means of this and the building code. secondly, the set of plans that

we have talked about is the architecture plans was not complete and not all of the windows were there and i think that preliminary comment letter to their attorney and then... today did not change the roof plans, the roof deck at 5:00. i just before 5:00, i was handed a new plan asking me to review it and whether i could sign-off on it. and i most certainly cannot look at a set of plans, at 5:00. so i am prepared to present to this board the arguments on the merit of why the permit before you should be denied. >> is this okay. i would like to before you launched into argument hear from the other side on the status. and i don't know if that is out

of order here. and then we will need the full seven minutes, i will be willing to go there because we did not hear that before. >> okay. >> just the status. >> just the status, not an argument. >> okay on the mer mitts. merits. >> brian soriano for the permit holders, we did provide a full set of plans that they wanted so badly, despite that not being a requirement of the permit and those delivered before the weekend. we did not receive a draft of the settlement agreement that they wanted us to sign and i feel that they are looking to delay this thing and that is

not in the best interest of the permit holders and it is not in the interest of fairness, equity and justice, and so we would like to have the hearing present her arguments and we will respond to them >> okay. >> okay. >> i think that we should hear from mr. sanchez as well. >> yes tha, is okay. >> mr. sanchez, were you involved in this? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you. >> planning department, as last week, the board graciously continued the item one week to allow for the parties to meet and discuss and it is my understanding that a full set of plans was given to the appellant at 5:00 last friday. they reviewed it over the weekend that is when the issue of the survey came to their attention and any questions about the property line, and reality that was before the board tonight is just the permit for the roof deck, and so that, i thought was understood is that there would be supervised plans that were

code complying for the roof deck, there were two issues, one the codes were not code complying, and two, given the location of the deck, it is on a non-complying portion of the building and it required under our policy, a ten-day notice to the abuting properties as a notice to the roof deck and that was not done with the review. and we thought that continuing it, hopefully the parties would come to an agreement and there is also already a sign-off from the abuting property to the rear, so that the notification issue would be settled and the co-compliance issue would be settled. >> before the hearing today we did receive revised plans for the roof deck and i reviewed those briefly and the plans do comply with the planning code and made modification to the plans and i don't know if the appellant had time to review those, but rather than having this take much more of the board's time or having this be continued and i don't know if we are going to come to a

resolution to the parties. the board could deny the permit, and have the applicant submit over, and right now the plans that were with the issues permit were not code complying, you could deny the permit and they could refile and go and do the ten-day notice and go through that process rather than having the board hash it out tonight or continue it, so that is one of the options that the board may have and i want to be sure that you are aware of that option. >> thank you. >> the revised plans provided to you today are now code compliant in your cursory review. >> yes, the plans that i received this afternoon, i printed them out and the architect has full sized plans as well. they do appear to be code complying. >> and they do not require the ten-day notice? >> it will still require a ten day. >> yes. >> the ten day notice is required because a portion of it is on the building above the

height limit and any time that you add a roof deck on a portion that is not complying in the site, set backs we do a ten day cursecy notice and that was not done in this case. the two problems with the original plans, one they were not code complying and two, no notice. they corrected the complying and there is still the notification issue. >> thank you. >> anything else that mr. duffy also would like to speak on this? >> commissioners, just like that, i did get a look at the revised plans myself with the architect and from the building code point of view and the building department point of view we have separate existing plans and they are not in the sequence of the drawings but they are better they show the exact scope of excavation, they are moving in the right direction and the wording on the permit to consolidate the

plans need to be figured out. but i thought that the plans were a huge improvement from what i had seen previous and it shows you the full scope of the project from the $5 permits. >> and now conformed to the department standards of submission of the permit? s >> because it shows a full scope of working and elevations sections for plans which is what we like. >> you are referring to the set that you received less than an hour ago. >> i met with the architect this morning at dbi. >> okay. >> i got them this morning. he actually came in yesterday but i could not see him. >> okay. >> so, do you want, are you prepared then to proceed with the hearing on the merits? >> we have no choice. >> i think that, yeah... well, if the parties want to do the

argument, although i frankly like the recommendation suggestion of the zoning administrator, you know if the parties want to do the argument, go ahead. go ahead. >> we have a question. >> i'm not sure how would we go about approving a permit that violates the notification requirements? >> right. >> so, it is as any administrative policy for the roof decks and you know we were hoping that they could come together and have an agreement otherwise, they would have had the right to do a discretionary review before the planning commission and so i feel that is the best process for maybe the board to deny the permits. and to refile for the roof permit and go through the

appropriate process. for the parties that we would satisfy the requirement and give notice. we did not hear it last time. we have not heard it. >> as far as process is concerned. yes, miss barkly, we are ready to have you present your case. >> the form that is before this board have to say the procedural error one is that this is discussioned before and the other one is that the permit before you actually has a garage that was enlarged that should have had its notification. what we had agreed to was a set of plans that we cannot