to to find that this was an illegal demolition, to go through discretionary review, and at a minimum, spend a substantial amount of time going over the conditions that we submitted and making sure that reasonable conditions are added to this building permit in order to ensure the safety and integrity of my client's property and the tenants within the 12 units in her building. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. miss? >> if i could have the projector, please? this is the wall that is next to the light well, and you can see that right here. this is the existing wall. when they had complained about the painting appealing --

peeling, they put in new. now, the wall they are talking about that was damaged by the collapsed roof, quote-unquote, this wall below with the exposed stud is the existing wall. this is the wall that i was talking about that they're building had a problem behind -- their building had a problem behind and should be taken down and put back up. as you can see this wall, structurally, the wood is in very good shape.

unless you have questions? commissioner fung: counselor, one of the photographs provided that was given to us tonight shows a photograph across the links of the walt. >> you are talking about the package of the neighbor? commissioner fung: yes. yes, just tonight. i am not even sure i am asking the right questions based on the fact that this is a sight permit versus a structural package, -- a site permit versus is structural -- versus a structural permit. as to the alteration portion,

the existing structural framing looks like it varies in size. >> are we talking about this photograph? commissioner fung: yes. >> ok. these are the existing, and these are the new. commissioner fung: so all of those are new at that point? >> no, not all of it, because if you look, the new is the one in front, but if you look back further, those are not new. commissioner fung: right, and i guess my point is, the members sizes vary between the two portions of the wall. >> you are correct that it looks like is, that it varies, but on this portion, some of these look like they might not even be the

same size, but these are the wall that as construction goes along, if they are the -- not the right size, they will put another next to it. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michael cassidy. i am the contractor. this area here is the area that was requested to be dropped by 1 foot in the original agreement. this is the wall that they say is totally demolished, where she says a 26 foot area, whatever -- or she says a 26 foot area. it is not demolished, as shown in their own photographs.

-- photograph. they did not cover it at all, they just left it like that, so when we stripped the sheet rock from the inside, it exposes bare citing -- it exposes their siding. it also exposed at the floor, which is approximately here, their siding missing all of the way across. commissioner fung: mr. cassidy, let me ask my question. when you opened up the building, did you find that a member sizes changed from your original exploration would have indicated? >> every set instead is the original size -- every second stud is the original size.

you can see it all of the way along. there is a new study here, but they are all new, too -- there is a new studys -- tud -- stud here. >> every second one is a different size. they have to be added on the bottom floors. in the middle floors, to buy for a cure your quotes i have seen out for the floor, -- two by four. i have seen that in the floor. it has to be beefed up to come to code. did you are not allowed to demolish donthem. >> back to the out last point,

you have to assist with something? >> sometimes they would add additional structural members, depending on what the engineer asks for. >> i thing is submitted. >> unless their is department will rebuttal. anything else? then yes, it is submitted. >> when i first read this package, it was interesting, because i thought i was looking at an actual and building permit, and as i went back

again, it is basically a site permit. if you look good about in that light, the argument of suppliers. -- if you look at it in that light, the argument applies periods -- applies. it would not have necessarily been part of the permit. the water intrusion issue is not part of the permit. if their arguments over about, they are going to spend a fortune, and it is going to be difficult to tell where the water came from.

the basic side to permit -- site permit allows a certain use and design, and that is not being appealed. it is not part of the appellants appeal. this is not a discretionary review hearing, so the question is whether those issues that are going to be adjudicated in some civil venue, not here. i think a permit in terms of what it normally contributes

zero to what has been approved is still violenalid. >> i understand why an appellant would consider the percentages submitted as white suspect, but who -- submitted was suspect your your -- as suspect. however, despite the information about the calculation, that was done by planning. i feel more persuaded of everything done by planning is acceptable.

>> i want to take a different tactic and follow up on the comments of the property may be on sound. -- unsound. there's another process for review, and i do not know if there is a process to take it to a further staff review, but i i think with the safety concerns raised by the appellant, it should be addressed under that mechanism is possible to regard -- if possible. >> if it turns out to be on sound -- unsound, but does not serve the appellants. what it means is it gives the permit holder a lot more

latitude in terms of moving in different parts of of building. in terms of whether or not this particular permanent member came close to the threshold, i think that is a function of the process we have in place. if it had a certain amount of square feet, it would have required further review, so it is reasonable to try to avoid whatever process unless you are doing it illegally. i think it is reasonable to rely on two different departments in terms of whether or not this represents a demo. i'd think it is easily reasonable in terms of what else

needs i worry about it. i do not want to force more process on any one. but would be something knowing they would not have to go through folks, that might be something they choose to do for whatever reason, but in terms of satisfying the appellants as to whether this building will continue to be safe, i think it is a reasonable to rely upon this, and because there will be great liabilities for whoever got hurt, so i think they will

now give this a an extra level of scrutiny because of past events, and they are very aware there is of greater concern about safety, so unless there are other comments, i would move to uphold his permit. >> in the papers, there is a lot about construction. we did not hear about tonight. >> there is a certain amount of discussion, and if you have some feelings about that, please. >> may be adopt the resolution for the working hours, which they think was 8 until 5:00 monday through friday and 9:00 until 4:00 on saturday.

>> might i suggest something all little different. at a minimum, they need to come to an agreement with respect to access to the one wall and to repair that wall, and i am not set for the final conditions. yo>> about would entail keeping the promise suspended and not allow any work, -- that would not entail keeping it suspended? >> is the appeal is continued, the permit is continued.

>> you might not need to be heard. >> i am reminded about something that are usually choose to ignore, that there are certain things that are private matters , that might be difficult to enforce with this particular board. >> did you want to be heard the? >> we are willing to accept conditions of approval as long as the planning department agrees but if we allow access to fix what is behind, but we do

not have problems with doing that, as long as there is also a time like two weeks that they get the job done. it is not of been a job, but we are willing to accommodate as long as we do not end up with a one-year delay in the structure. >> two weeks from when? >> two weeks from today, and tomorrow. >> we are getting to an area that is beyond the purview of this board. but is something we would have an interest in making sure it happened, but i do not know if we have the authority. >> any conditions the board is

going to place on this side to permit needs to work, so the repair work being discussed is not part of the work on the spur matt. -- on the permit. >> also, i think when the building is completed, it is the best way to prevent future water going between the buildings. it is done every day in san francisco, and we need to sit down and talk with the appellant and have her agree, making sure her building is protected in the future. >> the issue has been raised having to do with work hours. you have some comments on that?

>> it is basically governed by the building code. what time did you quit usually? unfortunately, with construction, one reason people start early is the coast -- is because it is done early to avoid traffic, and you can have a delivery trucks during peak hours, so they come earlier or later, and most construction group stop. people get at the site at 7:00, and they expect actual work at about 7:30.

unfortunately, the shorter the hour you allow them to work, the longer the inconvenience and noise for the neighborhood, so it is a to edge sword. >> your client is working on the basis of his demolition and foundation and permit >> currently he is going to be working on the addendum, which has been issued. it was issued on march 18, and the scope is identical to the structural strengthening and the foundation.

>> do we have another question? >> i want to remain in a dress for comment, because we are talking about conditions -- to mainly address a common, because we were talking about conditions, and the appellant listes seven conditions, and i agree some of them are not within our purview. when you said you were a man of god, you were speaking solely to the question of -- when you said that, you were addressing solely that question. i wanted to make sure you were not seeing these. >> i understand this is the

only permits that is applying right now, so if we were to go in and get a permanenit, we woud have no way to insure we have access, so i think this is an appropriate forum. if you do impose such a condition, i would say we need to have access to the wall for of least two weeks. it seems like it is relatively minor, but we have to have a reasonable time for notice before that occurs to get our

contractors lined up. in addition, we did submit a number of conditions, including on page 8 that we be provided access to the site in order to work on repairing our property. but seems reasonable and in line with what you were thinking. in addition, we request we get a complete set of plans. these make sense. the other issue and we did address, a lot of our tenants have addressed concerns. the primary issue is the early morning start.

they are starting construction, very noisy construction, at 7:00 a.m., and some of my clients tenants liken that to an earthquake, so if construction could start at 8:00 a.m., about avoid some of the peak and seems reasonable. >> just those three. those are the three your urged the board. >> that was three of hours and one of theirs. and the condition that they were volunteering to allow us to have access with 30 days' notice and

two weeks window to do repairs. >> i see it differently. that is very specific. >> #1 is fine with us. then you did not need to get to the specificity of the methodology that is being used curio -- that is being used. anything that is going to involve removing the wall for a term, i concede the need for a time -- i can see the time need

to access the wall. goo>> the work to put siting onp of abuilding paper once the wall is removed will take one day. it is not a major construction. they are talking about punching holes throughout this building, and that is totally unacceptable. my clients will quit work. they will only start at 7:30

curio -- of 7:30. on saturday they would be happy to start work at 8:30. also you have to know the building is framed up. all the noise is going to be pretty well contained. >> as i read the condition on page 8, the access is not to test your client's property but rather -- >> there is one problem. there are walls of the garage level. what they are asking is ability to go through those walls. >> in reading this, it would be

reasonable access, but as a problem with the way it is worded. i get that. >> we know we are willing to accommodate, but anything beyond that, you are talking about getting through a wall that is already constructed or is in place, and i think that goes to the problem raised by the city attorney about the difficulty of trying to frame something. do we offer something about one specific problem and we know, but if they are not willing to look a reasonable solution, i guess they have to find her reasonable way to look up the problem zeroth.

>> i think it is extremely reasonable to allow access. i think we can impose the hours. good i think what is provided in the permit holders brief, those are my comments, so i would be willing to adjust the hours from 7:00 until 5:00 the 30 answer a decline of 30 -- 5:00 30 and -- 5:30 and 8:30 on saturday. >> the you have an end time on saturday? >> i