propose. we would have no issue with whatever timelines you decide today. commissioner lee: appellant, do you have anything more to add? >> we thank the department. commissioner walker: i would like to make a motion to uphold the department's recommendation and extend the timeframe 180 more days to allow for the maximum time allowed under the permit. one year total. commissioner murphy: i will second that. commissioner lee: discussion? i think it is appropriate. the appellate seems to be moving along, and the department seems to be agreeing with that assessment that the project is moving along, so i would agree. >> one more thing, we have been

at the department in our litigation committee dealing with this project for a long time. i appreciate that the owner of the building is not only dealing with the violations but actually improving living conditions for people living in that building. commissioner lee: yes, that is another thing to consider. working with actual occupancy is a difficult situation. we want to make sure everybody is still living or they are supposed to be. that is always a timely element. ok. call the vote, please. >> we have a roll call vote on the motion to uphold the department's recommendation and to extend the timeframe for one year. -- to one year, i'm sorry. commissioner lee: commissioner walker: yes walker yes. commissioner clinch: yes.

commissioner hechanova: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner romero: yes. commissioner murphy: yes. >> the motion passes unanimously. case 3, 6747, 1117 geary boulevard, owner of record an appellant, emeric-goodman associates. appellate requested that the order of abatement be reversed and assessment costs be waived. appellate requested that dbi issue a permit to confirm the legality of the debt pursuant to the plans and calculations of structural design engineers based on valuation of no more than $5,000 and without any additional penalties or be spirit testimony, deliberation, and possible action to uphold, modify, or reverse the order of abatement. commissioner lee: ok, the

department first. >> field 6747, address 1117 geary boulevard. first and second notice of violation was issued. the violation in this case installed a deck on the roof. if directors hearing took place on march 10. an order of abatement issued with conditions, to file for a building permit with plans to legalize or remove the deck installed. and that the final condition, 90 days to complete all work including final inspection approval. there was a permit issued in 2008 for a commercial roof. that permit was signed off.

it is reasonable to conclude that there would have been no deck on the surface when that permit was signed off. later this year, two permits were filed but have not been issued. each of those permits -- if any of the were issued and signed off, it would clear the violation. one was to legalize existing debt and a roof. the other was real insulation of floating deck. because they are not issued, staff recommends to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. commissioner murphy: this the engineers letter satisfied that apartment?

them because there is no permit for the debt, the engineers letter would be giving guidance to the owner on what type of permit to submit. the final outcome we are looking for is the relevant permit to be issued, inspected, and signed off. commissioner murphy: it is kind of hard to see in these aerial pictures. was the debt there originally? >> there may have been, and if there were, that would help them to get it replaced, but our issue is not whether there was or was not. once the roofing permit was signed off, it is reasonable that there was no debt, there may be one previous, and maybe they put it back, thinking it was ok, but the material now is all new material, and that would require a permit. commissioner lee: you are saying that when you close out that route permit, you visually

inspect it, and there was no debt? >> of moving from it's generally do not require an inspection unless there is a placement of the plywood or framing at the roof. commissioner lee: ok. anything else, commissioners? >> i am representing the appellant in this case. in response to mr. murphy's question, there was a roof deck there. this-that we are talking about today is what we call a floating debt. it is not really attached to the roof. it sits on top, and it is in a series of four by four panels that can be taken up for maintenance purposes when debris, etc., gets below a debt. it can be combustible, and it needs to be serviced and

cleaned. it is kind of a floating back, if you will. that is what is on the permit application that we have filed to comply with a notice of violation. we were looking for permits in the past but this deck in theory the problem is years ago, the old property conservation division, which is the precursor of code enforcement when the department was a bureau, issued a lengthy report in 1973, and that included -- mentioned a drying platform, which is basically what this so-called debt is. it is really a driving platform. deck is a misnomer in this case. -- it is really a driving platform. it was done with a permit and sign off in 1980. the current owner of the

building comes in shortly thereafter and does extensive rehab to the building and what is never mentioned is the deck, this platform deck, which is really a floating debt. we come down to 2008 where a roofing permit was taken out. the owner acted in good faith. he took out a permit to replace the roof, and the debt had to be taken up. it was not secured in any permanent wave. it is not really duckboards, but there is a ledger board along the perimeter and a little platform that sits on top of the existing roof. then, we get to the fact that in 2008, the roofing permit was taken up and finaled. in 2010, we have a complete issued.

apparently the residents of the building were having a party on this debt and creating a lot of trouble for the neighbors and a lot of noise. the neighbors were even concern that they were climbing on neighboring buildings because the buildings are very, very close. the myrtle street last -- flats, the back of those buildings are in the same location as this property. they share a common property line. the complaint was made and notice was issued. that notice of violation cited only the fact that the building general section, that the building is unsafe and a permit would be necessary for that back. to this end -- and that was done by october of last year. within less than 60 days in december, we have eight directors hearing. the owner was in touch with

staff but never got a clear answer, so we have a directors hearing, which was then continued until january 13 of 2011. we have a tape of that directors hearing. on that tape, neil friedman was the director's representative, and he indicated the case should be returned to staff and that the order not be issued. it should be returned to staff. for some reason, the case went back to staff and the order was issued. what we are here about today is to say first of all that the notice of violation has defects. second of all, the order should not have been issued under the january 13 hearing. to that and also, we have filed a building permit application to comply with that notice of violation and a structural engineers report has been prepared by the owner. we filed that permit application and it is currently

on hold because the building is a landmark. it is a beautiful building. it was built in the 1870's, i think. it is right across from the old jack tower hotel. anyway, the -- we filed the permit. now the permit is -- we have to go before the historic commission because the building is a landmark, and if you have a notice of violation, you have to go before the full historic commission. that is a hard and fast rule. we are in a catch-22 where we are in a difficult situation here. what we wanted to do is to see if this order could be reversed. we have the tape here if you want to hear it and so on. i am available for any questions. commissioner murphy: just one -- actually, three questions.

the picture right there, when you look through the skylight, what is below that skylight? >> a star front -- store front. this is on the second level. the first level is 100% lot coverage, and on the second level, the building in dance in the rear -- indents in the rear. i should have brought a better picture, but this was all i could bring. can i bring this up to you? commissioner murphy: this debt that is on here now replaced that one? >> this is the current debt --

deck. just to let you know, we also used the old boards that were there before the roof was the ninth 2008. we simply turned them and put them back down. the deck is in 4x4 -- 4x8 panels that you can pull up. it is what we call a floating debt. -- floating debt -- floating deck. >> we have seen some deck issues before us. if there is one that is nonconforming, we have a grandfather -- i mean, assuming it has not been built before a certain date, but when somebody

rebuild or uses new material to rebuild it because it is deteriorating or whatever, the non-conforming parts thus trigger a requirement of the planning review if it takes up too much land use or -- can you talk to me about what the requirements are? >> on a situation like this, typically what we ask, after the notice of violation, we ask for proof that it was there. i have had conversations with the owner and some of the owners consultants and i have asked them to give me prove it was there. it is very sketchy. these conservation reports, as we have heard in this commission many a time, were sometimes they would give way. sometimes they were a little more restrictive. they are not always accurate. they do not always tell you if -- in the 1960's and 1970's, it is important realize that we

were having problems with the inner cities. there were funds coming in from washington and states who we have a lot of these buildings, a lot of code violations were glossed over. we now have gentrification, and standards are higher. code cycles have changed. typically on a permit like this, when you are going to get a roof permit and you have a deck, you call it out because it is a structural permit. the code is quite clear. there's a number of things you have to do if you are going to do a rebuilt. it is 100%, so it has to comply with the 2011 san francisco building code. notification, everything. the way we are looking at this -- it is a brand-new debt -- deck.

i tell them to get plants, go through, submit. go through the motions. there is nothing i can do. there is no relief at the possibly give. finally, they have come in. sounds like they might need a little more time. >> i would like to clear out the comment that the directors hearing indicated that it was not going to be an abatement was not going to be issued, that it would go back to staff. >> do you want to go to the tape? >> i would not mind hearing the tape with you. i just want the department to talk about back. >> i know our time is limited -- >> i have been asking questions, so go ahead. >> [inaudible] commissioner lee: use the

microphone, please. >> i was personally at the hearing. my small firm was selected in 1978 to renovate this building by the san francisco development agency. at the time, it was a city landmark. the reports that mr. sweeney was talking about as being sketchy were far from the case with this building. this building was in a fishbowl. there were numerous steps we had to go through to satisfy both the city landmarks and state historic commission and the national park service. in any case, i was in two hearings on this matter, two director hearings. first was in december. i was at the second january 1, 1913 when mr. friedman was the hearing examiner. unfortunately, they destroyed the tape of the december hearing so i could not get a copy of that. that was important because we

had testimony from our roofer. the january 13 tape i do have with me, and i am going to play that. i just want to give one slight additional prologue. there was a number of hearings that mr. friedman officiated over. when he went to do an order of advisement -- and i have some of those -- he was very explicit. give some 120 days, 30 days. very explicit. so it is not an ambiguous situation. hopefully i will press the right button. should i play it here? play it in a microphone. they will be able to hear it. >> hopefully, this will be able to be heard. >> [unintelligible] i would say review the current information. it has to come back here, it will come back here.

>> what should i be doing? >> be in touch. >> [unintelligible] >> and if for some reason you cannot get a resolution, i will give you my card. you can e-mail me, but try to get resolution for the first. i have a lot of things going on. >> [unintelligible] >> yes, sure. you can copy to me when you send the e-mail. >> there is not a specific weapon in your development. you can see that there has always been a debt. it was renovated and every once in awhile, roofing work is done. i could see if they were saying that someone just put a deck on there, but out of the blue, they said it was illegal.

>> there is no point in hearing any more of this right now, so we are returning it to stop. if there is further complication or for some reason it turns out the case is valid, it will come back here. commissioner walker: so i have a question. it seems to me that there was not a determination at that directors hearing on this case, said this may be a premature move. my sense. >> i presided over the first directors hearing, and i put it off to give the owner time to prove that there ever was a permit their. commissioner murphy: you give them 30 days at that time? commissioner walker: did you make a determination? >> i put the hearing off. 30-day continuance to set plans.

and they came back and got another continuance. >> we got a continuance in december. we came back on january 13, and that is when mr. friedman said -- commissioner walker: right. commissioner murphy: did you have the set of plans when you came back the second time? >> at the first hearing, mr. sweeney said prove they're used to be a deck. this is something from 35 years ago. i said there have always been a that, and he said to prove it. it did not see a deck on any of the plans. i have to go back into cold storage to find files from 25 or 35 years ago. i have a copy ofyou have a copyt that we did.

b, the compliance letter from the san francisco redevelopment agency, who said that the decking platform is damaged. the certificate of completion from the redevelopment agency. furthermore, there is part of this report, done by it will no architecture firm, financed by the national endowment for the arts to renovate the building. >> if i could just mention one thing? the permit was done by the building of building inspection -- department of building inspection. >> in the first part, the attachment to no. 3, the feasibility study that was done references index four or five times -- decks four or five

times. >> that was presented at the hearing? >> basically, the first part of this package was all presented to mr. friedman. he then inspected it. i spoke to him after the hearing. we cannot commit to ai deck whee people might fall in. i sent them the structural report on the 22nd. >> ok. if you take down a deck that has been there for 100 years, adding an extension, you need plans in terms.

that is why people keep 50% of stairs, so that they do not have to get land. >> and we concur with that. that is why we have the permit now, to comply. >> another question that i have is more on the category of structural capacity, that this could be construed as a deck or an assembly area. is there a limitation to the number of people liking go on deck? >> to my knowledge, there is not. >> overloaded. it stresses beyond the calculations, clearly. >> it would be addressed in the building permit. >> occupancy on the limitation

of people going there is crucial. >> yes. >> hearing from the other engineer on the commission here? >> the permit would address structural concerns. >> thank you. yes. we have that structural pork and a building permit. >> can i ask a question of the city attorney? i believe that this deck, as it is, requires a permit that was not received in the beginning. in which case, normally i would say let's give them time and hold the notice of violation. but it seems to me that the directors hearing did not have a determination, so there is nothing to appeal of his points.

>> if you find that there was never an order of abatement, you would not have jurisdiction. that would be for factual -- factual determination. >> ok. >> so, order of abatement was never -- >> if you conclude from the tape that there was never an order of abatement, if it was referred back to staff, you would not have jurisdiction, as there was never an order of abatement. >> if you want us to do the tape again, we will do it. >> do we send it back to the department? >> maybe we should hear public before we comment. >> let's have public comment. any public comment? >> [inaudible] >> that is what he said.

explaining that they gave more time? it covers both of you. three minutes for rebuttal. you are up. >> do they have any more time? or not? >> we went through that already. >> all right. it seems to me like there is a need for this permit. plus the notice of violation that was issued. i believe that the order of abatement was not issued clearly enough at the hearing. last hearing, unless there is a subset -- something subsequent to that tape that the staff has. i would say that we do not have jurisdiction on this. that we return it to the spot. if they wanted to have eight directors hearing, going through

that process, they could bring it back to us. >> was at the same thing? >> we are doing the same thing. >> [inaudible] excuse me for a second. commissioner? are we all set? we will go with commissioner clint, then the rebuttal. >> if there was an order of a patent issued, was the conclusion that meeting someone in the notes under the order of abatement? >> it is clear from the tape that it was returned to staff and in order, these things

happen all the time. >> you did not receive an order of abatement? >> we did, as well as a bill for $1,500. >> anything else? public comment? no public comment? are we doing public comment? >> we did. >> is there a public comment? >> and the public comment? >> hello. i lived in the building for 25 years. i just wanted to say that the deck was always there. tenants enjoyed using it. thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, ok. three minutes for rebuttal.