he was told all the work was done and all we need to do was a final inspection. that was 25 years ago. >> mr. williams? >> good evening, president garcia, members of the board. i am steve williams and i represent ben lee and his family. i was confused by the presentation as the president of the board was. this is to renew avery expired permit for work already completed. the department does thousands of these a year. the appeal is based on a selective reading of the document out of the file. he skips over the ones that show

that the work was done and put in and focuses somewhere in 1989 on items that were done halfway through the process. that is the basis of the appeal in front of you. the appeal itself stopped them from obtaining what they want, a final inspection. for him to say they want to delay the private -- process, come on. it is an administrator permit of work previously completed. this happened during the time of the earthquake. who knows what happened with the final appeal. if you took that time to go through all of the paper work in front of you, what you have is a project that was completed. the lee's hired some of the best

people in town to do this. it looks great. they obtained six permits for this job and a five of them were signed off as final. if you look at the paper work, you have 5 final permits in front of you. the only one that is not final is the site permit or the building permit. exhibit h, the fire suppression system, which was designed by an engineer, and that is signed off as final. electrical was final. the plumbing is final. the gas fixture -- those permits were all signed off as as final. the basis of the appeal is a complaint based on fire safety.

the appeal claims there were fire safety issues that were overlooked. this is incorrect from the paperworks the appellant put in, which is exhibit h. the lee's applied for a separate permit by a separate engineer. they had a separate contract with him, which i brought if anybody wants a copy. all you have to do is go online to see that permit was completed sure yet anybody can go online. it shows it was signed off may 21, 1990, was when the fire safety permit was completed if you walk through the dates in the other permits, this is when

the entire final review and inspection were given. if you look at the job card for the main permit, exhibit b, submitted by the appellate, the last page of exhibit b, which is the job inspection card. that tells you exactly what happened the day by day. these seven items are enumerated. the fireplace is not in yet. that is where the appeal stops. it skips over the next entry which says that items one and threw six were ok. he checked off six of the items. it ignores the fact that in many 1990 -- may 1990, there was

a walk through. that is what happens on every job. the inspector comes with his list of items that need to be finalized and that is when the final inspection was done. andy is crystal clear he has never had a job in town that was never finalized. all of the other permits that i have a name, if you look at the job card, they were all finalized. somehow this one did not receive the final inspection. it is not an unusual circumstance. it is merely an administrative snafu. many of those are done. the window. notwithstanding the contract to legalize the window, it is in the approved plans.

look at page 6. there is a window scheduled air. this is a fixed window. this is a fire proof window. there is more than one of them on the floor. there is one in the bathroom. you can see that the windows are fireproof and they were in the allies. -- they were finalized. they were reassessed in 1991 for their new home, which they have been paying property taxes on since that time. they also paid the unified

school district their fee of more than $2,500. there was a lot of talk about equity, this is a time to let the lees that their final inspection. stop the nonsense. a two month delay to say we wanted an inspection. it is not right. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, we do quite a few of these permits. a lot of people do not realize that they thought they got the sign off and then years later it shows up in complete for whatever reason. the work has been finished. the last thing they needed was the final inspection. somebody went on vacation or we

had an earthquake. there was some reason why this did not get signed off. sometimes the inspector does not turn in their job card. in this case, we do not have the customer's job card so we're showing it as incomplete. the course of action is to come down and renew the permit for final inspection. in this case, that is what happened. i did a site visit on monday. all of the work is finished. i also spoke to the other attorney and i explained the process that a building inspector will walk through the building with the approved plan and make sure everything was done according to those plans. we would also ask them to get electrical inspection, sign off, and i believe the fire department will sign off for the addition before they get a final

inspection. if electrical was signed off, it will be a matter of going to that division and having them note that. it could be there were four inspectors on this building. i am available for any questions if anyone is confused about the process. this is typical. a lot of people that these labs and then we are given a job to try to get them out. >> two questions, cincotta mentions seismic and electric co, is this a cfc? >> on the final, on this new job card, we will ask that electrical sign off on it,

plumbing, and fire. >> as a function of a new inspection or of re-examining? >> if electrical, plumbing, or fire has it that they already signed this off, they will duplicate their signature on to the new job card because they have already given a final inspection. i think mr. williams did note that the plumbing permit had been signed off. i do not have any evidence. i want that as well. there is a possibility that plumbing would do a walk through. but if they signed it off years ago, they would not have to. >> this result from it is for an addition. would it be required that any changes in the accord -- code would have to adhere to current codes or the codes back and? >> the project was completed at

that time it was permitted. that code is in effect for the work. >> no code changes will affect this cfc? >> no. the height of the rails has changed. when we get into these permits, it got built at that time. if this had not been finished, if there was still work to be done, i might say to them your reels should be at 40 two inches. -- rails should be at 42 inches. that is about the only change that we would have to upgrade. if they want to raise it, that is fine. we are not going to go to the 2010 code and say bring everything up to the 2010 code

because the job was done at that time. am i clear? >> yes. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> i forgot one more thing. there is also a special inspections which is a third party from the engineer testing labs. we need all of those reports as well. that is another layer of inspections that they may or may not have the documentation for. >> back to public comment. you are not an owner of this property? ok.

we will move into a bottle. you have three minutes. -- rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i live at 1864 greene street. i live with my niece at, my sisters, my husband and children. this issue is about safety. one of my most important jobs is to ensure the safety of my family. you can imagine when i found out that my neighbor's building was not finally signed off on an potentially not up to code, we are in earthquake territory and i want to make sure my building is safe. if i look at their building and see the window and i see the ratings -- railings, it gives

me concern that they possibly did not follow other codes. of i look at the building on the other side of us, there is paint peeling and the condition it is it gives me concern that the building we are speaking of is not complying with the safety code. again, i would highlight the final permit was not filed or signed off on. we ask of the property is formally inspected. we are asking they follow the rules like everyone is supposed to follow the rules and comply with the codes. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> have you resided there for the past 23 years? or however long it was?

did i get to your -- >> i have only been there three years. >> but you have been an owner, it has been in your family. >> for that long. five years. we moved out during construction. >> just five years. >> my question had to do with -- this is a rodney king questioned curious how much outreach did you do to your neighbors? how many conversations did you have about your concerns. concerns about the process, the safety issues, have them understand what your concerns were and have them show you the house.

>> there is a lot of noise around this and we are not neighbors that speak with each other. that would not have been an option. >> i want to point out the same issues that mr. lee's attorney listed, he says all of them have been satisfied. one and six were satisfied. the entry listed on the correction notice, that means they corrected everything. i look at it as not being finished. that is the way i interpret it. i did not ignore them. with regard to the window i was

pointing out, the provisions of the code at that time required a statement by this owner that there was an agreement to close the window. that documentation was never there. there are items that show it was not finally expected. what i am asking for, only if there is work that has not been completed. if not, and we discover that, then it should be brought up to code. that is the way it was explained to me by mr. duffy earlier this week. it will be reviewed against the 1988 plans but if their work that is not been finished properly, if i'm wrong about that -- >> more confusion. some of the issues you are

talking about half to do with the vertical edition -- addition only. >> if you take a look at the plans, they do require seismic work all the way up. there was work on all of the walls going up. there was work throughout the building that was done. there was considerable walls that were open. and the sprinkler system throughout the building, it has been signed off as complete. we have scratched sprinklers but they're also fireplaces. >> the electrical you are referring to has to do with this addition.and the mechanical, the

thing. seismic, that i understand. >> mr. williams? >> thank you. there is no safety violations on this property. no housing violations. none of that is present on this building. inspector was just there. if you are concerned about safety, why stop the process to a half months ago when we went to get inspected? you heard inspector duffy is say they did the only thing they could do when they found out that their permanent, one out of six, had not been finalized. they filed to get it finalized. what else could they have done? this appeal was filed for other reasons, it is clear. i do not clear -- care how mr.

cincotta reads it, if you look at the permit with the exception on b, they all say final, were completed. that is exhibit h, works completed. -- work completed. m. final. n, final. o, final. p, final/. . five of the six were finalized. those are filled out by the building inspectors when they come to the side. to say that only one was filed, it does not make any sense, much like this appeal. you are asking for one thing and

you base it on this calamity that is about to happen. the appeal says no one is safe, which is just not so. the building was upgraded on every floor. it has seismic upgrades. it had a separate engineer for that purpose. this is a top-notch job and it still shows. the inspector came out on monday and said this looks great. it does. if you look at the plans, they have the fixed window. the sprinkler system on every floor. you cannot get much safer than this building. if you were concerned about this issue is, you would not have filed the appeal. you would have led to the inspections go forward to confirm that this building was completed properly under

approved plans. police denied the appeal. -- please deny the appeal. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i think we should allow the process to go forward. allow the building department to do their job. >> i would concur with that. i heard mr. duffy state he is going to do his job and i hope that would conclude this process. >> this portion of the process. if there is no further comment, i am going to move to deny the appeal and upheld the permit.

>> all necessary inspections will be done under this permit? >> that they will do their job. >> did you say for a change? >> no, i did not. [laughter] >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to to uphold this permit on the basis that the dbi shall do their job. i like that basis. on that motion president garcia: aye. cincotvice president hwang: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. 5-0. this permit is up held on that basis. >> there is no further business this evening.

commissioner campos: good morning. " to been meeting of the transportation authority. my name is david campos. i am the chairman of the

transportation authority. >> [roll call] we have a quorum. commissioner campos: thank you. also want to thank the members of sfgtv staff. please call item 2. approval of the minutes of the april 24, 2012 meeting. >commissioner campos: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. actually, [roll call]

-- roll call. >> [roll call] the item passes. commissioner campos: thank you. please call item 3. >> chair's report. this is an information item. commissioner campos: thank you. as i have indicated in prior meetings, we are working on a number of items, right now focusing on what is happening at the federal government and in specific, in congress, on a number of bills that are pending before the house of representatives in the u.s.

senate. one of the things we are trying to figure out is what will come out of the congress, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in terms of the federal funding of public transportation. that only underscores the importance of state and local funding of public transportation. as you know, in terms of what is happening in the region, the metropolitan transportation commission and commission of bay area governments recently approve the preferred land use and transportation investments in error for the regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy. this was truly an historic moment which creates a, for the first time, the region's first sustainable community strategy, as required by state law, senate bill 375. the person they're concentrates 70% of the region's four test

jobs and population growth over the next three decades into development areas encouraging patterns of growth that make transit use, walking and cycling, more viable options for more people here in the bay area. we are very proud to have been a part of that process. a lot of work went into that effort, not only by san francisco, but also by the rest of the region. i am also proud to note, one of the good things that happened was, there was a commitment that discretionary funding be focused on high priority projects that san francisco has, including caltrain electrification, van ness station, brt, among others. i want to thank my office and the office of supervisor wiener

in what they have done for helping to make that happen. i know that it was important for san francisco to play an active role. i also want to thank the san francisco commissioners of abag that also made sure that our considerations were taken. i also want to thank the mayor's office who also played an important role in making sure that our concerns were taken into account. we also saw the introduction last week of an ordinance to put into place the transportation system of it -- sustainability program. we are going to make sure that we continue to monitor that the first. -- that effort. with respect to