>> welcome to the february 20th, 2013, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, the

residing officer is board president wron and lazarus and commissioner hurtado will be absent this evening. >> to my left is the city attorney, he will provide the board with legal advice, and victor, bececo. scott is here in the front row to my right and he is the zoning administrator, also representing the planning department, and planning commission, and i know joseph duffy was in the room a minute ago and is the building inspect or. and at this time, if you could go through the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings, please carry on the conversations in the hallway, the board's rule of presentation are as follows, appellants and permit holders

and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their case and three middle for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments in the 7 or 3 minute periods. the members of the public who are not affiliated have up to three minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the board, members are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to the staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cars and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions, there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. >> if you have questions about requesting your rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to the board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the board off tomorrow morning, the board of appeals office is located at 1650 mission street,

room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv, cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase, directly from sfgtv tu. for your attention at this point in time, we will conduct the swearing in process. if you intent to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right-hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you abouter to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. we will move on to our calendar item number one is public

comment. for any member of the public that would like to speak on an item not on the calendar. is there any commissioner comments or questions under item two? >> none? >> item three is the adoption of minutes, commission fores your consideration and possible adoption this evening are the boards meeting minutes from february 13th, 2013. >> okay, i will move to adopt the minutes. okay, thank you. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing, none, would you call the roll please? >> on that motion, from the president, to adopt the february, 13th, minutes. commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is ab accident. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye >> and commissioner honda.

>> aye the vote is 4-0 and those minutes are adopted. we will move on to item four which are aden um items the subject is at 2065 oak dale avenue, the board receive a letters requesting rehearing of appeal number 12-130, bvocerebral palsy verses the department of building inspection with the planning department approval decided on january 9, 2013. at that time the board voted 4-0-1, with president hwang absent to grant the appeal and up hold the permit on the basis of the permit holder's agreement to send out neighborhood notification on all permits applications submitted during the next five years, excluding the permits needed to correct existing notices of violation, against the property, and said notification shall conform to the notice results imposed by the dbi on form 6 building dem

mrition, permits and lastly the sus expensing of this permit shall not be lifted until the permit holder provides the appellant and dbi and soils testing results that have been prepared by the certificated professional soils testing laboratory. >> my name is dan dodt i am the director for the bay view office for community programming. >> i am going to interrupt to let you know that although i was absent to january 9th, i did review the video of that hearing. >> thank you very much, president hwang. >> on behalf of the individuals and the groups in the way view district that participated in this event, i want to thank you very much for taking the time to review the documents and the prior hearing and for this rehearing request, ladies and gentlemen, what we are witnessing here is a pattern of practice and deceit with respect to the work proposed, actually carried out, and continued by this applicant and his team in compliance of the orders by both dbi and this commission.

in the december 10th, january 10th, original hearing. and this deseptemberive pattern of behavior has a pattern. from the outset, the permit applicant and the team has claimed and promised to do one thing and have acted in a different way, during your hearing on the 10th of january, the applicant was asked if a prior soil study had been conducted on the site, and their answer was clearly yes. yet no soil study was conducted during the original demolition of this project. you have been misled. as have we and this is a pattern. during that same hearing, you ordered a qualified testing of the soils, yet five days after the hearing, they engaged in the scraping and removal and the blending of the soils from another portion of the site in order to dilute the soil. when i would contacted... and by the way this was done by a hauling contractor not a qualified soil contractor.

when i contracted mr. bulcovich he expressed shock and dismay, that the owner had not informed him that this work was happening. despite his earlier admonition, dbi ordered the work to stop, the soils were disrupted and diluted the pattern continued there was a soil study conducted by a qualified lab and we honor that study and the respect for the people that conducted it. however in the test itself it concludes in the last paragraph the information and they go on to give no guarantee of the accuracy that have report. we will never know what was removed from the site and that is problematic. on january 16th, the applicant was seen preventing a building inspector from entering the building. the police department was

called out and contractors dispersed. the location was discovered to have new work and new demolition work. the pattern continued and a new stop work order and novs were issued. i believe that we have exceeded the requirement of new evidence and identified new witness and outlined a clear deception in the original hearing all of which support the request for a rehearing. i thank you for your consideration tonight. >> mr. dodt. >> yes, sir. >> what would you like to happen from the rehearing? >> we are going to request that an original permit and a demolition permit be issued and i believe, mr. fung, a demolition permit actually provides for the owner everything that he needs to conduct the work on the property. and had he pulled that permit from the outset, he would have saved himself a tremendous amount of grief and trouble.

the inspections that go along with that would have been conducted automatically and so we will be requesting for demolition. thank you, very kindly. >> mr. buscovich >> on behalf of the permit holder? >> my name is pat buscovich i initially was not going to respond but there were a couple of statements that i would like to clarify. there were actions taken after the hearing that were regrettable and not acceptable. there was an issue where the contractor was doing shoring work in the building because part of the roof collapsed. he should have called me up. i heard about it from the city, i rushed down there, we have had building permit people coming out and agree that the original shoring needs to be done and we pulled an original shoring permit based on that, we have requested more permits

to do shoring to maintain the building in a current building. it is regretful the client did not understand, we could have gotten the permit. there was an issue about the concrete curb, the city said don't mess with the curve, removing the soil this is the part that i want to talk about. i personally brought them in and i talked about the soil scraping it was stupid, never deny the obvious it was a done thing that was done, but there was no attempt to mix the soil. when i specifically asked rolo if the tests that you conducted at the site where we agreed to test the site representative of the soil, yes? on the mound of dirt that was created he was thinking that it is better to cover over the dirt and to lower it with a concrete slab we got the same results. there was no blending to hide anything, the soil basically has background. so, there were some unfortunate issues, but, i don't see any

basis for rehearing, if he wants to speak up i am happy to answer questions. >> i have a question, so regarding that the san francisco police department had to be called out, is that an accurate statement? >> yes, it was and that person was fired. >> so was it just one person involved? >> well, i had to apologize. >> i am sorry could you just answer the question? >> i think that it was one person confronting joe duffy, yes. >> donald duffy. >> no, sorry, i am sorry, i get them mixed up and he confronted donald. and that person was fired. >> okay and i mean i have the statement or a comment. i mean from the offset the permit that was issued over the counter and the scope of work that was actually performed at the sight actually do not belong in the same room. i mean... >> so i am missing that. >> you are missing the question. >> yeah.

>> let me reiterate then. let me... >> actually the commissioner honda they have not finished >> we should let them finish up and then... >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners. >> good evening president, my name is david siler man and i am working with the permit holder zach. the hearing does not satisfy the threshold requirements of the board for a rehearing. even taking the allegations at face value which we do not, the request for a rehear does not make the attempt to show why the allegations could have affected the out come of the original hearing. the focus of that hearing was simply on the appropriate form to file for the work that took place. there was, a blue form and pink form. >> and we established through

the, at that time the board ruled that the correct form had been filed based on the testimony of the senior building inspector, therefore, the request for rehearing should be denied. the proposed use of the site is for distribution of rental equipment and the existing house will be maintained and the parking lot will be paved and the handicapped bathrooms will be added and security lights will be installed. >> the proposed business for the site will add valuable jobs and increase the security for the neighborhoods while discouraging vandalism. they tested the soil and confirmed that only background levels of diesel and oil that were below the threshold were present. mr. dodt refused our offer.

>> your time is up. >> is it roll and whitney? >> no it is the old firm. >> okay, we could hear from the departments now, mr. duffy. >> good evening commissioners. just getting updated on this case today. there was a flurry of activity at the site at the last meeting after the last hearing. indeed, and one of our building inspectors was refused entry by one of the workers and we don't have to call the police too often but sometimes we do when we feel threatened and the building inspector did feel threatened. i believe that it all fairly quickly, when he went back, the workers had left the site and

it was also a led paint issue that was happening as well. we were contacted by that by the neighborhood, we have doubted the issue of the penalty of 2500 on a notice of violation, so all of this stuff happened at the hearing and i would truthfully say that it appears from speaking to the senior building inspector patrick today, that seems like things have settled down in the last ten days, a couple of weeks. whereas we have not received any new complaints. so it seems that we have things in order. we do have the report and they are entered into our special inspection so that is something that we have complied with. and it has not been a pleasant project let's say that from the dba point of view. the demo permit, i still say that i think that at the last hearing was a certificate of failing completing, i believe was used to show that there was

building of the demolition of the partial building so i am sure if that has changed anything. but just thought that i would mention that and i am available for any questions. >> mr. duffy. when when the building department has a demolition, and they require a soils analysis what type of testing is required? this test only for hydrocarbon. we would be more interested in not the hazardous soil will be more the health department and it would not be us for hazardous it would be health department than building department and i think that i am right in saying that. i know that at the point development the health department was the lead agency in that and a lot of soil testing and dust and that type of thing and so we always do, and you are right. normally it has more to do with

the geo tech than they are hazardous. okay. >> but we will accept the report if it has that in there. so it was part of the special inspection. >> so inspector duffy, which does the health department actually get involved with the work that they have performed triggered the health department to be involved in this? or for the testing of the soil, i am not sure, we have contacted them and i am not sure how they got involved to be honest with you, but i know that they have been involved in the past in the testing of soils. the hazardous. but i think that someone said earlier was that the science test was conducted and from rolo. and i am not sure who even or who got that information, but certainly, that report could go to the health department that would not be a problem. >> i mean because the amount of soils that were removed, i think that someone mentioned

400 yards. >> initially or since the hearing? >> initially and then the debris from the actual building or structure that was removed? >> yeah. >> the health department generally involved in that? i mean would that have triggered a phase one, i mean, >> i don't know the answer to that, i am not clear on the 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