>> so, there is a copy of the permit. and it indicates what their specific requirements were for that permit. >> yeah, but the appellant as alluded to the standards in the mta and in the industrial relations standards, i don't know if those apply or not and i don't know what they are. so i guess what i am not understanding... >> they were required to have a flagger, it is checked as a requirement for the permit. >> right. >> but there are a lot of allegations in addition to that, whether the wood chipper was used properly, whether the traffic control was satisfacotry i don't have a basis to judge without the standards. >> i am not sure that they are going to be able to give us much because it seems to me that it is specific to each case and what will be relevant would be the requirements that were put on the permit and whether or not they met those

requirements for that permit. >> but, if there are standards outside of the permit, and i understand that there are standards within the permit itself. and i see those. but if there are other laws that governor say health and safety around tree trimming and tree removal then we need to know what those are so that we can protect the public safety. >> that is what i was missing. >> who would be able to provide that? dpw streets and mapping can't, i believe. >> it said something about mta. >> and something about mta. >> i don't think that they can either. >> i just want to the mta website and under the so-called blue book, which is the construction requirements, it is very specific as it relates to the flag control. and is this flaggers may be required by the contract specifications and the traffic permit and it is required where the workers equipment where they box a traffic lane or

access into or out of a construction site. and so, in this case, the permit authorizes an applicant to take the parking lane, and block the sidewalk and in that situations where a lane of traffic is blocked, there is a specific traffic permit required, or when the sidewalk is blocked and that is why, there are additional requirements. above and beyond what they state under their regulations. >> the optimum word is may require and so it is up to the discretion and that is what we are trying to get the clarification on. and so regarding this permit, i think that it is this permit is fine, and a clarification on the further permits. >> okay. >> i guess that i am satisfied that if somebody needs to get a permit from dpw or mta and they get a permit put in the certain

requirements there is not an additional obligation to what else they need to do and to me, if they are meeting the requirements of the permits as issued, that is satisfy for me. >> but that is the question. and you know, the appellant is making the argument that they are not conforming to the issues of the permit. and the conditions of the permit. but... >> that is different than saying that there are other rules that governor that go beyond what it says. and i mean to speak about some industrial labor standards, to me, that seems extra to the issue. >> and i just think that the language that is being used is very vague from everybody and i don't know if we can get further clarification, but regarding this permit, you know, what do you think?

>> well, i am not going to vote to up up hold the permit unless i get the clarification from the dpw that is my position and i don't know if someone else want to make a different motion but that is how i feel at this point. and what i mean is clarification, is on the standards that they use to issue this permit so that we can judge whether the permit holders are complying by all health and safety standards and permits conditions, and in the reason that i insist on that is because, if there is an accident or unfortunately someone does get hurt, i want us to be able to feel that we did our due diligence, and as far as whether this permit is complying with what is in the best interest of the public. >> i guess the question is who interprets that? is that not interpreted to the agencies of the city.

>> mta. >> and unfortunately we don't have a representative here. >> that is where i will start as opposed to someone else. and i would... >> offer the board a clarification on the second appeal, the special permit that is tafpd to the statement, that we did not accept the review of that permit. these permits are not appealable to us. we accept it in the appeal for the dpw permit which has or is linked to the special traffic permit. but the special traffic permit we do not allow an appeal. and this is where i think that you are talking about conditions of flaggers, and so, i just want to give the board that clarification, >> thank you. >> and why didn't you allow the mta. >> and this is not appealable.

>> okay. >> and i let him attach it because they are linked and scott, brody the engineer at mta to give him a heads up but we do not allow an appeal of this permit. >> our board does not have authority over this... >> the last page. >> and i mean, that one solution is to allow, further briefing from dpw and or mta on what the standards on for issue the this. and allow the time for the board to be able to review that briefing, in order to make an informed decision in my opinion. or if someone else has a different idea. you could consider that as well. >> i will go with you.

>> i am prepared to vote to up hole the permit. >> and it will be, i think that the question is, is, whether the appellants, arguments are compelling enough for me to be able to say, all right, there is doubt as to the veracity of the conformance to the previous permits. and i don't find it totally compelling at this point. and i think that i am prepared to support the permit. >> that would be me. >> honestly, i am actually, there are things in my mind and i think that there are gray areas here, but the permit in question i think is fine and i

also feel that because of this hearing, that the permit holders will probably be much more diligent in their work going forward. and so that they don't see and so that we don't see them here again and so i am... >> it does not always happen. >> and giving them a shot over (inaudible) right now. >> i am going to make a motion commissioners and i am going to move to deny the appeal, and to up hold the permit, on the basis that... >> the lack of evidence? >> you had mentioned a lack of evidence. >> or just say code compliant. >> okay. >> so that is two appeals, two permits. and the motion is to up hold them both on the basis that they are code compliant. >> to up hold both permits, on the basis in the compliance.

given that the temporary occupantcy permits that the board wish to say that the time periods? and i believe that the time periods have expired on the face of the permits. >> also just delegate that discretion to dpw. >> i would prefer that they handle it. and so this is to up hold both permits on the basis for the code compliant and it is on the condition that dpw reinstate the execution periods of these permits. >> okay. >> on that motion, from the commissioner fung to up hold both permits on the basis of code compliance, and with the condition that dpw reinstate the execution periods for these

two permits, on that motion, president is absent, hurtado? >> no. >> and vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 3-1 and the permits are upheld, but is the condition attached? >> i think that it can be just to with a recommendation that dpw adjust the time periods. >> okay. >> and the 3-1, the permits are upheld on that basis, thank you. >> we will call number 7, appeal number 1 3-110, joseph concepcion verses the department of building inspection and that is at 731 noe street, appealing the imposition of a penalty for construction work done without a permit. >> we will start with the

appellant. >> good evening, members of the board, we are here and my name is joseph, and i am at 731 noe. and i am here to request support to wave or reduce the penalty assessed penalty, what i originally had the ad dish, the original ad dish extended or bumped up, and i did not and i was not sure if i needed the permit or not. >> do you want to refer to the overhead? >> yeah. >> >> it was already there when i purchased the property and it was rotting on the side because it is against the dirt.

and and so it is seeping water when it is raining is the reason for the dry rot and so instead of getting it repaired, since this is an older house, built in 1907, as you know the older homes don't have the storage space, much. so i asked the contractor to bump it up three feet and i was not aware that i needed a permit and so i am here today, to request to get the penalty reduced or waived, but i did receive the notice of violation you know, that i diligently, you know, i tried to work with the city in getting the architect to draw the new plans

and that cost the money as well. and also, getting to pay for the board appeal, for the appeal. >> i have a couple of questions, first you said that you were not sure if you needed a permit. if you had doubts why did you not sought one and did you think that it you did not need one. >> it was an existing addition. >> so it did not occur to you that you might, you just assumed that you did not. >> right. >> how was it learned that you had done this work without a permit? >> my neighbor complained. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and so what was the work that you did exactly? >> bump up from the existing

laundry, to have more storage space for the kitchen area. >> and so you extended it. >> three feet which is not even much. >> it is extended three feet past what you already had. >> yes. >> you didn't think that you needed a permit for that. >> i did not. >> are you saying that bump out. >> a little bump out with the bw and washer and dryer that was there when i purchased the property in 2002. >> okay. >> and it needed repair because there was dry rolt in the dry rotting. >> you just repaired. >> repaired it and bumped it out three feet. >> an additional three feet. >> yes, i did. >> okay. >> and i never had any problems with the dp before. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. did duffy?

>> good evening, commissioners joe duffy, dbi and the department of building inspection received a complaint on the 7th of march 2013, 90 ten feet rear addition and that was what we took and was received over the phone and the complaint got assigned to the district building inspector, and mr. glancy attempted to make entry of the property on march 20, 2013, and no one was at home and he left a note. and eventually then on the 14th of may in 2013, the expecter issued a notice of violation and that complaint has been filed on this property regarding an addition of the rear. without the city planning or the building department approval and a site was

conducted today revealed that an exterior instruct you structure with approximately three feet from the property line has been constructed without the building permits and the city attached the photos which i have. and obtained a permit and approval to comply with this violation and failure to do so may lead to abatement proceedings against the property and additional monitoring fees will be assessed and contact the building inspector on issuance of permits and there was a value of the work performed without the permits and in his opinion was $6,000. and the penalty for doing the work under the san francisco code is nine times on your fee so it was a penalty assessed of 9 times on $6,000. and the property owner mr. concepcion came in and applied for a building permit and filed

for a permit and so, nov, 201390751, document construction of a 7 by 6-7 detached room at rear of building, that permit was filed on july 8, 2013. and it went through the city planning, on the 19th of july and it was approved. and it went through the building plan check at the dbi on the same day of july 19th, and it still is in the file and status and it has not been object obtained yet and i think that when he saw what the penalty was going to be he decided to appeal to to the board of appeals. >> so i have the photographs and these were in the building inspector's fire and i have never been to the property myself and if i could put these on the overhead please? >> mr. duffy, would this normally require the

neighborhood notification since it has gone beyond the foot of the property? >> let me refer to the planning department on that. but i thought that most additions in san francisco when you make them a little bit bigger, usually do. you know, that is my opinion because of the light and all of the things that come into that. obviously someone in the neighborhood made the complaint and it is anonymous and so i apresume that it is somebody that leaves close by and there was no name on that. >> so the photograph shows you it seems like the rear wall and the roof of the property and then this addition with the t111 type of siding on there, and i believe that the property owners stated that there was an existing structure there and i can't tell from the photograph that it looks pretty new and it seems like it was from his plans it was something there and it looks like he made it a

little bigger which he admitted to and so, it is hard for us to tell if it was conforming or non-conforming the existing. structure, but as you can see it is a flat roof and i have another photograph here then. >> this photograph shows the roof of the existing building with the flat roof extending from the existing roof of the building out wards. and so it is cut into the roof framing, and so i am not sure if it was a foundation on that, we would not have inspected that, obviously the work was done without a permit, whether it is sheetrocked inside or how it is constructed and so we are looking for a building permit for that and so in most cases, the notification would be a planning department issue but from the building department we want to know what it is standing up there and what the foundation is like and what the framing is like and so that is why we want the permit. and of course, the penalty is

the nine times fee which is part of the building code which is penalty for doing this in san francisco, we deal with a lot of cases here, where even when there is a permit there is a lot of objections to it and we don't want the people extending the buildings without the proper approval and the penalty on this permit is in the region of i have that down here, and let me tell you what the penalty is. >> it is around $1100 that is the penalty. >> does your department have any objection to this reduction. >> in this case we would like

to keep the nine times penalty. it is a extending a building is, you know, it is obviously, a building permit, i can't, you know, it is not really something that i guess sometimes we do see the cases here, but in this case i would say no, we would be looking to keep the nine times penalty and for the simple reason that a lot of people out there might think that it is okay to go ahead and build it and then deal with it later and it is $1,000 a big penalty? i don't think that it is. and so we don't want to send out that message, we want people to go through the proper process and i am available for any questions. >> thank you. >> okay. and actually, did you want to speak to the issue of notice? >> planning staff just to address the notification issue, generally any expansion of a building envelope in the residential zoning district would require 311 notification and i have not seen the scope of work on this application,

but i did just look up the project description, and it was referenced that it was detached, so i am not sure what the plans actually showed for that permit. if it was detached, the dimensions are 7 by 7, and you can't have kind of a rear building, in your rear yard of ten by ten, and of any certain requirements of without doing the notification, i know that the planner at the counter who signed off on that is our most experienced planner on the counter. >> so you are fine with it going through. >> i don't have the details. i don't know the exact scope of work on the plans, so i can't tell you for sure, but generally speaking any expansion of the building envelope will require a 111. >> and an official welcome. to the board of appeals. congratulations. >> thank you. >> there is no issue with the rear yard set back?

>> i can't know that without looking at the plans and having an understanding of what the relationship to this addition would be to what degree or the requirement would be. and so, i can't answer that. but it would be something that we would want to view and i am certain that whoever the planner was at the counter, would have reviewed it for that and i can take a look at the plan. >> and perhaps you can look at the plans. >> and okay, seeing no public hear, for public comment, so i assume that there is none? >> you had an additional time for rebuttal? >> we originally spoke with the chief and i believe that it was ed sweny and he is the one who asked me to come here and he said that if he had a choice and he had approval he would reduce it. but he said to come here and normally, they would reduce or wave the fee. and i know from my architect that you don't need the 311, or

the 311, is that what he is talking about. so, we are viewing the plans right now filed by the dbi and so we will see. >> for the staff, and so the planning will approve the project over the counter did specifically document with his approval that it was approving a detached room that met the minimum requirements for that type of rear yard structure that can be approved without neighborhood notification. >> you mean as the middle portion of the code which

allows a storage structure of some type in the yard. >> sure. >> that is based on the permit, and the note from the planner who signed off on it, and that is the provision of the code that it was signed off under and why it did not require neighborhood notification. >> does this look detached to you? >> well, from the pictures that i have seen, no it does not and from the plans that i am looking at it looks like it may actually be attached and so that is something that we are looking at right now. >> okay. >> okay. >> mr. duffy. >> i think that i am getting confused tonight, on a number of things. >> all right. >> commissioners, you know, the permit is still fine and this has not been issued yet and i do believe that it is probably better if i can get this back to maybe to planning or to even the building again, and because, certainly from my experience as a senior building inspector it is not detached and i know that there may be and this could cause the problems for us again.

and at a hearing and if the permit gets issued on the appeal and then we are dealing with the issue because our building code is the building code let's you and there is sfuf in the planning code and there is a detached storage shed and the people that want a garden shed in the rear of the yard and it is not to do an addition and there is a reference to the plans which that says that new addition, and so they are calling it an addition on the plans and so i think that it may have been approved in there and i would like to say that. >> but that is not why we are here. >> it is an addition. >> i believe that it is an addition. >> and the description on the front, and somehow it got crossed out. >>

>> i think that it said originally 7 by 6 foot room at rear of building and now it says detached storage. >> yeah. >> and so this is definitely, i would have questioned in fact the permit, and which is something that we still have an opportunity to review for the department and whether it is building or planning that permit needs to get stopped before it is issued and in order to just to help the applicant as well. and because he could try to get the permit issued and then, it is no good to him down the line and it is something that could be issued. >> it is good that we are here and there is plenty of time to deal with that. the penalty is another issue. >> the fact that he paid for an appeal. >> he paid for an appeal. he has not paid any fees yet. just to let you know. >> thank you. so commissioners the matter is submitted.

>> and one more question, mr. duffy. >> sure. >> so, or what happens the question should be more addressed to the city planning. and the only issue that comes up then, is not only is the proper description, but also whether it conforms to set back requirements. >> all right? >> that would be correct, yes. >> perhaps we should speak to the planning for my earlier question. >> yeah, and i am just, again, and one probably deal with the existing plans and verses the proposed, showing that and i am not sure if that is showing correctly on these plans and so that might help the planner. >> thank you, if you could... if you look at it related to set back? >> and the party reviewed it if they considered it to be a

detached structure. and whether there is an error or not. if they assumed that, then the rear yard requirement would not apply. >> if they, you know, and that is the indication, and everything written on the building permit application and actually the description of the work to be done, written by the applicant on the front stays to detached and are the plans that do not appear to go with that description. and but it appears that the planner who signed off on it, reviewed it under that assumption. >> okay, let's assume then, that it is not detached. >> and it is not a storage unit. >> and it sticks out from the building and connected to the interior of the building, where is it related to the rear property line? >> it appears that this is definitely something that we will look at if it will be committed in the rear of the

yard and the required rear yard in the districts is located in the rh2 is 45 percent or you can average with your neighbors and although this is consistent and i don't think that this block will gain anything by averaging. it will require a pop out, which is a 12-foot addition into the required rear yard and the maximum of one stories if it is four lots and two stories if you are set back and there is potential that this could be approved under that pop out allowance, but we have to review it to be sure. okay. >> i think that it is he have evident if you are going to do this type of work, that you will need a permit.