thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. night have i 3 minutes of 3 minutes ofy 3 minutes of o 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you in terms of lou lou support of the project she considers the project to be beneficial for her property and given the only property impacted shows in support of the project we're helping with the slope work behind here property in terms of the slope work we're trying to remedy the slope at 26 and thirty we have i forgot to mention frank our geotech technical expert working on the problem he is here if i have questions about the slope work just a few

other issues the property that the rock fell down is vacant for quite a while we've been trying to get in there and the slope of the rocks has nothing to do with in terms of of the space this is a tiny space that every square feet is virtually in order for us to have a family use that space live there and we need every inch of the space having the project cut down we're trying to hold onto the leadership and have that be usually common space and in terms of the noise planning commission hearing was the first time we heard about the noise issues we would have remedy finding them and in terms of

having people live driver's license we're trying to have people that fit in with the neighborhood and have a family there but we need to pursue the project in order to do that. >> i have a question counselor it was mentioned that the property has a notice of violation does it currently have one. >> it does her property has a notice of violation ours does and the other neighboring property that is a supporter of the project they want the project to go ahead so we can all remedy the slope work and the two issues the first is doing the slope work obviously within the context of the project and the other keeping up the rocks we'll happy to do before we do the slope work but ms. mar has yet to let our contractor on her property to

get the rocks off we're ready to do that as soon as she give us assess. >> what was the notice of violation. >> one was issued no 2012 before the purchase of the property it was closed at the time and then there were two novs open our property and her property and communicating with the city and explaining first, we're trying to get work done and going through the process to get the work approved they understand as long as the project is approved we'll go ahead and correct the problem and the rocks on the property we can't figure out how to fix the property until she gives us permission we had a meeting in the morning is he cancelled we would like to solve the problem. >> when i purchased did problem

the nov if didn't show up. >> it was non-disclosed. >> correct. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez nothing further okay commissioners the matter is yours commissioners and i'm not sure mr. sanchez wants me to talk about this this isn't the i think the there's some logic to what was discussed in the va report in that if you were to do anything on the first two lefltz that will require a variance to the rear.

>> can't hear you. >> okay. >> speak into the mike please. yes. >> the - the point i was trying to make is that the first two floors since the building pretty much goes to the rear property line any type of work within that will require a variance question is whether this small enclosure of the stair as a variance should be addressed in the is that you as the previous comments recommended to additional envelope that would be gave through a variance i don't find that way in this case, i find that the question

of the variance is probably addresses is well addressed in the 5 criteria therefore i'm support the variance the question of the cut out that the appellant is asking for i'm not sure what it will do for her it doesn't make the light or impact sunlight and see that's perhaps something that really applies to the dr hearing and the building permit versus the variance so at this point, i will support the upholding of the variance. >> comments.

>> i'm in agreement with your position. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal and to uphold the variance on the basis that the 5 criteria were met. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. pacheco. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to uphold the granting of the variance on the basis that the 5 criteria have been met on that motion to uphold commissioner president lazarus is commissioner vice president honda and commissioner wilson. >> thank you the vote is 4 to zero the grant of the variance is upheld on that basis.

>> we're going to take a 5 minute break. >> welcome back to the march 18, 2015 meeting of san francisco board of appeals we're now calling item 9 appeal number mark tony the property on nobody else's alley protesting the issuance on january 14th to tony of an taefls permit and an address correction number 12 to 15 noticeable alley mr. bruno you have 7 minutes. >> sorry 7 minutes. >> thank you for hearing this permit appeal i'm sure you're aware of i haven't submitted a brief i do was to submit a

request for rescheduling until march 18 the two other appeals i've been asked to build 7 to 9 nobody else's alley i have a same matter with the same permit holder he owns the building where i live and next door to me what those people did after i appealed the court permit based on the san francisco load based abatement act they moved next door and did the same thing again failing as it says in my so-called mini brief it says that the people that are doing the work with not notifying anyone of their work in terms of not following the san francisco

lead-based paint that the neighborhood and city be noticed the the residents as you can see they're in violation not only on the nobody else's additional equals a both of them this is something i'm telling you if you show on the screen the city i'm not producing dochls those are the violations and it says in no urban certain terms in nobles alley that's not told people that they're going go through a wall and ceiling and go through a floor and have lead spread around the building if you read the brief from the permit holder

there's a 91-year-old man in the unit they're working on this is the same chiu's excuse when i asked for the rescheduling not to have it rescheduled not see the entire picture of what is glen eagle being done to the 12 units of the people all you see r bits and pieces serial permitting to basically make it hard for people to live there and 91-year-old man contrary to wasn't it says in the brief present by did one side by the permit holder i'll show you i presume you read it but i'll see it is basically a 3 page brief with a lot of exhibits but the yellow part it talks about the 91-year-old man it goes on he's

being kicked out it goes to the end and says that while permit holder is yes, ma'am authentic to the circumstances we must move forward to bring the units up to more modern code standards to allow them him to move to the apartment and mr. barker didn't live blow me not in my this not on my property in an entire different property next door so what i've done as a favor to the board and myself so show you on the map basically where we lives this is we're on the on the same page with regard to the excuse given by the one side for not allowing and agreeing to

reschedule hopefully i'm doing this correct this x here is a little bit hard to tell but the x is where i live you see the nobles alley this x here is where mr. baker lives so when mr. barker the 91-year-old map they called emphasis kin in los angeles and we're not allowed to go into the unit when i told robert power from the department of building inspection he laughed and said i've heard everything possible it is so outrage and by the way, in asking the 91-year-old man to leave their supposed to tell the board the rent board that

something is temporarily evicted no record of that they probably continued to leave him out there so their argument for the board to allow the work to allow mr. baker to go back to his apartments is a miss statement of facts the reason the board should care about the act it is an environmental act and the other thing said by i permit holder the appellant moved into renovation lead containment in an apartment is - it is right here in living color and the law presumes the law about

lead-based paint abatement presumes any building before 1978 has lead in the walls and not only is there lead in the walls there is also others things in the walls the paint was no longer lead-based paint but mercury based it is not a insignificant president of the law the board should send a notice hey, it's easier to dismiss everybody is going to die a 91-year-old man is going to die those are falsify misrepresentation when someone uses their work and without any consistency with the law that's what's happening in this case.

>> mr. bruno. >> yes. >> it's not quite clear what. >> asking. >> i'm sorry. i'm asking that the permit that is current that misstates didn't have the owners name on it or the correct address or the right phone call. >> you're asking. >> you're asking to start over and do that from the beginning it is explained i apologize it is explained in the mini brief the reason. >> will you explain that to us. >> so the answer a i'm asking you that's a very good question 62 to ask them to start over to do it right and innovative the residents and innovative the city in a proper way in response for instance with the lead-based

paint thank you. >> we'll hear if the permit holder now. >> good evening daniel business owner at the scene on 3w069 permit holder i'll kindly ask you to uphold those mr. bruno is is in a campaign of harassment he asked for a delay and you interference from a displacement if the appealing of the permits behind me is the gentleman that is working on behalf of the owner of the property and the contractor who is a certified contractor mr. bruno has is made it difficult to accomplish a renovation project and as a

result people have been displaced including an elderly person let me introduce the gentleman, sir. >> good evening board i'm todd mentor i'm my company is a property management for the particular unit and i'm a treaty. >> we own and something about four to five united we pill permits and probably do thirty to 40 major renovations in the city from apartments at one weekend of the spectrum all u the way to the top we follow the rules the permits are good and the city and contractor need to work together so what mr. bruno is telling you is frankly not true we have done everything we can

in order to facilitate and work with the city and work with him which is difficult and get our project done we purchased the building in september and it is now march and we're still 125u8d you know we're losing revenue and places for people to live so i think his allegations are not correct, in fact i want to read an e-mail from herman barkers herman is a great guy owns a shop and this is wasn't john wrote me hi i wanted to let you and john know that herman was moved into his apartment i'm glad we were able to use this unfortunate incident to repaint the hallway and bathroom i know

it took locker but you had herman's age and best interests in them unfortunately, it cannot be said for his neighbor march bruno who filed unwarden complaints on the mid block and the contractor to correct the repairs that nell needlessly halted the work and he said it was not made the repairs it was done by mr. brunn nos grudge against the ownership and the owners thanks your your prompt attention to herman. >> i'd like to will introduce quickly the contractor from make

ready maintenance that can address the issues for the lead requirements in the city. >> good evening. i'm don with the make ready maintenance we've compiled with the lead abatement issues that mr. bruno is talking about we posted notices and we've even been the inspection was done by mr. yee and he didn't nothing one thing we did everything we were supported to do in that building thank you. >> the only typo was an incorrect address in the first permit that was corrected with the second permit that was issued in january that's the sole difference and all we ask

you uphold the permit so my client could a complete the work that will be lead certified the contractors are well aware of the nature of those situations with the california terrain tenant and will be doing it appropriating as you can see from the conspirators statement they believe that 9 project manager and the contractor by a preponderance of the evidence appropriately and the only person throwing a wretch into this project is mr. bruno it is unfortunate that is a drain on resources and ultimately it is not fair or appropriate to be using this process to harm the owner and or another tenants inside the building i'll ask you uphold the work order and to insure the safety of italy's others insides the building.

>> can you address the assertion about violations. >> i can address the and i certification i'm not aware of what he was stating there's an indication signs were not there but speak to make ready maintenance 245e they posted in guidance with the regulations. >> are you tarnishing what he showed up. >> making a clarification of the notice of violation. >> thank you. >> if you see the cased visitations there's an notification that inspector yee meet with the complainant and there was a plastic barrier does see evidence of paint or paint different entered on december 14th. >> okay inspector kern.

>> hello bernie beginning it appears that this gentleman mr. so on to say a certified inspector based on yee's report the area was seemed like appropriately as far as notification chapter 34 that deals with lead abatement states you have to notify tenants or those people in the building that are in and out within 3 days whether or not this was dysfunction they don't have to notify dbi but as far as the complaint it looks like inspector yee found everything to be sealed up and done in an appropriate manner. >> are there l.b.s.

>> no, it's compliant there were complaints but. >> the appellant has showed showed. >> there was administrative took out the changes and addresses that's a whole other coon of worms they had to get an administrative permitted to do the correct address. >> so the notice of violation was issued because of the inner correct address. >> possibly. >> okay. did that answer your question. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? any public comment? we're calling for public comment i don't know if someone - please step forward. >> hello, i'm john wood live in north beach about six or seven

blocks away from the building they're talking about i've known herman backer for 50 years there are a lot of older people like us rent controls in north beach i see him say he's a world war ii veteran he received a hundred veterans building program he's 93 i know it i celebrate his birthday every year i guarantee he didn't live in the same building that march bruno lives in and i wanted to clear that up and herman was told to leave while they repainted his apartment he was the out for three weeks as far as i know the city or the new owner did

nothing to help him find new housing his kin has been flying up grand nephew and found him temporarily housing he is settled in his homes. >> we'll take rebuttal starting with mr. bruno 3 minutes. >> board members you're asking about the actual violations the notice of violation is for doing work without a permit so those are people see it says notice of violation i don't know if you can blow it up but here's one 79 so you know here's one just for

15 notice for doing work without permits so after i appealed this can i see that that's 15 nobles and this is 79 nobles if you want me to put that back i'm happy to do that they went next door and continued to do the work and cynthia knows i had to phone her i contacted the department to get them to stop they continued to do the work. >> can you tell me the date and i appealed on the 168th of january and here in february don't you see the date thank you so february 27 not that long ago they're doing work i'm looking for the single copy but the

single copy 15 will show here it is 15 in black and white the written version but 15 nobleed i'm sorry february waiting to they continued to do the work this company has done hesitate as recently as september of this past year they have a violation against it because a of doing the same thing here it is a citation they would the work without the permit and this is it from november of 2010 what they were cited for 10 not only in 2014 but 2010 they were cited for not notifying anybody of their work like now they're

saying their complying but not complying at all they've done this exact same thing before may i show you one last disclosure. >> 30 seconds. >> this is the actual disclosure of their violation just recently this is make ready you've heard a heard a person come up from make ready they did the work like the violation notice if the city of san francisco they worked without getting a permit that's what's going on in this building so never help someone anti he is book in his unit as the woman said i don't live in the building unless you have questions thank you for your time. >> mr. business owner at the scene. >> yeah. gabbing sanchez of