adding more to the streets. and it's a shame every day when you see that flag you know that you have done injustice, and people are supposed to build the world up not build them up and push them out. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi i am chad benjamin, and it took me a long time to find housing. >> sorry, can you speak more into the mic. >> yeah sorry, i have looked at housing and there is nothing out there that i can afford. compared to what i was paying rent there. sorry -- and it's crazy to think that you guys can just, that something can get passed and make us all leave like that. we need affordable housing in san francisco. and you guys should uphold your

original decision. that's it. >> thank you. >> any other public comments? okay, seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> the question that has been raised is whether the discussion and/or findings and our comments related to what portion of the permit that we found to be defective. the -- and i freely admit that historically our board has had some very articulate people

representative s representatives, and i probably am not one of those. however, what i was attempting to say during the course of our deliberation the permit needs to have provided a clear picture of what the scope of work was going to be. my comments don't necessarily relate just to the legal description as by the permit. if you look at the body of the permit, it was clear in my mind that it did not reflect the scope of work. and i thought that the transcript in general reflected those comments however, it may not be entirely clear. and so therefore i am adding to that. and on the basis that i will still hold to the comment that i

made. i still feel that the permit is defective and i see no basis for granting a rehearing. >> any other discussion? >> no. >> prepared to move to deny the request for rehearing on the basis that no new information or manifest justice has been provided here. >> thank you. >> there is a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to deny this hearing request. on that motion president lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> wilson. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0 this hearing request is denied and a decision shall be released.

>> next item 11 to rehearing requests if you can leave the room quietly, that will be helpful to the board. the propertiesar at 7 and 9 nobles alley, receiving appeal numbers 15-029 and 15-030 and the board voted 5-0 to uphold the two permits on the basis of the faults alleged were not prison. start with mr. bruno. mr. bruno, you have six minutes. six minutes. >> because two permits, thank you, director goldstein, and thank you commissioners for hearing this case. i am mark bruno, the appellant,

i live at 15 nobles alley next door to where the permits have been granted for work by director goldstein. there is two pieces of information under the board of appeals. it's two new pieces of information that i present right away. so you see what they are and discuss them briefly in the six minutes. here in you can show on the overhead, you see this notice of violation issued since the hearing on april 8. this is a new piece of information from the city and county of san francisco, reiterating some of what happened in the past, and making it clear that none of the people that live in the building have been noticed that is required by law. that the work will include lead-base paint abatement or

dispersement. and the city came out in april, and that's one new fact i am presenting today. the second new fact that i am presenting is from the federal environmental protection agency that came out to the building for a notice of violation and for a current investigation. not based on notice but based on the failure to mitigate the toxic substances that are regulated by the federal government. i found it interesting today that you happen to hear about cigarettes. because we all know that cigarettes are regulated by the federal government. until i came involved with lead-based abatement, i didn't realize that the epa certifies the permit holder the contractor is certified by the environmental protection agency. the federal government came out and sent four people this document here signed by max

wintrom of the epa is given to your city attorney for north beach. and she is also looking into this. because it's an ongoing investigation by the epa and given to daniel loury of the building department and rose mary bosque of the housing investigation department. those are two pieces of information that are relevant today because they are knew. i want to show this more difficult to read inspection notice by the epa. it's dated april subsequent to april 8. these are two new pieces of information and why i am requesting a rehearing. to place a notice of violation in context as a matter of justice. here's all the ways i think

this is still working -- yeah, good. the overhead, these are the ways that the city informs the permit holder and has informed him and his contractor. this is at the building inspection department itself it tells you to do this, you have to give a notification and. it tells you if you have questions, you can ask the city. this is attached to the permit holder's application, it says here information packets are available and if paint contains lead, you contact an expert and give three days notice prior to performing work. that is significant, on the 24th after being given the notices, the permit holder is still in violation based on failure to notice. the tenants and the neighborhood going back to the housing department of san francisco, here's the first

notice. you see up here first notice not second. first on january 15. then we go to the second notice. on the same issues of failure to give notification. this one is -- sorry, here's the second notice you see dennis yee circled second notice because it's a different date 2-26 on the same basis, requirement to sign notice to residential occupants. and mr. duffy pointed out at the break, this is the sign that is supposed to be posted but no where on our building. this is the sign to tell people in the neighborhood that there is lead-based paint abatement or dispersement in the neighborhood.

all of this is available on the epa department. what is on their now after a violation in april, the most recent one. sorry, i wanted to show that it's at 7 noble alley. and there is a notice there, notification by the permit holder -- sorry, move this over, sorry, there we go it says 7. and it's too small first of all it's a notice to the neighborhood, and says that we are starting work on march 18. but notice can't be just when you feel like it. you can't give notice for june in march, or march for may. it's stale, this notice is not sufficient for this address, and two new facts is why i am asking to rehear the matter. thank you. any questions? >> yes, i have a question.

in written submittal on page 6 you suggest that the permit holder and/or his representatives have been encouraged and permitted to give access to board members to discuss the case prior to the hearing. would you care to substantiate that please? >> since daniel bornstein, the attorney for the other side, never addressed that issue, he had every opportunity chairman lazarus, i didn't bring the items to show the fact that they were in contact with board members. i was told that i could not be in contact with board members. i believe that his representatives for the permit holder have contacted people from the commission and i was specifically told i couldn't. yes, and that's why i placed it in that brief to you. >> but you have nothing to

substantiate? >> not today, no but i addressed what daniel borgstein addressed of the board members and addressed in the brief. >> are you telling me that no one has? >> i can speak for myself on that matter. >> okay. >> you are an articulate individual, by mental recall what points of fact would you have for that allegation. >> that people spoke here to the permit holder? >> right. >> when i was out in the hall and mr. borgstein brought me outside to make some negotiation, and that he used against me and said mr. bruno is trying to get money from the permit holder. i never once asked for money when they were there, it was

clear that they spoke to the people on the commission. the owner of the building, and in mr. borgstein's brief, todd munter is not on the deed or who i sign my lease with. when i was outside, it was clear that they spoke with people on the board. >> you are not able to substaniate that, and when you have documents that weigh the impunity of the commission, and when it cannot be documented. >> excuse me. >> it cannot be documented. >> i am willing to document it. >> not necessary no. any other questions? >> thank you. >> hear from the permit holder. >> > good evening members of the board, my name is robert cohen,

i work with daniel bernstein's office, and i think we said everything in the brief, this is a request to renew the appeal. and really there is no new basis to review the appeal. the documents that the appellant has presented tonight really have nothing to do with the scope of the appeal. any of the issues raised in the original appeal. and so i ask the board to again deny the appeal. if there is any questions, i would be happy to address. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. mr. duffy, nothing? commissioners any questions? >> i think i have a question for mr. duffy. >> i also. >> sorry, commissioners i

should have come up there. >> that look -- are you aware of any new notices of violation with respect to this permit? only what we saw in the overhead tonight, obviously mr. bruno has contacted the department again and they have gone out there and written up -- they have given a notice. it appears on the 25th of april there for notification. lack of it or whatever. so i don't have the notices of violation notice with me. but he clearly contacted the department, i imagine that the housing services is enforcing the violation, doing what they need to do. and frustrateing on my point of view and yours as well that we have a contractor that last night stated that he would comply with everything. and it appears from the notice that mr. bruno has that we went back out there. i don't have with me i saw it

on the overhead like yourself. there is obviously issues with this notification that needs to be dealt with. by the contractor and the person doing the work. so maybe they can speak to that but -- obviously our housing people went out there and he has contacted epa as well and filed a complaint. and they seem to be following up with that as well. >> okay thank you. >> can you do one thing for me? can you take a look at that nov and see what is it referencing. he made a minor discussion on it and showed it. but not quite clear in my mind what the nov is for. >> i will take it from mr. bruno, if you don't mind.

>> just the dated -- >> april 24. >> i think i would like to ask mr. cohen and perhaps the contractor to come back up while they are looking for that. >> we still have a couple of minutes left if you want to hear from the contractor. >> i would like to ask if you can address what seems to be an ongoing situation of complaints and notices of violation. >> yes, ma'am, make ready, it's the same problem we have had. we have posted signs before

several times. every time they disappear, we get a call. dennis chin i have had conversations with. and the last notice that went up mr. bruno contacted them that they weren't advised of this pamphlet. these were put up when we put the initial signs in january. the three signs that he posted on the overhead that were posted on the outside that is said they are not sufficient. those are on the bdi website and you fill in the blanks and fill it out. and that's what we put on and instructed to put on. and it's available to anyone that signs on to the dbi website. >> you are saying that you several times post signs and they go missing? >> yes, ma'am.

and mr. yee passed this out and to all the tenants in the building, and then got a call -- i got a call two days later from mr. yee, that said bruno called him and said that he is not allowed to give that to him. that i the contractor had to hand it to him, and knocked on his door and i gave it to him personally at his back door. that's it. all we can do is keep complying. when we get a notice we have to comply. this is not our only customer and building. we are in several projects and mistakes happen and error happen and vandalism happens all we can do is put it back up. and check with the residents

that everything is okay. the residents we need as allies because we are disturbing them in buildings that are next door -- >> okay. >> i will interject. considering this matter has been before us way too many times and as contentious as it is have you documented it by taking pictures of the notification you have posted? can i talk from the galley please. the question to you, the contractor knowing we have had this multiple issue multiple times. when you post this have you taken pictures? >> we have not had to post anymore signs -- excuse me we have not had to post anymore signs since the last violation that mr. yee came out on. the ones displayed on the screen that was it. the board granted us and released the permit at the last

hearing for a building that is not involved here. and we didn't start work there for a week week and a half, and a minute on for the first day we got a call. we haven't been out there more. have we posted signs? no we don't how further it goes. >> and the large notification that is poster size is that a requirement and maybe mr. duffy can answer that. >> no, sir, to my knowledge it's not a requirement and i finished the lead refresher course two weeks ago. we have to take that every five years and never brought to us and by epa certified school. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy any comment? >> so let me with the notice of

violation by the housing inspection services on the overhead. so it is dated 24th of april, 2015. inspector yee inspected the subject property and the california housing code delineated in the housing issue. and 7 and 9 nobles alley, and provide the rez debts literature about led-based paint. and post all the appropriate information at each day at least three days prior to the work. and then a comment that it's the residential to be attendant and on the notice of violation for the permit of inspector.

at the area cited with the notice. this is a very standard inspection, he doesn't see the notices, he writes it up again. so i will address the same requirements, and don't know what is happening with the notices. but i would like to correct the contractor there, because in chapter 34 of the 2013 san francisco building code. there is a requirement for sign the requirement for the sign is put on the building is more to do for adjacent property owners that sign i have seen all over the city when they are working on the exterior of the building. so there is a sign requirement. and the notice to residential occupants is -- can be in the form of a sign, letter or memo and a lot of language about when

the work will start and what it will entail. the sign is one thing, the notice is another. so he could have sent a letter or done whatever. but clearly this contractor just stated that he doesn't know the requirement for a sign, and there is a requirement for a sign. >> sorry mr. duffy, you cannot make comments from the seats in the back -- okay, thank you. >> whether it's enough to stop the work and overturn a permit i think our housing inspection services on the epa are dealing with it. i imagine it's better but there are other options for the contractor to notify the occupants of the building. there is a requirement for a sign. i will gladly give -- if he wants to give me-i will give him a copy of the code section. but obviously he needs to do

better. that's without saying. >> i have a question. so when the inspector gave, issued the notice of violation. was there physical work being performed by the housing inspector. >> it doesn't say that on the notice. >> he was pretty detailed if he noticed work being performed, he probably would have noted that? >> no not really, he's out there for lead-based paint. obviously if there is remnants of lead-based paint disturbance at the site he didn't say that more for the noticing. and don't know if there is a timeline to get work restarted again. >> that's my question would he have notice of violation if no

work performed and didn't see notification. i am trying to gather why he would write the nov. >> is there notice for the property at 15 noble alley? >> yeah the notice does say 15 noble alley, but 7 and 9. >> the permits to be worked at 7 and 9 is suspended, so no work there. >> yeah, why would a notice of violation be issued if no work. >> i think it has to do with the sign the posting, no work to do with any other else. no signs. >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none then commissioners the matter is yours. >> i am not quite sure what to do with this one. if you read the brief.

every point that is made there has no substantiation. but then we have a contractor who doesn't quite seem to know what specific notice requirements are required. which -- puts me in a quandary as what do we do with this. >> this is a rehearing request. >> correct. >> where i was going. and a lot of unsubstantiated material is brought forward and put in the brief as well as oral. and again the request for rehearing rules are quite specific. i do not believe that manifest justice has been performed here or caused. and i believe whether the contractor has an issue with notification that will be solved and remedied with the epa and

the current department as it sits. that is my feeling. and before i finish -- and to be honest i am quite offended of the unsubstantiated comments that were made by the appellant. i find it quite offensive. >> i am of the same opinion, i think there is an issue here but doesn't have to do with the underlying permit. and the department and epa will do the enforcement. so that's where i am. >> motion. >> move to deny the rehearing on the basis that there is no new evidence or manifest injustice. >> there is a motion on the floor from the president to deny the hearing request. >> it's two requests for the

record. >> two requests yes. on that motion to deny. fung. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> wilson. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, and both rehearing requests are denied and notices of decision in order shall be released. >> thank you. next item is item 12 appeal no. 15-047 susan wong, versus the department of building inspection property at 8222 geary boulevard, protesting the issuance on march 9, 2015 to evan housel of an alteration permit for new rear deck and stairs. >> commissioners i have 3-d rendering and wonder if i can present it to you. >> i don't think that is necessary right now thank you. >> okay.

president lazarus and members of the board, i am sussan wong i live at 482 west avenue this is my daughter and we appeal the rear deck and stairs of my neighbor. i want the board to understand that i am here not representing just myself but 94 people that signed a petition opposing the permit. we are putting a picture on the overhead. this is the picture of the existing permit on my backyard and the white house in the foreground. one reason that i purchased my house 28 years ago, because i was captivated by the tranquillity of the open space