typed at the canter's request i've reviewed did declarations of patrick and patrick o'neill dated january 7, 2016, and performed a structural analysis of the property and reviewed the sites documents and first-hand knowledge of the design and detailing the vast majority of existing framing will remain intact to accumulate the promoted construction with proper reenforcement i've looked at the floor plans and exhibit 1 of the canter's response and find it accurately represents the demolition it has the seismically separation as the san francisco planning department and the proposed foundation 90 to not expose or undermine the foundation of the

property and the details cited will be knitted in an addendum to the san francisco department of building inspection for review as general contractor i see those projects all the time on a daily basis. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is bridget i'm before me notice sister a couple of things to say i want to say bruno and susan are really wanting to work with everybody and the community and certainly, of course, their neighbors the appellants they've made amuse accommodations to address the concern around their roof decks and, yes frankly not anything

that enough that's why we see appeal after appeal of the project that bruno and susan has put forth and the delays with putting stress on the having to come back and rerepresent their case has been quite hard and holding up our parents are frankly going to be staying there they need center assistance i want to say they've gotten extensive part you've heard from the people the community i have a list of 40 plus people and neighbors and so forth i ask you allow them to move forward and stop the continual delay. >> is there any additional public comment? >> on this item seeing over rebuttal mr. patterson.

>> thank you, commissioners ryan ryan patterson for the appellants i don't doubt the canter's are fine people i object to their families and paid consultants with the public comment i ask the testimony to be stricken the record this appeal is about the structural issue we have a structural engineer that has testified and the fact it dbi has not had a h their structural engineer review those plans you're seeing a problem with the progress i ask you to look at the what the representatives said those permits this permit has problems they're saying don't worry that is not proper we have to say we're a city that

followed the allows lacey ever don't worry about that's close enough that is another remodel project 23 to 25 clifford terrace permitted in the same thing two unit home here during construction almost entirely disappeared here's a closer photo this is what they're talking about when we say don't worry the walls will be reinforced they've taken scrap lumber and attached it to the walls the walls don't exist their additionally so many misrepresentations that came out of the permit holder recusal omitted on the questions on the building permit are tree adding a driveway in essence their

alternating the driveway they'll have to alternate the driveway the list is extensive and i fear the desire of a lot of people to just permit things and don't look at the requirement and the packet the existing studs the walls doesn't meet code and can't be used to hold up a 4 story building service request here i don't think this has enough information dbi didn't have enough information i'll ask a senior inspector to look at this this board can either get information or revoke the permit it is clearly issued no error or

not installing a fourth floor oar the roof deck they say no roof deck is created and i would encourage you to look at the language on the application form it is quite clear thank you for your time. >> mr. patterson i have a couple of questions he was here during the first case last year someone from the public showed pictures what is the reading of our clients and open stud condition. >> the questions what fire rating is required i don't know what the trend extensive construction is going on i don't know what the fire rating is. >> open stud no sheetrock or 5, 8th's it is fire rating. >> i understand rock on the outside and the inside there is a recent interpretation to not

do that. >> i did not see that the picture is there something on the property. >> i think the wails with open to some stent still under construction not sealed off with the fire rating. >> how long has this construction been. >> in litigation recently concluded and getting that construction. >> when was the litigation final. >> i believe it was months or a year. >> within the last 6 months. >> one of most no work has been done in of months. >> i know their objecting a new architect to move forward. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holders. >> ms. canter anything more to

add? >> good evening yeah. it is an interesting point you bring up on the overhead this is the house that the appellants house is black stuff is a liquid applied membrane petroleum based over 4 years and what was shown that the inside of the building has no sheetrock it is not only an ice eye soar but some of the issues we've worked with a structural engineer and found a

successful way to do this by reenforcing the structure typically in san francisco many of the architects have experience with that by way of nobody here a paid consultant my friends come out and support me time and times again, it is a tremendously long journey and offering their professional advise i try to do projects the best way i can for the community and also would not benefit us to totally level a house we have to do that within our means i'm the sort of guy when it comes to construction i'll set up a preconstruction with a dbi inspector do you see any issues and working closely working closely with the city to do a

job properly all the other ordinances have been brought up time and time again pointless to talk about them again but maybe susan wants to say a few words >> i wanted to say one person waited four and a half hours wouldn't wait but felt bad she couldn't deliver her speech appreciate you guys so one thing to add we went through two full days of hearing improvements california superior court everything under the sun was argued the judge as i understand the order 14 packages she as i understand after every single chart we've exhausting done this i have the order if

you want to see this okay. >> the public document. >> do they have to accept it. >> no, not fair to the other party if they don't have a copy. >> okay. >> okay. thank you very much. >> anything more in the department mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. >> be brief and correct the record i think when the permit holder i i don't we don't have problems with that permit that is properly issued we have problems with the issues raised in the appellant brief one of the issues this will be requiring a demolition permit there's no understanding the 317

when a project is subject to 317 their rome part the building and it is actually still treated as a altercation by the building inspection so planning department has a 39 demolitions and have additional demolition existence in article 10. preservation matter so this is not the best system and not the place to deal with that the issue was raised on the property think clifford that project i don't know all the details i pulled it up now obtained a document under 317, demolish something that is defective as dry rot not counting towards the

calculations there was a permit that was submitted and not something that flew under the radar but the appellant put up under the overhead i think the permit was properly issued the permit holder didn't show a brief but the presentation was excellent and went through the project i worry about i had the experience of an architect >> is that a 4 star. >> anything mr. duffy. >> commissioners i don't have much to add but the occasion on the buildings the gentleman spoke earlier the architect the preconstruction meeting was important for the dbi they'll support