first. 6 minutes because we are hearing two cases mpt >> let me first address [inaudible] it is dirty liting secret and a number of you know how this operates already. christopher durkin told me himself he didn't care about my deck but he found administrative errors in the system. i said there can't be. he said i dont care about your deck. i don't care about what is up there, i'm going have my own huge house, you keep quiet and don't feel against my project, don't object my project and everything will be fine, just keep your mouth closed. that is what is really going on here. he said to me, you object to my project, i will get lawyers on your case and file lawsuits and put

orders of anything against you so that is what is going on here, number one. number two, [inaudible] happy to explain to your our lawyer did find issues- >> [inaudible] >> our architect did find issues and in the last hearing i provided you this blue folder and in hereunder item 4, mr. [inaudible] is absolutely right. the actect did find these problem jz she did send an e-mail and it is on the first page on item 4. i agree this is quite confusing. neither of the permits are for the scope you are work on. what he failed to tell you is she went into planning and dbi in 2007 and if you look on the next page on item 4, she says

to me, on july 18, 2007, dave, i did speak with joe duffy from the building department. he did confirm the nature of the twoe permits pulled. they are both over the counter and suspects did not require drawings, but will require any inspection. neither of the permits have anything to do with scope by design is working with. she contacted dcp and planning and was given the green light. at that point if something more was needed we didn't know. why didn't planning or dbi say, you need extra this or that? what i'm say sg that is the realty of what is going on here. >> just the lawyer said we were trying to do the work without permit squz that is not right. we thought we had the permits that were needed. we didn't know-we had two permits and

thought that was correct. we were just trying to do everything right, we are not trying to get away with anything. the contractor standard roofing, yes he does say in the contract that he is not responsible for a permit, but we still thought we had the permits needed and it is a good company that wouldn't try to get away anything also. just wanted to say that. >> i hope it is clear now exactly what is going on here. this is strong arm methodology and this doesn't happen just with us, it happened up and down that street. it is known in the vernacular at litigation hill because there are a number of cases like this where the lawyers have gotten involved and developers are going in and saying we found this problem and that problem, you keep your mouth shut about mine project

-you saw the size of this thing. it wasn't just us that objected. look at the size of this massive thing. there were like a hundred different neighbors objecting-you see the massive. this effects hundreds of people and expect objections and what he told #3450e is you tell all your neighbors i'm a nice guy and i don't want any objections against this massive project. i can't do that. i can't tell all the neighbors to keep their mouth shut, how can i do that? he said, listen you do that or i'm going to bring the lawyers in and file complaints against you. i found this [inaudible] i said it can't not be squeaky clean, the city signed up and came on inspections and provided those in the blue file and folder so saying mark [inaudible] is

lying through his teeth and playing technicality here to misrepresent us as people who are familiar with the building process, the planning process and so on. we are not developers or builders, he is a expert and what he does every day of the week and misrepresenting what is happening. i say please lut us continue. the department and planning supports us, please let us continue the process, it will be a long and arduous process as you can see but we are on board with planning and on board with department of building inspection and trying to get it done and close it out and will make the plans. we made that proposal-not the proposal but following the proposal to close the matter and will have precondition and post condition plans, whatever is necessary update them and satisfy everyone to the best of ability.

>> thank you. the department? mr. duffy, do you anything you like to add? question for mr. duffy. >> so, a lot of this case i already made up my mind on it, but the fees are still-i was a little bit-i thought you were going to say based on everybodys involvement here this was just a very misunderstanding with the communication and the $2000 fees i want to have a good understanding you feel the fees should be collected based on the fact we had the hearings even though the hearings were generated by the misinformation? >> mr. ryan filed an appeal and got a letter from dbi saying all violation are cleared and that is not right. i don't

think-i think they knew that. it was a win fall but it came back to bite them. that was definitely our error and acknowledge that. >> this is the big problem i have, what is the point of having the paperwork if we we can't stand behind it. maybe they could have done a better job interpreting paperwork but if i put myself in those shoes i would happy with that piece of paperwork myself. just trying to see- >> the fees are just i think mostly staff time for enforcement proceedings and the fees are warranted for everything that was done up to the point of the letter sent out and also what we have done on the current case as well. it is just staff time . >> what is reassureing where you are sitting and based on the site visit all the issues

that were up in the air are being resolve squd go through the necessary departments and it will take time to do that. that is a big thing. all the arguments about the what was permitted or wasn't and the contracted should have done, all that is resolved now to detail set of plans that will clarify everything through the planning? >> i think so and feel we heard everything that happened in the past today and look forward to what will happen in the future. there is documents in these files going back to 2003 acknowledging there is awork done without the permit. people do work without permit, we deal with it but what we don't have a accurate set of plans with a describing exactly what was done and haven't got to that opponent but that is something we will look forward to getting to. just i glad if i can get the overhead again because-you may have got this

as well. this is mr. ryans property, this is the roof deck. this is mr. durkins development. >> i had a question. i was looking at the-do you confidence if we give the appellates 15 months that this matter could be resolved and get the proper permits and have the work signed off because they are asking for more time as another condition and this case is going on-goes back to 2004. curious in your expertise mr. duffy, do you think they complete this thun next 15 months? >> i would say give as much time as you legally can but they need as much time as you can. that is my feeling. only because i know that-we know there attorney and he isn't going away. they will probably appeal the variance and

notification and building permit. does itorder of abatement keep going-is in what do we do with that abatement in the mean time? do they get time when that process is being gone through? if this was-if it is their fault they are not filing the permits timely and not trying to get this done i would say they shouldn't get time but how we deal with the time for the anticipated delays due to procedures that neighborerize entitled to? >> maybe the city attorney may know. >> thank you so much for clarifying. it seems to me that these action by the department and the fees would have happened anyway because the work was done without permit, so i'm less concerned about the fees itself instead of ongoing fees. maybe because

of our delay bureaucratic delay we don't add anymore and that we allow for as much time as we can legally, uphold the order of abatement and put a timer on when the permits are-or plans are submitted so we know things are movering forward. >> yeah, i have a little different spin and that is i feel uncomfortable with the fees because i feel the department did give them the win fall and they had no-appeared to have no consideration that there was something wrong with the letter and had to hang their hat on it so uncomfort charging fees. >> the violations were in existence before our actions initially. i think the work was done on a permit not issued to cover the work. that is the truth no matter what and then

if it was cast aside by the letter action stopped until it restarted again but it didn't create the problem, the problem was there in the beginning so i just think some fees apply and willing to look at reducing them. >> through the chair, maybe you can answer this-the fees-obviously the testimony from the home owners is they didn't know they were in violation, right? >> yeah. not sure- >> and then the win fall came afterwards saying they were not in violation. i think the testimony states that their contractor and the permit they had and based on their experience they thought they had the permit fee squz proceeded on the circumstances taken even though as you-we all

agree a roofing contractor-the testimony when chwe all agreed we say because of the inexperience and so on we will give them a pass on that. if it was a more seasoned person pulling the permit we wouldn't. i am-i remember the last testimony the last time we talked about that. >> it is a odd precedence. >> if things happened correctly, when they filed the appeal on the first order of abatement back in 03 or 04, they would have a hearing in front of the commission and that fee may have been what they were asking for relief on. you are asking-now they are asking for it later on but those fees were already in place before that. any time the department error it is one you say maybe we should be-that

is your decision. >> commissioner gilman >> my comment was i feel giving the extension as large as we can, whatever is in the legal parameter in itself also since the case dates so far back and i have been on the commission about a year, but you have violations back to 2004 and we are in 2017 and even though they are a small single family owner, not a multifamily owner or someone in the trades, i feel like this is going on now for-this can be going on for 10 years and uncomfortable with reducing the fees. i think the extension of time and stopping any fees moving forward is a approach i am more comfort taking. i think it sets a bad precedent for us and department so rather see a extension of time in pause of fees and fee

frz staff time. >> wrun other thing to bear in mind the fees for the variance hearings and notification and permit fees for planning-they still have permit fees to play and quite a lot with the planning department fees with that. >> do we have a sense of how much of the $2 thousand predates the 2007 letter versus what came after? >> most was before the 2007 letter. >> the fees paid were for the earlier case. >> will commissioners consider reduction in fees? >> yes. >> what i say is there is a fee of $312 for the latest notice of violation. fees were paid on the first of $1668 so due to collect $312 on the second one.

>> commissioner gilman. >> i thought you said they oweed us $3 thousand. $2 thousand. >> the total fees would have been $2 thousand but they paid $1668 and owe $312. >> thank you for that clarification i think we all under a very different. >> they owe a balance of $312 for the second notice of violation. >> i want to be sensitive to people not being in the professions and what not, but don't think ignorns of construction is ever a exkoos where we reduce fees. we want to encourage people to follow the law. it seems some of the information they had as this

went forward should have given them pause moving forward with unpermitted work. i'm really willing to give as much time as needed to resolve this and to not incur more fees, but we have what we have here and it is violations, so-- >> i guess i think we are getting closer on agreement. i just want to make a point that a designer if i make a mistake in design and the client goes ahead and have to redesign and can't go to the client-because it is a mistake-ask for reimbursement for redesign. i feel that is similar here because if they incur cost they incur cost and expected to pay it that doesn't seem right. what mr. duffy said is most of

thees cost came about earlier so then my feeling is we perhaps 12340 split the baby and say what is paid is legitimate and dont collect remaining $300 >> maybe assuming plans are submitted within maybe three months or something. plans can be done without the planning department approval, correct? >> uh-huh. >> so,- >> you are asking for them to be filed? >> right, within three months and allowing 18 months is the amount of time we allow. upholder of abatement and collect current fee squz not incur anymore fees as this plays out. we get the plans

within three months. >> can i make a correction to what i stated? the fees on the 2014 notice of violation $1668, there are outstanding fees on the 2003 of $312. i got that in reverse, just wanted to correct that. they are look frg relief on the $1668 for the 2014 case that- >> that suggests the $1600 was materialized after we sent that letter. >> that was for the latest notice of violation for the roof deck and stairs. which

never had a permit and correctly issued, which is now going through a permit process. >> okay. >> we issued the permit and the homeowner- >> filed the permit but no permit yet. we don't have apartment yet. >> the homeowner was under the impression it was under the roof permit? >> yes, but it never was. >> we understand that now, but if we are going back to the testimony here we accepted the fact that they were not seasoned veterans and now they are recorrecting everything and--i still think- >> the roofer in the contract said they were doing work that want permitted. i think that again-if there is something wrong and work done without

permit there is work done without permits and anybody can come and say they didn't know they were doing it. that isn't a excuse. >> but everything you said is correct and agree but got something fwraum the department saying they were okay and that is the part i'm struggling with. >> knowing contracts- >> after the fact. they were told it was okay. they did it and were told it was okay but it wasn't but that doesn't change the fact it wasn't okay. >> we are all in agreement there. what i'm trying to- >> they didn't do the work based on our letter. they did the work and then our letter came. >> knowing the language we are not responsible for permits period. it is a-sometimes it is a protection mechanism in there for a contract because sometimes the work may exceed

the permit and nobodys fault so pretty standard language and seen it in contracts. it dubtz mean you cart blaunch to build what you want, but it testimony of the ryan's is they thought they had the permit, we supported that, then we undid that and we are here. this is a 2014 and makes a difference to me on the 1600 bucks there. 2004 is what we thought we were talking about. i think it fast forwards this why give them reduction in fees or give money back. give them money back or major reduction in the fees. >> or perhaps make them pay $312 from the 2004 >> maybe that is the way to go. would it help 23 i read the notice of violation? it was 14

and complaint filed for unpurnlted are oof deck. a roof deck is installed untop of grad and no permits for decking and stairs at the rear of the building, obtain building permit with plans or permit to remove unpermitted work was 21 of november, 2014. mr. ryan icame to the building permit with roofjug repair permit and variance decision and remember meeting him and saying these are not-this isn't right. the variance decision and told you what you had to do which you didn't do and can understand if you get-you have your variance decision but need to follow up with the permit. there would have been some-i'm okay and have a letter from dbi. maybe some relief is warranted. >> can i suggest we vote on

commissioner walkers motion-we don't have to be unanimous. >> want to restate the motion? >> we better understand i wnder if you have a different position? >> i don't because and feel at some point anybody can come and say they didn't know what they were doing and at some point we have to look at what is there. what was built was built without permit. i'm-am motion i made is uphold order of abatement and allow 3 months to file plans. 18 month tooz have the project go through permit approval with planning and building and any necessary

things. uphold fees. >> i will second that motion. >> there is a motion and second. do roll call vote on the motion. >> just want to clarify, you will grant the appeal, uphold order of abatement with the following conditions: plans filed within 3 months, order of abatement held for 18 months and uphold the fees. >> and no more fees. >> uphold the fees that are incured up to today but no more going forward? >> correct. >> clarification, they paid part the fees, not all so are we asking to pay the original $300 >> i'm not including a fee reduction. if somebody wants to make a frnd friendly amendment i may consider. >> what about the monthly monitoring fee? >> no.

>> wave it. wave the monitoring fee. >> just for the record, we will take vote and just want to have a chance to explain my vote because i will disagree because i feel strongly about the $1600. it is principle thing for me. it is contrary to the position you are taking but feel differently so will vote no but do a roll call vote. >> i want to explain before i vote is i feel mistakes may have been made on both sides and should try to share some of that. >> i'm sorry because we are allowed to have discussion about it. >> absolutely. >> 2004 if we give 18 month said we are looking at 14 years that this case is involved with the this department at one level or another and just seems long for a single family home dwelling and this level of work. i think mistakes were made on both sides i think if we wave the monthly monitoring

fee and say no fees moving for ward and caught up in litigation with the neighbor they may need to come back and have furkter extension squz if the commission says we areope toon that-reimbursing fees paid sets a bad precedent and not to make any comments on what thavalue of $316 is for anyone, i think it is important to send a message we need more diligence to the case and that we need to insure-i would give a further extension on the plans to be submitted and do 6 months as a courtesy because i think 3 is rough. we can't hire architects and engineer now the city is booming so do a friendly amendment to extend but uncomfortable reducing fee. >> we can't take anymore

comment. >> we'll pay the $1600. >> that's a good comment. >> i accept the friendly amendment for 6 months for plan submittal. >> giveren what mr. ryan just offered or agreed to not request refund on $1600 do we want to collect the $300? the motion stands. with the amendment. >> commissioner gilman. >> could we read that one more time? >> the motion by commissioner walker is to grant the appeal, uphold order of abatement plans submitted in 6 months held for

18 months, the past fees incured are upheld, the fees going forward are waved mpt >> exactly. >> roll cole vote. clinch, yes. walker, yes. gilman, yes. konstin, yes, lee, no. mccarthy, yes. warshell, yes. the motion carries 6 to 1. next item is e new appeal case 6827, 2185 bay street.

franklin vista llc, appellate requests the order of abatement modified to permit rooftop garden or landscape area. >> good morning. ros mary bosky chief housing inspector. to continue the theme of roofs, this particular appeal addresses a 24 unit apartment building on three floors of occupancy with garages on the ground floor. it is a corner soft story building. built approximately 1930. as you can see, this is bay street i divisadero and two fire escapes off bay street and one here at the divisadero location. here now is a shot of the roof area.

again, here is divisadero, bay street, a fire escape here and two at this location and the area of concern that we are going to discuss today is this area right here. this particular picture does not depict what is there as far as the receptacles and planters. i want to show you now two photo's one in february and one in april of this year rchlt in february you can see that we have 14 receptacles and 10 planters. these planters are about 30 inches by 48 by 12. about 10 square feet. there are 8 of those and we go from february of this year to april where we go from 14 to 19 receptacles and as you can see,

one is at the edge of the parapit of the building. these are three gallon receptacles. now, we wrote a notice of violation that the load of these planters and receptacles exceeds the load that is intended for this roof. that notice of violations issued in march and it asked for information from the structural engineer, the property owner was very timely andsent a letter dated june 24 of this year from a structural engineer saying the load provided by these receptacles and planters exceeds what was intended for this roof. now, i want to show-i will go back to the other picture. this is from google and you can see this roof and you can see the roof of the other multi-family

dwellings in the area. they are clear because we work hard to make them clear unless a building permit filed to change the use we have several concerns and it is just not load and stepping into the shoes of the hearing officers there are several things we want you to take into consideration. one is the load-the second is the fact we obviously see a disparity between the number of receptacles. they can increase or decrease and can't guarantee how much material is in the receptacles. we see a hose and something is watered. the water materials are also adds to the load. it is a concern. we dont have proper guardrails so in this location we don't know if something can fall off the roof. sthais soft story building the property owner

filed a building permit to deal with that but in the event of seismic activity or fire the fire department may made to do something to aerate you have a issue. this is a single family dwelling where the occupant is in one building. sthais large apartment building with a lot of people that could be effected by this. the tenant is making the appeal and have standing to do it under section 102 a.10. i gave a copy to the city attorney and secretary so they have that for reference. now, the other thing i like you to consider and i believe the appellate may be here and if the property owner is here i think they need to be heard too. i want to direct your attention to a letter by the

structural engineering because he outlines the same considerations. the other concern i would have is we are always fighting to make sure that these roofs are well maintained so you dont have app chur jz mold and mildew and effect the fire proofing. we have no idea what this amount of materials will do to the surface so we dont think this is prudent use or legal and not a permit and have about $800 assessment of cost. because the property owner is timely trying to deal with this, we are more than happy to look and reduce that and have a itemized bill in your packet. >> commissioner lee. >> is there any authorization for property owners to secure the rooftops from being accessible? is there any

obligation that property owners have to keep the rooftop from being accessible to people? >> in this instance because there are fire escapes off the roof, it has to be accessible for that purpose but not as far as any other use unless done with bailding permit. you have information the tenant was allowed to do this in the past. that may be the case but don't believe that is substantive with safety. calling it one thing versus another with twnt pound load we dont believe that is substantive of not being able to control the amont of receptacle of what was put in them. this was never meant to be like this. you is a issue where one can go off the roof and may be waited down but corner building, sor story. this is a older building so if a fire starts it will probably go across the attic and probably not stops toprint it

and no sprinklering in the building unless it is in a garbage room or a trash chute so the building doesn't have what a modern structure would have as far as fire prevention and or deterring a fire from spreading. all those things considered we don't think it is prudent and think you should take these things into consideration and upholding the hearing officer. >> commissioner walker and then commissioner gilman. >> so, has the property owner submitted a permit to allow this? >> no. >> okay. >> we have >> not to my knowledge and just look adthat permit history this morning. >> we have a pretty vibrant green roof department and policies to encourage this, but it requires that you go and make sure the structure can hold it and gives you specific information about how many receptacles and planters to

establish a proper load, so there is a process we have in the city that helps with this. in there is no permit to legalize this, is that what you are saying? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner gilman. >> you may not know the answer to this question, but are the receptacles are for rain water? i'm confused why the receptacles are on the roof? >> it is my understanding he is growing certain wheat grass for personal use so the materials in the receptacle would be according to our staff report to you is soil is and things of that nature. my concern is we can't control the amount of material or water not only in those receptacles that is grown but also in the planters which that is about 80 square feet. >> yeah.

>> commissioner mccarthy. >> so, just on the permit issue to follow up on commissioner walker's ask there, the appellate got an engineering letter saying you space it out right it should be fine, the weight and on the legal letter it says a roof-it is like a roof garden unoccupied landscape. that something you can file for permit for? >> possibly but a lot will have to happen the criteria we talked about. >> we are incorrect if we say we can't get a permit for this. >> they just haven't. >> the owner will have to do that and can't compel that. >> there is a urmt pprocess if they want to go through?

>> yeah. >> it is dependent on what was proposed. i don't know if the deputy director-dan do you have anything youp want to add as far as the load? >> i read the engineer letter and you spread the weight around and get all that- >> they haven't applied for a permit to facilitate this. >> there is a route of resolving this if everybody want said to resolve it. >> that is what the notice of violation says. >> knowing that the rooftop legislation is encouraging more active use for water retention and greening, encouraging the

use where they are structural sound is something we want to do but not do it where it is structurally sound or safety consideration are being met clearly is not appropriate. i guess my only question beyond the facts you pretty well established is to hopefully understand really where the source of this issue is and who is responsible for it. do we know for instance the lease terms or building standards that are used or representations from the building owner to his tenant, all the tenants as to whether he ever prohibited or did any

specifications in there to the roof? >> the only information we have is appellates application which has a letter from the previous property manager saying he was allowed to have something up there. the scale of it, i don't think is clear. it is from february to april as you can see, but as far as inlease agreement i dont call if that is in there. i would lead the appellate to address that issue further. >> thank you. >> if we can hear from the appellate now, please? >> you have 7 minutes. >> good morning, brian sor ono the attorney representing the appellate, steve dukes who is here with me this morning. he is a tenant in this subject property. i won't argue to engage in whole scale speculation but this is rent

controlled building, mr. duke reside said there and outlast 3 houn owners and the rooftop pantders are in existence for 13 years and as some commissioners have mentioned, the planning department is familiar with this rooftop planting system and they asked for pictures to put it on the website. they approve of this. he is growing two things, wheat grass and sun flower seeds and used for therapeutic diet which is a core aspect of mr. duke's lifestyle. what was left out of the agencies presentation she said the property owner is timely. the notice of violation was served in manch. the property owner did nothing about securing a structural inion ear or having anybody review the roof. he was happy to let anorder of abatement issue. mr. dukes had

to hire a structural engineer who is here today and provided a copy of his report from steel head engineer. so, went windup the structural engineer and said this doesn't create any risk on the building and made a couple rementdation about spacing them and that addresses the pick chir put up there. you saw the number of planters went from 14 to 19, that wasn't out of spite or out of some manner to take greater control, it was to address the load concerns raised by the city and fall though recommendations of the structural engineer that said as long as these are spaced properly there is no concern they exceed a twnt pounds per square foot load. in fact, wuns that letter was provided to the property owner that inspired him to hire his own structural engineer and asked to provide a rebuttal which is apparent if you look at the letter and how far he

engages in the speculation. i don't have a problem with mr. homs letter. the key is whether you considered this unoccupied landscape area, which is it and confirmed by members of the city or unpermitted rooftop garden which is it not. a rooftop garden requires a higher standards but there is not a risk of being violated and the structural engineer is here if you want to ask him directly about that. there has been some questions raised about the permitting and two points to make on that. one, it is mr. dukes cant do anymore more to comply. he is running around cathing member thofz city. the property owner is looking for a

excuse to force him out of hiserant controlled apartment. this is a e-mail response from ann brass from city planning department. hi steve, nice talking to you today, as i mentioned you growing plant ogon the roof complies with thd ordinance. mr. duke has done everything he can to make sure he is in compliance. the condition existed for 13 years and won't raise the civil law issues but it is hard to stop the use based on a concern over safety when for 13 years no one had a concern about the safety. as i understand it, all other aspectoffs theorder of abatement are complied with and asking for the board to modify that directors order so that it removes the requirement to

remove these planters. mr. dukes will continue to cooperate with anybody from the city that can provide specifications they think would provide for more safety, but there is no threat to the safety as is. in the letter from the structural engineer the property owner provided, he says well, what if they filled with rain water and increase the load. as you saw from the photograph, these have tight lids and not capable of taking on rain water. other than speculation there is no observation or evidence submitted that shows this is a threat to anybody's safety or violates the building codes when they are properly applied as a unoccupied landscape area. that is code section 1607.12,.3.1. the live load for unoccupied landscape area

on a roof is 20 psf. in addition, the ability of mr. dukes to maintain this planters on the roof for his dietary needs is a express agrooment in his lease and have with us here mr. dock miles who is the previous property manager who bauts mr. dukes first wheat grass grinder and supportive of his healthy food lifestyle. he was familiar what was going on on the roof and witness agreeing mr. dukes will be able to maintain that. when the new property owners came in, they were informed of the aspect of mr. dukes tenancy from the get go. i know-raising issues that are beyond the boards control and have to address them somewhere else and hope not to have go that route, but mr. dukes is a long term tenant and

has legal protection to stay there and i fear that the property owner has no desire to address the concerns of the city in a legitimate way because the ruling from the director will allow him to put mr. dukes in a difficult position his protected tenancy. if you have no questions now i'll submit but be available. >> any question from the commission? >> i have a question to our staff on this. there was a e-mail read from the planning-planner saying they did want need permits for what they are doing, can we address that squl >> the planning department and planner does not have the authority to say whether a building permit is necessary not regarding the building code. it could be there planner was referring to a permit under the context of the

planning code which is something completely different. >> thank you. >> obviously that isue is before this commission which has the expertise of having structural engineer. that was-if i can proceed with rebuttal or how would you like to proceed? >> there is more people to give testimony. >> i can wait for rebuttal. >> thank you. >> are you done with your rebuttal then? >> no. >> she was brought up to clarify. >> i asked a question.

>> i'm confused, i got lost for a second. doing math here on the weight of the bins because i'm a structural engineer. >> what i was going to do is wait for the rebuttal until you hear from the property owner. there are critical part of this. >> we'll hear rebuttal and have public comment. >> they want to hear from the property owner to allow the 7 minutes as well. >> good morning commissioners rchlt jonathan siegel and represent the property owner. this won't take long. first, it is disturbing my client purchased the building long after the tenantive in there. it is disturbing that the appellate now is essentially turning this into a hearing about he is a rent control

tenant and the landlord is look frg a way to get him out. if the landlord was looking to do that as soon as the notice of violation issued the landlord could have served a non curable three day notice to quit based on unlawful use. and/or nuisance. landlord didn't do that. i don't think any of that is relevant as far as being a tenant and mean lan lord and that is what he is trying to turn it into and it is wrong. my landlord has serious concerns about this. the landlord hired his own structural engineer and that structure engineer reached a very different conclusion than the appellates structural engineer. that's what happens. i notice that the appellates

counsel said based on speculation and this and that and there is no evidence for that. that is just a spin and argument. i think as far as what the weight requirements are there seems to be a dif rnss in opinion as to whether this is a roof garden or not. that i leave to you. there was some other issues at the original hearing, the commissioner addressed the fact there is no permit for anyone to really go up there and assemble up there. that is a another concern. and then another issue is there would have to be a interceptor position as well as railings and various other things and at this point my client is uncomfort with the whole

situation. there is a violation out there and structural engineer saying this is in violation and this is not safe and so for them to turn this into lard lord trying to attack tenant it isn't right or relevant. additionally and think my client will have to come up and testify that he actually fairly recently saw a lid from a container on the ground in front of the building, so for however many floors that is, it ended up on the sidewalk in front of the building. what i would encourage is this, to stick with what the law is, what the situation is as the staff

explained there is many many issues here. there is structural integrity issue, there is danger to the public, danger to the tenant in a 24 unit building and i would ask that is what this apule should be decided upon and not upon whether this is a long term tenant or not because that isn't relevant to this situation. he has on the phone a photograph. >> how much time is left? >> 3 minutes. jo >> just wanted to show that picture and this was taken on october 14th of 2016. this was

driving by the building one of the bin covers on the street level. >> thank you. thanks. public comment. any public comment? huh? okay, rebuttal from the appellate, please. >> just a couple comments. in the first is one i don't think commissioner warshells question was answered if there was a legal agreement. for us, the issue of planning was addressed but do believe that there is a danger here with things falling off the roof. i wasn't aware

of that. if a proper permit was taken out we wouldn't have a problem and that is between the landlord and tenant but until that occurs we have safety issues to how this is used now. if tomorrow a fire occurred, at night at the build{fire was trying to deal with that, this would be a problem because we got fire escapes off that so as people came up to that area to try to use the fire escape we can have a problem. dark, smoke, etc. it was a concern and wasn't intend today be used the way it is since there are provisions from the planning code the property owner is free to do that if they desire but if thrai dont we have the condition and that is our concern. >> commissioner gilman before you go away. >> i had a couple questions for you. i'm sure there is a middle ground between-obviously the owner cannot be compelled

to do any of this and need to be sensitive even though it is outside the jurisdiction of a long term tenant who under previous management was given authorization to use the roof. to me that is a change in lease agreement. is there any way designateing a area on the roof further away from the street we feel staff is more comfortable with while they work out the permitting issue or having less load or downsizing? >> what is happening and way to clear passage-trying to figure if there is a middle ground. >> it doesn't require a permit? >> just shifting and having not 5 but 2 planters. i know it is a inconvenience. maybe we do this on the northeast side of the building not near the fire

escape. it is hard not being up there to see clearer passage. just trying to figure if there something we can recommend and give a timeline to see if the owner is willing to put a permit and railing and safety measures. someone who has many rooftop garden weez have to put all that up for safety and understand the concern, just trying to figure out a compromises. >> absolutely. as far as staff is concerned, any reduction up there would be welcomeed while they look at this to see whether they can move forward or not. based on the things that are mentioned, obviously what you are seeing here looks like a lot for personal use and i don't know what ac-that looks like a lot of receptacle so if they cut that down significantly move away from

the roof mpt it doesn't mean it is compliant just interim measure to give them time to work this out if they can. we encourage that. to what degree i can't tell you. >> legally does the tenant have a right to use a rooftop that's not designated as a rooftop? >> there isn't a obligation on the property owner but we don't know if there was a written agreement and haven't heard one fs produced. we heard there was a verbal agreement but don't know the scale. i don't know if this is there for 13 years and don't disbutte that, i don't know the scale of it. that was the reason why we do routine inspections to see the condition and address them: >> i want to address your question. my understanding and it is not something with this body, but my understanding of

rent control and as a lands lord is the tenant can go to the rent board and say he had a verbal grument and produce property manners and attest and good faith of change of use and ask for ronet reduction. the same of saying you have a swimenting pool and the ownership changed and trained the pool and say no longer can you use it even if it is verbal contract not in the lease if you can prove there are grounds i think that is what he is asesting for the last 14 years he had this. it may have grown. it seems excessive the size and scope which is quhie i see if there is a compromise to get it down for personal use while we figure the permitting issue. >> i think that is called petition for reduction of services. >> i'm in accord with the line of thought suggested by my

colleague. we want people to have their rights, but we cant jeopardize the safety of 24 residents and when i look at the diagrams or photos and see large plastic containers that can fill with water should lids blow auch we know that is possible and demonstrated there is at least one that had blown off and haven't had a heavily storm season. it does seem to offer the potential that these read plastic large containers present some risks that are beyond the scone of what can reasonably be controlled and it would seem to me that good faith discussion as to what is

reasonable. if we are talking about growing wheat grass, it is a substense that-it is a plant that doesn't have a deep root system and does not require 32 gallon containers and seems a shallow container that can accommodate it and not ever pose any threat to the weight loads with adequate drainage built into it could be that interim step which would be the good faith recognition of previous rights granted to this tenant so i think following the spirit of supporting this tenant in maintaining a long standing

right he feels he was granted not doing anything that can jeopardize the safety of fell tenants is what we are discussing, so this seems to be a situation to me at least where reasonable discussion as they are trying to work out a permitted and completely safe and approved use would be most advantageous. >> commissioner walker. >> i am in support of i think the tinner orphwhat is talked about of allowing for a timeframe of figuring out what the path is. that is out of our jurisdiction so lies with the tenant and lands lord and other tenants in the building i might add. it isn't just one

tenant we are considering. these are common occurrences where you have multiple use building and one tenant is doing something, it is really not the opponent where whether they were lowed to do it or not for our purposes, it is it permitted by our building code rules. i would suggest that if -the violation be cured and uphold it and we ask for whatever the threshold is under which a permit is not required- >> you can have your discussion but we need rebuttal from the other side. >> i feel there is a way to accommodate a personal use. this seems like it expanded, i agree with that. i think we have to-if there is a permit required it requires a permit. >> maybe we can hear from the

rebuttal from the palt. appellate. >> the tenant is on board with work wg the property owner and/or city to work things out whether it is yuss eusing smaller containers. he is not committed to 32 gallon containers and no means insisting you do it the way he does it at risk of any other tenant we just don't like the all or nothing proposition that you lose this ability to do this. under the circumstances that we are saying it may be unsafe and there-it hasn't been demonstrated. i'm a attorney and hired as a attorney to represent him so have to point out legal things. procedureerally the notice of violation isn't talking about the threat of things flying off the roof or blowing in the wind or water drainage. not saying we are not open to addressing those things but upholding

director hearing findings those are not properly before this board or this procedure. what the notice of violation talked about is there is concern about the load on the building. provide a report from a license structural engineer and that is has been done. the other suggestion that this does not-any concern this exceeds the load on the building is when we mischaracterize it as a rooftop garden. both structural engineer this falls below the 20 standards so as far as the legal standard and due process of the tenant i dont think findings based on anything else and lack of findings saying they are currently exceeding the load for the roof justified upholding the directors order as is and think modification if

not overruled is necessary for that. that being said, we do think there are ways to address the concerns of safety that we are willing to comply with. short of a all or nothing proposition that everything must be removed from the roof. >> thank you. commissioner lee you had a question? >> i don't have any questions. i have a comment. i think the real issue here is what is permitted on the roof and what isn't permitted. i think what we see in the photos of the 19 containers is not permitted. it isn't something we would allow on top of a roof. whether there are ways to put containers or things on the roof without a permit, i dont know at this time. i can't answer that but i'm willing to

give time to the appellate to work with the dbi and with the property owner to try to find a solution that doesn't require a permit. until then it is in violation and not allowed on the roof. >> secretary sweeney you have a comment? >> in the harm report he says the required liferb load goes from 20 psi to 100 psf. it is way beyond it. he says the frame is unable to support the load, which makes it a life safety hazard. >> so, we touched on--public comment. seeing none. we touched on the safety question, but i don't think we touched on it enough. you are right the order of abatement talks about loading but we have a right to look at other permit issues and life safety issues which i think this is. there is no

railing around the roof, but it is egress and why we have roof access but dont the code allows for the roof to be accessible without there being railing or a railer somewhere so it seems like it is a urgent life safety issue. >> it is 4 story building so the code requires at the time of construction that a stairway go to the roof for the purpose of evacuation of the building and fire fighting. >> that's only for evacuation. if we put something as big as that it needs to be secured to the roof and means require a permit. >> to council for property owner--just a few verification. open space in the building, is it a full lot coverage or a backyard? >> no backyard. >> with regard to the roof how

high is the parafit? 36 inches for the record. >> thank you. commissioners i think this is the very fine line we walk here. it is 24 units in the building. on the standing i'm trying to be compassionate about the quality of life and history the person having this in his home but 24 other people in the building so have to be considerate of them. what stops others from doing what he is doing here. i don't think there is anybody here that would like to object to the end result here but this building is designed for

roofers and fireman to get up and down and it isn't designed for anything else and worries me because it d isn't designed for that. i'm hitchhiking off commissioner walkers point, there will take a fantastic roof garden but that will take process and variance and planjug the only way i can see this happening on this roof here. what happened previously with whatever grument with the other owners unfortunately it doesvent a bearing today. with the old owner i would have taken the same position. i just don't see how we can support the violation here. >> commissioner walker. >> i had the same feeling about

it. these are the buildings that benefit from green roofing and there is a program now that encourages it on buildings and it does add to people quality of life if they can be around green and do that. i'm hopeful if program provides some expediting so it isn't myered down in endless hearings at planning, but i think there is a reason why we require permits on roof. there are valid reasons and i have to speak on behalf of all the tenants in the building, not just one. there is no- if we allow this anyone in the building can do this. it can't just be one tenant versus nobody else has the right to do it. i would

encourage any building owner with a building like this to move forward and try to green as much as they can on the roof especially to provide open space, but it is separate issue and one that requires a permit. >> no other comment i like to make a motion we uphold order of abatement. >> second. >> motion and second to uphold order of abatement. roll call vote. >> clinch, yes. walker, yes. gilman, [inaudible] konstin, yes. lee, yes. mccarthy, yes. warshell, yes. motion carries unanimously. item f, general

public comment. any general pub lm comment for items not on the agenda. seeing none. item g, adjournment. motion to adjourn >> motion. >> second mpt >> motion and second to adjourn. all in favor. >> aye. >> we are adjourned. we will take 5 to 10 minute recess and reconvene as building inspection commission. >> good moning today is wednesday november 16, 2016. please turn off all electronic

devices. the first item is roll call. >> mccarthy, here. clinch, here. gilman, here. konstin, here. lee, here. walker, here. warshell, here. we have a quorum and the next item is item 2, presidents announcements. jrkts good morning and welcome to the november 16, 2016 bit meeting. because of the-i want to read a few long detailed information into the record here on behalf of the president announcement. because of the unusual circumstances presented by the millennium tower situation the department works with the mayors office city administrator and board of supervisor tooz take step tooz improve department policies, processes and procedures to

provide additional scrutiny when reviewing high rise construction of 2 40 feet or more especially when located in the seismically vulnerable neighborhoods. that is why director hui announced last month effective immediately the department will select all fuper peer review participants. those outside experts dbi calls for reviewing 240 feet or higher and building design is performanced based rather than previous practice participated in the peer ruview selection process. in addition, per my more recent discussions with director hui and also with effect v immediately the director will work with staff in key areas of building code compliance to develop request for qualification for

professional and academic experts to advise department in tall building design review. the new rsq process will create a dbi pool of skill sets that may need to be be a part of department review of tall building projects 240 feet tall. the department will pay the participating experts for review services as needed basis to support the department staff in analyzing designs where the department lacks such expertise or the comp plex modeling required to verify the building performance. the pool of experts may supplement or replace the existing peer review process as the department would have its own qualified experts to assess independently the design performance modeling and other information the project sponsor submit as part of building

permit review process. such a project in a area with size class f or the [inaudible] in a high risk seismic zone and subject to liqueication, project requires one or more engineer for expert panel review. additional experts in specializing fields also may be identified for specific project if the director determines that to be necessary. with that, congratulations to director hui for the holding his 4th annual states of department all dbi and planning meeting auth 24. at the meeting attending my most department 280 employees, i stress 280, director hui stated priorities to continue the memorandum to to construct more housing unit. strengthsen the seismic safety through ongoing implementitation of the soft story ret row fit program.

expand education and communalty outreach to insure more san franciscans are prepared and know what to do to protect themselves and families when the next big one strikes. and continue to deliver better and better customer services in the department ongoing teerft review plans, issue permits and inspect work to insure structureerize code compliant and to pursue code enforcement to insure improved building safety for everybody and all san franciscansism we also want to absolute dbi technical service staff, particularly kirk means and david leon and deputy city attorney judy [inaudible] for steadfast efforts to keep the very difficult code cycle on schedule. this code updates occur every three years and critical to building safety and require a lot of work from staff and department code advasery committee. the board of supervisor jz now-they have

now approved the code updates insureing we are ready to go again january 1, twnt 17 so well done there. finally, we want to welcome katie [inaudible] >> sureping. >> a new small business acceleration business program to 1660 mission street where she is assisting small business, narfbigate the permit review and approval process. strongly supported by the mayor offense office of economic and workforce development and katy tang the focus is on small businesses who want to start restaurant. dbi looks forward work wg her and all small business owners to make this program a success. that concludes my announcements. >> thank you. is there public comment on the president

announcement? seeing none, itedm 3, general public comment. bic will take public comments on matters within the jurisdiction not part of this agenda. seeing none, item 4, election of the bic vise president. >> obviously the seat was vacated by the mubing of commissioner melgar to the planning commission, where she works for a living and have the vice chair. with that and ask for commissioners who would have a nominee, please. we have commissioner konstin, commissioner walker. second by commissioner lee. is there any other nominees? seeing none,

can we call? >> so, the motion was set by commissioner konstin and seconded by commissioner lee to elect commissioner walker as vice president. is there public comment on the motion? seeing none, i'll do roll call vote. mccarthy, yes. clinch, yes. gilman, yes. konstin, yes. lee, yes. walker, yes. warshell, yes. thank you, motion carries unanimously. congratulations vice president walker. [clapping] >> were you ever vice president before? >> i was many many years ago. >> were you president before?

>> ya >> how many year ago was that? the moral of the story is stick around long enough. >> thank you very much commissioners. honored to serve as the vice president. i'm honored to reptd our commission and staff so thank you very much and hope i do you proud. look forward serving with you. >> thank you. item 5, election of nomination subcommittee member. >> on that, i would call for nominees on that. i think commissioner warshell would be a great feet. if i great fit on that. is there any other nomination from any other

commissioners? seeing none, call the question. >> there is a motion by president mccarthy, seconded by vice president walker to nominate commissioner warshell for the nomination subcommittee member. is there public comment on this item? seeing none, roll call vote. mccarthy, yes. walker, aye. clinch, yes. gilman, yes. konstin, yes. lee, yes. warshell, yes. motion carries unanimously. congratulations. >> thank you. >> [clapping] >> item number 6, commissioner question and matter. incommissioner may name inquiry to star for document policy

practice and procedure of interest to the commission. >> seeing none. >> item b, future meetings and ajendsa. discuss and dake action to set a special meeting or discuss items placed on the agenda of building inspection commission. the next meeting is december 20, 2016. >> what date? >> december 20. >> i might not be available december 20 so don't know if there is anybody else missing on the 20th. >> i'll be in contact if you like to keep that date or change it. >> okay. >> commissioners have any items to discuss regarding the upcoming agenda yod could e-mail my if you dont have anything at this time. is there public comment on item 6

a and b? seeing none, item 7. discussion on the accela permit project and tracking system. >> commissioners. sean bouleen with department of technology and hear normally henry presents and not available this morning so will present the update. um, i believe you have the write up delivered as part of the package and have it in advance. let me go through the update. what we accomplished over the course of the last month we finished requirements reviews, detailed requirements review with assistance of gardener and we accela and 21

tech represented throughout dbi. they were detailed and very productive and i think very successful series of discussions and meetings. and also following those reviews we had written sign off fraup deputies through dbi and sign off from the project owner, ron tom. we got all the sign offs that we would like over the course of the last month and think we are very successful on that front as well. the next thing we are working on, the plan called for proof of concept to look at areas of functionality in the gardener findings were read and needed attention. the proof of concept, we have been working othen plan what toprint and how toprint it and insure the

solution can be sweet to meet our needs and that process is underway. expected to deliver the proof of concept to dbi over the next couple weeks. the last item i think is of high importance is the civil service process. of course to get funding to continue there is fairly long series of things that we have to do. we need board of supervisors approval before that we need cisc service approval, and union approval and have to give 60 days notice and so on. there is a little bit of the ankle bon is connected to the shinbone going on there. to keep things moving we submitted that paperwork earlier this month to get it started while we are working on other things like more detailed plan and proof of concept and proof of concept plan as well so pushing

on all fronts and parallel to make sure things move forward in timely a fashion as possible. there are other things we are working on as well. one is there governance model and do we structure it. low does the business participate and steering and decisions made from aerfblg from policy decisions to governance to differ cult design. there is governance model worked on as the currents effort and in review now and will gather input on the new guverance model as well. the big things coming up, proof of concept and expect a detailed plan from the vendor for taking us to go live and review and

vetting that plan. negotiation to make sure the plan is real and realistic and we are all in alignment and that's where we are at. there is a lot of progress made over the last couple months and we are right there in terms of these deliverables. any questions? >> commissioner walker. >> thank you for this. it looks like we are on schedule like milwaukee next menth to look at path forward? >> i actually don't know indetailed plan is ready before next months bid but should be close. >> okay. i am understanding that the head of department of technology left the city, who interfaced with us about the project to give us assurance that we were moving forward and i also understand the

leadership of accela changed. i wonder if you can tell us how that might effect what is happening or say it isn't going-we are still on a path. >> i think we are still moving forward on a proper path. i think thanks to miguel he was instrumental pointing thinshs in the right direction and dont see a significant risk posed by miguel leaving. we plan on get-there is interim cio assigned and getting the individual up to speed. i haven't met him myself but i dont think there will be any risk posed by that turnover. the turnover within accela i think it has been aassureing and positive. ree reached out

to ron tom and tom hui and said let's work together and very positive. >> our vendors are fully committed to the partnership. we had issues that led us here i think? >> yes >> okay, thaurng. >> anymore questions. seeing none, thank you for the update. >> any public comment on item 7? >> jerry gra dratler. i want to cu-mind the it department for putting in place the foundational documents that had been missing for the last 4 years and look forward to continuing progress. thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, item 8, discussion and possible action regarding a modification to

administrative bulletin ab-032, site permit processing to remove section regarding planning department routing. >> kirk means from department of building inspect spection technical service division and here to bring to you modification proposed to administrate a bulletin number 032. site permit processing. it is got a fairly long history with the department at least dates back to the mid-80's when san francisco adopted the california code. it is very unique. i know no other cities that have a site permit process, but it serves us well in coordinating between planning and building. the changes proposed are fairly minor. we have done a update to get ready for the next code referencing the proper years

codes and proper code sections. the biggest change was deleting a planning routing section that was in there and it doesn't change any of the existing processes, we just is a different document, g 20 which ask informational bulletin that describes all the routing between departments required by department of building inspection. that's pretty much the nuts and bolts. any questions i can answer? >> commissioner walker? >> no--deputy director sweeney, if you have a second, please. just looking here trying to punch holes in this here and can't. basically this is-i

will break it down. want to do a site permit. the old days i went to planning with that, right? >> you still do. >> still do. okay. >> site permit approved by planning and planning gives most-of your entitlements when the building department okays a site permit, there is normally no structural. there may be more-may not all mep's are in. if you do high rise your curtain wall isn't in. quite a few things left out. if you are doing larger projects. the basis for a site permit is give the developer or home owner the option not to throw so much money up top in a process that isn't always crystal clear. planning can take half a floor

away and tell you to set backs, there are a number of things that could come across with planning and this--so instead of having to go back to the structural engineer and mechanical engineer twice, you only do that once. i like to clarify one thing, the county of los angeles came up and look td at our site permit and have a version of it in los angeles now. >> we are clear there is no change to the site permit process? there is no-we are not going backwards we are just tightening up a process where we are saying we don't have to go back and forth to structural engineer? >> the only thing you go back to planning is your first architectural adeneda has go back to planning. 6 months ago

they wanted quite a few thing jz got backloaded and had discussion and they were happy snding anything back that is required. we have a information sheet kaul called g 20 and it is on paper and tells what goes where. >> the site permit would sit in line and wait for a look because planning had to sign off, right? >> most the work on the site permit does occur in planning. site permit designates how high the building is and long and use. when it come tooz building we are nuts and bolts. >> the upside here is exactly what? >> i'll have-them g 20 information sheet is continuously updated and modifyed every time a piece of legislation passes we have to

route to the health department or not health department or back to planning two or three times, whatever it is, the legislation forces us to redirect things accord toog the legislation. those things have to happen on an effective date of the legislation so those are updated by various departments as they happen and we get the information out to the customer right away. >> my understanding is this is just getting rid of redundancy? >> that is what we are trying to get it spelled out like we are a 4 year old child. it is streamlining this? >> yes. >> it isn't undoing any existing site permit policies? >> the silet permit policy and g 20 are like living documents. we change them as needed. for

one of your projects you really control how your site permit will look. your adeneda process will look and that is most important thing is what happens after the site permit. >> so, somebody who is a very seasoned veteran like yourself, is there any uninteneded consequencess we are overlooking here? >> i'm all for streamlining >> none i can see. >> okay. thank you for that. >> a motion to approve? >> public comment >> public comment on this item ab 032? seeing none, is there a motion to approve it? >> move to approve. >> a second? >> second. >> do roll call vote.