that was prior to the issuance of the permit. the case was at a director's hearing on september 14th, it was, and i and an order was posn september 21st. so the appeal was filed on the order which is what is before you right now and the permit was signed off shortly thereafter on october 6th. so what we have here before us i believe is relief has been sought on the assessment of costs which is the assessments are $1,191.66. plus monitoring fee, accruals of $145, and there will be a final assessment at closure of the case at d.b.i. of about $400

which, you know, we can work with the customer on that potentially when they come to see us. so permit signed off and we have compliance, the stairs is complete, and we are ready to close out the case pending the payment of these departmental costs. and i think that it's before you simply because the appeal was filed just before the permit was signed off. any questions? >> do they still want to have -- >> based on their appeal it sounds like they're petitioning on relief of the costs. >> was it fair to say that there were delays with the complexity of going to the different departments while they were trying to do the right thing? >> i think that initially the delay was on their part because

if the n.o.v. was issued in february, and they didn't file for a permit until july, there's five months right there that, you know, the permit wasn't filed. they were given 30 days to file the permit. so they went beyond that. the case was referred to code enforcement because they hadn't filed the permit in the 30 days. >> the permits -- they didn't need drawings -- >> the first n.o.b. required drawings but upon review by a senior building inspector it was determined that the drawings would not be necessary. initial notice of violation was amended on march third to eliminate the need for drawings because they weren't making changes substantial enough that would require drawings -- structurally or in regards to the configuration of the stairs. >> is it fair to say that when you are going through the permit process, let's say if you go to

the planning department, that they would require drawings though the d.b.i. wouldn't? >> based on photographs which i have here if you would like to see what -- at least what the finished product looks like -- they put it back exactly as it was before. when it went to the planning department the planning department can google streetview and see that this is what is before and they can check back in time and see what they are proposing to have moving forward and based on photographs or whatnot. it seems that they were putting it back exactly as it was before. so the drawing was not necessary to document the change in the configuration or it is for structural work relating to what they had to do there. >> but the permit was filed, of course, in july and it looked like -- even though the appeal states they were working with planning for some time it was approved on the same day by planning. so they may have been working

with planning prior to that approval but the record indicates that going to planning and coming out of planning the same day, that was in july i believe it was. >> thank you. >> any other -- thank you. the appellant like to come forward? hello, sir. >> my name is louis dorsey. >> hi, louis. >> i'm the homeowner of the property in question. and i'm here as a result of all of that conversation that we just had right now. i think that one of the biggest issues with the dates involved with the property might have to do with the fact that i have been spending half of my time here in california and half of my time in washington state with a very sick person.

so i wasn't aware of those issues about dates until i returned here to california and then became aware. my contractor and my person that works with the contractor advised me and i have those people with me today to speak for me because i don't have the knowledge on how to speak for myself on this issue. >> thank you. they can come forward. what's that? >> good evening, i'm the general contractor, representing mr. dorsey. i have been trying to follow what the building inspector was saying and indeed we were moving along with getting everything in

order and what held us up is that he was out of the state and i was not aware that there was a notice of violation that was even hanging on his door and then he came home and he contacted me and we then continued to move forward and we are moving forward. >> when did he contact you? >> i came home and found a piece of paper taped on my door. and the thing that was on the door -- oh, it had been there. >> yep. >> i believe it was a little after the end of may.

>> okay. thank you. and then you were -- you were discussing this with planning and had to resolve it? >> another one of our associates, jerry brown, had made contacted inspector hitchin to discuss the project and the problems. >> okay. >> gary, you want to interject a bit. >> good morning, i'm jerry brown, the person who got the plans from mr. dorsey and helping him through the process. we did file in july 14th, 2017, and that district is deemed historical and they sat on it for too long so we couldn't do anything. they had to go out and to do a field inspection and approve it and this took some time from their end. that's why it dragged the way it did. >> got it, thank you. >> sorry, just clarification

there, so when you went to planning, the historical went and took it in -- took it in? >> it wasn't -- >> they took it in and it was two months before you heard back from them? >> had to go through the historical team and they had two planners working on it and one senior and one regular planner, historical planner. they went out and they actually did a field inspection to see if the materials were acceptable to them and then they said, okay, we'll sign it off for you. but it sat for a while with them before they would move on it. >> okay. five or six months that we're talking about here -- about two or three months? >> yeah. >> but you just didn't realize that you were supposed to pull the permit at that point? >> no, what happened is that before that when it was plans, mr. jepson here went to get the perinit and there were no plans but he went to planning and got

shot down at planning, isn't that right? >> right. >> so you would have done an intake and got an intake number at that point? >> yeah. >> you know what i mean by that? >> the intake was on 3... >> it appears march 2, 2017. and then once i met with the triage, let's see here... so, yeah, i applied for the permit on 3/2, and i went to planning and they told me that i needed -- or went to meet with carl weaver, he told -- i think we had a phone conversation with him and he told me that we needed plans. so i went to meet him and he was out sick on 3/3 i met with joe

duffy, he ok'd no plans. i tried to see preservation on march sixth, but timed out. on march 15th i met with the preservation and they refused to approve it, stating historical reasons. and you could only use brick or terrace azzo issue, i was told if i could find similar jobs submitted they would approve. on 3/13 i did research and followed up on research on april 24th and then i went back to see preservation on may fourth and timed out. on may 11th i met with the pezzervation and they re-- preservation and they refused to approve -- i met with preservation and they refused to approve and said all permits for the stairs in the area -- which i had provided permits for areas in that stairs -- they were in violation. they also said that, yeah, we

were in violation on that. so i extended the search another six blocks to find some more permits and then we turned it over to jerry brown at that point on may 31st. and then jerry brown started there. >> thank you for that. we're having a side note here on that -- that's important information for us. >> thank you. >> to demonstrate due diligence it's important because we do understand that it can be difficult to get through the system. and to the departments, they don't know the whole history of all of the time that you go in and -- in and out -- and they just see it like it's in, it's out the same day. they don't know the history of maybe you have been in there seven or eight times trying to do things or whatever. >> preservation here... >> they have a very tough job

and stuff like this to take very seriously so they want to make sure that it's done right. and obviously the intent was to do is it right and to get it right and there's no issue there with that so we kind of commend you for that. >> thank you. >> okay. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? >> mr. o'reardon and you struggled to get the history of it all the time and i know how you feel about people who do the right thing, mr. o'reardon. >> we had compliance and we don't always know like you just mentioned, president mccarthy that the number that you see in regards to the permit was filed was filed and they were assigned that number in july. so even those thee folks might have been working with planning since march we wouldn't know that until such time as the permit is filed and it looks like from our permit tracking system that it went over to counter planning and approved

the same day. and, you know, that doesn't always happen as we know. so -- >> what is the initial violation fee as opposed to what we have been assessed? >> it's two times penalty based on the valuation of the work that had been performed at the time of the inspection. >> and that is? >> so it's probably would be no more than $300 or $400, i'm just guessing at it because i don't know what the valuation is exactly but it would be a fairly low amount. >> okay, thank you very much. is there any public comment? seeing none, the staff have rebuttal? or does... appellant? >> do we have any rebuttal? okay. >> sorry, i misunderstood. i just came back to say that given all of the difficulties

that i had with being out of the state and all of these problems that have occurred with this property i just want to thank you all for hearing my situati situation. >> okay. then public comment is closed. and the rebuttal period is done. commissioners, comments? >> obviously we always want a good outcome and clearly there has been a good outcome, the staircase was rebuilt and it's met all of the historic criterion, contractors executed as they promised. so we have a very good outcome here. clearly, this case has had some difficulties moving through the system and while everything d.b.i. did appears to have been directly done from d.b.i.'s

perspective, understanding that there was no bad intent and that there was a long process that was not necessarily transparent to d.b.i., the proposal to do the minimal two-time costs could be the most amenable resolution to this and dropping all of the other -- >> is that your motion? >> that would be my motion. >> perfect. is there a second? uphold the order and reduce fees to the initial violation of two times the original permit. so there's a motion and a second and i'll do a roll call on the item. >> commissioners, can i add that the resolution is on the basis that the order abatement was properly issued.

>> yes, thank you very much. >> commissioner konstin. yes. commissioner mccarthy. yes. commissioner walker. yes. commissioner warshell. yes. the motion carries unanimously. our next item is 6841, 1811 jerrold street, san francisco, california. owner of the appellant jack a. shane requested by appellant the relief from abatement and the assess of costassessment of cose department. >> commissioners, this case is regarding 1811 jerrold, the number, the complaint number is 2017-00911. complaint was filed august 23rd, 2017. the complaint states work without permit, vacant lot used

as concrete mixing plant. so upon site investigation the same day, notice of violation was generated and stating a complaint investigation has revealed a vacant lot has been used as a concrete mixing plant, f2, which means that is the manufacturing use or industrial use and at time of inspection commercial concrete mixing equipment and material also 400 square feet plus or minus a slab has been poured to place all mixing equipment. and the corrective action was stop all work, obtain a building permit with the city planning approval to document the use of a vacant lot as concrete mixing plant, the health department approval required. two sets of plans required with permit application.

so... the timeline of this was that a permit was filed on august 31st which was several days later, like six days later, to set up a portable concrete mixing plant at the location. it was approved by planning, department of city planning approved that permit and we received additional complaints. we consulted with our colleagues in the planning department and on september 3rd, 2017, planning requested revocation of the permit that was issued. so they noted that the subject use is in open air and it goes on to say that the use does not comply with the planning code and the subject permit cannot be approved under the planning

code. so at this point d.b.i. revoked the permit based on the planning request. now they still have the batching plant which probably is not in use as it is right now. the ask now is that a permit is filed and obtained for the removal of the concrete pad and any other associated construction that relates to the use that was noted on the notice of violation. >> so the original violation was -- they had already done the concrete pad and all of that? >> yes, yes. >> okay. and then it went to planning and they incorrectly approved it? >> it sounds like there was an erroneous approval at the planning department. >> and did that result with them doing more work that we're asking them to -- or was it

already done? >> no, i believe that it was already done and they were in operation. >> great, thank you. >> mr. reardon, just to have a point of clarification here and i don't know if you have the answer -- it's more of a planning question -- you mentioned that it was revoked based on not allowed in the particular zoning, is that correct? >> correct. i'm just reading the -- >> i get it, yeah, yeah. >> but based on their zoning regulations it appears that this specific use wouldn't be appropriate for where the location was and the site that it was on. >> but it was approved based on the level of zoning, right? >> it was approved in error, i think, just somebody at planning just made a mistake and it got approved and it was brought to their attention and then they discovered the mistake and they asked us for the revocation of the issued permit. >> was the place in production at this stage? >> yes. >> how many months was it in production?

>> probably not very long because i think that there was a food facility right adjacent to where they were doing this work and they weren't too happy about the dust and the stuff that was being spewed in the air there and the impact on their operation, obviously. >> when the original application for the -- was that just done through a letter of intent or a letter of determination? or was there notification to the community or the neighborhood on the original approval? >> on the permit application? >> on the original application to allow -- to -- was there -- >> i don't think that there was any original -- based on what they were doing. >> was it written -- was it written in a letter of determination to the -- to the applicant -- >> i believe that this was done all over-the-counter. >> wow. >> when you say "done over-the-counter" they just went

in and said, here is my zoning -- >> it was approved in error. they didn't understand -- >> what was the approval -- what format was the approval given? >> if we could put it on the overhead. >> that would be great. >> so what it shows is permit application filed august 31, and it was taken in and city planning looked at it and it was approved over-the-counter. now i think what the deputy director is also saying there is that this is the approval. there was nothing prior to this because they get a notice of violation and they filed a permit and this is a permit and it was approved in error by planning and it was brought to their attention that maybe this was a mistake and they did, in fact, determine that it had been

approved in error and they asked us to revoke the permit. so it seems like from the planning letter that they can't have that use there. >> right, so it was never -- >> there was no approval other -- that i'm aware of -- other than this permit application that you see on the overhead right there. >> but the zoning doesn't allow -- >> it seems that it does not according to planning. >> let's take a look at it. >> from the planning letter which i can also put on the overhead for you here you can be able to see that i have highlighted a couple areas here. pardon me. >> oh, yeah, thank you. >> i don't know if that is clear there on the overhead but there we go. >> unfortunately we can't read it here but maybe you can walk through the highlighted area there. sorry, through the chair. >> i'll have to pick it up to read it here. basically what the planning

letter states -- i'll just quote from one paragraph here, the subject permit which attempts to correct an existing violation was approved over-the-counter by the planning department on august 31, 2017. and issued by d.b.i. on 9/1/2017, however, the permit was approved in error by the planning department. under the planning code the subject use is considered to be a heavy manufacturing one-use. for planning code 202.2 [d] such uses are required to operate with -- to operate within a complete theme with no opening other than fixed windows or exits required by law within 50 feet of an r-district. r district speaks to residential. additionally no noise i have vin or unhealthful emissions may extend beyond the premises of the use. the subject use is open air and

does not comply with the requirements of the planning code, 202.2 [d], therefore, the use does not apply for the planning code and the subject permit cannot be approved under the planning code. >> so it's the 50 feet -- >> yeah, that's about -- >> yeah, i think that is the 50 feet. >> but they had an open air operation there. so it seems to me that what is mapped out in the planning code is that this should be an enclosed environment. >> mr. reardon, thank you. >> would the appellant like to come forward? i believe that the appellant must not be present. is there any public comment?

does staff have any rebuttal? >> staff requests that the order of abatement be upheld and we're going to move in every possible way we can to ensure they get a permit to remove the use and discontinue what they were doing back in august/september. >> thank you. thank you. commissioners? do i have a motion? i mean, it seems to me a cut and dried case of violation. our planning department made an error in the initial approval but it did not affect anything wasn't already there.

so it didn't really materially do anything other than confuse things for a moment. so i think that it makes sense -- >> move to uphold. >> and incur costs. >> incur costs as specified. >> and fees? >> on the basis that it was properly issued. >> on the basis that it was properly issued and proceed with the enforcement of removal of slab in violation. >> a second? >> second. >> there's a motion and a second. i'll do roll call vote. commissioner konstin. yes. commissioner lee. yes. commissioner mccarthy. yes. commissioner walker. yes. commissioner warshell. yes. the motion carries unanimously. the next item is number e, general public comments.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i have been at this body numerous times and at this point i want to say that i have a true understanding of how difficult the building permit is sometimes, dealing with problem jobs. i have a problem job right now that is driving me up the wall. i'm not going to talk about it because it's not fair to discuss something that the other side doesn't know about, but the staff is dealing with an issue that is affecting my client and i wanted to just acknowledge how difficult it is to file public process, give everyone a right, and get people to do the right thing. so i want to acknowledge the hard work that staff does. i want to also point out that this commission is sometimes the end of the line to get people to do things. and there's a case at 1024 clayton, a permit was filed in 2014.

in 2015, the planning department put it on hold. in 2016, you guys issued an order of abatement. in 2017, the planning department -- january 2017 -- 14 months ago they basically sent back to the guy and said that your plans are not legible. this is an example of someone pushing the system and you guys have heard this case. i think that while some of these cases and the only way that it gets done is when you guys basically send it to the city attorney. and this is a case that needs to be sent -- and you may have -- i don't know, those are confidential issues. but this is the way that things -- this is definitely the way that things get done for certain people who know how to play the system. so i'm hoping that on 1024 clayton you can refer this to the city attorney and move it along and i want to thank the staff for the challenges they

have dealing with people who filed permits and worked the system. thank you. >> any additional public comme comment? seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> a second? >> second. >> okay, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> okay, we're now adjourned. it is 10:17 a.m., we'll take a five-minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. begin?

>> good morning.n? today is wednesday, march 21, 2018. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> a vice president walker. >> here. >> commissioner constin. >> here. >> a commissioner lee. >> here. >> commissioner warshell. >> here. >> we have a quorum. the next item is president's announcements. commissioners gilman and clinch

are excused. >> welcome to the bic meeting, march 21, 2018. i would like to welcome back and congratulate commissioner lee on his reappointment here this morning. thank you. well done. with that, i'll just read into the president's announcements. congratulations to the emergency building inspector kevin birmingham, director hewey and other d.b.i. staff who responded immediately to the four-alarm north beat fire on the night of st. patrick's day which made the press. quite an extensive fire there where thankfully ended well with no loss of life. the department is awaiting the owner's engineering report to see what will be required to repair of that building. so looking forward to hearing the update on that. with regard to director and other d.b.i. staff who met with supervisor kathy tang on the implementation time line and deadline for the new accessible business entrance program, per request from the small business community and the slow response

rate to the initial d.b.i. notification to more than 12,000 property owners likely to be in this new a.b.e. program. the supervisor is receptive to extending once more the initial compliance checklist deadline to date beyond the may 23, 2018 required in the current ordinance. d.b.i. staff will provide b.i.c. with the extended data once we hear from the supervisor, so thank you to her for continuous work and helping us through this program. speaking of the a.b.e. program, d.b.i. staff just sent out a second notification and doubled the numbers of the property owner addresses to include property managers and thus to insure and thus to insure and understand that the requirements they must meet. d.b.i. and d.p.w., planning and the office of small business and the mayor's office of disability also will host a second workshop at d.b.i. at 1600 mission street, the second floor, room

2 201, on friday, march 30, from 1:00 p.m. -- from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. a free event to assist property owners and small business owners. svp at the website. and finally, thanks to d.b.i. staff and director hewey who will be participating on march 31 with supervisor tang in the annual sunset home remodel question and answer workshop. both planning and d.b.i. staff will be on hand to respond to homeowner questions and the community outreach program that is now in the third year. and madam secretary, that concludes my president's announcements. thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? okay. seeing none, item three, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the commissioner's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

go ahead. >> a little traffic jam here. hi. tony from the housing rights committee. and here to talk to you about soft story retrofit and some issues that we are seeing at my office. i think one big problem is we're seeing a problem with landlords telling tenants they have to vacate. they have to leave. and this is happening a lot. especially lately as, of course, the deadline has come upon us in a lot of landlords i understand about 1,000 applications have been filed suddenly because the deadline is upon us. in one case of a very huge building, that i had a tenant come in who lives in this building and she lives in the back of the building. there is two garages, and the tenants above both garages and the tenant on the ground floor were told they did not have to vacate, but the tenant in the back was told she had to vacate. now, one thing you should know. the tenants above the garage and

on the ground floor are recent tenants and paying market rent. the woman in the back is a 40-year tenant. you do the math. you figure out exactly why she has to leave and the other ones don't, right? the problem is, how do we fight this? how do you challenge it? the landlord is saying, no, you have to leave because of work and blah, blah, blah. i am wondering and just throwing ideas out there because we're kind of at a loss. this that case we are going to help the tenant try to fight back, but i am wondering if there is a remedy here at d.b.i. and one thing that came to mind, is there any way an inspector could go out, a building inspector can be called and make an assessment. can something be done at the start work inspection? is it possible that info could be given to the landlord when they apply for permits that talks about how tenants shouldn't have to be relocated? i mean, these are just some ideas. but i think this needs to be addressed. i think d.b.i. is the proper place to do it. the second problem, because i am

noticing my time is short here. the second problem is landlords using the opportunity of a retrofit to then add an a.d.u. and do other kinds of extensive renovations they weren't planning to do anyway as a way to really make it so that the tenant has to leave or the tenants have to leave. so i'm wondering, again, this is a difficult one and is it possible to when a landlord applies for the retrofit and come back and apply for an d.u. that that is put on hold until the retrofit work is done to make shower the landlord is not -- i don't know. i don't know if that's even possible. but something along the lines to monitor what the london lord is doing and try to make sure that their intention is not to push the tenants out. i think a hearing would be really appropriate and really important on this issue because there is also lots of other issues that we can bring up, and lots of information to bring to you. and i look forward to maybe a hearing happening and for us to work together to try to solve these issues. thanks. >> thank you.

next speaker. >> good morning. my name is kathy lips comb and i work with the senior and i would like to add a few comments on the retrofit subject. retrofit is a much-needed measure are sometimes a ruse to get tenants out of buildings. it is our understanding that about 90% of tenants do not have to leave their buildings for seismic work to happen. of course, some landlords are not so much concerned about tenant safety as they are about getting a higher return on their property with richer tenant. therefore, i am sure this commission would be in favor of notification to tenants with some kind of form letter for landlords to use or mail to each tenant. you can just put slips under the door, which is what happened in my building. the outline should contain, among other information, what the mandatory soft story

retrofit ordinance is. just a few sentences. the time phases of the project meaning, for example, lower garages, start date, end date, etc. the landlord must also contain information regarding any reimbursement for temporary loss of parking space, for example. my landlord did that. i'm going to give you the letters he sent. of course, the temporary displacement letter would be different where people have to leave that 10% that has to leave. it would be wise for one or the other of such letters to be available to the landlords when they apply for their permits. so they don't have an excuse. what should i write? i don't know. here is your form letter. and it would be very helpful to the tenant community if on the back of this kind of letter were listed the major tenant organizations in the city in case tenants have questions. and also, we would like the building inspection department's

phone number for questions. i have called asking about the sizing work, and they were very helpful. they told me -- i called an't three times because my landlord would not tell us when it was going to happen. they said, well, lady, we can only say the permits, when they were taken out, but that was nice, and right away they got into the file and found out. so thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. and i want to leave with you a copy of my testimony as well as the letters from my landlord. is that okay? >> perfect. great. thank you. >> i have some materials for the commission.

i have some materials for the commission. thank you. did you put something there? okay. overhead shot. i did. >> there it is. good morning. my name is jerry drab. my topic this morning is d.b.i.'s failure to properly enforce the building code section 103a, demolition without permit. i'm going to focus on the definitions of demolition and principle portion of an existing structure, per the building code. demolition means the total tearing down or destruction of a

building or any alteration which destroys or removes the principle portions of an existing structure. principle portion means that construction which determines the shape and size of the building envelope or that construction which alters 2/3 or more of the interior elements such as walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings. 655 elvarado and 49 hopkins avenues are two projects with no interior elements. and d.b.i. issued notices of violation for work beyond permit instead of demolition without permit. as you can see from the before and after pictures in both cases, more than 2/3 of the interior elements of both homes were altered. this is irrefutable. 49 hopkins avenue was a modern home designed by renowned architect richard nutra. the developer tim brown is

proposing the remodel. how can you remodel that? expanding the existing 927 square feet to 3,500 square feet. 655 alvarado was a modest 900 square foot home where the owner is proposing a five-story, 5,500 square foot remodel. i handed out a whistleblower complaint filed with the city services regarding the n.o.v. misclassification at 655 alvarado. please read the complaint in the back from planning regarding structure removal. so planning issued a complaint regarding structure removal, yet it was misclassified. if d.b.i. had properly enforced the building code, both property owners would be subject to a penalty which is designed to eliminate the financial incentive for inpermitted demolition. for five years from the date of

the unlawful demolition t only allowable permit to be issued would be a permit for the same or fewer square feet as the building that was unlawfully demolished. i ask the b.i.c. to have d.b.i. explain in future meetings why these projects were improperly classified and how d.b.i. plans to prevent future misclassifications. thank you. >> mr. dratler. >> sorry, i'm -- just because of the public comment, we're not allowed -- and i do share your questions, but because it's public comment, however, but duly noted. >> thank you. >> overhead again please. >> is your document place there had? there you go.

>> good morning, president mccarthy. my name is s. joseph butler, an architect and sole practice for 30 years in san francisco and mainly residential additions and remodels. i would like to thank joanie levy for the glasses. i would like to focus on building code definition this is morning. an addition, for example, is an extension or increase in the floor, area, or height of a building or structure. an alteration is any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition, area, building. is the area included within the surrounding exterior walls or exterior walls and firewalls, exclusive of vent shafts and cords? areas of buildings not provided with showneding walls shall be included in the building area if such areas are included in the horizontal projection of the

roof or floor above. commissioners, 65 # an alvarado has no building area as defined by the building code. it is on the overhead. area is a component of every building. thus, if 655 alvarado has no area, there is no structural or building on the site. as jerry pointed out, any alteration which destroys or removes the principle portions of an existing structure, meets the definition of demolition. without the total tearing down. you can see that they left a portion of the garage wall and from the street it's even more clear that the opening of the garage door with the tile detail. let's go on to structure. that is that which is built or constructed. a building is any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering -- that's an important word -- any use or occupancy. a structure could be a bridge or a walkway, a deck or a gazebo. none of these structures shelter the way a building does.

building existing is a building erected prior to adoption of this code or one for which a legal building permit has been issued. so 655 alvarado was a building, comma, existing. it sheltered and supported an occupancy. dwelling and auto storage both. but today, today can do so no longer. one property line wall does not shelter. one property line wall does not have building areas. and no stories and no basements as base between the slab and the floor or the slab and a roof. one property line wall cannot legally have an addition as there is no floor area there to extend or increase. one property line wall could be altered. you could take half of it away. but you can't add or make it a shelter because it has no floor area to add to.

with great discretion comes great responsibility. but interpreting the code is not ignoring the parts that you don't like. it's an abuse of discretion to declare that 655 is not a demolition. >> thank you, mr. butler. >> it will show once you put your paper there. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is mary and my brother and i grew up at 651 alvarado street t home adjacent to 655. i attended a planning commission hearing last month regarding 655

alvarado street. the planning commissioners considered the removal of the building a demolition, stating that 99% of it was gone. while d.b.i. also issued several violations, one of which was beyond the scope. the confusion of this resulted in a continuation of the hearing. 65 # a was granted a permit in september 2016 and the building was gone by december 2016, three months later. in the following three months, they were able to get three permits over the counter which let them excavate 20 feet adjacent to my building and essentially making a hillside flat. on page a3.1 of the approved plan plans it shows excavation adjacent to the building. all excavation was supposed to be done past my building. the planning department having issued permits all along thinking the building was still

there. i was never made aware that they were going to excavate 20 feet adjacent to my building. they deceived the planning department, the building department, and me causing damage to my build iing. now the other adjacent building is showing signs of damage. had my building not been damaged, they would have got away with it. i would like my foundation repaired. i am requesting the building department impose a serious consequence for their grievous actions and the total disregard of others and the city of san francisco's building department process. this will send a clear message to others who are thinking about doing the same thing. i brought some pictures to share with you. this is the front of the building in september of 2016. this was the rear of the building, and it was gutted and rebuilt in 1989 and remodelled

in 2003. i'm sorry. this is -- you have 30 seconds. >> i'm sorry. this is the side of the building. this is the dirt, all the dirt they excavated. this is what it looks like now. and here is where i suffered my damage with my property. and this is what it looks like. that's what's left. this is what it looked like three months after they got their approval of the permit when they got it in september and in december it was gone. thank you, commissioner. >> thank you for your comments.

>> good morning, commissioners. thanks iffer your time. my name is -- thanks for your time. i am john ferati and i, too, and my sister and i and the property owner at 651 alvarado street. i would like to reiterate what you have heard. from day one -- we have no objection to anyone to rebuild or remodel their home. that is to everyone's right, but when you are deceitful, which this property owner at 65 # an alvarado street, it's not good. for one, he's never been transparent. the only one meeting that he semi was was august 17, 2015, which i was present at a preapplication meeting. i was given these plans which i have here on the projector, on the -- >> is the projector not working? >> it is working. they just have to switch back

and forth. there it is. >> and these are the plans that i was given. since then obviously the plans have changed multiple times. this shows no excavation here for the plans. let's see. these plans. anyway, if you look at your records, this property has received multiple violations. one, the most one is exceeding their scope of their permit. trying to deal with this person in the email or phone, nothing. we have been disregarded and there's no communication whatsoever. the permits have been pulled, but yet he's deceived everyone. as of now, he is trying to aploy for a demo permit, and how can you apply for a demo permit when obviously you have seen by pictures there is nothing standing any longer. and this would haven't came to my attention until we saw my tenants mentioned that we had a problem with the door. we saw the back door,

foundation, and is all been affected by his doing. if you look, i received a violation in regards to what he has done. not what i have done. so, i would just like to bring to your attention that he's been deceitful to not just yourselves but to the planning commission, and there should be some consequences. i mean, to move forward with what he is doing and disregard of anyone else, that's not right. there are people that play by the rules, and obviously he's trying to deceive them and deceive you. and one final note, per code 3307, the person making any or causing an excavation to be made shall provide written notice to the owners of adjoining buildings advising them that excavation is being made and the adjoining building will be protected and delivered not less than 10 days prior to scheduled starting date. never once did i receive that notice. so once again, i would just like

to say thank you for your time and hopefully you look at this matter and i believe there should be consequences for deceiving everyone. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> hi, commissioners. my name is tony roblas and i represent senior and disability action. just very briefly on the soft story retrofit some of my colleagues have spoke on this earlier. we know that these -- since we do live in earthquake country are necessary, but landlords are taking advantage of that, of the soft story retrofit to tell people that they have to leave, and we know in the vast majority of cases that tenants don't even have to relocate. but it's another, just another way of tenants being extricated from their homes. and we are in a very severe housing crisis as it is. so we want to bring this to your attention. there is ways that d.b.i. could get involved to monitor or at

least trace what landlords are doing. if there are postings that can go on the buildings. and also, if tenants do have to move out temporarily, outreach materials and forming them -- informing them of what their rights are and at the very least what tenant resources are available to them. in the city. thank you. >> i'm talking a lot today. so two things we're discussed in public comment that i have to respond to. the demolition issue is out of control. but it can't get solved by the building department, and not going to get solved by planning alone. it's got to be solved by both agencies jointly fixing 103 and 317. we got to get this fixed. this is just not right. the other issue is this tenant issue with soft story retrofit.

i'm pretty familiar with the program. and when i was involved with it, we never assumed any tenant would be relocated. i've done 50 buildings and my biggest inconvenience to a tenant, we came into the unit while they were at work and did the work. so i don't see very many scenarios where tenant should be evicted and when this issue came up under the u.m.b. program and we wrote a tenant protection plan and solved the problem. in those buildings they were doing work in the unit, but on soft story retrofits, you are supposed to be working in the garage, so for a tenant to be relocated should be an extraordinary exceptional role, not this common. there's a problem there. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners.

my name is alex lanceburg, a research and advocacy director with s.f. electrical construction industry. i have been working with colleagues in the san francisco building and construction trades on an issue i think near and dear to your heart and something you covered a few times last year and that is modular factory built housing construction. we have been conducting an extensive amount of research into the legislative history of the factory build housing law and the state building standards law. it's become quite clear and i have a white paper explaining this that the modular construction is indeed or the local building standards do indeed prevail with regard to modular construction. modular manufacturers and developers have been trumpeting the loophole that's exempt from local construction in a way to essentially externalize the risks of substandard and unsafe buildings onto the public. the fact is that by not complying with san francisco's

building electrical, plumbing, seismic, fire codes, what these manufacturers are doing, as i said, is externalizing these risks onto the general public. first responders are going to be the ones who have to deal with substandard buildings. residents are obviously going to be potentially endangered by it. neighboring property owners are also going to be affected. and all of these stakeholders are being asked to bear the burden of this loophole. what we'd like to ask you to do is move forward in closing that loophole. so i'm going to submit this white paper and hopefully it will be copy of it will be made for you all. we've submitted a copy to the mayor and will be sharing some with other members of the board of supervisors. but what i think is absolutely imperative for the building inspection commission to do as soon as possible is actually follow through on i think what president mccarthy sort of mused

about in november which is asking staff to put together a comprehensive report as soon as possible for the next commission meeti in meeting. -- right now modular is proposed for homels