purpose of the legislation.t( so thank youñiñrçóñi for yourñr onçó ñrthis. we haveñiñi beflb thei] boardñe action. i did receive a lot of comments. ... the police officers did

actively solicit video surveillance footage from the surrounding homes, including my home, in the investigation of that crime. there was a recent incident of vandalism where windows were broken. the police department did actively seek video surveillance footage from the surrounding businesses as part of the investigation. so i would agree with a lot of the people that i've heard from, that is really important part of the investigation. and pretty standard and important step that our police officers take. so, supervisor peskin, if you could explain how the legislation is able to happen? >> supervisor peskin: through the chair, to supervisor mar, the legislation as originally drafted no way prevented the

police department from gathering that information. the use policy makes san francisco safer. we all know, the board knows, the public knows, how long information can be stored, with whom it can be shared, who has access to the data. that is the fundamental underpinning of this piece of public policy. but last week, to make it abundantly clear, we added language that says nothing shall be construed to prohibit information gathered by a non-city entity or individual. so it is abundantly clear. what is important is that the department must not violate 19-b. they still have to have a use policy. but that's what is important here. and if i may, while i have the floor, just reiterate things.

first of all, while there is a bunch of thanks -- i do need to thank my staff lee, who has been accommodating the references. i want to thank administrator kelly and bill barnes who made this much more friendly. policies are not in place, is indeed in there, but it has to be read in conjunction with the fact that the amendments introduced here allow for 90-day extensions, unfortunately, perpetually. i expect when there is not good cause -- and the department has

utilized more than a couple of those 90-day extensions to introduce their use policy that will put our foot down, we'll stop issuing those, but it has to be seen in conjunction with that. there is nothing in this legislation that in any way thwarts the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement. again, they should be subject to the use policies we've addressed. and relative to sfo and tsa areas, that is addressed and specifically exempted in the legislation, but the public will have another week to look at the amendments and if anybody wants more copies, i have them here. and if i run out of copies they will be on the internet for the next meeting, or come to my office and i'll print one out for you. >> supervisor ronen: wonderful. can i get a motion -- >> supervisor peskin: you have to take the minutes.

>> supervisor ronen: sorry, thank you. can i have a motion to approve the amendments? >> i move that we approve the amendments. >> supervisor ronen: that motion passes. i believe we do not have a meeting on april 29th. so i move that we continue this item to the may 6th rules agenda meeting. without objection, that motion passes. thank you. thank you, supervisor peskin. mr. clerk, can you please read item number 6? >> clerk: item number 6 is hearing to consider appointing one member, terms ending december 31, 2020 to the sugary drinks distributor tax advisory committee. >> supervisor ronen: thank you.

is aaron kuntz here? he is not here. he was nominated by the youth commission and comes highly recommended, so i'll open up this item for public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on the item? seeing none, public comments is closed. can i have a motion? >> i'd like to move that we set the nomination of aaron kunz for seat 6 for sugary drinks distributor tax advisory committee. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. without objection, that motion passes. any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor ronen: the meeting is adjourned, thank you. better.

san francisco department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. we know that we don't have all the answers. we need to support our local champions, our local community to find creative solutions and innovations that help us get to

zero waste. >> zero waste is sending nothing to landfill or incineration, using reuse and recovery and prevention as ways to achieve zero waste. the grant program is a grant program specifically for nonprofits in san francisco to divert material from landfill. it's important to find the san francisco produce market because there's a lot of edible food that can be diverted and they need positions to capture that food and focus on food recovery. >> san francisco produce market is a resource that connects farmers and their produce with businesses in the bay area. i think it's a basic human right to have access to healthy foods,

and all of this food here is available. it's a matter of creating the infrastructure, creating jobs, and the system whereby none of this goes to waste. since the beginning of our program in july 2016 to date, we've donated over 1 million pounds of produce to our community partners, and that's resulted in over 900,000 meals to people in our community, which we're very proud of. >> carolyn at the san francisco produce market texts with old produce that's available. the produce is always excellent. we get things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, bell peppers. everything that we use is nice and fresh, so when our clients get it, they really enjoy it, and it's important to me to feel good about what i do, and working in programs such as this

really provides that for me. it's helping people. that's what it's really about, and i really enjoy that. >> the work at the produce market for me representing the intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the people, nothing gets better than

>> good morning. today is wednesday, april 16, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. please turnoff electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. (roll call). commissioner moss is excused. we have a quorum. next is item b. the oath. will all parties giving testimony today stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated.

i want to announce for the audience. the department will present it goes case first. each side has seven minutes to present their case. then public comment and members have three minutes to speak and then there is three minutes rebuttal time. item c approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for a meeting held on march 20, 2019. >> are there any corrections or comments on the minutes as posted? any public comment regarding the minutes? seeing none, i move they be accepted. >> second. >> all in favor. >> thank you. the minutes are approved. next item is item d. continued appeal case 6857 at

334 bowdoin street. the appellant has withdrawn this case. >> thank you. are there any members of the public here to speak on that item. it is withdrawn, not continued? >> yes, it is withdrawn. i believe the case was abated. >> thank you. next item is case 6,859,306,116th street. owner's representative. action requested to place in abeyance for nine months. would the staff like to come forward? >> good morning. i am the chief building

inspector for code enforcement. for this case a complaint was filed february 12, the contractor was doing work without permits. there was a permit active for remodeling of units. the inspector visited the site and found there was work. a notice was issued february 20, 2015. over the course of this the owner failed to comply but the permit was never completed. even the original permit was not completed. there was only three inspections as we found on the permit history. the case was referred to code enforcement on april 10, 2017. a hearing was held 8, 21, 2018.

the notice of abatement with 60 days for final inspection and approval. staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment costs. >> can you explain the what the exceeding the scope was in what was that? >> the original permit to comply with complaints. there was numerous complaints before that. there was the original complaint. the permit was over-the-counter with no plans to replace cracked plaster with 5/8 drywall and add required doors. remodeling bathrooms in community kitchen. the inspector found they gutted

the rooms where he asked for revision, and the revision was obtained with plans to do that. >> when was that last permit issued? >> that permit was issued in 4/29/2016. >> thank you. >> good morning, henry representing the owners of the property. history. it is a history neglected for many years. in a sketchy area where it is located. the owners' intent was to remodel the property with the tenants living there. that didn't work out.

when you come to lath and plaster, you get cracks. the only way to do it is to go ahead and tear that out and start brand-new. they started doing this and they should have gotten permits. they did withdraw. they are now putting in bathrooms in every room. this was a residential hotel with a common bathroom with no community kitchen. this was done withdrawings. it took a month to get the drawings done to get the permit. the 10nants were -- tenants were to vacate the building. we had inspections on plumbing, electrical, building, we need to finish off the rest of the work. we also had a permit for soft story. that is the other one that came up. that was issued and completed on

5/25/2018. again, this is a major renovation, not just a simple putting chewing gum on it to make it look pretty. with that being said they are close to being finished off. there is a matter of funding the project. it is not cheap today. we know that. it is not $10 an hour stuff it is finding the contractors to do the work. at the end of the day it is vacant. we hope to get inspections shortly, but we are waiting for more money to finish the project. we are asking for nine months. it is not going to take nine months. i don't want to get stuck for whatever reason down the road and what do we do after that? it is a good effort to create a good place for your low income

housing and eventually what these folks are doing is leasing it back to the city. the city benefits from this. they are investing in the property. we will all benefit from it. could you please approve. >> commissioner walker. >> this was originally a motel. >> a residential hotel. >> residential hotel? >> yes. >> it went through the planning process to convert it to something else? >> no, no. we just didn't have the bathrooms in it. the residential hotels have a community bathroom. >> they are also because of that cheaper. i am curious how you went from, i guess not probably part of this discussion, but i think that the exceeding the scope was

the one where you were tearing out the drywall. is that the case where it was meant for just a straight remodel of what existed then they added bathrooms without permits? it is just an issue because of the economics of it so the intention here is to lease it back to the city? >> that is what they are looking for towards, yes. they have new programs they are putting out that i'm working on with the city for leasing these hotels. in the past you would only lease hotels of 50 rooms or more. now they are accepting the smaller hotels, too. >> that is great. is the requirement for those partnerships that each unit have its own bathroom?

>> no, that isn't. again, this is what they decided they wanted to do. it would be a better quality of life. >> it is interesting. there is conversations in the community that actually are asking for more cooperative type housing because it keeps the cost down. you know, there are two sides to this. i am concerned when this happens because you have the most expensive or most inexpensive housing u upgraded exceeding the scope of permit. i don't know how planning weighed in on this or if they did. doesn't it seem like a change of use? >> probably not, but anybody from the department able to speak whether it is a change of use? it seems not to be to me.

>> maybe the city attorney. the issue is residential hotel ordinance. >> i think inspector reardon may have thoughts. >> from what i see it is interior work within the shell of an existing building so in cases like that, planning generally don't get involved because they don't have anything of substance to look at. there is no change of use or occupancy. >> the issues of the difference between the residential hotel and the apartment house are not in the building code? >> the only thing i see here first they talked about remodeling bathrooms. now, i hear they are adding bathrooms. i don't know that that would be anything that planning would look at for change of use or occupancy. i don't see anything in the documents that would suggest that planning would be reviewing

this for what it is. >> were there any change in number of units? >> no, no. >> same number of units now instead of community bathrooms they are individual bathrooms and there is a community kitchen? >> it was signed off by planning. it was application to construct the community kitchen and add 25 bathrooms to the residential hotel. >> just checking to see how we look at that. >> we want to go by the book at this stage of the game, of course. >> what happens to the tenants? >> they vacated eventually. again, it is hard to work around when you have tenants living in the place because you have dust, discomfort. i am not sure if a lot of them just moved out.

>> do they have first right of return in that situation? >> i am not sure. i wasn't involved in that. i know that there were agreements made with the tenants to vacate the property so they could do the major remodel. >> i just want to make sure we followed the rules around that. maybe we could check with housing to make sure, you know. thank you. >> commissioners, any other questions? rebuttal? >> public comment first. any public comment on this item? seeing none, department's rebuttal. >> so the reason it went through planning process, there was re-write planning. the only concern is if you look at the complaint data sheet, we

did provide enough time for the owner to complete the work. the scope of the work is actually interior work. the evaluation of the work is $393,000. we are not talking about a $2 million worth of work that is going to take three or five years. if you look at the whole track history of the complaint. the complaint started in 2015. the order was issued in 2018. we have worked with the owner in relation to complete the work. >> are they actively engaged now? >> the last inspection that i have was a reinspection required back in 2017.

>> that is the last information i have on the file for that revision. that is the last inspection i have. >> okay. thank you. >> any other rebuttal? >> i just want to repeat. this is a very expensive project at the end of the day. we did have a funding issue to finish everything off. we are at the point now to hopefully finish off soon, but that is going to be the hold up. we didn't expect to get into the major renovation. they are upgrading the property to provide better quality of life and it will be a win-win for everyone.

i urge you to please allow this. >> commissioner walker. >> are you actively involved in the work being done right now? >> yes, commissioner, i was there the other day. we will go over to get inspections rolling again in a matter of the next week or so and start winding it all up. >> you have looked at the status currently and nine months is your wish. what do you need, really? >> i would hope that we are finished in 60 to 90 days. wwe might not find people to coe to do the work to finish off what we need finished off, small things. >> you aren't actually involved in doing the work right now if you are still looking for people to do the work? >> we are trying to get folks to

finish off loose ends. we are calling for inspections to get that done. >> i am very interested in what you said about leaseback to the city. where are you in terms of that negotiation? >> at this stage until we get together with the city to find out the time when this will be finished off and be able to negotiate with them on the new program that just started so i have to follow back with them to see where they are at. that is what we are looking at right now. it is a fairly new program. >> it is your intent to do that. >> yes. >> thank you. any other comment? yes, commissioner walker. >> are we talking about it now rather than asking questions? >> yes, we can move to discussion. i assume you could like to start. >> i have a question because it has been entered as evidence that there is a, you know, this

might become part of our affordable housing inventory. is that now a condition of this approval? i guess i'm asking the city attorney how much weight we can give that or condition we can make that. >> city attorney's office, that is not part of what is before you today. you are hearing an appeal of an abatement order. you can't make it a condition of the abatement order that they enter a lease with the city for the lease of the building. >> i had a similar concern, the intent is obviously good and that would be a great outcome for this. if there is no way to condition it, that is one thing. the other issue was being sure the right of return for the former residence is being

properly administered. is there any ability to, you know, if not condition, emphasize that full examination of right of return be done through the housing? >> that is also not before the board on this abatement order appeal. i mean, you could express a desire that they comply to the extent they are required to do so. we don't know what happened to the tenants, whether they were evicted or if they have a right of return or if they have some sort of buyout. we don't know. they are under an obligation to comply with whatever law is applicable to the way the tenants were removed from the building. >> they can be recommendations, they cannot be anything

enforceable. >> any other comments or discussion? all right. i will start off. i mean asez this i -- i share commissioner walker's concern about affordability. you know, we love the idea that properties are upgraded. here we have seismic, enhancement with bathrooms and common kitchen. these are all desirable things in terms of quality of life residents of the building will have. it obviously comes at a cost so it has got to be paid, and the affordability issue, of course, will present itself. i see no way to get around that. the owner has made these investments. i find it disturbing that this

has been going on for so long and so many violations have occurred, but it appears we are sort of in the final phases of what is generally a favorable outcome, and at least to my mind, granting some extra time even though the department's citations are all correct could be in the general good. i would like my colleagues' opinions. >> thank you, commissioner. one of the things this brings up is an issue that we dealt with with some of the smaller buildings that the owners were in a situation where they couldn't afford doing the work, and it really isn't what we deal with here. we did create a program, fund a

program through d.b.i. i think it is the mayor's office of housing and community development that administrators it to offer low interest loans, but i think it is restricted one to four units. it is smaller. it was a million a year and that goes quickly in this kind of project, but i know it is not part of our discussion, but it is something we should think about as we look at these things. there are situations that are coming up with a.d.u.s and a lot of stuff we see where the landlord is put in a bind and we have created programs to help and we might want to look at that to see how it is working and talk about how we can help in these situations. it is a restrictive thing.

you can't -- money doesn't grow on trees. anyway, i think that it's good we are creating more housing. i have the same concerns about afford ability. i hope you listen to those concerns. if we are having them, other people are. i have always said the most affordable housing is the housing that exists. the more we change that as we reoccupy it. we find to find ways of stabilizing that. that being said, i agree with your concerns. i probably would make a motion to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for 90 days, uphold costs. we have had a lot of time here for the owner to deal with it, and there is a need for more

time clearly, but nine months is a long time. it seems like what is left is doable within a 90 day time frame. that would be my motion. >> is there a second? >> i would second. >> a motion and second. >> would commissioner walker like to provide a basis for the motion perhaps that the order was properly issued? >> yes, the order was properly issued and all evidence supports that. >> again, we are urging that the option with the city and full investigation of rights of return be investigated. >> thank you. roll call vote on the motion. (roll call).

>> the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item e general public comment. is there any general public comment for items not on the agenda? the next item is f adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? we are now adjourned at 9:39 a.m. we will reconvene promptly at 10:00 a.m. for the building inspection meeting.

>> a way of life in san francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft story program. what is it? >> it's a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or

more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. >> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind

of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors. where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so

that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse. and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger.

~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake ready,

>> sfgov tv ready to begin. good morning today is wednesday april 17, 2019. this is regular meeting of the building inspection commission. please turn off all electronic devices. first item is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. our next item is president's

announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning welcome to the april meeting of 2019 b.i.c. i have some announcements to read into record. please forgive me if i mispronounce any names. tomorrow is the 113th anniversary of the 1906 greater quake and fire. city department of emergency and management are conducting the citywide test of its alert notification system. this is something that we can add to your smartphone and it's worth having. go to d.m. website, it's s sf72.org. speaking of steps to get ready for the big one, director hui reminds that the safety fair will be on june 11th at 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. mark your calendars and plan to

attend. there will be five free inform tv -- informative workshops to improve the seismic safety of tall buildings. the new requirement about to take legal effect on owners responsibility to register and maintain vacant storefront. another workshop entrance program to ensure they are offering goods and services to customer providing successful entrances. another workshop on successful dwelling units with steps to d.b.i. planning. fire and others are taking into expedite reviews and approval. final workshop on home remodels and permit process. we'll also be offering earthquake safety a -- to enable

you and your family to experience an 8point earthquake in a safe and controlled environment. thanks goes to tom sessler. we want to -- he went on to say that tom was professional, fair, practical and efficient. i want to alert you to the upcoming may 21st delinquent property hearing at the board of supervisors when the board will vote on this year's final list. d.b.i. staff with about 700 properties with outstanding assessment costs. we're down to 300 owners who paid and achieved and compliant. we'll have update from staff when we expect the final numbers

to drop again. finally, please join me in congratulating nicole rossini and housing inspection permit technician on our selection as d.b.i.'s employee in 2019. nicole was selected in recognition going over and beyond her classification taking customer service initiatives and finding helpful solutions to customer's issues. please come forward and nicole please come forward. thank you. commissioner lee will meet you do and do the formality. congratulations. [applause]

nicole if you want to say few words you're welcome and talk about the great bosses you have and so on. [laughter]. >> you like to thank the commission and my supervisor. it's a pleasure to work as d.b.i. and work in the housing division and work with such diverse people. it's a challenge and it's fun to come to work everyday. >> president mccarthy: thank you for your service. that concludes my announcement.

>> any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item 3, general public comment. b.i.c. are take public comment on matters within the jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good afternoon commissioners. i wanted to talk about couple of seismic issues coming your way. you want to thank the building department what i consider an outstanding job on the salisbury program. it's a huge success about preserving affordable housing and we do seem to fire risk collapsed buildings. i want to point out robert chung and the staff has done a great job. i want to make suggestion that we clarify the engineer's role or structure observation. i think some of the engineers don't understand their responsibility on structural observation requirement which is part of the requirement for this code.

clarifying his role would improve the service. because of this discussion, you want to point out this ordinance coming your way, should be aware of that. it will be helpful to get report on s.a.c. they are doing a fantastic job on that program. there is a discussion of another program. that's coming from th the boardf supervisors. it's looking for cracked wells and in earthquake buildings. this issue is being discussed. you guys should be ahead of that issue. then, do i want to compliment on the fact that they're doing a great job. whoever is working on this. thank you. eneed to get this resolved

between the building department and planning department. thank you for your worken that program. >> president mccarthy: next speaker plaz please. >> there are no additional public financing comment. item 4a increase of staff. [agenda item read] >> vice president walker: i was talking earlier about our loan program that we have initiated through the mayor's office, housing communities development. i wonder if we could put it on the agenda for update as to the effectiveness how it's been used and maybe begin discussions about taking recommendations on

how we might expand it what are the other needs for helping move some of these priorities forward. a.d.u.s, seismic, we're providing funding for it might help. i like to do that in the future. >> any other commissioners? next item is 4b. [agenda item read]

>> president mccarthy: s how ave both those dates. 15th and 16th? >> i'm available. >> i may have a conflict on the 16th. 15th is open. >> timing on the joint meeting is in the morning. >> vice president walker: i have it down in the morning. 9:30. >> president mccarthy: i wasn't aware of the time. >> it supposed to be in the morning. i don't have a concrete time. >> vice president walker: morni. >> we can discuss and finalize it before next month. >> president mccarthy: i guess for a particular time frame of the meeting will be allowed. one hour or two hours.

>> i think they have their meeting starting at 1:00. >> any public comment on item 4a and b? seeing none. next item 5. [agenda item read] the next item

is a which is presentation by parties. they will have seven minutes to present their case. there will be public comment and then rebuttal three minutes each. department like to come forward? just a moment. you can stay there. i'll do the oath of office. all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you about to give is true and to the best of your knowledge? >> good morning. i'm chiefly building inspector. we received a notification from the city agency regarding fire damage on this property.

the concern was investigated. you can see on the package that i provided, we found out there was a property that had fire damage. the property was boarded up. we can see a portion of fire damage. inspector keene contacted the building department so we can provide proper assessment. there was no response from the owner or anybody at the property. in november 2017 there was anonymous phone call. he contacted me and asked me if he can go and visit the site. i said yes. he noticed the building was

demolished and there was a fence constructed the property. >> president mccarthy: you said demolished. there's nothing left? >> if you see in the package, there's a picture showing the time that we were there. 11/26/18. i have a couple of pictures where you can see it's empty. there's no more building. >> president mccarthy: okay. continue with your presentation. >> on january 24, 2018 the department building inspection conducted conducted an inspection. where i submitted all my documentation. at that time, the ruling was it was considered unlawful

demolition. which requires a 5-year moratorium or the owner to obtain a permit to put the building to its original condition. >> commissioner clinch: good presentation. it's helpful. in a situation like this where there's a fire, does the fire department reach out to the property owner or the tenants telling them what to do next? i don't know if you know that? >> no. usually when there's a fire, fire department will calls. we have an emergency inspector on call. this time we didn't get notification from a fire. we got a response from city agency about displacement.

somebody was living there. there was a fire. they sent us an email. they said there was somebody that was displaced. >> commissioner clinch: do you know how long after the fire you got that notice? >> it was couple of days. >> vice president walker: do we know if it was tenant or owner that was displaced? who was live if th -- living ine building? >> we did have contact with the person. he requested to be anonymous. >> vice president walker: it's not the owner? >> it wasn't the owner. i believe it was tenant. he requested to be anonymous. all responds was with emails and phone calls. >> commissioner lee: on the rebuilding if there's a 5-year moratorium, does that mean no permit can be issued for any rebuilding or does it mean that they can only rebuild to the

exact same size as was there? >> if you're not going to rebuild whatever was there, you will get 5-year moratorium on your lot. >> commissioner lee: you could rebuild what was there? you cannot build anything more than was there? >> yes. >> commissioner lee: thank you. >> president mccarthy: i think you should clarify that. >> there's no building permit what so ever for five years. >> that size of a home it could be any particular size. lot different than what was on there before. that can go through the whole planning process. >> that lot would sit empty for five years. >> correct. >> that's the way the code is

written and that is -- which is one of the debates we're having regarding the demolition policy. that's one thing we're looking at in the future. that is to the discretion of the director to make that call if he thinks it exceeded what was so. >> vice president walker: it's intended to be punitive. it's really to dissuade people. on some level if we don't -- >> president mccarthy: why don't we hear the case then we can get into the details. do we have more questions for maurice? >> vice president walker: not at this point. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> appellant like to come