>> so thank you, that is exactly what i wanted you to say. so that leaves me to the obvious question, as each and every one of these permits seem to be short by a little bit here, a little bit there, you talked about the garage door, it wasn't quite right, and the stairs in the back. it wasn't quite right. why did you not seek a revision permit at the time that you knew that these were obvious? >> we did get the permits for each of these items and then you file your master revision permit at the end of the job. >> okay. so the reasonable -- i will ask mr. duffy about this. the reasonable and customary practice is you pick up the pieces of the end when they are my new sure. i consider these minutia like. >> there are some things i code i have to do. i'm special inspector on this work. at the end of the job, whatever

has been permitted, i have to sign five penalty of perjury that everything in the final set was inspected. i have to do a cleanup permit or importing myself to the end of the job under the structure observation and special inspection. so i have to do that. i have no choice, unless i just say, those things don't matter and i will do a signoff letter for the concrete cylinders that i took that were sitting at the job site. >> and i will use the egregious, but an overly strong word in this case. the greatest deviation seems to me was the excavation. >> yes. >> you knew in advance you were going to abuse the permit,. >> it was a 20-yard lock in the

west garage that we removed. way below any threshold that even occurred to me would get anywhere near the 50 cubic yard threshold. i couldn't get into the garage because the tenant who had position of it said if i see anyone in the garage -- i estimated the size of the rock and i show it in the section that there is a rock there. you can't miss the section showing i am removing a rock, but 20 cubic yards. >> thank you very much. >> you made reference to a kitchen remodel. how is that kind and? >> it wasn't. >> what does that have to do with it? >> to me it was a separate project. i wasn't involved. they came to me and said they were doing a kitchen. >> there was more going on in this building than just the soft story retrofit. >> yes, there was. another contractor.

i was not involved with them. i was using hector lopez and others. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. department of building inspection? >> joe duffy, d.b.i. i will be accompanied this evening by the chief building inspector. we do have -- he will be doing a powerpoint presentation on this and i have copies at the powerpoint here if you'd like copies of them. there is around 20 copies. >> is this what we receive this afternoon by e-mail? >> thank you. >> did the other side get them as well?

>> okay. and if anyone else wants them. that is fine. is my clock going? >> one moment, please. you will have 14 minutes. >> i will make an opening statement and then the chief inspector hernandez. >> go ahead, mr. duffy. >> numbers of the board quickly here to talk about the project purchased in june of 2018. d.b.i.'s position regarding the property has remain unchanged since our initial complaint inspection on also time or 207 th, 2019. we want the permits to reflect the actual conditions of the address and the work that has been performed. we received a complaint about the property and responded to that complaint. we found the work had been

completed but it was not on the permits, including but not limited to windows installed in the rear of the building, reroofing and installation of skylights, construction of a ground-floor level deck in the backyard, removal of garage level exit corridors, and foundation and replacement and excavation. when we examined the permits, we found there were misrepresentations throughout all sets of plans. under normal circumstances, after getting a stop work order, the property owner or their agent would work with us and attempt to resolve the issues. these are not minor violations. these are clearly not normal circumstances. the property owners' engineer permit expediter refused to work in good faith with us. he made upsurge demands, he ignored clearance -- clear instructions and misrepresented conversations that d.b.i. staff had with him. as my colleague will show you, the circumstances warrant revocation so that new building permits can be filed providing

clarity for this owner and importantly for the future owner of this building. the building is in our two type building, a three story apartment building with four units built around 1899 and nine permits were issued between august and january. told her reported valuation for all permits is $355,000. we received three complaints. d.b.i. issued notices of violation and i will let mr. hernandez do the rest. if you have any questions, we can definitely answer them after the powerpoint. thank you. >> as inspector duffy stated, there was a total of 10 permits obtained on this property.

i like to point out the exploratory demo permit which allowed the engineer to provide a good set of plans for this property. yet the plans misrepresent the existing conditions throughout all the set of plans. i would like to also point out the soft story seismic retrofit program. this is not a five unit building , therefore, it is not required to be a soft story retrofit. it should be a voluntary. his application says soft story retrofit with a stamp for the seismic program. i will also point out that there was five kitchen remodel permits obtained. throughout the process, we found discrepancies including a friend

permit replacement which encloses the front doors. the key is the extra corridor led to those doors, and yet we have a permit five months later saying i am on a closed notice, with assignment -- seismic permit continues to say i will remain under that. i would also like to point out the replacement windows. fourteen front windows and six side windows. for the side, there was actually 14 other windows installed on the rear of the property replaced with a vinyl windows also the permits were to build the exit deck and stairs. it does not accurately represent the existing conditions. there's a first-floor platform that was reframed or rebuilt without the benefit of being in any of the plans. second, just because you had a permit to repair the stairs under 50% does not give you the right to submit a permit three

years later to repair the other 50%. as per my inspection report and also the appellants, in having at least five minutes with him trying to explain why all these permits have discrepancies. on this page here, section nine, the exit corridor was removed and you can see a full foundation replacement. this other picture here represents the front foundation of the building which was not part of the scope of the work. this is part of the porch retaining wall, which, and his plans, only qualifies for a small retaining wall.

the conditions serve a different retaining wall, which ranges from 4 feet to 2 feet on exposed sides. also we found no indication that there was drainage provided even including the plans that do not have details for drainage. as you can see, there is drainage or you can see water is in there. therefore, there is no material installed there. i want to point out the area in question that was never added to any of the plans. this is a framing with the first-floor platform, which is actually new and wasn't part of the permit. the plans also have flawed engineering, which the appellants put on his plans to have shear walls. the front wall, the back

retaining wall and back porch area. this is one of the pictures that shows no sheer shared wall. it is only half inch plywood, and in his plans he's also showing discrepancies and multiple pages which he has a schedule for walls which were not followed. upon review of the kitchen remodel permits, reviewing the plan, this does not show the full picture of the whole remodel. this is the entire remodel, not just a kitchen, and a bathroom remodel and adding a second bathroom where the halfback existed. there is actually layout change under the plans. onto tabbitt 207th when i did a walk-through with the appellant and the contractor, this was the side conditions. kitchens were not complete, the

work was 90% finished, and i still found some more items in regards to the chimney of placement. there is no structure details for reframing that chimney or even supporting that chimney. i would like to point out some rear violations which show skylights without permits, riverview permit, the 14 rear windows and there is actually in phil's on both of the corners of the property, which it wasn't in any of the permits. there's also a things wall, it documents the fence to be 6-foot plus a trellis. this is the existing condition, which under the plans, a first-floor platform was not added to any of the plans. i would like to point out, if

you look at these pictures, there is two in phil's that were not added on any other plans and yet they recovered -- they were covered. the wall is not reflecting under the description and the work that the appellant applied for. he applied for a 6-foot fence plus a three-foot trellis, making it an 8-foot wall, which actually requires structural details. on his plan, there is no structural details for it. matter of fact, the wall is only represented on the property line i will also point out that this wall also serves as a guard rail system because there is a 3-inch drop on the other side because of the stairs. i will also point out the front garage area. there is a new driveway.

his permit did not allow him to report the whole sidewalk, yet there is a new sidewalk poor. his permit was a minor encroachment permit to allow him to repair the front stairs. also i would point out that there is the discrepancies between the soft story permit and the other permit. he submitted this permit for seismic five months before the façade, and his seismic is already calling for an 8-foot opening. five months later he submitted the plot permit showing that he is changing the opening from 7 feet to 8 feet. i would like to point out that in my review, looking at all the pictures, i found there is no skylights at the rear of the property.

yet after the reroofing work which was actually done in april for google maps, we saw there is new skylights, meeting new framing, new openings. as you can see, this is another picture going back or you don't see any skylights on that side of property, yet now we have multiple skylights. i believe i have worked with the permit expediter approximately about five times where we have met at the office in regards to our concerns with saying -- the massive revision permit would work on this property. the concerns are misrepresentation, flawed engineering, and again, calling seismic work that is not seismic work. in fact,, even the few conditions are not seismic. does not have walls where he is posting. we request that the revisions

are upheld and i would like to disagree with the appellant in regards to saying a master revision is submitted at the end that is not the case. revisions, minor revisions for minor issues are submitted at the end when there is minor discrepancies, not like this with the discrepancies that we found. >> are you done? >> yes. >> does anybody have any questions? >> i wanted to ask if you can talk a little bit about, there's a number of violations that you presented to us and some in which the permit holder raises some and some of which they don't. of those violations and issues that you have discussed, what is the most severe in terms of giving you concern about, well, this could hurt somebody, this is not good, it is a life safety issue. what are the ones where they're not up to code, but it won't harm anybody, but some of them do seem a little bit more alarming.

>> i'm sorry, they're calling this building a seismic retrofit >> overhead, please. >> they submitted this permit as a seismic retrofit as a permit. >> he stated in his brief that the fire department had approved the removal based on some analysis, but yet we have a fire stamp here that requires them to maintain every exit. i would like to point out the proposed first-floor plan.

the exit corridor and doors are to remain. the appellant stated that there was minor -- it was about 20 cubic yards. this is his proposed foundation work. i like to point out that one of the pictures is for that porch, which he calls the new beam under porch. there is this area in question. it goes from point to point on the property. yet this is the only detail he has got. he has no elevations, and even a

right here it is to the point he pulls out where there is no platform on the first floor on that area. >> but just to try to help, i'm trying to understand that you had a really thorough presentation that you just gave and it was a lot of issues, but of these issues, some, to me as a nonbuilding professional, seam , okay, the sidewalk was not where it was supposed to, it will not harm anybody. what are the things that are the most concerning in terms of a safety perspective where this really shouldn't have happened without permits. >> mr. tanner, joe duffy, d.b.i. i'm more used to speaking up here then chief inspector hernandez. i would like to assist him if this is okay. you talk about safety issues. all building code is safety issues. you were talking about safety. where would you be -- what is your concern? >> i'm trying to understand, is to be clear, we see a lot of issues that come through here.

you know. you are with us every week. some are pretty wild. well, how did they do this without a permit? we work with people to find a way to get them through so they can finish the project, fill the hole in the ground and figure out how to not destroy their neighbor's foundation. it is surprising to me to see revocation of a permit when we do have so may things that come through here that are not right, and there are certainly things in here that are not right, but it does make me wonder, is it a revocation, does it rise to that level compared to some other things? i am not seeing things that are super alarming, but that is why i'm asking for your professional opinion. what are the worst things in here? and we need to revoke the permit to deal with it versus, you know , what normally comes through this body. that is what i'm trying to understand. >> that is a really good question. i'll answer it as best as i can. you will probably hear public comment on this because a lot of people are saying, how come we don't revoke this and how can we

don't revoke that? is my understanding in this case that there was an offer on the notice of violation to submit a consolidated set of plans that would encapsulate all of the work, not these one and two sheet plans that we see with details missing and misrepresentation on these drawings. we wanted a full set of drawings he pushed back on that didn't cooperate. in fact,, when the chief inspector hernandez was out there a few days later, he sees work that has been done. i don't know what that work was, plus, is much as a safety issue is important, it was more the lack of taking some instruction from the notice of violation, which we issue a lot, and we don't revoke maybe as many permits because people say, sorry, we got a notice of violation, and normally on the bottom of the violation, it will tell you what to do. obtain a building permit, consolidated permit in this case , to reflect proper, accurate conditions displaying

deferral scope of work and get planning and fire department approval on those drawings. you are not getting that. you are sometimes forced to revoke the permit. >> so just to paraphrase and restate what i believe you are saying, there was a resolution which was offered which was to say, make this right, here's what we want you to do, and then subsequently or as part of that, there was another visit to the site observing work continuing even after the end of the had been issued and it was seen as the best course of action to escalate to a revocation in order to get to -- is that accurate. >> after meetings between the chief inspector, and he can verify this and the deputy director sweeney, they felt that they weren't going to get what they needed with the notice of violations violation so the revocation was the next step that they took. the code section allows -- that is exactly what that code section allows us to do. in saying that, there still

needs to be -- this all needs to be addressed, no matter what happens, we need a consolidated permit. and the other thing is we have in phil's at the rear corner in a noncomplying part of that building, and we know where that is going. it will go back to the planning department. and it may infer issues. the removal of the exit corridors was a way to make extra parking spaces. why didn't the permit say that? if you're going to take those out, and maybe you can do in analysis, the first thing for me , we talk about safety is if i have exit corridors and suddenly i don't, how my getting my exit in? he says he went to the fire department and show them a plan and they said we don't really need to plan for that. i'm sorry, but i need a plan for that on a set of drawings. i will see a plan for that. >> i think it sounds like you

are restating some of the issues that mr. hernandez brought up already that clearly you feel passionate about, which is good. i will defer to my -- >> i just want to finish with one thing here. the department remains willing and open to the consolidated permit and sitting down with these people. that is what we want. >> in a follow-up? >> you can go ahead. >> i want to understand that better, mr. duffy. i noticed that the notice of violations said just get a consolidated permit that encapsulates all the work and everything that has happened. the appellant is complaining the revocation has a different practical impact then a revision permit, essentially. can you just for my clarification, you help explain what the difference, the actual difference for this project and the practical impact is between

revocation and requiring a revision? that is the first part of my question. second part is, i thank you said it already, but essentially it sounds like what you are saying is you tried to work with them, at least this is what i thank you are saying. you try to work with them to deal with the revision permit but ultimately the only lever that you had to forcibly to work with you is to revoke it because if they're not going to do what you need them to do to comply with the notice of violation, that the only remedy is to revoke or remove into enforcement. that second part i apologize. is a large question. >> on september 30th, about 9:00 a.m., we had a meeting with the engineer and he is a contractor. >> who is the engineer of record , please? >> the engineer stated that these are minor violations and that he will just need a

correction and he will raise the valuation to $50,000. i explained the fact that i wanted some documentation saying , fine, if you had in analysis done, show me. yet we still have a proof to remain. d.b.i. didn't draw on the plans. it is the permit holder. yet there is a fire stamp and everything. again, the plans for the kitchen remodels. they misrepresented and mislabelled new walls. >> i think -- >> i want to stay on track here. i apologize because my question probably -- >> no, no. >> the first part of my question was, what are the practical impacts of this permit holder on

this project as between revocation and just getting a revisionary consolidated permit? >> just because it is a revision doesn't mean we will take all the inspections. all the inspections have to be taken into account. the concern was having 10 permits, and i get it. we can say, okay, we will look at the kitchen remodel permit, but again, even those kitchen remodel permits are tied in somehow with the way that it was submitted and the set of plans to the original seismic retrofit and misrepresenting the existing conditions. and he is claiming, yeah,, we're just doing the other 50% so therefore, three years ago, somebody made a 50% replacement on this deck so i'm allowed to do the other 50%. it doesn't work that way. >> just to help a little bit more, one of the things i'm thinking about is i imagine --

the folks who had the backyard and the concrete poured and we thought, they would rip out all that beautiful concrete because it wasn't approved. so i think the concern that was raised here is a duty revocation , this work will get ripped out and their assertion is because d.b.i. is corrupt and that is what you will push. and there's a concern they have to go back and undo all this work, which i think we tend to feel sympathetic for an doing good work. i think that is maybe the root of the question. >> i think i am getting the answer to that question. there is actually a route to possibly, at some point, reverse the revocation if they get it into compliance with the consolidated permit, or you may not even need that permit because you will have them all on the one permit. many times at d.b.i. we see this were at the end of the project we've got this one consolidated permit that covers everything, but the revocation of the permit

is not going to nolan void the previous inspections. we are still looking into some of the issues of this building, for example,, the skylights. you put skylights in, you have structural framing in the ceiling and we look at that and did our inspector miss it? that should have been structural and architectural drawings. i don't think there was any drawings. you can send a reroofing contractor to d.b.i. and get a roofing contractor stick skylights in and that all the details that go with that should have been drawings. the other thing is the minor revisions at the end of a project, there is sometimes that if you move your one door in your bathroom over and you do an interior change, sometimes our inspectors have an attitude that this falls to more than that. you've got plenty issues, fire department issues, building department, structural, architectural, there should have been a full set of drawings. i don't think that they sent the revision at the end works in this case.

>> to put a fine point on it, then i am having trouble understanding why we are here. >> me too. >> most of the people in this room agree that some things need to be fixed some people disagree about what all those things are but my guess is giving them money at stake, some of the things they maybe disagree on they also would deal with anyway just to get it done. what i understand is why hasn't this been worked out? why are we even here? everybody is saying, we just want to get a permit to fix all of this, so why hasn't it happened? maybe you are the wrong person to ask, but from your perspective, i don't understand this case. >> it seems like they would have to have something to lose by not just fixing it. i'm trying to understand what that is. >> that is 100% right. whatever happens here tonight, we still need a proper full set of drawings with everything on them, and that needs to be done. i don't think they are objecting to that. it is just the quality of those

plans is important. the problem with these types of projects, and we seen them here before, and i've seen them at d.b.i., and they are tough is when you ask that consolidation permit any send it back to planning for a variance, how long will it take to get it? that is sometimes the pain because they don't want to have to go that road. the revoked permit will stay there because we can't turn around and signed them off at the minute. they might gain opportunity later on to reverse that revocation, but at the minute, it has to stay in effect until we get a permit. that is my understanding. >> let me ask you a quick question. you're talking about a consolidated permit and there has been reference to a revision permit. i assume those are two different things. >> you can call it -- we have done this before in cases where we have had so many permits and everything so there is smoke and mirrors and we don't know what's what. it is a new building permit,

consolidated permit. i don't like calling it a revision. a revision is a change. this is more going back covering everything that was missed on the previous drawings and plans. we had done this several times and we have worked on planning on this. >> let me see if i can bring this together. please ask your questions and rebuttal, because they will be fascinating questions to ask. we do have rebuttal and the appellant should be able to answer some of those questions attaining to this. so, this reminds me of the case we had about a year and a half ago, ninth avenue, tenth avenue, and i remember a bay window that suddenly went away.

do you remember this, scott? >> i mean, the house was just ripped apart and then they started putting it back together again and it was like so off the charts. this is a cakewalk by comparison and that was the issue. there was significant serial permitting. i am not accusing you of cereal permitting, it to a halt, and i believe that the direction to the project sponsor was, let's bring this all under one permit and go down the checklist of one permit and make sure you are doing it right, you were doing it legally, et cetera. basically, is that what you are advocating in this case? >> yes. >> so, that being said, in that

case, i don't recall that there was a revocation. this is why we are here. why we're we are here is the word revocation. and this is what is concerning, confusing to me. it is not concerning to me, it is just confusing to me. and, yes, i thank you, mr. hernandez. i love getting this today because it helped me bring together some of my thoughts. there is significant big changes that have occurred. it is the same thing. and why isn't this -- why isn't the permit suspended and you all go back to a conversation to go down mr. hernandez's checklist of what is wrong and get it done

right and then combine it into one permit, and then move forward? i don't understand. >> i think i answered that earlier on. when we get a notice of violation and people normally call them -- come in cs, and we give them the notice and it is giving you direction, they generally say, i have 30 days to file my permit, i might need a little bit more time. in this case, there was pushback as to why we even gave the notice of violation. that is not what we wanted. when we didn't get that, the code allows you to revoke. and that is what i am understanding. >> let me finish my question. how do we get, instead of pulling out the big hammer and going to revocation, because i am sympathetic to the project sponsor that, you know, there

has been revocation in this city , man, it has been really, really abusive. superduper abusive. this one i would consider there have been some serious breaches, maybe, but it is not as abusive as some of the stuff we have seen in the newspapers and that have been justifiably revoked. so how do we get to you guys sitting at the table again and getting to a point where you can resolve everything on mr. hernandez's list and be happy, if something has to be torn down because it was built without a permit or skylights were put in and there wasn't proper support for proper engineering, so be it, that is the project sponsor's fault.

that is not your fault. he didn't bring out the hammer and you didn't cut out the hole. how do we, instead of it going to this block and wait revocation, you are dead situation, how do we get -- how do we get you back to the table and then come back here with a resolved permit situation? that is my biggest question for this entire case. >> d.b.i. is willing and able to meeting and looking at the drawings that they have. that would be the first step. >> would it be your suggestion as we move forward that we would have public comment, and we will have a rebuttal, but how do we get to a situation where the hammer might be that if you -- if the project sponsor doesn't

use their ears and listen to your request for very justified things, you have a good list here, then revocation would be the penalty. >> it is the penalty as we speak they also have the notice of violation in addition to the revocation. the violation is going to take -- there is a building permit required. i do want to make one point. they looking for special conditions. i don't think that works at all. special condition permit does not allow for public notification, for appeals. there is a full set of drawings on this. i will let mr. sanchez speak about that. i'm not sure how you can do a variance on a special conditions permit. that was the ask. and that is a way to get around of lot of what the process is for other people. >> i doubt that part of the request will -- >> i wanted to make that point. it would be what we are looking

for. that would take care of the issue. >> it would be my suggestion -- i think -- i understand you consider the revocation unnecessary -- a necessary action because someone has not listened clearly to you and you haven't gotten what you want and what you need according to building standards. i understand that clearly. what i'm trying to get to is why do we have to go that far, folks how do we get you all back to the table so we don't have to make a decision about this and take that punitive action? we may be very willing to take that action and revoke the permit, which would be a horrible thing for the project sponsor, but i am gesturing to figure out a calmer way than just an all-out war and you guys revocation, and then going to court. >> no be a d.b.i. wanted to be here tonight on this.

nobody. >> it doesn't seem that they can issue. >> hopefully we can move onto the next part. won a jump to suspension? your permit is suspended, now you are still not doing it. i am not sure why there is not a leap. is suspension not an intermediate step? >> in this specific case, the plans are the key and calling a soft story retrofit on a four unit building. and claiming, no, it is a wall installed. and calling it voluntary, the fact -- i took pictures of this. it does not comply with the seismic retrofit. >> they are not even doing the seismic retrofit? >> we said okay, was consolidate all the work, the revocation has to state, and the fact that how we go from we issuing permits and filing the soft story permit , with that stamp, and having a consolidated permit.

that was the concern. having multiple set of plans with multiple descriptions, that was the concern and that is why the revocation. >> thank you. >> so this gets the second part of my question. i still don't understand the notice of violation was issued on september, and if i understand correctly, the permits were revoked on september 30th. to september 30th is a big day in this case. he didn't you didn't give them the 30 days, you had a meeting with them between n.o.v. and revocation. is that correct? >> yes. >> it sounds like that meeting went very. -- poorly. >> like i said before, we had our meeting in the morning. >> and maybe not everybody on this board is interested in this , and i'm not particularly interested in this, but there are some significant allegations in this case, and in part, i would like to understand the answer to commissioner tanner's question, which i don't think he really gave, which is how did

you jump to n.o.v. and revocation in one day? why didn't you suspend the permits? even if he had walked into the room and said, you know what, i don't have to do anything you want, i own this town can, i will not listen to your n.o.v. even if that had happened, was this just, i don't like you so i will revoke the permit? is that how it is done? >> there's a difference between revocation and a notice of violation. it gives you a timeframe to comply. [please stand by]

-these are not like you are saying. these are minor. my permits are correct, my plans are correct. i showed pictures, but we don't have the exit corridors. you are not showing me the proper conditions of the rear yard. you are not showing me the elevations of the footings. just give me a correction notice

and we'll bump up the price and that's it. it doesn't work that way. there's a violation, there's complaints. >> you concluded from that meeting that you were dealing with an actor that wasn't going to come to the table and act in good faith and based on that conclusion, which some might look at as retaliatory or punitive, but ultimately you made a conclusion as a chief inspector this party wasn't going to play nice and in good faith until there was a punishment on the other end. >> there were multiple factors, not just that. we did a walk through, and we looked at all the plans, and i started pointing out can you show me this on the plans? how about this? there was always an excuse saying we will get the revision later. i'm a building inspector. it's not always the case. at the end, we want to do a

final. we want to make sure the building is safe and secure. we don't want to say, hey, let's get a master revision because you missed everything throughout, you know, multipresident months of permitting -- multiple months of permitting. >> one of the solutions -- sorry. if i can go on your momentum. so one of the things, and we've done this before here, like weekly, i think, is that we have asked project sponsors to resubmit their plans and to make sure that everybody is saying the same thing and that you do your inspections to make sure what's on the plans has been installed appropriately. so that's where we want to go with this, correct? >> correct. >> so if we can get the project

sponsor to submit the final plans appropriate to what they put into the building, and then you can go back with these those plans to see all those things, then we move forward. is it as simple as that? >> as i understand, there's been multiple projects in the past that we can consolidate the work. again, how are we going to go and say okay, i'm on a final? because even if we submit a master vision permit -- >> i'm not talking about a revision permit. >> even if we final that other permit, there's still the other permit there. what do we do with those permits? we can't final them. they are wrong. >> i understand. but if there are plans for every, every item, every permit, and the plans reflect a final set of plans reflect everything

that has been filed as a permit, then you have a map for the entire project which you can use to check against. and if something is needing a special condition, then you hit that one when it happens. if it's a variance, then we got a problem, don't we? but until you have a set of plans, i don't see you going anywhere, which seems to be one of the things we might inquire to the project sponsor to get a full set of plans that has accurate representation of every single permit that's been filed. is that correct? >> yeah, that's correct. >> all right. we are getting somewhere, maybe. should we do public comment? >> the planning department. we will hear from the planning department. >> hi. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i appreciate the discussion on the comments that the board has

had here tonight. because at the end of the day, i think we are all agreed that there are violations on the property. i mean, that's not in dispute and shouldn't be in dispute by any other parties. there are certain building issues which the department of building inspection outlined their concerns, and they initiated the revocation which is before you on appeal. i just want to discuss some of the planning-related concerns. i first become of this matter when the appeal was filed. and then at that point, it was brought to my attention that the property was actually listed for sale. a couple of the issues that have come up with planning code compliance, it is an rh3 zoning district. it's a category a historic resource. there have been modifications made. there was one plan set which had the facade changes, the garage door widening, some of the changes in the front of the facade. that was reviewed with the

preservation staff. it is correct that that is the permit that resized the garage door. the plan to increase it from 7 to 8 wasn't until months later. there were rear windowed replaced without permit. they will need to be replaced. that has been brought to the property owner's attention. usually windows at the rear don't trigger preservation review but it's an allyway so it's viewable from the public and it has the protections. there's mechanical equipment put on the facade on the side of the facade that we would ask for that to be relocated to a less conspicuous location.

what's also been mentioned is the variance matter. we did confirm today with the project sponsor's team that the variances required -- i can pull up here. the subject building is a non-complying structure located partially within the required year yard. there is a small notch displayed that was filled in. it is relatively minor but under the planning code it's within the required rear yard. there's an interpretation that allows for an in-fill of voids up to ten feet. this is i think 10' 7". none of this work was shown on any plans, even there were permits sought for interior changes. there was no exterior plans that showed any of this work. so that is another issue. the ground floor, the -- what i notice on the listing for the

property, it stated there were 12 parking spaces, which is an amazing number of parking spaces in any building, let alone a four-unit building. in the planning code the maximum number would be six. so that raised a question for us. there's no way there could legally be 12 porking 12 -- pars there. we would want plans that would show the number of parking spaces. it would be a great opportunity for a.d.u. we could add rent-controlled living to the city. maybe the project sponsor will consider that as part of any revisions. i know that he stated there was a -- not the entire ground floor was excavated, but there was a rock in the western/northwestern corner.

that wasn't shown on the seismic plans. i noticed that i think every plan set was given to you by the permit holder except for the plans for seismic that may have been an oversight but it wasn't included in the materials they gave to you. the floor plans don't show that. we actually, we've been in contact with them, and they did submit revision plans. and our staff reviewed those at least this week. it shows now this rock and the northwestern corner of the garage, that's what is to be excavated. but there is a section line in a different part of the garage, which shows that there's space -- that there's work to be excavated. even the corrected plans we have received still have either errors -- and it's hard for us to come back at this point in time and try to put everything back together again. but i'm sure working with them, we can do that. they do show a rear elevation.

the quality of the plans we received are not what we would expect. so we will continue to work with them until we get something that will meet our standards. these are generally correctable. they will need to have variance in order to legalize the work that was done without permit in filling that notch, at least. the stairs, under the code, they were allowed to be replaced in time, provided they don't get any bigger from what was there before and provided that they are the minimum under the building code for required egress. so it appears from the information we have that the stair reconstruction is appropriate. then staff did review and approve a permit for that. it was part of the -- one of the permits that was submitted for review. there are enforcement matters. we did see a path forward with the consolidated permit, put all

the work together. i think it will take some time to get plans that are accurate and consistent, because there are some, even what was shown as an existing condition on the new plan set that we got from the permit holder, doesn't match what was shown as existing conditions on the original plan set, so we would want to find out what is true. but that's going to be some work to get through and make sure we have accurate plans through this. but if you have concerns about the quality of the plans that were approved and issued and certainly they didn't do all the work under those plans. they exceeded the scope of work in those plans. but through this process, we can get correct plans that fix these issues. >> thanks for jumping in. so what we have is a sloppy mess, right? i mean, we heard it from d.b.i., it's a sloppy mess. we are hearing from you it's a sloppy mess. the same solution to a sloppy mess is you clean it up and put

together a proper set of plans that are accurate and that are honest, accurate and up to code. is that appropriate? >> yes. >> okay. so -- i'm trying to find a way through this without getting to the point of revocation. you know me, i show my cards. so if the sloppy mess is cleaned up, put back together again, a proper set of plans is put together that is accurate, that does represent the work that was done and what may be forthcoming forthcoming. what just happened to me was the word variance. what the hell do you do with that? >> we've had these situations to where work is done beyond the scope of permit. they need to get a variance. we are about to make requests of

d.b.i. to suspend permits, sometimes to suspend, we would often suspend a permit and have someone go through the process to correct that issue. that's the deal with our issue to deal with the planning issue. >> right. so the first step would be to -- i'm asking questions here. the first step would be to get the plan straight as we've just been discussing, correct? >> yes. >> all right. if the plans are there, and everybody agrees to that's where we are going, we are not going to change anymore from here, and then you point out that oops, there's the variance that we have to deal with, does that permit stay suspended? and then the variance goes where? >> so in order to approve the correction permit that shows that new consolidated scope of work that shows the scope of work that needs a variance, in order for public planning department to approve that permit, they must obtain first a variance. so they would go through the public hearing process, obtain

the variance, if it is justified, and then we would be able to approve that permit to correct everything. what the appellant has argued as a remedy here, i don't see as being possible because they've asked for a special conditions permit to be adopted as part of this appeal. and i don't see how that can happen because this is an appeal of revocation. the special conditions permit is usually as part of an appeal in a building permit. so to implement the board's decision on the appeal of a building permit. but there's no building permit before you on appeal. it's the revocation request, not the actual individual permits themselves. they've already been issued. but it's a question of, in my mind, just to distill it down, does the punishment fit the crime with what's before you? d.b.i. requested revocation of the permits. i haven't heard the -- necessarily the appellant say that a suspension would be appropriate, but the suspension

or revocation, which ever one, at the end of the day, whatever the conversation may have been with inspector hernandez, at the end of the day, you have to go through the city. that's the process. you do need to go through the city to correct this. so whether it's the revocation or the suspension, and i would defer to the department of building inspection about the nuances between those two, we need the permit that fixes all this. at the end of the day that includes the work they did without permit. >> so if there is a suspension as opposed to a revocation, then all the work stops, everything is all stopped, and the plans are submitted, the plans show a variance, and then the work continues to be all stopped until you go back to the planning commission and hear the variance and move forward from that point? >> so what we've done in other cases, and there are different issues than what is at play here, but we have a permit to do

x, y and z, you don't follow that, we would suspend it. if it needs a variance or not, they go through that process. they file a new permit. we go through the process had a that we need, we approve that. when that is issued or ready for issuance, then we would release the suspension on the original permit, and they have that new corrected permit revises everything that has been done before and done improperly. there may be other issues with the department of building inspection in terms of the permits that are issued here. they think there are fatal flaws to those permits. that's the purview of the department of building inspection if there are fatal flaws and they say those permits can't exist, that's different from where i'm approaching it from a planning perspective. >> let's move on. does anybody have any questions? >> i think one of the questions i had was following up on a question earlier which was going forward and going backwards so you talked about windows that would need to i assume be

replaced with different windows. so things planning would look at and say i can't do that. so windows need to be replaced. the parking spaces if the previous condition was there's six and now there's 12, those additional six are not viable. and the conditional use permit, is there any way to have those exist? >> no. it wouldn't be supported. >> those are the things that as a plan getting submitted, planning says no, no, no, some things have to change, there is work that has to be redone or done in a different matter, ignition ignition to variance which would get us through the discretionary process. i would assume initially folks will peel off parts of work and have separate permits. so there's parts that need variance while there's other things like kitchen remodeling. but in this case everything would be pate weighting on this one con -- would be waiting